Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Compares safety and efficacy of bilobar radioembolization and systemic therapy in advanced HCC, suggesting implications for patient management.
Recommended treatment options for advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) include systemic therapy (ST) and trans-arterial radioembolization (TARE) with Yttrium-90 (Y90). Before the approval of immune-checkpoint inhibitors, a similar safety profile was reported for TARE and ST with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). However, whole-liver treatment and underlying cirrhosis were identified as risk factors for potentially lethal radioembolization-induced liver disease (REILD). Therefore, the safety and efficacy of TARE and ST with atezolizumab/bevacizumab were compared in patients with advanced HCC involving at least both liver lobes in a retrospective real-world cohort. In total, 74 patients with new or recurrent advanced-stage HCC (BCLC stage B/C) were included if treated with either bilobar TARE (n = 33) or systemic combination therapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n = 41). Most patients had compensated liver function (90.5% were classified as Child-Pugh Score A, 73% as ALBI Grade 1) at baseline. Although not significant, patients treated with ST showed a more prolonged overall survival than those treated with Y90 TARE (7.1 months vs. 13.0 months, p = 0.07). While a similar disease control rate could be achieved with bilobar TARE and atezolizumab/bevacizumab, in the TARE group, overall survival was curtailed by the occurrence of REILD. In patients with underlying liver cirrhosis, the liver function at baseline was a predictor for REILD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeschke et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: