Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jul 25;13(2):169-180.
doi: 10.1159/000531744. eCollection 2024 Apr.

Balancing Efficacy and Tolerability of First-Line Systemic Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis

Ciro Celsa  1   2 , Giuseppe Cabibbo  1 , David James Pinato  3   4 , Gabriele Di Maria  1 , Marco Enea  1 , Marco Vaccaro  5 , Salvatore Battaglia  5 , Giacomo Emanuele Maria Rizzo  1   2 , Paolo Giuffrida  1 , Carmelo Marco Giacchetto  1 , Gabriele Rancatore  1 , Maria Vittoria Grassini  1 , Calogero Cammà  1
Affiliations

Balancing Efficacy and Tolerability of First-Line Systemic Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis

Ciro Celsa et al. Liver Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: Atezolizumab + bevacizumab represent the current standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, direct comparison with other combination treatments including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) + tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are lacking.

Objectives: This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to indirectly compare the efficacy and the safety of first-line systemic therapies for unresectable advanced HCC.

Method: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and SCOPUS databases was conducted up to October 31, 2022. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing TKIs, including sorafenib and lenvatinib, or ICIs reporting overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were included. Individual survival data were extracted from OS and PFS curves to calculate restricted mean survival time. A Bayesian NMA was performed to compare treatments in terms of efficacy (15- and 30-month OS, 6-month PFS) and safety, represented by grade ≥3 (severe) adverse events (SAEs). The incremental safety-effectiveness ratio as measure of net health benefit was calculated as the difference in SAE probability divided by survival difference between the 2 most effective treatments.

Results: Nine RCTs enrolling 6,600 patients were included. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed the highest probability (88%) of achieving the 30-month OS landmark. Lenvatinib showed a probability of 86% of achieving best PFS outcomes. ICI monotherapies ranked as most tolerable. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed the best net health benefit for OS, compared to durvalumab plus tremelimumab. When evaluating the net health benefit for PFS, at a willingness-to-risk threshold of 10% of SAEs for life-month gained, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was favoured in 78% of cases, while at threshold of 30% of SAEs for life-month gained, lenvatinib was favoured in 76% of cases.

Conclusions: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is the best treatment in terms of net benefit and therefore it should be recommended as standard of care. Compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib monotherapy had the best net benefit for PFS when physicians and patients are available to accept a higher risk of toxicity.

Keywords: Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor; First-line treatment; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Immunotherapy; Systemic treatment; Tyrosin-kinase inhibitors.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Giuseppe Cabibbo participated in advisory board for Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, and AstraZeneca. Ciro Celsa received speaker fees from Eisai, Ipsen, and MSD. David James Pinato received lecture fees from BMS, Roche, and EISAI; travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees from Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, Da Volterra, Ewopharma, and AstraZeneca; research funding (to the institution) from MSD, GSK, and BMS; grant funding from the Wellcome Trust Strategic Fund (PS3416) and from the Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro (AIRC MFAG Grant ID 25697); and support from the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, the Imperial Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre (ECMC), and the Imperial College Tissue Bank. Calogero Cammà participated in the advisory board for Bayer, MSD/Merck, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Roche, and Eisai. The other authors have no disclosure to declare.

Figures

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.
NMA of comparisons between first-line systemic treatments for advanced HCC.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.
Forest plot of NMA for OS of first-line systemic treatments for advanced HCC compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. 30-month OS.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.
Forest plot of NMA for 6-month PFS of first-line systemic treatments for advanced HCC compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.
Forest plot of NMA for adverse events (AEs) of first-line systemic treatments for advanced HCC compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. a grade ≥3 (severe) AEs (SAEs). b AEs leading to treatment discontinuation.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 5.
Two-way sensitivity analysis of ISER (ISER, i.e., delta SAEs %/survival difference) to indicate which treatment is favoured according to different “willingness-to-risk” thresholds. Two different scenarios were reported with two different willingness-to-risk thresholds: 10% and 30% of SAEs for month-life gained. Top panel: comparison of ISER between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and durvalumab plus tremelimumab for OS. Grey area favoured durvalumab plus tremelimumab, while white area favoured atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Bottom panel: comparison of ISER between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib monotherapy for PFS. Grey area favoured lenvatinib monotherapy, while white area favoured atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. 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. Erratum in: CA Cancer J Clin. 2020 Jul;70(4):313. - PubMed
    1. Cabibbo G, Enea M, Attanasio M, Bruix J, Craxì A, Cammà C. A meta-analysis of survival rates of untreated patients in randomized clinical trials of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2010 Apr;51(4):1274–83. - PubMed
    1. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, Hilgard P, Gane E, Blanc JF, et al. . Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008 Jul 24;359(4):378–90. - PubMed
    1. Kudo M, Finn RS, Qin S, Han KH, Ikeda K, Piscaglia F, et al. . Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018 Mar 24;391(10126):1163–73. - PubMed
    1. El-Khoueiry AB, Sangro B, Yau T, Crocenzi TS, Kudo M, Hsu C, et al. . Nivolumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 040): an open-label, non-comparative, phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion trial. Lancet. 2017 Jun 24;389(10088):2492–502. - PMC - PubMed