Can AtezoBev be a safe and effective option for treating hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis? A retrospective multicenter real-world study
L. Stella,M. Pallozzi,L. Cerrito,A. Gasbarrini,M. Pompili,F. Marra,C. Campani,E. Pellegrini,F. Piscaglia,F. Tovoli,C. Hollande,S. Sidali,M. Bouattour,F.R. Ponziani
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2024.01.138
IF: 5.165
2024-02-01
Digestive and Liver Disease
Abstract:Introduction and Aim Initial management of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) involves the use of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AtezoBev). There is a lack of research examining the influence of hepatic decompensation on patients during treatment and its impact on survival. Material and Method Between 2018 and 2023, 247 patients diagnosed with unresectable HCC and eligible for AtezoBev treatment were enrolled. Liver function was graded for all patients, comparing Child Pugh A (CPA, 59.5%) to Child Pugh B (CPB, 17.4%) and non-cirrhotic (NC, 23.1%). A survival analysis assessed median overall survival (mOS), progression-free survival (PFS), and time-to-progression (TTP), while radiological response was evaluated using RECIST v1.1. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) graded according to CTCAE v5.0 were collected to evaluate AtezoBev safety. We defined time-to-decompensation (TTD) as the interval from treatment start to the occurrence of events associated with the loss of liver function or worsening of portal hypertension. Its role in assessing the safety of treatment in cirrhotic patients was evaluated. Then, mOS was assessed in patients who experienced decompensation compared to those who didn't modify liver function. Results AtezoBev demonstrated significantly better mOS (20.2 vs. 9.8 months, p < 0.0001) and PFS (12.9 vs. 8.3 months, p < 0.017) in CPA patients compared to CPB patients. However, there were no differences in TTP (16.3 vs 12.3 months, p = 0.14), overall response rate (ORR, 24.4% vs 18.6%, p = 0.46), and disease control rate (DCR, 56.4% vs. 55.8%, p = 0.93) between the two groups. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) remained consistent across subgroups, except for portal hypertension-related events, which were more frequent in the CPB group. Indeed, CPB patients experienced a higher incidence of liver decompensation events (50% vs. 27.8%, p = 0.006), resulting in a TTD of 9.1 months. In contrast, CPA patients didn't reach a 50% occurrence rate of decompensation events during the follow-up period. Among patients who experienced liver decompensation (35% CPB, 65% CPA), those who regained previous liver function (31% CPB, 69% CPA) achieved a mOS comparable to those who didn't undergo liver decompensation (20.9 months vs 20.2 months, p = 0.77). However, persistent loss of liver function (38% CPB, 62% CPA) resulted in a poorer prognosis (mOS 8.1 months). Conclusion AtezoBev demonstrated efficacy and safety in both CPA and CPB subgroups. Liver decompensation had a higher incidence in CPB groups, but patients who recover from a liver decompensation related event showed a mOS comparable to those who didn't suffer from it. Considering this, access to AtezoBev in routine practice should be considered for CPB patients under close monitoring. Additionally, TTD could serve as a novel safety outcome for cirrhotic patients undergoing systemic treatment.
gastroenterology & hepatology