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.

Prognostic Role of Blood Eosinophil Count in Patients with Sorafenib-Treated Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation is a long-established hallmark of liver fibrosis and carcinogenesis. Eosinophils are emerging as crucial components of the inflammatory process influencing cancer development. The role of blood eosinophils in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving systemic treatment is an unexplored field. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyse the prognostic role of the baseline eosinophil count in patients with sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A training cohort of 92 patients with advanced- or intermediate-stage sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma and two validation cohorts of 65 and 180 patients were analysed. Overall survival and progression-free survival in relation to baseline eosinophil counts were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: A negative prognostic impact of low baseline eosinophil counts (< 50*109/L) was demonstrated in all cohorts (training cohort: hazard ratio = 50.1, 95% confidence interval 11.6-216.5, p < 0.0001 for low vs high eosinophil counts; first validation cohort: hazard ratio = 4.55, 95% confidence interval 1.24-16.65, p = 0.022; second validation cohort: hazard ratio = 3.21, 95% confidence interval 1.83-5.64, p < 0.0001). Moreover, low eosinophil counts had a negative prognostic role in patients progressing on or intolerant to sorafenib who received second-line regorafenib, but not capecitabine or best supportive care. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis identified baseline blood eosinophil counts as a new prognostic factor in patients with sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma. Concerning second-line therapies, eosinophil counts were associated with survival outcomes only in regorafenib-treated patients, suggesting a possible predictive role in this setting.

The role of PNI to predict survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with Sorafenib.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The present study aims to investigate the role of the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) on survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib. METHODS: This multicentric study included a training cohort of 194 HCC patients and three external validation cohorts of 129, 76 and 265 HCC patients treated with Sorafenib, respectively. The PNI was calculated as follows: 10 × serum albumin (g/dL) + 0.005 × total lymphocyte count (per mm3). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the association between the covariates and the overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A PNI cut-off value of 31.3 was established using the ROC analysis. In the training cohort, the median OS was 14.8 months (95% CI 12-76.3) and 6.8 months (95% CI 2.7-24.6) for patients with a high (>31.3) and low (<31.3) PNI, respectively. At both the univariate and the multivariate analysis, low PNI value (p = 0.0004), a 1-unit increase of aspartate aminotransferase (p = 0.0001), and age > 70 years (p< 0.0038) were independent prognostic factors for OS. By performing the same multivariate analysis of the training cohort, the PNI <31.3 versus >31.3 was found to be an independent prognostic factor for predicting OS in all the three validation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: PNI represents a prognostic tool in advanced HCC treated with first-line Sorafenib. It is readily available and low-cost, and it could be implemented in clinical practice in patients with HCC.

Angiogenesis Genotyping and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Sorafenib: The ALICE-2 Study.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib represents one of the therapeutic strongholds for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but unfortunately, predictive factors are lacking. We previously reported that the VEGF single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) rs2010963 and rs4604006 might correlate with clinical outcomes in sorafenib-treated HCC patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the ALICE-2 study is to define a prognostic angiogenesis profile to better identify HCC patients who are more likely to benefit from sorafenib treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 2008 to 2015, all consecutive HCC patients receiving sorafenib according to the Italian label were tested for specific HIF-1α, VEGF, and VEGFR SNPs. Results from angiogenesis genotyping were then correlated with clinical outcome parameters. RESULTS: Globally, a total of 210 patients were enrolled. At multivariate analysis rs12434438 of HIF1α, rs2010963 of VEGF-A, and rs4604006 of VEGF-C were confirmed as independent predictive factors. At the combined analysis of significant SNPs, the presence of two favourable alleles of rs2010963 and rs4604006 of VEGF compared to only one or to none favourable alleles, was able to identify three separate patients populations with different time-to-progression (TTP) (10.8 vs. 5.6 vs. 3.7 months, respectively; p < 0.0001) and overall survival (OS) (19.0 vs. 13.5 vs. 7.5 months, respectively; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, the presence of the GG genotype of rs12434438 (HIF-1α) seemed able to select a population with a particularly poor outcome, independently from the clinical effect of the two VEGF SNPs (TTP: 2.6 months, HR: 0.54, p = 0.0374; OS: 6.6 months, p = 0.0061, HR: 0.43). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that polymorphism analysis of HIF-1α, VEGF, and VEGFR genes may represent a prognostic panel to better identify HCC patients who are more likely to benefit from sorafenib treatment.

Multicenter prospective study of angiogenesis polymorphism validation in HCC patients treated with sorafenib. An INNOVATE study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Although sorafenib is the upfront standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), molecular predictors of efficacy have not been identified yet. In the ALICE-1 study, rs2010963 of VEGF-A and VEGF-C proved to be independent predictive factors for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in multivariate analysis. The ALICE-1 study results were confirmed in the ALICE-2 study, in which VEGF and VEGFR SNPs were analyzed. In the ePHAS study we analyzed the SNPs of eNOS. In univariate analysis, patients homozygous for an eNOS haplotype (HT1: T-4b at eNOS-786/eNOS VNTR) had significantly shorter median PFS and OS than those with other haplotypes. These data were confirmed in the validation set. METHODS: This nonpharmacological, interventional, prospective multicenter study aims to determine whether eNOS, HIF-1, VEGF, Ang2 and VEGFR polymorphisms play a role in predicting the objective response rate, PFS, and OS of advanced HCC patients treated with sorafenib. The study will involve 160 advanced HCC patients with Child-Pugh class A disease. The primary aim is to validate the prognostic or predictive roles of eNOS, Ang2, HIF-1, VEGF and VEGFR polymorphisms in relation to the clinical outcome (PFS) of HCC patients treated with sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our data may suggest that polymorphism analysis of the VEGF, VEGFR-2, HIF and eNOS genes can identify HCC patients who are more likely to benefit from sorafenib.

Effects of metformin on clinical outcome in diabetic patients with advanced HCC receiving sorafenib.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Several studies have reported an association between type 2 diabetes mellitus and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Data from several retrospective studies and meta-analyses have highlighted a reduction of about 50% in the risk of developing HCC in cirrhotic patients treated with metformin for diabetes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the different outcomes of patients who received or did not receive metformin during treatment with sorafenib. METHODS: We analyzed 93 patients consecutively treated with sorafenib. Forty-two (45.2%) patients were diabetic, of whom 31 were on metformin. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. RESULTS: The concomitant use of sorafenib and metformin was associated with a median PFS of 2.6 months (95% CI 1.9-3.3) compared to 5.0 months (95% CI 2.5-8.2) for patients receiving sorafenib alone (p = 0.029). The median OS of patients treated with the combination was 10.4 months (95% CI 3.9-14.4) compared to 15.1 months (95% CI 11.7-17.8) for those who were not given metformin (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings could be the result of increased tumor aggressiveness and resistance to sorafenib in metformin-treated patients.

Identification of responders to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma: is tumor volume measurement the way forward?

OBJECTIVES: Early assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) response during sorafenib (SO) treatment is challenging, since tumor necrosis, extension and radiological appearance can be inhomogeneous. We evaluated the predictive value of different imaging criteria - such as Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), modified RECIST (mRECIST), tumor density and volume variations - in the early follow-up of SO treatment. METHODS: The study included 22 patients. CT images from baseline and 2 months were reviewed to assess response according to RECIST 1.1, mRECIST, EASL, Choi's criteria (decreased tumor density by ≥15%) and arterial-enhancing tumor volume ratio; α-fetoprotein (AFP) variations were expressed as AFP ratio. RESULTS: The response criteria and volume measurements were reproducible (k > 0.80). The overall disease control rate was 40.9% by EASL and mRECIST, and 27.3% by RECIST 1.1; a ≥15% decrease in tumor density was observed in 9 patients (40.9%). The mean volume ratio was 1.73 ± 2.12, the mean AFP ratio 14 ± 37. The 1-year survival rate was 65.9%. Volume ratio was the only predictive factor for survival, with 1-year cumulative survival rates of 90% for volume ratios ≤1.1 and of 45.4% for volume ratios >1.1 (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Tumor volume measurements are reproducible and might provide an early predictive marker of response in HCC patients treated with SO.