Dataset Information

What Can Be Done to Solve the Unmet Clinical Need of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients following Lenvatinib Failure?

ABSTRACT:

Background/aim

An effective postprogression treatment of lenvatinib (LEN) against unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) has not been established. We aimed to elucidate the clinical role of continuing LEN beyond progression of disease (PD).

Methods

From March 2018 to October 2020, 99 u-HCC patients, in whom PD was confirmed (male:female = 78:21, median age 72 years, Child-Pugh A = 99, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A:B:C = 2:43:54, LEN as first-line = 55), were enrolled (stopped LEN at PD [A group], n = 26; continued LEN beyond PD [B group], n = 73). Radiological response was evaluated with RECIST 1.1. Clinical features and prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) were retrospectively investigated using inverse probability weighting (IPW) calculated by propensity score.

Results

Median time to progression, best response, and modified albumin-bilirubin grade (mALBI) at both baseline and PD did not show significant difference between the groups. Postprogression treatment in the A group was best supportive care in 17, sorafenib in 4, regorafenib in 3, ramucirumab in 1, and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in 1. After adjusting with IPW, the B group showed better prognosis in regard to OS after PD and OS after introducing LEN than the A group (10.8/19.6 vs. 5.8/11.2 months, p < 0.001, respectively). In IPW-adjusted Cox hazard multivariate analysis, significant prognostic factors for OS after PD were mALBI 2b/3 at PD (HR 1.983, p = 0.021), decline of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) from baseline at PD (HR 3.180, p < 0.001), elevated alpha-fetoprotein (≥100 ng/mL) at introducing LEN (HR 2.511, p = 0.004), appearance of new extrahepatic metastasis (HR 2.396, p = 0.006), positive for hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) before PD (any grade) (HR 0.292, p < 0.001), and continuing LEN beyond PD (HR 0.297, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

When ECOG PS and hepatic reserve function permit, continuing LEN treatment beyond PD, especially in u-HCC patients showed HFSR during LEN treatment, might be a good therapeutic option, at least until a more effective drug as a postprogression treatment after LEN failure is developed.

SUBMITTER: Hiraoka A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8077500 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn a large randomized trial examining ethnic differences in response to a brief alcohol intervention following an alcohol-related injury, we showed that Hispanics, but not non-Hispanics, were more likely to reduce alcohol intake in comparison with treatment as usual (Addiction 105:62, 2010). The current study evaluates whether the observed improvements in drinking outcomes previously reported among Hispanics following brief intervention might be related to prior or subsequent treatment utilization.MethodsThis study is a secondary analysis of data collected in a randomized clinical trial that evaluated ethnic differences in the effect of a brief motivational intervention (BMI) on alcohol use among medical inpatients admitted for alcohol-related injury. For this study, statistical analyses were carried out to compare alcohol use, alcohol problems, treatment utilization, and unmet treatment need between Hispanic (n = 537) and non-Hispanic White (n = 668) inpatients. In addition, we examined the relationship between prior treatment utilization and unmet treatment need and alcohol use outcomes following brief intervention and the impact of brief intervention on subsequent treatment utilization and unmet treatment need.ResultsIn comparison with non-Hispanic Whites, Hispanics at baseline reported heavier drinking, more alcohol problems, greater unmet treatment need, and lower rates of treatment utilization. Among Hispanics, multilevel analyses showed that prior treatment utilization or unmet treatment need did not moderate the effect of BMI on alcohol outcomes. Furthermore, BMI did not significantly impact subsequent treatment utilization or unmet treatment need among Hispanics. Finally, treatment utilization and unmet treatment need at 6 months were not significant mediators between BMI and alcohol use outcomes at follow-up.ConclusionsThe benefits of brief intervention among Hispanics do not appear to be better explained by subsequent engagement in mutual help groups or formal substance abuse treatment. Prior history of treatment, regardless of the severity of alcohol problems, does not appear to influence the impact of brief intervention on alcohol use among Hispanics. These findings support prior results reporting the benefits of brief intervention among Hispanics and demonstrate that these improvements are not related to prior or subsequent treatment utilization.

Project description:BackgroundThere is no standard posttreatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in whom lenvatinib therapy has failed. This study aimed to investigate rates of migration to posttreatment after lenvatinib and to explore candidates for second-line agents in the patients with failed lenvatinib therapy.MethodsWe retrospectively collected data on patients with advanced HCC who received lenvatinib as the first-line agent in 7 institutions.ResultsOverall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) of 178 patients who received lenvatinib as the first-line agent were 13.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.5-15.2) and 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.6-7.8), respectively. Sixty-nine of 151 patients (45.7%) who discontinued lenvatinib moved on to posttreatment. The migration rates from lenvatinib to the second-line agent and from the second-line agent to the third-line agent were 41.7 and 44.4%, respectively. Based on multivariate analysis, response to lenvatinib (complete or partial response according to modified RECIST) and discontinuation of lenvatinib due to radiological progression, as well as male were associated with a significantly higher probability of migration to posttreatment after lenvatinib. On the other hand, alpha-fetoprotein levels of 400 ng/mL or higher was correlated with a significantly lower probability of migration to posttreatment after lenvatinib. Of 63 patients who received second-line systemic therapy, 53 (84.2%) were administered sorafenib. PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) for sorafenib treatment were 1.8 months (95% CI, 0.6-3.0), 1.8%, and 20.8%, respectively. According to the Cox regression hazard model, Child-Pugh class B significantly contributed to shorter PFS. PFS, ORR, and DCR of 22 patients who received regorafenib after lenvatinib in any lines were 3.2 months (range, 1.5-4.9 months), 13.6%, and 36.3%, respectively. Similarly, PFS, ORR, and DCR of 17 patients who received regorafenib after lenvatinib in the third-line (after sorafenib) were 3.8 months (range, 1.1-6.5 months), 17.6%, and 41.2%, respectively.ConclusionSorafenib may not be a candidate for use as a posttreatment agent after lenvatinib, according to the results of the present study. Regorafenib has the potential to become an appropriate posttreatment agent after lenvatinib.