| Literature DB >> 32664319 |
David J Pinato1, Takahiro Kaneko1,2, Anwaar Saeed3, Tiziana Pressiani4, Ahmed Kaseb5, Yinghong Wang6, David Szafron7, Tomi Jun8, Sirish Dharmapuri8, Abdul Rafeh Naqash9, Mahvish Muzaffar9, Musharraf Navaid9, Chieh-Ju Lee10, Anushi Bulumulle9, Bo Yu11, Sonal Paul12, Neil Nimkar12, Dominik Bettinger13, Hannah Hildebrand3, Yehia I Abugabal5, Celina Ang8, Thomas U Marron8, Uqba Khan11, Nicola Personeni4,14, Lorenza Rimassa4,14, Yi-Hsiang Huang10.
Abstract
Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have shown positive results in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). As liver function contributes to prognosis, its precise assessment is necessary for the safe prescribing and clinical development of ICI in HCC. We tested the accuracy of the albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade as an alternative prognostic biomarker to the Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP). In a prospectively maintained multi-centre dataset of HCC patients, we assessed safety and efficacy of ICI across varying levels of liver dysfunction described by CTP (A to C) and ALBI grade and evaluated uni- and multi-variable predictors of overall (OS) and post-immunotherapy survival (PIOS). We studied 341 patients treated with programmed-death pathway inhibitors (n = 290, 85%). Pre-treatment ALBI independently predicted for OS, with median OS of 22.5, 9.6, and 4.6 months across grades (p < 0.001). ALBI was superior to CTP in predicting 90-days mortality with area under the curve values of 0.65 (95% CI 0.57-0.74) versus 0.63 (95% CI 0.54-0.72). ALBI grade at ICI cessation independently predicted for PIOS (p < 0.001). Following adjustment for ICI regimen, neither ALBI nor CTP predicted for overall response rates or treatment-emerging adverse events (p > 0.05). ALBI grade identifies a subset of patients with prolonged survival prior to and after ICI therapy, lending itself as an optimal stratifying biomarker to optimise sequencing of systemic therapies in advanced HCC.Entities:
Keywords: bilirubin; biomarkers; hepatocellular carcinoma; immunotherapy; survival
Year: 2020 PMID: 32664319 PMCID: PMC7408648 DOI: 10.3390/cancers12071862
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cancers (Basel) ISSN: 2072-6694 Impact factor: 6.639
Figure 1Study flow chart.
Clinical characteristics of the studied patient cohort.
| Characteristic | |
|---|---|
| Age in Years | |
| Median (Range) | 64 (15–89) |
|
| |
| Male | 262 (77) |
| Female | 79 (23) |
|
| |
| Present | 242 (71) |
| Absent | 99 (29) |
|
| |
| Hepatitis B Infection | 95 (28) |
| Hepatitis C Infection | 135 (40) |
| Alcohol Excess | 57 (17) |
| Non-Alcoholic Steato-Hepatitis (NASH) | 34 (10) |
| Other | 15 (4) |
|
| |
| A | 250 (73) |
| B | 81 (24) |
| C | 9 (3) |
|
| |
| A | 5 (2) |
| B | 72 (21) |
| C | 254 (75) |
| D | 10 (3) |
| Median (Range) | 115 (1–1,148,416) |
| Median (Range) | 36 (12–53) |
| Median (Range) | 14.5 (3–210) |
| Median (Range) | 45 (0–272) |
| Median (Range) | 135 (26–1064) |
|
| |
| Median (Range) | 161 (42–670) |
| Median (Range) | 5.2 (0.6–21.5) |
|
| |
| Absent | 166 (49) |
| Present | 175 (51) |
|
| |
| Resection | 103 (30) |
| Ablation | 62 (18) |
| Transarterial Chemoembolisation | 156 (45) |
| Radio-Embolisation | 81 (24) |
| External Beam Radiotherapy | 34 (10) |
| Sorafenib | 207 (61) |
| Other Systemic Therapies | 32 (9) |
|
| |
| 1 | 129 (38) |
| 2 | 183 (54) |
| >2 | 29 (8) |
|
| |
| Anti-PD(L)-1 Monotherapy | 290 (85) |
| Anti-PD(L)-1 + CTLA-4 Combination | 25 (7) |
| Anti-PD(L)-1 + TKI Combination | 24 (7) |
| Anti-CTLA-4 Monotherapy | 2 (1) |
|
| |
| 1 | 104 (31) |
| 2 | 187 (55) |
| 3 | 39 (11) |
| Missing | 11 (3.2) |
|
| |
| 1 | 47 (14) |
| 2 | 120 (35) |
| 3 | 50 (15) |
| Missing | 124 (36) |
The relationship between baseline albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade and salient clinico-pathologic variables.
