Improved survival with second-line hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy after atezolizumab-bevacizumab failure in hepatocellular carcinoma
BackgroundThere is no established second-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following atezolizumab-bevacizumab (ate-beva) failure. This study assessed the efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) as a salvage therapy by comparing survival outcomes and treatment respon...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Oncology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fonc.2024.1495321/full |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | BackgroundThere is no established second-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following atezolizumab-bevacizumab (ate-beva) failure. This study assessed the efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) as a salvage therapy by comparing survival outcomes and treatment responses between HAIC as a first-line treatment and as a second-line option after ate-beva failure.Materials and MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 100 patients with advanced HCC treated with HAIC between March 2022 and July 2024. Patients were categorized into two groups: those who received HAIC as initial therapy (first-line HAIC group) and those who received HAIC following ate-beva failure (post-ate-beva group). Survival outcomes were assessed with Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests, and factors associated with survival were identified through Cox regression analysis.ResultsThe post-ate-beva group exhibited longer overall survival (OS) (median OS 12.4 months) compared to the first-line HAIC group (median OS 6.8 months) (p = 0.073). Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly superior in the post-ate-beva group (median PFS 8.2 months) compared to the first-line HAIC group (median PFS 3.1 months) (p = 0.018). The objective response rate was also notably higher in the post-ate-beva group than in the first-line HAIC group (35.3% vs. 18.1%, p = 0.031). In multivariate analysis, HAIC following ate-beva failure, compared to first-line HAIC, was significantly associated with favorable outcomes for both OS (p = 0.014) and PFS (p = 0.006).ConclusionThe superior survival outcomes and treatment responses observed in the post-ate-beva group suggest that HAIC may be an effective second-line treatment option for advanced HCC following ate-beva therapy failure. However, due to the retrospective nature and small sample size of the study, further prospective studies with larger patient populations are needed to strengthen the evidence. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2234-943X |