Safety and Efficacy of Liver-Directed Radiotherapy in Combination With Lenvatinib for Hepatocelluar Carcinoma With Macroscopic Tumor Thrombosis

This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and macroscopic tumor thrombosis who were treated with lenvatinib with or without combined liver-directed radiotherapy (LRT). From the institutional registry, we enrolled 82 patients diagnosed with HCC...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inFrontiers in oncology Vol. 12; p. 888755
Main Authors Yu, Jeong Il, Kang, Wonseok, Yoo, Gyu Sang, Goh, Myung Ji, Sinn, Dong Hyun, Gwak, Geum-Youn, Paik, Yong-Han, Choi, Moon Seok, Lee, Joon Hyeok, Koh, Kwang Cheol, Paik, Seung Woon, Hong, Jung Yong, Lim, Ho Yeong, Park, Boram, Park, Hee Chul
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Switzerland Frontiers Media S.A 11.05.2022
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and macroscopic tumor thrombosis who were treated with lenvatinib with or without combined liver-directed radiotherapy (LRT). From the institutional registry, we enrolled 82 patients diagnosed with HCC involving macroscopic tumor thrombosis and treated with lenvatinib monotherapy (non-LRT group, n = 54, 65.9%) or lenvatinib in combination with LRT (LRT group, n = 28, 34.1%). Patients were classified into the LRT group if LRT was performed within 8 weeks of lenvatinib initiation. During the median follow-up period of 5.4 (range 1.4 to 17.5) months, there was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of overall adverse events. Although there was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of overall response rate (32.1% vs. 20.4%, p = 0.15), a significantly higher treatment response was observed in the LRT group in terms of intrahepatic tumor response (67.9% vs. 20.4%, p < 0.001). In the LRT group, there was a slight difference in overall survival compared to the non-LRT group (64.1% in the LRT group vs. 37.7% in the non-LRT group at 12 months, hazard ratio [HR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28-1.03; p = .06), although it did not reach a statistically significant level. However, progression-free survival (PFS, 67.2% in the LRT group vs. 35.0% in the non-LRT group at 6 months, HR 0.47; 95% CI 0.27-0.82; p = 0.008) and intrahepatic progression-free survival (IHPFS, 74.3% in the LRT group vs. 43.3% in the non-LRT group at 6 months, HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.25-0.81; p = 0.008) were significantly superior in the LRT group. This result was also reproduced in the multivariate analysis adjusted for α-fetoprotein, another significant prognostic factor in this study, and the well-known prognostic factors, namely the presence of main portal vein tumor thrombosis and albumin-bilirubin grade. The combination of lenvatinib and LRT is relatively safe and effective in increasing the intrahepatic tumor response and improving PFS and IHPFS in patients with HCC and macroscopic tumor thrombosis.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
Reviewed by: Chai Hong Rim, Korea University, South Korea; Jason Chia-Hsien Cheng, National Taiwan University, Taiwan; Ik Jae Lee, Gangnam Severance Hospital, South Korea
Edited by: Kevin X. Liu, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, United States
These authors have contributed equally to this work
This article was submitted to Radiation Oncology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oncology
ISSN:2234-943X
2234-943X
DOI:10.3389/fonc.2022.888755