Dataset Information

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Lenvatinib as First-Line Therapy for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A comparison between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATEZO/BEVA) and lenvatinib (LEN) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear.

Objective

This study aimed to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of ATEZO/BEVA and LEN as first-line therapies for HCC.

Patients and methods

This study was a retrospective analysis of 810 patients with HCC who underwent ATEZO/BEVA (n = 186) or LEN (n = 624) as first-line systemic therapy between March 2018 to March 2022 at 14 facilities. After propensity score matching, 304 patients (ATEZO/BEVA group: n = 152; LEN group: n = 152) were analyzed.

Results

After propensity score matching, although there was no significant difference in objective response rates (ORRs) between the ATEZO/BEVA and LEN groups (ORR 44.8% vs. 46.7%, p = 0.644), the median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) in the ATEZO/BEVA group were significantly higher than those in the LEN group (median PFS: 8.3 months vs. 6.0 months, p = 0.005; median OS: not reached vs. 20.2 months, p = 0.039). The rates of appetite loss, fatigue, and proteinuria of grade 3 or higher in the ATEZO/BEVA group were lower than those in the LEN group. However, the rate of bleeding of grade 3 or higher in the ATEZO/BEVA group was higher than that in the LEN group. The conversion rate was higher in the ATEZO/BEVA group than that in the LEN group (8.6% vs. 1.9%, p = 0.007).

Conclusions

ATEZO/BEVA showed superiority to LEN in terms of prognosis and conversion rate as first-line therapy. Moreover, ATEZO/BEVA had a lower rate of severe adverse events, except for bleeding, than LEN.

SUBMITTER: Niizeki T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9684293 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Lenvatinib as First-Line Therapy for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Niizeki Takashi T Tokunaga Takayuki T Takami Yuko Y Wada Yoshiyuki Y Harada Masaru M Shibata Michihiko M Nakao Kazuhiko K Sasaki Ryu R Hirai Fumihito F Shakado Satoshi S Yoshizumi Tomoharu T Itoh Shinji S Yatsuhashi Hiroshi H Bekki Shigemune S Ido Akio A Mawatari Seiichi S Honda Koichi K Sugimoto Rie R Senju Takeshi T Takahashi Hirokazu H Kuwashiro Takuya T Maeshiro Tatsuji T Nakamuta Makoto M Aratake Yoshifusa Y Yamashita Tsutomu T Otsuka Yuichiro Y Matsumoto Shuichi S Sohda Tetsuro T Shimose Shigeo S Murotani Kenta K Tanaka Yasuhito Y

Targeted oncology 20221022 6

<h4>Background</h4>A comparison between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATEZO/BEVA) and lenvatinib (LEN) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear.<h4>Objective</h4>This study aimed to compare the therapeutic effects and safety of ATEZO/BEVA and LEN as first-line therapies for HCC.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>This study was a retrospective analysis of 810 patients with HCC who underwent ATEZO/BEVA (n = 186) or LEN (n = 624) as first-line systemic therapy between March 20 ...[more]

PMID: 36272060

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA growing body of evidence suggests that non-viral hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) might benefit less from immunotherapy.Materials and methodsWe carried out a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from consecutive patients with non-viral advanced HCC, treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib, or sorafenib, in 36 centers in 4 countries (Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, and UK). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib, and OS and PFS with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib. For the primary and secondary endpoints, we carried out the analysis on the whole population first, and then we divided the cohort into two groups: non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) population and non-NAFLD/NASH population.ResultsOne hundred and ninety patients received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, 569 patients received lenvatinib, and 210 patients received sorafenib. In the whole population, multivariate analysis showed that treatment with lenvatinib was associated with a longer OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-0.95; P = 0.0268] and PFS (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.51-0.86; P = 0.002) compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In the NAFLD/NASH population, multivariate analysis confirmed that lenvatinib treatment was associated with a longer OS (HR 0.46; 95% CI 0.26-0.84; P = 0.0110) and PFS (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.38-0.82; P = 0.031) compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In the subgroup of non-NAFLD/NASH patients, no difference in OS or PFS was observed between patients treated with lenvatinib and those treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. All these results were confirmed following propensity score matching analysis. By comparing patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib, no statistically significant difference in survival was observed.ConclusionsThe present analysis conducted on a large number of advanced non-viral HCC patients showed for the first time that treatment with lenvatinib is associated with a significant survival benefit compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, in particular in patients with NAFLD/NASH-related HCC.

Project description:BackgroundLenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab(A + B) have been used for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as first-line therapy. Real-world studies comparison of efficacy and safety in these two regimens are limited, we therefore conduct this study to investigate these issues.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed patients received lenvatinib (n = 46) and A + B (n = 46) as first-line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC in a tertiary medical center. Objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST). Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed for baseline clinical features balance.ResultsA total of 92 patients with median age of 63.8 year-old, 78.3% male, 85.9% viral hepatitis infected, 67.4% BCLC stage C were enrolled. The median treatment and follow-up duration were 4.7 months and 9.4 months, respectively. There was no significant difference in ORR (26.1% vs. 41.3%, p = 0.1226), PFS (5.9 vs. 5.3 months, p = 0.4066), and OS (not reached vs. not reached, p = 0.7128) between the lenvatinib and A + B groups. After IPW, the results of survival and response rate were also compared. Subgroup analysis suggested that using lenvatinib was not inferior to A + B in regards of PFS, including those with elder, Child-Pugh class B, beyond up-to-seven, or portal vein invasion VP4 patients. Among the lenvatinib treated patients, multivariate analysis showed patients elder than 65-year-old was an independent predictor associated with shorter PFS (adjust HR: 2.085[0.914-4.753], p = 0.0213). The incidence rates of adverse events were similar between two groups (76 vs. 63%, p = 0.1740). Both of two regimens had similarly few impact on liver function by comparison of baseline, third month, and sixth month albumin-bilirubin index and Child-Pugh score.ConclusionsThe efficacy and safety of lenvatinib are similar to A + B as a first-line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC.

Project description:ImportanceTreatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may prolong overall survival among patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. However, to our knowledge, the cost-effectiveness of using this high-priced therapy for this indication is currently unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used a partitioned survival model consisting of 3 discrete health states to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib. The characteristics of patients in the model were similar to patients in a phase 3, open-label randomized clinical trial (IMbrave150) who had unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and had not previously received systemic treatment. Key clinical data were generated from the IMbrave150 trial conducted between March 15, 2018, and January 30, 2019, and cost and health preference data were collected from the literature.Main outcomes and measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net health benefits, and incremental net monetary benefits were calculated for the 2 treatment strategies. Subgroup, 1-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsTreatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab added 0.530 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $89 807 compared with sorafenib therapy, which had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $169 223 per QALY gained. The incremental net health benefit was -0.068 QALYs, and the incremental net monetary benefit was -$10 202 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab achieved a 35% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival. The subgroup analysis found that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with preferred incremental net health benefits in several subgroups, including patients with hepatitis B and C.Conclusions and relevanceAtezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Reducing the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab may improve cost-effectiveness. The economic outcomes also may be improved by tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/bev) treatment has been developed for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC), changes in hepatic function during therapy have yet to be reported.AimThis retrospective clinical study aimed to elucidate early responses to Atez/Bev.MethodsFrom September 2020 to April 2021, 171 u-HCC patients undergoing Atez/Bev treatment were enrolled (BCLC stage A:B:C:D = 5:68:96:2). Of those, 75 had no prior history of systemic treatment. Relative changes in hepatic function and therapeutic response were assessed using albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), ver. 1.1, respectively.ResultsIn initial imaging examination findings, objective response rates for early tumor shrinkage and disease control after 6 weeks (ORR-6W/DCR-6W) were 10.6%/79.6%. Similar response results were observed in patients with and without a past history of systemic treatment (ORR-6W/DCR-6W = 9.7%/77.8% and 12.2%/82.9%), as well as patients in whom Atez/Bev was used as post-progression treatment following lenvatinib (ORR-6W/DCR-6W = 7.7%/79.5%), for which no known effective post-progression treatment has been established. In 111 patients who underwent a 6-week observation period, ALBI score was significantly worsened at 3 weeks after introducing Atez/Bev (-2.525 ± 0.419 vs -2.323 ± 0.445, p < .001), but then recovered at 6-weeks (-2.403 ± 0.452) as compared to 3-weeks (p = .001). During the observation period, the most common adverse events were appetite loss (all grades) (12.3%), general fatigue/hypertension (all grades) (11.1%, respectively), and urine protein (all grades) (10.5%).ConclusionAtez/Bev might have therapeutic potential not only as first but also later-line treatment of existing molecular target agents. In addition, this drug combination may have less influence on hepatic function during the early period, as the present patients showed a good initial therapeutic response.

Project description:Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab are promising agents for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We tried to guide the treatment based on recent developed CRAFITY score combining with on-treatment AFP response. Eighty-nine patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab regardless of as a first-line therapy or not for unresectable HCC were enrolled for analyses. Radiologic evaluation was based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST). The objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 25.0% and 65.5%, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed that low CRAFITY score (AFP<100 ng/ml or CRP<10 mg/l) and satisfactory AFP response at 6 weeks (≥75% decrease or ≤10% increase from baseline) were independent factors determining good overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR]=0.143, P=0.002 & HR=0.337, P=0.031), progression-free survival (PFS) (HR=0.419, P=0.022 & HR=0.429, P=0.025) and good responder (odds ratio [OR]=1.763, P=0.044 & OR=3.881, P=0.011). Patients were further divided into three classes by combination of CRAFITY score and AFP response at 6 weeks [The CAR (CRAFITY score and AFP-Response) classification)]: low CRAFITY score with satisfactory AFP response at 6 weeks (class I), either high CRAFITY score or unsatisfactory AFP response at 6 weeks (class II) and high CRAFITY score together with unsatisfactory AFP response at 6 weeks (class III). ORR was 35.0%, 18.2%, and 0% in class I, II and III patients, respectively (overall P=0.034). Patients in the class I had the best OS and PFS, followed by class II and class III (median OS: not reached vs. 11.1 vs. 4.3 months, log-rank P<0.001; median PFS: 7.9 vs. 6.6 vs. 2.6 months, log-rank P=0.001). Combination CRAFITY score and AFP response at 6 weeks with AUROC predicts OS and tumor response to be 0.809 and 0.798, respectively, better than either CRAFITY score (0.771 & 0.750) or AFP response at 6 weeks (0.725 & 0.680) alone. In conclusions, the CAR classification which combining CRAFITY score and AFP response at 6 weeks provides a practical guidance for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy in unresectable HCC patients.

Dataset Information

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Lenvatinib as First-Line Therapy for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Background

Objective

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparison of Efficacy and Safety of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Lenvatinib as First-Line Therapy for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets