| Literature DB >> 33987350 |
Diyang Xie1, Qiman Sun1, Xiaoying Wang1, Jian Zhou1,2, Jia Fan1,2, Zhenggang Ren1, Qiang Gao1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study aimed to evaluate safety and efficacy of programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor sintilimab plus tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) in a real-word cohort of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC).Entities:
Keywords: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); immune checkpoint inhibitor; tumor response; tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)
Year: 2021 PMID: 33987350 PMCID: PMC8106062 DOI: 10.21037/atm-20-7037
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Ann Transl Med ISSN: 2305-5839
Baseline patient characteristics
| Variables | Patients (n=60) |
|---|---|
| Age | |
| ≤60 | 40 (66.7%) |
| >60 | 20 (33.3%) |
| Sex | |
| Male | 51 (85.0%) |
| Female | 9 (15.0%) |
| Aetiology | |
| HBV | 58 (96.7%) |
| Non-HBV non-HCV | 2 (3.3%) |
| Child-Pugh class | |
| A | 54 (90.0%) |
| B | 6 (10.0%) |
| HBV-DNA, IU/mL | |
| ≥1,000 | 11 (18.3%) |
| <1,000 | 49(81.7%) |
| AFP, ng/mL | |
| ≥400 | 33 (55.0%) |
| <400 | 27 (45.0%) |
| BCLC stage | |
| B | 17 (28.3%) |
| C | 43 (71.7%) |
| Disease sites | |
| Liver | 51 (85.0%) |
| Liver without macrovascular invasion | 25 (41.7%) |
| Liver with major vascular invasion | 26 (43.3%) |
| Lung | 11 (18.3%) |
| Lymph nodes | 10 (16.7%) |
| Intra-abdomen | 8 (13.3%) |
| Bone | 4 (6.7%) |
| Brain | 1 (1.7%) |
| Combination strategies | |
| Sintilimab +Lenvatinib | 48 (80.0%) |
| Sintilimab + Sorafenib | 3 (5.0%) |
| Sintilimab + Regorafenib | 4 (6.7%) |
| Sintilimab + Apatinib | 5 (8.3%) |
| Combination therapy as systemic | |
| First-line | 44 (73.3%) |
| Second-line | 9 (15.0%) |
| Third-line | 6 (10.0%) |
| Fourth-line | 1 (1.7%) |
HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; AFP, alpha fetal protein; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer.
Figure 1Kaplan-Meier estimates of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). (A) PFS and OS of overall patient cohort. (B) Comparison of PFS between patients receiving the combination therapy as the first line treatment and those as the second to fourth line. (C) Comparison of PFS between patients receiving sintilimab plus TKIs synchronously and those receiving sintilimab after TKIs.
Figure 2Organ-specific tumor responses. (A) Best reduction from baseline in liver tumors and extrahepatic metastases. (B) Representative images showing response in brain metastasis in one patient: shrinkage of brain metastasis with intra-tumor hemorrhage from baseline (left panel) to follow-ups after lenvatinib plus 2 cycles (middle panel) and 4 cycles (right panel) of sintilimab. The arrows indicate brain metastasis.
Figure 3Representative images showing successful resection after downstaging induced by sintilimab plus TKI in one patient. (A) Change of liver lesions and lymph node metastases after the combined treatment: diffuse liver lesions in the right and left lobe and peritoneal lymph node metastases at baseline (left panel), shrinkage of liver lesions and disappearance of lymph node metastases after treatment with 5 cycles of sintilimab plus TKI (middle panel), no intrahepatic liver recurrence or peritoneal metastasis 1 month after resection (right panel). The arrows indicate intrahepatic lesions and lymph node metastases. (B) Pathological results of the biopsy at baseline and the resected lesions after the combination therapies: PD-1 staining positive in 30% of the biopsy lesions before the combination treatment (left panel), residual viable tumor with necrosis, diffuse inflammatory cells infiltration and interstitial fibrosis (middle panel) as well as histiocytic reaction (right panel) in the resected lesions.
Figure 4Comparison of PFS between treatment-naive patients who had TACE in addition to the combined systemic therapies and those who did not have TACE treatment.