Clinical Outcomes Associated with Monotherapy and Combination Therapy of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Real-World Practice: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)-based therapy has recently been demonstrated to greatly ameliorate survival outcomes in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes of ICIs-based monotherapy and combination therapy as first-line treatment of adults with advanced HCC in real-world practice by conducting a systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to 25 April 2022. Retrospective or prospective real-world studies evaluating progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of patients with advanced HCC receiving first-line ICIs-based therapy were included.

RESULTS

Of 7805 studies retrieved, 38 were deemed eligible for inclusion. For patients receiving first-line ICIs-based therapy in real-world practice, the pooled median PFS and OS were 7.03 (95% CI: 5.55-8.51) and 14.39 (95% CI: 10.91-17.86) months. The ORR and DCR were 0.432 (95% CI: 0.327-0.538) and 0.756 (95% CI: 0.677-0.836), according to mRECIST 1.1, 0.317 (95% CI: 0.218-0.416) and 0.740 (95% CI: 0.644-0.835), judged by RECIST 1.1. The best outcomes of survival and response rate were observed in ICIs-based combination therapy of ICIs, TKIs, plus LRTs. Furthermore, ORR, DCR judged by mRECIST 1.1, and PFS could be potential prognostic factors for OS.

CONCLUSIONS

This research revealed diversified first-line ICIs-based therapies for advanced HCC in real-world practice. Future studies are needed to adopt prospective, multicentric and comparative designs to test the ICIs-based combination therapies, especially triple therapies of ICIs, TKIs, plus LRTs.

Potential predictors for survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are increasingly used in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) trials. However, the correlations between early endpoints, such as progression free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR), and overall survival (OS) are unclear. In this study, the correlations between OS and other early endpoints were evaluated in HCC patients who received ICI.

METHODS

Pubmed and Embase were searched to October 2020. Clinical studies evaluating efficacy and outcomes of HCC patients treated with ICI were included. ORR, DCR, PFS and OS were extracted from individual studies. The Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and linear regression model were used to assess the correlation.

RESULTS

74 studies involving 9001 HCC cases were included. For HCC patients treated with ICI, the pooled ORR and DCR were 16% (95% CI: 14-18%) and 52% (95% CI: 47-57%), and the median PFS and OS were 3.75 (95% CI: 2.88-4.90) months, and 13.20 (95% CI: 11.88-14.82) months, retrospectively. The correlation between ORR, DCR, PFS and OS were 0.35 (R² = 0.21, p < 0.05), 0.43 (R² = 0.18, p < 0.05), and 0.50 (R² = 0.33, p < 0.05), respectively. Further, the association between PFS and OS of the combination strategy showed a better correlation (rs = 0.79, R² = 0.75, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that PFS could be potential surrogates for OS, especially PFS for patients who treated with ICI combination regimen.

Cancer immunotherapy in special challenging populations: recommendations of the Advisory Committee of Spanish Melanoma Group (GEM)

Cancer immunotherapy based on the use of antibodies targeting the so-called checkpoint inhibitors, such as programmed cell death-1 receptor, its ligand, or CTLA-4, has shown durable clinical benefit and survival improvement in melanoma and other tumors. However, there are some special situations that could be a challenge for clinical management. Persons with chronic infections, such as HIV-1 or viral hepatitis, latent tuberculosis, or a history of solid organ transplantation, could be candidates for cancer immunotherapy, but their management requires a multidisciplinary approach. The Spanish Melanoma Group (GEM) panel in collaboration with experts in virology and immunology from different centers in Spain reviewed the literature and developed evidence-based guidelines for cancer immunotherapy management in patients with chronic infections and immunosuppression. These are the first clinical guidelines for cancer immunotherapy treatment in special challenging populations. Cancer immunotherapy in chronically infected or immunosuppressed patients is feasible but needs a multidisciplinary approach in order to decrease the risk of complications related to the coexistent comorbidities.

Effectiveness of nivolumab versus regorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma patients who failed sorafenib treatment

Background/Aims

Several treatment options are currently available for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) failing previous sorafenib treatment. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of regorafenib and nivolumab in these patients.

Methods

Consecutive HCC patients who received regorafenib or nivolumab after failure of sorafenib treatment were included. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints were time to progression, tumor response rate, and adverse events. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score was conducted to reduce treatment selection bias.

Results

Among 150 study patients, 102 patients received regorafenib and 48 patients received nivolumab. Median OS was 6.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0–10.8) months for regorafenib and 5.9 (95% CI, 3.7–8.1) months for nivolumab (P=0.77 by log-rank test). In multivariable analysis, nivolumab was associated with prolonged OS (vs. regorafenib: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30–0.96; P=0.04). Time to progression was not significantly different between groups (nivolumab vs. regorafenib: aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.51–1.30; P=0.48). HRs were maintained after IPTW. Objective response rates were 5.9% and 16.7% in patients treated with regorafenib and nivolumab, respectively (P=0.04).

Conclusions

After sorafenib failure, the use of nivolumab may be associated with improved OS and better objective response rate as compared to using regorafenib.