Background/Aim Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) treatment is recommended for unresechepatocellular carcinoma (u‐HCC) patients classified as Child‐Pugh A (CP‐A). This study aimed to elucidate the prognosis of patients treated with Atez/Bev, especially CP‐A and ‐B cases. Materials/methods From September 2020 to March 2022, 457 u‐HCC patients treated with Atez/Bev were enrolled (median age 74 years, male:female = 368:89, CP‐A:CP‐B = 427:30, Child‐Pugh score [CPS] 5:6:7:8:9 = 271:156:21:8:1). Therapeutic response was evaluated using RECIST ver.1.1. Clinical features and prognosis were retrospectively evaluated. Results There were no significant differences between CP‐A and ‐B patients in regard to best response (CR:PR:SD:PD = 16:91:194:81 vs. 0:7:13:8, p = 0.739; objective response rate/disease control rate = 28.0%/78.8% vs. 25.0%/71.4%). Analysis performed using inverse probability weighting adjustments of clinical factors other than those related to hepatic reserve function with a p value < 0.10 for comparisons between patients with CP‐A and ‐B showed that the progression‐free survival (PFS) rate for CP‐A cases was better (6‐/12‐/18‐month: 58.2%/36.1%/27.8% vs. 49.6%/8.7%/non‐estimable [NE], p < 0.001), as was overall survival (OS) rate (6‐/12‐/18‐month: 89.9%/71.7%/51.4% versus 63.6%/18.4%/NE; p < 0.001). Median PFS (mPFS) and median OS (mOS) for the CPS‐5 were 9.5 months/NE, and 5.1/14.0 months for the CPS‐6 (both p < 0.001). Furthermore, for modified albumin‐bilirubin grade (mALBI)‐1/2a/2b, mPFS was 9.4/8.5/5.3 months (p < 0.001) and mOS was NE/17.8/13.4 months (p < 0.001). Conclusion Better hepatic function, such as mALBI grade 1 or 2a are thought to indicate a better condition for obtaining sufficient prognosis with Atez/Bev treatment for u‐HCC patients, whereas for CP‐B patients, who mainly shown an mALBI grade of 2b or 3, Atez/Bev might have less therapeutic efficacy.

No abstract

Background: Although atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/bev) treatment has been developed for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC), changes in hepatic function during therapy have yet to be reported.

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 < 0.001), and diarrhea (10.5% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.012) were greater, while that of general fatigue was lower (22.8% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.008). Comparisons of therapeutic best response using modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (mRECIST) did not show significant differences between the present groups (Atez/Bev vs. lenvatinib: CR/PR/SD/PD = 6.1%/39.1%/39.1%/15.6% vs. 0%/48.0%/38.0%/14.0%, p = 0.285). In patients of discontinuation of treatments, 48.2% switched to lenvatinib, 10.6% continued beyond PD, 8.2% received another systemic treatment, 5.9% underwent transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), 3.5% received hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), and 1.2% underwent surgical resection in Atez/Bev‐group, while 42.2% switched to Atez/Bev, 4.4% continued beyond PD, 4.4% received another systemic treatment, 2.2% nivolumab, 6.7% received TACE, and 2.2% received HAIC in lenvatinib‐group. Following adjustment with inverse probability weighting (IPW), Atez/Bev‐group showed better PFS (0.5−/1−/1.5‐years: 56.6%/31.6%/non‐estimable vs. 48.6%/20.4%/11.2%, p < 0.0001) and OS rates (0.5−/1−/1.5‐years: 89.6%/67.2%/58.1% vs. 77.8%/66.2%/52.7%, p = 0.002). Conclusion The present study showed that u‐HCC patients who received Atez/Bev as a first‐line treatment may have a better prognosis than those who received lenvatinib.

No abstract