Application and Impact of Antiviral Therapy for Patients with HBV-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Sorafenib and Lenvatinib Treatment
by
, , ,
I-Cheng Lee
1,2,*,
Pei-Chang Lee
1,2,
Yee Chao
2,3,
Chen-Ta Chi
1,2,4,
Chi-Jung Wu
1,2,4,
Yi-Ping Hung
2,3,
Chien-Wei Su
1,2,
Ming-Chih Hou
1,2 and
Yi-Hsiang Huang
1,2,4,* 1
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan
2
School of Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan
3
Cancer Center, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei 112, Taiwan
4
Institute of Clinical Medicine, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University, Taipei 112, Taiwan
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Viruses 2022, 14(11), 2355; https://doi.org/10.3390/v14112355
Submission received: 29 September 2022
/
Revised: 17 October 2022
/
Accepted: 24 October 2022
/
Published: 26 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Hepatitis-Associated Liver Cancer)
Abstract
:Overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has improved in the era of multi-line sequential therapy. The application of antiviral therapy and its impact on survival for patients with HBV-related HCC needs to be reassessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the application and impact of antiviral therapy on survival for patients with HBV-related HCC receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. Patients with advanced HBV-related HCC treated with sorafenib or lenvatinib as first-line therapy with (n = 377) and without (n = 182) nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC) therapy were retrospectively enrolled. Prognostic factors of OS were evaluated. Secular trends in the increased application of NUC therapy and improved survival were observed in the last decade. The HBV reactivation rate in patients without NUC therapy was 6.6%. By multivariate analysis, baseline low HBV viral load, achieving undetectable HBV DNA after TKI therapy, and ability to receive second-line therapy were found to be independent predictors of OS. In subgroup patients with NUC therapy, starting NUC before TKI was associated with a better OS. In conclusion, the application of antiviral therapy for patients with HBV-related HCC receiving TKI therapy has increased over time. Achieving complete virological suppression may contribute to a better OS in patients with advanced HBV-related HCC.
1. Introduction
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the world, and chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is the major cause of HCC, especially in Asia [1]. HBV viral activity has a negative impact on the outcomes in patients with HBV-related HCC, and antiviral therapy has been shown to decrease the risk of HCC recurrence and improve survival in patients with early-stage HCC after curative treatment [2,3,4,5]. In patients with advanced-stage HCC, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is currently the recommended first-line treatment [6,7], while tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) including sorafenib [8,9] or lenvatinib [10] remain the first-line treatment options in cases where atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is contraindicated.
In patients receiving sorafenib for advanced-stage HCC, previous studies showed that high HBV viral load was associated with a poorer overall survival (OS), whereas antiviral therapy might provide a survival benefit [11,12,13]. Liver function decline is frequently encountered during TKI therapy and was associated with worse survival outcomes [14,15]. The risk of liver function deterioration during TKI therapy might be higher in patients with a high viral load but no antiviral therapy. Furthermore, HBV reactivation is also a specific concern in HBV-infected patients receiving anti-cancer treatment [16,17]. HBV reactivation could also develop in patients with HBV-related HCC receiving TKI therapy, but only a few studies with limited case numbers have been reported [18].
Several second-line treatment options have become available for advanced-stage HCC in the past few years, including regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab, and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) [19]. Nevertheless, patients with deteriorated liver function at the time of disease progression may have less chance to receive second-line HCC treatment [20,21]. The OS in patients with advanced HCC gradually improved in the era of multi-line sequential therapy. The application of antiviral therapy and its impact on survival for patients with HBV-related HCC needs to be reassessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the application and impact of antiviral therapy on survival for patients with HBV-related HCC receiving TKI therapy.
2. Material and Methods
2.1. Patients
From June 2012 to January 2022, we retrospectively screened 1276 patients who received sorafenib or lenvatinib as first-line therapy for unresectable HBV-related HCC in Taipei Veterans General Hospital (Figure 1). Patients were included if they fulfilled the following criteria: (1) age ≥ 20 years; (2) diagnosis of HCC according to the criteria of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) guidelines [22]; and (3) Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C or stage B refractory to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) HBsAg-negative (n = 570); (2) died or lost to follow-up within 2 months after starting (n = 72); (3) receiving concurrent immunotherapy during TKI therapy (n = 72); (4) Child–Pugh class C (n = 3).
This study adhered to the guidelines Declaration of Helsinki and gained the consent of the Institutional Review Board in Taipei Veterans General Hospital (IRB number: 2022-08-015AC). The Institutional Review Board waived the need for written in-formed consent due to the retrospective nature of the study.
The standard regimen of sorafenib was 400 mg twice daily [20,23,24], while the daily dose of lenvatinib was 12 mg for patients with body weight ≥ 60 kg and 8 mg for patients with body weight < 60 kg [25]. The dosage of sorafenib or lenvatinib was modified upon the development of adverse events. Treatments of sorafenib or lenvatinib were continued until the occurrence of radiologic progression, death, or unacceptable adverse events.
