Use of hepatic protein biomarkers for tracing the exposure of veal calves to illegal growth-promoters: investigations on experimental samples and preliminary application under field conditions.

C. Nebbia,L. Della Donna,M. Carletti,A. Balbo,G. Barbarino,G. Gardini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2885.2008.00950.x

IF: 1.567

2008-06-01

Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Usefulness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as second-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Shinpei Yamaba,Yukinori Imai,Kayoko Sugawara,Yoshihito Uchida,Akira Fuchigami,Hiroshi Uchiya,Nobuaki Nakayama,Satoshi Mochida

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0298770

IF: 3.7

2024-04-30

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Aim To clarify the efficacy of atezolizumab (ATZ) plus bevacizumab (BEV) as the second-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods The subjects were 82 patients with HCC receiving ATZ/BEV, including 33 patients with previous therapies with molecular-targeted agents (MTA). Therapeutic efficacy was evaluated using contrast-enhanced CT according to the mRECIST. Results The Child-Pugh scores were 5, 6,7 and 8 in 40, 35, 5 and 2 patients, respectively, and the extents of HCC progression were BCLC stage A, B and C in 3, 31 and 48 patients, respectively. Early therapeutic efficacy was evaluated in 67 patients, and percentages of patients achieving CR/PR/SD/PD until 12 weeks were 3.0%/29.9%/49.3%/17.9%, respectively, indicating ORR of 32.8% and DCR of 82.1%, The ORR was higher in MTA-naïve patients (40.5%) than in those after discontinuation of lenvatinib due to PD (7.7%, P = 0.0410), while the DCR was equivalent between both patients (83.3% vs 80.0%, P = 0.1184), and the multivariate analysis revealed previous MTA therapies with lenvatinib alone as a factor to deteriorate the ORR (HR of 4.846 (P = 0.0619)). The OS rates at 24 and 48 weeks were 86% and 72%, respectively, and the rates did not differ between MTA-naïve and MTA-experienced patients. Multivariate analyses revealed that achievement of CR, PR or SD and peripheral neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio were associated with a favorable outcome (HR of 0.124, P<0.0001 and 0.351, P = 0.0303). Conclusions ATZ/BEV merits consideration even for MTA-experienced patients, since the OS was equivalent to those in MTA-naïve patients despite of an unfavorable early therapeutic efficacy.

multidisciplinary sciences
Phase II study of atezolizumab and bevacizumab combination therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who previously received systemic treatment.

Takeshi Terashima,Tatsuya Yamashita,Makoto Yamamoto,Masahiro Yanagi,Hidetoshi Nakagawa,Akihiro Seki,Kouki Nio,Kuniaki Arai,Tadashi Toyama,Taro Yamashita

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.3_suppl.495

IF: 45.3

2024-01-20

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:495 Background: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AteBev) has been established as a standard of care for patients with untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Lenvatinib was once the first choice and remains a treatment option for such patients; however, no subsequent treatment to date has proven a similar level of efficacy. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of AteBev in patients with HCC previously treated with lenvatinib. Methods: In this single-center, open-labeled, single-arm, phase II study, patients with advanced HCC previously treated with at least one systemic treatment were enrolled to receive 1,200 mg of atezolizumab and 15 mg/kg of bevacizumab intravenously every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival, response rate, tumor control rate, and frequency of adverse events. The threshold and expected PFS were 3 months and 6.8 months, respectively, at a one-sided significance level of 0.05, and statistical power of 80%. Based on these data, the number of patients required was estimated to be 26. Results: Among 29 patients enrolled between November 2020 and October 2022, 26 previously treated with lenvatinib were included in the primary efficacy analysis. Median PFS was 9.70 [90% confidence interval (CI), 5.10–14.24] months. Median overall survival was 17.23 (90% CI, 3.18–27.85) months, and response rate and tumor control rate were 34.6% and 69.2%, respectively. Severe adverse events were observed in six patients (23.1%), six patients (23.1%) discontinued treatment because of immune-related adverse events or treatment-refractory ascites, and 10 patients (38.5%) required the withdrawal of treatment mainly because of proteinuria. There were no treatment-related deaths. Conclusions: AteBev for patients with advanced HCC previously treated with lenvatinib had a comparable efficacy to that in patients with no prior treatment. It may therefore be a treatment option for patients with advanced HCC previously treated with lenvatinib. Clinical trial information: jRCT1041200068 .

oncology
Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib After Progression on First-line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab Treatment in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients

Yen-Hao Chen,Yen-Yang Chen,Jing-Houng Wang,Chao-Hung Hung,YEN-HAO CHEN,YEN-YANG CHEN,JING-HOUNG WANG,CHAO-HUNG HUNG

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.16286

2023-02-28

Anticancer Research

Abstract:BACKGROUND/AIM: This study aimed to assess the clinical impact of lenvatinib after disease progression on atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 14 patients who received lenvatinib after failure of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and all patients were classified as having a Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C. Six patients had macrovascular invasion, and a liver occupation rate of >50% was reported in seven patients. The Kaplan-Meier method was performed to analyze the cumulative survival, while log-rank test was used to detect the differences. The dose of lenvatinib was determined based on body weight.RESULTS: The participants' responses to lenvatinib treatment were as follows: 21.4% achieved partial response (PR), while 35.7% had a stable disease, with a disease control rate of 57.1%. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 4.2 months and 8.3 months, respectively; the median PFS and OS were 6.7 months and 10.5 months in the PR group. No significant difference was observed in the median PFS and OS between patients with and without macrovascular invasion or liver occupation rate of >50%. Most of the adverse events (AEs) were categorized as grade 1-2; all patients tolerated the AEs, and no drug-related mortality was reported. Additionally, half of the population underwent subsequent therapy after progression on lenvatinib treatment.CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib is effective and can be safely used as second-line systemic therapy after progression on atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced HCC in real-world clinical practice.

oncology
Lenvatinib versus Sorafenib Second-Line Therapy in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Progressed to Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab: A Retrospective Real-World Study

Mara Persano,Andrea Casadei-Gardini,Toshifumi Tada,Goki Suda,Shigeo Shimose,Masatoshi Kudo,Federico Rossari,Changhoon Yoo,Jaekyung Cheon,Fabian Finkelmeier,Ho Yeong Lim,José Presa,Gianluca Masi,Francesca Bergamo,Elisabeth Amadeo,Francesco Vitiello,Takashi Kumada,Naoya Sakamoto,Hideki Iwamoto,Tomoko Aoki,Hong Jae Chon,Vera Himmelsbach,Massimo Alberto Iavarone,Giuseppe Cabibbo,Margarida Montes,Francesco Giuseppe Foschi,Caterina Vivaldi,Caterina Soldà,Takuya Sho,Takashi Niizeki,Naoshi Nishida,Christoph Steup,Mariangela Bruccoleri,Masashi Hirooka,Kazuya Kariyama,Joji Tani,Masanori Atsukawa,Koichi Takaguchi,Ei Itobayashi,Kunihiko Tsuji,Toru Ishikawa,Kazuto Tajiri,Hironori Ochi,Satoshi Yasuda,Hidenori Toyoda,Chikara Ogawa,Takashi Nishimura,Takeshi Hatanaka,Satoru Kakizaki,Noritomo Shimada,Kazuhito Kawata,Atsushi Hiraoka,Fujimasa Tada,Hideko Ohama,Kazuhiro Nouso,Asahiro Morishita,Akemi Tsutsui,Takuya Nagano,Norio Itokawa,Tomomi Okubo,Michitaka Imai,Hisashi Kosaka,Atsushi Naganuma,Yohei Koizumi,Shinichiro Nakamura,Masaki Kaibori,Hiroko Iijima,Yoichi Hiasa,Luigi Mascia,Silvia Foti,Silvia Camera,Fabio Piscaglia,Mario Scartozzi,Stefano Cascinu,Margherita Rimini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000541018

2024-10-11

Oncology

Abstract:Introduction: The most frequently used first-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Upon progression after this treatment, the standard of care in many countries is sorafenib, due to the lack of reimbursement for other drugs. Several randomized trials are currently underway to clarify the best second-line therapy in patients with HCC. This real-world study aimed to compare outcomes reached by lenvatinib and sorafenib second-line therapy in this setting. Methods: The overall cohort included 891 patients with HCC from 5 countries treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in first-line setting between October 2018 and April 2022. At the data cut-off (May 2022), 41.5% of patients were continuing a first-line treatment, 5.5% were lost at follow-up, and 53.0% of patients had progressive disease after first-line therapy. 51.5% of patients with progressive disease received a second-line treatment, while 48.5% did not receive any subsequent therapy. Between patients receiving second-line treatment, 11.1% of patients underwent transarterial chemoembolization, 21.0% received sorafenib, 35.4% underwent lenvatinib, and 32.5% were treated with other drugs. Results: Lenvatinib second-line subgroup achieved a median overall survival (mOS) of 18.9 months, significative longer (p = 0.01; hazard ratio [HR]: 2.24) compared to sorafenib subgroup that reached a mOS of 14.3 months. The multivariate analysis highlighted albumin-bilirubin 1 grade (p < 0.01; HR: 5.23) and lenvatinib second-line therapy (p = 0.01; HR: 2.18) as positive prognostic factors for OS. The forest plot highlighted a positive trend in terms of OS in favor of patients treated with lenvatinib second-line regardless of baseline characteristics before first-line therapy. Conclusion: These results suggest that, in patients with HCC progressed to first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib second-line therapy is associated to an improved survival compared to sorafenib.
Does first‐line treatment have prognostic impact for unresectable HCC?—Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib

Atsushi Hiraoka,Takashi Kumada,Toshifumi Tada,Masashi Hirooka,Kazuya Kariyama,Joji Tani,Masanori Atsukawa,Koichi Takaguchi,Ei Itobayashi,Shinya Fukunishi,Kunihiko Tsuji,Toru Ishikawa,Kazuto Tajiri,Hironori Ochi,Satoshi Yasuda,Hidenori Toyoda,Chikara Ogawa,Takashi Nishimura,Takeshi Hatanaka,Satoru Kakizaki,Noritomo Shimada,Kazuhito Kawata,Atsushi Naganuma,Hisashi Kosaka,Hiroshi Shibata,Tomoko Aoki,Takaaki Tanaka,Hideko Ohama,Kazuhiro Nouso,Asahiro Morishita,Akemi Tsutsui,Takuya Nagano,Norio Itokawa,Tomomi Okubo,Taeang Arai,Michitaka Imai,Yohei Koizumi,Shinichiro Nakamura,Kouji Joko,Hiroko Iijima,Masaki Kaibori,Yoichi Hiasa,Masatoshi Kudo,Real‐life Practice Experts for HCC (RELPEC) Study Group and HCC 48 Group (hepatocellular carcinoma experts from 48 clinics in Japan)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.4854

