Outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in real-world clinical practice who met or did not meet the inclusion criteria for the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial.

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev) is frequently selected as the primary systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). AIMS: To investigate the outcomes of patients with HCC treated with Atezo/Bev in a real-world setting based on whether they met the inclusion criteria for the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial. METHODS: A total of 936 patients were enrolled. There were 404 patients who met the inclusion criteria of the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial (IMbrave150 group) and 532 who did not (non-IMbrave150 group). RESULTS: Median progression-free survival (PFS) in the IMbrave150 and non-IMbrave150 groups was 7.4 months and 5.6 months (p = 0.002). Multivariable analysis revealed that non-B, non-C HCC aetiology (hazard ratio [HR], 1.173), α-fetoprotein ≥100 ng/mL (HR, 1.472), Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage ≥ C (HR, 1.318), and modified albumin-bilirubin (mALBI) grade 2b or 3 (HR, 1.476) are independently associated with PFS. Median overall survival (OS) in the IMbrave150 and non-Imbrave150 groups was 26.5 and 18.8 months (p < 0.001). Multivariable analysis revealed that Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥2 (HR, 1.986), α-fetoprotein ≥100 ng/mL (HR, 1.481), and mALBI grade 2b or 3 (HR, 2.037) are independently associated with OS. In subgroup analysis, there were no significant differences in PFS or OS between these groups among patients with mALBI grade 1 or 2a. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who are treated with Atezo/Bev and meet the inclusion criteria for the phase 3 IMbrave150 trial, as well as those who do not meet the inclusion criteria but have good liver function, have a good prognosis for survival.

Adverse Events as Potential Predictive Factors of Activity in Patients with Advanced HCC Treated with Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab.

BACKGROUND: In the context of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with systemic therapy, the correlation between the appearance of adverse events (AEs) and reported efficacy outcomes is well-known and widely investigated. From other pathological settings, we are aware of the prognostic and predictive value of the occurrence of immune-related AEs in patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective multicenter real-world study aims to investigate the potential prognostic value of AEs in patients with HCC treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in the first-line setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 823 patients from five countries (Italy, Germany, Portugal, Japan, and the Republic of Korea). RESULTS: Of the patients, 73.3% presented at least one AE during the study period. The most common AEs were proteinuria (29.6%), arterial hypertension (27.2%), and fatigue (26.0%). In all, 17.3% of the AEs were grade (G) 3. One death due to bleeding was reported. The multivariate analysis confirmed the appearance of decreased appetite G < 2 [versus G ≥ 2; hazard ratio (HR) 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-0.90; p < 0.01] and immunotoxicity G < 2 (versus G ≥ 2; HR: 0.70; 95% CI 0.24-0.99; p = 0.04) as independent prognostic factors for overall survival, and the appearance of decreased appetite G < 2 (versus G ≥ 2; HR: 0.73; 95% CI 0.43-0.95; p = 0.01), diarrhea (yes versus no; HR: 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.85; p = 0.01), fatigue (yes versus no; HR: 0.82, 95% CI 0.65-0.95; p < 0.01), arterial hypertension G < 2 (versus G ≥ 2; HR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.87; p < 0.01), and proteinuria (yes versus no; HR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.98; p = 0.03) as independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: As demonstrated for other therapies, there is also a correlation between the occurrence of AEs and outcomes for patients with HCC for the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Impact of body mass index on the prognosis of unresectable HCC patients receiving first-line Lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

INTRODUCTION: Overweight is a negative prognostic factor in the general population in the long term. However, the role of body mass index (BMI) in the short-mid term in advanced tumours is unclear. The present analysis investigates the role of BMI weight classes in a large sample of patients affected by HCC and receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib as first-line treatment. METHODS AND MATERIAL: The cohort included consecutive patients affected by BCLC-c and BCLC-B HCC patients from a multicenter international study group who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib as first-line therapy. Population was stratified according to the BMI in under-, over- and normal-weight according to the conventional thresholds. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the prognostic and predictive impact of BMI in patients affected by advanced or intermediate HCC. Survival curves were estimated using the product-limit method of Kaplan-Meier. The role of stratification factors was analysed with log-rank tests. RESULTS: 1292 consecutive patients with HCC were analysed. 466 (36%) patients were treated with lenvatinib and 826 (64%) patients were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab arm, 510 (62%) patients were normal-weight, 52 (6%) underweight and 264 (32%) overweight. At the univariate analysis for OS, underweight patients had significantly shorter OS compared to normal-weight patients, whereas no differences were found between normal-weight versus overweight. Multivariate analysis confirmed that underweight patients had significantly shorter OS compared to normal-weight patients (HR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.0-2.8; p = .0323). In the lenvatinib arm, 26 patients (5.6%) were categorized as underweight, 256 (54.9%) as normal-weight, and 184 (39.5%) as overweight. At the univariate analysis for OS, no significant differences were found between normal-weight versus underweight and between normal-weight versus overweight, which was confirmed at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Our analysis highlighted a prognostic role of BMI in a cohort of patients with advanced HCC who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, while no prognostic role for low BMI was apparent in patients who received lenvatinib.

Incidence of Hyper Progressive Disease in Combination Immunotherapy and Anti-Programmed Cell Death Protein 1/Programmed Death-Ligand 1 Monotherapy for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Introduction: Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1)/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) signaling blockade is the most effective strategy for the treatment of immune evading hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). While immune checkpoint inhibitor has revolutionized the concept of cancer treatment, it has also led to unexpected tumor growth. Regulatory T cells express PD-1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) receptors, which are proliferated and activated by antibody binding, and their ratio to CD8+ T cells is altered, which is one of the causes for hyper progressive disease (HPD). We examined the frequency of HPD in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy and combination therapy with vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibody and anti-CTLA-4 antibodies. Methods: This was a prospective and retrospective cohort study which enrolled 198 patients with unresectable HCC from January 2015 to December 2021 at the Kindai University Hospital. Fifty-eight patients received anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, 119 patients combination with VEGF antibody, and 21 patients combination with anti-CTLA-4 antibody. We defined HPD as tumor growth rate (TGR) ratio ≥4, ΔTGR ≥40%, and tumor growth kinetics ratio ≥4. Results: The HPD rate was 10.3% (6/58) in anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy, 1.7% (2/119) in combination with VEGF antibody, and 4.8% (1/21) in combination with anti-CTLA-4 antibody (p = 0.034). The odds ratio for HPD in the combined anti-CTLA-4 antibody group was 0.433 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05-3.83) when compared to the anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy group and 2.93 (95% CI: 0.25-33.79) when compared to the combined VEGF antibody group. Conclusion: The frequency of HPD in unresectable HCC compared to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 monotherapy was decreased with the combination with anti-VEGF antibody and not increased with anti-CTLA-4 antibody. Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 combined with anti-CTLA-4 antibody is now available in real-world and needs to be further validated with accumulated clinical practice.

Safety and Efficacy of Lenvatinib in Very Old Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Data concerning the use of lenvatinib in very old patients (≥ 80 years) are limited, although the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in this patient population is constantly increasing. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in a large cohort of very old patients (≥ 80 years) with unresectable HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted on a cohort of 1325 patients from 46 centers in four Western and Eastern countries (Italy, Germany, Japan, and the Republic of Korea) who were undergoing first-line treatment with lenvatinib between July 2010 and February 2022. Patients were stratified according to age as very old (≥ 80 years) and not very old (< 80 years). RESULTS: The median overall survival (OS) was 15.7 months for patients < 80 years old and 18.4 months for patients ≥ 80 years old [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.25, p = 0.8281]. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months for patients < 80 years old and 6.5 months for patients ≥ 80 years old (HR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91-1.25, p = 0.3954). No differences between the two study groups were found in terms of disease control rate (DCR; 80.8% versus 78.8%; p = 0.44) and response rate (RR; 38.2% versus 37.9%; p = 0.88). Patients < 80 years old experienced significantly more hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) grade ≥ 2 and decreased appetite grade ≥ 2. Conversely, patients ≥ 80 years old experienced significantly more fatigue grade ≥ 2. In the very old group, parameters associated with prognosis were AFP, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC), and Child-Pugh score. BCLC stage was the only independent predictor of overall survival (OS; HR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.11-2.29, p = 0.01115). CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the same efficacy and safety of lenvatinib between very old and not very old patients.

Comparison of prognostic impact of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib in patients with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The study goal was to compare the outcomes of patients with intermediate-stage (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC]-B) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev) or lenvatinib (LEN) as first-line systemic therapy. METHODS: A total of 358 patients with BCLC-B HCC treated with Atezo/Bev (n = 177) or LEN (n = 181) as first-line systemic therapy were included. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival (PFS) times in the Atezo/Bev and LEN groups were 10.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.8-12.6) and 7.3 months (95% CI, 6.3-8.5), respectively (p = .019). In the propensity score-matched cohort, the median PFS times in the Atezo/Bev (n = 151) and LEN (n = 151) groups were 10.2 months (95% CI, 7.0-12.3) and 6.9 months (95% CI, 5.9-8.1), respectively (p = .020). Restricted mean survival times of PFS were significantly higher in the Atezo/Bev group than in the LEN group at landmarks of 12 and 18 months (p = .031 and .012, respectively). In a subgroup analysis of patients with HCC beyond the up-to-seven criteria, the median PFS times in the Atezo/Bev (n = 134) and LEN (n = 117) groups were 10.5 months (95% CI, 7.0-11.8) and 6.3 months (95% CI, 5.5-7.3), respectively (p = .044). CONCLUSIONS: The use of Atezo/Bev as first-line systemic therapy in patients with BCLC-B HCC is expected to result in good PFS.

α-FAtE: A new predictive score of response to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AB) and lenvatinib can be alternatively used as first-line systemic treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, no direct comparison of the two regimens has been performed in randomized clinical trials, making the identification of baseline differential predictors of response of major relevance to tailor the best therapeutic option to each patient. Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics of real-world AB-treated HCC patients were analyzed in uni- and multivariate analyses to find potential prognostic factors of overall survival (OS). Significant variables were incorporated in a composite score (α-FAtE) and it was tested for specificity and sensitivity in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and in multivariate analysis for OS. The score was applied in uni- and multivariate analyses for OS of a comparable lenvatinib-treated HCC population. Finally, comparison between treatments was performed in patients with low and high α-FAtE scores and predictivity estimated by interaction analysis. Time-to-progression (TTP) was a secondary endpoint. OS of AB-treated HCC patients was statistically longer in those with α-fetoprotein <400 ng/mL (HR 0.62, p = .0407), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) <125 IU/L (HR 0.52, p = .0189) and eosinophil count ≥70/µL (HR 0.46, p = .0013). The α-FAtE score was generated by the sum of single points attributed to each variable among the above reported. In ROC curve analysis, superior sensitivity and specificity were achieved by the score compared to individual variables (AUC 0.794, p < .02). Patients with high score had longer OS (HR 0.44, p = .0009) and TTP (HR 0.34, p < .0001) compared to low score if treated with AB, but not with lenvatinib. Overall, AB was superior to lenvatinib in high score patients (HR 0.55, p = .0043) and inferior in low score ones (HR 1.75, p = .0227). At interaction test, low α-FAtE score resulted as negative predictive factor of response to AB (p = .0004). In conclusion, α-FAtE is a novel prognostic and predictive score of response to first-line AB for HCC patients that, if validated in prospective studies, could drive therapeutic choice between lenvatinib and AB.

Comparative analysis of the therapeutic outcomes of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib for hepatocellular carcinoma patients aged 80 years and older: Multicenter study.

AIM: Elderly patients are believed to have a reduced immune capacity, which may make immunotherapy less effective. The aim of this study was to compare the therapeutic outcome of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) and lenvatinib (LEN) for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients aged 80 years and older. METHODS: From March 2018 to July 2022, 170 and 92 elderly patients who received LEN and Atez/Bev as first-line treatment, respectively, were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: The median ages of the Atez/Bev and LEN groups were 83.0 (8.01-86.0) and 83.0 (82.0-86.0) years (p = 0.3), respectively. Men accounted for approximately 70% of the patients in both groups. The objective response rate was 35.9% in the LEN group and 33.7% in the Atez/Bev group (p = 0.8), whereas the disease control rates in the LEN and Atez/Bev groups were 62.9% and 63.0%, respectively (p = 1.0). The median progression-free survival (PFS) in the LEN and Atez/Bev groups was 6.3 and 7.2 months, respectively, which were not significantly different (p = 0.2). The median overall survival (OS) was 17.9 months in the LEN group and 14.0 months in the Atez/Bev group. This difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.7). In multivariate analyses, the choice of treatment (LEN vs. Atez/Bev) showed no association with PFS or OS. The Atez/Bev group had a significantly higher rate of postprogression treatment (59.0% vs. 35.7%, p = 0.01) and a lower rate of discontinuation due to adverse events (69 [40.6%] vs. 19 [20.7%], p < 0.001) compared to the LEN group. CONCLUSIONS: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed comparable effectiveness to LEN in HCC patients aged 80 years and older. Given the results of postprogression treatment and discontinuation due to adverse events, Atez/Bev could serve as a first-line treatment even for elderly HCC patients.

Achievement of Complete Response and Drug-Free Status by Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab Combined with or without Curative Conversion in Patients with Transarterial Chemoembolization-Unsuitable, Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Proof-Of-Concept Study.

Introduction: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy is extremely effective in the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with a response rate of 44%, as reported in the IMbrave150 trial. When tumor shrinkage is obtained, achieving complete response (CR) is possible in many cases using curative conversion with resection, ablation, or superselective transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) with curative intent. This concept, i.e., curative conversion by combining systemic therapy and locoregional therapy, has not been reported before. This multicenter proof-of-concept study was conducted to show the value of curative conversion in immunotherapy-treated intermediate-stage HCC meeting TACE-unsuitable criteria. Methods: This study included 110 consecutive Child-Pugh A patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for unresectable and TACE-unsuitable intermediate-stage HCC at seven centers in Japan. CR rate, drug-free rate, time to CR, change in liver function, efficacy in positron emission tomography (PET)-positive HCC, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were assessed in patients who achieved CR using resection, ablation, superselective TACE with curative intent following atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab alone. Results: Clinical or pathological CR was achieved in 38 patients (35%) (median observation period: 21.2 months). The modalities of curative conversion in 35 patients were as follows: resection, 7; ablation, 13; and superselective TACE, 15. Three patients achieved clinical CR with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy alone. Among the 38 CR patients, 25 achieved drug-free status. PFS was not reached, and 3 patients experienced recurrence after reaching CR. Regarding OS, there were no deaths in any of the CR patients. The albumin-bilirubin score did not deteriorate after locoregional therapy or resection. Of seven PET-positive patients who achieved CR with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab followed by curative conversion, five achieved drug-free status. Conclusion: The achievement of CR rate by curative conversion in patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as the preceding therapy for unresectable and TACE-unsuitable intermediate-stage HCC was 35%. Overall, 23% of patients achieved drug-free status and no recurrence was observed from this patient subgroup with CR and drug-free status. Thus, achieving CR and/or drug-free status should be a therapeutic goal for patients with intermediate-stage HCC without vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread.

Tips for Preparing and Practicing Thermal Ablation Therapy of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Thermal ablation therapy, including radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and microwave ablation (MWA), is considered the optimal locoregional treatment for unresectable early-stage hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs). Percutaneous image-guided ablation is a minimally invasive treatment that is being increasingly performed because it achieves good clinical outcomes with a lower risk of complications. However, the physics and principles of RFA and MWA markedly differ. Although percutaneous thermal ablation under image guidance may be challenging in HCC cases with limited access or a risk of thermal injury, a number of ablative techniques, each of which may be advantageous and disadvantageous for individual cases, are available. Furthermore, even when a HCC is eligible for ablation based on tumor selection and technical factors, additional patient factors may have an impact on whether it is the appropriate treatment choice. Therefore, a basic understanding of the advantages and limitations of each ablation device and imaging guidance technique, respectively, is important. We herein provide an overview of the basic principles of tissue heating in thermal ablation, clinical and laboratory parameters for ablation therapy, preprocedural management, imaging assessments of responses, and early adverse events. We also discuss associated challenges and how they may be overcome using optimized imaging techniques.

Comparison between Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Lenvatinib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Child-Pugh Class B in Real-World Clinical Settings.

INTRODUCTION: Systemic treatment is generally recommended for Child-Pugh (CP) A status patients with an unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). This study aimed to elucidate differences regarding therapeutic efficacy between lenvatinib (LEN), a multi-molecular target agent, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev), a newly developed immune-combined therapeutic regimen for CP-B patients affected by uHCC. METHODS: From April 2018 to July 2022, 128 patients with uHCC treated with Atez/Bev (n = 29) or LEN (n = 99) as the initial systemic treatment were enrolled (median age 71 years; males 97; CP score 7:8:9 = 94:28:6; median albumin-bilirubin score -1.71). Therapeutic response was evaluated using RECIST, version 1.1. Clinical features and prognosis were retrospectively examined. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the Atez/Bev and LEN groups in regard to best response (CR:PR:SD:PD = 0:5:12:7 vs. 5:22:25:20, p = 0.415), progression-free survival (PFS) (median 5.0 [95% CI: 2.4-7] vs. 5.5 [95% CI: 3.4-7.9] months, p = 0.332), or overall survival (OS) (5.8 [95% CI: 4.3-11] vs. 8.8 [95% CI: 6.1-12.9] months, p = 0.178). Adverse events (any grade/≥ grade 3) were observed in 72.4%/17.2% (n = 21/5) of patients treated with Atez/Bev and 78.8%/25.3% (n = 78/25) of those treated with LEN (p = 0.46/0.46). DISCUSSION: This retrospective study found no significant differences regarding PFS or OS between CP-B patients given Atez/Bev or LEN as initial systemic treatment for uHCC.

