4.6 Article

Similar efficacy and safety between lenvatinib versus atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as the first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Journal

CANCER MEDICINE
Volume 12, Issue 6, Pages 7077-7089

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5506

Keywords

adverse event; atezolizumab plus bevacizumab; hepatocellular carcinoma; lenvatinib; survival

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study retrospectively compared the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line systemic therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. The results showed no significant differences in objective response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival between the two regimens. Subgroup analysis suggested that lenvatinib was not inferior to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in terms of progression-free survival in certain patient populations. Both regimens had similar incidence rates of adverse events and impact on liver function.
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.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available