Sequential therapies after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib first-line treatments in hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this retrospective proof-of-concept study was to compare different second-line treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and progressive disease (PD) after first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1381 patients had PD at first-line therapy. 917 patients received lenvatinib as first-line treatment, and 464 patients atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line. RESULTS: 49.6% of PD patients received a second-line therapy without any statistical difference in overall survival (OS) between lenvatinib (20.6months) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line (15.7months; p = 0.12; hazard ratio [HR]= 0.80). After lenvatinib first-line, there wasn't any statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p = 0.27; sorafenib HR: 1; immunotherapy HR: 0.69; other therapies HR: 0.85). Patients who underwent trans-arterial chemo-embolization (TACE) had a significative longer OS than patients who received sorafenib (24.7 versus 15.8months, p < 0.01; HR=0.64). After atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line, there was a statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p < 0.01; sorafenib HR: 1; lenvatinib HR: 0.50; cabozantinib HR: 1.29; other therapies HR: 0.54). Patients who received lenvatinib (17.0months) and those who underwent TACE (15.9months) had a significative longer OS than patients treated with sorafenib (14.2months; respectively, p = 0.01; HR=0.45, and p < 0.05; HR=0.46). CONCLUSION: Approximately half of patients receiving first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab access second-line treatment. Our data suggest that in patients progressed to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is lenvatinib, while in patients progressed to lenvatinib, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is immunotherapy.

Regorafenib versus cabozantinb as second-line treatment after sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: matching-adjusted indirect comparison analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recently, three published phase III trials highlighted the superiority of investigational drugs compared to placebo, thus leading to their approval in the second-line setting. We report here a MAIC of second-line MKI options for patients with HCC previously treated with sorafenib using individual real-world data of regorafenib and aggregate data of second-line cabozantinib from the CELESTIAL trial. METHODS: Data from 278 patients who received regorafenib as second-line therapy after sorafenib failure for unresectable HCC were used as IPD. Data inclusion were adapted to those reported in the CELESTIAL trial in the subset of patients who received sorafenib as the only prior therapy. Survival medians and rates were obtained from Kaplan-Meier curves, and differences between regorafenib and cabozantinib groups were explored through Cox regression adjusted for weights originating from MAIC. RESULTS: The median OS of the weighted regorafenib group was 11.1 months (IQR: 5.6-16.4) and 11.3 (IQR: 6.7-22.4) for cabozantinib; HR 0.83 (95%CI 0.62-1.09). The median PFS of the weighted regorafenib group was 3.0 months (IQR: 1.9-4.8) and 5.5 (IQR: 2.3-9.3) for cabozantinib; HR 0.50 (95%CI 0.41-0.62). In the subgroup who received prior sorafenib for < 3 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 6.5 months (IQR: 4.7-10.9) and 9.5 months (IQR: 5.9-18.2) for cabozantinib; HR 0.68 (95%CI 0.39-1.16). In the subgroup receiving prior sorafenib for 3 to < 6 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 8.0 months (IQR: 4.2-15.2) and 11.5 (IQR: 6.5-23.9) for cabozantinib; HR 0.66 (95%CI 0.42-1.02). In the subgroup receiving prior sorafenib for ≥ 6 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 13.4 (IQR: 8.1-46.5) and 12.3 (IQR: 6.6-22.9) for cabozantinib; HR 0.89 (95%CI 0.52-1.51). CONCLUSION: Our results confirmed no differences between regorafenib and cabozantinib in terms of OS. However, in earlier progressors on prior sorafenib a larger benefit might be expected from cabozantinib treatment.

Sequential Treatment of Sorafenib-Regorafenib Versus Sorafenib-Physician's Choice: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib has been shown to improve clinical outcomes compared to placebo, becoming a standard second-line therapy for sorafenib-progressed and -tolerated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. OBJECTIVE: We performed a multicentre, retrospective study in Italy and Korea to evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment sequence sorafenib-regorafenib compared with sorafenib and physician's choice in a real-life setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A propensity score model was developed to control the results for baseline variable imbalances between the arm treated with sorafenib and regorafenib (S-R) and the arm treated with sorafenib and physician's choice (S-P). Survival analysis was conducted on the matched population. RESULTS: After the application of propensity score matching, we analysed 99 patients in the arm treated with S-R and 99 patients in the arm treated with S-P. For the S-R group, the median overall survival was 22.2 months (95% CI 17.1-27.4), compared to 17.9 months (95% CI 15.1-50.0) for the S-P group. The results of the univariate analysis showed a 31% reduction of death risk for patients treated with S-R (p = 0.0382) compared to patients treated with S-P. Interaction tests highlighted the predictive role of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), and extrahepatic spread. CONCLUSION: This study provides additional proof of the superiority of the S-R treatment over the S-P treatment approach in advanced HCC patients from a real-life setting.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.

PURPOSE: Data from common clinical practice were used to generate balanced cohorts of patients receiving either sorafenib or lenvatinib, for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, with the final aim to investigate their declared equivalence. METHODS: Clinical features of lenvatinib and sorafenib patients were balanced through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology, which weights patients' characteristics and measured outcomes of each patient in both treatment arms. Overall survival was the primary endpoint and occurrence of adverse events was the secondary. RESULTS: The analysis included 385 patients who received lenvatinib, and 555 patients who received sorafenib. In the unadjusted cohort, lenvatinib did not show a survival advantage over sorafenib (HR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.70-1.02). After IPTW adjustment, lenvatinib still not returned a survival advantage over sorafenib (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.62-1.07) even in presence of balanced baseline characteristics. Lenvatinib provided longer survival than sorafenib in patients previously submitted to TACE (HR: 0.69), with PS of 0 (HR: 0.73) or without extrahepatic disease (HR: 0.69). CONCLUSION: Present results confirmed randomized controlled trial in the real-life setting, but also suggests that in earlier stages some benefit can be expected.

Comparison of Prognostic Scores in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated With Sorafenib.

INTRODUCTION: Prognostic classifications for patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) facilitate stratification in trials and inform clinical decision making. Recently, 3 different prognostic models (hepatoma arterial-embolization prognosis [HAP] score, sorafenib advanced HCC prognosis [SAP] score, and Prediction Of Survival in Advanced Sorafenib-treated HCC [PROSASH]-II) have been proposed specifically for patients treated with sorafenib. This study aimed to compare the prognostic performance of different scores. METHODS: We analyzed a large prospective database gathering data of 552 patients treated with sorafenib from 7 Italian centers. The performance of the HAP, SAP, and PROSASH-II models were compared with those of generic HCC prognostic models (including the Barcelona Clinic for Liver Cancer and Italian Liver Cancer staging systems, albumin-bilirubin grade, and Child-Pugh score) to verify whether they could provide additional information. RESULTS: The PROSASH-II model improved discrimination (C-index 0.62) compared with existing prognostic scores (C-index ≤0.59). Its stratification significantly discriminated patients, with a median overall survival of 21.5, 15.3, 9.3, and 6.0 months for risk group 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The HAP and SAP score were also validated but with a poorer performance compared with the PROSASH-II. DISCUSSION: Although suboptimal, PROSASH-II is the most effective prognostic classification model among other available scores in a large Italian population of patients treated with sorafenib.

Lenvatinib as a therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Since 2007 Sorafenib has represented the only approved drug for first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Lenvatinib, an orally active inhibitor of multiple receptor tyrosine kinases (VEGFR 1-3, FGFR 1-4, PDGFRa, RET and KIT), showed preclinical and clinical activity in the treatment of solid tumors, including HCC. Areas covered: In this review, we summarize the current therapeutic paradigm for the systemic treatment of advanced HCC, focusing on Lenvatinib pre-clinical and clinical development. Keywords 'Lenvatinib', ' Target therapy', 'REFLECT trial', 'Hepatocellular carcinoma', 'HCC', 'Sorafenib' were used for literature search on PubMed. Expert commentary: In Phase-III multicentric REFLECT trial Lenvatinib demonstrated a non-inferior overall survival (OS) compared to Sorafenib in the first-line treatment of advanced HCC, with a manageable toxicity profile, becoming a valid alternative option in the therapeutic repertoire of this disease. Nevertheless, the potential role of Lenvatinib in real-life clinical practice has still to be defined, especially in the light of the positive results that have been achieved with other new therapeutic agents (e.g. immunotherapy).