Prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with immunotherapy - development and validation of the CRAFITY score.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Immunotherapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab represents the new standard of care in systemic front-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, biomarkers that predict treatment success and survival remain an unmet need. METHODS: Patients with HCC put on PD-(L)1-based immunotherapy were included in a training set (n = 190; 6 European centers) and a validation set (n = 102; 8 European centers). We investigated the prognostic value of baseline variables on overall survival using a Cox model in the training set and developed the easily applicable CRAFITY (CRP and AFP in ImmunoTherapY) score. The score was validated in the independent, external cohort, and evaluated in a cohort of patients treated with sorafenib (n = 204). RESULTS: Baseline serum alpha-fetoprotein ≥100 ng/ml (hazard ratio [HR] 1.7; p = 0.007) and C-reactive protein ≥1 mg/dl (HR, 1.7; p = 0.007) were identified as independent prognostic factors in multivariable analysis and were used to develop the CRAFITY score. Patients who fulfilled no criterion (0 points; CRAFITY-low) had the longest median overall survival (27.6 (95% CI 19.5-35.8) months), followed by those fulfilling 1 criterion (1 point; CRAFITY-intermediate; 11.3 (95% CI 8.0-14.6) months), and patients meeting both criteria (2 points; CRAFITY-high; 6.4 (95% CI 4.8-8.1) months; p <0.001). Additionally, best radiological response (complete response/partial response/stable disease/progressive disease) was significantly better in patients with lower CRAFITY score (CRAFITY-low: 9%/20%/52%/20% vs. CRAFITY-intermediate: 3%/25%/36%/36% vs. CRAFITY-high: 2%/15%/22%/61%; p = 0.003). These results were confirmed in the independent validation set and in different subgroups, including Child-Pugh A and B, performance status 0 and ≥1, and first-line and later lines. In the sorafenib cohort, CRAFITY was associated with survival, but not radiological response. CONCLUSIONS: The CRAFITY score is associated with survival and radiological response in patients receiving PD-(L)1 immunotherapy. The score may help with patient counseling but requires prospective validation. LAY SUMMARY: The immunotherapy-based regimen of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab represents the new standard of care in systemic first-line therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Biomarkers to predict treatment outcome are an unmet need in patients undergoing immunotherapy for HCC. We developed and externally validated a score that predicts outcome in patients with HCC undergoing immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockers.

Atezolizumab/bevacizumab and lenvatinib for hepatocellular carcinoma: A comparative analysis in a European real-world cohort.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy-based combinations are currently the standard of care in the systemic treatment of patients with HCC. Recent studies have reported unexpectedly long survival with lenvatinib (LEN), supporting its use in first-line treatment for HCC. This study aims to compare the real-world effectiveness of LEN to atezolizumab/bevacizumab (AZ/BV). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of frontline AZ/BV or LEN therapy in patients with advanced HCC across 18 university hospitals in Europe. RESULTS: The study included 412 patients (AZ/BV: n=207; LEN: n=205). Baseline characteristics were comparable between the 2 treatment groups. However, patients treated with AZ/BV had a significantly longer median progression-free survival compared to those receiving LEN. The risk of hepatic decompensation was significantly higher in patients with impaired baseline liver function (albumin-bilirubin [ALBI] grade 2) treated with AZ/BV compared to those with preserved liver function. Patients with alcohol-associated liver disease had poorer baseline liver function compared to other etiologies and exhibited a worse outcome under AZ/BV. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world cohort, survival rates were similar between patients treated with LEN and those treated with AZ/BV, confirming that both are viable first-line options for HCC. The increased risk of hepatic decompensation in patients treated with AZ/BV who have impaired baseline liver function underscores the need for careful monitoring. Future trials should aim to distinguish more clearly between metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and alcohol-associated liver disease.

Plasma exchange for treatment of a therapy-related thrombotic microangiopathy in a patient with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma-A case report.

Key Clinical Message: Thrombotic microangiopathies are a side effect of anti-VEGF therapies, which are often limited to the kidneys but can also occur systemically and be life-threatening. Screening for increasing proteinuria is essential. Abstract: We present the case of a 65-year-old male patient with a multifocal HCC, Barcelona clinic liver cancer (BCLC) classification B at the time of diagnosis. The HCC was treated with nine sessions of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), and after a progress, the therapy was switched to a combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab. Five months after therapy change, he presented with an acute kidney injury. The histopathology of the renal biopsy showed findings of a thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA), which we treated with 12 sessions of therapeutic plasma exchange in combination with steroids, resulting in a decreased TMA activity and later in a remission of the TMA. This case suggests the importance of monitoring the kidney function and proteinuria in patients under anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) therapy and shows a rare differential diagnosis for a worsening of kidney function in these patients. Furthermore, it shows that therapeutic plasma exchange might be a valuable therapeutic option for patients with TMA due to anti-VEGF therapy.

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.

Atezolizumab and bevacizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with impaired liver function and prior systemic therapy: a real-world experience.

Objective: Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab/bevacizumab in a real-world HCC cohort, including patients with impaired liver function and prior systemic therapy. Methods: Retrospective analysis of 147 HCC patients treated with atezolizumab/bevacizumab at six sites in Germany and Austria. Results: The overall response rate and disease control rate were 20.4% and 51.7%, respectively. Seventy-three patients (49.7%) met at least one major exclusion criterion of the IMbrave150 trial (IMbrave-OUT), whereas 74 patients (50.3%) were eligible (IMbrave-IN). Median overall survival (mOS) as well as median progression-free survival (mPFS) was significantly longer in IMbrave-IN versus IMbrave-OUT patients [mOS: 15.0 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 10.7-19.3] versus 6.0 months (95% CI: 3.2-8.9; p < 0.001) and mPFS: 8.7 months (95% CI: 5.9-11.5) versus 3.7 months (95% CI: 2.7-4.7; p < 0.001)]. Prior systemic treatment did not significantly affect mOS [hazard ratio (HR): 1.32 (95% CI: 0.78-2.23; p = 0.305)]. mOS according to ALBI grades 1/2/3 were 15.0 months (95% CI: not estimable), 8.6 months (95% CI: 5.4-11.7), and 3.2 months (95% CI: 0.3-6.1), respectively. ALBI grade and ECOG score were identified as independent prognostic factors [ALBI grade 2 versus 1; HR: 2.40 (95% CI: 1.34 - 4.30; p = 0.003), ALBI grade 3 versus 1; HR: 7.28 (95% CI: 3.30-16.08; p < 0.001), and ECOG ⩾2 versus 0; HR: 2.09 (95% CI: 1.03 - 4.23; p = 0.042)], respectively. Sixty-seven patients (45.6%) experienced an adverse event classified as CTCAE grade ⩾3. Patients in the IMbrave-OUT group were at increased risk of hepatic decompensation with encephalopathy (13.7% versus 1.4%, p = 0.004) and/or ascites (39.7% versus 9.5%; p < 0.001). Conclusion: In this real-world cohort, efficacy was comparable to the results of the IMbrave150 study and not affected by prior systemic treatment. ALBI grade and ECOG score were independently associated with survival. IMbrave-OUT patients were more likely to experience hepatic decompensation.

Real-World Data for Lenvatinib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (ELEVATOR): A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

Background: Lenvatinib is approved as first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The efficacy of lenvatinib in Caucasian real-world patients is insufficiently defined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of lenvatinib in a multi-center cohort (ELEVATOR) from Germany and Austria. Methods: A retrospective data analysis of 205 patients treated with first-line systemic lenvatinib at 14 different sites was conducted. Overall survival, progression free survival, overall response rate and adverse event rates were assessed and analyzed. Results: Patients receiving lenvatinib in the real-world setting reached a median overall survival of 12.8 months, which was comparable to the results reported from the REFLECT study. Median overall survival (mOS) and progression free survival (mPFS) was superior in those patients who met the inclusion criteria of the REFLECT study compared to patients who failed to meet the inclusion criteria (mOS 15.6 vs 10.2 months, HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.81, p=0.002; mPFS 8.1 vs 4.8 months HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46-0.91, p=0.0015). For patients with an impaired liver function according to the Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade, or reduced ECOG performance status ≥2, survival was significantly shorter compared to patients with sustained liver function (ALBI grade 1) and good performance status (ECOG performance status 0), respectively (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.07-2.66, p=0.023; HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.19-4.23, p=0.012). Additionally, macrovascular invasion (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.02-2.37, p=0.041) and an AFP ≥200 ng/mL (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.03-2.34, p=0.034) were confirmed as independent negative prognostic factors in our cohort of patients with advanced HCC. Conclusion: Overall, our data confirm the efficacy of lenvatinib as first-line treatment and did not reveal new or unexpected side effects in a large retrospective Caucasian real-world cohort, supporting the use of lenvatinib as meaningful alternative for patients that cannot be treated with IO-based combinations in first-line HCC.