GALAD Score Detects Early Hepatocellular Carcinoma in an International Cohort of Patients With Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The prevalence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) associated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing. However, strategies for detection of early-stage HCC in patients with NASH have limitations. We assessed the ability of the GALAD score, which determines risk of HCC based on patient sex; age; and serum levels of α-fetoprotein (AFP), AFP isoform L3 (AFP-L3), and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP), to detect HCC in patients with NASH. METHODS: We performed a case-control study of 125 patients with HCC (20% within Milan Criteria) and 231 patients without HCC (NASH controls) from 8 centers in Germany. We compared the performance of serum AFP, AFP-L3, or DCP vs GALAD score to identify patients with HCC using receiver operating characteristic curves and corresponding area under the curve (AUC) analyses. We also analyzed data from 389 patients with NASH under surveillance for HCC in Japan, followed for a median of 167 months. During the 5-year screening period, 26 patients developed HCC. To compensate for irregular intervals of data points, we performed locally weighted scatterplot smoothing, linear regression, and a non-linear curve fit to assess development of GALAD before HCC development. RESULTS: The GALAD score identified patients with any stage HCC with an AUC of 0.96 - significantly greater than values for serum levels of AFP (AUC, 0.88), AFP-L3 (AUC, 0.86) or DCP (AUC, 0.87). AUC values for the GALAD score were consistent in patients with cirrhosis (AUC, 0.93) and without cirrhosis (AUC, 0.98). For detection of HCC within Milan Criteria, the GALAD score achieved an AUC of 0.91, with a sensitivity of 68% and specificity of 95% at a cutoff of -0.63. In a pilot Japanese cohort study, the mean GALAD score was higher in patients with NASH who developed HCC than in those who did not develop HCC as early as 1.5 years before HCC diagnosis. GALAD scores were above -0.63 approximately 200 days before the diagnosis of HCC. CONCLUSIONS: In a case-control study performed in Germany and a pilot cohort study in Japan, we found the GALAD score may detect HCC with high levels of accuracy in patients with NASH, with and without cirrhosis. The GALAD score can detect patients with early-stage HCC, and might facilitate surveillance of patients with NASH, who are often obese, which limits the sensitivity of detection of liver cancer by ultrasound.

Atezolizumab/bevacizumab or lenvatinib in hepatocellular carcinoma: Multicenter real-world study with focus on bleeding and thromboembolic events.

Background & Aims: Atezolizumab/bevacizumab (atezo/bev) and lenvatinib have demonstrated efficacy as first-line therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition with these therapies may be associated with the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety with focus on the bleeding and thromboembolic events of atezo/bev vs. lenvatinib in a large, multicenter real-world population. Methods: This study is based on HCC cohorts from seven centers in Germany and Austria. Incidences of bleeding or thromboembolic events and efficacy outcomes were assessed and compared. Results: In total, 464 patients treated with atezo/bev (n = 325) or lenvatinib (n = 139) were analyzed. Both groups were balanced with respect to demographics, presence of liver cirrhosis, and variceal status. Duration of therapy did not differ between groups. Within 3 months of therapy, bleeding episodes were described in 57 (18%) patients receiving atezo/bev compared with 15 (11%) patients receiving lenvatinib (p = 0.07). Variceal hemorrhage occurred in 11 (3%) patients treated with atezo/bev compared with 4 (3%) patients treated with lenvatinib (p = 0.99). Thromboembolic events were reported in 19 (6%) of patients in the atezo/bev cohort compared with 5 (4%) patients in the lenvatinib cohort (p = 0.37). In addition, incidence of overall bleeding, variceal hemorrhage, and thromboembolic events did not differ significantly in patients who received either atezo/bev or lenvantinib for 6 months. Conclusions: Safety considerations related to bleeding and thromboembolic events may not be helpful in guiding clinical decision-making when choosing between atezo/bev and lenvatinib. Impact and implications: The inhibition of VEGF by current first-line therapies for HCC, such as atezolizumab/bevacizumab or lenvatinib, may be associated with the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events. Studies comparing the incidence of these side effects between atezolizumab/bevacizumab and lenvatinib, which are preferred treatments over sorafenib for HCC, are needed. Differences in this side effect profile may influence the choice of first-line therapy by treating physicians. Because no significant differences were observed regarding bleeding or thromboembolic events between both therapies in the present study, we conclude that safety considerations related to these events may not be helpful in guiding clinical decision-making when choosing between atezolizumab/bevacizumab and lenvatinib.