IF: 4.711

2022-06-05

Cancer Medicine

Abstract:This is a first report mentions that a comparison of therapeutic efficacy between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) and lenvatinib treatment given as first‐line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u‐HCC) in regard to overall survival (OS). Although tumor responses did not show significant differences between both groups, Atez/Bev‐group showed better OS rates following adjustment with IPW (0.5−/1−/1.5‐years: 89.6%/67.2%/58.1% vs. 77.8%/66.2%/52.7%, p = 0.002). Atez/Bev‐group showed better OS as a first‐line treatment as compared to lenvatinib‐group. Background/Aim A comparison of therapeutic efficacy between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) and lenvatinib treatment given as first‐line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u‐HCC) in regard to progression‐free survival (PFS) overall survival (OS) has not been reported. We aimed to elucidate which of those given as initial treatment for u‐HCC has greater prognostic impact on PFS and OS of affected patients, retrospectively. Materials/Methods From 2020 to January 2022, 251 u‐HCC (Child–Pugh A, ECOG PS 0/1, BCLC‐B/C) treated were enrolled (Atez/Bev‐group, n = 194; lenvatinib‐group, n = 57). PFS and OS were analyzed following adjustment based on inverse probability weighting (IPW). Results There was a greater number of patients with macro‐vascular invasion in Atez/Bev‐group (22.7% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.022). In lenvatinib‐group, the frequencies of appetite loss (38.6% vs. 19.6%, p = 0.002), hypothyroidism (21.1% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.004), hand foot skin reaction (19.3% vs. 1.0%, p

oncology
Real-world efficacy and safety of durvalumab–tremelimumab as second-line systemic therapy after atezolizumab–bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Ryoichi Miura,Atsushi Ono,Shigeki Yano,Kei Amioka,Kensuke Naruto,Kenji Yamaoka,Yasutoshi Fujii,Shinsuke Uchikawa,Hatsue Fujino,Takashi Nakahara,Eisuke Murakami,Tomokazu Kawaoka,Daiki Miki,Masataka Tsuge,C. Nelson Hayes,Shiro Oka

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000039289

IF: 1.6

2024-08-27

Medicine

Abstract:Worldwide, primary liver cancer was the 6th most common cancer and the 3rd leading cause of cancer-related death in 2020. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common histological type of primary liver cancer and accounts for 75% to 85% of all cases. [ 1 ] Systemic therapy has an important role in treating unresectable HCC (uHCC), and multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI), such as sorafenib, have long been used in first-line treatment. In 2020, the IMbrave150 study, an open-label phase III trial, showed that the atezolizumab–bevacizumab (Atezo+Bev), an immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)–immune-combination therapy, significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival compared to sorafenib (median OS; Atezo+Bev vs sorafenib: 19.2 months vs 13.4 months), and a higher response was achieved with Atezo+Bev than sorafenib (overall response rate [ORR]; Atevo+Bev vs sorafenib: 27.3% vs 11.9%; P < .001), [ 2 ] ICI-based regimens are now recognized as first-line agents. Several ICI-based regimens have been developed thus far. In 2022, the STRIDE study, an open-label, phase III trial that compared durvalumab–tremelimumab combination therapy (Dur+Tre) with sorafenib, showed improved survival (median OS; Dur+Tre vs sorafenib: 16.4 months vs 13.7 months; P < .0035) and thus confirmed the superiority of Dur+Tre compared to sorafenib. [ 3 ] In Japan, based on the results of the IMbrave150 and STRIDE trials, 2 ICI regimens—Atezo+Bev and Dur+Tre—became available in May 2023. [ 4 ] In Japan, it is possible to undertake not only TKI but also ICI rechallenge, wherein patients are directly transferred to another ICI without any other systemic therapy, including TKI, as second-line treatment after the initial ICI. [ 4 ] The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guidelines recommend TKI as second-line treatment, [ 5 , 6 ] whereas there are few reports of the efficacy of ICI rechallenge. [ 7 , 8 ] The efficacy of ICI rechallenge has been reported in solid tumors, such as malignant melanoma [ 9 ] and renal cell carcinoma. [ 10 , 11 ] However, the efficacy and safety of ICI contiguous rechallenge in uHCC needs evaluation. In the present study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of Dur+Tre as the second-line regimen after first-line Atezo+Bev treatment in patients with uHCC.

medicine, general & internal
Review of: "First-line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-based Sequential Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Rationale for Future Trials"

