BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to assess the clinical features of patients who received lenvatinib treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: The clinical characteristics, adverse events, and radiological responses were evaluated for 51 consecutive patients. RESULTS: Of the study subjects, 37 patients had Child-Pugh class A (CPA) liver function, and 14 patients had Child-Pugh class B (CPB) liver function. The overall response rates in the CPA and CPB groups were 42.9% and 25.0%, respectively, and disease control rates were 82.9% and 83.3%, respectively, without significant difference (p = 0.2621 and 0.9697). There was no significant difference between CPA and CPB groups regarding the incidence of adverse events, except for hepatic coma. No significant difference was observed in the relative dose intensity between the CPA and CPB groups, for the first month, 1-2 months, or 2-3 months (p = 0.2368, 0.9368, and 0.9293). CONCLUSION: The comparable outcomes between the CPA and CPB groups suggest the acceptability of lenvatinib treatment in patients with impaired liver function, at least in the acute phase. With careful follow-up, the dose can be relatively intensified, even in patients with impaired liver function and this may contribute to offering comparable treatment.
BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to assess the clinical features of patients who received lenvatinib treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: The clinical characteristics, adverse events, and radiological responses were evaluated for 51 consecutive patients. RESULTS: Of the study subjects, 37 patients had Child-Pugh class A (CPA) liver function, and 14 patients had Child-Pugh class B (CPB) liver function. The overall response rates in the CPA and CPB groups were 42.9% and 25.0%, respectively, and disease control rates were 82.9% and 83.3%, respectively, without significant difference (p = 0.2621 and 0.9697). There was no significant difference between CPA and CPB groups regarding the incidence of adverse events, except for hepatic coma. No significant difference was observed in the relative dose intensity between the CPA and CPB groups, for the first month, 1-2 months, or 2-3 months (p = 0.2368, 0.9368, and 0.9293). CONCLUSION: The comparable outcomes between the CPA and CPB groups suggest the acceptability of lenvatinib treatment in patients with impaired liver function, at least in the acute phase. With careful follow-up, the dose can be relatively intensified, even in patients with impaired liver function and this may contribute to offering comparable treatment.