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background & Aims: We investigated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received ICI-based therapies in a previous systemic line. Methods: In this international, retrospective multicenter study, patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies (ICI-1, ICI-2) at 14 institutions were eligible. The main outcomes included best overall response and treatment-related adverse events. Results: Of 994 ICI-treated patients screened, a total of 58 patients (male, n = 41; 71%) with a mean age of 65.0±9.0 years were included. Median systemic treatment lines of ICI-1 and ICI-2 were 1 (range, 1-4) and 3 (range, 2-9), respectively. ICI-based therapies used at ICI-1 and ICI-2 included ICI alone (ICI-1, n = 26, 45%; ICI-2, n = 4, 7%), dual ICI regimens (n = 1, 2%; n = 12, 21%), or ICI combined with targeted therapies/anti-VEGF (n = 31, 53%; n = 42, 72%). Most patients discontinued ICI-1 due to progression (n = 52, 90%). Objective response rate was 22% at ICI-1 and 26% at ICI-2. Responses at ICI-2 were also seen in patients who had progressive disease as best overall response at ICI-1 (n = 11/21; 52%). Median time-to-progression at ICI-1 and ICI-2 was 5.4 (95% CI 3.0-7.7) months and 5.2 (95% CI 3.3-7.0) months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-4 at ICI-1 and ICI-2 were observed in 9 (16%) and 10 (17%) patients, respectively. Conclusions: ICI rechallenge was safe and resulted in a treatment benefit in a meaningful proportion of patients with HCC. These data provide a rationale for investigating ICI-based regimens in patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy in prospective trials. Impact and implications: Therapeutic sequencing after first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a challenge as no available second-line treatment options have been studied in immunotherapy-pretreated patients. Particularly, the role of ICI rechallenge in patients with HCC is unclear, as data from prospective trials are lacking. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ICI-based regimens in patients with HCC pretreated with immunotherapy in a retrospective, international, multicenter study. Our data provide the rationale for prospective trials investigating the role of ICI-based regimens in patients who have progressed on first-line immunotherapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab in the Real-World Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Experience from Four Tertiary Centers.

The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A + B) is the new standard of care for the systemic first-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, up to now there are only few data on the safety and efficacy of A + B in real life. We included patients with advanced HCC treated with A + B as first-line therapy at four cancer centers in Germany and Austria between December 2018 and August 2021. Demographics, overall survival (OS), and adverse events were assessed until 15 September 2021. We included 66 patients. Most patients had compensated cirrhosis (n = 34; 52%), while Child-Pugh class B cirrhosis was observed in 23 patients (35%), and class C cirrhosis in 5 patients (8%). The best responses included a complete response (CR) in 7 patients (11%), a partial response (PR) in 12 patients (18%), stable disease (SD) in 22 patients (33%), and progressive disease in 11 patients (17%). The median progression-free (PFS) survival was 6.5 months, while the median overall survival (OS) was not reached in this cohort (6-month OS: 69%, 12-month OS: 60%, 18-month OS: 58%). Patients with viral hepatitis seemed to have a better prognosis than patients with HCC of non-viral etiology. The real-world PFS and OS were comparable to those of the pivotal IMBRAVE trial, despite including patients with worse liver function in this study. We conclude that A + B is also highly effective in a real-life setting, with manageable toxicity, especially in patients with compensated liver disease. In patients with compromised liver function (Child B and C), the treatment showed low efficacy and, therefore, it should be well considered before administration to these patients.

Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab in Patients with Advanced and Progressing Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Retrospective Multicenter Experience.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is the standard of care for first-line systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). Data on the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with aHCC who have received prior systemic therapy are not available. Methods: Patients with aHCC who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab after at least one systemic treatment between December 2018 and March 2022 were retrospectively identified in 13 centers in Germany and Austria. Patient characteristics, tumor response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AE) were analyzed. Results: A total of 50 patients were identified; 41 (82%) were male. The median age at initiation of treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was 65 years, 41 (82%) patients had cirrhosis, 30 (73%) Child A, 9 (22%) B, and 2 (5%) C. A total of 34 patients (68%) received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in the second-line setting and 16 (32%) in later lines. The best radiologic tumor responses were complete remission (2%), partial remission (30%), stable disease (36%), and progressive disease (18%), resulting in an objective response rate of 32% and a disease control rate of 68%. Median OS was 16.0 months (95% confidence interval 5.6-26.4 months), and median PFS was 7.1 months (95% confidence interval 4.4-9.8 months). AE grades 3-4 were observed in seven (14%) and resulted in death in three patients (6%). There were five (10%) bleeding events with a grade ≥ 3, including one (2%) with a fatal outcome. Conclusions: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is effective in patients with aHCC who did not have access to this option as first-line therapy. The safety profile was consistent with previous reports.