OBJECTIVE: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death all over the world, and brings a heavy social economic burden especially in China. Several immuno-combination therapies have shown promising efficacy in the first-line treatment of unresectable HCC and are widely used in clinical practice. Nevertheless, which combination is the most affordable one is unknown. Our study assessed the cost-effectiveness of the immuno-combinations as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC from the perspective of Chinese payers.
METHODS: A Markov model was built according to five multicenter, phase III, open-label, randomized trials (Himalaya, IMbrave150, ORIENT-32, CARES-310, LEAP-002) to investigate the cost-effectiveness of tremelimumab plus durvalumab (STRIDE), atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B), sintilimab plus bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) (S + B), camrelizumab plus rivoceranib (C + R), and pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib (P + L). Three disease states were included: progression free survival (PFS), progressive disease (PD) as well as death. Medical costs were searched from West China Hospital, published literatures or the Red Book. Cost-effectiveness ratios (CERs) and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were evaluated to compare costs among different combinations. Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robust of the model.
RESULTS: The total cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) of C + R, S + B, P + L, A + B and STRIDE were $12,109.27 and 0.91, $26,961.60 and 1.12, $55,382.53 and 0.83, $70,985.06 and 0.90, $84,589.01 and 0.73, respectively, resulting in the most cost-effective strategy of C + R with CER of $13,306.89 per QALY followed by S + B with CER of $24,072.86 per QALY. Compared with C + R, the ICER of S + B strategy was $70,725.38 per QALY, which would become the most cost-effective when the willing-to-pay threshold exceeded $73,500/QALY. In the subgroup analysis, with the application of Asia results in Leap-002 trial, the model results were the same as global data. In the sensitivity analysis, with the variation of parameters, the results were robust.
CONCLUSIONS: As one of the promising immuno-combination therapies in the first-line systemic treatment of HCC, camrelizumab plus rivoceranib demonstrated the potential to be the most cost-effective strategy, which warranted further studies to best inform the real-world clinical practices.

UNASSIGNED: The phase III IMbrave150 study established atezolizumab + bevacizumab as the global standard of care in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This exploratory analysis examined the impact of bevacizumab interruption due to bevacizumab adverse events of special interest (AESIs).
UNASSIGNED: Patients in IMbrave150 who were randomized to atezolizumab + bevacizumab and received treatment for ≥6 months (to reduce immortal time bias) were included in group A-1 if bevacizumab had ever been skipped due to bevacizumab AESIs or to group A-2 otherwise. Efficacy analyses included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by whether bevacizumab was skipped (group A-1 vs. A-2). PFS was evaluated per independent review facility (IRF)-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1 and HCC-modified RECIST (IRF-HCC mRECIST). Safety was also evaluated.
UNASSIGNED: Of the 210 patients who received ≥6 months of atezolizumab + bevacizumab, 69 were assigned to group A-1 and 141 to A-2. At data cutoff (August 20, 2020), hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.64, 1.69) for group A-1 versus A-2. HR for PFS was 1.07 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.55) per IRF-assessed RECIST 1.1 and 1.10 (95% CI: 0.76, 1.59; 15.5 vs. 9.7 months) per IRF-HCC mRECIST for group A-1 versus A-2. Safety profiles for atezolizumab and bevacizumab were largely similar between groups. More group A-1 patients had grade 3/4 adverse events. A separate analysis investigating the impact of immortal time bias in patients who received ≥3 months of atezolizumab + bevacizumab supported the appropriateness of the ≥6-month landmark analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Efficacy was similar between patients who skipped bevacizumab due to bevacizumab AESIs and those who did not. Although this comparison was nonrandomized and exploratory, results suggest that skipping bevacizumab due to bevacizumab AESIs did not considerably impact the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab.

BACKGROUND: Locoregional treatment with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) or hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) and systemic targeted immunotherapy with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitors in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) have achieved promising efficacy. The retrospective study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TACE and HAIC plus TKI with or without PD-1 for uHCC.
METHODS: From November 2020 to February 2024, the data of 44 patients who received TACE-HAIC + TKI + PD-1 (THKP group) and 34 patients who received TACE-HAIC + TKI (THK group) were retrospectively analyzed. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progress-free survival (PFS), and secondary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), conversion rates, and adverse events (AEs).
RESULTS: A total of 78 patients were recruited in our single-center study. The patients in THKP group had prolonged median OS [25 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) 24.0-26.0 vs 18 months, 95% CI 16.1-19.9; p = 0.000278], median PFS [16 months, 95% CI 14.1-17.9 vs 12 months 95% CI 9.6-14.4; p = 0.004] and higher ORR (38.6% vs 23.5%, p = 0. 156) and DCR (88.6% vs 64.7%, p = 0.011) compared with those in THK group. Multivariate analysis showed that treatment option and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level were independent prognostic factors of OS and PFS. The frequency of AEs were similar between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS: The THKP group had better efficacy for uHCC than the THK group, with acceptable safety.

OBJECTIVE: In the global, phase III HIMALAYA study in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab) improved overall survival (OS) vs. sorafenib; durvalumab was noninferior to sorafenib. HBV is the predominant HCC aetiology in most of Asia vs. HCV or nonviral aetiologies in Western countries and Japan. This analysis evaluated safety and efficacy outcomes for STRIDE and durvalumab monotherapy vs. sorafenib, in HIMALAYA participants enrolled in Asia, excluding Japan.
METHODS: In HIMALAYA, participants were randomised to STRIDE, durvalumab, or sorafenib. The Asian subgroup in this analysis included participants enrolled in Hong Kong, India, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and Vietnam. OS, objective response rate (ORR; per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1), and safety were assessed in the Asian subgroup and in an exploratory subgroup of participants in Hong Kong and Taiwan.
RESULTS: The Asian subgroup included 479 participants randomised to STRIDE (n=156), durvalumab (n=167), or sorafenib (n=156). OS was improved for STRIDE vs. sorafenib (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.52-0.89]). The OS HR for durvalumab vs. sorafenib was 0.83 (95% CI 0.64-1.06). In Hong Kong and Taiwan (n=141), OS HRs for STRIDE vs. sorafenib and durvalumab vs. sorafenib were 0.44 (95% CI 0.26-0.77) and 0.64 (95% CI 0.37-1.08), respectively. In the Asian subgroup, ORR (including unconfirmed responses) was numerically higher for STRIDE (28.2%) and durvalumab (18.6%) vs. sorafenib (9.0%), and Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events were numerically lower for STRIDE (19.9%) and durvalumab (13.3%) vs. sorafenib (30.5%).
CONCLUSIONS: STRIDE improved outcomes vs. sorafenib in the Asian subgroup. These results support the benefits of STRIDE for participants with uHCC globally, including the Asia-Pacific region.
BACKGROUND: NCT03298451 IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: The global, phase III HIMALAYA study found that the STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab) regimen improved overall survival (OS), including long-term OS, vs. sorafenib, and that durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib in participants with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). However, there are differences in the aetiology and clinical practices related to HCC in parts of Asia, compared to Western countries and Japan, which could lead to differences in treatment outcomes between these regions. The results of this analysis demonstrate the benefits of STRIDE for participants in the Asia-Pacific region, consistent with the full, global study population. Overall, these findings continue to support the use of STRIDE in a diverse population, reflective of uHCC globally.

Aims/Background The combination of lenvatinib and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) inhibitor has demonstrated significant efficacy in treating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Our study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of triple therapy that includes hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy, lenvatinib and PD-1 inhibitor for treating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods Patients with a primary diagnosis of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma between June 2020 and August 2023 were included in this study. Initially, 53 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma were enrolled. Then, 13 patients were excluded based on the inclusion criteria, resulting in 40 patients included for analysis. Among them, 31 patients received triple therapy, including 16 Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer C stage, 12 Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer-B, and 3 Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer-A hepatocellular carcinoma patients. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate, while the secondary endpoints included the conversion resection rate, pathological complete response rate, pathological partial response rate, and treatment-related adverse events. Results The objective response rate was 80.65% at a median follow-up of 24.5 months (range: 12.6-55.8 months). Of the 14 patients (45.2%) who underwent conversion therapy and were eligible for surgery, 7 patients underwent liver resection and the remaining 7 patients underwent liver transplantation. The median interval between the start of triple therapy and surgery was 117 days, ranging from 25 to 215 days. The pathological complete response was observed in six patients (19.4%) and the pathological partial response rate in eight patients (25.8%). All adverse events occurred in 77.4% of the patients. Conclusion In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, the combination of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy, lenvatinib, and PD-1 inhibitor exhibits favourable efficacy and well tolerability, achieving a desirable pathological complete response rate while maintaining manageable drug toxicity.

This editorial comments on the study by Ma et al, which delves into the efficacy and predictive factors associated with the combination of transarterial chemoembolization, lenvatinib, and programmed cell death protein-1 inhibition for the management of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Analysing data from a retrospective study involving 102 patients, the treatment showcased a median overall survival (OS) of 26.43 months and a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 10.07 months. Notably, the objective response rate and disease control rate reached 61.76% and 81.37%, respectively. Specific factors such as Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) Classification B-stage, early neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio response, and early alpha-fetoprotein response (> 20% decrease) correlated with superior OS and PFS. The triple therapy exhibited promising efficacy, particularly in BCLC B-stage disease, with prognostic markers aiding in patient stratification. Acknowledging the retrospective nature of the study design, future research should address this limitation and incorporate longer follow-up periods for a comprehensive evaluation of long-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of regorafenib and nivolumab, two FDA-approved second-line treatments for unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC).
METHODS: Literature comparing the efficacy and safety of regorafenib and nivolumab in unresectable HCC patients was systematically searched across seven databases, including: PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ScienceDirect, EBSCOhost, EMBASE, and ProQuest, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines. The search was done on April 2nd, 2023. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and ROBINS-1 tools. The selected studies were included in the qualitative data synthesis.
RESULTS: Three trials found that HCC patients taking nivolumab had statistically insignificantly longer OS, TTP, and progression-free survival than those on regorafenib. Nivolumab increased ORR, with largely partial responses, and mixed DCR, with little statistical significance. All three studies showed that nivolumab had fewer side effects and improved tolerance.
CONCLUSIONS: Three retrospective cohort studies with a total of 383 regorafenib-receiving cohorts and 230 nivolumab-receiving cohorts were included in the qualitative analysis. Nivolumab was found to be superior in regards of longer overall survival, longer time to progression, higher objective response rate, and lower adverse event occurrence. However, statistical significance was not achieved in most of the parameters.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of nivolumab is preferable as the second-line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC. More high-quality studies are urgently needed to generate quantitative analysis, and to encourage the formation of guidelines for second-line systemic therapy.

UNASSIGNED: This study aimed to assess the prognostic significance of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) response in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) who underwent hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) combined with lenvatinib and camrelizumab.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective review was conducted on patients with u-HCC receiving treatment with HAIC combined with lenvatinib and camrelizumab. Early AFP response was defined as a >20% decrease in AFP within 4 weeks, and AFP response as a >75% decrease in AFP within 8 weeks. The correlation between early AFP response, AFP response, therapeutic response, overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS) was investigated.
UNASSIGNED: The study included 63 patients. AFP responders exhibited superior objective response rates compared to AFP non-responders, as determined by RECIST v1.1 or mRECIST criteria (45.5 vs. 18.2%, p=0.014, or 81.8 vs. 48.5%, p=0.013). Furthermore, early AFP responders demonstrated prolonged OS (not reached vs. 8.0 months, p<0.001) and PFS (13.3 vs. 3.0 months, p= 0.018) relative to early AFP non-responders. Similarly, AFP responders exhibited improved OS (not reached vs. 9.0 months, p<0.001) and PFS (19.3 vs. 5.1 months, p=0.002) compared to AFP non-responders. Multivariate analysis results indicated that both early AFP response and AFP response independently predicted OS [hazard ratio (HR) 2.963, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.333-6.585, p=0.008, and HR 6.182, 95% CI 1.780-21.466, p=0.004] and PFS (HR 2.186, 95% CI 1.107-4.318, p=0.024, and HR 3.078, 95% CI 1.407-6.730, p=0.005), serving as significant prognostic values.
UNASSIGNED: Early AFP response and AFP response serve as predictive biomarkers for the effectiveness of HAIC combined with lenvatinib and camrelizumab in patients with u-HCC.

Both atezolizumab (a PD-L1 inhibitor) plus bevacizumab (A+B) and sintilimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) plus bevacizumab (S+B) are recommended as the first-line regimen for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in China. Different efficacy between the two regimens combined with transvascular intervention for unresectable HCC (uHCC) remain unknown. We retrospectively analyzed uHCC patients treated in three centers by simultaneous combination of A+B or S+B with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and FOLFOX-based hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC). Objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were compared. Totally 188 patients were included, with 92 and 96 administered A+B+TACE-HAIC (ABTH) and S+B+TACE-HAIC (SBTH), respectively. ORRs (62.0 vs. 70.8%, respectively; P = 0.257) and disease control rates (88.0 vs. 93.8%, P = 0.267) were similar between groups by the mRECIST criteria. ABTH showed no survival advantage over SBTH, with median PFS times of 11.7 months and 13.0 months, respectively (HR = 0.81, 95% CI, 0.52-1.26, P = 0.35) and similar OS times (HR = 1.19, 95% CI, 0.32-4.39, P = 0.8). No significant differences were observed in grade 3-4 TRAEs between groups. Either PD-L1 or PD-1 inhibitor plus bevacizumab combined with TACE-HAIC have similarly excellent therapeutic efficacy with manageable adverse events, representing promising treatment options for uHCC.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis was dedicated to evaluating the effectiveness and safety of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) and Lenvatinib (LEN) as first-line systematic therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC).
METHODS: The prospective protocol for this study was registered with the PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42022356874). Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE database Cochrane Library, and Web Science to determine all clinical controlled studies that reported Atez/Bev and LEN for treating u-HCC. We. evaluated as primary end-point overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), as well as other outcomes such as tumor response and adverse events (AEs).Quality assessment and data extraction of studies were conducted independently by three reviewers. Mean difference (MD) and odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using a fixed-effects or random-effects model. The meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3 software.
RESULTS: 12 retrospective cohort studies (RCSs) involving a total of 4948 patients were finally included. The results showed that compared with LEN, Atez/Bev can improve the patient\'s PFS (HR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.72 ~ 0.88; p < 0.0001) and reduce the rate of overall AEs (OR = 0.46 95% CI: 0.38 ~ 0.55, p < 0.00001) and grade ≥ 3 AEs (OR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.36 ~ 0.51, p < 0.00001), while there is no difference between OS and treatment responses rate (objective response rate, disease control rate, complete response, partial response, progressive disease, and stable disease) between two groups. In addition, the subgroup analysis shows that Atez/Bev can promote the OS of patients with viral hepatitis. (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.67 ~ 0.95; p = 0.01), while LEN has an advantage in improving OS in patients with Child-Pugh grade B liver function (HR = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.50 ~ 2.63; p < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence shows that compared with LEN, Atez/Bev has more advantages in PFS and safety in treating u-HCC and can improve the OS of patients with viral. LEN has advantages in improving the OS of patients with grade B liver function. However, more multicenter randomized controlled experiments are needed in the future to verify our results.