IMbrave150 demonstrated that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab led to significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma at the primary analysis (after a median 8.6 months of follow-up). We present updated data after 12 months of additional follow-up. Patients with systemic treatment-naive, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma were randomized 2:1 to receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenously every 3 weeks or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice daily in this open-label, phase III study. Co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS by independently assessed RECIST 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary efficacy endpoints included objective response rates and exploratory subgroup efficacy analyses. This is a post hoc updated analysis of efficacy and safety. From March 15, 2018, to January 30, 2019, 501 patients (intention-to-treat population) were randomly allocated to receive atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n = 336) or sorafenib (n = 165). On August 31, 2020, after a median 15.6 (range, 0-28.6) months of follow-up, the median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive p <0.001). The median PFS was 6.9 (95% CI 5.7-8.6) and 4.3 (95% CI 4.0-5.6) months in the respective treatment groups (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.81; descriptive p < 0.001). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 and 72 (46%) of 156 safety-evaluable patients in the respective groups, and treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. After longer follow-up, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab maintained clinically meaningful survival benefits over sorafenib and had a safety profile consistent with the primary analysis. NCT03434379. The primary analysis of IMbrave150 showed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had significantly greater benefits than sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but survival data were not yet mature. At this updated analysis done 12 months later, median overall survival was 5.8 months longer with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab than sorafenib, and the severity profile of treatment-related side effects remained similar. These updated results confirm atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as the first-line standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can have viral or non-viral causes^1–5. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is an important driver of HCC. Immunotherapy has been approved for treating HCC, but biomarker-based stratification of patients for optimal response to therapy is an unmet need^6,7. Here we report the progressive accumulation of exhausted, unconventionally activated CD8⁺PD1⁺T cells in NASH-affected livers. In preclinical models of NASH-induced HCC, therapeutic immunotherapy targeted at programmed death-1 (PD1) expanded activated CD8⁺PD1⁺T cells within tumours but did not lead to tumour regression, which indicates that tumour immune surveillance was impaired. When given prophylactically, anti-PD1 treatment led to an increase in the incidence of NASH–HCC and in the number and size of tumour nodules, which correlated with increased hepatic CD8⁺PD1⁺CXCR6⁺, TOX⁺, and TNF⁺T cells. The increase in HCC triggered by anti-PD1 treatment was prevented by depletion of CD8⁺T cells or TNF neutralization, suggesting that CD8⁺T cells help to induce NASH–HCC, rather than invigorating or executing immune surveillance. We found similar phenotypic and functional profiles in hepatic CD8⁺PD1⁺T cells from humans with NAFLD or NASH. A meta-analysis of three randomized phase III clinical trials that tested inhibitors of PDL1 (programmed death-ligand 1) or PD1 in more than 1,600 patients with advanced HCC revealed that immune therapy did not improve survival in patients with non-viral HCC. In two additional cohorts, patients with NASH-driven HCC who received anti-PD1 or anti-PDL1 treatment showed reduced overall survival compared to patients with other aetiologies. Collectively, these data show that non-viral HCC, and particularly NASH–HCC, might be less responsive to immunotherapy, probably owing to NASH-related aberrant T cell activation causing tissue damage that leads to impaired immune surveillance. Our data provide a rationale for stratification of patients with HCC according to underlying aetiology in studies of immunotherapy as a primary or adjuvant treatment.

Background & Aims: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the second most common cause of cancer deaths worldwide. The global HCC BRIDGE study was a multiregional, large‐scale, longitudinal cohort study undertaken to improve understanding of real‐life management of patients with HCC, from diagnosis to death.Methods: Data were collected retrospectively from January 2005 to September 2012 by chart reviews of eligible patients newly diagnosed with HCC at participating institutions.Results: Forty‐two sites in 14 countries contributed final data for 18 031 patients. Asia accounted for 67% of patients, Europe for 20% and North America for 13%. As expected, the most common risk factor was hepatitis C virus in North America, Europe and Japan, and hepatitis B virus in China, South Korea and Taiwan. The most common Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage at diagnosis was C in North America, Europe, China and South Korea, and A in Taiwan and Japan. Across all stages, first HCC treatment was most frequently transarterial chemoembolization in North America, Europe, China and South Korea, percutaneous ethanol injection or radiofrequency ablation in Japan and resection in Taiwan. Survival from first HCC treatment varied significantly by region, with median overall survival not reached for Taiwan and 60, 33, 31, 24 and 23 months for Japan, North America, South Korea, Europe and China respectively (P < 0.0001).Conclusions: Initial results from the BRIDGE study confirm previously reported regional trends in patient demographic characteristics and HCC risk factors, document the heterogeneity of treatment approaches across regions/countries and underscore the need for earlier HCC diagnosis worldwide.