Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus Lenvatinib for patients with Barcelona clinic liver cancer stage B (BCLC-B) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC): A real-world population

Vitiello, Francesco;Tada, Toshifumi;Suda, Goki;Shimose, Shigeo;Kudo, Masatoshi;Cheon, Jaekyung;Finkelmeier, Fabian;Lim, Ho Yeong;Presa, José;Masi, Gianluca;Yoo, Changhoon;Lonardi, Sara;Tovoli, Francesco;Kumada, Takashi;Scartozzi, Mario;Tamburini, Emiliano;Foschi, Francesco Giuseppe;Persano, Mara;Rossari, Federico;Foti, Silvia;Camera, Silvia;De Cobelli, Francesco;Aldrighetti, Luca;Cascinu, Stefano;Casadei-Gardini, Andrea;Rimini, Margherita

2025-01-01

---

Abstract

Background The aim of the present study was to perform a real-world analysis on a large patient cohort with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B (BCLC-B) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B) or with Lenvatinib. Methods The study population included patients affected with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B (BCLC-B) hepatocellular carcinoma not suitable for locoregional therapies (LRTs) from eastern and western populations, who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B) or Lenvatinib as first-line treatment. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate predictive factors for overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP) while prognostic factors were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analysis using Cox regression model. Results 919 patients with BCLC-B HCC were analyzed in the study. Lenvatinib was administered to 561 (61%) patients while 358 (39%) received A + B. The median overall survival (mOS) for patients receiving Lenvatinib was 21.3 months compared to 15.8 months for patients receiving A + B as first-line treatment (Lenvatinib v A + B), hazard ratio (HRs) 0.84 P = 0.22. The median time to progression (mTTP) for patients receiving Lenvatinib was 7.3 months compared to 8.7 months for patients receiving A + B as first-line treatment (Lenvatinib v A + B): HR 1.15 P = 0.10. Multivariate analysis confirmed no different in terms of mOS and mTTP between the two treatments. Objective response rate (ORR) was 47.1% for patients receiving Lenvatinib and 27.1% for patients receiving A + B P < 0.000001. Patients receiving Lenvatinib experienced a significantly higher incidence of hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR), hypertension, diarrhea, fatigue, decrease appetite, hypothyroidism, and other toxicity compared to patients receiving A + B. Favorable prognostic factors for OS in Lenvatinib group were platelets (PLT) >100.000 (HR 0.68 P = 0.02), HCC nonalcoholic steatohepatitis/nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NASH/NAFLD) related (HR 0.53, P = 0.03). No favorable prognostic factors were found for A + B group. Favorable prognostic factors for TTP in the A + B group were in TACE refractory patients (HR 0.76, P = 0.02), PLT <100.000 (HR 0.62, P = 0.0067), and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) < 3 (HR 0.78, P = 0.04). Conclusion Although Lenvatinib had a higher response rate, the study showed no statistically significant differences between Lenvatinib and A + B in terms of efficacy, in patients with BCLC-B HCC.