Next Article in Journal
Primary Ovarian Leiomyosarcoma Is a Very Rare Entity: A Narrative Review of the Literature
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing the Performance of 18F-FDG PET/CT in Bladder Cancer: A Narrative Review of Current Evidence
Previous Article in Special Issue
Vascular Niche Facilitates Acquired Drug Resistance to c-Met Inhibitor in Originally Sensitive Osteosarcoma Cells
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/cancers15112952
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Clinical Outcomes of Cabozantinib in Patients Previously Treated with Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma—Importance of Good Liver Function and Good Performance Status

by
Teiji Kuzuya
1,*,
Naoto Kawabe
1,
Mizuki Ariga
1,
Eizaburo Ohno
1,
Kohei Funasaka
1,
Mitsuo Nagasaka
1,
Yoshihito Nakagawa
1,
Ryoji Miyahara
1,
Tomoyuki Shibata
1,
Takeshi Takahara
2,
Yutaro Kato
2 and
Yoshiki Hirooka
1
1
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Fujita Health University, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-Cho, Toyoake 470-1192, Aichi, Japan
2
Department of Surgery, Fujita Health University, 1-98 Dengakugakubo, Kutsukake-Cho, Toyoake 470-1192, Aichi, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cancers 2023, 15(11), 2952; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15112952
Submission received: 4 April 2023 / Revised: 16 May 2023 / Accepted: 26 May 2023 / Published: 28 May 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (TKIs) in Cancer Targeted Therapy)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atz/Bev) is now widely used in clinical practice as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the established regimen for post-treatment after Atz/Bev is unknown. We investigated the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in patients previously treated with Atz/Bev in real clinical practice, with a focus on whether patients met criteria of Child–Pugh Class A and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) score 0/1 at baseline. Our results suggest that cabozantinib in patients with advanced HCC previously treated with Atz/Bev can be expected to yield similar outcomes to those seen in the CELESTIAL trial conducted using cabozantinib for post-sorafenib treatment if patients have good liver function and are in good general condition.

Abstract

(1) Background: This study aimed to investigate clinical outcomes for cabozantinib in clinical practice in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atz/Bev), with a focus on whether patients met criteria of Child–Pugh Class A and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) score 0/1 at baseline. (2) Methods: Eleven patients (57.9%) met the criteria of both Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1 (CP-A+PS-0/1 group) and eight patients (42.1%) did not (Non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group); efficacy and safety were retrospectively evaluated. (3) Results: Disease control rate was significantly higher in the CP-A+PS-0/1 group (81.1%) than in the non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group (12.5%). Median progression-free survival, overall survival and duration of cabozantinib treatment were significantly longer in the CP-A+PS-0/1 group (3.9 months, 13.4 months, and 8.3 months, respectively) than in the Non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group (1.2 months, 1.7 months, and 0.8 months, respectively). Median daily dose of cabozantinib was significantly higher in the CP-A+PS-0/1 group (22.9 mg/day) than in the non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group (16.9 mg/day). (4) Conclusions: Cabozantinib in patients previously treated with Atz/Bev has potential therapeutic efficacy and safety if patients have good liver function (Child–Pugh A) and are in good general condition (ECOG-PS 0/1).

1. Introduction

Since 2020, based on the positive results of the IMbrave150 trial [1], the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atz/Bev) is now widely used in clinical practice as a first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) [2,3,4,5,6,7]. According to clinical-practice guidelines for the treatment of HCC, five molecular targeted agents (MTAs) (sorafenib, regorafenib, lenvatinib, ramucirumab, and cabozantinib) are, similarly, recommended as second-line therapies for patients with advanced HCC once disease progression is seen under treatment with Atz/Bev [8]. However, the IMbrave150 trial did not provide detailed results on treatment after Atz/Bev failure, so no consensus has been reached regarding post-Atz/Bev regimens. Therefore, identifying an effective treatment sequence following Atz/Bev is an important issue.
In the CELESTIAL phase-III clinical trial, cabozantinib, a multi-kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-1,2,3, growth arrest-specific protein 6 receptor (AXL), and hepatocyte growth factor receptor (MET), was confirmed to be effective and safe as a second- or third-line systemic therapy for patients with advanced HCC following sorafenib [9]. At the time the CELESTIAL trial was conducted, sorafenib was the only first-line systemic agent [10]. However, Atz/Bev has now replaced sorafenib as the standard of care [8,11]. AXL and MET play important roles in HCC progression and resistance to treatment with sorafenib and lenvatinib [12,13,14,15]. VEGFR2, MET, and AXL are involved in immunosuppression of the tumor microenvironment, and cabozantinib given after Atz/Bev inhibits these factors and is expected to have synergistic effects with atezolizumab, which has sustained effects [12,16,17]. There are few reports on the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in patients previously treated with Atz/Bev [18,19]. The CELESTIAL trial only included patients with both good liver function (Child–Pugh A) and good general condition (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) 0 or 1). In actual clinical practice, unlike in clinical trials, systemic therapy may need to be administered to patients with poor liver function (Child–Pugh B) or poor general condition (ECOG-PS 2). Little data has been collected on the outcomes of cabozantinib in such patients.
The aim of this study was, therefore, to evaluate the clinical outcomes of cabozantinib in real-world clinical practice among patients with advanced HCC previously treated using Atz/Bev, with a focus on whether these patients met the criteria of Child–Pugh Class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1 at baseline.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Patients

Of the 21 HCC patients introduced to cabozantinib at our institution between February 2021 and October 2022, all 19 patients with a history of Atz/Bev treatment were enrolled in this study to retrospectively evaluate treatment outcomes. All study protocols were approved by the ethics committee at Fujita Health University School of Medicine and were conducted in accordance with the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent for cabozantinib treatment had been obtained from each patient, but the need for informed consent for participation in this study was waived because of the retrospective design.

2.2. Cabozantinib Treatment, Evaluation of Adverse Events and Changes in Liver Function

The recommended starting dose of cabozantinib is 60 mg/day. However, based on initial experience with cabozantinib, some patients were started at a reduced starting dose (40 or 20 mg/day) depending on the condition of the patient. The relative dose intensity (RDI) for Atz/Bev was calculated as the ratio of the dose to the recommended starting dose (60 mg/day). Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0. In the event of a drug-related AE, the dose was reduced or the administration was temporarily suspended until symptoms resolved to grade 1 or 2, according to the guidelines from the manufacturer. Cabozantinib was continued until a potentially fatal AE occurred or clinical tumor progression was observed. Albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) scores [20] were investigated at baseline, week 1, week 2, week 4, and week 6 to assess changes in liver function.

2.3. Evaluation of Antitumor Response

Antitumor response was evaluated according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) [21]. Four-phase (unenhanced, late arterial, portal vein, balanced) contrast-enhanced computerized tomography examinations were performed at baseline and 6 weeks after cabozantinib administration, and every 4–10 weeks according to a predetermined schedule.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using Easy R (EZR) version 1.29 (Saitama Medical Center, Jichi Medical University, Japan) [22]. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and duration of cabozantinib treatment were evaluated using the Kaplan–Meier method, and differences in survival rates were evaluated by the log-rank test. Factors contributing to PFS or OS were analyzed using multivariate analysis if values of p < 0.1 were obtained in univariate analyses. Factors showing values of p < 0.05 were interpreted as significant.

3. Results

3.1. Baseline Characteristics

Baseline characteristics of the 19 HCC patients at the start of cabozantinib are shown in Table 1. Median patient age was 67 years (range, 39–79 years). Fifteen patients (78.9%) were male, 9 (47.4%) had non-viral HCC, 15 (78.9%) had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C, and median alpha fetoprotein (AFP) was 885 ng/mL (range, 2.1–625,505 ng/mL). Child–Pugh score was 5 in eight patients, 6 in four patients, 7 in three patients, 8 in two patients, and 9 in two patients. ECOG-PS was 0 in 10 patients (52.6%). Eleven patients (57.9%) showed both Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1 (CP-A+PS-0/1 group), while the 8 remaining patients (42.1%) did not (Non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group). Cabozantinib was initiated as third-line therapy in nine patients (lenvatinib to Atz/Bev to cabozantinib (n = 7), Atz/Bev to lenvatinib to cabozantinib (n = 2)), fourth-line therapy in seven patients (lenvatinib to Atz/Bev to ramucirumab to cabozantinib (n = 6), Atz/Bev to lenvatinib to ramucirumab to cabozantinib (n = 1)), fifth-line therapy in two patients (lenvatinib to Atz/Bev to ramucirumab to Atz/Bev to cabozantinib (n = 1), Atz/Bev to lenvatinib to ramucirumab to Atz/Bev to cabozantinib (n = 1)), and sixth-line therapy in one patient (sorafenib to regorafenib to lenvatinib to Atz/Bev to ramucirumab to cabozantinib (n = 1)). The initial dose of cabozantinib was 60 mg/day in three patients, 40 mg/day in 12 patients, and 20 mg/day in four patients. The median observation period was 5.1 months (range, 0.5–18.7 months).

3.2. Efficacy

The best antitumor responses of cabozantinib according to RECIST in all 19 patients are shown in Table 2. The best antitumor response to cabozantinib alone was complete response (CR) in zero patients, partial response (PR) in one, stable disease (SD) in nine, progressive disease (PD) in two, and not evaluable (NE) in seven. As a result, the objective response rate (ORR) was 5.3% and the disease control rate (DCR) was 52.6%. DCR was significantly higher in the CP-A+PS-0/1 group (81.1%) than in the non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group (12.5%; p = 0.006). In terms of the antitumor response to cabozantinib plus additional treatment, the ORR was 10.5% and the DCR was 57.9%, with CR in two patients, PR in zero, SD in nine, PD in one, and NE in seven patients. DCR was also significantly better in the CP-A+PS-0/1 group (90.9%) than in the non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group (12.5%; p = 0.001). After the introduction of cabozantinib, two patients (one with BCLC stage B and one with BCLC stage C) in the CP-A+PS-0/1 group were both forced to withdraw cabozantinib due to proteinuria, and received additional treatment with trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE). In both patients, TACE was performed and SD was obtained, then cabozantinib was resumed, but proteinuria appeared again, making cabozantinib difficult to continue. A patient with BCLC stage B had multiple multinodular HCCs in the left lobe, all of which shrank with cabozantinib (RECIST PR). A patient with BCLC stage C with multiple HCCs in the right lobe and right adrenal metastases achieved mild reduction with cabozantinib (RECIST SD). The two patients subsequently underwent surgical resection (left hepatectomy, right hepatectomy plus right adrenalectomy, respectively) because of their good liver function and general condition, and both patients achieved CR. Of the four HCC patients with BCLC stage B at baseline, three had multiple HCCs (not suitable for TACE) and no additional local treatment was considered.
Median PFS for all 19 patients was 2.1 months (range, 1.1–3.9 months) (Figure 1a). Median PFS was significantly longer in the CP-A+PS-0/1 group (3.9 months; range, 1.4–6.2 months) than in the non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group (1.2 months; range, 0.5–2.3 months; p = 0.003) (Figure 1b). Table 3 shows baseline factors associated with PFS. Univariate analysis showed that prognostic factors associated with favorable PPS were Child–Pugh Class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1, and age ≥67 years. On multivariate analysis, only Child–Pugh Class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1 were significant independent predictors of favorable PPS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.239; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.065–0.880; p = 0.031).
Median OS for all 19 patients was 6.8 months (range, 1.8–13.4 months) (Figure 2a). Median OS was significantly longer in the CP-A+PS-0/1 group (13.4 months; range, 6.8 months–NR) than in the non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group (1.7 months; range, 0.5–4.9 months; p < 0.001) (Figure 2b). Table 4 shows the baseline factors associated with OS. In univariate analysis, prognostic factors associated with favorable OS were Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1, no portal vein tumor thrombosis, and no extrahepatic metastases. Similarly, associated with favorable multivariate analysis were Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1 (HR 0.043, 95%CI 0.047–0.401; p = 0.006), no portal vein tumor thrombosis (HR 0.096, 95%CI 0.014–0.656; p = 0.017) and no extrahepatic metastases range (HR 0.055, 95%CI 0.005–0.584; p = 0.016). Median OS by best antitumor response with cabozantinib alone was NR (not reached) for PR (one patient), 9.3 months for SD (nine patients), and 1.8 months for PD+NE (Figure 3a). As for best antitumor response with cabozantinib plus additional treatment, median OS was significantly better in the CR+PR+SD group (13.6 months) than in the PD+NE group (1.6 months; p = 0.002) (Figure 3b).

3.3. Safety

AEs occurring within 6 weeks after cabozantinib initiation are shown in Table 5. AEs of all grades in all 19 patients were, in order of descending frequency, anorexia (52.6%), proteinuria (42.1%), general fatigue (42.1%), and hand-foot syndrome (36.8%). Grade 3 or higher AEs, in order of descending frequency, were proteinuria (31.6%) and general fatigue (10.5%). In the CP-A+PS-0/1 group, proteinuria and hand-foot syndrome were the most common. On the other hand, anorexia and general fatigue were the most common in the non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group.
Median duration of cabozantinib treatment was 1.6 months (range, 0.8–8.3 months) (Figure 4a). Median duration of cabozantinib treatment was significantly longer in the CP-A+PS-0/1 group (8.3 months; range, 0.9 months–NR) than in the non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group (0.8 months; range, 0.2–1.6 months; p = 0.004) (Figure 4b).
The median daily dose of cabozantinib within the 6 weeks after cabozantinib initiation was 19.1 mg/day (range, 6.7–48.6 mg/day) (RDI: 31.8%). Median daily dose of cabozantinib was significantly higher in the CP-A+PS-0/1 group (22.9 mg/day; range, 6.7–48.6 mg/day; RDI, 38.2%) than in the non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group (16.9 mg/day; range, 10.0–21.0 mg/day; RDI, 31.7%; p = 0.032).
The change in ALBI score within 6 weeks was evaluated in all 19 patients. Median (±standard error) ALBI scores at baseline, week 1, week 2, week 4, and week 6 were −1.91 ± 0.15, −1.92 ± 0.16, −1.63 ± 0.17, −1.40 ± 0.17, and −1.62 ± 0.19 (Friedman test, p < 0.0001), respectively. In both CP-A+PS-0/1 and non-CP-A+PS-0/1 groups, ALBI scores were significantly worse at 2, 4, and 6 weeks than at baseline (Figure 5).

4. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this represents the first study to investigate the efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in only patients previously treated with Atz/Bev in real clinical practice. Patients with good liver function (Child–Pugh A) and good general condition (ECOG-PS 0/1) are eligible for clinical trials, but cabozantinib treatment for advanced HCC may, in actual practice, be administered to patients who do not meet these criteria. The present study (19 total patients: Child–Pugh A 63.2%, PS 0/1 84.2%, prior Atz/Bev 100%, cabozantinib as third-line or later treatment in 100%) focused on whether patients met Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1 at baseline and compared clinical outcomes between groups. Our results showed that efficacy and safety of cabozantinib in patients with Child–Pugh A and ECOG-PS 0/1 (the CP-A+PS-0/1 group) were similar to those in the CELESTIAL study [9], while those without Child–Pugh A and ECOG-PS 0/1 (the Non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group) were poor.
The efficacy of cabozantinib in patients with Child–Pugh A and ECOG-PS 0/1 in clinical trials was reported as follows [9,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. In the CELESTIAL trial (470 total patients in the cabozantinib group, Child–Pugh A 100%, PS 0/1 100%, prior sorafenib 100%, cabozantinib as third-line or later treatment in 29.6%), ORR was 4%, DCR was 64%, median PFS was 5.2 months, and median OS was 10.2 months in the cabozantinib group [9]. In the Cabozantinib-2003 trial, a phase-II trial in Japanese patients (total 34 patients, 100% Child–Pugh A, 100% PS 0/1, prior sorafenib 58.8%, prior immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) 14.7%, cabozantinib as third-line or later treatment in 23.5%), ORR was 0%, DCR was 76.5%, and median PFS was 5.6 months [28,29]. In the present study, the ORR was 9.1%, DCR was 81.1%, median PFS was 3.9 months, and median OS was 13.4 months in the CP-A+PS-0/1 group, results that appeared almost equivalent to those of the CELESTIAL trial and Cabozantinib-2003 trial. Therefore, the results of this study indicate that cabozantinib for patients previously treated with Atz/Bev can be expected to be almost as effective as after sorafenib if patients have good liver function (Child–Pugh A) and are in good general condition (ECOG-PS 0/1).
In real clinical practice, outcomes for cabozantinib including patients other than Child–Pugh A and ECOG-PS 0/1 have been reported [18,19,30,31,32]. Finkelmeier et al. reported that with cabozantinib (total 88 patients, Child–Pugh A 68.2%, PS 0/1 88.6%, prior sorafenib 92%, cabozantinib as third-line or later treatment in 52%), ORR was 7%, DCR was 38.6%, median PFS was 3.4 months, and median OS was 7 months in all patients [30]. PFS was similar in the Child–Pugh A group (3.3 months) and Child–Pugh B group (3.1 months), but OS was significantly longer in the Child–Pugh A group (9.7 months) than in the Child–Pugh B group (3.4 months; p = 0.001), and the patients who met CELESTIAL criteria (42%) had a good OS of 11.1 months. Storandt et al. reported outcomes of cabozantinib in patients previously treated with ICI (total 26 patients: Child–Pugh A 72%, prior Ats/Bev 50%, prior nivolumab 46%, prior durvalumab 4%, cabozantinib as third-line or later treatment in 84.6%) [18]. Outcomes for cabozantinib in all patients were: ORR 4%, DCR 27%, median PFS 2.1 months, median OS 7.7 months, and PFS 2.1 months in the Child–Pugh A group and 1.3 months in the Child–Pugh B group, showing no significant difference (p = 0.55). These two studies reported no significant difference in PFS between the Child–Pugh A and Child–Pugh B groups. Unlike these reports, in the present study, the non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group was significantly less effective than the CP-A+PS-0/1 group (ORR 0%, DCR 12.5%, median PFS 1.2 months, median OS 1.7 months).
There have been several reports that Child–Pugh B patients have worse OS, PFS, and antitumor response than Child–Pugh A patients due to intolerance of MTA in patients treated with MTA [33,34]. The multinational GIDEON registry study reported that patients with Child–Pugh A had a longer duration of treatment and OS with sorafenib and fewer discontinuations due to AEs than patients with Child–Pugh B [33]. In addition, several studies have shown that baseline ALBI grade is a significant predictor of overall survival and total duration of treatment [35,36,37,38]. Ueshima et al. reported that in lenvatinib therapy, baseline liver function was closely associated with ORR, frequency of AEs, and duration of treatment [35]. A Child–Pugh score of 5 and ALBI grade of 1 predicted a longer duration of lenvatinib treatment and better outcomes.
It is well known that during treatment with MTA, various AEs often necessitate dose reduction or discontinuation [39,40,41]. As a result, the actual dose is often lower than the recommended starting dose. A sub-analysis of the CELESTIAL trial by ALBI grade at baseline was reported, with a median PFS of 6.5 months in the ALBI grade-1 group and 3.7 months in the ALBI grade-2 group [25]. Median RDI of the daily cabozantinib dose was 59.7% and the median duration of cabozantinib treatment was 5.3 months; with ALBI grade 1, the median RDI of cabozantinib daily dose was 61.2% and the median duration of cabozantinib treatment was 4.9 months. With ALBI grade 2, the median RDI of cabozantinib daily dose was 58.8% and median duration of cabozantinib treatment was 3.3 months. In a multivariate analysis, baseline ALBI grade 2 was independently associated with lower OS in the cabozantinib group compared to ALBI grade 1. ALBI-grade-1 patients were more likely to receive subsequent anticancer therapy compared to ALBI-grade-2 patients. In the Cabozantinib-2003 trial [28,29], the median RDI of the daily cabozantinib dose was 35.9% and the median duration of cabozantinib treatment was 5.6 months. According to ALBI grade at the start of cabozantinib, median RDI was the same for ALBI grade 1 (34.6%) and ALBI grade 2 (38.7%), but the median duration of cabozantinib treatment was longer for ALBI grade 1 (7.7 months) than for ALBI grade 2 (5.4 months). In the present study, median RDI for the daily cabozantinib dose was significantly higher in the CP-A+PS-0/1 group (38.2%) than in the non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group (31.7%; p = 0.032), and median duration of cabozantinib treatment was significantly longer in the CP-A+PS-0/1 group (8.3 months) than in the non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group (0.8 months; p = 0.004). The higher total dose of cabozantinib in the CP-A+PS-0/1 group compared to the non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group is one possible explanation for the favorable outcome in the CP-A+PS-0/1 group.
The major route of excretion of cabozantinib and its metabolites is in the hepatobiliary system [42]. Mild-to-moderate hepatic impairment has been reported to nearly double the exposure to cabozantinib compared to subjects with normal liver function. Therefore, physicians should take into consideration that patients with poor liver function may have significantly lower drug metabolism, higher drug concentrations of cabozantinib, and a higher incidence of AEs. The results of this study showed that the efficacy and tolerability of cabozantinib were significantly poorer in the non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group. Therefore, cabozantinib should not be recommended for Child–Pugh-class-B patients and other alternative treatment options should be chosen if available.
The most frequently occurring AEs in the present study were anorexia, proteinuria, general fatigue, and hand-foot syndrome. AE profiles were the same as those reported for cabozantinib in the CELESTIAL trial [9], the Cabozantinib-2003 trial [28,29], and other real-world clinical reports of cabozantinib [12,13,24,25,26]. In the present study, proteinuria and hand-foot syndrome were the most common in the CP-A+PS-0/1 group. On the other hand, anorexia and general fatigue were the most common in the non-CP-A+PS-0/1 group. AE management in cabozantinib treatment after Atz/Bev is considered similar to that after MTA treatment. For the effective and safe use of cabozantinib, frequent follow-up and early detection and management of AEs (e.g., cabozantinib dose reduction, cabozantinib withdrawal, and symptomatic treatment) are considered important, especially in the initial phase after cabozantinib administration. Among them, anorexia and general fatigue require special attention, as they are AEs that can easily lead to deterioration of liver function [43,44].
Some investigators have reported that starting MTA therapy at lower than recommended doses could be useful in preventing AEs and improving outcomes [19,45]. Tomonari et al. investigated cabozantinib outcomes by starting dose (full- and reduced-dose groups) (total 26 patients, Child–Pugh A 84.6%, ECOG-PS PS 0/1 100%, prior Atz/Bev 80.5%, cabozantinib as third-line or later treatment in 96.2%) [19]. There were no significant differences in ORR, DCR, or PFS between the full-dose group (15 patients) and the dose-reduction group (11 patients). RDI at 4 weeks after starting cabozantinib was 71.1% in the full-dose group and 56.2% in the dose-reduction group, with no significant difference (p = 0.13). The incidence of anorexia, fatigue, diarrhea, and discontinuation or dose reduction was significantly higher in the full-dose group. Based on these results, they concluded that starting cabozantinib at a reduced dose may be a safe therapeutic option. Despite the fact that the Cabozantinib-2003 trial was conducted in well-conditioned subjects with Child–Pugh A and ECOG-PS 0/1, the median time to discontinuation due to AEs was 22 days and the overall median RDI for daily doses of cabozantinib was a low 35.9% [28,29]. However, the median PFS was relatively good at 5.6 months. Therefore, in order to minimize the toxicity caused by cabozantinib and maximize the benefit of cabozantinib, even if AEs reduce the dose of cabozantinib and result in a relatively low RDI, the resulting longer duration of cabozantinib treatment may be expected to provide favorable antitumor responses and prolonged prognosis.
In real clinical practice, early deterioration of liver function has been reported after initiation of MTAs such as sorafenib and lenvatinib [35,38]. With regard to changes in ALBI score, the Cabozantinib-2003 trial reported no difference in ALBI change between the ALBI-grade-1 and grade-2 groups, with no significant deterioration in either group compared to baseline [28,29]. However, in this study, ALBI scores were significantly worse than baseline ALBI scores at 2, 4, and 6 weeks in both CP-A+PS-0/1 and Non-CP-A+PS-0/1 groups. One possible reason for the higher incidence of worsening liver function in this study is that in all 19 patients (100%), cabozantinib was initiated as tertiary or later treatment, which may have caused patients to experience a greater deterioration from baseline than if cabozantinib had been used as a second-line treatment.
In 2022, the combination of anti-PD-L1 durvalumab and anti-CTLA 4 tremelimumab showed promising results in the HIMALAYA trial and was positioned as first-line therapy for advanced HCC alongside Atz/Bev [46]. In the future, MTA will likely be administered sequentially after ICI treatment [11]. In particular, cabozantinib will have more opportunities to be used as a third-line or later treatment. The present study population included 100% of patients who used cabozantinib as third-line or later treatment. Our results may provide useful information for future sequential treatment choice. However, comparisons of outcomes with patients who received other therapies or best supportive care are needed to clarify the benefit of using cabozantinib as a third-line or later treatment.
Several limitations to this study need to be recognized. First, the study used a retrospective, nonrandomized design and was conducted at a single center. Second, the study cohorts were heterogeneous in terms of factors affecting efficacy and safety: liver function, cabozantinib treatment line, and cabozantinib initial dose. Third, the sample size was small and the observation period was short for a clinical study. Therefore, additional prospective studies with a larger number of patients in independent cohorts and longer observation periods are needed to validate and confirm the results of this study.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, our present results suggest that cabozantinib, in patients with advanced HCC previously treated with Atz/Bev, has potential therapeutic efficacy and safety if patients have good liver function (Child–Pugh A) and are in good general condition (ECOG-PS 0/1). Further studies are needed to validate and confirm the present findings for cabozantinib in patients previously treated with Atz/Bev.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.K.; Methodology, T.K.; Formal analysis and investigation, T.K. and N.K.; Data curation, T.K., N.K., M.A., E.O., K.F., M.N., Y.N., R.M., T.S., T.T. and Y.K.; Writing—original draft preparation, T.K.; Writing—review and editing, N.K.; Supervision, Y.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

No grant or other financial support was received for this study.

Institutional Review Board Statement

All study protocols were reviewed and approved by the ethics committee at Fujita Health University School of Medicine (approval no. HM17-152) and were conducted in accordance with the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement

Written informed consent for cabozantinib treatment had been obtained from each patient, but the need for informed consent for participation in this study was waived because of the retrospective design.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to institutional restrictions.

Conflicts of Interest

Teiji Kuzuya received lecture fees from Eisai, Eli Lilly Japan, Takeda Pharmaceutical, and Chugai Pharmaceutical. All other authors declare no competing interests.

References

  1. Finn, R.S.; Qin, S.; Ikeda, M.; Galle, P.R.; Ducreux, M.; Kim, T.-Y.; Kudo, M.; Breder, V.; Merle, P.; Kaseb, A.O.; et al. Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 1894–1905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hiraoka, A.; Kumada, T.; Tada, T.; Hirooka, M.; Kariyama, K.; Tani, J.; Atsukawa, M.; Takaguchi, K.; Itobayashi, E.; Fukunishi, S.; et al. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: Early clinical experience. Cancer Rep. 2022, 5, e1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Kuzuya, T.; Kawabe, N.; Hashimoto, S.; Miyahara, R.; Sawaki, A.; Nakano, T.; Nakaoka, K.; Tanaka, H.; Miyachi, Y.; Mii, A.; et al. Early Changes in Alpha-Fetoprotein Are a Useful Predictor of Efficacy of Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab Treatment in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Oncology 2022, 100, 12–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kuzuya, T.; Kawabe, N.; Hashimoto, S.; Miyahara, R.; Nakano, T.; Nakaoka, K.; Tanaka, H.; Miyachi, Y.; Mii, A.; Tanahashi, Y.; et al. Initial Experience of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Clinical Practice. Cancer Diagn. Progn. 2021, 1, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Maesaka, K.; Sakamori, R.; Yamada, R.; Doi, A.; Tahata, Y.; Ohkawa, K.; Oshita, M.; Miyazaki, M.; Yakushijin, T.; Nozaki, Y.; et al. Pretreatment with antibiotics is associated with reduced therapeutic response to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0281459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Tada, T.; Kumada, T.; Hiraoka, A.; Kariyama, K.; Tani, J.; Hirooka, M.; Takaguchi, K.; Atsukawa, M.; Fukunishi, S.; Itobayashi, E.; et al. New prognostic system based on inflammation and liver function predicts prognosis in patients with advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab: A validation study. Cancer Med. 2022, 12, 6980–6993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Hatanaka, T.; Yata, Y.; Naganuma, A.; Kakizaki, S. Treatment Strategy for Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Transarterial Chemoembolization, Systemic Therapy, and Conversion Therapy. Cancers 2023, 15, 1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vogel, A.; Martinelli, E.; Cervantes, A.; Chau, I.; Daniele, B.; Llovet, J.; Meyer, T.; Nault, J.-C.; Neumann, U.; Ricke, J.; et al. Updated treatment recommendations for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from the ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. Ann. Oncol. 2021, 32, 801–805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Abou-Alfa, G.K.; Meyer, T.; Cheng, A.-L.; El-Khoueiry, A.B.; Rimassa, L.; Ryoo, B.-Y.; Cicin, I.; Merle, P.; Chen, Y.; Park, J.-W.; et al. Cabozantinib in Patients with Advanced and Progressing Hepatocellular Carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 379, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Llovet, J.M.; Ricci, S.; Mazzaferro, V.; Hilgard, P.; Gane, E.; Blanc, J.F.; de Oliveira, A.C.; Santoro, A.; Raoul, J.L.; Forner, A.; et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 359, 378–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Reig, M.; Forner, A.; Rimola, J.; Ferrer-Fàbrega, J.; Burrel, M.; Garcia-Criado, Á.; Kelley, R.K.; Galle, P.R.; Mazzaferro, V.; Salem, R.; et al. BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system: The 2022 update. J. Hepatol. 2022, 76, 681–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Hsu, C.H.; Huang, Y.H.; Lin, S.M.; Hsu, C. AXL and MET in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Literature Review. Liver Cancer 2022, 11, 94–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Pinato, D.J.; Brown, M.W.; Trousil, S.; Aboagye, E.O.; Beaumont, J.; Zhang, H.; Coley, H.M.; Mauri, F.A.; Sharma, R. Integrated analysis of multiple receptor tyrosine kinases identifies Axl as a therapeutic target and mediator of resistance to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma. Br. J. Cancer 2019, 120, 512–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Xiang, Q.; Chen, W.; Ren, M.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.; Deng, D.Y.; Zhang, L.; Shang, C.; Chen, Y. Cabozantinib Suppresses Tumor Growth and Metastasis in Hepatocellular Carcinoma by a Dual Blockade of VEGFR2 and MET. Clin. Cancer Res. 2014, 20, 2959–2970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Fu, R.; Jiang, S.; Li, J.; Chen, H.; Zhang, X. Activation of the HGF/c-MET axis promotes lenvatinib resistance in hepatocellular carcinoma cells with high c-MET expression. Med. Oncol. 2020, 37, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Balan, M.; Teran, E.M.Y.; Waaga-Gasser, A.M.; Gasser, M.; Choueiri, T.K.; Freeman, G.; Pal, S. Novel Roles of c-Met in the Survival of Renal Cancer Cells through the Regulation of HO-1 and PD-L1 Expression. J. Biol. Chem. 2015, 290, 8110–8120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kwilas, A.R.; Ardiani, A.; Donahue, R.N.; Aftab, D.T.; Hodge, J.W. Dual effects of a targeted small-molecule inhibitor (cabozantinib) on immune-mediated killing of tumor cells and immune tumor microenvironment permissiveness when combined with a cancer vaccine. J. Transl. Med. 2014, 12, 294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Storandt, M.H.; Gile, J.J.; Palmer, M.E.; Zemla, T.J.; Ahn, D.H.; Bekaii-Saab, T.S.; Jin, Z.; Tran, N.H.; Mahipal, A. Cabozantinib Following Immunotherapy in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Cancers 2022, 14, 5173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Tomonari, T.; Tani, J.; Ogawa, C.; Deguchi, A.; Senoh, T.; Moriya, A.; Shibata, H.; Fukuno, H.; Tanaka, H.; Tanaka, T.; et al. Multicenter retrospective study of initial treatment outcome and feasibility of initiating dose reduction of cabozantinib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol. Res. 2023, 53, 172–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Johnson, P.J.; Berhane, S.; Kagebayashi, C.; Satomura, S.; Teng, M.; Reeves, H.L.; O’Beirne, J.; Fox, R.; Skowronska, A.; Palmer, D.; et al. Assessment of Liver Function in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A New Evidence-Based Approach—The ALBI Grade. J. Clin. Oncol. 2015, 33, 550–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Eisenhauer, E.A.; Therasse, P.; Bogaerts, J.; Schwartz, L.H.; Sargent, D.; Ford, R.; Dancey, J.; Arbuck, S.; Gwyther, S.; Mooney, M.; et al. New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1). Eur. J. Cancer 2009, 45, 228–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Kanda, Y. Investigation of the Freely Available Easy-to-Use Software ‘EZR’ for Medical Statistics. Bone Marrow Transplant. 2013, 48, 452–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. El-Khoueiry, A.B.; Meyer, T.; Cheng, A.-L.; Rimassa, L.; Sen, S.; Milwee, S.; Kelley, R.K.; Abou-Alfa, G.K. Safety and efficacy of cabozantinib for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who advanced to Child–Pugh B liver function at study week 8: A retrospective analysis of the CELESTIAL randomised controlled trial. BMC Cancer 2022, 22, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rimassa, L.; Kelley, R.K.; Meyer, T.; Ryoo, B.-Y.; Merle, P.; Park, J.-W.; Blanc, J.-F.; Lim, H.Y.; Tran, A.; Chan, Y.-W.; et al. Outcomes Based on Plasma Biomarkers for the Phase 3 CELESTIAL Trial of Cabozantinib versus Placebo in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Liver Cancer 2021, 11, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kelley, R.K.; Miksad, R.; Cicin, I.; Chen, Y.; Klümpen, H.-J.; Kim, S.; Lin, Z.-Z.; Youkstetter, J.; Hazra, S.; Sen, S.; et al. Efficacy and safety of cabozantinib for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma based on albumin-bilirubin grade. Br. J. Cancer 2022, 126, 569–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Kelley, R.K.; Ryoo, B.-Y.; Merle, P.; Park, J.-W.; Bolondi, L.; Chan, S.L.; Lim, H.Y.; Baron, A.D.; Parnis, F.; Knox, J.; et al. Second-line cabozantinib after sorafenib treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A subgroup analysis of the phase 3 CELESTIAL trial. ESMO Open 2020, 5, e000714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kelley, R.K.; Meyer, T.; Rimassa, L.; Merle, P.; Park, J.-W.; Yau, T.; Chan, S.L.; Blanc, J.-F.; Tam, V.C.; Tran, A.; et al. Serum Alpha-fetoprotein Levels and Clinical Outcomes in the Phase III CELESTIAL Study of Cabozantinib versus Placebo in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Clin. Cancer Res. 2020, 26, 4795–4804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kudo, M.; Tsuchiya, K.; Kato, N.; Hagihara, A.; Numata, K.; Aikata, H.; Inaba, Y.; Kondo, S.; Motomura, K.; Furuse, J.; et al. Cabozantinib in Japanese patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A phase 2 multicenter study. J. Gastroenterol. 2021, 56, 181–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kato, N.; Kudo, M.; Tsuchiya, K.; Hagihara, A.; Numata, K.; Aikata, H.; Inaba, Y.; Kondo, S.; Motomura, K.; Okano, N.; et al. Cabozantinib in Japanese patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Final results of a multicenter phase II study. Hepatol. Res. 2023, 53, 409–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Finkelmeier, F.; Scheiner, B.; Leyh, C.; Best, J.; Fründt, T.W.; Czauderna, C.; Beutel, A.; Bettinger, D.; Weiß, J.; Meischl, T.; et al. Cabozantinib in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Efficacy and Safety Data from an International Multicenter Real-Life Cohort. Liver Cancer 2021, 10, 360–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Adhoute, X.; De Matharel, M.; Mineur, L.; Pénaranda, G.; Ouizeman, D.; Toullec, C.; Tran, A.; Castellani, P.; Rollet, A.; Oules, V.; et al. Second-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with regorafenib or cabozantinib: Multicenter French clinical experience in real-life after matching. World J. Gastrointest. Oncol. 2022, 14, 1510–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tovoli, F.; Dadduzio, V.; De Lorenzo, S.; Rimassa, L.; Masi, G.; Iavarone, M.; Marra, F.; Garajova, I.; Brizzi, M.P.; Daniele, B.; et al. Real-Life Clinical Data of Cabozantinib for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Liver Cancer 2021, 10, 370–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Kudo, M.; Ikeda, M.; Takayama, T.; Numata, K.; Izumi, N.; Furuse, J.; Okusaka, T.; Kadoya, M.; Yamashita, S.; Ito, Y.; et al. Safety and efficacy of sorafenib in Japanese patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in clinical practice: A subgroup analysis of GIDEON. J. Gastroenterol. 2016, 51, 1150–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hollebecque, A.; Cattan, S.; Romano, O.; Sergent, G.; Mourad, A.; Louvet, A.; Dharancy, S.; Boleslawski, E.; Truant, S.; Pruvot, F.-R.; et al. Safety and efficacy of sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma: The impact of the Child-Pugh score. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 2011, 34, 1193–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ueshima, K.; Nishida, N.; Hagiwara, S.; Aoki, T.; Minami, T.; Chishina, H.; Takita, M.; Minami, Y.; Ida, H.; Takenaka, M.; et al. Impact of Baseline ALBI Grade on the Outcomes of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Lenvatinib: A Multicenter Study. Cancers 2019, 11, 952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Kariyama, K.; Hiraoka, A.; Kumada, T.; Yasuda, S.; Toyoda, H.; Tsuji, K.; Hatanaka, T.; Kakizaki, S.; Naganuma, A.; Tada, T.; et al. Chronological change in serum albumin as a prognostic factor in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with lenvatinib: Proposal of albumin simplified grading based on the modified albumin–bilirubin score (ALBS grade). J. Gastroenterol. 2022, 57, 581–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hiraoka, A.; Tanizawa, Y.; Huang, Y.-J.; Cai, Z.; Sakaguchi, S. Association of Albumin-Bilirubin Grade and Sequential Treatment with Standard Systemic Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Retrospective Cohort Study Using a Japanese Administrative Database. Drugs-Real World Outcomes 2021, 8, 301–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Muto, H.; Kuzuya, T.; Ito, T.; Ishizu, Y.; Honda, T.; Ishikawa, T.; Ishigami, M.; Fujishiro, M. Transient deterioration of albumin-bilirubin scores in early post-dose period of molecular targeted therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with 50% or higher liver occupation: A STROBE-compliant retrospective observational study. Medicine 2021, 100, e26820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tsuchiya, K.; Kurosaki, M.; Sakamoto, A.; Marusawa, H.; Kojima, Y.; Hasebe, C.; Arai, H.; Joko, K.; Kondo, M.; Tsuji, K.; et al. The Real-World Data in Japanese Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Lenvatinib from a Nationwide Multicenter Study. Cancers 2021, 13, 2608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kuzuya, T.; Ishigami, M.; Ishizu, Y.; Honda, T.; Hayashi, K.; Katano, Y.; Hirooka, Y.; Ishikawa, T.; Nakano, I.; Goto, H. Early Clinical Response after 2 Weeks of Sorafenib Therapy Predicts Outcomes and Anti-Tumor Response in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0138776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kuzuya, T.; Ishigami, M.; Ito, T.; Ishizu, Y.; Honda, T.; Ishikawa, T.; Fujishiro, M. Favorable radiological antitumor response at 2 weeks after starting lenvatinib for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatol. Res. 2020, 50, 374–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Nguyen, L.; Holland, J.; Ramies, D.; Mamelok, R.; Benrimoh, N.; Ciric, S.; Marbury, T.; Preston, R.A.; Heuman, D.M.; Gavis, E.; et al. Effect of Renal and Hepatic Impairment on the Pharmacokinetics of Cabozantinib. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2016, 56, 1130–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hiraoka, A.; Kumada, T.; Atsukawa, M.; Hirooka, M.; Tsuji, K.; Ishikawa, T.; Takaguchi, K.; Kariyama, K.; Itobayashi, E.; Tajiri, K.; et al. Prognostic factor of lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in real-world conditions—Multicenter analysis. Cancer Med. 2019, 8, 3719–3728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Sato, R.; Moriguchi, M.; Iwai, K.; Tsuchiya, S.; Seko, Y.; Takahashi, A.; Kobayashi, K.; Ogasawara, S.; Watanabe, S.; Morimoto, N.; et al. Real-world outcomes of molecular targeted agents for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma over 80 years old. Hepatol. Res. 2022, 52, 859–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Nishikawa, H.; Osaki, Y.; Endo, M.; Takeda, H.; Tsuchiya, K.; Joko, K.; Ogawa, C.; Taniguchi, H.; Orito, E.; Uchida, Y.; et al. Comparison of standard-dose and half-dose sorafenib therapy on clinical outcome in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in field practice: A propensity score matching analysis. Int. J. Oncol. 2014, 45, 2295–2302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Abou-Alfa, G.K.; Lau, G.; Kudo, M.; Chan, S.L.; Kelley, R.K.; Furuse, J.; Sukeepaisarnjaroen, W.; Kang, Y.K.; Dao, T.V. Tremelimumab plus Durvalumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. NEJM Evid. 2022, 1, EVIDoa2100070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cancers 15 02952 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Cumulative PFS in all patients and (b) cumulative PFS in the CP-A+PS-0/1 and Non-CP-A+PS-0/1 groups. PFS, progression-free survival; CP-A+PS-0/1, Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1; Non-CP-A+PS-0/1, other than Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1.
Figure 1. (a) Cumulative PFS in all patients and (b) cumulative PFS in the CP-A+PS-0/1 and Non-CP-A+PS-0/1 groups. PFS, progression-free survival; CP-A+PS-0/1, Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1; Non-CP-A+PS-0/1, other than Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1.
Cancers 15 02952 g001
Cancers 15 02952 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Cumulative OS in all patients and (b) cumulative OS in the CP-A+PS-0/1 and Non-CP-A+PS-0/1 groups. OS, overall survival; CP-A+PS-0/1, Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1; Non-CP-A+PS-0/1, other than Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1.
