Lenvatinib Therapy in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Real Clinical Practice

Aim. To determine lenvatinib treatment outcomes in patients with advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) in real clinical practice.
Patients and methods. A multicenter retrospective observational study included 58 patients with a confirmed uHCC diagnosis receiving lenvatinib. At baseline, ECOG, Child-Pugh and BCLC scores were assessed. The objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), median overall survival (OS) and median progression-free survival (PFS) rates were assessed. In addition, adverse effects (AE) during treatment were monitored.
Results. The median OS and PFS comprised 14.6 (95 % CI 10.6–18.6) and 11.1 months (95 % CI 8.31–13.8), respectively. The ORR amounted to 32.8 %, while DCR reached the level of 79.3 %. The levels of ORR and DCR were not statistically significantly different between the patients with stages B and C according to the BCLC staging system, with grades 0 and 1 according to ECOG, with classes A and B according to the Child-Pugh score, with viral and non-viral HCC etiology, with and without extrahepatic spread, and with and without portal vein invasion. Patients with alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) blood levels <200 ng/mL showed significantly higher ORR and DCR compared to those with AFP levels >200 ng/mL (44.4 % vs. 13.6 %, p = 0.015; and 88.9 % vs. 63.6 %, p = 0.021, respectively). The uHCC stage according to BCLC, ECOG functional status, Child-Pugh class, presence or absence of extrahepatic spread and viral etiology had no effect on the OS and PFS median levels. Patients with macroscopic portal vein invasion had a significantly lower PFS compared with those lacking this complication: 3.97 (0.00-8.07) vs. 11.1 (8.46-13.7), p = 0.053. AFP levels ≥200 ng/mL adversely affected survival rates: median OS comprised 12.0 (5.95-18.9) months in the group of patients with AFP ≥200 ng/mL vs. 16.1 (8.73-23.5) months in the group of patients having AFP <200 ng/mL, p = 0.020. AEs were registered in 81.0% (n = 47) of patients. Among the most common AEs were arterial hypertension (32.8 %), weakness (24.1 %), weight loss (12.1 %) and appetite loss (10.3 %). Due to AEs, Lenvatinib was withdrawn in 5 (8.6 %) patients.
Conclusion. Lenvatinib confirmed its efficacy and safety in patients with uHCC in real clinical practice. The treatment outcome might be affected by AFP levels and the presence of macroscopic portal vein invasion. Further comparative studies into treatment regimens applied in real clinical practice are required.

1. Bray F. et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018; 68 (6): 394–424.

2. The state of cancer care for the population of Russia in 2018. Ed. A.D. Kaprin, V.V. Starinsky, G.V. Petrova. Moscow, 2019 (in Russ.)

3. Petkau V.V., Breder V.V., Bessonova E.N., Tarkhanov A.A. Oncological care for the patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in Sverdlovsk region. Problems in Oncology. 2020; 66(4): 364-369 (In Russ). doi: https://doi.org/10.37469/0507-3758-2020-66-4-364-369

4. Vogel A. et al. Updated treatment recommendations for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines //Annals of Oncology. 2021; 32(6): 801-805. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2021.02.014

5. Llovet J.M., Real M.I., Montaña X., et al. Arterial embolisation or chemoembolisation versus symptomatic treatment in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002; 359(9319): 1734-1739. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(02)08649-X

6. Lencioni R., de Baere T., Soulen M.C., Rilling W.S., Geschwind J.F. Lipiodol transarterial chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review of efficacy and safety data. Hepatology. 2016; 64(1): 106-116. doi:10.1002/hep.28453

7. Vogel A., Frenette C., Sung M., et al. Baseline liver function and outcomes in the phase III REFLECT study in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2020; doi: 10.1200/JCO.2020.38.4_suppl.524

8. Vogel A. et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: patient-reported outcomes from a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial. The Lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology. 2021; 6(8): 649-658. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-1253(21)00110-2

9. Briggs A., Daniele B., Dick K. et al. Covariate-adjusted analysis of the Phase 3 REFLECT study of lenvatinib versus sorafenib in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Br J Cancer 2020; 122: 1754–9. doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-020-0817-7

10. Bruix J., Cheng A.L., Meinhardt G. et al. Prognostic factors and predictors of sorafenib benefit in patients with hepato-cellular carcinoma: analysis of two phase III studies. J Hepatol 2017; 67: 999–1008; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2017.06.026

11. Kudo M., Ueshima K., Chan S. et al. Lenvatinib as an initial treatment in patients with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma beyond up-to-seven criteria and Child-Pugh a liver function: a proof-of-concept study. Cancers (Basel). 2019 Jul 31; 11 (8):1 084 doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers11081084

12. Sho T., Suda G., Ogawa K. et al. Lenvatinib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who do not meet the REFLECT trial eligibility criteria. Hepatol Res. 2020; 50(8): 966-977; doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hepr.13511

13. Ioannou G., Splan M., Weiss N., McDonald G., Beretta L., Lee S. Incidence and predictors of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with cirrhosis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007; 5: 938–945. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/hepr.13511

14. Kudo M., Finn R.S., Qin S., et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10126):1163-1173. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30207-1

15. Alsina A., Kudo M., Vogel A. Effects of Subsequent Systemic Anticancer Medication Following First Line Lenvatinib: A Post Hoc Responder Analysis from the Phase 3 REFLECT Study in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Liver Cancer. 2020; 9: 93–104. doi: https://doi.org/10.1159/000504624

16. Kolbin A.S., Gomon Yu.M., Kasimova A.R., Kurylev A.A., Bem A.E. The real practice of clinical and economic research of drugs included in the Federal Program of High-Cost Nosologies. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2022; 15(1): 87-105. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909/farmakoekonomika.2022.107

17. Framework for FDA’S Real-World Evidence Program. URL: https://www.fda.gov/media/120060/download (дата обращения 29.11.2021).

18. Zhuravleva N.I., Shubina L.C., Sukhorukikh O.A. The use of the level of evidence and grade of recommendations scales in developing clinical guidelines in the Russian Federation. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2019; 12(1): 34-41. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2019.12.1.34-41

19. Blinov D.V., Akarachkova E.S., Orlova A.S., Kryukov E.V., Korabelnikov D.I. New framework for the development of clinical guidelines in Russia. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2019; 12(2): 125-144 (In Russ). https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2019.12.2.125-144

20. Buzuverova O.O., Fedyaeva V.K., Sukhorukikh O.A. Developing clinical guidelines and assessing the quality of medical care using the RAND/UCLA method. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2019; 12(4): 327-332. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909.2019.12.4.327-332

21. Omelyanovskiy V.V., Maksimkina E.A., Ivakhnenko O.I., Avxentyeva M.V., Sura M.V., Khachatryan G.R. Improvements to the formation of lists of drugs for medical use: analysis of changes in the Government Decree no. 871. FARMAKOEKONOMIKA. Modern Pharmacoeconomics and Pharmacoepidemiology. 2020; 13(2): 113-123. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17749/2070-4909/farmakoekonomika.2020.032.

22. Elsayes K. M. et al. White paper of the Society of Abdominal Radiology hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis disease-focused panel on LI-RADS v2018 for CT and MRI. Abdominal Radiology. 2018; 43(10): 2625-2642. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1744-4

23. Elsayes K. M. et al. LI-RADS: a conceptual and historical review from its beginning to its recent integration into AASLD clinical practice guidance. Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma. 2019; 6: 49-69. doi: 10.2147/JHC.S186239

24. Marks R. M., Masch W. R., Chernyak V. LI-RADS: past, present, and future, from the AJR special series on radiology reporting and data systems. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2021; 216(2): 295-304. doi: 10.2214/AJR.20.24272

25. Chernyak V., Santillan C.S., Papadatos D. et al. LI-RADS® algorithm: CT and MRI. Abdom Radiol. 2018; 43(1): 111–26. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1228-y

26. Ludwig D.R., Fraum T.J., Cannella R. et al. Expanding the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2018 diagnostic population: performance and reliability of LI-RADS for distinguishing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from non-HCC primary liver carcinoma in patients who do not meet strict LI-RADS high-risk criteria. HPB (Oxford) 2019; 21(12): 1697-1706; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2019.04.007

27. Liver cancer (hepatocellular). Clinical guidelines. Association of Oncologists of Russia, All-Russian Public Organization "Russian Society of Clinical Oncology", All-Russian Public Organization for the Promotion of the Development of Radiation Diagnostics and Therapy "Russian Society of Radiologists and Radiotherapeutists". Access mode: https://cr.minzdrav.gov.ru/recomend/1_2 . Date of access: 14.04.2022

28. Rimassa L., Santoro A. Sorafenib therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: the SHARP trial. Expert review of anticancer therapy. 2009; 9(6): 739-745.

29. Bolondi L., Burroughs A., Dufour J.-F., Galle P., Mazzaferro V., Piscaglia F., Raoul J. Heterogeneity of Patients with Intermediate (BCLC B) Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Proposal for a Subclassification to Facilitate Treatment Decisions. Seminars in Liver Disease. 2013; 32(04), 348–359. doi:10.1055/s-0032-1329906

30. Ha Y. et al. Clinical appraisal of the recently proposed Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B subclassification by survival analysis. Journal of gastroenterology and hepatology. 2014; 29(4): 787-793. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/jgh.12452

31. Kuo Y. H. et al. Real-world lenvatinib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis. Frontiers in oncology. 2021; 11: 737767; doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.737767

32. Lee S. W. et al. Efficacy of lenvatinib and sorafenib in the real-world first-line treatment of advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in a taiwanese population. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(5): 1444. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11051444

33. Cheng A. L. et al. Updated efficacy and safety data from IMbrave150: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs. sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Journal of hepatology. 2022; 76(4): 862-873. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.030

34. Kim B. K. et al. Atezolizumab/bevacizumab vs. lenvatinib as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A Real-World, Multi-Center Study. Cancers. 2022; 14(7): 1747. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers14071747

35. Zhang X. et al. Cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma. JAMA Network Open. 2021; 4(4): e214846-e214846. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.4846