Sorafenib versus nivolumab after lenvatinib treatment failure in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: An optimal sequential anti-hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) agent that can be used after failed lenvatinib treatment has not been established. Here, we compared the outcomes of sorafenib and nivolumab as second-line agents after failed lenvatinib treatment in patients with advanced HCC. METHODS: Patients with advanced HCC who had received sorafenib or nivolumab as second-line agents after failed lenvatinib treatment were recruited from two Korean tertiary institutions between November 2018 and June 2020. RESULTS: The median age of the 60 participants (52 treated with sorafenib and eight treated with nivolumab) at baseline was 56.8 years. The demographic, laboratory and tumor variables, as well as lenvatinib treatment duration, were similar between the two groups. The median durations of sorafenib and nivolumab treatment were 1.2 and 2.6 months, respectively ( P = 0.164). Twenty-four (40.0%) patients died during the follow-up period (median, 15.8 months). The median overall survival (OS) of the study population was 5.8 months. The median OS of patients treated with sorafenib was significantly longer than the median OS of patients treated with nivolumab (8.7 vs. 3.0 months; P = 0.046). Sorafenib treatment (vs. nivolumab) was independently associated with a lower risk of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.194; 95% confidence interval, 0.053-0.708; P = 0.013). Worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, larger maximal tumor size, lymph node metastases and higher total bilirubin levels were independently associated with increased mortality risk (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib-sorafenib sequential treatment resulted in significantly better survival did than lenvatinib-nivolumab sequential treatment in patients with advanced HCC. Larger studies are needed to validate our results.

Hepatocellular carcinoma with extrahepatic metastasis: Are there still candidates for transarterial chemoembolization as an initial treatment?

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Currently, sorafenib is indicated for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with extrahepatic metastasis (EHM), and many other systemic agents are becoming available. However, a few HCC patients with EHM still undergo transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for intrahepatic tumor control. We aimed to investigate whether TACE is appropriate for patients with EHM, and if so, which subgroup may benefit from TACE. METHODS: A total of 186 consecutive HCC patients (median: 55 years, male: 86.0%, hepatitis B virus: 81.7%, Child-Pugh Class A: 83.3%) with EHM (nodal metastasis: 60.8%, distant metastasis: 39.2%) between 2010 and 2014 were analyzed. Initial treatment included sorafenib in 69 patients, and TACE in 117 patients. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 6.6 months (range: 0.2-94.6 months), mortality was observed in 90.3% (168/186). The median survival was better for patients who received TACE than those treated with sorafenib (8.2 months vs. 4.6 months, p < 0.001). However, baseline characteristics varied between patients initially treated with TACE and sorafenib, and the treatment modality was not an independent factor associated with overall survival (hazard ratio: 1.19, 95% confidence interval: 0.81-1.75, p = 0.36). In sub-group analysis, TACE was associated with better survival only among younger patients and those with segmental/lobar portal vein invasion. CONCLUSION: In HCC patients with EHM, TACE was not an independent favorable prognostic factor compared to sorafenib. The concept of intrahepatic control in HCC patients with EHM may need to be reevaluated in the era of promising systemic therapies, although there can be specific subgroups who still benefit from TACE.