The efficacy of entecavir (ETV) treatment in chronic hepatitis B (CHB) patients who were exposed to lamivudine (LAM) but had no detectable LAM resistance (LAM-R) is not well evaluated. In this study, we aimed to evaluate whether the probability of developing genotypic resistance to ETV in LAM-exposed patients with or without LAM-R is comparable to that in antiviral-naive patients. This retrospective cohort study included 500 consecutive patients with CHB who started ETV monotherapy at a single tertiary hospital in Korea. The patients were divided into three groups: nucleos(t)ide analogue (NA)-naive patients (group 1, n ؍ 142), patients who were previously exposed to LAM and had no currently or previously detected LAM-R (group 2, n ؍ 233), and patients with LAM-R when starting ETV (group 3, n ؍ 125). The overall median ETV treatment duration was 48.7 months. The probabilities of virologic breakthrough were significantly increased not only in group 3 (hazard ratio [HR] ؍ 14.4, P < 0.001) but also in group 2 (HR ؍ 5.0, P < 0.001) compared to group 1. Genotypic ETV resistance (ETV-R) developed more frequently in group 2 (HR ؍ 13.0, P ؍ 0.013) as well as group 3 (HR ؍ 43.9, P < 0.001) than in group 1: the probabilities of developing ETV-R in groups 1, 2, and 3 were <1.0%, 8.0%, and 28.2%, respectively, at month 48. The results of this study indicate that ETV-R occurred more frequently in LAM-exposed patients, even though they had no detectable LAM-R, than in NA-naive patients. Therefore, LAM-exposed CHB patients, regardless of the presence or absence of LAM-R, should be monitored more cautiously for the development of ETV-R during ETV monotherapy. E ntecavir (ETV) is an orally administered guanosine analogue that has been approved for treatment of chronic hepatitis B (CHB). In antiviral-naive CHB patients, ETV has shown excellent antiviral efficacy with remarkably low probabilities of genotype resistance (1.2%) and virologic breakthrough (0.8%) for up to 5 years of treatment (1). In contrast to antiviral-naive patients, the rates of genotypic resistance to ETV are much higher in patients with lamivudine (LAM) resistance (LAM-R) (i.e., 51% 5-year cumulative probability) (1). Consequently, ETV is now recommended as one of the first-line therapeutic regimens for antiviralnaive patients with CHB but not for patients who had developed LAM-R (2-4).The emergence of LAM-R variants has been relatively frequent even in antiviral-naive patients with CHB: approximately 20% of patients treated with LAM develop LAM-R at 1 year and 70% to 80% at 5 years of treatment (5-7). Although some selected cases that have succeeded in achieving treatment endpoints (i.e., hepatitis B e antigen [HBeAg] seroconversion and/or maintenance of complete virologic suppression) were able to discontinue LAM without developing LAM-R (8, 9), the rates of durable response after cessation of LAM have been low (10, 11). Unfortunately, the retreatment strategies for virologic relapse in those cases are still indefinite. Since LAM was the first...