Figure 2. (a) Cumulative OS in all patients and (b) cumulative OS in the CP-A+PS-0/1 and Non-CP-A+PS-0/1 groups. OS, overall survival; CP-A+PS-0/1, Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1; Non-CP-A+PS-0/1, other than Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1.
Cancers 15 02952 g002
Cancers 15 02952 g003 550
Figure 3. (a) Cumulative OS stratified by best antitumor responses to cabozantinib alone based on RECIST in the PR, SD, and PD+NE groups. (b) Cumulative OS stratified by best antitumor responses of cabozantinib plus additional treatment based on RECIST in the CR+PR+SD and PD+NE groups. (OS, overall survival; RECIST, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; NE, not evaluable; CR, complete response).
Figure 3. (a) Cumulative OS stratified by best antitumor responses to cabozantinib alone based on RECIST in the PR, SD, and PD+NE groups. (b) Cumulative OS stratified by best antitumor responses of cabozantinib plus additional treatment based on RECIST in the CR+PR+SD and PD+NE groups. (OS, overall survival; RECIST, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; NE, not evaluable; CR, complete response).
Cancers 15 02952 g003
Cancers 15 02952 g004 550
Figure 4. (a) Cumulative duration of cabozantinib treatment in all patients. (b) Cumulative duration of cabozantinib treatment in the CP-A+PS-0/1 and Non-CP-A+PS-0/1 groups. CP-A+PS-0/1, Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1; Non-CP-A+PS-0/1, other than Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1.
Figure 4. (a) Cumulative duration of cabozantinib treatment in all patients. (b) Cumulative duration of cabozantinib treatment in the CP-A+PS-0/1 and Non-CP-A+PS-0/1 groups. CP-A+PS-0/1, Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1; Non-CP-A+PS-0/1, other than Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1.
Cancers 15 02952 g004
Cancers 15 02952 g005 550
Figure 5. Changes in ALBI scores within 6 weeks after cabozantinib initiation in the CP-A+PS-0/1 and Non-CP-A+PS-0/1 groups. ALBI, albumin–bilirubin; CP-A+PS-0/1, Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1; Non-CP-A+PS-0/1, other than Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1; W, week.
Figure 5. Changes in ALBI scores within 6 weeks after cabozantinib initiation in the CP-A+PS-0/1 and Non-CP-A+PS-0/1 groups. ALBI, albumin–bilirubin; CP-A+PS-0/1, Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1; Non-CP-A+PS-0/1, other than Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1; W, week.
Cancers 15 02952 g005
Table
Table 1. Baseline characteristics at initiation of cabozantinib.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics at initiation of cabozantinib.
Characteristicsn = 19
Median age (years, range)67 (39–79)
Sex (male/female)15/4
Etiology (HBV/HCV/non-viral)6/4/9
Child–Pugh score (5/6/7/8/9)8/4/3/2/2
ECOG-PS (0/1/2)10/6/3
Both Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1 (+/−)11/8
BCLC stage (B/C)4/15
HCC size (<50 mm/≥50 mm)11/8
Number of HCCs (<4/≥4)1/18
Portal vein tumor thrombosis (−/+)12/7
Extrahepatic spread (−/+)8/11
Median serum AFP level (ng/mL, range)885 (2.1–625,505)
History of hepatic resection (+/−)10/9
History of radiofrequency ablation (+/−)3/16
History of trans arterial chemoembolization (+/−)17/2
History of radiation therapy (+/−)4/15
History of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (+/−)19/0
History of lenvatinib (+/−)19/0
History of ramucirumab (+/−)10/9
History of sorafenib (+/−)1/18
History of regorafenib (+/−)1/18
Cabozantinib treatment line (3rd-/4th-/5th/6th)9/7/2/1
Cabozantinib initial dose (60/40/20 mg/day)3/12/4
Median duration from initial diagnosis of HCC (months)22.5 (7.9–120.6)
Median observation period (months)5.1 (0.5–18.7)
HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; ECOG-PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; AFP, alpha fetoprotein.
Table
Table 2. Best antitumor response to cabozantinib according to RECIST.
Table 2. Best antitumor response to cabozantinib according to RECIST.
RECISTAll
Patients
(n = 19)		CP-A+PS-0/1 Group
(n = 11)		Non-CP-A+PS-0/1 Group
(n = 8)		p Value *
Cabozantinib aloneCR/PR/SD/PD/NE, n0/1/9/2/70/1/8/1/10/0/1/1/6
ORR5.3%9.1%0%1.000
DCR52.6%81.1%12.5%0.006
Cabozantinib
+ additional treatment		CR/PR/SD/PD/NE, n2/0/9/1/72/0/8/0/10/0/1/1/6
ORR10.5%18.2%0%0.485
DCR57.9%90.9%12.5%0.001
RECIST, Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors; CR, complete response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; NE, not evaluated; ORR, objective response rate; DCR, disease control rate; CP-A+PS-0/1, Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1; Non-CP-A+PS-0/1, other than Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1. * p value between CP-A+PS-0/1 and Non-CP-A+PS-0/1 groups.
Table
Table 3. Uni- and multivariate analyses of baseline factors associated with good PFS.
Table 3. Uni- and multivariate analyses of baseline factors associated with good PFS.
Univariate AnalysisMultivariate Analysis
FactorsHR (95%CI)p ValueHR (95%CI)p Value
Age (≥67 years)0.313 (0.099–0.989)0.0480.493 (0.144–1.689)0.260
Sex (male)0.539 (0.164–1.769)0.308
Etiology (HBV or HCV)0.950 (0.354–3.030)0.918
Child–Pugh A and ECOG-PS 0/1 (+)0.184 (0.054–0.633)0.0070.136 (0.035–0.530)0.031
HCC number (<4)0.420 (0.051–3.443)0.419
HCC size (≥5 cm)0.874 (0.310–2.463)0.800
Vp (−)0.761 (0.258–2.244)0.620
EHS (+)0.504 (0.174–1.458)0.206
AFP level (<400 ng/mL)0.406 (0.134–1.235)0.112
PFS, progression-free survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; ECOG-PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; Vp, portal vein tumor thrombosis; EHS, extrahepatic spread; AFP, alpha-fetoprotein.
Table
Table 4. Uni- and multivariate analyses of baseline factors associated with good OS.
Table 4. Uni- and multivariate analyses of baseline factors associated with good OS.
Univariate AnalysisMultivariate Analysis
FactorsHR (95%CI)p ValueHR (95%CI)p Value
Age (≥67 years)0.634 (0.200–2.013)0.440
Sex (female)0.901 (0.241–3.368)0.877
Etiology (HBV or HCV)0.527 (0.167–1.669)0.276
Child–Pugh A and ECOG-PS 0/1 (+)0.039 (0.005–0.324)0.0030.044 (0.005–0.401)0.005
HCC number (≥4)0.976 (0.127–7.806)0.981
HCC size (<5 cm)0.524 (0.155–1.770)0.298
Vp (−)0.296 (0.078–1.118)0.0720.096 (0.014–0.656)0.017
EHS (−)0.226 (0.048–.053)0.0580.055 (0.005–0.584)0.016
AFP level (<400 ng/mL)0.417 (0.123–1.413)0.160
OS, overall survival; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; HBV, hepatitis B virus; HCV, hepatitis C virus; ECOG-PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; Vp, portal vein tumor thrombosis; EHS, extrahepatic spread; AFP, alpha-fetoprotein.
Table
Table 5. Adverse events within 6 weeks of cabozantinib administration (n = 19).
Table 5. Adverse events within 6 weeks of cabozantinib administration (n = 19).
All Patients
(n = 19)		CP-A+PS-0/1 Group
(n = 11)		Non-CP-A+PS-0/1 Group
(n = 8)
Any Grade
n, (%)		Grade ≥3
n, (%)		Any Grade
n, (%)		Grade ≥3
n, (%)		Any Grade
n, (%)		Grade ≥3
n, (%)
Anorexia10 (52.6)1 (5.2)5 (45.5)05 (62.5)1 (12.5)
Proteinuria8 (42.1)6 (31.6)6 (54.5)5 (45.5)2 (25.0)1 (12.5)
General fatigue8 (42.1)2 (10.5)4 (36.4)04 (50.0)2 (25.0)
Hand-foot syndrome7 (36.8)1 (5.3)6 (54.5)1 (9.1)1 (12.5)0
Diarrhea6 (31.6)1 (5.3)5 (45.5)01 (12.5)1 (12.5)
Hypothyroidism6 (31.6)03 (27.3)03 (37.5)0
Bleeding3 (15.8)1 (5.3)1 (9.1)02 (25.0)1 (12.5)
Hypertension3 (15.8)02 (18.2)01 (12.5)0
Fever3 (15.8)02 (18.2)01 (12.5)0
CP-A+PS-0/1, Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1; Non-CP-A+PS-0/1, other than Child–Pugh class A and ECOG-PS score 0/1.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kuzuya, T.; Kawabe, N.; Ariga, M.; Ohno, E.; Funasaka, K.; Nagasaka, M.; Nakagawa, Y.; Miyahara, R.; Shibata, T.; Takahara, T.; et al. Clinical Outcomes of Cabozantinib in Patients Previously Treated with Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma—Importance of Good Liver Function and Good Performance Status. Cancers 2023, 15, 2952. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15112952

AMA Style

Kuzuya T, Kawabe N, Ariga M, Ohno E, Funasaka K, Nagasaka M, Nakagawa Y, Miyahara R, Shibata T, Takahara T, et al. Clinical Outcomes of Cabozantinib in Patients Previously Treated with Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma—Importance of Good Liver Function and Good Performance Status. Cancers. 2023; 15(11):2952. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15112952

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kuzuya, Teiji, Naoto Kawabe, Mizuki Ariga, Eizaburo Ohno, Kohei Funasaka, Mitsuo Nagasaka, Yoshihito Nakagawa, Ryoji Miyahara, Tomoyuki Shibata, Takeshi Takahara, and et al. 2023. "Clinical Outcomes of Cabozantinib in Patients Previously Treated with Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma—Importance of Good Liver Function and Good Performance Status" Cancers 15, no. 11: 2952. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15112952

APA Style

Kuzuya, T., Kawabe, N., Ariga, M., Ohno, E., Funasaka, K., Nagasaka, M., Nakagawa, Y., Miyahara, R., Shibata, T., Takahara, T., Kato, Y., & Hirooka, Y. (2023). Clinical Outcomes of Cabozantinib in Patients Previously Treated with Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma—Importance of Good Liver Function and Good Performance Status. Cancers, 15(11), 2952. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15112952

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop