共0篇 平均IF=NaN (-) 更多分析

    加载中

    logo
    Efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in Korean patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver BACKGROUND & AIMS:Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Ate/Bev) has demonstrated efficacy and safety in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the phase III trial. Further evaluation is necessary to investigate the safety and efficacy of Ate/Bev in real settings. METHODS:This was a multicentre retrospective analysis. Between May 2020 and February 2021, 138 patients received Ate/Bev as first-line treatment for advanced HCC from 11 institutions. We excluded patients with Child-Pugh B or C and BCLC D stage, and the remaining 121 patients were included in this analysis. RESULTS:According to RECIST 1.1, the objective response and disease control rates were 24.0% and 76.0%. The median follow-up duration was 5.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.4-6.4), the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months (95% CI, 4.1-9.0), and median overall survival (OS) was not reached (95% CI, not available). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse event was aspartate aminotransferase elevation (10.7%). In the multivariate analyses, AFP increase (P = .037), baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥ 5 (P = .023), and best response to stable disease or progressive disease (P = .019) were significantly associated with worse PFS. Macrovascular invasion (P = .048) and baseline NLR ≥5 (P < .001) were significantly associated with worse OS. CONCLUSIONS:Ate/Bev showed real-life efficacy and safety in Korean patients with advanced HCC, in line with results from phase III trial. Considering unfavourable survival outcomes of Ate/Bev in patients with elevated NLR, careful assessment of treatment response needs to be performed in this group. 10.1111/liv.15102
    Characterization of response to atezolizumab + bevacizumab versus sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma: Results from the IMbrave150 trial. Salem Riad,Li Daneng,Sommer Nicolas,Hernandez Sairy,Verret Wendy,Ding Beiying,Lencioni Riccardo Cancer medicine BACKGROUND:IMbrave150 is a phase III trial that assessed atezolizumab + bevacizumab (ATEZO/BEV) versus sorafenib (SOR) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and demonstrated a significant improvement in clinical outcomes. Exploratory analyses characterized objective response rate (ORR), depth (DpR), and duration of response (DoR), and patients with a complete response (CR). METHODS:Patients were randomized 2:1 to intravenous ATEZO (1200 mg) + BEV (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks or oral SOR (400 mg) twice daily. Tumors were evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) and HCC-modified RECIST (mRECIST). ORR by prior treatment and largest baseline liver lesion size, DoR, time to response (TTR), and complete response (TTCR) were analyzed. RESULTS:For both criteria, responses favored ATEZO/BEV versus SOR regardless of prior treatment and in patients with lesions ≥3 cm. Median TTR was 2.8 months per RECIST 1.1 (range: 1.2-12.3 months) and 2.8 months per mRECIST (range: 1.1-12.3 months) with ATEZO/BEV. Patients receiving ATEZO/BEV had a greater DpR, per both criteria, across baseline liver lesion sizes. Characteristics of complete responders were similar to those of the intent-to-treat population. In complete responders receiving ATEZO/BEV per mRECIST versus RECIST 1.1, respectively, median TTCR was shorter (5.5 vs. 7.0 months), mean baseline sum of lesion diameter was longer (5.0 [SD, 5.1] vs. 2.6 [SD, 1.4] cm), and mean largest liver lesion size was larger (4.8 [SD, 4.2] vs. 2.3 [SD, 1.0] cm). CONCLUSIONS:These data highlight the improved ORR, DpR, and CR rates with ATEZO/BEV in unresectable HCC. 10.1002/cam4.4090
    Atezolizumab and bevacizumab combination compared with sorafenib as the first-line systemic treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A cost-effectiveness analysis in China and the United states. Wen Feng,Zheng Hanrui,Zhang Pengfei,Liao Weiting,Zhou Kexun,Li Qiu Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver BACKGROUND & AIMS:In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival compared with sorafenib in the IMbrave150 trial. However, whether the price of the combination could be affordable is unknown. The current study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab as first-line systemic therapy for patients with unresectable HCC from the Chinese and American payers' perspective. METHODS:A Markov model was built based on a global, multicentre, open-label, phase III randomized trial (IMbrave150, NCT03434379) that included three states of the patient's health: stable disease (SD), progressive disease (PD) and death. Data for all medical costs were acquired from the Red Book, published literature and West China Hospital. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were the primary outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the model uncertainty. RESULTS:The treatment consisting of a combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab yielded an additional 0.53 QALYs compared with sorafenib alone, leading to an ICER of $145,546.21 per QALY in China and $168,030.21 per QALY in the USA, both beyond the willing-to-pay threshold ($28,527.00/QALY in China and $150,000.00 /QALY in the USA). The utility of the PD state was the most influential factor in the Chinese model, and the American model was the most sensitive to the price of sorafenib. The results of the models were robust across sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION:The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab was not a cost-effective strategy for the first-line systemic treatment of unresectable HCC from the Chinese and American payers' perspective. 10.1111/liv.14795
    Early response and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in patients who do not meet IMbrave150 eligibility criteria. Sho Takuya,Suda Goki,Ogawa Koji,Kimura Megumi,Kubo Akinori,Tokuchi Yoshimasa,Kitagataya Takashi,Maehara Osamu,Ohnishi Shunsuke,Shigesawa Taku,Nakamura Akihisa,Yamada Ren,Ohara Masatsugu,Kawagishi Naoki,Natsuizaka Mitsuteru,Nakai Masato,Morikawa Kenichi,Furuya Ken,Baba Masaru,Yamamoto Yoshiya,Suzuki Kazuharu,Izumi Takaaki,Meguro Takashi,Terashita Katsumi,Ito Jun,Miyagishima Takuto,Sakamoto Naoya Hepatology research : the official journal of the Japan Society of Hepatology AIM:A clinical trial (IMbrave150) indicated the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this study, we evaluated this therapeutic combination in a real-world setting, with a focus on patients who did not meet the IMbrave150 eligibility criteria. METHODS:In this multicenter study, patients with unresectable HCC treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab between October 2020 and May 2021 were screened. In patients who did not meet IMbrave150 eligibility criteria, treatment responses and safety at 6 and 12 weeks were evaluated. RESULTS:Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was initiated in 64 patients, including 46 patients (71.9%) who did not meet IMbrave150 eligibility criteria. Most of these patients had a history of systemic therapy (44/46). The objective response rate and disease control rate observed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 were 5.2% and 82.8% at 6 weeks and 10.0% and 84.0% at 12 weeks, respectively; these rates were similar between patients who met and did not meet the IMbrave150 criteria. Ten patients experienced progressive disease (PD) at 6 weeks. Portal vein tumor thrombosis was significantly associated with PD (p = 0.039); none of the 15 patients with hepatitis B virus-related HCC experienced PD (p = 0.050). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or higher were aspartate aminotransferase elevation (n = 8, 13.8%) and the safety profile was similar between patients who met and did not meet the IMbrave150 criteria. CONCLUSION:Most patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab did not meet the IMbrave150 criteria; however, the combination therapy showed good safety and efficacy at the early treatment phase. 10.1111/hepr.13693
    Safety and efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in early clinical practice: A multicenter analysis. Chuma Makoto,Uojima Haruki,Hattori Nobuhiro,Arase Yoshitaka,Fukushima Taito,Hirose Shunji,Kobayashi Satoshi,Ueno Makoto,Tezuka Shun,Iwasaki Shuichiro,Wada Naohisa,Kubota Kousuke,Tsuruya Kota,Shimma Yoshimasa,Hiroki Ikeda,Takuya Ehira,Tokoro Chikako,Iwase Shigeru,Miura Yuki,Moriya Satoshi,Watanabe Tsunamasa,Hidaka Hisashi,Morimoto Manabu,Numata Kazushi,Kusano Chika,Kagawa Tatehiro,Maeda Shin Hepatology research : the official journal of the Japan Society of Hepatology PURPOSE:To assess the impact of clinical factors on the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATZ + BV) treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC). METHOD:Ninety-four u-HCC patients who were treated with ATZ + BV at multiple centers were enrolled. We defined Child-Pugh (CP)-A patients who received ATZ + BV treatment as a first line therapy as the 'meets the broad sense of the IMbrave150 criteria' group (B-IMbrave150-in, n = 46), and patients who received ATZ + BV treatment as a later line therapy or CP-B patients (regardless of whether ATZ + BV was a first line or later line therapy) as the B-IMbrave150-out group (n = 48). Patients were retrospectively analyzed for adverse events (AEs) and treatment outcomes according to their clinical characteristics, including neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) at baseline. RESULTS:The overall incidence of AEs was 87.2% (82/94 patients). The frequency of interruption of ATZ + BV treatment due to fatigue was higher in CP-B than CP-A patients (p = 0.030). Objective response (OR) rates of the B-IMbrave150-in group (28.3%, 39.1%) were significantly higher than those of the B-IMbrave150-out group (8.3%, 18.8%; p = 0.0157, 0.0401) using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST, respectively. In multivariate analysis, NLR (hazard ratio (HR), 4.591; p = 0.0160) and B-IMbrave150 criteria (HR, 4.108; p = 0.0261) were independent factors associated with the OR of ATZ + BV treatment using RECIST. CONCLUSION:In real-world practice, ATZ + BV treatment might offer significant benefits in patients who meet B-IMbrave150 criteria or have low NLR. 10.1111/hepr.13732
    Letter to the editor: Preliminary evidence of safety and tolerability of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh A and B cirrhosis: A real-world study-Should we extend the boundaries? Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) 10.1002/hep.32554
    Pathological Complete Response to Lenvatinib after Failure of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Liver cancer 10.1159/000520898
    Real-world Treatment Patterns and Reasons for Therapy Selection in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in US Oncology Practices. Klink Andrew J,Marshall Landon Z,Aly Abdalla,Seal Brian,Healey Marcus J,Feinberg Bruce The oncologist BACKGROUND:The treatment landscape for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) is rapidly expanding beyond tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in the first-line (1L) setting, with multiple TKIs and immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) now being evaluated in combination. Real-world evidence describing current treatment patterns and reasons for 1L and 2L treatment selection in aHCC is sparse. PATIENTS AND METHODS:A retrospective cohort study with a cross-sectional survey element was conducted using Cardinal Health's Oncology Provider Extended Network. U.S. medical oncologists identified adult aHCC patients initiating 1L systemic therapy between January 1, 2017 and July 31, 2019 and abstracted data from patient medical records. Data included provider characteristics, patient demographics and clinical characteristics, treatment regimens, and physician rationale for treatment regimen choice. RESULTS:A total of 44 medical oncologists provided data on 284 aHCC patients. The median age at 1L initiation was 61.5 years, and the majority were male (78%) and white (66%). Nearly half (47%) initiated 1L treatment in 2019, 34% were ECOG performance status 2+, and 63% were Child-Pugh Class B/C. Among the 284 aHCC patients, TKIs were used by 94% of patients in the 1L setting, comprised predominantly of sorafenib (54%) and lenvatinib (38%). ICIs were most common among the 90 patients (66%) who received 2L treatment. CONCLUSION:In the community-oncology practice setting, nearly all aHCC patients received sorafenib or lenvatinib in the 1L setting, while the majority of patients received an ICI in the 2L setting. With recent ICI approvals in aHCC, this marks the beginning of an increased use of ICIs in the 1L setting. 10.1093/oncolo/oyab059
    Bayesian Analysis Supports Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Liver cancer 10.1159/000520481
    Sintilimab Plus Bevacizumab Biosimilar Versus Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Peng Ye,Zeng Xiaohui,Peng Liubao,Liu Qiao,Yi Lidan,Luo Xia,Li Sini,Wang Liting,Qin Shuxia,Wan Xiaomin,Tan Chongqing Frontiers in pharmacology : The ORIENT-32 clinical trial revealed that sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar significantly improved the median progression-free survival and median overall survival (OS) compared with sorafenib. This analysis evaluated the cost-effectiveness of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar as a first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the Chinese perspective of healthcare system. : A Markov model with three mutual health states was constructed to evaluate the economic outcome of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar. The model cycle was 21 days, and the simulation time horizon was a lifetime. The output parameters of the model were the total cost, life-year (LY), quality-adjusted LY (QALY), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess the robustness of the results. : The base-case results found that sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar provided an improvement of 1.27 QALYs and 1.84 LYs compared with sorafenib, and the ICER was $23,352/QALY. The hazard ratio for OS had the greatest influence on the ICER. The probability of sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar was 85% at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $30,552/QALY. : The findings of this analysis suggested that sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar was a cost-effective first-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. 10.3389/fphar.2022.778505
    Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab vs. Lenvatinib as First-Line Therapy for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Real-World, Multi-Center Study. Cancers Lenvatinib (LENV) and atezolizumab/bevacizumab (ATE/BEV) have been approved as first-line regimens for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to compare their clinical efficacy and safety. Patients receiving ATE/BEV ( = 86) or LENV ( = 146) as first-line treatment were recruited from three academic hospitals in Korea. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and radiological response were assessed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Clinical features of the two groups were balanced through propensity score (PS) matching with a 1:1 ratio and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analyses. The median age was 62 years, with male predominance (83.6%). There was no significant difference in the objective response rate between the ATE/BEV and LENV groups (32.6% vs. 31.5%; = 0.868). Neither median OS (not reached vs. 12.8 months; = 0.357) nor PFS (5.7 vs. 6.0 months; = 0.738) was different between ATE/BEV and LENV groups. PS-matched and IPTW analyses yielded comparable results in terms of OS and PFS (all &gt; 0.05). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 42.8% and 21.9% of patients in the ATE/BEV and LENV groups, respectively ( = 0.141). The two first-line therapy regimens for unresectable HCC had comparable clinical efficacy and safety in real-world practice settings. Further studies with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are needed to validate these results. 10.3390/cancers14071747
    Letter to the editor: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for hepatocellular carcinoma in the real world. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) 10.1002/hep.32588
    Serum concentration of CD137 and tumor infiltration by M1 macrophages predict the response to sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Zhang Wen,Gong Caifeng,Peng Xuenan,Bi Xinyu,Sun Yongkun,Zhou Jianguo,Wu Fan,Zeng Huiying,Wang Yan,Zhou Hui,Zhao Hong,Cai Jianqiang,Zhou Aiping Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research PURPOSE:This study aimed to investigate the biomarkers of sintilimab (anti-PD-1) plus IBI305 (a bevacizumab biosimilar) in advanced HCC, as well as their safety and efficacy. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:A total of 50 patients with advanced HCC received sintilimab (200 mg) plus IBI305 (7.5 or 15 mg/kg), treated every 3 weeks in a phase 1b clinical study. We performed baseline serum cytokine analysis using bead-based multiplex immunoassay and multiplex immunofluorescence on tissue specimens to discover novel biomarkers of response to VEGF/PD-1 combination therapy in HCC. RESULTS:The overall response rate was 34.0% (17/50). The median progression-free survival (PFS) and the median overall survival were 10.5 and 20.2 months, respectively. The incidence of grade 3-5 adverse events was lower in the 7.5 mg/kg (13.8%) than in the 15 mg/kg (28.6%) dose groups. Biomarker analysis showed that the serum CD137 concentration was significantly higher in patients with clinical benefit (CB) than in those without CB (median, 32.8 vs 19.8 pg/mL, P = 0.034). A markedly longer PFS was observed in patients with high CD137 concentrations compared to those with low concentrations (median, 14.2 vs 4.1 months, P = 0.001). The higher density of M1 macrophages (CD68+CD163-) in the stroma was also associated with higher efficacy (P = 0.033) and a longer PFS (P = 0.024). CONCLUSION:Sintilimab plus IBI305 was well tolerated and was effective therapy for advanced HCC. Both serum concentrations of CD137 and tumor infiltration of M1 macrophages may serve as potential predictive biomarkers. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3972
    Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Hou Yanli,Wu Bin Cancer communications (London, England) 10.1002/cac2.12110
    Objective response by mRECIST as a predictor and potential surrogate end-point of overall survival in advanced HCC. Lencioni Riccardo,Montal Robert,Torres Ferran,Park Joong-Won,Decaens Thomas,Raoul Jean-Luc,Kudo Masatoshi,Chang Charissa,Ríos José,Boige Valerie,Assenat Eric,Kang Yoon-Koo,Lim Ho-Yeong,Walters Ian,Llovet Josep M Journal of hepatology BACKGROUND & AIMS:The Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) was developed to overcome the limitations of standard RECIST criteria in response assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to investigate whether objective response by mRECIST accurately predicted overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced HCC treated with systemic targeted therapies and also to preliminarily assess this end-point as a potential surrogate of OS. METHODS:Individual patient data from the BRISK-PS randomized phase III trial comparing brivanib vs. placebo (the first to prospectively incorporate mRECIST) were used to analyze objective response as a predictor of OS in a time-dependent covariate analysis. Patients with available imaging scans during follow-up were included (n=334; 85% of those randomized). Moreover, a correlation of the survival probability in deciles vs. the observed objective response was performed to evaluate its suitability as a surrogate end-point. RESULTS:Objective response was observed in 11.5% and 1.9% of patients treated with brivanib and placebo respectively, and was associated with a better survival (median OS 15.0 vs. 9.4months, p<0.001). In addition, objective response had an independent prognostic value (HR=0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.91, p=0.025) along with known prognostic factors. Finally, objective response showed promising results as a surrogate of OS in this trial (R=-0.92; 95% CI, -1 to -0.73, p<0.001). It was an early indicator of the treatment effect (median time to objective response was 1.4months). CONCLUSIONS:Objective response by mRECIST in advanced HCC predicts OS and thus can be considered as a candidate surrogate end-point. Further studies are needed to support this finding. LAY SUMMARY:There is a need to identify surrogate end-points for overall survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We studied patients from the phase III BRISK trial, comparing brivanib treatment with placebo after sorafenib progression. We demonstrate that objective response is an independent predictor of survival and qualifies as a potential surrogate end-point for overall survival in this patient population. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER:NCT00825955. 10.1016/j.jhep.2017.01.012
    Objective Response Predicts Survival in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma treated with Systemic Therapies. Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research PURPOSE:Due to the increased number of sequential treatments used for advanced HCC, there is a need for surrogate endpoints of overall survival (OS). We analyze if objective response (OR) is an independent predictor and surrogate endpoint of OS. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:A systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in advanced HCC published between 2010 and 2020 was conducted to explore OS surrogacy of OR by RECIST and mRECIST. In parallel, RCTs exploring the impact of OR on OS in a time-dependent multivariate analysis were integrated in a meta-analysis. RESULTS:Out of 65 RCTs identified in advanced HCC, we analyzed 34 studies including 14,056 patients that reported OS and OR by either RECIST (n=23), mRECIST (n=5) or both (n=6). When exploring surrogacy, the trial-level correlation between OR odds ratio and OS hazard ratio was R=0.677 by mRECIST and R=0.532 by RECIST. Meta-analysis of five RCT assessing predictors of survival in multivariate analysis found that patients with OR by mRECIST presented a pooled HR for OS of 0.44 (95% CI, 0.27-0.70, p<0.001) compared with non-responders. Responses to atezolizumab-bevacizumab had a greater impact on OS than tyrosine-kinase inhibitor responses. CONCLUSIONS:OR-mRECIST is an independent predictor of OS in patients with advanced HCC. Although correlation of OR-mRECIST and OS is better than with OR-RECIST, the level of surrogacy is modest. Thus, it can be used as endpoint in proof-of-concept phase II trials, but the data does not support its use as a primary endpoint of phase III investigations assessing systemic therapies. 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-3135
    Preliminary evidence of safety and tolerability of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh A and B cirrhosis: A real-world study. Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) BACKGROUND AND AIMS:Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AtezoBev) is the standard of care for first-line treatment of unresectable HCC. No evidence exists as to its use in routine clinical practice in patients with impaired liver function. APPROACH AND RESULTS:In 216 patients with HCC who were consecutively treated with AtezoBev across 11 tertiary centers, we retrospectively evaluated treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) graded (G) according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0, including in the analysis all patients treated according to label (n = 202, 94%). We also assessed overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response (ORR), and disease control rates (DCR) defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Disease was mostly secondary to viral hepatitis, namely hepatitis C (n = 72; 36%) and hepatitis B infection (n = 35, 17%). Liver function was graded as Child-Pugh (CP)-A in 154 patients (76%) and CP-B in 48 (24%). Any grade trAEs were reported by 143 patients (71%), of which 53 (26%) were G3 and 3 (2%) G4. Compared with CP-A, patients with CP-B showed comparable rates of trAEs. Presence and grade of varices at pretreatment esophagogastroduodenoscopy did not correlate with bleeding events. After a median follow-up of 9.0 months (95% CI, 7.8-10.1), median OS was 14.9 months (95% CI, 13.6-16.3), whereas median PFS was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.2-8.5). ORR and DCR were respectively 25% and 73%, with no difference across CP classes. CONCLUSIONS:This study confirms reproducible safety and efficacy of AtezoBev in routine practice. Patients with CP-B reported similar tolerability compared with CP-A, warranting prospective evaluation of AtezoBev in this treatment-deprived population. 10.1002/hep.32468
    Outcomes and Toxicities of Modern Combined Modality Therapy with Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab and Radiation Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Cancers Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has become frontline therapy for unresectable HCC. The compatibility of atezolizumab/bevacizumab with liver-directed RT has not been reported. METHODS:HCC patients treated with liver-directed RT and atezolizumab/bevacizumab between 1/2020-11/2021 were included. Toxicity and outcomes were retrospectively recorded. For ALCs, we matched the analysis to a previously cohort of RT-treated HCC patients who did not receive atezolizumab/bevacizumab. Survival and time-to-liver-failure were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier. RESULTS:Of 21 patients, with a median follow-up of 9.5 months, the median OS was 16.1 months. Post-RT, all patients had reduced tumors or treatment response. There were no ≥Grade 3 RT-related toxicities. Autoimmune complications occurred in two patients (9.5%), and GI bleeding in three patients (14.3%). Liver function remained stable post-RT. There was a marked decrease in ALCs immediately post-RT (post-RT/pre-RT ratio 47.3%, &lt; 0.0001), restored by 1 month to pre-treatment baseline (1-month post-RT/pre-RT ratio 95.1%, n.s.). Compared to HCC patients treated with RT alone, post-RT ALC recovery was faster with atezolizumab/bevacizumab ( = 0.009). CONCLUSION:In this first reported experience of RT with modern systemic therapy for HCC, combination therapy is safe and well-tolerated. As a favorable prognosticator, there appears to be faster recovery of ALC among patients who received RT with atezolizumab/bevacizumab. 10.3390/cancers14081901
    The Prognostic Value of Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratio in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab. Wang Jing-Houng,Chen Yen-Yang,Kee Kwong-Ming,Wang Chih-Chi,Tsai Ming-Chao,Kuo Yuan-Hung,Hung Chao-Hung,Li Wei-Feng,Lai Hsiang-Lan,Chen Yen-Hao Cancers Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has been approved as the first-line systemic treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). This study was designed to assess the clinical impact of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in uHCC patients. A total of 48 uHCC patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab were identified, including first-line, second-line, third-line, and later-line settings. In these patients, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.0 months, including 5.0 months for the first-line treatment, not reached for the second-line treatment, and 2.5 months for the third line and later line treatment. The objective response rate and disease control rate to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab were 27.1% and 68.8%, respectively. The severity of most adverse events was predominantly grade 1-2, and most patients tolerated the toxicities. The ratios of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte (PLR) were used to predict PFS in these patients. The optimal cutoff values of NLR and PLR were 3 and 230, and NLR and PLR were independent prognostic factors for superior PFS in the univariate and multivariate analyses. Our study confirms the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in uHCC patients in clinical practice and demonstrates the prognostic role of NLR and PLR for PFS in these patients. 10.3390/cancers14020343
    Efficacy and Safety of Atezolizumab and Bevacizumab in the Real-World Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Experience from Four Tertiary Centers. Cancers The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A + B) is the new standard of care for the systemic first-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, up to now there are only few data on the safety and efficacy of A + B in real life. We included patients with advanced HCC treated with A + B as first-line therapy at four cancer centers in Germany and Austria between December 2018 and August 2021. Demographics, overall survival (OS), and adverse events were assessed until 15 September 2021. We included 66 patients. Most patients had compensated cirrhosis (n = 34; 52%), while Child-Pugh class B cirrhosis was observed in 23 patients (35%), and class C cirrhosis in 5 patients (8%). The best responses included a complete response (CR) in 7 patients (11%), a partial response (PR) in 12 patients (18%), stable disease (SD) in 22 patients (33%), and progressive disease in 11 patients (17%) The median progression-free (PFS) survival was 6.5 months, while the median overall survival (OS) was not reached in this cohort (6-month OS: 69%, 12-month OS: 60%, 18-month OS: 58%). Patients with viral hepatitis seemed to have a better prognosis than patients with HCC of non-viral etiology. The real-world PFS and OS were comparable to those of the pivotal IMBRAVE trial, despite including patients with worse liver function in this study. We conclude that A + B is also highly effective in a real-life setting, with manageable toxicity, especially in patients with compensated liver disease. In patients with compromised liver function (Child B and C), the treatment showed low efficacy and, therefore, it should be well considered before administration to these patients. 10.3390/cancers14071722
    Atezolizumab and bevacizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with impaired liver function and prior systemic therapy: a real-world experience. Therapeutic advances in medical oncology Objective:Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab/bevacizumab in a real-world HCC cohort, including patients with impaired liver function and prior systemic therapy. Methods:Retrospective analysis of 147 HCC patients treated with atezolizumab/bevacizumab at six sites in Germany and Austria. Results:The overall response rate and disease control rate were 20.4% and 51.7%, respectively. Seventy-three patients (49.7%) met at least one major exclusion criterion of the IMbrave150 trial (IMbrave-OUT), whereas 74 patients (50.3%) were eligible (IMbrave-IN). Median overall survival (mOS) as well as median progression-free survival (mPFS) was significantly longer in IMbrave-IN IMbrave-OUT patients [mOS: 15.0 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 10.7-19.3] 6.0 months (95% CI: 3.2-8.9;  < 0.001) and mPFS: 8.7 months (95% CI: 5.9-11.5) 3.7 months (95% CI: 2.7-4.7;  < 0.001)]. Prior systemic treatment did not significantly affect mOS [hazard ratio (HR): 1.32 (95% CI: 0.78-2.23;  = 0.305)]. mOS according to ALBI grades 1/2/3 were 15.0 months (95% CI: not estimable), 8.6 months (95% CI: 5.4-11.7), and 3.2 months (95% CI: 0.3-6.1), respectively. ALBI grade and ECOG score were identified as independent prognostic factors [ALBI grade 2 1; HR: 2.40 (95% CI: 1.34 - 4.30;  = 0.003), ALBI grade 3 1; HR: 7.28 (95% CI: 3.30-16.08;  < 0.001), and ECOG ⩾2 0; HR: 2.09 (95% CI: 1.03 - 4.23;  = 0.042)], respectively. Sixty-seven patients (45.6%) experienced an adverse event classified as CTCAE grade ⩾3. Patients in the IMbrave-OUT group were at increased risk of hepatic decompensation with encephalopathy (13.7% 1.4%,  = 0.004) and/or ascites (39.7% 9.5%;  < 0.001). Conclusion:In this real-world cohort, efficacy was comparable to the results of the IMbrave150 study and not affected by prior systemic treatment. ALBI grade and ECOG score were independently associated with survival. IMbrave-OUT patients were more likely to experience hepatic decompensation. 10.1177/17588359221080298
    First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Chiang Chi-Leung,Chan Sik-Kwan,Lee Shing-Fung,Choi Horace Cheuk-Wai Cancers BACKGROUND:The IMbrave 150 trial revealed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo-bev) improves survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (1 year survival rate: 67.2% vs. 54.6%). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezo-bev vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable HCC from the US payer perspective. METHODS:Using data from the IMbrave 150, we developed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of atezo-bev as first-line systemic therapy in HCC with those of sorafenib. The main outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS:Atezo-bev demonstrated a gain of 0.44 QALYs, with an additional cost of USD 79,074. The ICER of atezo-bev was USD 179,729 per QALY when compared with sorafenib. The model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. If we assumed that all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of HCC, atezo-bev was cost-effective (ICER USD 53,854 per QALY). However, if all patients followed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, the ICER of atezo-bev was USD 385,857 per QALY. Reducing the price of atezo-bev by 20% and 29% would satisfy the USD 150,000/QALY and 100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Moreover, capping the duration of therapy to ≤12 months or reducing the dosage of bev to ≤10 mg/kg would render atezo-bev cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS:The long-term effectiveness of atezo-bev is a critical but uncertain determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Price reduction would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes were modest. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted. 10.3390/cancers13050931
    AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Su Grace L,Altayar Osama,O'Shea Robert,Shah Raj,Estfan Bassam,Wenzell Candice,Sultan Shahnaz,Falck-Ytter Yngve Gastroenterology BACKGROUND & AIMS:Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common primary liver cancer, remains a deadly cancer, with an incidence that has tripled in the United States since 1980. In recent years, new systemic therapies for HCC have been approved and a critical assessment of the existing data is necessary to balance benefits and harms and inform the development of evidence-based guidelines. METHODS:The American Gastroenterological Association formed a multidisciplinary group consisting of a Technical Review Panel and a Guideline Panel. The Technical Review Panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients and conducted an evidence review of systemic therapies in patients with advanced-stage HCC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence. The Guideline Panel reviewed the evidence and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations. RESULTS:The Panel reviewed the evidence, summarized in the Technical Review, for the following medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for HCC: first-line therapies: bevacizumab+atezolizumab, sorafenib, and lenvatinib; second-line therapies: cabozantinib, pembrolizumab, ramucirumab, and regorafenib; and other agents: bevacizumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab+ipilimumab. CONCLUSIONS:The Panel agreed on 11 recommendations focused on systemic therapy for HCC in patients who are not eligible for locoregional therapy or resection, those with metastatic disease and preserved liver function, those with poor liver function, and those on systemic therapy as adjuvant therapy. 10.1053/j.gastro.2021.12.276
    Early Tumor Response and Safety of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab for Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Real-World Practice. Ando Yuwa,Kawaoka Tomokazu,Kosaka Masanari,Shirane Yuki,Johira Yusuke,Miura Ryoichi,Murakami Serami,Yano Shigeki,Amioka Kei,Naruto Kensuke,Kosaka Yumi,Uchikawa Shinsuke,Kodama Kenichiro,Fujino Hatsue,Nakahara Takashi,Ono Atsushi,Murakami Eisuke,Yamauchi Masami,Okamoto Wataru,Takahashi Shoichi,Imamura Michio,Chayama Kazuaki,Aikata Hiroshi Cancers The aim of this study was to investigate the early tumor response and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in real-world practice. Forty patients with Child-Pugh class A liver function and eastern cooperative oncology group performance status 0 or 1 were enrolled. The objective response rate (ORR) at six weeks after the start of treatment, changes in α-fetoprotein (AFP) and des-γ-carboxyprothrombin, incidence of adverse events (AEs), and changes in albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score and serum ammonia level, were evaluated. Among 40 patients, 24 had histories of prior molecular targeted agents (MTAs). The ORR was 22.5% based on mRECIST. Multivariate analysis showed that an AFP ratio <1.0 at three weeks (odds ratio 39.2, 95% confidence interval CI 2.37-649.0, = 0.0103) was the only significant factor for predicting early response. There was no significant difference in the frequency of AEs between patients receiving first-line treatments and others. Fatigue, proteinuria, and ascites were more frequent in patients who experienced prior treatment. No decrease in ALBI score or increase in serum ammonia level was observed. Our study demonstrated that AFP may be useful in assessing early response and that this treatment is safe, including in patients with prior MTA treatments. 10.3390/cancers13163958
    Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immunotherapy for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Greten Tim F,Abou-Alfa Ghassan K,Cheng Ann-Lii,Duffy Austin G,El-Khoueiry Anthony B,Finn Richard S,Galle Peter R,Goyal Lipika,He Aiwu Ruth,Kaseb Ahmed O,Kelley Robin Kate,Lencioni Riccardo,Lujambio Amaia,Mabry Hrones Donna,Pinato David J,Sangro Bruno,Troisi Roberto I,Wilson Woods Andrea,Yau Thomas,Zhu Andrew X,Melero Ignacio Journal for immunotherapy of cancer Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have historically had few options and faced extremely poor prognoses if their disease progressed after standard-of-care tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Recently, the standard of care for HCC has been transformed as a combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) atezolizumab plus the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) antibody bevacizumab was shown to offer improved overall survival in the first-line setting. Immunotherapy has demonstrated safety and efficacy in later lines of therapy as well, and ongoing trials are investigating novel combinations of ICIs and TKIs, in addition to interventions earlier in the course of disease or in combination with liver-directed therapies. Because HCC usually develops against a background of cirrhosis, immunotherapy for liver tumors is complex and oncologists need to account for both immunological and hepatological considerations when developing a treatment plan for their patients. To provide guidance to the oncology community on important concerns for the immunotherapeutic care of HCC, the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop a clinical practice guideline (CPG). The expert panel drew on the published literature as well as their clinical experience to develop recommendations for healthcare professionals on these important aspects of immunotherapeutic treatment for HCC, including diagnosis and staging, treatment planning, immune-related adverse events (irAEs), and patient quality of life (QOL) considerations. The evidence- and consensus-based recommendations in this CPG are intended to give guidance to cancer care providers treating patients with HCC. 10.1136/jitc-2021-002794
    Limited efficacy of atezolizumab and bevacizumab for hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor. Yamada Tomoharu,Minami Tatsuya,Tateishi Ryosuke,Koike Kazuhiko Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver 10.1111/liv.15010
    The systemic inflammatory response as a source of biomarkers and therapeutic targets in hepatocellular carcinoma. Sanghera Chandan,Teh Jhia J,Pinato David J Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver The pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) strongly relates to inflammation, with chronic up-regulation of pro-inflammatory mediators standing as a potential unifying mechanism that underscores the origin and progression of HCC independent of aetiology. Activation of the diverse pro-inflammatory mediators either within the tumour or its microenvironment is part of an active cross-talk between the progressive HCC and the host, which is known to influence clinical outcomes including recurrence after radical treatments and long-term survival. A number of clinical biomarkers to measure the severity of cancer-related inflammation are now available, most of which emerge from routine blood parameters including neutrophil, lymphocyte, platelet counts, as well as albuminaemia and C-reactive protein levels. In this review, we summarise the body of evidence supporting the biologic qualification of inflammation-based scores in HCC and review their potential in facilitating the prognostic assessment and treatment allocation in the individual patient. We also discuss the evidence to suggest modulation of tumour-promoting inflammation may act as a source of novel therapeutic strategies in liver cancer. 10.1111/liv.14220
    Neutrophils as potential therapeutic targets in hepatocellular carcinoma. Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology The success of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment contributed to a shift in systemic therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) towards combinations that include cancer immunotherapeutic agents. Thus far, the principal focus of cancer immunotherapy has been on interrupting immune checkpoints that suppress antitumour lymphocytes. As well as lymphocytes, the HCC environment includes numerous other immune cell types, among which neutrophils are emerging as an important contributor to the pathogenesis of HCC. A growing body of evidence supports neutrophils as key mediators of the immunosuppressive environment in which some cancers develop, as well as drivers of tumour progression. If neutrophils have a similar role in HCC, approaches that target or manipulate neutrophils might have therapeutic benefits, potentially including sensitization of tumours to conventional immunotherapy. Several neutrophil-directed therapies for patients with HCC (and other cancers) are now entering clinical trials. This Review outlines the evidence in support of neutrophils as drivers of HCC and details their mechanistic roles in development, progression and metastasis, highlighting the reasons that neutrophils are well worth investigating despite the challenges associated with studying them. Neutrophil-modulating anticancer therapies entering clinical trials are also summarized. 10.1038/s41575-021-00568-5
    Prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with immunotherapy - development and validation of the CRAFITY score. Journal of hepatology BACKGROUND & AIMS:Immunotherapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab represents the new standard of care in systemic front-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, biomarkers that predict treatment success and survival remain an unmet need. METHODS:Patients with HCC put on PD-(L)1-based immunotherapy were included in a training set (n = 190; 6 European centers) and a validation set (n = 102; 8 European centers). We investigated the prognostic value of baseline variables on overall survival using a Cox model in the training set and developed the easily applicable CRAFITY (CRP and AFP in ImmunoTherapY) score. The score was validated in the independent, external cohort, and evaluated in a cohort of patients treated with sorafenib (n = 204). RESULTS:Baseline serum alpha-fetoprotein ≥100 ng/ml (hazard ratio [HR] 1.7; p = 0.007) and C-reactive protein ≥1 mg/dl (HR, 1.7; p = 0.007) were identified as independent prognostic factors in multivariable analysis and were used to develop the CRAFITY score. Patients who fulfilled no criterion (0 points; CRAFITY-low) had the longest median overall survival (27.6 (95% CI 19.5-35.8) months), followed by those fulfilling 1 criterion (1 point; CRAFITY-intermediate; 11.3 (95% CI 8.0-14.6) months), and patients meeting both criteria (2 points; CRAFITY-high; 6.4 (95% CI 4.8-8.1) months; p <0.001). Additionally, best radiological response (complete response/partial response/stable disease/progressive disease) was significantly better in patients with lower CRAFITY score (CRAFITY-low: 9%/20%/52%/20% vs. CRAFITY-intermediate: 3%/25%/36%/36% vs. CRAFITY-high: 2%/15%/22%/61%; p = 0.003). These results were confirmed in the independent validation set and in different subgroups, including Child-Pugh A and B, performance status 0 and ≥1, and first-line and later lines. In the sorafenib cohort, CRAFITY was associated with survival, but not radiological response. CONCLUSIONS:The CRAFITY score is associated with survival and radiological response in patients receiving PD-(L)1 immunotherapy. The score may help with patient counseling but requires prospective validation. LAY SUMMARY:The immunotherapy-based regimen of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab represents the new standard of care in systemic first-line therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Biomarkers to predict treatment outcome are an unmet need in patients undergoing immunotherapy for HCC. We developed and externally validated a score that predicts outcome in patients with HCC undergoing immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockers. 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.09.035
    Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in the Chinese Subpopulation with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Phase 3 Randomized, Open-Label IMbrave150 Study. Liver cancer INTRODUCTION:Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) versus sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in IMbrave150. Efficacy and safety data from the Chinese subpopulation are reported. METHODS:IMbrave150, a global, randomized, open-label, phase 3 study in patients with systemic treatment-naive unresectable HCC, included an extension phase that enrolled additional patients from mainland China. Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive intravenous atezolizumab 1,200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg once every 3 weeks or sorafenib 400 mg twice a day until unacceptable toxicity or loss of clinical benefit. Co-primary endpoints were OS and independent review facility-assessed PFS per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS:Of 194 Chinese patients enrolled from April 16, 2018, to April 8, 2019 (137 in the global study and 57 in the China extension phase), 133 received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 61 received sorafenib. At the data cutoff (August 29, 2019), the stratified hazard ratio for OS was 0.44 (95% CI, 0.25-0.76) and for PFS was 0.60 (95% CI, 0.40-0.90). The respective median OS and PFS with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab were not reached (NR; 95% CI, 13.5 months to NR) and 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.2-8.3) versus 11.4 months (95% CI, 6.7 to NR) and 3.2 months (95% CI, 2.6-4.8) with sorafenib. Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 78 of 132 (59.1%) atezolizumab plus bevacizumab-treated and 27 of 58 (46.6%) sorafenib-treated patients. The most common grade 3-4 AE with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was hypertension, occurring in 15.2% of patients; however, other high-grade AEs were infrequent. CONCLUSION:Clinically meaningful improvements in OS and PFS observed with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib suggest that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may become a practice-changing treatment for Chinese patients with unresectable HCC. 10.1159/000513486
    The Current Landscape of Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Review. Pinter Matthias,Jain Rakesh K,Duda Dan G JAMA oncology Importance:For more than a decade, sorafenib has been the only systemic treatment option for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, rapid progress over the past few years led to approval of other angiogenesis inhibitors and several immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) that have been added to the treatment armamentarium for advanced HCC. Moreover, the recent success of a combination of bevacizumab with atezolizumab signals an important change in the front-line treatment of HCC. Observations:This review summarizes rapidly emerging clinical data on the promise and challenges of implementing ICBs in HCC and discusses the unmet need of biomarkers to predict response or resistance to therapy. Two strategies to target immunosuppression in tumors are also discussed: one proven (vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibition) and one currently under investigation (transforming growth factor-β pathway inhibition). The rationale and preliminary evidence on how their inhibition may reprogram the immunosuppressive milieu and enhance the efficacy of ICBs in HCC are reviewed. Conclusion and Relevance:The recent successes and failures of angiogenesis inhibitors and ICBs, alone and in combination, have provided important insights into how to implement this novel systemic therapy in HCC and led to new avenues to enhance immunotherapy efficacy in this disease. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.3381
    Comparative Efficacy of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab and Other Treatment Options for Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis. Liver cancer BACKGROUND:Most phase 3 clinical trials of systemic therapy for first-line unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have failed, with the exception of SHARP, REFLECT, and IMbrave150. We conducted indirect comparisons of therapies evaluated for first-line HCC treatment. SUMMARY:We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of treatments for adults with locally advanced or metastatic unresectable HCC and no prior systemic treatment, including atezolizu-mab plus bevacizumab, sorafenib, lenvatinib, nivolumab, selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT), transarterial chemoembolization, and placebo or best supportive care. Randomized controlled trials published from January 1, 2007, to March 12, 2020, were retrieved from MEDLINE and Embase. Qualitative assessment of heterogeneity evaluated study designs, populations, and outcomes. Indirect comparisons used generalized linear models with random effects within a Bayesian framework and informative priors. We calculated relative efficacy estimates with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) and Bayesian posterior probability estimates of atezolizumab-bevacizumab being superior to other treatments. Nine clinical studies with a total of 3,897 participants were identified from 8,783 records and used to build the all-trials evidence network. Indirect comparisons suggested an improved overall survival (OS) with atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus lenvatinib (odds ratio, 0.63 [95% CrI 0.39-1.04]; with 97% Bayesian posterior probability of being superior), nivolumab (0.68 [95% CrI 0.41-1.14]; 94%), sorafenib (0.59 [95% CrI 0.39-0.87]; 99%), SIRT (0.51 [95% CrI 0.32-0.82]; 100%), or placebo/best supportive care (0.40 [95% CrI 0.25-0.64]; 100%). KEY MESSAGES:Within the context of indirect comparisons, analyses of OS favored atezolizumab-bevacizumab versus other treatment options for patients with locally advanced or metastatic unresectable HCC. 10.1159/000515302
    Immunotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a focus on special subgroups. Pinter Matthias,Scheiner Bernhard,Peck-Radosavljevic Markus Gut Following the success of immune checkpoint blockers (ICBs) in different cancer types, a large number of studies are currently investigating ICBs in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), alone or in combination with other treatments. Both nivolumab and pembrolizumab, as well as the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab have been granted accelerated approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sorafenib-pretreated patients. While nivolumab and pembrolizumab both failed to meet their primary endpoints in phase III trials, the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab eventually improved overall and progression-free survival compared with sorafenib in a front-line phase III trial, and thus, will become the new standard of care in this setting. Despite this breakthrough, there are patient populations with certain underlying conditions that may not be ideal candidates for this new treatment either due to safety concerns or potential lack of efficacy. In this review, we discuss the safety of ICBs in patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease, IBD or a history of solid organ transplantation. Moreover, we summarise emerging preclinical and clinical data suggesting that ICBs may be less efficacious in patients with underlying non-alcoholic steatohepatitis or HCCs with activated Wnt/β-catenin signalling. 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321702
    Immunotherapies for hepatocellular carcinoma. Nature reviews. Clinical oncology Liver cancer, more specifically hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), is the second leading cause of cancer-related death and its incidence is increasing globally. Around 50% of patients with HCC receive systemic therapies, traditionally sorafenib or lenvatinib in the first line and regorafenib, cabozantinib or ramucirumab in the second line. In the past 5 years, immune-checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionized the management of HCC. The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has been shown to improve overall survival relative to sorafenib, resulting in FDA approval of this regimen. More recently, durvalumab plus tremelimumab yielded superior overall survival versus sorafenib and atezolizumab plus cabozantinib yielded superior progression-free survival. In addition, pembrolizumab monotherapy and the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab have received FDA Accelerated Approval in the second-line setting based on early efficacy data. Despite these major advances, the molecular underpinnings governing immune responses and evasion remain unclear. The immune microenvironment has crucial roles in the development and progression of HCC and distinct aetiology-dependent immune features have been defined. Inflamed and non-inflamed classes of HCC and genomic signatures have been associated with response to immune-checkpoint inhibitors, yet no validated biomarker is available to guide clinical decision-making. This Review provides information on the immune microenvironments underlying the response or resistance of HCC to immunotherapies. In addition, current evidence from phase III trials on the efficacy, immune-related adverse events and aetiology-dependent mechanisms of response are described. Finally, we discuss emerging trials assessing immunotherapies across all stages of HCC that might change the management of this disease in the near future. 10.1038/s41571-021-00573-2
    Immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma: evaluation and management of adverse events associated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Hsu Chiun,Rimassa Lorenza,Sun Hui-Chuan,Vogel Arndt,Kaseb Ahmed O Therapeutic advances in medical oncology In light of positive efficacy and safety findings from the IMbrave150 trial of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, this novel combination has become the preferred first-line standard of care for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Several additional trials are ongoing that combine an immune checkpoint inhibitor with another agent such as a multiple kinase inhibitor or antiangiogenic agent. Therefore, the range of first-line treatment options for unresectable HCC is likely to increase, and healthcare providers need succinct information about the use of such combinations, including their efficacy and key aspects of their safety profiles. Here, we review efficacy and safety data on combination immunotherapies and offer guidance on monitoring and managing adverse events, especially those associated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Because of their underlying liver disease and high likelihood of portal hypertension, patients with unresectable HCC are at particular risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, and this risk may be exacerbated by treatments that include antiangiogenic agents. Healthcare providers also need to be alert to the risks of proteinuria and hypertension, colitis, hepatitis, and reactivation of hepatitis B or C virus infection. They should also be aware of the possibility of rarer but potentially life-threatening adverse events such as pneumonitis and cardiovascular events. Awareness of the risks associated with these therapies and knowledge of adverse event monitoring and management will become increasingly important as the therapeutic range broadens in unresectable HCC. 10.1177/17588359211031141
    Advances in immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Sangro Bruno,Sarobe Pablo,Hervás-Stubbs Sandra,Melero Ignacio Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a prevalent disease with a progression that is modulated by the immune system. Systemic therapy is used in the advanced stage and until 2017 consisted only of antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). Immunotherapy with checkpoint inhibitors has shown strong anti-tumour activity in a subset of patients and the combination of the anti-PDL1 antibody atezolizumab and the VEGF-neutralizing antibody bevacizumab has or will soon become the standard of care as a first-line therapy for HCC, whereas the anti-PD1 agents nivolumab and pembrolizumab are used after TKIs in several regions. Other immune strategies such as adoptive T-cell transfer, vaccination or virotherapy have not yet demonstrated consistent clinical activity. Major unmet challenges in HCC checkpoint immunotherapy are the discovery and validation of predictive biomarkers, advancing treatment to earlier stages of the disease, applying the treatment to patients with liver dysfunction and the discovery of more effective combinatorial or sequential approaches. Combinations with other systemic or local treatments are perceived as the most promising opportunities in HCC and some are already under evaluation in large-scale clinical trials. This Review provides up-to-date information on the best use of currently available immunotherapies in HCC and the therapeutic strategies under development. 10.1038/s41575-021-00438-0
    Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Finn Richard S,Qin Shukui,Ikeda Masafumi,Galle Peter R,Ducreux Michel,Kim Tae-You,Kudo Masatoshi,Breder Valeriy,Merle Philippe,Kaseb Ahmed O,Li Daneng,Verret Wendy,Xu Derek-Zhen,Hernandez Sairy,Liu Juan,Huang Chen,Mulla Sohail,Wang Yulei,Lim Ho Yeong,Zhu Andrew X,Cheng Ann-Lii, The New England journal of medicine BACKGROUND:The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab showed encouraging antitumor activity and safety in a phase 1b trial involving patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS:In a global, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who had not previously received systemic treatment were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or sorafenib until unacceptable toxic effects occurred or there was a loss of clinical benefit. The coprimary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed at an independent review facility according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1). RESULTS:The intention-to-treat population included 336 patients in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab group and 165 patients in the sorafenib group. At the time of the primary analysis (August 29, 2019), the hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab-bevacizumab as compared with sorafenib was 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.79; P<0.001). Overall survival at 12 months was 67.2% (95% CI, 61.3 to 73.1) with atezolizumab-bevacizumab and 54.6% (95% CI, 45.2 to 64.0) with sorafenib. Median progression-free survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.7 to 8.3) and 4.3 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 5.6) in the respective groups (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.76; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 56.5% of 329 patients who received at least one dose of atezolizumab-bevacizumab and in 55.1% of 156 patients who received at least one dose of sorafenib. Grade 3 or 4 hypertension occurred in 15.2% of patients in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab group; however, other high-grade toxic effects were infrequent. CONCLUSIONS:In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab resulted in better overall and progression-free survival outcomes than sorafenib. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434379.). 10.1056/NEJMoa1915745
    Atezolizumab with or without bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (GO30140): an open-label, multicentre, phase 1b study. Lee Michael S,Ryoo Baek-Yeol,Hsu Chih-Hung,Numata Kazushi,Stein Stacey,Verret Wendy,Hack Stephen P,Spahn Jessica,Liu Bo,Abdullah Heba,Wang Yulei,He Aiwu Ruth,Lee Kyung-Hun, The Lancet. Oncology BACKGROUND:Dual blockade of PD-L1 and VEGF has enhanced anticancer immunity through multiple mechanisms and augmented antitumour activity in multiple malignancies. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone and combined with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS:GO30140 is an open-label, multicentre, multiarm, phase 1b study that enrolled patients at 26 academic centres and community oncology practices in seven countries worldwide. The study included five cohorts, and the two hepatocellular carcinoma cohorts, groups A and F, are described here. Inclusion criteria for these two groups included age 18 years and older; histologically, cytologically, or clinically (per American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases criteria) confirmed unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma that was not amenable to curative treatment; no previous systemic treatment; and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. In group A, all patients received atezolizumab (1200 mg) and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) intravenously every 3 weeks. In group F, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous atezolizumab (1200 mg) plus intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks or atezolizumab alone by interactive voice-web response system using permuted block randomisation (block size of two) and stratification factors of geographical region; macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; and baseline α-fetoprotein concentration. Primary endpoints were confirmed objective response rate in all patients who received the combination treatment for group A and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population in group F, both assessed by an independent review facility according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. In both groups, safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02715531, and is closed to enrolment. FINDINGS:In group A, 104 patients were enrolled between July 20, 2016, and July 31, 2018, and received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. With a median follow-up of 12·4 months (IQR 8·0-16·2), 37 (36%; 95% CI 26-46) of 104 patients had a confirmed objective response. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (13 [13%]) and proteinuria (seven [7%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 25 (24%) patients and treatment-related deaths in three (3%) patients (abnormal hepatic function, hepatic cirrhosis, and pneumonitis). In group F, 119 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (60 to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab; 59 to atezolizumab monotherapy) between May 18, 2018, and March 7, 2019. With a median follow-up of 6·6 months (IQR 5·5-8·5) for the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 6·7 months (4·2-8·2) for the atezolizumab monotherapy group, median progression-free survival was 5·6 months (95% CI 3·6-7·4) versus 3·4 months (1·9-5·2; hazard ratio 0·55; 80% CI 0·40-0·74; p=0·011). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in group F were hypertension (in three [5%] patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group; none in the atezolizumab monotherapy group) and proteinuria (in two [3%] patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group; none in the atezolizumab monotherapy group). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in seven (12%) patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and two (3%) patients in the atezolizumab monotherapy group. There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION:Our study shows longer progression-free survival with a combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab than with atezolizumab alone in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma not previously treated with systemic therapy. Therefore, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab might become a promising treatment option for these patients. This combination is being compared with standard-of-care sorafenib in a phase 3 trial. FUNDING:F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech. 10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30156-X
    Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sorafenib for Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Zhang Xin,Wang Jingjing,Shi Juanjuan,Jia Xiaoli,Dang Shuangsuo,Wang Wenjun JAMA network open Importance:Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma has been shown to improve overall and progression-free survival compared with standard sorafenib treatment. However, because of the high cost of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, assessment of its value by considering both efficacy and cost is needed. Objective:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants:This economic evaluation was performed from June through September 2020, with a 6-year investment time period. Hypothetical patients were male and female adults 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of locally advanced metastatic or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma confirmed by histologic or clinical features. Main Outcomes and Measures:Health care costs (adjusted to 2020 US dollars), life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib were examined using a partitioned survival model. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. The model was also used to estimate price reductions of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab that would achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness. Results:In the base case analysis of a hypothetical sample of 424 patients, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with an increase of 0.623 life-years (1.840 vs 1.218 life-years) and 0.484 QALYs (1.412 vs 0.928 QALYs) and with an incremental cost of $156 210 per patient compared with sorafenib. The ICER was $322 500 per QALY (5th to 95th percentile, $149 364-$683 744 per QALY), with 0.6% and 5.1% chance of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000 and $150 000 per QALY, respectively. The ICER never decreased below $150 000 per QALY in the 1-way sensitivity analyses. To achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness under the thresholds of $150 000 to $100 000 per QALY, the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab would need to be reduced by 37% to 47%. Conclusions and Relevance:In this economic evaluation, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with clinical benefit but was not cost-effective compared with sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective. A substantial reduction in price for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab would be needed to achieve favorable cost-effectiveness for this new therapy. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.4846
    Patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (IMbrave150): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Galle Peter R,Finn Richard S,Qin Shukui,Ikeda Masafumi,Zhu Andrew X,Kim Tae-You,Kudo Masatoshi,Breder Valeriy,Merle Philippe,Kaseb Ahmed,Li Daneng,Mulla Sohail,Verret Wendy,Xu Derek-Zhen,Hernandez Sairy,Ding Beiying,Liu Juan,Huang Chen,Lim Ho Yeong,Cheng Ann-Lii,Ducreux Michel The Lancet. Oncology BACKGROUND:Understanding patients' experience of cancer treatment is important. We aimed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the IMbrave150 trial, which has already shown significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefits with this combination therapy. METHODS:We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial in 111 hospitals and cancer centres across 17 countries or regions. We included patients aged 18 years or older with systemic, treatment-naive, histologically, cytologically, or clinically confirmed unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, with disease that was not amenable to curative surgical or locoregional therapies, or progressive disease after surgical or locoregional therapies. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1; using permuted block randomisation [blocks of six], stratified by geographical region; macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; baseline alpha-fetoprotein concentration; and ECOG performance status) to receive 1200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenously once every 3 weeks or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice a day, until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The independent review facility for tumour assessment was masked to the treatment allocation. Previously reported coprimary endpoints were overall survival and independently assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Prespecified secondary and exploratory analyses descriptively evaluated treatment effects on patient-reported quality of life, functioning, and disease symptoms per the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality-of-life questionnaire for cancer (QLQ-C30) and quality-of-life questionnaire for hepatocellular carcinoma (QLQ-HCC18). Time to confirmed deterioration of PROs was analysed in the intention-to-treat population; all other analyses were done in the PRO-evaluable population (patients who had a baseline PRO assessment and at least one assessment after baseline). The trial is ongoing; enrolment is closed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03434379. FINDINGS:Between March 15, 2018, and Jan 30, 2019, 725 patients were screened and 501 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n=336) or sorafenib (n=165). 309 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 145 patients in the sorafenib group were included in the PRO-evaluable population. At data cutoff (Aug 29, 2019) the median follow-up was 8·6 months (IQR 6·2-10·8). EORTC QLQ-C30 completion rates were 90% or greater for 23 of 24 treatment cycles in both groups (range 88-100% in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 80-100% in the sorafenib group). EORTC QLQ-HCC18 completion rates were 90% or greater for 20 of 24 cycles in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group (range 88-100%) and 21 of 24 cycles in the sorafenib group (range 89-100%). Compared with sorafenib, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab reduced the risk of deterioration on all EORTC QLQ-C30 generic cancer symptom scales that were prespecified for analysis (appetite loss [hazard ratio (HR) 0·57, 95% CI 0·40-0·81], diarrhoea [0·23, 0·16-0·34], fatigue [0·61, 0·46-0·81], pain [0·46, 0·34-0·62]), and two of three EORTC QLQ-HCC18 disease-specific symptom scales that were prespecified for analysis (fatigue [0·60, 0·45-0·80] and pain [0·65, 0·46-0·92], but not jaundice [0·76, 0·55-1·07]). At day 1 of treatment cycle five (after which attrition in the sorafenib group was more than 50%), the mean EORTC QLQ-C30 score changes from baseline in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib groups were: -3·29 (SD 17·56) versus -5·83 (20·63) for quality of life, -4·02 (19·42) versus -9·76 (21·33) for role functioning, and -3·77 (12·82) versus -7·60 (15·54) for physical functioning. INTERPRETATION:Prespecified analyses of PRO data showed clinically meaningful benefits in terms of patient-reported quality of life, functioning, and disease symptoms with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sorafenib, strengthening the combination therapy's positive benefit-risk profile versus that of sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING:F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech. 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00151-0
    Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sorafenib as First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Su Dan,Wu Bin,Shi Lizheng JAMA network open Importance:Treatment 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. Objective:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the US payer perspective. Design, Setting, and Participants:This 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 Measures:Costs, 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. Results:Treatment 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 Relevance:Atezolizumab 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. 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.0037
    Updated efficacy and safety data from IMbrave150: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs. sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of hepatology BACKGROUND & AIMS:IMbrave150 demonstrated that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab led to significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma at the primary analysis (after a median 8.6 months of follow-up). We present updated data after 12 months of additional follow-up. METHODS:Patients with systemic treatment-naive, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma were randomized 2:1 to receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenously every 3 weeks or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice daily in this open-label, phase III study. Co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS by independently assessed RECIST 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary efficacy endpoints included objective response rates and exploratory subgroup efficacy analyses. This is a post hoc updated analysis of efficacy and safety. RESULTS:From March 15, 2018, to January 30, 2019, 501 patients (intention-to-treat population) were randomly allocated to receive atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n = 336) or sorafenib (n = 165). On August 31, 2020, after a median 15.6 (range, 0-28.6) months of follow-up, the median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive p <0.001). The median PFS was 6.9 (95% CI 5.7-8.6) and 4.3 (95% CI 4.0-5.6) months in the respective treatment groups (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.81; descriptive p < 0.001). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 and 72 (46%) of 156 safety-evaluable patients in the respective groups, and treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. CONCLUSION:After longer follow-up, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab maintained clinically meaningful survival benefits over sorafenib and had a safety profile consistent with the primary analysis. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV IDENTIFIER:NCT03434379. LAY SUMMARY:The primary analysis of IMbrave150 showed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had significantly greater benefits than sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but survival data were not yet mature. At this updated analysis done 12 months later, median overall survival was 5.8 months longer with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab than sorafenib, and the severity profile of treatment-related side effects remained similar. These updated results confirm atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as the first-line standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.030