Efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients with esophageal-gastric varices
Fujimasa Tada,Atsushi Hiraoka,Toshifumi Tada,Masashi Hirooka,Kazuya Kariyama,Joji Tani,Masanori Atsukawa,Koichi Takaguchi,Ei Itobayashi,Shinya Fukunishi,Kunihiko Tsuji,Toru Ishikawa,Kazuto Tajiri,Hironori Ochi,Hidenori Toyoda,Chikara Ogawa,Takashi Nishimura,Takeshi Hatanaka,Satoru Kakizaki,Noritomo Shimada,Kazuhito Kawata,Atsushi Naganuma,Hisashi Kosaka,Tomomitsu Matono,Hidekatsu Kuroda,Yutaka Yata,Hideko Ohama,Kazuhiro Nouso,Asahiro Morishita,Akemi Tsutsui,Takuya Nagano,Norio Itokawa,Tomomi Okubo,Taeang Arai,Keisuke Yokohama,Hiroki Nishikawa,Michitaka Imai,Yohei Koizumi,Shinichiro Nakamura,Hiroko Iijima,Masaki Kaibori,Yoichi Hiasa,Takashi Kumada,Real-life Practice Experts for HCC (RELPEC) Study Group, HCC 48 Group (hepatocellular carcinoma experts from 48 clinics in Japan)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-023-02026-2
Abstract:Background: Bevacizumab inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor-A (VEGF-A), though is known to increase bleeding risk as an adverse event (AE). This study examined whether atezolizumab/bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) can be used for patients with esophageal-gastric varices (EGV). Methods: From October 2020 to December 2022, 506 uHCC patients (median 74 years) underwent an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy examination were enrolled, after exclusion of those with portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT). Patients with EGV (≧ F1) were defined as EGV positive, and the cohort was divided into non-EGV (n = 355) and EGV (n = 151). Before introducing Atez/Bev, endoscopic treatment was performed, when necessary. Prognosis was evaluated, retrospectively. Results: The EGV group had significantly worse hepatic function, lower platelet count, elevated alpha-fetoprotein, and lower rate of extrahepatic metastasis, and lower rate of first-line use (each P < 0.05) than the other. However, progression-free survival (PFS) was also not a significantly difference between the EGV and non-EGV groups in analyses with (PFS rate at 6/12/18 months: 60%/38%/30% vs. 65%/46%/34%, P = 0.29) or without inverse probability weighting adjustment [median: 10.6 months (95% CI 8.3-14.0) vs. 10.5 months (95% CI 7.8-13.7), P = 0.79]. As for AEs, diarrhea was more frequent in the EGV group (≧ G3: 2.0% vs. 0.3%, P = 0.036), while no significant difference was noted for EGV hemorrhage (≧ G3: 1.3% vs. 0.6%, P = 0.345). Of 28 patients who underwent endoscopic treatments before introducing Atez/Bev, none showed EGV-associated hemorrhage. Conclusions: Atez/Bev might be an effective therapeutic option in patients with EGV, when appropriate endoscopic treatment for EGV is performed.