Atezolizumab and bevacizumab plus transarterial chemoembolization and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for patients with high tumor burden unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A multi-center cohort study
Abstract
BACKGROUND
Though atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A+B) offer promise for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) treatment, the response rate remains suboptimal. Our previous studies highlighted the potential of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) when combined with FOLFOX-based hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) in HCC treatment. This study aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of A+B plus TACE-HAIC for high tumor burden uHCC (HTB-uHCC).
METHODS
This three-center retrospective study involved 82 HTB-uHCC patients administered with TACE-HAIC followed by A+B. We characterized HTB-uHCC patients as those surpassing the up-to-11 criteria, exhibiting VP 3-4, or presenting extrahepatic metastases. The primary outcomes were the objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes encompassed the incidence of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) and overall survival (OS).
RESULTS
Employing the mRECIST criteria, the ORR was 62.2 %, wherein 18 (22.0 %) patients achieved complete response, 33 (40.2 %) demonstrated partial response, 21 (25.6 %) maintained stable disease, and 10 (12.2 %) exhibited disease progression. Impressively, 11 (13.4 %) patients were converted to resectable HCC and underwent curative hepatectomy. The median PFS was 10.1 months (95 % CI, 8.4 to NA), and the median OS was still pending. At the one-year mark, the OS and PFS rates were 92.8 % (95 % CI, 86.1 to 100.0) and 42.9 % (95 % CI, 31.3 to 58.7),…
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a cohort study, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Safety and efficacy of COVID‐19 vaccines: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled and randomized clinical trials
- Accuracy Comparison between Robot-Assisted Dental Implant Placement and Static/Dynamic Computer-Assisted Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
- Determinants of passive antibody efficacy in SARS-CoV-2 infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Bonding Efficacy of Universal Resin Adhesives to Zirconia Substrates: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
- In vitro antimicrobial activity of extracts and essential oils of Cinnamomum, Salvia, and Mentha spp. against foodborne pathogens: A meta-analysis study
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.