Does first‐line treatment have prognostic impact for unresectable HCC?—Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib

Abstract

Abstract Background/Aim A comparison of therapeutic efficacy between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) and lenvatinib treatment given as first‐line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u‐HCC) in regard to progression‐free survival (PFS) overall survival (OS) has not been reported. We aimed to elucidate which of those given as initial treatment for u‐HCC has greater prognostic impact on PFS and OS of affected patients, retrospectively. Materials/Methods From 2020 to January 2022, 251 u‐HCC (Child–Pugh A, ECOG PS 0/1, BCLC‐B/C) treated were enrolled (Atez/Bev‐group, n = 194; lenvatinib‐group, n = 57). PFS and OS were analyzed following adjustment based on inverse probability weighting (IPW). Results There was a greater number of patients with macro‐vascular invasion in Atez/Bev‐group (22.7% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.022). In lenvatinib‐group, the frequencies of appetite loss (38.6% vs. 19.6%, p = 0.002), hypothyroidism (21.1% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.004), hand foot skin reaction (19.3% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.001), and diarrhea (10.5% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.012) were greater, while that of general fatigue was lower (22.8% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.008). Comparisons of therapeutic best response using modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (mRECIST) did not show significant differences between the present groups (Atez/Bev vs. lenvatinib: CR/PR/SD/PD = 6.1%/39.1%/39.1%/15.6% vs. 0%/48.0%/38.0%/14.0%, p = 0.285). In patients of discontinuation of treatments, 48.2% switched to lenvatinib, 10.6% continued beyond PD, 8.2% received another systemic treatment, 5.9% underwent transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), 3.5% received hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), and 1.2% underwent surgical resection in Atez/Bev‐group, while 42.2% switched to Atez/Bev, 4.4% continued beyond PD, 4.4% received another systemic treatment, 2.2% nivolumab, 6.7% received TACE, and 2.2% received HAIC in lenvatinib‐group. Following adjustment with inverse probability weighting (IPW), Atez/Bev‐group showed better PFS (0.5−/1−/1.5‐years: 56.6%/31.6%/non‐estimable vs. 48.6%/20.4%/11.2%, p < 0.0001) and OS rates (0.5−/1−/1.5‐years: 89.6%/67.2%/58.1% vs. 77.8%/66.2%/52.7%, p = 0.002). Conclusion The present study showed that u‐HCC patients who received Atez/Bev as a first‐line treatment may have a better prognosis than those who received lenvatinib.

Keywords

• atezolizumab plus bevacizumab
• hepatocellular carcinoma
• lenvatinib
• prognosis