2.2. Patient Assessment
Tumor measurements were performed at screening and every 2 months during treatment by contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which complied with the regulations of the National Health Insurance Administration, Taiwan. Patients visited the clinic every 2 to 4 weeks for evaluation of liver function and assessment of adverse events [20,23,24]. Detailed demographic profile, tumor characteristics, and biochemistry data at baseline and during follow-up were recorded. These data included age, gender, serum HBV DNA, HBsAg, HBeAg, anti-hepatitis C virus antibody, type of nucleos(t)ide analogues (NUCs) for HBV, BCLC stage, macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic metastasis, serum creatinine, albumin, total bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alanine aminotransferase (ALT), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels, and platelet count. The ALBI score and grade were calculated as previously described [26,27]. HBV DNA levels were measured by the Roche Cobas Taqman HBV DNA assay with detection limit of 20 IU/mL (Roche Diagnostics, Switzerland).
2.3. Outcome Assessment
We used the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) criteria to assess radiologic response [24,28]. Disease progression was defined as an increase of at least 20% in the sum of the diameters of viable target lesions evaluated by CECT or MRI every 2 months during TKI treatment. Progression-free survival (PFS) was defined as the time interval between the day of the starting TKI treatment and disease progression. Overall survival (OS) was defined as the time interval between the day of the starting TKI treatment and death.
Patients who started antiviral therapy within 2 months of starting TKI therapy were classified as the NUC therapy group, whereas patients without antiviral therapy, or who started antiviral therapy after 2 months of starting TKI therapy, were classified as the non-antiviral therapy group. The virological response was defined as achieving undetectable HBV DNA after NUC therapy [17]. HBV reactivation was defined according to the AASLD criteria [29].
2.4. Statistical Analysis
IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 22 (IBM, Armonk, NY), was used to perform all statistical analyses. Values were expressed as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median (interquartile range, IQR) when appropriate. Continuous variables were compared by Mann–Whitney U test. Categorical variables were compared by Pearson chi-square analysis. The survival rate was estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method. The survival curve between patient groups was compared by the log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazards model was used for analysis of survival factors. Factors that achieved p < 0.1 by univariate analysis were subsequently included in the multivariate analysis. A two-tailed p-value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.
3. Results
3.1. Patient Characteristics
This study enrolled a total of 559 patients, including 377 patients in the NUC therapy group and 182 patients in the non-antiviral therapy group (Figure 1). The baseline characteristics of the enrolled patients are shown in Table 1. Most of the patients were in BCLC stage C and Child–Pugh class A. Patients in the NUC therapy group had significant lower serum HBV DNA levels, a higher proportion of patients with undetectable HBV DNA, and lower AFP levels. The BCLC stage, status of portal vein invasion, extrahepatic metastasis, Child–Pugh class, and ALBI grade were comparable between the two groups. In patients with antiviral therapy, the majority of them received NUCs with a high genetic barrier (entecavir, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate, tenofovir alafenamide), and started antiviral therapy before the use of TKI (83.3%).
3.2. Main Outcomes in Patients with and without NUC Therapy
The median follow-up period was 14.1 and 11.9 months in the NUC therapy and non-antiviral therapy groups, respectively (p = 0.442). The median duration of sorafenic/lenvatinib treatment was 86 and 73.5 days in those with and without NUC therapy, respectively (p = 0.156). The major outcomes in patients with and without NUC therapy are shown in Table 2. The PFSs were not significantly different in patients with and without antiviral therapy (2.6 vs. 2.4 months, p = 0.914), whereas the OS was significantly longer in the NUC therapy group (9.2 vs. 8.1 months, p = 0.017). Patients in the NUC therapy group had a significantly higher chance of receiving second-line systemic therapy (41.4% vs. 30.8%, p = 0.020). The virological response rate was 82% in patients with NUC therapy. In patients without NUC therapy, 12 (6.6%) cases developed HBV reactivation, and 2 (16.7%) of them died of hepatic decompensation despite immediate NUC therapy after HBV reactivation.
3.3. Secular Trends in Overall Survival and NUC Therapy Uptake from 2012–2022
We classified patients into three different periods of starting TKI therapy: 2012–2015 (n = 266), 2016–2018 (n = 156), and 2019–2022 (n = 137). As shown in Figure 2A, the OS gradually improved after 7.0 months in patients who started TKI during 2012–2015 to 8.1 months during 2016–2018 and 12.7 months during 2019–2022 (p < 0.001). There was a significant trend in increased application of NUC therapy from 56.8% during 2012–2015, to 70.5% during 2016–2018, and to 84.7% during 2019–2022 (p < 0.001, Figure 2B). There was also a significant trend in increased application of second-line systemic therapy from 27.4% during 2012–2015, to 44.2% during 2016–2018, and to 51.1% during 2019–2022 (p < 0.001, Figure 2B).
Because lenvatinib was introduced in Taiwan in 2019, we compared the PFS and OS between patients receiving lenvatinib and sorafenib during 2019–2022. The median PFS was significantly longer in patients with lenvatinib treatment (4.9 vs. 3.4 months, Figure 2C), while the OS was comparable between patients treated with lenvatinib and sorafenib (14.8 vs. 12.7 months, p = 0.339, Figure 2D).
3.4. Factors Associated with Overall Survival
By univariate analysis, antiviral therapy (Figure 3A), BCLC stage, portal vein invasion, extrahepatic metastasis, ALBI grade, serum AFP, HBV DNA, ALT, AST levels, achieving undetectable HBV DNA, and ability to receive second-line therapy were significantly associated with OS. By multivariate analysis, BCLC stage (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.971, p = 0.002), baseline AFP > 400 ng/mL (HR = 1.374, p = 0.004), HBV DNA > 2000 IU/mL (HR = 1.309, p = 0.017, Figure 3B), and ALBI grade 2–3 (HR = 1.609, p < 0.001) were baseline predictors of OS, while achieving undetectable HBV DNA (HR = 0.609, p = 0.002, Figure 3C) and ability to receive second-line therapy (p = 0.630, p = 0.001, Figure 3D) were on-treatment predictors of OS (Table 3).
In subgroup patients with NUC therapy, BCLC stage (HR = 1.939, p = 0.004), baseline AFP > 400 ng/mL (HR = 1.439, p = 0.004), NUC therapy started before the use of TKI (HR = 1.309, p = 0.017, Figure 3E), and ALBI grade 2–3 (HR = 1.609, p < 0.001) were baseline predictors of OS, while achieving undetectable HBV DNA (HR = 0.609, p = 0.002, Figure 3F) and ability to receive second-line therapy (p = 0.630, p = 0.001) were on-treatment predictors of OS (Table 4).
4. Discussion
In this study, we evaluated the secular trends in the application of NUC therapy and its impact on survival in patients with advanced HCC receiving TKI. We showed an increased application of antiviral therapy and improved OS over time in the last decade. In particular, achieving complete HBV suppression was identified as an important factor associated with improved survival.
Our data showed that the median OS in patients with advanced HCC receiving TKI therapy significantly improved from 7 months during 2012–2015 to 12.8 months during 2019–2022. The application of NUC therapy and second-line systemic therapy also significantly increased during 2019–2022. A previous study showed that physicians’ experience in managing adverse events with tailored sorafenib dosing has improved over time, which has led to increased sorefenib treatment duration and prolonged survival of HCC patients [30]. A recent study from Hong Kong showed that the secular trend of NUC therapy uptake gradually increased in recent years, which may also have contributed to the improved survival in patients with HBV-related HCC [31]. Lenvatinib and regorafenib were reimbursed by the national health insurance program in Taiwan after 2019. Other treatment options, such as immunotherapy, cabozantinib, and ramicirumab, were also available options as second-line therapy in recent years [21,25]. Consistent with the REFLECT trial and recent real-world studies [10,32,33], our data showed that the median OS was comparable between patients receiving lenvatinib and sorafenib during 2019–2022, even though numerically longer by Lenvatinib, while the median PFS was significantly longer in patients with lenvatinib treatment. Our data also showed that patients with NUC therapy were associated with a higher chance of receiving second-line systemic therapy. Our recent study showed that patients who were able to receive regorafenib after sorafenib failure had a median OS of 13.1 months after starting regorafenib treatment [21]. These data suggest that the application of NUC therapy and multi-line sequential therapy may prolong the survival of patients with advanced HBV-related HCC.
The virological response rate after NUC therapy was 81.3%, which was lower than the response rate of NUC prophylaxis for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy [16,17]. Since patients with advanced HCC generally had higher baseline viral load and shorter OS as compared to cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, the virological response might not be achieved in the short term after TKI therapy. There were only a few studies that reported the risk of HBV reactivation during TKI therapy for patients with HCC, and a recent systemic review showed that the pooled rate of HBV reactivation was 6.2% after sorafenib therapy [11,18]. In this study, we reported an HBV reactivation rate of 6.6% in patients without antiviral therapy, suggesting a moderate risk of HBV reactivation after TKI therapy for HBV-related HCC.
BCLC stage, ALBI grade, AFP level, and high HBV viral load were identified as independent baseline predictors of OS, while achieving undetectable HBV DNA and the ability to receive second-line therapy were on-treatment predictors of OS. Tumor factors and liver function reserve are well-known prognostic factors of patients with HCC [23,27,34]. HBV viral factors may also have an important impact on the prognosis of HBV-related HCC [3,11,35]. A recent study showed that patients with well-controlled viremia had a significantly better OS after sorafenib treatment [36]. Consistent with this study, our data showed that baseline low HBV viral load or undetectable HBV DNA was associated with a significantly better OS. Furthermore, achieving undetectable HBV DNA during TKI therapy was also an independent predictor of OS. In subgroup patients with NUC therapy, patients who had already received NUC treatment before starting TKI had significantly better OS than those who started NUC treatment after TKI. Patients who started NUC therapy earlier may achieve complete viral suppression earlier, which may lead to better survival after TKI treatment.
There are some limitations in this study. First, this is a retrospective study from a single tertiary medical center. Some patients lacked HBV DNA data at baseline and after TKI therapy. Especially patients with shorter OS may not have the chance to check virological response during follow-up. Second, the case number among patients receiving lenvatinib treatment was relatively small. A significant proportion of patients receiving lenvatinib in our institution had concurrent pembrolizumab use and were excluded from analysis [25]. The impact of NUC therapy in patients with TKI plus immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy also warrants further study. Third, the impact of quantitative HBsAg level and HBV genotype could not be assessed in this study. In Taiwan, the majority of CHB patients were infected with HBV genotype B or C [37,38]. Whether HBsAg level and HBV genotype had a prognostic impact in patients with HCC receiving TKI therapy needs further investigation.
In conclusion, the application of NUC therapy for patients with HBV-related HCC receiving TKI therapy has increased over time. Patients receiving NUC therapy may have a higher chance of achieving complete virological suppression and a higher chance of receiving second-line systemic therapy after first-line TKI failure, which may contribute to a better OS in patients with advanced HBV-related HCC.
Author Contributions
I.-C.L.: data acquisition; analysis and interpretation of data; drafting of the manuscript; statistical analysis. P.-C.L., Y.C., C.-W.S., Y.-P.H., C.-T.C., C.-J.W. and M.-C.H.: data acquisition. I.-C.L. and Y.-H.H.: study concept and design; obtained funding; critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content; and study supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
The study was supported by grants from Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan (V110C-094, V110C-144, V111C-114, V111C-107), and Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (MOST 109-2628-B-075-022, MOST 109-2314-B-010-034-MY3, MOST 110-2314-B-075-052, MOST 111-2314-B-075-055).
Institutional Review Board Statement
This study adhered to the guidelines Declaration of Helsinki and gained the consent of the Institutional Review Board in Taipei Veterans General Hospital (IRB number: 2022-08-015AC).
Informed Consent Statement
The Institutional Review Board waived the need for written informed consent due to the retrospective nature of the study.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank the Clinical Research Core Laboratory, Taipei Veterans General Hospital for providing their facilities to conduct this study.
Conflicts of Interest
Y.-H.H. has received research grants from Gilead Sciences and Bristol-Meyers Squibb, and honoraria from Abbvie, Gilead Sciences, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceutical, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, and Roche and has served in an advisory role for Abbvie, Gilead Sciences, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Ono Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, and Roche. I.-C.L. has received honoraria from Gilead Sciences, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Abbvie, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, and Roche and has served in an advisory role for Gilead Sciences. The other authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Vogel, A.; Meyer, T.; Sapisochin, G.; Salem, R.; Saborowski, A. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet 2022, 400, 1345–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, J.C.; Huang, Y.H.; Chau, G.Y.; Su, C.W.; Lai, C.R.; Lee, P.C.; Huo, T.I.; Sheen, I.J.; Lee, S.D.; Lui, W.Y. Risk factors for early and late recurrence in hepatitis B-related hepatocellular carcinoma. J. Hepatol. 2009, 51, 890–897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, I.C.; Lei, H.J.; Chau, G.Y.; Yeh, Y.C.; Wu, C.J.; Su, C.W.; Huo, T.I.; Chao, Y.; Lin, H.C.; Hou, M.C.; et al. Predictors of long-term recurrence and survival after resection of HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma: The role of HBsAg. Am. J. Cancer Res. 2021, 11, 3711–3725. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Wong, G.L.; Tse, Y.K.; Chan, H.L.; Yip, T.C.; Tsoi, K.K.; Wong, V.W. Oral nucleos(t)ide analogues reduce recurrence and death in chronic hepatitis B-related hepatocellular carcinoma. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2016, 43, 802–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lee, I.C.; Chau, G.Y.; Yeh, Y.C.; Chao, Y.; Huo, T.I.; Su, C.W.; Lin, H.C.; Hou, M.C.; Huang, Y.H. Risk of recurrence in chronic hepatitis B patients developing hepatocellular carcinoma with antiviral secondary prevention failure. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0188552. [Google Scholar]
- Finn, R.S.; Qin, S.; Ikeda, M.; Galle, P.R.; Ducreux, M.; Kim, T.Y.; Kudo, M.; Breder, V.; Merle, P.; Kaseb, A.O.; et al. Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1894–1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reig, M.; Forner, A.; Rimola, J.; Ferrer-Fabrega, J.; Burrel, M.; Garcia-Criado, A.; Kelley, R.K.; Galle, P.R.; Mazzaferro, V.; Salem, R.; et al. BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update. J. Hepatol. 2022, 76, 681–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llovet, J.M.; Ricci, S.; Mazzaferro, V.; Hilgard, P.; Gane, E.; Blanc, J.F.; de Oliveira, A.C.; Santoro, A.; Raoul, J.L.; Forner, A.; et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 359, 378–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cheng, A.L.; Kang, Y.K.; Chen, Z.; Tsao, C.J.; Qin, S.; Kim, J.S.; Luo, R.; Feng, J.; Ye, S.; Yang, T.S.; et al. Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009, 10, 25–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kudo, M.; Finn, R.S.; Qin, S.; Han, K.H.; Ikeda, K.; Piscaglia, F.; Baron, A.; Park, J.W.; Han, G.; Jassem, J.; 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, 1163–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lim, S.; Han, J.; Kim, G.M.; Han, K.H.; Choi, H.J. Hepatitis B viral load predicts survival in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2015, 30, 1024–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Xu, L.; Gao, H.; Huang, J.; Wang, H.; Zhou, Z.; Zhang, Y.; Li, S.; Chen, M. Antiviral therapy in the improvement of survival of patients with hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib. J. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2015, 30, 1032–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, Y.; Wen, F.; Li, J.; Zhang, P.; Yan, W.; Hao, P.; Xia, F.; Bi, F.; Li, Q. A high baseline HBV load and antiviral therapy affect the survival of patients with advanced HBV-related HCC treated with sorafenib. Liver Int. 2015, 35, 2147–2154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.W.; Chuang, P.H.; Su, W.P.; Kao, J.T.; Hsu, W.F.; Lin, C.C.; Huang, G.T.; Lin, J.T.; Lai, H.C.; Peng, C.Y. On-Treatment Albumin-Bilirubin Grade: Predictor of Response and Outcome of Sorafenib-Regorafenib Sequential Therapy in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Cancers 2021, 13, 3758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Uchikawa, S.; Kawaoka, T.; Ando, Y.; Yamaoka, K.; Kosaka, Y.; Suehiro, Y.; Fujii, Y.; Morio, K.; Nakahara, T.; Murakami, E.; et al. Trends in Hepatic Functional Reserve of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors. Oncology 2020, 98, 727–733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, I.C.; Chao, Y.; Li, C.P.; Su, C.W.; Lan, K.H.; Lin, H.C.; Hou, M.C.; Huang, Y.H. Risk of renal events during tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and entecavir antiviral prophylaxis in HBsAg-positive cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy. J. Viral Hepat. 2018, 25, 1599–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, I.C.; Lan, K.H.; Su, C.W.; Li, C.P.; Chao, Y.; Lin, H.C.; Hou, M.C.; Huang, Y.H. Efficacy and Renal Safety of Prophylactic Tenofovir Alafenamide for HBV-Infected Cancer Patients Undergoing Chemotherapy. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 11335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papatheodoridi, M.; Tampaki, M.; Lok, A.S.; Papatheodoridis, G.V. Risk of HBV reactivation during therapies for HCC: A systematic review. Hepatology 2022, 75, 1257–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bruix, J.; Chan, S.L.; Galle, P.R.; Rimassa, L.; Sangro, B. Systemic treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: An EASL position paper. J. Hepatol. 2021, 75, 960–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, I.C.; Chen, Y.T.; Chao, Y.; Huo, T.I.; Li, C.P.; Su, C.W.; Lin, H.C.; Lee, F.Y.; Huang, Y.H. Determinants of survival after sorafenib failure in patients with BCLC-C hepatocellular carcinoma in real-world practice. Medicine 2015, 94, e688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, I.C.; Chao, Y.; Lee, P.C.; Chen, S.C.; Chi, C.T.; Wu, C.J.; Wu, K.C.; Hou, M.C.; Huang, Y.H. Determinants of Survival and Post-Progression Outcomes by Sorafenib-Regorafenib Sequencing for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Cancers 2022, 14, 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Heimbach, J.K.; Kulik, L.M.; Finn, R.S.; Sirlin, C.B.; Abecassis, M.M.; Roberts, L.R.; Zhu, A.X.; Murad, M.H.; Marrero, J.A. AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2018, 67, 358–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lee, P.C.; Chen, Y.T.; Chao, Y.; Huo, T.I.; Li, C.P.; Su, C.W.; Lee, M.H.; Hou, M.C.; Lee, F.Y.; Lin, H.C.; et al. Validation of the albumin-bilirubin grade-based integrated model as a predictor for sorafenib-failed hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Int. 2018, 38, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Huang, K.W.; Lee, P.C.; Chao, Y.; Su, C.W.; Lee, I.C.; Lan, K.H.; Chu, C.J.; Hung, Y.P.; Chen, S.C.; Hou, M.C.; et al. Durable objective response to sorafenib and role of sequential treatment in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Ther. Adv. Med. Oncol. 2022, 14, 17588359221099401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Wu, C.J.; Lee, P.C.; Hung, Y.W.; Lee, C.J.; Chi, C.T.; Lee, I.C.; Hou, M.C.; Huang, Y.H. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for systemic therapy-naive and -experienced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Immunol. Immunother. 2022, 71, 2631–2643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johnson, P.J.; Berhane, S.; Kagebayashi, C.; Satomura, S.; Teng, M.; Reeves, H.L.; O’Beirne, J.; Fox, R.; Skowronska, A.; Palmer, D.; et al. Assessment of liver function in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A new evidence-based approach-the ALBI grade. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 33, 550–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, I.C.; Hung, Y.W.; Liu, C.A.; Lee, R.C.; Su, C.W.; Huo, T.I.; Li, C.P.; Chao, Y.; Lin, H.C.; Hou, M.C.; et al. A new ALBI-based model to predict survival after transarterial chemoembolization for BCLC stage B hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Int. 2019, 39, 1704–1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lencioni, R.; Llovet, J.M. Modified RECIST (mRECIST) assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Semin. Liver Dis. 2010, 30, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Terrault, N.A.; Lok, A.S.F.; McMahon, B.J.; Chang, K.M.; Hwang, J.P.; Jonas, M.M.; Brown, R.S., Jr.; Bzowej, N.H.; Wong, J.B. Update on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic hepatitis B: AASLD 2018 hepatitis B guidance. Hepatology 2018, 67, 1560–1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Tovoli, F.; Ielasi, L.; Casadei-Gardini, A.; Granito, A.; Foschi, F.G.; Rovesti, G.; Negrini, G.; Orsi, G.; Renzulli, M.; Piscaglia, F. Management of adverse events with tailored sorafenib dosing prolongs survival of hepatocellular carcinoma patients. J. Hepatol. 2019, 71, 1175–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hui, V.W.; Chan, S.L.; Wong, V.W.; Liang, L.Y.; Yip, T.C.; Lai, J.C.; Yuen, B.W.; Luk, H.W.; Tse, Y.K.; Lee, H.W.; et al. Increasing antiviral treatment uptake improves survival in patients with HBV-related HCC. JHEP Rep. 2020, 2, 100152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kuo, Y.H.; Lu, S.N.; Chen, Y.Y.; Kee, K.M.; Yen, Y.H.; Hung, C.H.; Hu, T.H.; Chen, C.H.; Wang, J.H. Real-World Lenvatinib Versus Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score Matching Analysis. Front. Oncol. 2021, 11, 737767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lee, S.W.; Yang, S.S.; Lien, H.C.; Peng, Y.C.; Ko, C.W.; Lee, T.Y. Efficacy of Lenvatinib and Sorafenib in the Real-World First-Line Treatment of Advanced-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma in a Taiwanese Population. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 1444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hung, Y.W.; Lee, I.C.; Chi, C.T.; Lee, R.C.; Liu, C.A.; Chiu, N.C.; Hwang, H.E.; Chao, Y.; Hou, M.C.; Huang, Y.H. Redefining Tumor Burden in Patients with Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: The Seven-Eleven Criteria. Liver Cancer 2021, 10, 629–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schemmer, P.; Burra, P.; Hu, R.H.; Huber, C.M.; Loinaz, C.; Machida, K.; Vogel, A.; Samuel, D. State of the art treatment of hepatitis B virus hepatocellular carcinoma and the role of hepatitis B surface antigen post-liver transplantation and resection. Liver Int. 2022, 42, 288–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, Y.H.; Huang, T.H.; Wang, J.H.; Chen, Y.Y.; Tsai, M.C.; Chen, Y.H.; Lu, S.N.; Hu, T.H.; Chen, C.H.; Hung, C.H. Well-Controlled Viremia Predicts the Outcome of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Chronic Viral Hepatitis Patients Treated with Sorafenib. Cancers 2022, 14, 3971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, I.C.; Yang, S.S.; Lee, C.J.; Su, C.W.; Wang, Y.J.; Lan, K.H.; Lin, H.C.; Hou, M.C.; Peng, C.Y.; Huang, Y.H. Incidence and Predictors of HBsAg Loss After Peginterferon Therapy in HBeAg-Negative Chronic Hepatitis B: A Multicenter, Long-term Follow-up Study. J. Infect. Dis. 2018, 218, 1075–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, I.C.; Su, C.W.; Lan, K.H.; Wang, Y.J.; Lee, K.C.; Lin, H.C.; Hou, M.C.; Huang, Y.H. Virological and immunological predictors of long term outcomes of peginterferon alfa-2a therapy for HBeAg-negative chronic hepatitis B. J. Formos. Med. Assoc. 2021, 120, 1676–1685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Screening, enrollment, and grouping of patients.
Figure 2.
Secular trends in overall survival (OS) and nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC) therapy uptake from 2012 to 2022. (A) Secular trends in OS from 2012 to 2022. (B) Proportion of patients receiving NUC therapy and second-line systemic therapy from 2012 to 2022. (C) Progression-free survival (PFS) in patients receiving lenvatinib or sorafenib from 2019 to 2022. (D) OS in patients receiving lenvatinib or sorafenib during 2019–2022.
Figure 2.
Secular trends in overall survival (OS) and nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC) therapy uptake from 2012 to 2022. (A) Secular trends in OS from 2012 to 2022. (B) Proportion of patients receiving NUC therapy and second-line systemic therapy from 2012 to 2022. (C) Progression-free survival (PFS) in patients receiving lenvatinib or sorafenib from 2019 to 2022. (D) OS in patients receiving lenvatinib or sorafenib during 2019–2022.
Figure 3.
Kaplan–Meier curves of overall survival (OS) in patients with HBV-related HCC. (A) OS in patients with and without nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC) therapy. (B) OS stratified by HBV DNA level. (C) OS in patients with and without achieving undetectable HBV DNA. (D) OS in patients with and without second-line (2L) therapy. (E) OS in subgroup patients with NUC therapy who started NUC before and after TKI treatment. (F) OS in subgroup patients with NUC therapy with and without achieving undetectable HBV DNA.
Figure 3.
Kaplan–Meier curves of overall survival (OS) in patients with HBV-related HCC. (A) OS in patients with and without nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC) therapy. (B) OS stratified by HBV DNA level. (C) OS in patients with and without achieving undetectable HBV DNA. (D) OS in patients with and without second-line (2L) therapy. (E) OS in subgroup patients with NUC therapy who started NUC before and after TKI treatment. (F) OS in subgroup patients with NUC therapy with and without achieving undetectable HBV DNA.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of the 559 patients with HBV-related HCC with and without nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC) therapy.
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of the 559 patients with HBV-related HCC with and without nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC) therapy.
| With NUC Therapy (n = 377) | Without NUC Therapy (n = 182) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 62.2 ± 12.5 | 63.3 ± 13.2 | 0.318 |
| Sex (male), n (%) | 319 (84.6) | 158 (86.8) | 0.575 |
| HCC treatment: Sorafenib/lenvatinib, n (%) | 340/37 (90.2/9.8) | 178/4 (97.8/2.2) | 0.002 |
| BCLC stage B/C, n (%) | 331 (87.8) | 176 (96.7) | 0.001 |
| Portal vein invasion, n (%) | 210 (55.7) | 111 (61) | 0.274 |
| Vp4 | 62 (16.4) | 26 (14.3) | 0.594 |
| Extrahepatic metastasis, n (%) | 197 (52.3) | 106 (58.2) | 0.215 |
| Child-Pugh class A/B, n (%) | 38 (10.1) | 25 (13.7) | 0.255 |
| ALBI score | −2.47 ± 0.49 | −2.48 ± 0.44 | 0.896 |
| ALBI grade 1/2/3, n (%) | 160/211/6 (42.4/56/1.6) | 75/105/2 (41.2/57.7/1.1) | 0.875 |
| HBV DNA (Log IU/mL) * | 2.72 ± 2 | 3.08 ± 1.99 | 0.013 |
| Undetectable HBV DNA, n (%) * | 161 (47.9) | 27 (29.3) | 0.002 |
| HBV DNA < 2000 IU/mL, n (%) * | 230 (68.5) | 57 (62) | 0.294 |
| NUC type: LMV/ADV/ETV/TDF/TAF, n (%) | 6/3/305/31/32 (1.6/0.8/80.9/8.2/8.5) | - | |
| NUC therapy before TKI, n (%) | 314 (83.3) | - | |
| Bilirubin (mg/dL) | 1.04 ± 1.24 | 0.93 ± 0.51 | 0.387 |
| Albumin (g/dL) | 3.80 ± 0.51 | 3.80 ± 0.46 | 0.695 |
| ALT (U/L) | 52 ± 48 | 52 ± 50 | 0.956 |
| AST (U/L) | 72 ± 68 | 68 ± 56 | 0.766 |
| Platelet (109/L) | 173 ± 95 | 179 ± 100 | 0.496 |
| AFP (ng/mL) | 269 (16–4766) | 1153 (19–8682) | 0.028 |
LMV, lamivudine; ADV, adefovir; ETV, entecavir; TDF, tenofovir disoproxil fumarate; TAF, tenofovir alafenamide; NUC, TKI, tyrosine kinase inhibitor. * A total of 428 (76.6%) cases had available baseline HBV DNA data.
Table 2.
Major outcomes patients with HBV-related HCC with and without nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC) therapy.
Table 2.
Major outcomes patients with HBV-related HCC with and without nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC) therapy.
| With NUC Therapy (n = 377) | Without NUC Therapy (n = 182) | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Follow-up period (months) | 14.1 (2–103.3) | 11.9 (2–61.2) | 0.442 |
| Duration of Sorafenic/Lenvatinib treatment (days) | 86 (59–145) | 73.5 (56–131.5) | 0.156 |
| Disease progression, n (%) | 159 (87.4) | 332 (88.1) | 0.921 |
| Progression-free survival (months) | 2.6 (2.2–2.9) | 2.4 (2.0–2.8) | 0.914 |
| Second-line systemic therapy, n (%) | 156 (41.4) | 56 (30.8) | 0.020 |
| Death, n (%) | 306 (81.2) | 170 (93.4) | <0.001 |
| Overall survival (months) | 9.2 (8.0–10.4) | 8.1 (6.4–9.7) | 0.017 |
| Virological response, n (%) * | 209 (81.3) | - | - |
| HBV reactivation, n (%) | - | 12 (6.6) | - |
| HBV reactivation-related death, n (%) | - | 2 (16.7) | - |
* A total of 257 (68.2%) cases had available follow-up HBV DNA data.
Table 3.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of factors associated with overall survival.
| Univariate | Multivariate Model I † | Multivariate Model II † | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | p | HR (95% CI) | p | HR (95% CI) | p | ||
| Baseline factors | |||||||
| Age (years) | >60 vs. ≤60 | 0.889 (0.741–1.066) | 0.205 | ||||
| Sex | Female vs. male | 1.035 (0.802–1.337) | 0.792 | ||||
| BCLC stage | C vs. B | 2.678 (1.803–3.979) | <0.001 | 1.971 (1.273–3.052) | 0.002 | 1.695 (1.077–2.666) | 0.023 |
| Portal vein invasion | Yes vs. no | 1.633 (1.356–1.967) | <0.001 | NS | NS | ||
| Vp4 | Yes vs. no | 1.412 (1.106–1.804) | 0.006 | NS | NS | ||
| Extrahepatic metastasis | Yes vs. no | 1.128 (0.941–1.351) | 0.193 | ||||
| AFP (ng/mL) | >400 vs. ≤400 | 1.659 (1.384–1.988) | <0.001 | 1.374 (1.374–1.109) | 0.004 | NS | |
| HBV DNA (IU/mL) | >20 vs. ≤20 | 1.442 (1.168–1.779) | 0.001 | NS | NS | ||
| >2000 vs. ≤2000 | 1.486 (1.195–1.847) | <0.001 | 1.309 (1.049–1.634) | 0.017 | NS | ||
| NUC therapy | Yes vs. no | 0.796 (0.660–0.961) | 0.018 | NS | NS | ||
| ALBI grade | 2–3 vs. 1 | 1.874 (1.554–2.260) | <0.001 | 1.609 (1.298–1.996) | <0.001 | 1.688 (1.285–2.217) | <0.001 |
| ALT (U/L) | >40 vs. ≤40 | 1.280 (1.069–1.533) | 0.007 | NS | NS | ||
| AST (U/L) | >40 vs. ≤40 | 1.562 (1.291–1.889) | <0.001 | NS | NS | ||
| Platelet count (109/L) | >150 vs. ≤150 | 0.971 (0.811–1.163) | 0.752 | ||||
| On-treatment factors | |||||||
| Achieving undetectable HBV DNA | Yes vs. no | 0.533 (0.432–0.709) | <0.001 | 0.609 (0.442–0.839) | 0.002 | ||
| Second-line therapy | Yes vs. no | 0.523 (0.433–0.632) | <0.001 | 0.630 (0.481–0.824) | 0.001 | ||
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; NS, not significant; NUC, nucleos(t)ide analogue. † Model I included only baseline factors. Model II included both baseline and on-treatment factors.
Table 4.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of factors associated with overall survival in subgroup patients with nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy.
Table 4.
Univariate and multivariate analyses of factors associated with overall survival in subgroup patients with nucleos(t)ide analogue therapy.
| Univariate | Multivariate Model I † | Multivariate Model II † | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95% CI) | p | HR (95% CI) | p | HR (95% CI) | p | ||
| Baseline factors | |||||||
| Age (years) | >60 vs. ≤60 | 0.872 (0.696–1.094) | 0.236 | ||||
| Sex | Female vs. male | 0.901 (0.662–1.228) | 0.510 | ||||
| BCLC stage | C vs. B | 2.544 (1.663–3.894) | <0.001 | 1.936 (1.233–3.041) | 0.004 | 1.842 (1.149–2.953) | 0.011 |
| Portal vein invasion | Yes vs. no | 1.623 (1.290–2.043) | <0.001 | NS | NS | ||
| Vp4 | Yes vs. no | 1.423 (1.052–1.926) | 0.022 | NS | NS | ||
| Extrahepatic metastasis | Yes vs. no | 1.224 (0.977–1.533) | 0.079 | NS | NS | ||
| AFP (ng/mL) | >400 vs. ≤400 | 1.778 (1.418–2.229) | <0.001 | 1.439 (1.127–1.837) | 0.004 | 1.382 (1.033–1.849) | 0.030 |
| HBV DNA (IU/mL) | >20 vs. ≤20 | 1.593 (1.254–2.024) | <0.001 | NS | NS | ||
| >2000 vs. ≤2000 | 1.508 (1.173–1.938) | 0.001 | NS | NS | |||
| NUC starting time | Before TKI vs. After TKI | 0.715 (0.535–0.957) | 0.024 | 0.711 (0.521–0.971) | 0.032 | NS | |
| ALBI grade | 2–3 vs. 1 | 1.940 (1.534–2.452) | <0.001 | 1.655 (1.294–2.118) | <0.001 | 1.648 (1.239–2.193) | 0.001 |
| ALT (U/L) | >40 vs. ≤40 | 1.267 (1.012–1.586) | 0.039 | NS | NS | ||
| AST (U/L) | >40 vs. ≤40 | 1.480 (1.168–1.874) | 0.001 | NS | NS | ||
| Platelet count (109/L) | >150 vs. ≤150 | 0.992 (0.792–1.241) | 0.942 | ||||
| On-treatment factors | |||||||
| Achieving undetectable HBV DNA | Yes vs. no | 0.496 (0.353–0.697) | <0.001 | 0.580 (0.411–0.817) | 0.002 | ||
| Second-line therapy | Yes vs. no | 0.586 (0.465–0.737) | <0.001 | 0.620 (0.468–0.822) | 0.001 | ||
Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; NS, not significant; NUC, nucleos(t)ide analogue. † Model I included only baseline factors. Model II included both baseline and on-treatment factors.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Lee, I.-C.; Lee, P.-C.; Chao, Y.; Chi, C.-T.; Wu, C.-J.; Hung, Y.-P.; Su, C.-W.; Hou, M.-C.; Huang, Y.-H. Application and Impact of Antiviral Therapy for Patients with HBV-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Sorafenib and Lenvatinib Treatment. Viruses 2022, 14, 2355. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14112355
AMA Style
Lee I-C, Lee P-C, Chao Y, Chi C-T, Wu C-J, Hung Y-P, Su C-W, Hou M-C, Huang Y-H. Application and Impact of Antiviral Therapy for Patients with HBV-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Sorafenib and Lenvatinib Treatment. Viruses. 2022; 14(11):2355. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14112355
Chicago/Turabian StyleLee, I-Cheng, Pei-Chang Lee, Yee Chao, Chen-Ta Chi, Chi-Jung Wu, Yi-Ping Hung, Chien-Wei Su, Ming-Chih Hou, and Yi-Hsiang Huang. 2022. "Application and Impact of Antiviral Therapy for Patients with HBV-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Sorafenib and Lenvatinib Treatment" Viruses 14, no. 11: 2355. https://doi.org/10.3390/v14112355
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
