Dataset Information

Initial Experience of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Real-World Clinical Practice.

ABSTRACT: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was approved for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although clinical trials have revealed its efficacy, the outcomes in the real-world clinical practice are unclear. We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for HCC. This is a multicenter study conducted between November 2020 and March 2021. Among the 61 patients, 51 were assessed for progression-free survival (PFS), therapeutic response, and adverse events (AEs). The median PFS was 5.4 months. The objective response rate (ORR) was 35.3%. The disease control rate (DCR) was 86.3%. The incidence rates of AEs at any grade and grade >3 were 98.0% and 29.4%, respectively. The most frequent AE at any grade and grade >3 was hepatic disorder. In patients with a previous history of molecular targeted agent (MTA) or the degree of albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, there were no significant differences in the PFS, ORR, DCR, and incidence rates of AEs. The study demonstrated that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was effective and safe for patients with HCC even in the real-world setting including patients with a previous MTA history or other than ALBI grade 1.

SUBMITTER: Iwamoto H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8199943 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Initial Experience of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Real-World Clinical Practice.

Iwamoto Hideki H Shimose Shigeo S Noda Yu Y Shirono Tomotake T Niizeki Takashi T Nakano Masahito M Okamura Shusuke S Kamachi Naoki N Suzuki Hiroyuki H Sakai Miwa M Kajiwara Akira A Itano Satoshi S Tanaka Masatoshi M Yamaguchi Taizo T Kuromatsu Ryoko R Koga Hironori H Torimura Takuji T On Behalf Of The Kurume Liver Cancer Study Group Of Japan

Cancers 20210603 11

<h4>Background</h4>Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was approved for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Although clinical trials have revealed its efficacy, the outcomes in the real-world clinical practice are unclear. We retrospectively evaluated the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for HCC.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>This is a multicenter study conducted between November 2020 and March 2021. Among the 61 patients, 51 were assessed for progression-free survival (PF ...[more]

PMID: 34205099

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:ObjectiveEvaluation of the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab/bevacizumab in a real-world HCC cohort, including patients with impaired liver function and prior systemic therapy.MethodsRetrospective analysis of 147 HCC patients treated with atezolizumab/bevacizumab at six sites in Germany and Austria.ResultsThe 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] versus 6.0 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).ConclusionIn 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.

Dataset Information

Initial Experience of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Real-World Clinical Practice.

Publications

Initial Experience of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Real-World Clinical Practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets