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

Therapeutic Sequences of Systemic Therapy After Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Real-World Analysis of the IMMUreal Cohort

BACKGROUND

The introduction of several new systemic therapies in recent years has significantly altered the treatment landscape for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. However, while the approval of the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab as the preferred first-line therapy over sorafenib represents progress, it has also raised uncertainties regarding optimal treatment sequencing for advanced disease.

AIMS

This study evaluates the sequential treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma following therapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab, providing evidence from a prospective real-world cohort.

METHODS

Data were derived from the ongoing IMMUreal cohort, which investigates immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma across two tertiary centres in Bavaria. A total of 124 patients treated with atezolizumab and bevacizumab as first-line therapy between June 2020 and December 2023 were analysed. Feasibility, treatment patterns, and outcomes of sequential therapy were assessed, with a focus on defined prognostic subgroups.

RESULTS

The median overall survival under real-world conditions was 19.8 months. Less than half of the patients (41.2%) proceeded to second-line therapy, and only 19.2% were eligible for third-line treatment. This decline in treatment eligibility corresponded to a marked reduction in therapy duration and progressive deterioration in liver function, as indicated by Albumin-Bilirubin and Child-Pugh scores. While patients with worse baseline liver function, such as patients with Child-Pugh B or ALBI > 1, had a significantly lower probability of transitioning to 2nd line therapy, no significant association was found between the number of treatment lines and factors such as liver cirrhosis, poor physical condition, extrahepatic disease, or macrovascular invasion.

CONCLUSIONS

Sequential therapy following atezolizumab and bevacizumab is feasible only for selected patients. However, preserving liver function seems crucial to optimising multi-line therapy and improving outcomes in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Real-World Study of Systemic Treatment after First-Line Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Asia-Pacific Countries

INTRODUCTION

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is a commonly used first-line regimen for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment owing to its superior outcomes compared to sorafenib. However, optimal subsequent treatment options for patients with HCC who progressed on first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab remain unclear.

METHODS

This multinational, multi-institutional, retrospective study included patients with HCC from 22 centers in five Asia-Pacific countries who were treated with first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, which was discontinued for any reason. The endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) according to patient characteristics and second-line regimens.

RESULTS

Between June 2016 and May 2023, 1,141 patients were treated with first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, of whom 629 (55.1%) received subsequent treatment. Sorafenib and lenvatinib were the most commonly administered second-line regimens (53.9% and 25.6%, respectively). Overall, the median PFS and OS were 2.9 and 8.0 months, respectively. Lenvatinib had longer PFS (4.0 vs. 2.3 months) and OS (8.0 vs. 6.3 months) than sorafenib. Patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) plus immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) (n = 50, 8.3%) showed PFS and OS of 5.4 and 12.6 months, respectively. Lower tumor burden and lenvatinib or TKI plus ICI use were associated with longer second-line PFS. Preserved liver function was associated with improved OS.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with HCC who progressed on first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, sorafenib and lenvatinib were the most commonly used second-line regimens in Asia-Pacific countries, with lenvatinib resulting in longer OS than sorafenib. The second-line TKI plus ICI combination exhibited promising efficacy, suggesting the potential role of continuing ICIs beyond disease progression.

The rapidly evolving landscape of HCC: Selecting the optimal systemic therapy

Over the past years, there has been a remarkable advance in the systemic treatment options for advanced HCC. The overall survival has gradually increased over time, with larger benefits for patients with sensitive tumors and preserved liver function, the latter being an essential condition for the delivery of sequential lines of treatment and optimization of clinical outcomes. With the approval of new first-line agents and the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapies, the treatment landscape of advanced HCC is becoming wider than ever. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and, more recently, durvalumab plus tremelimumab have entered the clinical practice and are the current standard of care for treatment-naïve patients, surpassing sorafenib and lenvatinib monopoly. As no head-to-head comparisons are available among all the first-line treatment options, the recommendation for the most appropriate choice and sequence is patient-driven and integrates efficacy data with clinical comorbidities, background liver disease, and the safety profile of available drugs. In addition, predictive biomarkers for successful patients' stratification are yet to be available and constitute the focus of ongoing research. The treatment algorithm is likely to become even more complex since systemic therapeutic approaches are now being translated into earlier stages of the disease, with an impact on the evolution of the sequential treatment of patients with HCC.

The Effectiveness of Long-Term Continuation of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Patients Receiving Systemic Chemotherapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multicenter Study

INTRODUCTION

Changes in liver function in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC), following extended periods from the initiation of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev), have not been fully investigated.

METHODS

Of 148 u-HCC patients treated with first-line Atez/Bev, the study enrolled 38 u-HCC patients treated with first-line Atez/Bev, whose treatment response was initially evaluated as non-progressive disease (non-PD) and later as PD on imaging, and who then received second-line systemic chemotherapy. We evaluated the relationship between the period from the initiation of first-line Atez/Bev to that of second-line systemic chemotherapy with liver function and prognosis.

RESULTS

According to the periods from the initiation of Atez/Bev to that of the second-line therapy, patients were classified into a long continuation group (Group-L, n = 19), ≥11 months; or a short continuation group (Group-S, n = 19), <11 months. The albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score at the initiation of the second-line therapy did not differ significantly between the groups (median: -2.38 vs. -2.02, p = 0.559), and the change in ALBI score also did not differ significantly between the groups (median: 0.42 vs. 0.51, p = 0.770). Group-L had significantly better overall survival (OS) than Group-S (not reached vs. 18 months, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Liver function did not decrease even after long-term treatment with first-line Atez/Bev in patients who were able to progress to second-line therapy, indicating that long continuation of first-line Atez/Bev may be valuable for improving OS.

Evaluating Sorafenib (SORA-2) as Second-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A European Retrospective Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Systemic treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has rapidly advanced, with immune checkpoint inhibitors now the preferred first-line option. However, with multiple agents available and no established treatment sequence, selecting the most suitable second-line (2L) therapy remains challenging. While sorafenib is frequently chosen for 2L treatment, comprehensive data supporting its use is limited. This study evaluates the effectiveness of sorafenib as 2L therapy and factors influencing outcomes following first-line treatment failure in advanced HCC patients.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, multicenter study, including 81 patients with unresectable HCC from 12 European centers who received sorafenib as 2L treatment. Median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), radiological response to treatment, and toxicity were evaluated. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify potential predictors of clinical benefit.

RESULTS

In this cohort, some patients were treated with 2L sorafenib mOS for 7.4 months (95% CI: 6.6-13.6) and other patients were treated with mPFS for 3.7 months (95% CI: 3.0-4.8). Multivariable analysis revealed the best median OS for patients with CP A and AFP levels < 400 ng/mL (15.5 months). Adverse events (AE) of grade ≥ 3 were reported in 59.4% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world cohort of European patients with unresectable HCC, the outcome of sorafenib treatment in the 2L setting was comparable to that of the other established 2L treatment options in patients with preserved liver function and good performance status. This study contributes to the understanding of the role of sorafenib in the 2L setting and underscores the need for further research to identify predictive factors for response and survival in order to optimize treatment algorithms for advanced HCC.

Systemic Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Surgeon's Perspective

In recent years, the standard treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has changed dramatically due to the emergence of potent systemic treatment options. These advanced therapies have led to increased survival benefits for patients with advanced or intermediate-stage HCC. Advancements in HCC treatments also offer the possibility of conversion therapy for initially unresectable HCC. However, the treatment of HCC is becoming increasingly complex, due to the expanding availability of systemic therapies, their use in combination with locoregional therapies, and their perioperative applications. Patient characteristics such as liver function, esophageal and gastric variceal status, and treatment goal (downstaging resection or long-term maintenance treatment), are the most critical factors when selecting a systemic treatment strategy. Consequently, the necessity to tailor a personalized and comprehensive treatment strategy for individual patients is growing. This review briefly summarizes the current systemic treatment regimens for HCC from a surgeon's perspective. It is based on results from clinical studies as well as personal experience and introduces the concept of a patient-centered, treatment goals-driven, individualized systemic treatment strategy for managing HCC.

Treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma after immunotherapy

Immunotherapy has revolutionized the treatment landscape for advanced HCC, resulting in prolonged response and improved survival. With these results, a pressing question arises: what is the optimal treatment following first-line immunotherapy? Despite the benefits of immunotherapy, most patients will experience disease progression within six months and will require subsequent therapies. International guidelines recommend second-line multi-kinase inhibitors following progression on immunotherapy; however, this recommendation is primarily based on expert consensus rather than high-quality evidence. Nevertheless, real-world data indicate that these agents demonstrate similar efficacy and safety when used as first-line treatments. Conversely, it remains unclear whether continuing immunotherapy after progression is beneficial. In some cases, adding anti-CTLA-4 as salvage therapy has shown effectiveness. Molecular-directed therapies have also been tested, showing some initial promise, but further data is needed to confirm the benefits of this approach. Emerging evidence suggests that patients experiencing oligoprogression may benefit from local or locoregional therapies while continuing immunotherapy. In this review, we will discuss treatment strategies following progression after first-line immunotherapy.

EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Liver cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounting for approximately 90% of primary liver cancers. Advances in diagnostic and therapeutic tools, along with improved understanding of their application, are transforming patient treatment. Integrating these innovations into clinical practice presents challenges and necessitates guidance. These clinical practice guidelines offer updated advice for managing patients with HCC and provide a comprehensive review of pertinent data. Key updates from the 2018 EASL guidelines include personalised surveillance based on individual risk assessment and the use of new tools, standardisation of liver imaging procedures and diagnostic criteria, use of minimally invasive surgery in complex cases together with updates on the integrated role of liver transplantation, transitions between surgical, locoregional, and systemic therapies, the role of radiation therapies, and the use of combination immunotherapies at various stages of disease. Above all, there is an absolute need for a multiparametric assessment of individual risks and benefits, considering the patient's perspective, by a multidisciplinary team encompassing various specialties.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib as second-line therapy following progression on atezolizumab-bevacizumab in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study from Korea and Japan

PURPOSE

Atezolizumab-bevacizumab (AB) is the established first-line systemic therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). However, the optimal second-line treatment for patients unresponsive to AB remains undefined.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This multicenter, retrospective study included patients with uHCC who underwent second-line treatment with lenvatinib (LEN) or sorafenib (SOR) after AB failure at two academic centers between June 2018 and November 2023. Treatment response was assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) v1.1 and modified RECIST. Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to mitigate confounding bias.

RESULTS

A total of 123 were included in the final analysis, 56 patients received LEN, and 67 received SOR. Before PSM, LEN was associated with significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with SOR (median 4.9 vs. 3.3 months, p < 0.001); however, no significant difference in overall survival (OS) was observed (median 13.2 vs. 11.5 months, p = 0.651). After PSM, in a cohort of 50 patients (25 per each group), LEN maintained its PFS advantage over SOR (median 4.8 vs. 3.3 months, p = 0.046), while the median OS was longer with LEN but not statistically different (median 11.4 vs. 7.9 months, p = 0.197). Response rates were 40% for LEN and 12% for SOR (p = 0.021) based on modified RECIST, and 12% and 8% (p = 0.728) based on RECIST v1.1, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this real-world study, LEN demonstrated superior PFS and comparable OS to SOR as second-line treatment for uHCC after progression on AB.

Improved survival with second-line hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy after atezolizumab-bevacizumab failure in hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

There is no established second-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following atezolizumab-bevacizumab (ate-beva) failure. This study assessed the efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) as a salvage therapy by comparing survival outcomes and treatment responses between HAIC as a first-line treatment and as a second-line option after ate-beva failure.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively analyzed 100 patients with advanced HCC treated with HAIC between March 2022 and July 2024. Patients were categorized into two groups: those who received HAIC as initial therapy (first-line HAIC group) and those who received HAIC following ate-beva failure (post-ate-beva group). Survival outcomes were assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests, and factors associated with survival were identified through Cox regression analysis.

Results

The post-ate-beva group exhibited longer overall survival (OS) (median OS 12.4 months) compared to the first-line HAIC group (median OS 6.8 months) (p = 0.073). Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly superior in the post-ate-beva group (median PFS 8.2 months) compared to the first-line HAIC group (median PFS 3.1 months) (p = 0.018). The objective response rate was also notably higher in the post-ate-beva group than in the first-line HAIC group (35.3% vs. 18.1%, p = 0.031). In multivariate analysis, HAIC following ate-beva failure, compared to first-line HAIC, was significantly associated with favorable outcomes for both OS (p = 0.014) and PFS (p = 0.006).

Conclusion

The superior survival outcomes and treatment responses observed in the post-ate-beva group suggest that HAIC may be an effective second-line treatment option for advanced HCC following ate-beva therapy failure. However, due to the retrospective nature and small sample size of the study, further prospective studies with larger patient populations are needed to strengthen the evidence.

Suboptimal outcomes of sorafenib as a second-line treatment after atezolizumab-bevacizumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Most patients receiving atezolizumab-bevacizumab (AB) for hepatocellular carcinoma will eventually experience disease progression. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are undergoing to identify second-line treatments. Where RCTs are unavailable or patients are non-eligible, sorafenib is often prescribed based on approval and reimbursement policies. However, evidence supporting this approach is minimal.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients who permanently discontinued AB.

METHODS

The ARTE database prospectively collects patients treated with AB in a real-life setting. We analysed the outcome of patients who received sorafenib as second-line treatment.

RESULTS

Amongst 213 patients, 130 (61.0 %) permanently discontinued AB. Of them, 54 received second- line treatments, and sorafenib was prescribed in 40 patients. The disease control rate (DCR) was 10.0 %. The median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival were 3.3 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.7-3.9) and 6.9 months (95 % CI 2.7-11.1), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients progressing under AB, the efficacy of sorafenib on different outcomes is limited.

Improved vascular depiction and image quality through deep learning reconstruction of CT hepatic arteriography during transcatheter arterial chemoembolization

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of deep learning reconstruction (DLR) on vascular depiction, tumor enhancement, and image quality of computed tomography hepatic arteriography (CTHA) images acquired during transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE).

METHODS

Institutional review board approval was obtained. Twenty-seven patients (18 men and 9 women, mean age, 75.7 years) who underwent CTHA immediately before TACE were enrolled. All images were reconstructed using three reconstruction algorithms: hybrid-iterative reconstruction (hybrid-IR), DLR with mild strength (DLR-M), and DLR with strong strength (DLR-S). Vascular depiction, tumor enhancement, feeder visualization, and image quality of CTHA were quantitatively and qualitatively assessed by two radiologists and compared between the three reconstruction algorithms.

RESULTS

The mean signal-to-noise ratios (SNR) of sub-segmental arteries and sub-sub-segmental arteries, and the contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) of tumors, were significantly higher on DLR-S than on DLR-M and hybrid-IR (P < 0.001). The mean qualitative score for sharpness of sub-segmental and sub-sub-segmental arteries was significantly better on DLR-S than on DLR-M and hybrid-IR (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the feeder artery detection rate of automated feeder artery detection software among three reconstruction algorithms (P = 0.102). The contrast, continuity, and confidence level of feeder artery detection was significantly better on DLR-S than on DLR-M (P = 0.013, 0.005, and 0.001) and hybrid-IR (P < 0.001, P = 0.002, and P < 0.001). The weighted kappa values between two readers for qualitative scores of feeder artery visualization were 0.807-0.874. The mean qualitative scores for sharpness, granulation, and diagnostic acceptability of CTHA were better on DLR-S than on DLR-M and hybrid-IR (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

DLR significantly improved the SNR of small hepatic arteries, the CNR of tumor, and feeder artery visualization on CTHA images. DLR-S seems to be better suited to routine CTHA in TACE than does hybrid-IR.

Outcomes and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: treatment prognosis and comparison with tyrosine kinase inhibitors in a French multicenter matched real-life study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atz/Bev) has radically changed the treatment strategy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) but raises questions. Our objectives were to determine survival outcomes and safety in a real-life multicenter French cohort, to investigate the on-treatment prognostic value of the bioinflammatory RECA score, and to perform a matched comparison with patients who previously received tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs).

METHODOLOGY

A retrospective analysis of 109 consecutive patients enrolled from September 2020 to January 2023 and a post matched comparison with a TKI cohort ( n  = 79) by the propensity score matching method.

RESULTS

The Atz/Bev population was mainly nonviral disease patients (69%) with Child-Pugh grade A (90%), performance status 0/1 (90%), and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B (38%) or stage C (62%) classification. After a median follow-up of 6.5 months (3.6-11.7), overall survival (OS) was 13.0 (5.1-28.7) months. OS was independently associated with metastasis, increased alkaline phosphatase, and serum bilirubin levels. Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 78% of patients, mostly grade 1 or 2. The RECA score clearly revealed two different prognosis groups after three cycles. No difference in OS was observed after matching between sequential treatment with TKIs and Atz/Bev.

CONCLUSION

This real-life study highlights the importance of liver function when using Atz/Bev combination and the necessity of identifying predictive markers of response to HCC therapies. Our findings suggest a change in practices, with a marked proportion of intermediate stages, and support the on-treatment prognostic value of an inflammatory score.

Lenvatinib versus Sorafenib Second-Line Therapy in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Progressed to Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab: A Retrospective Real-World Study

INTRODUCTION

The most frequently used first-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Upon progression after this treatment, the standard of care in many countries is sorafenib, due to the lack of reimbursement for other drugs. Several randomized trials are currently underway to clarify the best second-line therapy in patients with HCC. This real-world study aimed to compare outcomes reached by lenvatinib and sorafenib second-line therapy in this setting.

METHODS

The overall cohort included 891 patients with HCC from 5 countries treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in first-line setting between October 2018 and April 2022. At the data cut-off (May 2022), 41.5% of patients were continuing a first-line treatment, 5.5% were lost at follow-up, and 53.0% of patients had progressive disease after first-line therapy. 51.5% of patients with progressive disease received a second-line treatment, while 48.5% did not receive any subsequent therapy. Between patients receiving second-line treatment, 11.1% of patients underwent transarterial chemoembolization, 21.0% received sorafenib, 35.4% underwent lenvatinib, and 32.5% were treated with other drugs.

RESULTS

Lenvatinib second-line subgroup achieved a median overall survival (mOS) of 18.9 months, significative longer (p = 0.01; hazard ratio [HR]: 2.24) compared to sorafenib subgroup that reached a mOS of 14.3 months. The multivariate analysis highlighted albumin-bilirubin 1 grade (p < 0.01; HR: 5.23) and lenvatinib second-line therapy (p = 0.01; HR: 2.18) as positive prognostic factors for OS. The forest plot highlighted a positive trend in terms of OS in favor of patients treated with lenvatinib second-line regardless of baseline characteristics before first-line therapy.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that, in patients with HCC progressed to first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib second-line therapy is associated to an improved survival compared to sorafenib.

Is atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma superior to lenvatinib? a systematic review and meta‑analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis was dedicated to evaluating the effectiveness and safety of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) and Lenvatinib (LEN) as first-line systematic therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC).

METHODS

The prospective protocol for this study was registered with the PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42022356874). Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE database Cochrane Library, and Web Science to determine all clinical controlled studies that reported Atez/Bev and LEN for treating u-HCC. We. evaluated as primary end-point overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), as well as other outcomes such as tumor response and adverse events (AEs).Quality assessment and data extraction of studies were conducted independently by three reviewers. Mean difference (MD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model. The meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

12 retrospective cohort studies (RCSs) involving a total of 4948 patients were finally included. The results showed that compared with LEN, Atez/Bev can improve the patient's PFS (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.72 ~ 0.88; p < 0.0001) and reduce the rate of overall AEs (OR = 0.46 95% CI: 0.38 ~ 0.55, p < 0.00001) and grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.36 ~ 0.51, p < 0.00001), while there is no difference between OS and treatment responses rate (objective response rate, disease control rate, complete response, partial response, progressive disease, and stable disease) between two groups. In addition, the subgroup analysis shows that Atez/Bev can promote the OS of patients with viral hepatitis. (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67 ~ 0.95; p = 0.01), while LEN has an advantage in improving OS in patients with Child-Pugh grade B liver function (HR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.50 ~ 2.63; p < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

Current evidence shows that compared with LEN, Atez/Bev has more advantages in PFS and safety in treating u-HCC and can improve the OS of patients with viral. LEN has advantages in improving the OS of patients with grade B liver function. However, more multicenter randomized controlled experiments are needed in the future to verify our results.

Dual effects of targeting neuropilin-1 in lenvatinib-resistant hepatocellular carcinoma: inhibition of tumor growth and angiogenesis

In the era of immunotherapy, lenvatinib (LEN) still holds an important position in the sequential treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the sustained therapeutic effect of LEN is not sufficient, and there is a need to address the development of resistance. Neuropilin-1 (NRP1) is known to act as a coreceptor for epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), Met, and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2), which have been reported to be involved in LEN resistance. In this study, we used cell culture and in vivo xenograft models to evaluate the contribution of NRP1 in the acquisition of LEN resistance in HCC as well as the potential of NRP1 as a therapeutic target. LEN resistance increased EGF/EGFR and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF)/Met signaling in liver cancer cells and VEGFA/VEGFR2 and HGF/Met signaling in vascular endothelial cells, thereby promoting cell proliferation, cell migration, and angiogenesis. We found that activation of NRP1 is essential for the enhancement of these signaling. In addition, NRP1 inhibition combined with LEN therapy synergistically improved the antitumor effects against LEN-resistant HCC, indicating that NRP1 is an attractive therapeutic target.NEW & NOTEWORTHY We demonstrated that neuropilin-1 (NRP1) was an essential coreceptor mediating the activation of multiple signaling pathways in the acquisition of resistance to lenvatinib (LEN) in HCC. The addition of NRP1 inhibition to LEN had a synergistic antitumor effect on LEN-resistant HCC in culture and in vivo xenograft models.

Efficacy and Safety of Sorafenib or Lenvatinib for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Failure of First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (hereinafter, atezolizumab-bevacizumab) is the standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced HCC, the optimal second-line regimen remains unknown. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of sorafenib and lenvatinib in patients with advanced HCC that progressed under atezolizumab-bevacizumab treatment.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for articles published before November 2023. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS), comparing patients who received sorafenib versus lenvatinib.

RESULTS

Seven studies involving 387 patients were included. The pooled ORR, DCR, OS, and PFS for sorafenib and lenvatinib together were 26% (95% CI: 14-43%), 63% (95% CI: 47-77%), 11.45 months (95% CI: 7.12-15.77, I2 = 92%, p < 0.01), and 3.78 months (95% CI: 2.34-5.23, I2 = 67%, p = 0.02), respectively. Although lenvatinib users had a longer median OS (12.42 vs. 10.75 months) and PFS (5.15 vs. 2.58 months) than sorafenib users, the pooled ORR, DCR, median OS, and PFS for these medications were comparable. Additionally, the distributions of all-grade and grade ≥ 3 adverse events for sorafenib and lenvatinib were comparable to those for these two medications when used as first-line therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Sorafenib or lenvatinib can provide effective treatment with manageable toxicity in patients with advanced HCC after disease progression under atezolizumab-bevacizumab.

Impact of Type of Lenvatinib Resistance on Prognosis and Second-Line Regimen in Patients with Virus-Associated HCC

Background

Lenvatinib is the first-line treatment option for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, the impact of lenvatinib resistance on patient prognosis is unknown.

Methods

We recruited all patients with advanced HCC who received first-line lenvatinib treatment between February 2019 and February 2023 at two medical centers in China, according to the selection criteria. The patients were divided into primary and secondary resistance groups based on tumor progression within 3 months. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards models were used to explore factors influencing drug resistance and prognosis. The study end points were drug resistance, PFS, and OS.

Results

A total of 531 patients met the study criteria, with 169 (31.8%) and 362 (68.2%) patients in the primary and secondary groups, respectively. An alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) concentration > 400 ng/mL was an independent risk factor for primary drug resistance. Patients in the primary group had a significantly shorter median OS (11.0 vs 31.0 months, P<0.001) than those in the secondary group. The 1-, 2- and 3-year cumulative survival rates in the primary group were 46.3%, 22.2%, and 10.1%, while those in the secondary group were 82.3%, 59.1% and 44.9%, respectively. Compared to tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) monotherapy, longer median PFS (4.0 vs 7.0 months, P=0.008) and OS (11.0 vs 23.0 months, P=0.024) were achieved with the combination of a TKI plus a PD-1 inhibitor as a second-line therapy after lenvatinib resistance.

Conclusion

There is a high rate of primary resistance to lenvatinib in patients with HCC and the prognosis for those with primary resistance is poor. TKI combined with PD-1 inhibitors should be preferentially recommended for lenvatinib-resistant patients.

