Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a critical health concern in Korea,
ranking as the second leading cause of cancer mortality and imposing substantial
economic burdens, particularly among the working-age population. This review
examines recent advancements in treating advanced HCC, referencing the updated
2022 HCC guidelines and the Barcelona Clinical Liver Cancer system.
Historically, first-line systemic therapies included sorafenib and lenvatinib,
with regorafenib, cabozantinib, or ramucirumab serving as second-line options.
Since 2020, immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown superior overall survival
than sorafenib, leading to the adoption of combination therapies such as
atezolizumab with bevacizumab and durvalumab with tremelimumab as first-line
treatments. The IMbrave150 study demonstrated that
atezolizumab–bevacizumab significantly extended median overall survival
and progression-free survival, with the longest survival reported in any phase 3
trial for advanced HCC. Similarly, the HIMALAYA study indicated that durvalumab
combined with tremelimumab significantly improved survival rates. Second-line
therapies now include regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab, nivolumab with
ipilimumab, and pembrolizumab, each offering benefits for specific patient
populations. Nonetheless, these therapies are associated with side effects that
require careful management. Traditional targeted therapies can lead to
hypertension, cardiovascular events, and hand-foot skin reactions, whereas
immune checkpoint inhibitors may cause immune-related adverse events affecting
the skin, gastrointestinal tract, and endocrine system. Clinicians must be
well-versed in these treatments and their potential side effects to provide
optimal patient care. The emergence of combination therapies targeting complex
biological pathways signifies a new paradigm in HCC treatment, emphasizing the
importance of continuous education and vigilant monitoring to optimize patient
outcomes.
In Korea, cancer remains a major cause of death, with liver cancer being the
second most common cause of cancer-related deaths following lung cancer in 2020
(lung cancer: 36.4 deaths, liver cancer: 20.6 deaths per 100,000, according to
statistics from the National Statistical Office) [1]. Furthermore, liver cancer represents the most substantial
economic burden, particularly impacting individuals in their most productive
years, underscoring its critical importance as a health issue in the country
[2]. Thus, this paper aims to examine
the latest treatment trends for advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC),
referencing the newly revised 2022 HCC guidelines and the 2022 Barcelona
Clinical Liver Cancer (BCLC) system [3].
HCC often develops in the context of chronic hepatitis, primarily driven by
innate immune activation. However, certain causes are associated with specific
immune dysfunctions. Chronic viral hepatitis can lead to liver cancer by
initiating inflammatory innate immune responses and fostering an abnormal
adaptive immune reaction that fails to eliminate the hepatitis virus [4]. Approximately half of HCC patients
receive systemic therapy. Traditionally, sorafenib or lenvatinib were used as
first-line treatments, followed by regorafenib, cabozantinib, or ramucirumab as
second-line options. However, since 2020, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs)
have shown significantly improved overall survival rates compared to sorafenib.
Therefore, the combination therapies of atezolizumab with bevacizumab and
durvalumab with tremelimumab have become the preferred first-line
treatments.
This review aims to provide an overview of recent advancements in treating
advanced HCC, based on the updated 2022 HCC guidelines and the BCLC system. It
specifically updates the following topics: first-line systemic therapy,
second-line systemic therapy following the failure of first-line treatment, and
the side effects of systemic chemotherapy agents.
As this study is a literature review, it did not require institutional review board
approval or individual consent.
The first-line treatments for advanced HCC are discussed sequentially, starting with
the most preferred medications. Fig. 1 provides
a visual overview intended to facilitate a deeper understanding of the comprehensive
treatment strategy for advanced HCC.
Atezolizumab is an intravenous IgG1 monoclonal antibody that targets programmed
death ligand 1 (PD-L1) on the surface of cancer cells, preventing its
interaction with the receptor. Bevacizumab, another intravenous IgG monoclonal
antibody, binds to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), thereby inhibiting
angiogenesis and tumor growth.
