Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We investigated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received ICI-based therapies in a previous systemic line. METHODS: In this international, retrospective multicenter study, patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies (ICI-1, ICI-2) at 14 institutions were eligible. The main outcomes included best overall response and treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS: Of 994 ICI-treated patients screened, a total of 58 patients (male, n = 41; 71%) with a mean age of 65.0±9.0 years were included. Median systemic treatment lines of ICI-1 and ICI-2 were 1 (range, 1-4) and 3 (range, 2-9), respectively. ICI-based therapies used at ICI-1 and ICI-2 included ICI alone (ICI-1, n = 26, 45%; ICI-2, n = 4, 7%), dual ICI regimens (n = 1, 2%; n = 12, 21%), or ICI combined with targeted therapies/anti-VEGF (n = 31, 53%; n = 42, 72%). Most patients discontinued ICI-1 due to progression (n = 52, 90%). Objective response rate was 22% at ICI-1 and 26% at ICI-2. Responses at ICI-2 were also seen in patients who had progressive disease as best overall response at ICI-1 (n = 11/21; 52%). Median time-to-progression at ICI-1 and ICI-2 was 5.4 (95% CI 3.0-7.7) months and 5.2 (95% CI 3.3-7.0) months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-4 at ICI-1 and ICI-2 were observed in 9 (16%) and 10 (17%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ICI rechallenge was safe and resulted in a treatment benefit in a meaningful proportion of patients with HCC. These data provide a rationale for investigating ICI-based regimens in patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy in prospective trials. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Therapeutic sequencing after first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a challenge as no available second-line treatment options have been studied in immunotherapy-pretreated patients. Particularly, the role of ICI rechallenge in patients with HCC is unclear, as data from prospective trials are lacking. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ICI-based regimens in patients with HCC pretreated with immunotherapy in a retrospective, international, multicenter study. Our data provide the rationale for prospective trials investigating the role of ICI-based regimens in patients who have progressed on first-line immunotherapy

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We investigated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received ICI-based therapies in a previous systemic line. METHODS: In this international, retrospective multicenter study, patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies (ICI-1, ICI-2) at 14 institutions were eligible. The main outcomes included best overall response and treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS: Of 994 ICI-treated patients screened, a total of 58 patients (male, n = 41; 71%) with a mean age of 65.0±9.0 years were included. Median systemic treatment lines of ICI-1 and ICI-2 were 1 (range, 1-4) and 3 (range, 2-9), respectively. ICI-based therapies used at ICI-1 and ICI-2 included ICI alone (ICI-1, n = 26, 45%; ICI-2, n = 4, 7%), dual ICI regimens (n = 1, 2%; n = 12, 21%), or ICI combined with targeted therapies/anti-VEGF (n = 31, 53%; n = 42, 72%). Most patients discontinued ICI-1 due to progression (n = 52, 90%). Objective response rate was 22% at ICI-1 and 26% at ICI-2. Responses at ICI-2 were also seen in patients who had progressive disease as best overall response at ICI-1 (n = 11/21; 52%). Median time-to-progression at ICI-1 and ICI-2 was 5.4 (95% CI 3.0-7.7) months and 5.2 (95% CI 3.3-7.0) months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-4 at ICI-1 and ICI-2 were observed in 9 (16%) and 10 (17%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ICI rechallenge was safe and resulted in a treatment benefit in a meaningful proportion of patients with HCC. These data provide a rationale for investigating ICI-based regimens in patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy in prospective trials. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Therapeutic sequencing after first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a challenge as no available second-line treatment options have been studied in immunotherapy-pretreated patients. Particularly, the role of ICI rechallenge in patients with HCC is unclear, as data from prospective trials are lacking. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ICI-based regimens in patients with HCC pretreated with immunotherapy in a retrospective, international, multicenter study. Our data provide the rationale for prospective trials investigating the role of ICI-based regimens in patients who have progressed on first-line immunotherapy

Sequential therapies after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib first-line treatments in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Introduction: The aim of this retrospective proof-of-concept study was to compare different second-line treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and progressive disease (PD) after first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.Materials and methods: A total of 1381 patients had PD at first-line therapy. 917 patients received lenvatinib as first-line treatment, and 464 patients atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line.Results: 49.6% of PD patients received a second-line therapy without any statistical difference in overall survival (OS) between lenvatinib (20.6 months) and atezolizumab plus bev-acizumab first-line (15.7 months; p = 0.12; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80). After lenvatinib first-line, there wasn't any statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p = 0.27; sorafenib HR: 1; immunotherapy HR: 0.69; other therapies HR: 0.85). Patients who under-went trans-arterial chemo-embolization (TACE) had a significative longer OS than patients who received sorafenib (24.7 versus 15.8 months, p < 0.01; HR = 0.64). After atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line, there was a statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p < 0.01; sorafenib HR: 1; lenvatinib HR: 0.50; cabozantinib HR: 1.29; other therapies HR: 0.54). Patients who received lenvatinib (17.0 months) and those who under-went TACE (15.9 months) had a significative longer OS than patients treated with sorafenib (14.2 months; respectively, p = 0.01; HR = 0.45, and p < 0.05; HR = 0.46).Conclusion: Approximately half of patients receiving first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab access second-line treatment. Our data suggest that in patients progressed to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is lenvatinib, while in patients progressed to lenvatinib, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is immunotherapy

Colonization with multidrug-resistant organisms impairs survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Introduction: MDRO-colonization has been shown to impair survival in patients with hematological malignancies and solid tumors as well as in patients with liver disease. Despite the increasing spread of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO), its impact on patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has not been studied. We conducted this retrospective study to analyze the impact of MDRO-colonization on overall prognosis in HCC patients. Materials and methods: All patients with confirmed HCC diagnosed between January 2008 and December 2017 at the University Hospital Frankfurt were included in this study. HCC patients with a positive MDRO screening before or within the first 90 days after diagnosis of HCC were defined as colonized HCC patients, HCC patients with a negative MDRO screening were defined as noncolonized HCC patients. Results: 59 (6%) colonized and 895 (94%) noncolonized HCC patients were included. Enterobacterales with extended-spectrum β-lactamase-like phenotype with or without resistance to fluoroquinolones (ESBL/ ± FQ) were the most frequently found MDRO with 59%, followed by vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecium with 37%. Colonized HCC patients had more severe cirrhosis and more advanced HCC stage compared to noncolonized HCC patients. Colonized HCC patients showed an impaired survival with a median OS of 189 days (6.3 months) compared to a median OS of 1001 days (33.4 months) in noncolonized HCC patients. MDRO-colonization was identified as an independent risk factor associated with survival in multivariate analysis. Conclusion: MDRO-colonization is an independent risk factor for survival in patients with HCC highlighting the importance of regular MDRO screening, isolation measures as well as interdisciplinary antibiotic steward-ship programs to guide responsible use of antibiotic agents

Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab in Patients with Advanced and Progressing Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Retrospective Multicenter Experience

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is the standard of care for first-line systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). Data on the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with aHCC who have received prior systemic therapy are not available. Methods: Patients with aHCC who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab after at least one systemic treatment between December 2018 and March 2022 were retrospectively identified in 13 centers in Germany and Austria. Patient characteristics, tumor response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AE) were analyzed. Results: A total of 50 patients were identified; 41 (82%) were male. The median age at initiation of treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was 65 years, 41 (82%) patients had cirrhosis, 30 (73%) Child A, 9 (22%) B, and 2 (5%) C. A total of 34 patients (68%) received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in the second-line setting and 16 (32%) in later lines. The best radiologic tumor responses were complete remission (2%), partial remission (30%), stable disease (36%), and progressive disease (18%), resulting in an objective response rate of 32% and a disease control rate of 68%. Median OS was 16.0 months (95% confidence interval 5.6–26.4 months), and median PFS was 7.1 months (95% confidence interval 4.4–9.8 months). AE grades 3–4 were observed in seven (14%) and resulted in death in three patients (6%). There were five (10%) bleeding events with a grade ≥ 3, including one (2%) with a fatal outcome. Conclusions: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is effective in patients with aHCC who did not have access to this option as first-line therapy. The safety profile was consistent with previous reports

Prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with immunotherapy - development and validation of the CRAFITY score.

