Efficacy of Lenvatinib versus Bevacizumab in Triple Therapy with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Interventional Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Macrovascular Invasion: A Multi-Center Real-World Retrospective Study.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY
Journal of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Pub Date : 2026-09-22 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.2147/JHC.S640366
Jiazhi Zhang, Yongfa Liu, Yi Ding, Zhouyi Deng, Bo Jiang, Benjian Gao, Shuai Hu, Jianming Sun, Xiaoli Yang, Hui Zhang, Bo Li
{"title":"Efficacy of Lenvatinib versus Bevacizumab in Triple Therapy with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors and Interventional Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Macrovascular Invasion: A Multi-Center Real-World Retrospective Study.","authors":"Jiazhi Zhang, Yongfa Liu, Yi Ding, Zhouyi Deng, Bo Jiang, Benjian Gao, Shuai Hu, Jianming Sun, Xiaoli Yang, Hui Zhang, Bo Li","doi":"10.2147/JHC.S640366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with macrovascular invasion (MaVI) continue to experience a dismal prognosis and the optimal drug combination choices remain undefined. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lenvatinib-based triple therapy versus bevacizumab-based triple therapy, as first-line treatment for patients with MaVI.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>This retrospective multicenter study enrolled 184 consecutive patients from three centers in China, all of whom received first-line lenvatinib (n=126) or bevacizumab (n=58) combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and interventional therapy (TACE and/or HAIC). The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance baseline clinical characteristics, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was subsequently applied to assess the robustness of the findings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the overall cohort, median PFS did not differ significantly between the lenvatinib group and the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.694; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.477-1.008; P = 0.053). However, the PFS difference reached statistical significance after PSM (8.40 months in the lenvatinib group vs 13.00 months in the bevacizumab group; HR: 0.601; 95% CI: 0.389-0.928; P = 0.02) and after IPTW (HR: 0.609; 95% CI: 0.415-0.894; P = 0.011). No significant difference in OS was observed between the two groups in the unadjusted cohort (HR: 0.809; 95% CI: 0.512-1.279; P = 0.362), after PSM (20.23 vs 35.20 months; HR: 0.634; 95% CI: 0.376-1.069; P = 0.085), or after IPTW (HR: 0.686; 95% CI: 0.432-1.089; P = 0.11). Multivariate analysis in the matched cohort showed that bevacizumab-based triple therapy was associated with prolonged PFS compared with lenvatinib-based triple therapy. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events (58.57% vs 66.00%, P = 0.409) and grade 3-4 gastrointestinal hemorrhage (12.86% vs 8.00%, P = 0.399).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In HCC patients with MaVI, bevacizumab-based triple therapy was associated with prolonged PFS compared to lenvatinib-based triple therapy, with no significant difference in OS.</p>","PeriodicalId":15906,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Hepatocellular Carcinoma","volume":"13 ","pages":"640366"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13615806/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Hepatocellular Carcinoma","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/JHC.S640366","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with macrovascular invasion (MaVI) continue to experience a dismal prognosis and the optimal drug combination choices remain undefined. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lenvatinib-based triple therapy versus bevacizumab-based triple therapy, as first-line treatment for patients with MaVI.

Patients and methods: This retrospective multicenter study enrolled 184 consecutive patients from three centers in China, all of whom received first-line lenvatinib (n=126) or bevacizumab (n=58) combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and interventional therapy (TACE and/or HAIC). The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to balance baseline clinical characteristics, and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was subsequently applied to assess the robustness of the findings.

Results: In the overall cohort, median PFS did not differ significantly between the lenvatinib group and the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.694; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.477-1.008; P = 0.053). However, the PFS difference reached statistical significance after PSM (8.40 months in the lenvatinib group vs 13.00 months in the bevacizumab group; HR: 0.601; 95% CI: 0.389-0.928; P = 0.02) and after IPTW (HR: 0.609; 95% CI: 0.415-0.894; P = 0.011). No significant difference in OS was observed between the two groups in the unadjusted cohort (HR: 0.809; 95% CI: 0.512-1.279; P = 0.362), after PSM (20.23 vs 35.20 months; HR: 0.634; 95% CI: 0.376-1.069; P = 0.085), or after IPTW (HR: 0.686; 95% CI: 0.432-1.089; P = 0.11). Multivariate analysis in the matched cohort showed that bevacizumab-based triple therapy was associated with prolonged PFS compared with lenvatinib-based triple therapy. There was no significant difference between the two groups in the incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events (58.57% vs 66.00%, P = 0.409) and grade 3-4 gastrointestinal hemorrhage (12.86% vs 8.00%, P = 0.399).

Conclusion: In HCC patients with MaVI, bevacizumab-based triple therapy was associated with prolonged PFS compared to lenvatinib-based triple therapy, with no significant difference in OS.

Lenvatinib与贝伐单抗在免疫检查点抑制剂三联疗法和介入治疗肝细胞癌伴大血管侵袭中的疗效:一项多中心真实世界回顾性研究
背景:肝细胞癌(HCC)伴大血管侵袭(MaVI)患者预后不佳,最佳药物组合选择仍不明确。本研究的目的是比较lenvatinib为基础的三联疗法与贝伐单抗为基础的三联疗法作为一线治疗MaVI患者的临床疗效和安全性。患者和方法:这项回顾性多中心研究纳入了184名来自中国三个中心的连续患者,所有患者均接受一线lenvatinib (n=126)或bevacizumab (n=58)联合免疫检查点抑制剂(ICIs)和介入治疗(TACE和/或HAIC)。主要终点为无进展生存期(PFS)和总生存期(OS)。使用倾向评分匹配(PSM)来平衡基线临床特征,随后使用治疗加权逆概率(IPTW)来评估结果的稳健性。结果:在整个队列中,lenvatinib组和bevacizumab组的中位PFS无显著差异(风险比[HR]: 0.694; 95%可信区间[CI]: 0.477-1.008; P = 0.053)。PSM后(lenvatinib组为8.40个月,贝伐单抗组为13.00个月,HR: 0.601, 95% CI: 0.389-0.928, P = 0.02)和IPTW后(HR: 0.609, 95% CI: 0.415-0.894, P = 0.011) PFS差异具有统计学意义。在未调整队列中,两组患者的OS无显著差异(HR: 0.809; 95% CI: 0.512-1.279; P = 0.362), PSM后(20.23 vs 35.20个月;HR: 0.634; 95% CI: 0.376-1.069; P = 0.085), IPTW后(HR: 0.686; 95% CI: 0.432-1.089; P = 0.11)。匹配队列的多变量分析显示,与lenvatinib为基础的三联疗法相比,贝伐单抗为基础的三联疗法与延长PFS相关。两组3-4级不良事件发生率(58.57% vs 66.00%, P = 0.409)、3-4级消化道出血发生率(12.86% vs 8.00%, P = 0.399)差异无统计学意义。结论:在伴有MaVI的HCC患者中,与lenvatinib为基础的三联治疗相比,贝伐单抗为基础的三联治疗与延长PFS相关,OS无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
2.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书