In the IMbrave150 study, patients with advanced HCC who were treated with a
combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab exhibited a significant increase in
median overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) compared to those
treated with sorafenib (6.8 months; 95% CI, 5.7–8.3 vs. 4.3 months; 95%
CI, 0.47–0.76, P<0.001). This marked improvement prompted the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve the combination therapy in 2020. The
study excluded patients with autoimmune diseases, concurrent HBV and HCV
infections, or untreated esophageal or gastric varices. The primary causes of
HCC were chronic infections, with HBV and HCV accounting for 49% and 21% of
cases, respectively. All participants had preserved liver function (Child-Pugh
class A), and 26% had low-risk varices at baseline, with 11% undergoing
treatment. The study was halted at the first interim analysis after
demonstrating significant improvements in both overall survival and PFS [5]. Recent updates indicate that after a
median follow-up of 15.6 months, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab
achieved a median overall survival of 19.2 months, the longest recorded in any
phase 3 trial for advanced HCC. Additionally, the overall response rate reached
30%, more than double that of sorafenib [6]. In 2023, a systematic literature review and network meta-analysis
were conducted to indirectly compare the combination of atezolizumab and
bevacizumab with other treatments for unresectable HCC. The analysis showed that
this combination therapy leads to improved overall survival, supporting its use
as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable liver cancer. However,
it is important to recognize that this combination may not be suitable for all
patients, and careful evaluation is necessary to determine the most appropriate
treatment for each individual [7–10].
Tremelimumab is an intravenous IgG2 monoclonal antibody that targets CTLA-4 on
activated T-cells, thereby blocking its interaction with the ligands CD80 and
CD86. Durvalumab, a fully human IgG1 antibody, binds to PD-L1, inhibiting its
interaction with PD-1 and reversing peripheral tolerance against tumor cells
[11,12].
On October 15, 2021, the HIMALAYA study demonstrated that combination therapy
significantly improved survival compared to sorafenib, with survival times of
16.43 months versus 13.77 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.78; 96.02%
CI, 0.65–0.92, P=0.0035). This finding met the primary endpoint of the
study. The trial enrolled patients with BCLC stage B or C, Child-Pugh class A,
ECOG PS 0 or 1, and at least one measurable lesion according to RECIST 1.1
criteria. Patients requiring non-drug treatment for ascites, those with major
portal vein thrombosis, or those co-infected with HBV and HCV were excluded from
the study. Patients requiring non-drug treatment for ascites, those with major
portal vein thrombosis, or those co-infected with HBV and HCV were excluded. The
dosing regimen was determined based on pharmacokinetic studies. The STRIDE
regimen, which involves administering 300 mg of tremelimumab once, followed by
1,500 mg of durvalumab in the first cycle and then 1,500 mg of durvalumab alone
every 4 weeks, proved effective. It was noted that a high dose of tremelimumab
could enhance CD8+ T cell levels in peripheral blood, potentially boosting the
efficacy of the combination therapy. This study led to the FDA approval of the
combination therapy in October 2022, and it received approval from the European
Medicines Agency in January 2023 for the treatment of unresectable HCC. An
update in January 2023 from the HIMALAYA study indicated that the median
follow-up periods for STRIDE, durvalumab, and sorafenib were 49.12 months (95%
CI, 46.95–50.17 months), 48.46 months (95% CI, 46.82–49.81
months), and 47.31 months (95% CI, 45.08–49.15 months), respectively
[12–14].
Sorafenib is an oral multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKIs) that targets various
receptors, including VEGFR-1, VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3, PDGFR-β, Raf-1, and
c-kit. Its anticancer effects are derived from the dual inhibition of
angiogenesis and tumor cell proliferation. Additionally, sorafenib inhibits the
phosphorylation of the initiation factor eIF4E and promotes cancer cell death by
reducing the levels of the anti-apoptotic protein Mcl-1.
The landmark phase 3 SHARP trial enrolled 602 HCC patients, with 97% classified
as Child-Pugh class A. This study involved a comparison between a placebo group
of 303 patients and a sorafenib group of 299 patients. Among these, 70% had
advanced HCC, with underlying conditions including HBV infection (18%), HCV
infection (28%), and alcohol-related diseases (26%). Sorafenib was administered
orally at a dosage of 400 mg twice daily and significantly increased the median
overall survival to 10.7 months, compared to 7.9 months for the placebo group
(P<0.001). Therefore, in 2007, sorafenib was approved by the FDA as the
first treatment for HCC [15–18].