Hui-Chuan Sun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32388/0ufjbe

2022-01-01

Abstract:the author tried to predict efficacy of second-line treatment using lenvatinib or sorafenib, or regorafenib, ramucirumab, cabozantinib after progression on Atezo+Beva treatment in patients with advanced or unresectable, un-TACEable patients, based on the available data from several RCTs, but not data from realworld study on the above scenario. I think it is an interesting study, and provides a rationale basis when we choose second-line treatment after AtezoBeva, or design a control trials, although I am quite familiar with the statistical analysis used in this study. There are several concerns as follows. 1. In the Reflect trial or Sharp trials, the treatment choices on progression after lenvatinib or sorafenib could be very different from the real-world scenario when using lenvatinib or sorafenib treatment as second-line treatment after Atezo+Beva, because when lenvatinib or sorafenib used as a first line treatment, second-line treatment using PD-1 antibody is still a choice, therefore, the expected efficacy is higher than progression after lenvatinib or sorafenib used after Atezo+Beva. 3. patients in the imbrave150 trial have no severe varices, therefore, favoring a long-term survival, and favoring second-line treatment using lenvatinib or sorafenib, as compared with other trials in which severe varices was not excluded. 4. Although there is no data so far, I believe the second-line treatment will more likely be Atezo+Beva+lenvatinib, TKI+PD-1 antibody or PD-1+CTLA-4 antibody, but not TKI monotherapy. Qeios, CC-BY 4.0 · Review, January 13, 2022
Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab vs. Lenvatinib as First-Line Therapy for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Real-World, Multi-Center Study

Beom Kyung Kim,Jaekyung Cheon,Hyeyeong Kim,Beodeul Kang,Yeonjung Ha,Do Young Kim,Seong Gyu Hwang,Young Eun Chon,Hong Jae Chon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14071747

2022-03-29

Cancers

Abstract:Lenvatinib (LENV) and atezolizumab/bevacizumab (ATE/BEV) have been approved as first-line regimens for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to compare their clinical efficacy and safety. Patients receiving ATE/BEV (n = 86) or LENV (n = 146) as first-line treatment were recruited from three academic hospitals in Korea. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and radiological response were assessed according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Clinical features of the two groups were balanced through propensity score (PS) matching with a 1:1 ratio and inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analyses. The median age was 62 years, with male predominance (83.6%). There was no significant difference in the objective response rate between the ATE/BEV and LENV groups (32.6% vs. 31.5%; p = 0.868). Neither median OS (not reached vs. 12.8 months; p = 0.357) nor PFS (5.7 vs. 6.0 months; p = 0.738) was different between ATE/BEV and LENV groups. PS-matched and IPTW analyses yielded comparable results in terms of OS and PFS (all p > 0.05). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events occurred in 42.8% and 21.9% of patients in the ATE/BEV and LENV groups, respectively (p = 0.141). The two first-line therapy regimens for unresectable HCC had comparable clinical efficacy and safety in real-world practice settings. Further studies with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are needed to validate these results.

oncology
A Multicenter Phase II Study of Second-Line Axitinib for Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Failing First-Line Sorafenib Monotherapy.

Zhong-Zhe Lin,Bang-Bin Chen,Yi-Ping Hung,Po-Hsiang Huang,Ying-Chun Shen,Yu-Yun Shao,Chih-Hung Hsu,Ann-Lii Cheng,Rheun-Chuan Lee,Yee Chao,Chiun Hsu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0143

2020-01-01

The Oncologist

Abstract:LESSONS LEARNED:For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after failure of first-line sorafenib monotherapy, second-line axitinib provides modest efficacy with tolerable toxicity. The discrepant tumor responses and survival outcomes in trials using axitinib as salvage therapy highlight the importance of optimal patient selection with the aid of clinical biomarkers. BACKGROUND:Multikinase inhibitors have been effective treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This multicenter phase II study explored the efficacy and safety of second-line axitinib for advanced HCC. METHODS:Patients with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh A liver function, experiencing progression on first-line sorafenib monotherapy, were eligible. Axitinib 5 mg twice daily was given continuously with allowed dose escalation. Tumor assessment was performed according to RECIST version 1.1. The primary endpoint was rate of disease control. RESULTS:From April 2011 to March 2016, 45 patients were enrolled. Thirty-seven patients (82%) tested positive for hepatitis B surface antigen. The disease control rate was 62.2%, and the response rate was 6.7%, according to RECIST criteria. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 2.2 months and 10.1 months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events were compatible with previous reports of axitinib. CONCLUSION:Second-line axitinib has moderate activity and acceptable toxicity for patients with advanced HCC after failing the first-line sorafenib monotherapy.
Atezolizumab with or Without Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma (GO30140): an Open-Label, Multicentre, Phase 1b Study

Michael S. Lee,Baek-Yeol Ryoo,Chih-Hung Hsu,Kazushi Numata,Stacey Stein,Wendy Verret,Stephen P. Hack,Jessica Spahn,Bo Liu,Heba Abdullah,Yulei Wang,Aiwu Ruth He,Kyung-Hun Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(20)30156-x

IF: 54.433

2020-01-01

The Lancet Oncology

Abstract:Background Dual blockade of PD-L1 and VEGF has enhanced anticancer immunity through multiple mechanisms and augmented antitumour activity in multiple malignancies. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone and combined with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods GO30140 is an open-label, multicentre, multiarm, phase 1b study that enrolled patients at 26 academic centres and community oncology practices in seven countries worldwide. The study included five cohorts, and the two hepatocellular carcinoma cohorts, groups A and F, are described here. Inclusion criteria for these two groups included age 18 years and older; histologically, cytologically, or clinically (per American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases criteria) confirmed unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma that was not amenable to curative treatment; no previous systemic treatment; and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. In group A, all patients received atezolizumab (1200 mg) and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) intravenously every 3 weeks. In group F, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous atezolizumab (1200 mg) plus intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks or atezolizumab alone by interactive voice-web response system using permuted block randomisation (block size of two) and stratification factors of geographical region; macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; and baseline a-fetoprotein concentration. Primary endpoints were confirmed objective response rate in all patients who received the combination treatment for group A and progression-free survival in the intention-totreat population in group F, both assessed by an independent review facility according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. In both groups, safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02715531, and is closed to enrolment. Findings In group A, 104 patients were enrolled between July 20,2016, and July 31,2018, and received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. With a median follow-up of 12.4 months (IQR 8.0-16.2), 37 (36%; 95% CI 26-46) of 104 patients had a confirmed objective response. The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (13 [13%]) and proteinuria (seven [7%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 25 (24%) patients and treatment-related deaths in three (3%) patients (abnormal hepatic function, hepatic cirrhosis, and pneumonitis). In group F, 119 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (60 to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab; 59 to atezolizumab monotherapy) between May 18,2018, and March 7,2019. With a median follow-up of 6.6 months (IQR 5.5-8.5) for the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 6.7 months (4.2-8.2) for the atezolizumab monotherapy group, median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% CI 3.6-7.4) versus 3.4 months (1.9-5.2; hazard ratio 0.55; 80% CI 0.40-0.74; p=0.011). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events in group F were hypertension (in three [5%] patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group; none in the atezolizumab monotherapy group) and proteinuria (in two [3%] patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group; none in the atezolizumab monotherapy group). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in seven (12%) patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and two (3%) patients in the atezolizumab monotherapy group. There were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation Our study shows longer progression-free survival with a combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab than with atezolizumab alone in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma not previously treated with systemic therapy. Therefore, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab might become a promising treatment option for these patients. This combination is being compared with standard-of-care sorafenib in a phase 3 trial. Copyright (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Efficacy and Safety of Sorafenib or Lenvatinib for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Failure of First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Tzu-Rong Peng,Yi-Fang Weng,Ta-Wei Wu,Chao-Chuan Wu,Yi-Chun Chou,Ching-Sheng Hsu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16162813

2024-08-10

Abstract:Background: Although atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (hereinafter, atezolizumab-bevacizumab) is the standard first-line treatment for patients with advanced HCC, the optimal second-line regimen remains unknown. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of sorafenib and lenvatinib in patients with advanced HCC that progressed under atezolizumab-bevacizumab treatment. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for articles published before November 2023. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS), comparing patients who received sorafenib versus lenvatinib. Results: Seven studies involving 387 patients were included. The pooled ORR, DCR, OS, and PFS for sorafenib and lenvatinib together were 26% (95% CI: 14-43%), 63% (95% CI: 47-77%), 11.45 months (95% CI: 7.12-15.77, I2 = 92%, p < 0.01), and 3.78 months (95% CI: 2.34-5.23, I2 = 67%, p = 0.02), respectively. Although lenvatinib users had a longer median OS (12.42 vs. 10.75 months) and PFS (5.15 vs. 2.58 months) than sorafenib users, the pooled ORR, DCR, median OS, and PFS for these medications were comparable. Additionally, the distributions of all-grade and grade ≥ 3 adverse events for sorafenib and lenvatinib were comparable to those for these two medications when used as first-line therapies. Conclusions: Sorafenib or lenvatinib can provide effective treatment with manageable toxicity in patients with advanced HCC after disease progression under atezolizumab-bevacizumab.
Remaining Issues Related to Serum Cytokines in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated by Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab Combination Treatment

Hidenari Nagai,Takanori Mukozu,Teppei Matsui,Kunihide Mohri,Hideki Nagumo,Naoyuki Yoshimine,Kojiro Kobayashi,Yu Ogino,Yasuko Daido,Noritaka Wakui,Koichi Momiyama,Takahisa Matsuda,Yoshinori Igarashi,Koji Higai

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000537965

2024-02-23

Oncology

Abstract:Abstract Introduction: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AteBev) combination treatment is widely used as first-line systemic therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). We aimed to clarify therapeutic issues regarding serum cytokines and the immune reaction in patients with uHCC treated with AteBev. Methods: We analyzed preserved serum from a previous prospective study on adult Japanese patients with chronic liver disease and uHCC who received AteBev treatment at our hospital. In that study, AteBev were administered intravenously every 3 weeks, and blood samples were collected before and after 3 weeks’ treatment. Dynamic computed tomography was performed after 6 weeks of treatment to assess response. Results: In the prospective study, 21 of the 59 patients showed partial response (PR) and 19 patients showed stable disease (SD), but 19 patients showed progressive disease (PD). We found that serum levels of tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin (IL)-6, and soluble IL-2 receptor (IL-2R) increased significantly in the PR group, but only soluble IL-2R increased significantly in the PD group. Regulatory T cells decreased significantly in the PD group, but there was no significant change in Th1 or Th2 cells from before to after treatment in any group. As regards soluble MHC-class I, pre-treatment levels were significantly lower in the PD group than in the PR group, and serum levels increased significantly with treatment in the PD group. Conclusion: These findings reveal a need to further improve T-cell priming and to further make T-cells recognize tumor antigens in uHCC.

oncology
Similar efficacy and safety between lenvatinib versus atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as the first‐line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Chung‐Wei Su,Wei Teng,Po‐Ting Lin,Wen‐Juei Jeng,Kuei‐An Chen,Yi‐Chung Hsieh,Wei‐Ting Chen,Ming‐Mo Ho,Chia‐Hsun Hsieh,Ching‐Ting Wang,Pei‐Mei Chai,Chen‐Chun Lin,Chun‐Yen Lin,Shi‐Ming Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.5506

IF: 4.711

2022-12-07

Cancer Medicine

Abstract:This study provides real‐world experience of lenvatinib and A + B as firstline treatment for unresectable HCC. The data showed that compared survival, response rate, and adverse events between two regimens. Background Lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab(A + B) have been used for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as first‐line therapy. Real‐world studies comparison of efficacy and safety in these two regimens are limited, we therefore conduct this study to investigate these issues. Methods We retrospectively reviewed patients received lenvatinib (n = 46) and A + B (n = 46) as first‐line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC in a tertiary medical center. Objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated according to modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST). Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was performed for baseline clinical features balance. Results A total of 92 patients with median age of 63.8 year‐old, 78.3% male, 85.9% viral hepatitis infected, 67.4% BCLC stage C were enrolled. The median treatment and follow‐up duration were 4.7 months and 9.4 months, respectively. There was no significant difference in ORR (26.1% vs. 41.3%, p = 0.1226), PFS (5.9 vs. 5.3 months, p = 0.4066), and OS (not reached vs. not reached, p = 0.7128) between the lenvatinib and A + B groups. After IPW, the results of survival and response rate were also compared. Subgroup analysis suggested that using lenvatinib was not inferior to A + B in regards of PFS, including those with elder, Child‐Pugh class B, beyond up‐to‐seven, or portal vein invasion VP4 patients. Among the lenvatinib treated patients, multivariate analysis showed patients elder than 65‐year‐old was an independent predictor associated with shorter PFS (adjust HR: 2.085[0.914–4.753], p = 0.0213). The incidence rates of adverse events were similar between two groups (76 vs. 63%, p = 0.1740). Both of two regimens had similarly few impact on liver function by comparison of baseline, third month, and sixth month albumin‐bilirubin index and Child‐Pugh score. Conclusions The efficacy and safety of lenvatinib are similar to A + B as a first‐line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC.

oncology
Second-line regorafenib in patients (pts) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) after progression on first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo-Bev): Phase 2 REGONEXT trial.

Changhoon Yoo,Jaekyung Cheon,Baek-Yeol Ryoo,Min-Hee Ryu,Hyung-Don Kim,Kyu-Pyo Kim,Beodeul Kang,Hong Jae Chon,Richard S. Finn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.3_suppl.477

IF: 45.3

2024-01-20

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:477 Background: Atezo-Bev is the standard first-line therapy against uHCC. However, there is no globally established subsequent treatment after failure on first-line Atezo-Bev. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of second-line regorafenib in uHCC pts who progressed on first-line Atezo-Bev. Methods: This is a phase II investigator-initiated trial involving 2 academic centers in Korea. Key eligibility criteria include confirmed diagnosis of HCC; prior treatment with Atezo-Bev at least ≥ 2 cycles; Child-Pugh A; ECOG performance status 0-1. Eligible patients received regorafenib 160 mg once daily 3 weeks on/1 week off until progressive disease or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) according to the RECIST v1.1, overall survival (OS) and treatment-related adverse event (TRAE). Results: Total 40 pts were recruited from Dec 2021 to May 2023. Pts characteristics were as follows: median age of 56 (range, 36-81); hepatitis B (77.5%), hepatitis C (10.0%), non-viral (12.5%); BCLC C stage (97.5%); and AFP ≥ 400 ng/ml (40.0%). As of the date of data cut-off (15 Aug 2023), the median follow-up duration was 6.6 mo (95% CI, 5.0-8.2). The median PFS was 3.5 mo (95% CI, 3.0-4.0). ORR and DCR were 10.0% and 82.5%. The median OS was 9.7 mo (95% CI, 8.3-11.1) and 6-month OS rate was 55.0%. The median OS since the start of prior Atezo-Bev was 16.6 mo (95% CI, 11.9-21.3). When stratified according to the duration of prior Atezo-Bev (<4 cycles [n=10] vs. ≥4 cycles [n=30]), pts with ≥4 cycles of prior Atezo-Bev showed better median OS (not reached vs 3.6 mo; p=0.001) and ORR (13.3% vs 0%; p=0.009), while there was a trend for better median PFS (3.8 mo vs 2.5 mo; p=0.107). The most common grade 3-4 TRAEs were thrombocytopenia (5.0%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (2.5%), and fatigue (2.5%). Conclusions: Regorafenib was effective as second-line therapy in uHCC pts who progressed on first-line Atezo-Bev. Efficacy and safety outcomes from our study were consistent with those observed in the pivotal phase 3 RESORCE trial which included sorafenib-tolerated/progressed pts. Clinical trial information: NCT05134532 .

oncology
Safety evaluation of lenvatinib treatment after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy for patients with unresectable liver cancer: A comparison of lenvatinib as 1st‐ or 2nd‐line treatment

Michio Kimura,Shiori Yamada,Makiko Go,Satoshi Yasuda,Hidenori Toyoda,Eiseki Usami

