We investigated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received ICI-based therapies in a previous systemic line. In this international, retrospective multicenter study, patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies (ICI-1, ICI-2) at 14 institutions were eligible. The main outcomes included best overall response and treatment-related adverse events. Of 994 ICI-treated patients screened, a total of 58 patients (male, n = 41; 71%) with a mean age of 65.0±9.0 years were included. Median systemic treatment lines of ICI-1 and ICI-2 were 1 (range, 1-4) and 3 (range, 2-9), respectively. ICI-based therapies used at ICI-1 and ICI-2 included ICI alone (ICI-1, n = 26, 45%; ICI-2, n = 4, 7%), dual ICI regimens (n = 1, 2%; n = 12, 21%), or ICI combined with targeted therapies/anti-VEGF (n = 31, 53%; n = 42, 72%). Most patients discontinued ICI-1 due to progression (n = 52, 90%). Objective response rate was 22% at ICI-1 and 26% at ICI-2. Responses at ICI-2 were also seen in patients who had progressive disease as best overall response at ICI-1 (n = 11/21; 52%). Median time-to-progression at ICI-1 and ICI-2 was 5.4 (95% CI 3.0-7.7) months and 5.2 (95% CI 3.3-7.0) months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-4 at ICI-1 and ICI-2 were observed in 9 (16%) and 10 (17%) patients, respectively. ICI rechallenge was safe and resulted in a treatment benefit in a meaningful proportion of patients with HCC. These data provide a rationale for investigating ICI-based regimens in patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy in prospective trials. Therapeutic sequencing after first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a challenge as no available second-line treatment options have been studied in immunotherapy-pretreated patients. Particularly, the role of ICI rechallenge in patients with HCC is unclear, as data from prospective trials are lacking. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ICI-based regimens in patients with HCC pretreated with immunotherapy in a retrospective, international, multicenter study. Our data provide the rationale for prospective trials investigating the role of ICI-based regimens in patients who have progressed on first-line immunotherapy.

The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A + B) is the new standard of care for the systemic first-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, up to now there are only few data on the safety and efficacy of A + B in real life. We included patients with advanced HCC treated with A + B as first-line therapy at four cancer centers in Germany and Austria between December 2018 and August 2021. Demographics, overall survival (OS), and adverse events were assessed until 15 September 2021. We included 66 patients. Most patients had compensated cirrhosis (n = 34; 52%), while Child–Pugh class B cirrhosis was observed in 23 patients (35%), and class C cirrhosis in 5 patients (8%). The best responses included a complete response (CR) in 7 patients (11%), a partial response (PR) in 12 patients (18%), stable disease (SD) in 22 patients (33%), and progressive disease in 11 patients (17%). The median progression-free (PFS) survival was 6.5 months, while the median overall survival (OS) was not reached in this cohort (6-month OS: 69%, 12-month OS: 60%, 18-month OS: 58%). Patients with viral hepatitis seemed to have a better prognosis than patients with HCC of non-viral etiology. The real-world PFS and OS were comparable to those of the pivotal IMBRAVE trial, despite including patients with worse liver function in this study. We conclude that A + B is also highly effective in a real-life setting, with manageable toxicity, especially in patients with compensated liver disease. In patients with compromised liver function (Child B and C), the treatment showed low efficacy and, therefore, it should be well considered before administration to these patients.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is the standard of care for first-line systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). Data on the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with aHCC who have received prior systemic therapy are not available. Methods: Patients with aHCC who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab after at least one systemic treatment between December 2018 and March 2022 were retrospectively identified in 13 centers in Germany and Austria. Patient characteristics, tumor response rates, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AE) were analyzed. Results: A total of 50 patients were identified; 41 (82%) were male. The median age at initiation of treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was 65 years, 41 (82%) patients had cirrhosis, 30 (73%) Child A, 9 (22%) B, and 2 (5%) C. A total of 34 patients (68%) received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in the second-line setting and 16 (32%) in later lines. The best radiologic tumor responses were complete remission (2%), partial remission (30%), stable disease (36%), and progressive disease (18%), resulting in an objective response rate of 32% and a disease control rate of 68%. Median OS was 16.0 months (95% confidence interval 5.6–26.4 months), and median PFS was 7.1 months (95% confidence interval 4.4–9.8 months). AE grades 3–4 were observed in seven (14%) and resulted in death in three patients (6%). There were five (10%) bleeding events with a grade ≥ 3, including one (2%) with a fatal outcome. Conclusions: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is effective in patients with aHCC who did not have access to this option as first-line therapy. The safety profile was consistent with previous reports.

Atezolizumab/bevacizumab (atezo/bev) and lenvatinib have demonstrated efficacy as first-line therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition with these therapies may be associated with the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety with focus on the bleeding and thromboembolic events of atezo/bev vs. lenvatinib in a large, multicenter real-world population. This study is based on HCC cohorts from seven centers in Germany and Austria. Incidences of bleeding or thromboembolic events and efficacy outcomes were assessed and compared. In total, 464 patients treated with atezo/bev (n = 325) or lenvatinib (n = 139) were analyzed. Both groups were balanced with respect to demographics, presence of liver cirrhosis, and variceal status. Duration of therapy did not differ between groups. Within 3 months of therapy, bleeding episodes were described in 57 (18%) patients receiving atezo/bev compared with 15 (11%) patients receiving lenvatinib (p = 0.07). Variceal hemorrhage occurred in 11 (3%) patients treated with atezo/bev compared with 4 (3%) patients treated with lenvatinib (p = 0.99). Thromboembolic events were reported in 19 (6%) of patients in the atezo/bev cohort compared with 5 (4%) patients in the lenvatinib cohort (p = 0.37). In addition, incidence of overall bleeding, variceal hemorrhage, and thromboembolic events did not differ significantly in patients who received either atezo/bev or lenvantinib for 6 months. Safety considerations related to bleeding and thromboembolic events may not be helpful in guiding clinical decision-making when choosing between atezo/bev and lenvatinib. The inhibition of VEGF by current first-line therapies for HCC, such as atezolizumab/bevacizumab or lenvatinib, may be associated with the risk of bleeding and thromboembolic events. Studies comparing the incidence of these side effects between atezolizumab/bevacizumab and lenvatinib, which are preferred treatments over sorafenib for HCC, are needed. Differences in this side effect profile may influence the choice of first-line therapy by treating physicians. Because no significant differences were observed regarding bleeding or thromboembolic events between both therapies in the present study, we conclude that safety considerations related to these events may not be helpful in guiding clinical decision-making when choosing between atezolizumab/bevacizumab and lenvatinib.

Immunotherapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab (a + b) has improved the prognosis of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the outcome for individual patients is highly variable. This study aimed to (i) develop and validate a prognostic prediction model to estimate individual prognosis and (ii) compare it with established models. In this multicenter retrospective study, patients with HCC undergoing first-line immunotherapy with a + b from 24 centers (Europe, USA) were included. Statistical analysis and reporting followed the TRIPOD guidelines. The primary objective was overall survival (OS). A Cox model was developed and externally validated. In total, 683 patients were included (training: 526, validation: 157). The C-reactive protein, albumin, bilirubin, lymphocytes, ECOG performance status, and extrahepatic spread (CABLE score) remained significantly associated with OS in Cox regression analysis. In the training set, the CABLE score had a higher discriminatory accuracy relative to ALBI, EZ-ALBI, mALBI, CRAFITY, PNI, NLR, PLR, and GPS (time-dependent AUC 0.79 and C-index 0.75 (95% CI 0.71–0.78) at 12 months). In the external validation set, the discriminatory performance of the CABLE score was comparable to ALBI, EZ-ALBI, and mALBI, but on average higher than PNI, CRAFITY, NLR, PLR, and GPS. In patients with Child-Pugh A, the CABLE score outperformed ALBI, EZ-ALBI, and mALBI in the first 9 months. We provide a web-based calculator for the CABLE score to allow estimation of individual prognosis for these patients (http://shiny.imbei.uni-mainz.de:3838/CABLE_Score/). The CABLE score shows good discriminatory performance in assessing the individual prognosis of patients undergoing first-line immunotherapy with a + b. Further validation studies are needed to investigate its performance compared with the ALBI score, in particular in subgroup analysis. The CABLE score allows estimation of the prognosis of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma undergoing first-line immunotherapy with atezolizumab and bevacizumab at an individual level using our web-based calculator. This feature, as well as the evaluation of the score’s added benefit through an extensive comparison with other established scores, can inform clinicians on their significance and may guide clinical decision-making in the context of a malignant disease where the prognosis has become highly variable. Further large validation studies are needed to investigate the incremental value of the CABLE score compared with the ALBI score, in particular in subgroups such as patients designated as Child-Pugh A.

Background/Objectives: Systemic treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has rapidly advanced, with immune checkpoint inhibitors now the preferred first-line option. However, with multiple agents available and no established treatment sequence, selecting the most suitable second-line (2L) therapy remains challenging. While sorafenib is frequently chosen for 2L treatment, comprehensive data supporting its use is limited. This study evaluates the effectiveness of sorafenib as 2L therapy and factors influencing outcomes following first-line treatment failure in advanced HCC patients. Methods: This is a retrospective, multicenter study, including 81 patients with unresectable HCC from 12 European centers who received sorafenib as 2L treatment. Median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), radiological response to treatment, and toxicity were evaluated. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify potential predictors of clinical benefit. Results: In this cohort, some patients were treated with 2L sorafenib mOS for 7.4 months (95% CI: 6.6–13.6) and other patients were treated with mPFS for 3.7 months (95% CI: 3.0–4.8). Multivariable analysis revealed the best median OS for patients with CP A and AFP levels < 400 ng/mL (15.5 months). Adverse events (AE) of grade ≥ 3 were reported in 59.4% of patients. Conclusions: In this real-world cohort of European patients with unresectable HCC, the outcome of sorafenib treatment in the 2L setting was comparable to that of the other established 2L treatment options in patients with preserved liver function and good performance status. This study contributes to the understanding of the role of sorafenib in the 2L setting and underscores the need for further research to identify predictive factors for response and survival in order to optimize treatment algorithms for advanced HCC.