BACKGROUND Immunotherapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab represents the new standard of care in systemic front-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Prognostic biomarkers are an unmet need. METHODS Patients with HCC put on PD-(L)1-based immunotherapy in 6 European centers (training set; n=190) and in 8 European centers (validation set; n=102) were included. We investigated the prognostic value of baseline variables on overall survival by 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 (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 one 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 as well as 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. 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

Survival outcomes from atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus Lenvatinib in Child Pugh B unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients

IntroductionThe best first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child-Pugh (CP) class B remains unknown. The aim of the present study was to perform a real-world analysis on a large sample of patients with unresectable HCC with CP B treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab Vs Lenvatinib.MethodsThe study population included patients affected by advanced (BCLC-C) or intermediate (BCLC-B) HCC patients not suitable for locoregional therapies from both the Western and Eastern world (Italy, Germany, Republic of Korea and Japan), who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or Lenvatinib as first-line treatment. All the study population presented a CP class of B. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall survival (OS) of CP B patients treated with Lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Survival curves were estimated using the product-limit method of Kaplan-Meier. The role of stratification factors was analyzed with log-rank tests. Finally, an interaction test was performed for the main baseline clinical characteristics.Results217 CP B HCC patients were enrolled in the study: 65 (30%) received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, and 152 (70%) received lenvatinib. The mOS for patients receiving Lenvatinib was 13.8 months (95% CI: 11.6-16.0), compared to 8.2 months (95% CI 6.3-10.2) for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab Vs Lenvatinib: HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2-3.0, p = 0.0050). No statistically significant differences were highlighted in terms of mPFS. The multivariate analysis confirmed that patients receiving Lenvatinib as first-line treatment have a significantly longer OS compared to patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (HR 2.01; 95% CI 1.29-3.25, p = 0.0023). By evaluating the cohort of patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, we found that Child B patients with ECOG PS 0, or BCLC B stage or ALBI grade 1 were those who had benefited from the treatment thus showing survival outcomes no significantly different compared to those receiving Lenvatinib.ConclusionThe present study suggests for the first time a major benefit from Lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in a large cohort of patients with CP B class HCC

Real-World Data for Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: How Does Adherence to the IMbrave150 Trial Inclusion Criteria Impact Prognosis?

Background: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has recently been approved as a new first-line standard of care for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Objective: We performed a real-world study to evaluate the impact of the IMbrave150 trial inclusion criteria on the safety and efficacy of treatment outside of clinical trials. Methods: We analyzed patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable HCC from four different countries. No specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, except for the absence of previous systemic therapies for HCC. The entire population was split into two groups according to concordance with the inclusion criteria as reported in the IMbrave150 trial in 'IMbrave150-in' and 'IMbrave150-out' patients, and safety and efficacy in the two groups of patients were evaluated. Results: Overall, 766 patients were included in the analysis: 561/766 (73%) in the 'IMbrave150-in' group and 205/766 (27%) in the 'IMbrave150-out' group. Median overall survival (OS) and median progression-free survival (PFS) were 16.3 versus 14.3 months (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.35-0.65; p&nbsp;&lt;&nbsp;0.0001] and 8.3 versus 6.0 months (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99; p&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.0431) in 'IMbrave150-in' and 'IMbrave150-out' patients, respectively. Multivariate analysis confirmed that patients included in the 'IMbrave150-in' group had significantly longer OS compared with patients included in the 'IMbrave150-out' group (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47-0.97; p&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.0195). In 'IMbrave150-in' patients, the albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade was not associated with OS, whereas in 'IMbrave150-out' patients, those with ALBI grade 1 reported a significant benefit in terms of OS compared with those with ALBI grade 2 (16.7 vs. 5.9 months; HR 4.40, 95% CI 2.40-8.08; p&nbsp;&gt;&nbsp;0.0001). No statistically significant differences were reported in the 'IMbrave150-in' and 'IMbrave150-out' groups in terms of safety profile. Conclusion: Adherence to the IMbrave150 trial inclusion criteria favorably impacts the prognosis of patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Among patients who did not meet the IMbrave150 inclusion criteria, those with ALBI grade 1 could benefit from the treatment