TY - JOUR
T1 - Significance of post-progression therapy after tyrosine kinase inhibitors for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma
AU - Kobe Liver Conference (KLC)
AU - Yano, Yoshihiko
AU - Yamamoto, Atsushi
AU - Minami, Akihiro
AU - Momose, Kenji
AU - Mimura, Takuya
AU - Kim, Soo Ki
AU - Hayashi, Hiroki
AU - Kado, Takuo
AU - Hirano, Hirotaka
AU - Hirohata, Seiya
AU - Yoon, Seitetsu
AU - Nishi, Katsuhisa
AU - Tei, Hiroshi
AU - Tanaka, Hidenori
AU - Oouchi, Sachiko
AU - Matsuura, Takanori
AU - Yasutomi, Eiichiro
AU - Hatazawa, Yuri
AU - Shiomi, Yuuki
AU - Ueda, Yoshihide
AU - Kodama, Yuzo
N1 - Funding Information:
This study was supported by Grants‐in‐Aid from the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan (19K07539, 21K15950, and 21K15532). Financial support:
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. JGH Open published by Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology Foundation and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.
PY - 2022/6
Y1 - 2022/6
N2 - Background and Aim: Molecular-targeted therapies such as sorafenib and lenvatinib have long been used as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, adverse events or limited therapeutic effects may necessitate the change to another therapeutic option, known as post-progression therapy. To investigate the significance of post-progression therapy, we analyzed the outcomes of aHCC patients following first-line molecular-targeted therapy in a real-world study. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study involved patients with aHCC who received sorafenib or lenvatinib as first-line therapy between January 2011 and September 2021. Results: In total, 513 patients were analyzed: 309 treated with sorafenib and 204 with lenvatinib. The overall response and disease control rates were 15 and 50%, respectively, in the sorafenib group and 30 and 75%, respectively, in the lenvatinib group (P < 0.001). Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed no significant differences in progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) between the two treatments. Multivariate analysis revealed that fibrosis-4 index, disease control rate, post-progression therapy, and use of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) were significantly associated with OS. OS was significantly longer in patients who received post-progression therapy than in those who did not (log-rank P < 0.001). Most patients who received an ICI as post-progression therapy had previously received lenvatinib. Among lenvatinib-treated patients, OS was significantly longer in patients who received an ICI than in patients received another or no post-progression therapy (P = 0.004). Conclusion: The introduction of newer drugs for post-progression therapy is expected to prolong survival. ICI-based regimens appear to be effective after lenvatinib.
AB - Background and Aim: Molecular-targeted therapies such as sorafenib and lenvatinib have long been used as first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, adverse events or limited therapeutic effects may necessitate the change to another therapeutic option, known as post-progression therapy. To investigate the significance of post-progression therapy, we analyzed the outcomes of aHCC patients following first-line molecular-targeted therapy in a real-world study. Methods: This retrospective, multicenter study involved patients with aHCC who received sorafenib or lenvatinib as first-line therapy between January 2011 and September 2021. Results: In total, 513 patients were analyzed: 309 treated with sorafenib and 204 with lenvatinib. The overall response and disease control rates were 15 and 50%, respectively, in the sorafenib group and 30 and 75%, respectively, in the lenvatinib group (P < 0.001). Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed no significant differences in progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) between the two treatments. Multivariate analysis revealed that fibrosis-4 index, disease control rate, post-progression therapy, and use of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) were significantly associated with OS. OS was significantly longer in patients who received post-progression therapy than in those who did not (log-rank P < 0.001). Most patients who received an ICI as post-progression therapy had previously received lenvatinib. Among lenvatinib-treated patients, OS was significantly longer in patients who received an ICI than in patients received another or no post-progression therapy (P = 0.004). Conclusion: The introduction of newer drugs for post-progression therapy is expected to prolong survival. ICI-based regimens appear to be effective after lenvatinib.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85132291630&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85132291630&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/jgh3.12772
DO - 10.1002/jgh3.12772
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85132291630
VL - 6
SP - 427
EP - 433
JO - JGH Open
JF - JGH Open
SN - 2397-9070
IS - 6
ER -