Dataset Information

Comparison of the prognostic effect of sarcopenia on atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

ABSTRACT: Abstract

Background and Aim

Sarcopenia has received much attention as a poor prognostic factor in various fields, and has also been reported to worsen prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib or lenvatinib (LEN). Atezolizumab/bevacizumab (ATZ/BEV) is recommended as first‐line drug therapy for unresectable‐HCC, but the effect of sarcopenia on patients treated with ATZ/BEV is unknown.

Methods

We enrolled 98 patients treated with ATZ/BEV or LEN. Computed tomography performed before the initiation of drug therapy was used to diagnose sarcopenia in accordance with the criteria proposed by the Japanese Society of Hepatology. Patients were divided into two groups based on the presence or absence of sarcopenia in each regimen, and patient characteristics, adverse events, and prognosis were compared.

Results

In ATZ/BEV therapy, 57.1% of patients had sarcopenia. The sarcopenia group had significantly more women (P = 0.0125) and more macroscopic vascular invasion (P = 0.0270). Sarcopenia had no significant effect on progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). In LEN therapy, 63.4% of patients had sarcopenia. The sarcopenia group was significantly older (P = 0.0064) and had a higher number of women (P = 0.0003), a higher neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio (P = 0.0222), worse albumin–bilirubin grade (P = 0.0087), and worse best response (P = 0.0255). PFS (P = 0.0091) and OS (P = 0.0006) were worse in the sarcopenia group. In multivariate analysis, age (P = 0.0362), lymphocyte–monocyte ratio (P = 0.0365), and sarcopenia (P = 0.0268) were independent prognostic factors for OS.

Conclusion

In ATZ/BEV therapy, sarcopenia does not determine prognosis, and therapeutic efficacy can be expected even in cases of sarcopenia. We compared the effect of sarcopenia on the prognosis of unresectable‐hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib. In patients treated with lenvatinib, sarcopenia was the significant prognostic factor, whereas in patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, sarcopenia does not determine prognosis.

SUBMITTER: Toshida K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9260215 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectiveHepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death worldwide, especially in China. According to the 2021 Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines, sorafenib, lenvatinib, atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab, and sintilimab combined with bevacizumab are recommended as first-line treatment options for advanced HCC. This study provides a cost-effectiveness analysis of these treatments from the patient perspective.MethodsA partitioned survival model was established using the TreeAge 2019 software to evaluate the cost-effectiveness. The model includes three states, namely progression-free survival, progressive disease, and death. Clinical data were derived from three randomized controlled studies involving patients with advanced HCC who received the following treatment: sorafenib and lenvatinib (NCT01761266); atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab (NCT03434379); and sintilimab in combination with bevacizumab (NCT03794440). Cost and clinical preference data were obtained from the literature and interviews with clinicians.ResultsAll compared with sorafenib therapy, lenvatinib had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of US$188,625.25 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained; sintilimab plus bevacizumab had an ICER of US$75,150.32 per QALY gained; and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had an ICER of US$144,513.71 per QALY gained. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicated that treatment with sorafenib achieved a 100% probability of cost-effectiveness at a threshold of US$36,600/QALY. One-way sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were most sensitive to the medical insurance reimbursement ratio and drug prices.ConclusionsIn this economic evaluation, therapy with lenvatinib, sintilimab plus bevacizumab, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab generated incremental QALYs compared with sorafenib; however, these regimens were not cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of US$36,600 per QALY. Therefore, some patients may achieve preferred economic outcomes from these three therapies by tailoring the regimen based on individual patient factors.

Project description:AimsThe aim of the present study was to elucidate detailed parameters for prediction of prognosis for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) treatment.MethodsA total of 719 patients (males 577, median age 74 years) treated with Atez/Bev between September 2020 and January 2023 were enrolled. Factors related to overall survival (OS) were extracted and a prognostic scoring system based on hazard ratio (HR) was created. OS and progression-free survival (PFS) were retrospectively examined, and the prognostic ability of the newly developed system was compared to CRAFITY score using concordance index (c-index) and Akaike information criterion (AIC) results.ResultsCox-hazards multivariate analysis showed BCLC classification C/D (HR 1.4; 1 point), AFP ≥100 ng/mL (HR 1.4; 1 point), mALBI 2a (HR 1.7; 1 point), mALBI 2b/3 (HR 2.8; 2 points), and DCP ≥100 mAU/mL (HR 1.6; 1 point) as significant factors. The assigned points were added and used to develop the IMmunotherapy with AFP, BCLC staging, mALBI, and DCP evaluation (IMABALI-De) scoring system. For IMABALI-De scores of 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, OS was not applicable (NA), NA, 26.11, 18.79, 14.07, and 8.32 months, respectively (p < .001; AIC 2788.67, c-index 0.699), while for CRAFITY scores of 0, 1, and 2, OS was 26.11, 20.29, and 11.32 months, respectively (p < .001; AIC 2864.54, c-index 0.606). PFS periods for those IMABALI-De scores were 21.75, 12.89, 9.18, 8.0, 5.0, and 3.75 months, respectively (p < .001; AIC 5203.32, c-index 0.623) and for the CRAFITY scores were 10.32, 7.68, and 3.57 months, respectively (p < .001; AIC 5246.61, c-index 0.574). As compared with CRAFITY score, IMABALI-De score had better AIC and c-index results for both OS and PFS.ConclusionThe present results indicated that the proposed IMABALI-De score may be favorable for predicting prognosis of uHCC patients receiving Atez/Bev therapy.