Background/Aim Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) treatment is recommended for unresechepatocellular carcinoma (u‐HCC) patients classified as Child‐Pugh A (CP‐A). This study aimed to elucidate the prognosis of patients treated with Atez/Bev, especially CP‐A and ‐B cases. Materials/methods From September 2020 to March 2022, 457 u‐HCC patients treated with Atez/Bev were enrolled (median age 74 years, male:female = 368:89, CP‐A:CP‐B = 427:30, Child‐Pugh score [CPS] 5:6:7:8:9 = 271:156:21:8:1). Therapeutic response was evaluated using RECIST ver.1.1. Clinical features and prognosis were retrospectively evaluated. Results There were no significant differences between CP‐A and ‐B patients in regard to best response (CR:PR:SD:PD = 16:91:194:81 vs. 0:7:13:8, p = 0.739; objective response rate/disease control rate = 28.0%/78.8% vs. 25.0%/71.4%). Analysis performed using inverse probability weighting adjustments of clinical factors other than those related to hepatic reserve function with a p value < 0.10 for comparisons between patients with CP‐A and ‐B showed that the progression‐free survival (PFS) rate for CP‐A cases was better (6‐/12‐/18‐month: 58.2%/36.1%/27.8% vs. 49.6%/8.7%/non‐estimable [NE], p < 0.001), as was overall survival (OS) rate (6‐/12‐/18‐month: 89.9%/71.7%/51.4% versus 63.6%/18.4%/NE; p < 0.001). Median PFS (mPFS) and median OS (mOS) for the CPS‐5 were 9.5 months/NE, and 5.1/14.0 months for the CPS‐6 (both p < 0.001). Furthermore, for modified albumin‐bilirubin grade (mALBI)‐1/2a/2b, mPFS was 9.4/8.5/5.3 months (p < 0.001) and mOS was NE/17.8/13.4 months (p < 0.001). Conclusion Better hepatic function, such as mALBI grade 1 or 2a are thought to indicate a better condition for obtaining sufficient prognosis with Atez/Bev treatment for u‐HCC patients, whereas for CP‐B patients, who mainly shown an mALBI grade of 2b or 3, Atez/Bev might have less therapeutic efficacy.

Background: Although atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/bev) treatment has been developed for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC), changes in hepatic function during therapy have yet to be reported.

Portopulmonary hypertension (PoPH) is a well-known complication of liver cirrhosis. The aim of this study was to clarify the pulmonary hemodynamics and the prevalence and characteristics of PoPH in patients with portal hypertension. Methods: The subjects were 335 patients with portal hypertension diagnosed by hepatic vein pressure gradient (HVPG). Among them, 186 patients received measurements of pulmonary artery pressure (PAP), pulmonary artery wedge pressure (PAWP) and pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR). PoPH was diagnosed by PAP >20 mmHg, PVR ≥3 Wood units (WU) and PAWP ≤15 mmHg. Results: The Child-Pugh classification was class A in 53, B in 92 and C in 41 patients. Median (range) values of HVPG, PAP, PVR and PAWP were 18.4 (5.5-39.0) mmHg, 12.9 (6.6-40.8) mmHg, 0.8 (0.1-4.5) WU and 7.5 (2.2-15.4) mmHg, respectively. Of six patients with PAP >20 mmHg, four had autoimmune hepatitis or primary biliary cholangitis, with the prevalence being significantly higher than that in patients with PAP ≤20 mmHg. Meanwhile, no significant difference was noted in the hepatic functional reserve or HVPG between patients with PAP >20 mmHg and ≤20 mmHg. Only two patients met the diagnostic criteria of PoPH and both patients were Child-Pugh B. The Child-Pugh score and HVPG were not associated with PoPH. Conclusions: Our study demonstrated that only two patients were complicated by PoPH. High PAP values were noted in patients with primary biliary cholangitis or autoimmune hepatitis. However, the presence of PoPH and high PAP were not associated with the degree of hepatic functional reserve or HVPG.

No abstract

The present study suggests that ombitasvir/paritaprevir/ritonavir combination therapy is effective and safe for genotype 1b chronic hepatitis C patients undergoing dialysis due to ESRD.

Background/Aim A comparison of therapeutic efficacy between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) and lenvatinib treatment given as first‐line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u‐HCC) in regard to progression‐free survival (PFS) overall survival (OS) has not been reported. We aimed to elucidate which of those given as initial treatment for u‐HCC has greater prognostic impact on PFS and OS of affected patients, retrospectively. Materials/Methods From 2020 to January 2022, 251 u‐HCC (Child–Pugh A, ECOG PS 0/1, BCLC‐B/C) treated were enrolled (Atez/Bev‐group, n = 194; lenvatinib‐group, n = 57). PFS and OS were analyzed following adjustment based on inverse probability weighting (IPW). Results There was a greater number of patients with macro‐vascular invasion in Atez/Bev‐group (22.7% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.022). In lenvatinib‐group, the frequencies of appetite loss (38.6% vs. 19.6%, p = 0.002), hypothyroidism (21.1% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.004), hand foot skin reaction (19.3% vs. 1.0%, p < 0.001), and diarrhea (10.5% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.012) were greater, while that of general fatigue was lower (22.8% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.008). Comparisons of therapeutic best response using modified response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (mRECIST) did not show significant differences between the present groups (Atez/Bev vs. lenvatinib: CR/PR/SD/PD = 6.1%/39.1%/39.1%/15.6% vs. 0%/48.0%/38.0%/14.0%, p = 0.285). In patients of discontinuation of treatments, 48.2% switched to lenvatinib, 10.6% continued beyond PD, 8.2% received another systemic treatment, 5.9% underwent transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), 3.5% received hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), and 1.2% underwent surgical resection in Atez/Bev‐group, while 42.2% switched to Atez/Bev, 4.4% continued beyond PD, 4.4% received another systemic treatment, 2.2% nivolumab, 6.7% received TACE, and 2.2% received HAIC in lenvatinib‐group. Following adjustment with inverse probability weighting (IPW), Atez/Bev‐group showed better PFS (0.5−/1−/1.5‐years: 56.6%/31.6%/non‐estimable vs. 48.6%/20.4%/11.2%, p < 0.0001) and OS rates (0.5−/1−/1.5‐years: 89.6%/67.2%/58.1% vs. 77.8%/66.2%/52.7%, p = 0.002). Conclusion The present study showed that u‐HCC patients who received Atez/Bev as a first‐line treatment may have a better prognosis than those who received lenvatinib.

Aim:The present study focused on the association of early bevacizumab (Bev) interruption with the clinical outcome of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.Methods: This retrospective study included 239 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma receiving atezolizumab/Bev from September 2020 to June 2021 at 16 different institutions in Japan. We conducted a 9-week landmark analysis to investigate the association of Bev interruption due to adverse events with the therapeutic efficacy. Results:The median age was 73.0 (68.0-80.0) years old, with 195 (81.6%) men. The objective response rate was significantly higher in patients without Bev interruption than in those with it (34.5% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.038). The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 6.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.5-9.7) and 9.0 months (95% CI 7.1-not applicable) in patients with and without Bev interruption, respectively, with statistical significance (p = 0.021). The 12-month overall survival (OS) rates in patients with and without Bev interruption were 49.4% (CI 27.7%-67.9%) and 82.2% (95% CI 70.3%-89.6%), respectively, showing a significant difference (p = 0.004). The presence of Bev interruption was a significant factor associated with the PFS (p = 0.021) and OS (p = 0.008). A multivariate analysis showed that modified albumin-bilirubin 2b (p < 0.001) and later-line treatment (p = 0.018) were unfavorable factors associated with Bev interruption. Liver injury, appetite loss, protein urea, and ascites or hepatic edema were more frequently found in patients with Bev interruption than in those without it. Conclusions:Early Bev interruption was an unfavorable factor associated with the PFS and OS. Good liver function and treatment settings may be associated with maintaining Bev treatment.

No abstract