Propensity-score-matched analysis shows similar overall survival rates in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with A + B or D + T.
Background: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B) and durvalumab plus tremelimumab (D + T) are approved first-line systemic therapy options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), with no head-to-head comparison. In this propensity-matched analysis, we compared the survival of patients with advanced HCC who received either A + B or D + T therapy. Methods: Patients with advanced HCC who received A + B or D + T treatment in the first-line setting were identified using the TriNetX platform, a health research network that provides access to electronic health record data from 112 healthcare organizations. Propensity-score-matched (PSM) analysis was conducted, and the median overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: We identified 2819 patients with HCC who were treated with A + B or D + T: 2031 patients received A + B and 788 received D + T. Compared to patients in the A + B cohort, those who received D + T were more likely to be older (median age: 68.4 vs. 66.9 years), have lower platelet counts (186.8 vs. 201.3), higher prevalence of hypoalbuminemia with levels < 2.7 g/dL (35.2% vs. 28.4%), higher prevalence of bilirubin levels between 2.0 and 2.9 mg/dL (28.8% vs. 23.8%), and decreased INR with levels between 0.0 and 1.6 (92.1% vs. 86.3%). After PSM, 1536 patients were included in the survival analyses, with all variables adequately matched. There was no significant difference in the median OS between those receiving A + B or D + T [16.3 vs. 22.5 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76–1.0]. Higher rates of immune-mediated colitis were noted in the D + T group. Conclusions: Similar survival rates were observed among patients with advanced HCC who received A + B and D + T in the first-line setting. Our study suggests that both A + B and D + T are valid treatment options, and that therapy can be tailored based on comorbidities, adverse effects, and patient preferences.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ailawadi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: