Safety and efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in early clinical practice: A multicenter analysis

• Published in: Hepatology research Vol. 52; no. 3; pp. 269 - 280
• Main Authors: Chuma, Makoto, Uojima, Haruki, Hattori, Nobuhiro, Arase, Yoshitaka, Fukushima, Taito, Hirose, Shunji, Kobayashi, Satoshi, Ueno, Makoto, Tezuka, Shun, Iwasaki, Shuichiro, Wada, Naohisa, Kubota, Kousuke, Tsuruya, Kota, Shimma, Yoshimasa, Hiroki, Ikeda, Takuya, Ehira, Tokoro, Chikako, Iwase, Shigeru, Miura, Yuki, Moriya, Satoshi, Watanabe, Tsunamasa, Hidaka, Hisashi, Morimoto, Manabu, Numata, Kazushi, Kusano, Chika, Kagawa, Tatehiro, Maeda, Shin
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01.03.2022
• Subjects: adverse events; atezolizumab plus bevacizumab; Bevacizumab; Hepatocellular carcinoma; immune checkpoint inhibitor; Leukocytes (neutrophilic); Liver cancer; Lymphocytes; molecular targeted agents; Multivariate analysis; Patients; response; Solid tumors; immune checkpoint inhibitor; adverse events; atezolizumab plus bevacizumab; molecular targeted agents; response; hepatocellular carcinoma
• ISSN: 1386-6346; 1872-034X
• DOI: 10.1111/hepr.13732

Purpose To assess the impact of clinical factors on the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (ATZ + BV) treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u‐HCC). Method Ninety‐four u‐HCC patients who were treated with ATZ + BV at multiple centers were enrolled. We defined Child‐Pugh (CP)‐A patients who received ATZ + BV treatment as a first line therapy as the ‘meets the broad sense of the IMbrave150 criteria’ group (B‐IMbrave150‐in, n = 46), and patients who received ATZ + BV treatment as a later line therapy or CP‐B patients (regardless of whether ATZ + BV was a first line or later line therapy) as the B‐IMbrave150‐out group (n = 48). Patients were retrospectively analyzed for adverse events (AEs) and treatment outcomes according to their clinical characteristics, including neutrophil lymphocyte ratio (NLR) at baseline. Results The overall incidence of AEs was 87.2% (82/94 patients). The frequency of interruption of ATZ + BV treatment due to fatigue was higher in CP‐B than CP‐A patients (p = 0.030). Objective response (OR) rates of the B‐IMbrave150‐in group (28.3%, 39.1%) were significantly higher than those of the B‐IMbrave150‐out group (8.3%, 18.8%; p = 0.0157, 0.0401) using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST, respectively. In multivariate analysis, NLR (hazard ratio (HR), 4.591; p = 0.0160) and B‐IMbrave150 criteria (HR, 4.108; p = 0.0261) were independent factors associated with the OR of ATZ + BV treatment using RECIST. Conclusion In real‐world practice, ATZ + BV treatment might offer significant benefits in patients who meet B‐IMbrave150 criteria or have low NLR.