Young Eun Chon, Dong Yun Kim, Mi Na Kim, Beom Kyung Kim, Seung Up Kim, Jun Yong Park, Sang Hoon Ahn, Yeonjung Ha, Joo Ho Lee, Kwan Sik Lee, Beodeul Kang, Jung Sun Kim, Hong Jae Chon, Do Young Kim
{"title":"索拉非尼与仑伐替尼治疗阿特珠单抗/贝伐单抗失败后的晚期肝细胞癌:真实世界研究","authors":"Young Eun Chon, Dong Yun Kim, Mi Na Kim, Beom Kyung Kim, Seung Up Kim, Jun Yong Park, Sang Hoon Ahn, Yeonjung Ha, Joo Ho Lee, Kwan Sik Lee, Beodeul Kang, Jung Sun Kim, Hong Jae Chon, Do Young Kim","doi":"10.3350/cmh.2023.0553","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATE+BEV) therapy has become the recommended first-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) because of favorable treatment responses. However, there is a lack of data on sequential regimens after ATE+BEV treatment failure. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with advanced HCC who received subsequent systemic therapy for disease progression after ATE+BEV.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicenter, retrospective study included patients who started second-line systemic treatment with sorafenib or lenvatinib after HCC progressed on ATE+BEV between August 2019 and December 2022. Treatment response was assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1.). Clinical features of the two groups were balanced through propensity score (PS) matching.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study enrolled 126 patients, 40 (31.7%) in the lenvatinib group, and 86 (68.3%) in the sorafenib group. The median age was 63 years, and males were predominant (88.1%). In PS-matched cohorts (36 patients in each group), the objective response rate was similar between the lenvatinib- and sorafenib-treated groups (5.6% vs. 8.3%; P=0.643), but the disease control rate was superior in the lenvatinib group (66.7% vs. 22.2%; P<0.001). Despite the superior progression- free survival (PFS) in the lenvatinib group (3.5 vs. 1.8 months, P=0.001), the overall survival (OS, 10.3 vs. 7.5 months, P=0.353) did not differ between the two PS-matched treatment groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In second-line therapy for unresectable HCC after ATE+BEV failure, lenvatinib showed better PFS and comparable OS to sorafenib in a real-world setting. Future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-ups are needed to optimize second-line treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":10275,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Molecular Hepatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":14.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11261222/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sorafenib vs. Lenvatinib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after atezolizumab/bevacizumab failure: A real-world study.\",\"authors\":\"Young Eun Chon, Dong Yun Kim, Mi Na Kim, Beom Kyung Kim, Seung Up Kim, Jun Yong Park, Sang Hoon Ahn, Yeonjung Ha, Joo Ho Lee, Kwan Sik Lee, Beodeul Kang, Jung Sun Kim, Hong Jae Chon, Do Young Kim\",\"doi\":\"10.3350/cmh.2023.0553\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATE+BEV) therapy has become the recommended first-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) because of favorable treatment responses. However, there is a lack of data on sequential regimens after ATE+BEV treatment failure. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with advanced HCC who received subsequent systemic therapy for disease progression after ATE+BEV.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicenter, retrospective study included patients who started second-line systemic treatment with sorafenib or lenvatinib after HCC progressed on ATE+BEV between August 2019 and December 2022. Treatment response was assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1.). Clinical features of the two groups were balanced through propensity score (PS) matching.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study enrolled 126 patients, 40 (31.7%) in the lenvatinib group, and 86 (68.3%) in the sorafenib group. The median age was 63 years, and males were predominant (88.1%). In PS-matched cohorts (36 patients in each group), the objective response rate was similar between the lenvatinib- and sorafenib-treated groups (5.6% vs. 8.3%; P=0.643), but the disease control rate was superior in the lenvatinib group (66.7% vs. 22.2%; P<0.001). Despite the superior progression- free survival (PFS) in the lenvatinib group (3.5 vs. 1.8 months, P=0.001), the overall survival (OS, 10.3 vs. 7.5 months, P=0.353) did not differ between the two PS-matched treatment groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In second-line therapy for unresectable HCC after ATE+BEV failure, lenvatinib showed better PFS and comparable OS to sorafenib in a real-world setting. Future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-ups are needed to optimize second-line treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Molecular Hepatology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":14.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11261222/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Molecular Hepatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3350/cmh.2023.0553\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Molecular Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3350/cmh.2023.0553","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Sorafenib vs. Lenvatinib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after atezolizumab/bevacizumab failure: A real-world study.
Background/aims: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATE+BEV) therapy has become the recommended first-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) because of favorable treatment responses. However, there is a lack of data on sequential regimens after ATE+BEV treatment failure. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with advanced HCC who received subsequent systemic therapy for disease progression after ATE+BEV.
Methods: This multicenter, retrospective study included patients who started second-line systemic treatment with sorafenib or lenvatinib after HCC progressed on ATE+BEV between August 2019 and December 2022. Treatment response was assessed using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (version 1.1.). Clinical features of the two groups were balanced through propensity score (PS) matching.
Results: This study enrolled 126 patients, 40 (31.7%) in the lenvatinib group, and 86 (68.3%) in the sorafenib group. The median age was 63 years, and males were predominant (88.1%). In PS-matched cohorts (36 patients in each group), the objective response rate was similar between the lenvatinib- and sorafenib-treated groups (5.6% vs. 8.3%; P=0.643), but the disease control rate was superior in the lenvatinib group (66.7% vs. 22.2%; P<0.001). Despite the superior progression- free survival (PFS) in the lenvatinib group (3.5 vs. 1.8 months, P=0.001), the overall survival (OS, 10.3 vs. 7.5 months, P=0.353) did not differ between the two PS-matched treatment groups.
Conclusion: In second-line therapy for unresectable HCC after ATE+BEV failure, lenvatinib showed better PFS and comparable OS to sorafenib in a real-world setting. Future studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-ups are needed to optimize second-line treatment.
期刊介绍:
Clinical and Molecular Hepatology is an internationally recognized, peer-reviewed, open-access journal published quarterly in English. Its mission is to disseminate cutting-edge knowledge, trends, and insights into hepatobiliary diseases, fostering an inclusive academic platform for robust debate and discussion among clinical practitioners, translational researchers, and basic scientists. With a multidisciplinary approach, the journal strives to enhance public health, particularly in the resource-limited Asia-Pacific region, which faces significant challenges such as high prevalence of B viral infection and hepatocellular carcinoma. Furthermore, Clinical and Molecular Hepatology prioritizes epidemiological studies of hepatobiliary diseases across diverse regions including East Asia, North Asia, Southeast Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, Southwest Asia, Pacific, Africa, Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Central America, and South America.
The journal publishes a wide range of content, including original research papers, meta-analyses, letters to the editor, case reports, reviews, guidelines, editorials, and liver images and pathology, encompassing all facets of hepatology.