[Importance of Measuring the Urine Protein/Creatinine Ratio in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab Treatment]

Yohei Miyachi,Teiji Kuzuya,Naoto Kawabe,Yoshiki Hirooka
Abstract:Introduction: When we administer atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment to patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, we often encounter inconsistent results between the qualitative dipstick urinalysis and the urine protein/creatinine ratio(UPCR)measurements. In this study, we investigated the relationship between qualitative dipstick urinalysis and UPCR in these patients, and assessed whether incorporating UPCR into the testing protocol could prevent unnecessary interruptions during bevacizumab treatment. Subjects and methods: This study analyzed 298 urine samples collected from 61 patients of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, who were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab at our institution between October 1, 2020, and August 31, 2021. We used UPCR as an alternative test to the 24-hour urine protein and set the discontinuation criteria for bevacizumab at a UPCR of 2.0 or higher. Results: Among the 41 samples that tested positive for 2+ on the dipstick test, only one(2.4%)had a UPCR exceeding 2.0. Additionally, among the 44 samples that showed a 3+ result, 24 samples(54.5%)had a UPCR higher than 2.0. If our decision to discontinue bevacizumab had been based on a dipstick urinalysis result of 2+, we could have continued administering bevacizumab in 97.6%(40/41)of the cases. Even if the decision had been based on a dipstick urinalysis result of 3+, we could have continued administering bevacizumab in almost half of the cases(45.5%, 20/44). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the addition of UPCR to the qualitative dipstick urinalysis during atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma could help prevent unnecessary interruptions of bevacizumab and offer more clinical benefits in real-world practice, compared to using qualitative dipstick urinalysis alone.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?