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2024.14464

2024-05-18

Oncology Letters

Abstract:Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/BV) as first‐line therapy and lenvatinib (LEN) as second‐line therapy are the recommended treatments for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Adverse immune events caused by immune checkpoint inhibitors (such as Atez) generally only occur several months after administration; therefore, the potential influence of the first‐line treatment on second‐line treatment is not clear. The present study investigated the safety of second‐line LEN treatment (2nd LEN) by comparing the adverse events (AEs) of 2nd LEN after first‐line Atez/BV treatment for unresectable liver cancer, with those of first‐line LEN treatment (1st LEN). Patients who received Atez/BV as first‐line therapy and 2nd LEN, or those who received 1st LEN at Ogaki Municipal Hospital (Ogaki, Japan) between April 2018 and September 2023 were retrospectively evaluated for treatment duration and AEs. The median treatment duration for patients in the 1st LEN (n=39) and 2nd LEN (n=13) groups was 151.0 days [95% confidence interval (CI) 77‐303 days] and 128.5 days (95% CI 68‐270 days), respectively (P=0.385). A greater proportion of patients showed elevated aspartate aminotransferase/alanine aminotransferase levels in the 2nd LEN group (76.9%) compared with those in the 1st LEN group (46.2%) (P=0.016). Hypothyroidism was more common in those receiving 2nd LEN (46.2%) than 1st LEN (12.8%) (P=0.016). In addition, grade 1 (three patients) and grade 2 (three patients) hypothyroidism was observed in patients receiving 2nd LEN. For these six patients, during first‐line Atez/BV treatment, four patients had grade 0 hypothyroidism and two patients had grade 1 hypothyroidism (P=0.025). In conclusion, patients receiving 2nd LEN after treatment with Atez/BV are at an increased risk of hypothyroidism.

oncology
Second-Line Treatment after Failure of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor, Retrial of Immunotherapy, or Locoregional Therapy?

Sang Youn Hwang,Sangjune L Lee,Hongqun Liu,Samuel S Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1159/000534303

2023-11-13

Liver Cancer

Abstract:Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy such as atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or durvalumab plus tremelimumab became mainstream first-line systemic treatment in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients since remarkably superior efficacy of ICI-based therapy compared to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) was reported in two recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (IMbrave150, HIMALAYA). However, the optimal second-line therapy after treatment failure of first-line ICI-based therapy remains unknown as no RCT has examined this issue. Summary: Therefore, at present, most clinicians are empirically treating patients with TKIs or retrial of ICI or locoregional treatment (LRT) modality such as transarterial therapy, radiofrequency ablation, and radiation therapy in this clinical setting without solid evidence. In this review, we will discuss current optimal strategies for second-line treatment after the failure of first-line ICI-based therapy by reviewing published studies and ongoing prospective trials. Key messages: Clinicians should consider carefully whether to treat the patients with TKI, other ICI-based therapy, or LRT in this situation by considering several factors including liver function reserve, performance status, adverse events of previous therapy, and presence of lesion that can consider LRT such as oligoprogression and vascular invasion. In the meantime, we await the results of ongoing prospective trials to elucidate the best management options.
Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab Versus Lenvatinib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Jinpeng Lu,Xinyi Lin,Haiwen Teng,Yansong Zheng

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.2402

2024-02-06

The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract:Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is often diagnosed in advanced stages. Following sorafenib, lenvatinib (LENV) has been approved as a first‐line treatment option for unresectable HCC. In the past few years, at least 9 large‐scale cohort studies have examined the efficacy and safety of LENV compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATE/BEV) in unresectable HCC, but there is currently no direct meta‐analysis conducted for a comprehensive consolidation. To provide the most updated meta‐analysis of the clinical efficacy and safety of ATE/BEV versus LENV for patients with unresectable HCC. Our studies comparing the efficacy and safety of ATE/BEV and LENV in unresectable HCC were systematically searched in PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from inception to February 2023. Outcomes measured were overall survival (OS), progression‐free survival (PFS), mortality, complete response (CR), partial response (PR), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progressive disease (PD), stable disease (SD), and adverse events (AEs). Seven eligible studies involving 4428 patients (1569 in the ATE/BEV group and 2859 in the LENV group) were included in the narrative synthesis. All baseline characteristics were similar between the 2 groups except for Child‐Pugh class B. Ultimately, our meta‐analysis showed that the LENV group had longer OS and PFS than the ATE/BEV group. Moreover, patients on LENV were more likely to achieve SD, whereas those on ATE/BEV were more likely to achieve PR.

pharmacology & pharmacy
Frontline evaluation: Atezolizumab–bevacizumab versus lenvatinib for BCLC stage B hepatocellular carcinoma exceeding the up‐to‐seven criteria

Masamichi Kimura,Koji Nishikawa,Jun Imamura,Kiminori Kimura

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.70217

IF: 4.711

2024-09-21

Cancer Medicine

Abstract:Introduction This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) compared to lenvatinib (LEN) as first‐line systemic therapy for patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exceeding the up‐to‐seven criteria threshold, who are typically unsuitable for transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). Methods A retrospective analysis was conducted on 49 consecutive patients with HCC treated at Tokyo Metropolitan Komagome Hospital between May 2018 and October 2023. The patients were divided into two groups: the Atez/Bev group (21 patients) and the LEN group (28 patients). Eligibility criteria included Child‐Pugh A classification, no prior systemic therapy, and ineligibility for resection, ablation, or transplantation. Treatment outcomes were assessed through periodic imaging and laboratory tests, evaluating OS, PFS, ORR, and disease control rate (DCR). Results Both groups demonstrated comparable baseline characteristics, with a median follow‐up of 15.4 months. No significant difference was observed in OS between the Atez/Bev and LEN groups (median OS: 19.80 vs. 22.20 months, p = 0.763). The median PFS was 10.23 months for Atez/Bev and 7.20 months for LEN (p = 0.343). There were no statistically significant differences in ORR or DCR between the two groups. Common adverse events included elevated AST and ALT levels, with no significant difference in the overall rate of adverse events between the groups. Conclusions Atez/Bev and LEN demonstrated comparable efficacy and safety as first‐line systemic treatments for patients with BCLC stage B HCC exceeding the up‐to‐seven criteria. Both therapeutic options are viable for this population, though further large‐scale prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.

oncology
Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab combined with transarterial embolization plus hepatic arterial infusion-chemotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with a diameter larger than 8 cm: A retrospective study.

Wenbo Guo,Hongjie Cai,Song Chen,Zhiqiang Wu,Fan Wang,Ludan Chen,Shuangyan Tang,Wenquan Zhuang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.e14617

IF: 45.3

2023-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e14617 Background: The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (Atezo-Bev) has become the standard first-line therapeutic regimen for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), while the therapeutic effect is limited in patients with high-risk characteristics (vp3/vp4 portal vein tumor thrombus or high tumor burden). Locoregional therapy plays an important role in minishing tumor burden and synergistic antitumor effect with systemic therapy, including transarterial embolization (TAE) and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC). Herein, this study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab and bevacizumab combined with TAE and HAIC in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with high tumor burden. Methods: This retrospective study reviewed the medical records of patients who had primary uHCC with high tumor burden (maximum nodule diameter >8 cm) receiving Atezo-Bev plus TAE and HAIC from September 2019 to September 2022 in our medical center. HAIC involved oxaliplatin, fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX regimen). Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), tumor response according to mRECIST, and treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were evaluated. Results: In total, 30 patients were included in this study with a median follow-up period of 11.4 months. Twelve patients (40%) died and all the remaining patients reached the end point of PFS at the cut-off follow-up time. The median PFS of the 30 evaluable patients was 6.8 months (95% CI, 2.6-11.1 months), and the survival rates at 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, and 12 months were 86.2%, 82.5%, 68.6%, and 60%, respectively, and the median OS was not estimated (NE). According to the mRECIST, the objective response rate (ORR) was 74.4% (95% CI, 59.3%-89.5%), and the disease control rate (DCR) was 93.3% (95%CI, 85.4%-98.6%) respectively. Extrahepatic metastasis was an independent risk factor associated with PFS.As for the safety, there was no treatment-related mortality throughout the study period. The most common AEs were fever (6.7%), and diarrhoea(6.7%), and grade 3/4 AEs occurred among 6 patients (20%). Conclusions: Atezo-Bev combined with TAE and HAIC may be safe and effective for uHCC patients with high tumor burden, while further prospectively clinical research is necessary to validate the efficacy and safety.

oncology
Is atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma superior to lenvatinib? a systematic review and meta‐analysis

Gang Zhu,Longfei Zeng,Liu Yang,Xin Zhang,Jinquan Tang,Yong Pan,Bo Li,Mengchen Chen,Tao Wu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-024-03718-1

2024-06-23

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract:This meta-analysis was dedicated to evaluating the effectiveness and safety of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) and Lenvatinib (LEN) as first-line systematic therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC).

pharmacology & pharmacy

Use of hepatic protein biomarkers for tracing the exposure of veal calves to illegal growth-promoters: investigations on experimental samples and preliminary application under field conditions.

Usefulness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as second-line therapy for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Phase II study of atezolizumab and bevacizumab combination therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who previously received systemic treatment.

Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib After Progression on First-line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab Treatment in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients

Lenvatinib versus Sorafenib Second-Line Therapy in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Progressed to Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab: A Retrospective Real-World Study

Does first‐line treatment have prognostic impact for unresectable HCC?—Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib

Real-world efficacy and safety of durvalumab–tremelimumab as second-line systemic therapy after atezolizumab–bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Review of: "First-line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-based Sequential Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Rationale for Future Trials"

Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab vs. Lenvatinib as First-Line Therapy for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Real-World, Multi-Center Study

A Multicenter Phase II Study of Second-Line Axitinib for Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Failing First-Line Sorafenib Monotherapy.

Atezolizumab with or Without Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma (GO30140): an Open-Label, Multicentre, Phase 1b Study

Efficacy and Safety of Sorafenib or Lenvatinib for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Failure of First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Remaining Issues Related to Serum Cytokines in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated by Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab Combination Treatment

Similar efficacy and safety between lenvatinib versus atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as the first‐line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Second-line regorafenib in patients (pts) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) after progression on first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo-Bev): Phase 2 REGONEXT trial.

Safety evaluation of lenvatinib treatment after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab therapy for patients with unresectable liver cancer: A comparison of lenvatinib as 1st‐ or 2nd‐line treatment

Second-Line Treatment after Failure of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor, Retrial of Immunotherapy, or Locoregional Therapy?

Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab Versus Lenvatinib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

Frontline evaluation: Atezolizumab–bevacizumab versus lenvatinib for BCLC stage B hepatocellular carcinoma exceeding the up‐to‐seven criteria

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab combined with transarterial embolization plus hepatic arterial infusion-chemotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma with a diameter larger than 8 cm: A retrospective study.

Is atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma superior to lenvatinib? a systematic review and meta‐analysis