The summaries are free for public
use. The Chronic Liver Disease
Foundation will continue to add and
archive summaries of articles deemed
relevant to CLDF by the Board of
Trustees and its Advisors.
Abstract Details
Atezolizumab and bevacizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with impaired liver function and prior systemic therapy: a real-world experience
Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2022 Feb 26;14:17588359221080298. doi: 10.1177/17588359221080298.eCollection 2022.
1Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endocrinology, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
2Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Essen University Hospital, Essen, Germany.
3Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
4Department of Internal Medicine I, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
5Department of Medicine II, University Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.
6Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Neuroradiology, Faculty of Medicine, Essen University Hospital, Essen, Germany.
7Department of Medicine I, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Lübeck, Germany.
8Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Endocrinology, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany.
Abstract
Objective: Evaluation of the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab/bevacizumab in a real-world HCC cohort, including patients with impaired liver function and prior systemic therapy.
Methods: Retrospective analysis of 147 HCC patients treated with atezolizumab/bevacizumab at six sites in Germany and Austria.
Results: The overall response rate and disease control rate were 20.4% and 51.7%, respectively. Seventy-three patients (49.7%) met at least one major exclusion criterion of the IMbrave150 trial (IMbrave-OUT), whereas 74 patients (50.3%) were eligible (IMbrave-IN). Median overall survival (mOS) as well as median progression-free survival (mPFS) was significantly longer in IMbrave-IN versus IMbrave-OUT patients [mOS: 15.0 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 10.7-19.3] versus6.0 months (95% CI: 3.2-8.9; p < 0.001) and mPFS: 8.7 months (95% CI: 5.9-11.5) versus 3.7 months (95% CI: 2.7-4.7; p < 0.001)]. Prior systemic treatment did not significantly affect mOS [hazard ratio (HR): 1.32 (95% CI: 0.78-2.23; p = 0.305)]. mOS according to ALBI grades 1/2/3 were 15.0 months (95% CI: not estimable), 8.6 months (95% CI: 5.4-11.7), and 3.2 months (95% CI: 0.3-6.1), respectively. ALBI grade and ECOG score were identified as independent prognostic factors [ALBI grade 2 versus 1; HR: 2.40 (95% CI: 1.34 - 4.30; p = 0.003), ALBI grade 3 versus 1; HR: 7.28 (95% CI: 3.30-16.08; p < 0.001), and ECOG ?2 versus 0; HR: 2.09 (95% CI: 1.03 - 4.23; p = 0.042)], respectively. Sixty-seven patients (45.6%) experienced an adverse event classified as CTCAE grade ?3. Patients in the IMbrave-OUT group were at increased risk of hepatic decompensation with encephalopathy (13.7% versus 1.4%, p = 0.004) and/or ascites (39.7% versus 9.5%; p < 0.001).
Conclusion: In this real-world cohort, efficacy was comparable to the results of the IMbrave150 study and not affected by prior systemic treatment. ALBI grade and ECOG score were independently associated with survival. IMbrave-OUT patients were more likely to experience hepatic decompensation.