Beyond atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: overall efficacy and safety of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in a real-world setting

BACKGROUND: In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) progressing after atezolizumab and bevacizumab, the optimal therapeutic sequence is still unclear and no second-line agent has proven its efficacy. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective multicenter real-world cohort study was to provide an evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the use of second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in this population. METHODS: All patients with advanced HCC, treated in first-line setting by atezolizumab–bevacizumab, and who received at least one dose of treatment with TKI were included in this study. All the data were retrospectively collected from medical records. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), overall global survival (OGS), and safety. A total of 82 patients were included in this study. RESULTS: Patients were assigned to the regorafenib group (n = 29, 35.4%) or other TKI (sorafenib n = 41, lenvatinib n = 8, or cabozantinib n = 4) group (n = 53). PFS was not significantly different between the two groups [2.6 versus 2.8 months, HR 1.07 (95% CI: 0.61–1.86), p = 0.818]. Median PFS rates were 2.6, 4.4, and 2.8 months in sorafenib-, lenvatinib-, and cabozantinib group, respectively. OS was statistically different between the regorafenib group and other TKI group [15.8 versus 7.0 months, HR 0.40 (95% CI: 0.20–0.79), p = 0.023]. When adjusting on confounding factors, there was still a difference in OS favoring the regorafenib group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.35, p = 0.019). OGS of patients who received regorafenib was improved compared to other TKI [18.6 versus 15.0 months, HR 0.42 (95% CI: 0.22–0.84), p = 0.036]. Twenty percent of patients had grade 3 and none had grade 4 or 5 adverse events. In patients who experienced disease progression and fit for a third-line treatment, 80% and 50% received cabozantinib in regorafenib group and other TKI group, respectively. CONCLUSION: Efficacy of any TKI in the second-line setting was not affected by atezolizumab–bevacizumab treatment as first-line therapy. The safety profile in the second-line setting was consistent with the results shown in pivotal studies. PFS rates of patients were similar, regardless of TKI type. Regorafenib was associated with better OS and OGS rates compared to other TKI. These data need to be confirmed in prospective comparative studies.