Anticancer research · 2026
Efficacy of Lenvatinib as Subsequent Therapy After Combination Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Uchihara Naoki, Tamaki Nobuharu, Marusawa Hiroyuki, Urawa Naohito, Hasebe Chitomi, Arai Hirotaka, Ochi Hironori, Kondo Masahiko, Mori Nami, Tsuji Keiji, Fujii Hideki, Ogawa Chikara, Uchida Yasushi, Mori Hiromitsu, Toshimori Junichi, Okamoto Eisuke, Shigeno Masaya, Akahane Takehiro, Narita Ryoichi, Yoshida Hideo, Yokohama Keisuke, Kubotsu Yoshihito, Yasuda Yoichi, Tada Toshifumi, Nakamura Shinichiro, Tsuchiya Kaoru, Yasui Yutaka, Izumi Namiki, Kurosaki Masayuki, Japanese Red Cross Liver Study Group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/AIM: Durvalumab plus tremelimumab (DT) therapy has demonstrated overall survival benefit in a clinical trial and is now widely used as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC). However, evidence supporting the efficacy of lenvatinib (LEN) as subsequent therapy after DT progression remains limited.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter study enrolled patients who received LEN as first-line therapy (1st-line LEN) and those who received LEN as second-line therapy following DT treatment (2nd-line LEN following DT). The primary endpoints were disease control rate (DCR) and objective response rate (ORR), which were compared between the 1st-line LEN and 2nd-line LEN following DT. Treatment responses were assessed using mRECIST.
RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, DCR was 69.1% in the 1st-line LEN group and 69.2% in the 2nd-line LEN following DT group (p=0.95); ORR was 38.2% and 30.8%, respectively (p=0.44). No significant differences were observed between the two groups. After adjusting for age, sex, and ALBI score, treatment line was not associated with DCR; the odds ratio for 2nd-line LEN following DT versus 1st-line LEN (reference) was 0.83 (95% confidence interval=0.17-4.13, p=0.816).
CONCLUSION: LEN following DT therapy demonstrated equivalent antitumor efficacy to first-line LEN, supporting LEN as a viable second-line option after DT progression in u-HCC.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter study enrolled patients who received LEN as first-line therapy (1st-line LEN) and those who received LEN as second-line therapy following DT treatment (2nd-line LEN following DT). The primary endpoints were disease control rate (DCR) and objective response rate (ORR), which were compared between the 1st-line LEN and 2nd-line LEN following DT. Treatment responses were assessed using mRECIST.
RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, DCR was 69.1% in the 1st-line LEN group and 69.2% in the 2nd-line LEN following DT group (p=0.95); ORR was 38.2% and 30.8%, respectively (p=0.44). No significant differences were observed between the two groups. After adjusting for age, sex, and ALBI score, treatment line was not associated with DCR; the odds ratio for 2nd-line LEN following DT versus 1st-line LEN (reference) was 0.83 (95% confidence interval=0.17-4.13, p=0.816).
CONCLUSION: LEN following DT therapy demonstrated equivalent antitumor efficacy to first-line LEN, supporting LEN as a viable second-line option after DT progression in u-HCC.