Dataset Information

High serum IL-6 correlates with reduced clinical benefit of atezolizumab and bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

ABSTRACT:

Background & aims

We elucidated the clinical and immunologic implications of serum IL-6 levels in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with atezolizumab and bevacizumab (Ate/Bev).

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 165 patients with unresectable HCC (discovery cohort: 84 patients from three centres; validation cohort: 81 patients from one centre). Baseline blood samples were analysed using a flow cytometric bead array. The tumour immune microenvironment was analysed using RNA sequencing.

Results

In the discovery cohort, clinical benefit 6 months (CB_6m) was defined as complete or partial response, or stable disease for ≥6 months. Among various blood-based biomarkers, serum IL-6 levels were significantly higher in participants without CB_6m than in those with CB_6m (mean 11.56 vs. 5.05 pg/ml, p = 0.02). Using maximally selected rank statistics, the optimal cut-off value for high IL-6 was determined as 18.49 pg/ml, and 15.2% of participants were found to have high IL-6 levels at baseline. In both the discovery and validation cohorts, participants with high baseline IL-6 levels had a reduced response rate and worse progression-free and overall survival after Ate/Bev treatment compared with those with low baseline IL-6 levels. In multivariable Cox regression analysis, the clinical implications of high IL-6 levels persisted, even after adjusting for various confounding factors. Participants with high IL-6 levels showed reduced interferon-γ and tumour necrosis factor-α secretion from CD8⁺ T cells. Moreover, excess IL-6 suppressed cytokine production and proliferation of CD8⁺ T cells. Finally, participants with high IL-6 levels exhibited a non-T-cell-inflamed immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment.

Conclusions

High baseline IL-6 levels can be associated with poor clinical outcomes and impaired T-cell function in patients with unresectable HCC after Ate/Bev treatment.

Impact and implications

Although patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who respond to treatment with atezolizumab and bevacizumab exhibit favourable clinical outcomes, a fraction of these still experience primary resistance. We found that high baseline serum levels of IL-6 correlate with poor clinical outcomes and impaired T-cell response in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with atezolizumab and bevacizumab.

SUBMITTER: Yang H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9972403 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

High serum IL-6 correlates with reduced clinical benefit of atezolizumab and bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Yang Hannah H Kang Beodeul B Ha Yeonjung Y Lee Sung Hwan SH Kim Ilhwan I Kim Hyeyeong H Lee Won Suk WS Kim Gwangil G Jung Sanghoon S Rha Sun Young SY Gaillard Vincent E VE Cheon Jaekyung J Kim Chan C Chon Hong Jae HJ

JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology 20230116 4

<h4>Background & aims</h4>We elucidated the clinical and immunologic implications of serum IL-6 levels in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with atezolizumab and bevacizumab (Ate/Bev).<h4>Methods</h4>We prospectively enrolled 165 patients with unresectable HCC (discovery cohort: 84 patients from three centres; validation cohort: 81 patients from one centre). Baseline blood samples were analysed using a flow cytometric bead array. The tumour immune microenvironment ...[more]

PMID: 36866388

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:Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A+B) is used to treat unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but the optimal rescue therapy after A+B remains unclear. Combining locoregional therapy (LRT) with systemic treatment has been shown to improve tumor control, but the role in patients who fail A+B is unknown. We retrospectively enrolled patients who experienced radiological progression after A+B. Objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), post progression survival (PPS), and secondary progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated by modified RECIST. Inverse probability weighting (IPW) was used to balance baseline clinical features. A total of 61 patients were enrolled with a median age of 60.7 years, 83.6% male, 88.5% viral hepatitis-related, and 60.7% without prior systemic treatment before A+B. Patients receiving sequential therapies had significantly longer PPS than supportive care (10.5 vs. 2.3 months, P<0.0001). Among 37 patients received sequential systemic treatment, 18 received combined LRT. The median follow-up after post A+B failure was 6.6 months. The combined LRT group had higher ORR (27.8 vs. 0%, P=0.0197) and DCR (72.2 vs. 26.3%, P=0.0052) than systemic alone group. The median PPS and secondary PFS were significantly longer in combined LRT group (PPS: 12.2 vs. 5.8 months, P=0.0070; PFS: 5.0 vs. 2.6 months, P=0.0134) than systemic alone group. After IPW analysis, patients with combined LRT had superior PPS and secondary PFS. The incidence rates of AEs were higher in LRT combination compared to systemic alone (any grade AEs: 94.4 vs. 63.2%, P=0.0422; severe AEs: 33.3 vs. 5.3%, P=0.0422). No significant albumin-bilirubin index changed in the first 3 months in combined LRT group (0.966 [0.647-1.443], P=0.867) though a trend of deterioration in systemic alone group. In conclusion, sequential systemic therapy provides survival benefits after A+B failure. Furthermore, combining LRT with systemic treatment could provide better tumor responses and survival benefits with acceptable toxicity than systemic therapy alone.

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

High serum IL-6 correlates with reduced clinical benefit of atezolizumab and bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background & aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Impact and implications

Publications

High serum IL-6 correlates with reduced clinical benefit of atezolizumab and bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets