Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) has been standard treatment for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, all intermediate-stage HCC patients did not benefit from TACE treatment because intermediate-stage HCC encompasses a wide variety of HCCs. Owing to remarkable progress in systemic therapy, including molecular-targeted therapy for advanced-stage HCC, the standard treatment of HCC has recently shifted to systemic therapy. However, it remains controversial as to which treatment should be initially performed for intermediate-stage HCC. In addition, although curative treatment can be considered when the tumor shrinks, the timing of conversion therapy remains uncertain. This review summarizes the advances of HCC treatment and discusses treatment strategies for intermediate-stage HCC.

Introduction: Lack of an established methodology for post-progression systemic treatment following atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) administration is an important clinical issue. The present study aimed to elucidate the potential of lenvatinib as a second-line treatment option after Atez/Bev failure. Methods: From 2020 to 2022, 101 patients who received lenvatinib as second-line treatment were enrolled (median 72 years, males 77, Child-Pugh A 82, BCLC-A:B:C:D = 1:35:61:4), while 29 treated with another molecular targeting agent (MTA) during the period as second-line treatment were enrolled as controls. The therapeutic efficacy of lenvatinib given as second-line treatment was retrospectively evaluated. Results: Median progression-free survival/median overall survival for all patients was 4.4/15.7 months and for those with Child-Pugh A was 4.7 months/not-reached. When prognosis was compared with patients who received another MTA, there was no significant difference for PFS (3.5 months, p = 0.557) or OS (13.6 months, p = 0.992), and also no significant differences regarding clinical background factors. mRECIST findings showed that objective response and disease control rates in patients treated with lenvatinib were 23.9% and 70.4%, respectively (CR:PR:SD:PD = 3:14:33:21), while those shown by RECIST, ver. 1.1, were 15.4% and 66.2%, respectively (CR:PR:SD:PD = 1:10:36:24). Adverse events (any grade ≥10%) were appetite loss (26.7%) (grade 1:2:3 = 2:15:10), general fatigue (21.8%) (grade 1:2:3 = 3:13:6), protein in urine (16.8%) (grade 1:2:3 = 0:4:13), and hypertension (13.9%) (grade 1:2:3 = 1:8:5). Conclusion: Although lenvatinib treatment might not provide a pseudo-combination immunotherapy effect following Atez/Bev failure, lenvatinib when used as second-line treatment after Atez/Bev failure might be expected to be comparable as compared to its use as first-line treatment.