Initial clinical experience with durvalumab plus tremelimumab in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in real‑world practice

Although durvalumab plus tremelimumab (Dur/Tre) has been approved as first-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC), its outcomes in real-world clinical practice are unclear. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Dur/Tre treatment. This multicenter study was conducted between March 2023 and January 2024, and included 120 patients with u-HCC treated with Dur/Tre. Among the patients, 44 had no history of systemic treatment. Progression-free survival (PFS), therapeutic response and adverse events (AEs) were assessed. The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rates (DCR) were 15.8 and 53.3%, respectively. The median PFS was 3.9 months. The incidence rates of AEs of any grade and those grade 3 or higher were 83.3 and 36.7%, respectively. Liver injury was the most frequent AE of any grade and grade 3 or higher. Although there was no significant difference in ORR and PFS between the first and later line groups (ORR 15.8 vs. 15.7%, P=0.986; PFS 4.5 vs. 3.6 months, P=0.213), there was a significant difference in DCR between the two groups (65.8 vs. 45.9%, P=0.034). No significant differences were noted between the first- and later-line treatment groups regarding the incidence rate of AEs. Decision tree analysis revealed that poor liver function and advanced age were significant variables for discontinuation owing to AEs. In conclusion, Dur/Tre as first-line therapy had better disease control responses compared with later-line therapy; however, this regimen should be carefully administered to patients with deteriorating hepatic function or advanced age.

Early Changes in Alpha-Fetoprotein and Des-γ-Carboxy Prothrombin Are Useful Predictors of Antitumor Response to Durvalumab Plus Tremelimumab Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The relationship between antitumor response and tumor marker changes was evaluated in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with durvalumab plus tremelimumab (Dur/Tre). Forty patients were enrolled in this retrospective evaluation of treatment outcomes. According to the Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors version 1.1 at 8 weeks, the objective response (OR) rate was 25% and the disease control (DC) rate was 57.5%. The median alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) ratio at 4 weeks was 0.39 in patients who achieved OR at 8 weeks (8W-OR group), significantly lower than the 1.08 in the non-8W-OR group (p = 0.0068); however, it was 1.22 in patients who did not achieve DC at 8 weeks (non-8W-DC group), significantly higher than the 0.53 in the 8W-DC group (p = 0.0006). Similarly, the median des-γ-carboxy-prothrombin (DCP) ratio at 4 weeks was 0.15 in the 8W-OR group, significantly lower than the 1.46 in the non-8W-OR group (p < 0.0001); however, it was 1.23 in the non-8W-DC group, significantly higher than the 0.49 in the 8W-DC group (p = 0.0215). Early changes in tumor markers after Dur/Tre initiation were associated with antitumor response. In particular, changes in AFP and DCP at 4 weeks may offer useful biomarkers for early prediction of both response and progressive disease following Dur/Tre.

Evolution of Systemic Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Changing Treatment Strategies and Concepts

Systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has undergone substantial advancements. With the advent of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATZ/BEV) combination therapy, followed by durvalumab plus tremelimumab, the era of immunotherapy for HCC has commenced. The emergence of systemic treatment with high response rates has led to improvements in overall survival while enabling conversion to radical surgical resection in some patients with HCC. In patients with intermediate-stage HCC, new treatment strategies combining systemic treatment and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) are under development in clinical trials. Moreover, the addition of local therapies, such as TACE, to systemic treatment according to the treatment effect could achieve a certain percentage of complete response. In the IMbrave050 trial, the efficacy of ATZ/BEV combination therapy was validated in patients predicted to have a high risk of recurrence, especially in those who had undergone radical surgery or radiofrequency ablation for HCC. Therefore, systemic treatment for HCC is entering a new phase for all disease stages. The objective of this review is to organize the current position of systemic therapy for each HCC stage and discuss the development of new treatment methods and strategies, with a focus on regimens incorporating immune checkpoint inhibitors, along with future prospects.

Real-World Effectiveness of First Line Lenvatinib Therapy in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Insights

Lenvatinib received its initial approval in 2018 for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. It has since emerged as the preferred first line agent, supported by non-inferiority data from the REFLECT trial. Notably, lenvatinib exhibits a more favorable toxicity profile and a higher response rate compared to sorafenib. Despite the approval of immunotherapy in 2020, specifically the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab following the IMbrave150 trial, tyrosine kinase inhibitors remain an indispensable class of agents in the landscape of hepatocellular carcinoma treatment. This comprehensive review delves into various facets of lenvatinib utilization in hepatocellular carcinoma, shedding light on real-world data, addressing challenges, and providing insights into strategies to overcome these obstacles.

Prediction of cardiovascular risk in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving anti-angiogenic drugs: lessons from sorafenib

Antiangiogenics are associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACE). The identification of at-risk subjects is relevant in the case of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), for which anti-angiogenic TKIs and bevacizumab are used in first and subsequent lines of therapy, to select alternative drugs for patients with excessive risk. We verified the ability to predict MACE in sorafenib-treated patients of the 2022 European Society of Cardiology (ESC-2022) score for anti-angiogenics and the recently proposed CARDIOSOR score. A retrospective analysis was conducted of prospectively collected data of the ARPES and ITA.LI.CA databases. All patients received sorafenib for unresectable HCC from 2008 to 2018. Baseline information to calculate the ESC-2022 and CARDIOSOR scores and registration of evolutive events (including MACE) were available for all patients. The predictive ability of both scores was verified using competing risk regressions and tests for goodness of fit. This study included 843 patients (median follow-up 11.3 months). Thirty-four (4.0%) patients presented a MACE. The four-tier ESC-2022 classification showed a progressive risk increase for every class (cumulative risk 1.7%, 2.7%, 4.3%, and 15.0% in the low, medium, high, and high-risk tiers, respectively). The dichotomous CARDIOSOR scale identified a high-risk group with a fourfold increased risk of MACE (sHR 4.66, p = 0.010; cumulative risk 3.8% and 16.4%). ESC-2022 showed a better goodness of fit compared to the CARDIOSOR score [C-index 0.671 (0.583-0.758) vs 0.562 (0.501-0.634), p = 0.021], but this gap was eliminated using the linear version of CARDIOSOR. Both the ESC-2022 and CARDIOSOR scores discriminated patients at increased risk for MACE. The use of these scores in clinical practice should be encouraged, since therapeutic measures can mitigate the cardiovascular risk.

Hepatic arterial infusion therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after systemic treatment failure: Multicenter, real-world study

AIM

The study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and safety profile of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin (HAIC-FOLFOX) as an alternative therapeutic choice for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that is refractory to systemic treatment including immune checkpoint blockades or molecular targeting agents.

METHODS

Two hundred and forty five consecutive patients with advanced HCC who received HAIC-FOLFOX treatment after systemic treatment failure were retrospectively reviewed in six institutions and their survival, tumor response, and tolerance were assessed.

RESULTS

The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival of the 209 included participants were 10.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1-12.9) and 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1-6.9), respectively. According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 criteria, the objective response rate was 21.1%, and the disease control rate was 64.6%. Multivariate analysis of risk factors of OS were albumin-bilirubin grade (2 and 3 vs. 1, hazard ratio [HR] 1.57; 95% CI, 1.05-2.34; p = 0.028), tumor number (>3 vs. 1-3, HR 2.18; 95% CI, 1.10-4.34; p = 0.026), extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent, HR 1.61, 95% CI, 1.06-2.45; p = 0.027), synchronous systemic treatment (present vs. absent, HR 0.55, 95% CI, 0.37-0.83; p = 0.004) and treatment response (responder vs. nonresponder, HR 0.30, 95% CI, 0.17-0.53; p < 0.001). Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 59 (28.2%) HCC patients. All AEs were manageable, and deaths related to hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy treatment were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the effectiveness and safety of HAIC-FOLFOX treatment for patients with advanced HCC who have failed systemic treatment.

Treatment options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: the potential of biologics

INTRODUCTION

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a significant global health burden, whose treatment has been recently revolutionized by the advent of biologic treatments. Despite that, innovative therapeutic regimens and approaches, especially immune-based, remain to be explored aiming at extending the therapeutic benefits to a wider population of patients.

AREAS COVERED

This review comprehensively discusses the evolving landscape of biological treatment modalities for advanced HCC, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, antiangiogenic monoclonal antibodies, tumor-targeting monoclonal antibodies either naked or drug-conjugated, therapeutic vaccines, oncolytic viruses, adoptive cell therapies, and cytokine-based therapies. Key clinical trials and preclinical studies are examined, highlighting the actual or potential impact of these interventions in reshaping treatment paradigms for HCC.

EXPERT OPINION

Tailored and rational combination strategies, leveraging the synergistic effects of different modalities, represent a promising approach to maximize treatment efficacy in advanced HCC, which should aim at conversion endpoints to increase the fraction of patients eligible for curative approaches. The identification of predictive biomarkers holds the key to optimizing patient selection and improving therapeutic outcomes.

The Impact of Sequential Therapies after First-Line Systemic Therapies in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background: The therapeutic options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have greatly expanded recently, and current first-line therapies include sorafenib, lenvatinib, and atezolizumab-bevacizumab. The aim of this study was to investigate the therapeutic efficacy of sequential systemic treatments after progressing to the first-line agent in patients with unresectable HCC. Methods: Data were collected from subjects with HCC, BCLC stage B or C, who received first-line sorafenib, lenvatinib, or atezolizumab-bevacizumab from September 2020 to December 2022. The patients who progressed after first-line therapy were evaluated according to individual clinical status in order to decide whether or not to accept sequential therapy. The clinical baseline characteristics and overall survival (OS) of enrolled patients were collected and further analyzed. Results: Among the 127 enrolled patients, percentage of sequential therapy was 67.9%, 21.6%, and 37.5% in those with tumor progression after first-line sorafenib, lenvatinib, or atezolizumab-bevacizumab, respectively. Acceptance of sequential therapy (HR 0.46, p = 0.041) and presentation of ALBI grade I (HR 0.36, p = 0.002) had a significantly positive impact on OS. Pre-treatment ALBI grade had a significant impact on the decision to accept sequential therapy in patients with progressed HCC. Conclusions: The patients who were able to undergo sequential therapy had a better survival outcome compared to those who received only one agent, and the pre-treatment ALBI level might be regarded as a cornerstone tool to assess survival outcomes in patients undergoing treatment for HCC.

Updates on Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

This review explores the dynamic landscape of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment, emphasizing on recent developments across various stages and therapeutic approaches. Although curative strategies such as hepatectomy and thermal ablation are standard for early-stage cases, high relapse rates drive investigations into adjuvant and perioperative treatment. Adjuvant therapies face hurdles, but noteworthy advances include IMbrave050 setting a new standard with atezolizumab/bevacizumab. Locoregional treatments gain significance, especially for multifocal HCC, with the integration of innovative combinations with systemic therapies, showing improved outcomes. In the advanced setting, the evolution from sorafenib as the primary first-line option to new standards, such as atezolizumab/bevacizumab and tremelimumab/durvalumab, to other emerging therapies such as tislelizumab and pembrolizumab with lenvatinib, is explored. Additionally, second-line treatments and insights into the interplay between immunotherapies and antiangiogenic agents, as well as novel combination strategies that add complexity to treatment decisions, are discussed.

Combining atezolizumab 1200 mg with bevacizumab 15 mg/kg: based on science or just revenues?

Dose optimisation is increasingly important in oncology, as exemplified by the US Food and Drug Administration's Project Optimus initiative, which is aligned with similar initiatives in other countries. In parallel, multiple stakeholders have raised concerns about anticancer drug prices, affordability, and access. This is of particular concern to government payers as well as patients and physicians in low- and middle-income countries. As anticancer drugs have historically been approved at the maximally tolerated dose, it is now highly relevant to question whether lower doses are equally effective and can be delivered at lower doses, resulting in less toxicity for patients, and lower costs for patients and payers. We illustrate this opportunity by discussing the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab, approved in multiple countries for both non-small cell lung cancer and hepatocellular cancer. Our conclusion is that the cost of this regimen can be reduced by more than 80%, an opportunity that should be considered by patients, prescribers, payers, and policymakers.

The New Era of Systemic Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From the First Line to the Optimal Sequence

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents the most common primary liver cancer and is considered a major global health problem as one of the leading causes of cancer-related death in the world. Due to the increase in life expectancy and the epidemiological growth of specific risk factors, such as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), the incidence of HCC is growing globally, and mortality rates are still high. Moreover, patients frequently present at an intermediate or advanced tumor stage, when curative treatments, such as surgical resection, liver transplantation or ablation are no longer applicable. In these cases, trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE), trans-arterial radioembolization (TARE), and systemic therapy are the only suitable options to achieve disease control. The multi-kinase inhibitor Sorafenib has been the only systemic treatment available for unresectable advanced HCC for almost a decade, but in the last couple of years new therapeutic options have emerged. Recent advances in understanding the interactions between the tumor and its microenvironment, especially cancer immune escape, led to the advent of immunotherapy. Currently, first-line systemic treatment for HCC is represented by the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monoclonal antibody, but many other ICIs have been investigated, such as Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab, Durvalumab and Ipilimumab. However, the problem of second- and third-line therapies, and the correct sequence of treatments remains open and is not addressed in most studies. This explains the urge to find new systemic treatments that can improve the survival and quality of life in patients that can go beyond the first line of treatment. The aim of this paper is to offer a complete overview of the most recent innovations in systemic treatments for unresectable locally advanced and metastatic HCC, including emerging therapies, with a particular focus on treatment sequences. Moreover, we will provide an outlook on possible future approaches to patients who progress beyond first-line therapies.

Improved clinical outcomes in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with transarterial chemoembolization plus atezolizumab and bevacizumab: a bicentric retrospective study

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to assess the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with atezolizumab and bevacizumab (hereafter, TACE-Atez/Bev) in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Clinical information was collected from consecutive patients with advanced HCC who received treatment with TACE-Atez/Bev or Atez/Bev from April 2021 and October 2022. Treatment response, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) were the primary outcomes of this study. Adverse events (AEs) were the secondary outcomes. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was applied to reduce bias between two groups.

RESULTS

This study included 62 patients in the TACE-Atez/Bev group and 77 patients in the Atez/Bev group. The objective response rate (ORR) of the TACE-Atez/Bev group and the Atez/Bev group were 38.7% and 16.9% (P=0.004). However, there was no statistical difference in disease control rate between the two groups (69.4% vs 63.6%, P=0.479). Before PSM, the median OS was 14 months in the TACE-Atez/Bev group and 10 months in the Atez/Bev group (P=0.014). The median PFS in the TACE-Atez/Bev and Atez/Bev groups was 10 months and 6 months, respectively (P=0.001). After PSM, the median OS in the two groups was 14 months and 9 months, respectively (P=0.01). The median PFS was 7 months and 6 months, respectively (P=0.036). Multivariable analysis showed that treatment method was independent prognostic factors affecting OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with Atez/Bev treatment, TACE-Atez/Bev showed better OS, PFS, and ORR for Chinese patients with advanced HCC, with an acceptable safety profile.