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.

Role of ß-Catenin Activation in the Tumor Immune Microenvironment and Immunotherapy of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Recently, the therapeutic combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab was widely used to treat advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). According to recent clinical trials, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and molecular target agents are expected to be key therapeutic strategies in the future. Nonetheless, the mechanisms underlying molecular immune responses and immune evasion remain unclear. The tumor immune microenvironment plays a vital role in HCC progression. The infiltration of CD8-positive cells into tumors and the expression of immune checkpoint molecules are key factors in this immune microenvironment. Specifically, Wnt/ß catenin pathway activation causes "immune exclusion", associated with poor infiltration of CD8-positive cells. Some clinical studies suggested an association between ICI resistance and ß-catenin activation in HCC. Additionally, several subclassifications of the tumor immune microenvironment were proposed. The HCC immune microenvironment can be broadly divided into inflamed class and non-inflamed class, with several subclasses. ß-catenin mutations are important factors in immune subclasses; this may be useful when considering therapeutic strategies as ß-catenin activation may serve as a biomarker for ICI. Various types of ß-catenin modulators were developed. Several kinases may also be involved in the ß-catenin pathway. Therefore, combinations of ß-catenin modulators, kinase inhibitors, and ICIs may exert synergistic effects.

Non-Inflamed Tumor Microenvironment and Methylation/Downregulation of Antigen-Presenting Machineries in Cholangiocarcinoma.

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a refractory cancer; a majority of CCAs represents a non-inflamed tumor phenotype that should be resistant to treatment, including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). In this study, we aimed to understand the molecular characteristics associated with non-inflamed CCAs. The genetic/epigenetic status of 36 CCAs was obtained from the Cancer Genome Atlas (PanCancerAtlas). CCAs were classified based on immune class using hierarchical clustering analysis of gene expressions related to tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes. The associations between immune class and genetic/epigenetic events were analyzed. We found that the tumors with alterations in FGFR2 and IDH1/2 had a "non-inflamed" tumor phenotype. A significant association was observed between the non-inflamed group and the downregulation of genes involved in antigen presentation (p = 0.0015). The expression of antigen-presenting machineries was inversely correlated with their DNA methylation levels, where 33.3% of tumors had an upregulation/low-methylation pattern, and 66.7% of tumors had a downregulation/high-methylation pattern. All tumors in the "inflamed" group exhibited an upregulation/low-methylation pattern. In contrast, 24 of 30 tumors in the non-inflamed group represent the downregulation/high-methylation pattern (p = 0.0005). Methylation with downregulation of antigen-presenting machineries is associated with the "non-inflamed" tumor phenotype of CCAs. This evidence provides important insights for developing new strategies for treating CCA.

Survival outcomes from atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus Lenvatinib in Child Pugh B unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

INTRODUCTION: The best first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child-Pugh (CP) class B remains unknown. The aim of the present study was to perform a real-world analysis on a large sample of patients with unresectable HCC with CP B treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab Vs Lenvatinib. METHODS: The study population included patients affected by advanced (BCLC-C) or intermediate (BCLC-B) HCC patients not suitable for locoregional therapies from both the Western and Eastern world (Italy, Germany, Republic of Korea and Japan), who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or Lenvatinib as first-line treatment. All the study population presented a CP class of B. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall survival (OS) of CP B patients treated with Lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Survival curves were estimated using the product-limit method of Kaplan-Meier. The role of stratification factors was analyzed with log-rank tests. Finally, an interaction test was performed for the main baseline clinical characteristics. RESULTS: 217 CP B HCC patients were enrolled in the study: 65 (30%) received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, and 152 (70%) received lenvatinib. The mOS for patients receiving Lenvatinib was 13.8 months (95% CI: 11.6-16.0), compared to 8.2 months (95% CI 6.3-10.2) for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab Vs Lenvatinib: HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.0, p = 0.0050). No statistically significant differences were highlighted in terms of mPFS. The multivariate analysis confirmed that patients receiving Lenvatinib as first-line treatment have a significantly longer OS compared to patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (HR 2.01; 95% CI 1.29-3.25, p = 0.0023). By evaluating the cohort of patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, we found that Child B patients with ECOG PS 0, or BCLC B stage or ALBI grade 1 were those who had benefited from the treatment thus showing survival outcomes no significantly different compared to those receiving Lenvatinib. CONCLUSION: The present study suggests for the first time a major benefit from Lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in a large cohort of patients with CP B class HCC.

Real-World Data for Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: How Does Adherence to the IMbrave150 Trial Inclusion Criteria Impact Prognosis?

BACKGROUND: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has recently been approved as a new first-line standard of care for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). OBJECTIVE: We performed a real-world study to evaluate the impact of the IMbrave150 trial inclusion criteria on the safety and efficacy of treatment outside of clinical trials. METHODS: We analyzed patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable HCC from four different countries. No specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, except for the absence of previous systemic therapies for HCC. The entire population was split into two groups according to concordance with the inclusion criteria as reported in the IMbrave150 trial in 'IMbrave150-in' and 'IMbrave150-out' patients, and safety and efficacy in the two groups of patients were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 766 patients were included in the analysis: 561/766 (73%) in the 'IMbrave150-in' group and 205/766 (27%) in the 'IMbrave150-out' group. Median overall survival (OS) and median progression-free survival (PFS) were 16.3 versus 14.3 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-0.65; p < 0.0001] and 8.3 versus 6.0 months (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99; p = 0.0431) in 'IMbrave150-in' and 'IMbrave150-out' patients, respectively. Multivariate analysis confirmed that patients included in the 'IMbrave150-in' group had significantly longer OS compared with patients included in the 'IMbrave150-out' group (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47-0.97; p = 0.0195). In 'IMbrave150-in' patients, the albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade was not associated with OS, whereas in 'IMbrave150-out' patients, those with ALBI grade 1 reported a significant benefit in terms of OS compared with those with ALBI grade 2 (16.7 vs. 5.9 months; HR 4.40, 95% CI 2.40-8.08; p > 0.0001). No statistically significant differences were reported in the 'IMbrave150-in' and 'IMbrave150-out' groups in terms of safety profile. CONCLUSION: Adherence to the IMbrave150 trial inclusion criteria favorably impacts the prognosis of patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Among patients who did not meet the IMbrave150 inclusion criteria, those with ALBI grade 1 could benefit from the treatment.

Role of the Prognostic Nutritional Index in Predicting Survival in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab.

INTRODUCTION: The prognostic nutritional index (PNI) is a multiparametric score introduced by Onodera based on the blood levels of lymphocytes and albumin in patients with gastrointestinal neoplasms. Regarding hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), its prognostic role has been shown in patients treated with sorafenib and lenvatinib. The aim of this real-world study was to investigate the association between clinical outcomes and PNI in patients being treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. METHODS: The overall cohort of this multicentric study included 871 consecutive HCC patients from 5 countries treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in first-line therapy. The PNI was calculated as follows: 10 × serum albumin concentration (g/dL) + 0.005 × peripheral lymphocyte count (number/mm3). RESULTS: Data regarding lymphocyte counts and albumin levels were available for 773 patients; therefore, these patients were included in the final analysis. The cut-off point of the PNI was determined to be 41 by receiver operating characteristic analysis. 268 patients (34.7%) were categorized as the PNI-low group, while the remaining 505 (65.3%) patients as the PNI-high group. At the univariate analysis, high PNI was associated with longer overall survival (OS) (22.5 vs. 10.1 months, HR 0.34, p <0.01) and progression-free survival (PFS) (8.7 vs. 5.8 months, HR 0.63, p <0.01) compared to patients with low PNI. At the multivariate analysis, high versus low PNI resulted as an independent prognostic factor for OS (HR 0.49, p <0.01) and PFS (HR 0.82, p = 0.01). There was no difference in objective response rate between the two groups (high 26.1% vs. low 19.8%, p = 0.09), while disease control rate was significantly higher in the PNI-high group (76.8% vs. 66.4%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: PNI is an independent prognostic factor for OS and PFS in HCC patients on first-line treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Clinical outcomes with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter real-world study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare response rates of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, in first-line real-world setting. METHODS: Overall cohort included Western and Eastern hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patient populations from 46 centres in 4 countries (Italy, Germany, Japan, and Republic of Korea). RESULTS: 1312 patients were treated with lenvatinib, and 823 patients were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Objective response rate (ORR) was 38.6% for patients receiving lenvatinib, and 27.3% for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (p < 0.01; odds ratio 0.60). For patients who achieved complete response (CR), overall survival (OS) was not reached in both arms, but the result from univariate Cox regression model showed 62% reduction of death risk for patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (p = 0.05). In all multivariate analyses, treatment arm was not found to be an independent factor conditioning OS. Comparing ORR achieved in the two arms, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in all subgroups except for Eastern patients, Child-Pugh B patients, presence of portal vein thrombosis, α-feto-protein ≥ 400 ng/mL, presence of extrahepatic disease, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 2, and no previous locoregional procedures. CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib achieves higher ORR in all patient subgroups. Patients who achieve CR with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab can achieve OS so far never recorded in HCC patients. This study did not highlight any factors that could identify patient subgroups capable of obtaining CR.

Does first-line treatment have prognostic impact for unresectable HCC?-Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib.

BACKGROUND/AIM: A comparison of therapeutic efficacy between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) and lenvatinib treatment given as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) in regard to progression-free survival (PFS) overall survival (OS) has not been reported. We aimed to elucidate which of those given as initial treatment for u-HCC has greater prognostic impact on PFS and OS of affected patients, retrospectively. MATERIALS/METHODS: From 2020 to January 2022, 251 u-HCC (Child-Pugh A, ECOG PS 0/1, BCLC-B/C) treated were enrolled (Atez/Bev-group, n = 194; lenvatinib-group, n = 57). PFS and OS were analyzed following adjustment based on inverse probability weighting (IPW). RESULTS: There was a greater number of patients with macro-vascular invasion in Atez/Bev-group (22.7% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.022). In lenvatinib-group, the frequencies of appetite loss (38.6% vs. 19.6%, p = 0.002), hypothyroidism (21.1% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.004), hand foot skin reaction (19.3% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.001), and diarrhea (10.5% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.012) were greater, while that of general fatigue was lower (22.8% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.008). Comparisons of therapeutic best response using modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (mRECIST) did not show significant differences between the present groups (Atez/Bev vs. lenvatinib: CR/PR/SD/PD = 6.1%/39.1%/39.1%/15.6% vs. 0%/48.0%/38.0%/14.0%, p = 0.285). In patients of discontinuation of treatments, 48.2% switched to lenvatinib, 10.6% continued beyond PD, 8.2% received another systemic treatment, 5.9% underwent transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), 3.5% received hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), and 1.2% underwent surgical resection in Atez/Bev-group, while 42.2% switched to Atez/Bev, 4.4% continued beyond PD, 4.4% received another systemic treatment, 2.2% nivolumab, 6.7% received TACE, and 2.2% received HAIC in lenvatinib-group. Following adjustment with inverse probability weighting (IPW), Atez/Bev-group showed better PFS (0.5-/1-/1.5-years: 56.6%/31.6%/non-estimable vs. 48.6%/20.4%/11.2%, p < 0.0001) and OS rates (0.5-/1-/1.5-years: 89.6%/67.2%/58.1% vs. 77.8%/66.2%/52.7%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: The present study showed that u-HCC patients who received Atez/Bev as a first-line treatment may have a better prognosis than those who received lenvatinib.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a large real-life worldwide population.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib have not been compared in a randomised controlled trial. We conducted a retrospective multi-centre study to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and atezolizumab with bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC in the real-world scenario. METHODS: Clinical features of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab 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 (OS) was the primary end-point. RESULTS: The analysis included 1341 patients who received lenvatinib, and 864 patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. After IPTW adjustment, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab did not show a survival advantage over lenvatinib HR 0.97 (p = 0.739). OS was prolonged by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab over lenvatinib in viral patients (HR: 0.76; p = 0.024). Conversely, OS was prolonged by lenvatinib in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (HR: 1.88; p = 0.014). In the IPTW-adjusted population, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab provided better safety profile for most of the recorded adverse events. CONCLUSION: Our study did not identify any meaningful difference in OS between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib. Although some hints are provided suggesting that patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease might benefit more from lenvatinib therapy and patients with viral aetiology more from atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.