Dataset Information

Relationship of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab Treatment with Muscle Volume Loss in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients: Multicenter Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background/aim

There is no known report regarding the relationship of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) treatment with muscle volume loss (MVL) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) patients. This study aimed to elucidate the clinical relationship between MVL and Atez/Bev.

Materials/methods

From September 2020 to December 2021, 229 u-HCC patients treated with Atez/Bev and with muscle volume data obtained by computed tomography at the baseline available were analyzed (median age, 74 years; males, 186 (81.2%); ECOG PS 0/1, 221 (96.5%); HCV:HBV:alcohol:others = 81:33:40:75; Child-Pugh A, 212 (92.6%); modified albumin-bilirubin (mALBI) grade 1:2a:2b = 79:60:90; BCLC 0:A:B:C = 1:24:87:117; median observation period, 6.8 months). Japan Society of Hepatology criteria were used for definition of MVL and prognostic factors were retrospectively evaluated.

Results

Multivariate Cox-hazard analysis of prognostic factors for progression-free survival (PFS) showed elevated alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) (≥100 ng/mL) (HR 1.848, 95% CI 1.264-2.702, p = 0.002), mALBI grade (≥2a) (HR 1.563, 95% CI 1.035-2.359, p = 0.034), and MVL (HR 1.479, 95% CI 1.020-2.144, p = 0.039) as significant factors. For overall survival (OS), significant factors included elevated AFP (≥100 ng/mL) (HR 3.564, 95% CI 1.856-6.844, p < 0.001), mALBI grade (≥2a) (HR 3.451, 95% CI 1.580-7.538, p = 0.002), and MVL (HR 2.119, 95% CI 1.150-3.904, p = 0.016). Patients with MVL (MVL group, n = 91) showed worse PFS than those without (non-MVL group, n = 138) (median PFS 5.3 vs. 7.6 months, p = 0.025), while the MVL group showed worse OS (p = 0.038), though neither reached the median survival time.

Conclusion

MVL may be a clinical factor related to poor prognosis in patients receiving Atez/Bev treatment for u-HCC.

SUBMITTER: Hiraoka A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10433099 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Relationship of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab Treatment with Muscle Volume Loss in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients: Multicenter Analysis.

Hiraoka Atsushi A Kumada Takashi T Tada Toshifumi T Hirooka Masashi M Kariyama Kazuya K Tani Joji J Atsukawa Masanori M Takaguchi Koichi K Itobayashi Ei E Fukunishi Shinya S Tsuji Kunihiko K Ishikawa Toru T Tajiri Kazuto K Ochi Hironori H Yasuda Satoshi S Toyoda Hidenori H Ogawa Chikara C Nishimura Takashi T Hatanaka Takeshi T Kakizaki Satoru S Shimada Noritomo N Kawata Kazuhito K Naganuma Atsushi A Kaibori Masaki M Tanaka Takaaki T Ohama Hideko H Nouso Kazuhiro K Morishita Asahiro A Tsutsui Akemi A Nagano Takuya T Itokawa Norio N Okubo Tomomi T Arai Taeang T Imai Michitaka M Koizumi Yohei Y Nakamura Shinichiro S Joko Kouji K Iijima Hiroko H Kosaka Hisashi H Hiasa Yoichi Y Kudo Masatoshi M

Liver cancer 20221208 3

<h4>Background/aim</h4>There is no known report regarding the relationship of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) treatment with muscle volume loss (MVL) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) patients. This study aimed to elucidate the clinical relationship between MVL and Atez/Bev.<h4>Materials/methods</h4>From September 2020 to December 2021, 229 u-HCC patients treated with Atez/Bev and with muscle volume data obtained by computed tomography at the baseline available were analy ...[more]

PMID: 37601983

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/bev) treatment has been developed for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC), changes in hepatic function during therapy have yet to be reported.AimThis retrospective clinical study aimed to elucidate early responses to Atez/Bev.MethodsFrom September 2020 to April 2021, 171 u-HCC patients undergoing Atez/Bev treatment were enrolled (BCLC stage A:B:C:D = 5:68:96:2). Of those, 75 had no prior history of systemic treatment. Relative changes in hepatic function and therapeutic response were assessed using albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), ver. 1.1, respectively.ResultsIn initial imaging examination findings, objective response rates for early tumor shrinkage and disease control after 6 weeks (ORR-6W/DCR-6W) were 10.6%/79.6%. Similar response results were observed in patients with and without a past history of systemic treatment (ORR-6W/DCR-6W = 9.7%/77.8% and 12.2%/82.9%), as well as patients in whom Atez/Bev was used as post-progression treatment following lenvatinib (ORR-6W/DCR-6W = 7.7%/79.5%), for which no known effective post-progression treatment has been established. In 111 patients who underwent a 6-week observation period, ALBI score was significantly worsened at 3 weeks after introducing Atez/Bev (-2.525 ± 0.419 vs -2.323 ± 0.445, p < .001), but then recovered at 6-weeks (-2.403 ± 0.452) as compared to 3-weeks (p = .001). During the observation period, the most common adverse events were appetite loss (all grades) (12.3%), general fatigue/hypertension (all grades) (11.1%, respectively), and urine protein (all grades) (10.5%).ConclusionAtez/Bev might have therapeutic potential not only as first but also later-line treatment of existing molecular target agents. In addition, this drug combination may have less influence on hepatic function during the early period, as the present patients showed a good initial therapeutic response.

Project description:ImportanceAtezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma has been shown to improve overall and progression-free survival compared with standard sorafenib treatment. However, because of the high cost of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, assessment of its value by considering both efficacy and cost is needed.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation was performed from June through September 2020, with a 6-year investment time period. Hypothetical patients were male and female adults 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of locally advanced metastatic or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma confirmed by histologic or clinical features.Main outcomes and measuresHealth care costs (adjusted to 2020 US dollars), life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib were examined using a partitioned survival model. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. The model was also used to estimate price reductions of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab that would achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness.ResultsIn the base case analysis of a hypothetical sample of 424 patients, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with an increase of 0.623 life-years (1.840 vs 1.218 life-years) and 0.484 QALYs (1.412 vs 0.928 QALYs) and with an incremental cost of $156 210 per patient compared with sorafenib. The ICER was $322 500 per QALY (5th to 95th percentile, $149 364-$683 744 per QALY), with 0.6% and 5.1% chance of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000 and $150 000 per QALY, respectively. The ICER never decreased below $150 000 per QALY in the 1-way sensitivity analyses. To achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness under the thresholds of $150 000 to $100 000 per QALY, the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab would need to be reduced by 37% to 47%.Conclusions and relevanceIn this economic evaluation, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with clinical benefit but was not cost-effective compared with sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective. A substantial reduction in price for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab would be needed to achieve favorable cost-effectiveness for this new therapy.

Project description:ImportanceTreatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab may prolong overall survival among patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. However, to our knowledge, the cost-effectiveness of using this high-priced therapy for this indication is currently unknown.ObjectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma from the US payer perspective.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation used a partitioned survival model consisting of 3 discrete health states to assess the cost-effectiveness of treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib. The characteristics of patients in the model were similar to patients in a phase 3, open-label randomized clinical trial (IMbrave150) who had unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and had not previously received systemic treatment. Key clinical data were generated from the IMbrave150 trial conducted between March 15, 2018, and January 30, 2019, and cost and health preference data were collected from the literature.Main outcomes and measuresCosts, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net health benefits, and incremental net monetary benefits were calculated for the 2 treatment strategies. Subgroup, 1-way sensitivity, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsTreatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab added 0.530 QALYs and resulted in an incremental cost of $89 807 compared with sorafenib therapy, which had an incremental cost-utility ratio of $169 223 per QALY gained. The incremental net health benefit was -0.068 QALYs, and the incremental net monetary benefit was -$10 202 at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $150 000/QALY. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab achieved a 35% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of $150 000/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to the hazard ratio of overall survival. The subgroup analysis found that treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with preferred incremental net health benefits in several subgroups, including patients with hepatitis B and C.Conclusions and relevanceAtezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment is unlikely to be a cost-effective option compared with sorafenib for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Reducing the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab may improve cost-effectiveness. The economic outcomes also may be improved by tailoring treatments based on individual patient factors.

Dataset Information

Relationship of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab Treatment with Muscle Volume Loss in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients: Multicenter Analysis.

Background/aim

Materials/methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Relationship of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab Treatment with Muscle Volume Loss in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients: Multicenter Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets