Preliminary evidence of safety and tolerability of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh A and B cirrhosis: a real-world study

Reproducible safety and efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for HCC in clinical practice: Results of the AB-real study

“…Aside from considerations relating to efficacy, which had already been described in previous studies by our group [6], this study provides an exhaustive description of TRAEs stemming from atezolizumab and bevacizumab exposure, confirming the safety profile of both drugs. Despite being characterised by a lower incidence of all-grade TRAEs compared to IMbrave150 as a likely result of a less rigorous record of TRAEs in routine clinical practice, our study reports that the proportion and the frequency of TRAEs are comparable with clinical trial data.…”

“…Lack of independent review limits the quality of radiology assessment and the absence of more granular data regarding patients' comorbidities does not allow for a complete reconstruction of confounders. Furthermore, some of data included in our analyses overlap with previous studies published by our group, partially reducing the originality of the findings [6]. Despite these limitations, our study is characterised by the largest geographic diversity in patients' provenance to date in documenting outcomes from atezolizumab and bevacizumab.…”

“…Inclusion criteria and methods are reported in Supplementary. The clinical outcomes for this population have been reported in the context of previous publications [6].…”

“…Little high-quality evidence exists to suggest whether the adoption of atezolizumab and bevacizumab in routine practice is characterised by similar effectiveness and safety compared to the original clinical trial population [5,6]. A precise description of clinical outcomes among within-indication patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is currently lacking.…”

The economics of advanced and unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

“…Nivolumab monotherapy, compared with sorafenib in the first‐line setting for advanced HCC in the CheckMate 459 trial failed to improve OS, although it was associated with a favorable safety profile 3 . Whereas the relative importance of sorafenib in the overall treatment of HCC may have been diminished in recent years, it is still considered a useful first‐line therapy in treatment algorithms 4,5 . Selecting atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus nivolumab as the focus of an economic analysis may be a reasonable clinical decision to evaluate; however, this narrow focus may not fully represent the real‐world decision encountered by clinicians, patients, or policy makers (Fig.…”