TY - JOUR
T1 - Therapeutic efficacy of lenvatinib as third-line treatment after regorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma progression
AU - Real-life Practice Experts for HCC (RELPEC) Study Group, HCC 48 Group (hepatocellular carcinoma experts from 48 clinics in Japan), and GLSG (Gunma Liver Study Group)
AU - Hiraoka, Atsushi
AU - Kumada, Takashi
AU - Hatanaka, Takeshi
AU - Tada, Toshifumi
AU - Kariyama, Kazuya
AU - Tani, Joji
AU - Fukunishi, Shinya
AU - Atsukawa, Masanori
AU - Hirooka, Masashi
AU - Tsuji, Kunihiko
AU - Ishikawa, Toru
AU - Takaguchi, Koichi
AU - Itobayashi, Ei
AU - Tajiri, Kazuto
AU - Shimada, Noritomo
AU - Shibata, Hiroshi
AU - Ochi, Hironori
AU - Kawata, Kazuhito
AU - Yasuda, Satoshi
AU - Toyoda, Hidenori
AU - Chikara, Ogawa
AU - Tamai, Tsutomu
AU - Kakizaki, Satoru
AU - Tojima, Hiroki
AU - Nagashima, Tamon
AU - Ueno, Takashi
AU - Takizawa, Daichi
AU - Naganuma, Atsushi
AU - Ohama, Hideko
AU - Nouso, Kazuhiro
AU - Tsutsui, Akemi
AU - Nagano, Takuya
AU - Itokawa, Norio
AU - Okubo, Tomomi
AU - Arai, Taeang
AU - Imai, Michitaka
AU - Koizumi, Yohei
AU - Nakamura, Shinichiro
AU - Joko, Kouji
AU - Michitaka, Kojiro
AU - Hiasa, Yoichi
AU - Kudo, Masatoshi
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 The Authors. Hepatology Research published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Japan Society of Hepatology.
PY - 2021/8
Y1 - 2021/8
N2 - Aim: Multiple molecular agents have been developed for treating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. This study aimed to elucidate the clinical efficacy of sequential treatment with lenvatinib after regorafenib failure. Methods: From June 2017 to October 2020, 63 patients with Child–Pugh A and treated with regorafenib followed by sorafenib were enrolled (median age 71 years, 52 men, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer B:C = 23:40). They were divided into two groups, those treated with lenvatinib after regorafenib treatment (R-L group, n = 47) and those who did not receive lenvatinib after regorafenib (non-R-L group, n = 16). Prognostic factors were retrospectively analyzed after adjustment with inverse probability weighting. Results: Serum albumin level at the start of regorafenib and reasons for discontinuation of regorafenib were significantly different between the R-L and non-R-L groups, whereas the albumin-bilirubin score, Child–Pugh class, and tumor burden were not. Progression-free survival was also not significantly different (median 4.1 vs. 3.8 months, p = 0.586). As for overall survival, the R-L group showed better prognosis after introducing regorafenib and after introducing sorafenib, following inverse probability weighting adjustment (MST 19.7 vs. 10.3 months, 33.8 vs. 15.3 months, p < 0.001 and p = 0.022, respectively). Modified albumin-bilirubin grade 2b (score >−2.27) at the start of regorafenib (HR 2.074, p = 0.041) and the presence of lenvatinib treatment after regorafenib failure (HR 0.355, p = 0.004) were found to be significant prognostic factors in Cox proportional hazards multivariate analysis, after inverse probability weighting adjustment. Conclusion: These results show that lenvatinib is a good sequential treatment option after progression under regorafenib therapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients with better hepatic reserve function.
AB - Aim: Multiple molecular agents have been developed for treating unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. This study aimed to elucidate the clinical efficacy of sequential treatment with lenvatinib after regorafenib failure. Methods: From June 2017 to October 2020, 63 patients with Child–Pugh A and treated with regorafenib followed by sorafenib were enrolled (median age 71 years, 52 men, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer B:C = 23:40). They were divided into two groups, those treated with lenvatinib after regorafenib treatment (R-L group, n = 47) and those who did not receive lenvatinib after regorafenib (non-R-L group, n = 16). Prognostic factors were retrospectively analyzed after adjustment with inverse probability weighting. Results: Serum albumin level at the start of regorafenib and reasons for discontinuation of regorafenib were significantly different between the R-L and non-R-L groups, whereas the albumin-bilirubin score, Child–Pugh class, and tumor burden were not. Progression-free survival was also not significantly different (median 4.1 vs. 3.8 months, p = 0.586). As for overall survival, the R-L group showed better prognosis after introducing regorafenib and after introducing sorafenib, following inverse probability weighting adjustment (MST 19.7 vs. 10.3 months, 33.8 vs. 15.3 months, p < 0.001 and p = 0.022, respectively). Modified albumin-bilirubin grade 2b (score >−2.27) at the start of regorafenib (HR 2.074, p = 0.041) and the presence of lenvatinib treatment after regorafenib failure (HR 0.355, p = 0.004) were found to be significant prognostic factors in Cox proportional hazards multivariate analysis, after inverse probability weighting adjustment. Conclusion: These results show that lenvatinib is a good sequential treatment option after progression under regorafenib therapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma patients with better hepatic reserve function.
KW - hepatocellular carcinoma
KW - lenvatinib
KW - regorafenib
KW - sequential treatment
KW - sorafenib
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85104601020&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/hepr.13644
DO - 10.1111/hepr.13644
M3 - 学術論文
C2 - 33837620
AN - SCOPUS:85104601020
SN - 1386-6346
VL - 51
SP - 880
EP - 889
JO - Hepatology Research
JF - Hepatology Research
IS - 8
ER -