| Characteristic | ALBI G1 ( | ALBI G2 ( | ALBI G3 ( | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 57/47 | 122/64 | 30/8 | 0.02 * |
| Y/N | (55/45) | (66/34) | (79/21) | |
|
| 71/33 | 148/39 | 33/6 | 0.05 * |
| M/F | (68/32) | (79/21) | (85/15) | |
|
| 52/52 | 149/38 | 34/5 | <0.001 * |
| Y/N | (50/50) | (73/27) | (89/11) | |
|
| 101/2/1 | 134/52/1 | 7/25/7 | <0.001 * |
| A/B/C | (97/2/1) | (72/16/1) | (18/64/18) | |
|
| 0/33/70/1 | 3/29/153/2 | 2/10/20/7 | <0.001 * |
| A/B/C/D | (0/32/67/1) | (2/16/82/1) | (5/26/51/18) | |
|
| 73/30 | 101/79 | 19/17 | 0.03 * |
| <400/>400 ng/mL | (71/29) | (56/44) | (53/47) | |
|
| 103/1 | 177/10 | 31/8 | <0.001 * |
| 0–1/2–3 | (99/1) | (95/5) | (80/20) | |
|
| 79/25 | 164/23 | 39/0 | 0.001 * |
| Monotherapy/Combination | (76/24) | (88/12) | (100/0) | |
|
| 64/40 | 100/87 | 19/20 | 0.28 |
| CR + PR + SD/PD + NE | (62/39) | (54/47) | (49/51) | |
| 0.79 | ||||
| 4/99 | 7/179 | 2/37 | ||
| (4/96) | (4/96) | (5/95) | ||
|
| <0.001 * | |||
| Median (95% CI) | 22.5 (18.5–26.4) | 9.6 (8.1–11.0) | 4.6 (2.3–6.8) | |
|
| <0.001 * | |||
| Median (95% CI) | 5.1 (6.3–9.0) | 3.3 (4.3–5.7) | 2.3 (3.4–8.2) |
* indicates statistical significance at p < 0.05.
Figure 2The relationship between ALBI grade (A) and Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) class (B) and radiologic disease control by RECIST 1.1 criteria in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI).
Figure 3Prediction of overall survival by ALBI grade and CTP class in unselected HCC patients treated with ICI (n = 330, A,B) and in patients fulfilling CTP A criteria (n = 239, C). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis demonstrating the role of ALBI, CTP class, and AFP in predicting 90-days mortality from ICI commencement (D). The prognostic role on post-immunotherapy survival (PIOS) of the ALBI grade at the moment of ICI cessation (E).
The distribution of ALBI Grade in each CTP group.
| CTP | ALBI Grade | Median Survival (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| CTP A |
| 101 (42%) | 22.5 (18.5–26.4) |
|
| 134 (55%) | 9.6 (8.1–11.0) | |
|
| 7 (3%) | 4.6 (2.3–6.8) | |
|
| 15.3 (11.3–19.3) | ||
| CTP B |
| 2 (3%) | - |
|
| 7.2 (4.5–9.8) | ||
|
| 8.5 (1.5–15.4) | ||
|
| 7.5 (4.4–10.5) | ||
| CTP C |
| 1 (11%) | - |
|
| - | ||
|
| 3.4 (1.3–4.2) | ||
|
| 4.3 (2.4–6.1) |
Uni- and multi-variable analysis of survival in patients with HCC treated with ICI.
| Variable | Patients ( | Univariable | Multi-Variable | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 103/185/39 | |||||
| 2 vs. 1 | 2.2 (1.5–3.2) | <0.001 | 2.1 (1.4–3.0) | <0.001 * | |
| 3 vs. 1 | 2.8 (1.6–4.8) | <0.001 | 3.1 (1.8–5.4) | <0.001 * | |
| 189/149 | 0.66 | ||||
| 259/79 | 0.80 | ||||
| 215/121 | 0.34 | ||||
| 247/81/9 | |||||
| B vs. A | 1.8 (1.3–2.5) | <0.001 | |||
| C vs. A | 3.4 (1.5–7.8) | 0.004 | |||
| 260/78 | 1.5 (1.0–2.3) | 0.04 | |||
| 128/198 | 1.4 (1.1–2.0) | 0.02 | |||
| 287/51 | 0.61 | ||||
| 102/205 | 0.55 (0.40–0.77) | <0.001 | 0.30 (0.20–0.48) | <0.001 * | |
| 185/153 | 3.32 (2.44–4.52) | <0.001 | 4.88 (3.43–6.96) | <0.001 * |
* indicates statistical significance at p < 0.05.
Uni- and multi-variable analysis of PIOS in patients with HCC treated with ICPI.
| Characteristic | Patients ( | Univariable | Multivariable | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 47/120/50 | |||||
| 2 vs. 1 | 2.0 (1.1–3.4) | 0.01 * | 1.5 (1.0–3.5) | 0.18 | |
| 3 vs. 1 | 5.1 (2.8–9.3) | <0.001 * | 3.9 (1.9–8.0) | <0.001 * | |
| 115/102 | 0.53 | ||||
| 167/50 | 0.26 | ||||
| 128/89 | 0.94 | ||||
| 51/120 | 1.7 (1.1–2.6) | 0.03 * | |||
| 81/131 | 0.06 | ||||
| 180/37 | 0.39 | ||||
| 78/139 | 0.3 (0.2–0.5) | <0.001 * | 0.3 (0.2–0.5) | <0.001 * |
* indicates statistical significance at p < 0.05.