Real-World Lenvatinib Versus Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis

Organ-specific response with first-line atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus lenvatinib for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based treatments have become the mainstay of first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but there has been a concern that intrahepatic HCC lesions may be less responsive to ICI monotherapy. We aimed to investigate the organ-specific response patterns among unresectable HCC patients treated with first-line atezolizumab-bevacizumab or lenvatinib.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 386 patients with Child-Pugh A unresectable HCC who were treated with first-line atezolizumab-bevacizumab (n = 217) or lenvatinib (n = 169). The organ-specific response was separately evaluated according to the site of the lesions: liver, lung, lymph node (LN), and intraabdomen based on a radiological evaluation adopted from RECIST v 1.1.

RESULTS

The median age was 60 years. Hepatitis B infection was the most common etiology (n = 270, 69.9%), and 291 (75.4%) patients had a viral etiology. The proportion of patients achieving a ≥ 30% reduction in the tumor burden for each organ category was overall higher in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab group than that in the lenvatinib group: 20.2% vs. 11.8%, 23.0% vs. 12.2%, 27.9% vs. 17.9% and 33.3% vs. 15.0% for intrahepatic, lung, LN, and intraabdominal lesions, respectively. The corresponding values for the subgroup with a viral etiology were 17.3% vs. 8.1%, 18.8% vs. 13.3%, 28.9% vs. 3.6%, and 36.0% vs. 12.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Compared to lenvatinib, atezolizumab-bevacizumab was associated with a favorable organ-specific response regardless of the site of the tumor lesions. Unlike anti-PD-1 monotherapy, atezolizumab-bevacizumab had a comparable organ-specific response between intrahepatic and extrahepatic lesions, especially for those with viral etiology HCCs.

Efficacy and safety comparison between Lenvatinib and Sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of real-world study

OBJECTIVE

Our study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Lenvatinib compared with Sorafenib for treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients under real-world setting.

METHODS

We retrieved relevant literature through the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases from 1 January 2000 to 25 June 2022. The differences in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) as well as treatment adverse related events were evaluated between HCC patients treated with Lenvatinib and Sorafenib using fixed or random-effects models. The MINORS evaluation questionnaire was used to assess the quality of the included literature.

RESULTS

This meta-analysis included a total of 9 single-arm studies and 6 comparative studies. In the meta-analysis, Lenvatinib showed significantly longer median OS than Sorafenib ( P  < 0.01, MD = 1.20, 95% CI [0.92-1.48]), as well as median PFS ( P  < 0.01, OR = 2.68, 95% CI [1.59-3.76]), and higher ORR( P  < 0.01, OR = 5.36, 95% CI [3.42-8.40]), DCR( P  < 0.01, OR = 2.17, 95% CI [1.64-2.86]). The occurrence of Hypertension was higher in Lenvatinib than in Sorafenib treatment ( P  < 0.01, MD = 5.27, 95% CI [2.38-11.66]), and there was no significant difference in Hand-foot syndrome between Lenvatinib and Sorafenib.

CONCLUSION

We found that treatment with Lenvatinib in HCC patients resulted in better OS, PFS, and higher ORR and DCR compared to Sorafenib. However, safety data indicated that Lenvatinib did not exhibit a significant advantage.

Well-controlled viremia reduces the progression of hepatocellular carcinoma in chronic viral hepatitis patients treated with lenvatinib

Lenvatinib has been approved as one of the first-line treatments for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to its high treatment efficacy being non-inferior to sorafenib. Previous studies have shown well-controlled viremia contributes to the prognosis of HCC patients receiving first-line sorafenib; hence, we postulated this association might also exist in HCC patients with lenvatinib treatment. From April 2018 to December 2021, 201 unresectable HCC patients with first-line lenvatinib treatment in our institute were assessed. High-effect nucleoside analogues were administered for hepatitis B virus (HBV) control, while direct-acting antivirals were used for hepatitis C virus (HCV) elimination. Based on our previous study, well-controlled viremia was defined as patients who had undetectable viremia, or who had been receiving antivirals at least 6 months before lenvatinib. This study enrolled 129 patients, including 85 patients with HBV-related HCC (HBV-HCC) and 44 patients with HCV-related HCC (HCV-HCC), respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) rates between the two groups were not different. Before administration of lenvatinib, 57.1% of the HBV-HCC patients and 88.4% of the HCV-HCC patients had well-controlled viremia, and their PFS (8.8 vs. 3.1 months, p < 0.001) and OS (30.2 vs. 12.8 months, p = 0.041) were better than those who had uncontrolled viremia; moreover, well-controlled viremia reduced tumor progression in multivariate analysis (Hazard ratio: 0.41, 95% confidence interval: 0.25-0.68, p = 0.001) after adjusting for albumin-bilirubin grade and concurrent treatment. HBV or HCV infection was not associated with tumor progression of HCC patients receiving lenvatinib, but viremia, controlled or not, was.

Efficacy of lenvatinib versus sorafenib in the primary treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis

Background and Aim

Molecular-targeted agents such as lenvatinib and sorafenib have been approved to treat hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the choice between these two agents in the primary treatment for advanced HCC is still under debate with conflicting results. We sought to evaluate the efficacy of lenvatinib and sorafenib in patients with HCC.

Methods

We performed a systematic literature search using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for relevant articles from inception until February 10, 2023. The primary outcome of this meta-analysis was overall survival (OS). The secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR).

Results

A total of 13 studies with 3705 patients (1635 on lenvatinib and 2070 on sorafenib) were included in our analysis. The mean age of the patients in both groups was comparable (66.81 vs 65.9 years). Pooled analysis of primary outcomes showed that, compared with sorafenib, lenvatinib was associated with significantly better OS in patients treated with these drugs (HR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.69-0.97, P = 0.02). Pooled analysis also showed that PFS (HR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.57-0.78, P < 0.00001) and time to progression (HR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.31-0.79; P = 0.004) were significantly better in the lenvatinib group compared to the sorafenib group. It also showed that the lenvatinib group had significantly better ORR (odds ratio [OR] 5.43, 95% CI: 3.71-7.97; P < 0.00001) and DCR (OR 2.35, 95% CI: 1.75-3.16; P < 00001) than the sorafenib group.

Conclusion

Our study shows that lenvatinib is superior to sorafenib regarding OS and PFS in patients with advanced HCC.

The evolving role of lenvatinib at the new era of first-line hepatocellular carcinoma treatment

Emergence of multi-targeted kinase inhibitors (MTIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have changed the landscape of management in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Combination therapy involving ICI has superseded sorafenib as the first-line treatment option for advanced HCC due to their superior response rates and survival benefits based on recently published phase III trials. However, the role of first-line lenvatinib remains uncertain as no prospective trials have compared its efficacy with ICI in advanced HCC. Several retrospective studies have shown that first-line lenvatinib may not be inferior to ICI combination. Indeed, a growing body of evidence suggests that ICI treatment is associated with inferior treatment outcome in non-viral HCC patients, questioning the supremacy of ICI treatment in all patients and rendering first-line lenvatinib as a potential preferred treatment option. Furthermore, in high-burden intermediate-stage HCC, accumulating evidence supports first-line lenvatinib, or in combination with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), as a preferred treatment option over TACE alone. In this Review, we describe the latest evidence surrounding the evolving role of first-line lenvatinib in HCC.

Management of hypertension during lenvatinib for advanced thyroid cancer: a suggested diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm

Background

Hypertension (HTN) is the most frequent adverse event during treatment with lenvatinib (LEN), but data on its best management are limited.

Aim

The objective of this study was to assess incidence, features and best management of LEN-related HTN in a consecutive single tertiary-care centre cohort.

Methods

Twenty-nine patients were followed up for a mean time of 29.8 months (6-77 months).

Results

After a mean follow-up of 6.8 months, HTN was recorded in 76% of cases, as a de novo occurrence in half of them. HTN significantly correlated with LEN dose and was of grade 1, grade 2 and grade 3 in 5%, 50% and 45% of patients, respectively. The majority (77%) of patients with HTN developed proteinuria. There was no correlation between HTN and proteinuria or clinical features or best morphological response or any other adverse event (AE), with the exception of diarrhoea. Patients with or without pre-existing HTN or any other cardiovascular disease had a similar incidence of HTN during LEN, thus excluding the impact of this potential predisposing factor. After evaluation by a dedicated cardiologist, medical treatment was introduced in 21/22 patients (polytherapy in 20 of them). The most frequently used drugs were calcium channel blockers (CCBs) due to their effect on vasodilation. In case of poor control, CCBs were associated with one or more anti-hypertensive drug.

Conclusion

HTN is a frequent and early AE in patients on LEN treatment. We suggest a diagnostic and therapeutic algorithm to be applied in clinical practice to allow efficient HTN control and improve patient compliance, reducing LEN discontinuation.

Efficacy and safety of HAIC alone vs. HAIC combined with lenvatinib for treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

To investigate efficacy and safety of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy combined with lenvatinib (HAIC-Len) and HAIC alone for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (Ad-HCC). Totally 349 patients with Ad-HCC participated in the research from February 2018 to October 2020. On the basis of propensity score matching (PSM), 132 and 110 cases were assigned to the HAIC group and the HAIC-Len group, respectively, with a ratio of 1:1. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and complications were compared between two groups. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were utilized to estimate cumulative OS and PFS. Additionally, uni- and multi-variate Cox regression models were employed to identify significant independent factors. The median follow-up period in this study was set to be 20.8 months. Following PSM, the one-, two- and three-year cumulative OS rates in the HAIC-Len and HAIC groups were 63.6%, 12.1%, and 3.0%, and 47.2%, 11.8%, and 2.7%, respectively, with a significant difference (P < 0.001). The first-three-year cumulative incidence rates PFS in the HAIC-Len and the HAIC groups were 15.2%, 1.5%, and ND, and 11.8%, 4.5%, and 3.6%, respectively, with no significant difference detected (P = 0.092). BMI (HR 0.709. 95% CI 0.549, 0.915. P = 0.008) and AST (HR 1.005. 95% CI 1.003, 1.007. P < 0.001) represented independent prognostic factors for OS. Additionally, the two groups exhibited no significant difference in the incidence rates of adverse events. HAIC-Len significantly improved survival outcomes of patients with Ad-HCC and demonstrated acceptable toxicity compared to HAIC alone.

Hybrid peptide NTP-217 triggers ROS-mediated rapid necrosis in liver cancer cells by induction of mitochondrial leakage

Liver cancer is the third leading cause of cancer-associated mortality globally, and >830,000 patients with liver cancer undergoing treatment succumbed to the disease in 2020, which indicates the urgent need to develop a more effective anti-liver cancer drug. In our previous study, nucleus-targeting hybrid peptides obtained from the fusion of LTX-315 and the rhodamine B group possessed potent anti-adherent cancer cell activity. Hybrid peptides accumulated in the cell nucleus and damaged the nuclear membrane, resulting in the transfer of reactive oxygen species (ROS) from the cytoplasm to the nucleus and the induction of apoptosis. However, the source of the high concentration of ROS within the cytoplasm is unclear. Moreover, although our previous study demonstrated that hybrid peptides possessed potent anticancer activity against adherent cancer cells, their efficacy on liver cancer remained unexplored. The current study found that the hybrid peptide NTP-217 killed liver cancer cells after 4-h treatment with a half-maximal inhibitory concentration of 14.6-45.7 μM. NTP-217 could stably accumulate in the liver tumor tissue and markedly inhibited liver tumor growth in mice. Furthermore, NTP-217 destroyed mitochondria and induced the leakage of mitochondrial contents, resulting in the generation of a substantial quantity of ROS. Unlike the apoptosis induced by 24 h of treatment by NTP-217, 4 h of treatment caused ROS-mediated necrotic cell death. These findings suggested that short-time treatment with hybrid peptides could trigger ROS-mediated rapid necrosis in liver cancer cells, and provided a basis for the future development of hybrid peptides as anti-liver cancer agents.

Role of Etiology in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Lenvatinib: A Counterfactual Event-Based Mediation Analysis

Background: Whether the etiology of underlying liver disease represents a prognostic factor in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with lenvatinib is still a matter of debate. This study investigates whether the viral etiology of HCC plays a prognostic role in overall survival (OS). Methods: Data derived from a multicenter series of 313 HCC patients treated with lenvatinib between 2019 and 2022 were analyzed. Actuarial survival estimates were computed using the Kaplan−Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. We performed an event-based counterfactual mediation analysis to estimate direct (chronic inflammation and immunosuppression), indirect (tobacco smoking, alcohol use, illicit drug abuse with injections), and the total effect of viral etiology on OS. Results were expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. Results: Median OS was 21 months (95% CI: 20−23) in the group with other etiologies and 15 months (14−16) in the group with viral etiology (p < 0.0001). The total effect of viral etiology was associated with OS (HR 2.76, 1.32−5.21), and it was mainly explained by the pure direct effect of viral etiology (HR 2.74, 1.15−4.45). By contrast, its total indirect effect was not associated with poorer survival (HR 1.05, 0.82−2.13). These results were confirmed when considering tobacco, alcohol consumption, or injection drug abuse as potential mediators. Median progression-free survival was 9 months (8−10) in patients with other etiologies and 6 months (5−7) in patients with viral etiology (p < 0.0001). No difference in terms of adverse event rate was observed between the two groups. Conclusions: Patients affected by HCC with nonviral etiology treated with lenvatinib exhibit longer survival than those with viral etiology. This finding may have relevance in the treatment decision-making process.

Efficacy and safety of lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A meta-analysis

Objective

Lenvatinib and sorafenib are first-line oral multikinase inhibitors approved for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the choice of the primary therapeutic agent among these two remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to estimate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC.

Methods

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched for relevant research published up to June 30, 2022. After quality assessment and data extraction of the included studies, RevMan 5.3 software was used for analysis. Odds ratio (OR) and hazard ratio (HR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model.

Results

Fifteen studies containing 3908 patients were included after final scrutiny. Our meta-analysis showed that there was no significant difference in overall survival (OS) between the lenvatinib and sorafenib groups (HR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.72-1.02; p = 0.09); however, the progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.63; 95% CI: 0.53-0.74; p < 0.00001), complete response (CR) (OR = 5.61; 95% CI: 2.71-11.64; p < 0.00001), partial response (PR) (OR = 4.62; 95% CI: 3.06-6.98; p < 0.00001), objective response rate (ORR) (OR = 5.61; 95% CI: 3.90-8.09; p < 0.00001), and disease control rate (DCR) (OR = 2.42; 95% CI: 1.79-3.28; p < 0.00001) in the lenvatinib group were significantly better than those in the sorafenib group. In terms of treatment safety, lenvatinib had similar incidences of any grade adverse events (AEs) (OR = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.47-2.09; p = 0.98) and grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR = 1.17, 95% CI; 1.00-1.37; p = 0.05) compared to sorafenib. Besides, lenvatinib was significantly associated with a higher incidence of hypertension, proteinuria, fatigue, decreased appetite, and weight loss, whereas sorafenib was associated with a higher incidence of diarrhea and hand-foot skin reaction (p < 0.05).

Conclusion

Given its potential survival benefit and good tolerability, lenvatinib is an appropriate and promising alternative to sorafenib as first-line systemic therapy in patients with advanced HCC.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD 42022327398.

Artificial intelligence based on serum biomarkers predicts the efficacy of lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Lenvatinib has been effective not only as a first-line but also as a later-line systemic therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) in real-world clinical practice. How to predict the efficacy of lenvatinib and guide appropriate therapy selection in patients with uHCC have become important issues. This study aimed to investigate the impact of serum biomarkers on the treatment outcomes of patients with uHCC treated with lenvatinib in a real-world setting using an artificial intelligence algorithm. We measured serum biomarkers, including alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, and circulating angiogenic factors (CAFs [i.e., vascular endothelial growth factor, angiopoietin-2, fibroblast growth factor-19 [FGF19], and FGF21]) and analyzed treatment outcomes, including objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) in patients with uHCC treated with lenvatinib. The results of this study demonstrated that an AFP reduction ≥ 40% from baseline within 8 weeks after lenvatinib induction was associated with a higher ORR. With baseline biomarkers using a decision tree-based model, we identified patients with high, intermediate, and low ORRs (84.6%, 21.7% and 0%, respectively; odds ratio, 53.04, P < 0.001, high versus intermediate/low groups). Based on the decision tree-based survival predictive model, baseline AFP was the most important factor for OS, followed by ALBI grade and FGF21.

Sorafenib versus Lenvatinib Causes Stronger Oxidative Damage to Membrane Lipids in Noncancerous Tissues of the Thyroid, Liver, and Kidney: Effective Protection by Melatonin and Indole-3-Propionic Acid

Sorafenib and lenvatinib are multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors which are currently approved to treat advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma and radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid carcinoma. However this treatment is often limited due to common adverse events which may occur via oxidative stress. The study aims to compare sorafenib- and lenvatinib-induced oxidative damage to membrane lipids (lipid peroxidation, LPO) in homogenates of porcine noncancerous tissues of the thyroid, the liver, and the kidney and to check if it can be prevented by antioxidants melatonin and indole-3-propionic acid (IPA). Homogenates of individual tissues were incubated in the presence of sorafenib or lenvatinib (1 mM, 100 µM, 10 µM, 1 µM, 100 nM, 10 nM, 1 nM, 100 pM) together with/without melatonin (5.0 mM) or IPA (5.0 mM). The concentration of malondialdehyde + 4-hydroxyalkenals, as the LPO index, was measured spectrophotometrically. The incubation of tissue homogenates with sorafenib resulted in a concentration-dependent increase in LPO (statistically significant for concentrations of 1mM and 100 µM in the thyroid and the liver, and of 1 mM, 100 µM, and 10 µM in the kidney). The incubation of thyroid homogenates with lenvatinib did not change LPO level. In case of the liver and the kidney, lenvatinib increased LPO but only in its highest concentration of 1 mM. Melatonin and IPA reduced completely (to the level of control) sorafenib- and lenvatinib-induced LPO in all examined tissues regardless of the drug concentration. In conclusion, sorafenib comparing to lenvatinib is a stronger damaging agent of membrane lipids in noncancerous tissues of the thyroid, the liver, and the kidney. The antioxidants melatonin and IPA can be considered to be used in co-treatment with sorafenib and lenvatinib to prevent their undesirable toxicity occurring via oxidative stress.

Lenvatinib as First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lenvatinib was approved in 2018 as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide the most updated evidence about the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib as a first-line treatment for unresectable HCC. An electronic search of the PubMed database, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library was undertaken to identify all relevant studies up to May 2022. The pooled effect sizes were calculated based on the random-effects model. One phase III randomized controlled trial and 23 retrospective studies of 2438 patients were eligible for analysis. For patients treated with lenvatinib as first-line treatment, the pooled median overall survival (OS), median progression-free survival (PFS), 1-year OS rate, 1-year PFS rate, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) were 11.36 months, 6.68 months, 56.0%, 27.0%, 36.0% and 75.0%, respectively. Lenvatinib showed a significantly superior efficacy compared with sorafenib (HR for OS, 0.85 and HR for PFS, 0.72; OR for ORR, 4.25 and OR for DCR, 2.23). The current study demonstrates that lenvatinib can provide better tumor responses and survival benefits than sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable HCC, with a comparable incidence of adverse events.

Application and Impact of Antiviral Therapy for Patients with HBV-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Sorafenib and Lenvatinib Treatment

Overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has improved in the era of multi-line sequential therapy. The application of antiviral therapy and its impact on survival for patients with HBV-related HCC needs to be reassessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the application and impact of antiviral therapy on survival for patients with HBV-related HCC receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. Patients with advanced HBV-related HCC treated with sorafenib or lenvatinib as first-line therapy with (n = 377) and without (n = 182) nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC) therapy were retrospectively enrolled. Prognostic factors of OS were evaluated. Secular trends in the increased application of NUC therapy and improved survival were observed in the last decade. The HBV reactivation rate in patients without NUC therapy was 6.6%. By multivariate analysis, baseline low HBV viral load, achieving undetectable HBV DNA after TKI therapy, and ability to receive second-line therapy were found to be independent predictors of OS. In subgroup patients with NUC therapy, starting NUC before TKI was associated with a better OS. In conclusion, the application of antiviral therapy for patients with HBV-related HCC receiving TKI therapy has increased over time. Achieving complete virological suppression may contribute to a better OS in patients with advanced HBV-related HCC.

Significance of post‐progression therapy after tyrosine kinase inhibitors for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Background and Aim

Molecular‐targeted therapies such as sorafenib and lenvatinib have long been used as first‐line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, adverse events or limited therapeutic effects may necessitate the change to another therapeutic option, known as post‐progression therapy. To investigate the significance of post‐progression therapy, we analyzed the outcomes of aHCC patients following first‐line molecular‐targeted therapy in a real‐world study.

Methods

This retrospective, multicenter study involved patients with aHCC who received sorafenib or lenvatinib as first‐line therapy between January 2011 and September 2021.

Results

In total, 513 patients were analyzed: 309 treated with sorafenib and 204 with lenvatinib. The overall response and disease control rates were 15 and 50%, respectively, in the sorafenib group and 30 and 75%, respectively, in the lenvatinib group (P < 0.001). Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed no significant differences in progression‐free survival and overall survival (OS) between the two treatments. Multivariate analysis revealed that fibrosis‐4 index, disease control rate, post‐progression therapy, and use of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) were significantly associated with OS. OS was significantly longer in patients who received post‐progression therapy than in those who did not (log‐rank P < 0.001). Most patients who received an ICI as post‐progression therapy had previously received lenvatinib. Among lenvatinib‐treated patients, OS was significantly longer in patients who received an ICI than in patients received another or no post‐progression therapy (P = 0.004).

Conclusion

The introduction of newer drugs for post‐progression therapy is expected to prolong survival. ICI‐based regimens appear to be effective after lenvatinib.