Lenvatinib, administered orally at a dosage of 12 mg/day for individuals weighing
over 60 kg and 8 mg/day for those under 60 kg, is a molecular targeted therapy.
It targets multiple receptors, including VEGFR-1/2/3, FGFR-1/2/3/4,
PDGFR-α, RET, and c-kit. This therapy inhibits angiogenesis and disrupts
fibroblast growth factor signaling in human HCC models [19]. In the multinational phase 3 REFLECT study, lenvatinib
demonstrated non-inferiority to sorafenib in terms of survival, with survival
times of 13.6 months versus 12.3 months (HR 0.92, 95% CI, 0.79–1.06).
Consequently, in 2018, lenvatinib was approved as the first-line systemic
treatment for HCC, representing the first such approval in a decade since
sorafenib [20,21].
Although immunotherapy is highly effective, its use is limited in patients with
recurrent HCC after liver transplantation due to the high risk of allograft
rejection. However, retrospective studies have indicated that sorafenib and
lenvatinib are safe for these patients. In a retrospective cohort study of 45
patients with recurrent HCC post-liver transplantation treated with lenvatinib,
the median overall survival was 14.5 months (95% CI, 0.8–28.2), with a
median PFS of 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.3–9.8) and an objective response rate
of 20% [22]. This suggests that
lenvatinib is a valuable first-line treatment option for advanced HCC,
especially in patients concerned about resistance, those unable to undergo
timely upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, or for whom immunotherapy is
contraindicated. Lenvatinib was also evaluated in a multinational, multicenter
trial assessing the clinical outcomes of multiple kinase inhibitors in cancer
patients whose disease had progressed following combination therapy with
atezolizumab and bevacizumab. The study included patients classified as
Child-Pugh class A and BCLC stage B or C. The results showed that patients
treated with lenvatinib experienced a longer median PFS of 6.1 months (95% CI,
1.6–10.5) compared to those treated with sorafenib, which was 2.5 months
(95% CI, 1.3–3.8, P=0.004). However, overall survival was similar between
the two groups (median overall survival, 16.6 months [95% CI, 3.6–29.6]
vs. 11.2 months [95% CI, 2.7–19.6]; P=0.347). Lenvatinib has shown
promising efficacy and tolerable safety as a second-line treatment following
atezolizumab-bevacizumab therapy. Therefore, recent guidelines from NCCN, ASCO,
ESMO, EASL, and the KLCA-NCC in Korea recommend considering lenvatinib as a
second-line option after atezolizumab-bevacizumab treatment. Furthermore,
transarterial chemoembolization, the standard treatment for BCLC-B liver cancer,
has been shown to be effective in extending PFS and overall survival when used
sequentially or in combination with lenvatinib, as demonstrated in studies
conducted in China and Japan. However, additional prospective research,
including studies with Western populations, is necessary to confirm these
benefits. Finally, the combination therapy of lenvatinib with ICIs has been
explored across various cancer types and has received FDA approval for use in
advanced renal cell carcinoma. The combination of lenvatinib with pembrolizumab
is particularly noteworthy, as lenvatinib suppresses angiogenesis and immune
inhibition in the tumor microenvironment, enhancing the anti-tumor immune
response of pembrolizumab through a synergistic effect. In this context, the
phase 3 LEAP-002 study, which evaluates the effectiveness of lenvatinib combined
with pembrolizumab versus lenvatinib monotherapy in advanced HCC, has been
conducted. Although there were numerical improvements in PFS and overall
survival, the combination therapy did not reach statistical significance in
enhancing overall survival and PFS compared to placebo. Nonetheless, this study
is significant as it suggests that combining lenvatinib with immunotherapy could
be a viable strategy for treating advanced HCC [23].
No studies have directly compared the effectiveness of various second-line systemic
therapies following the failure of sorafenib. However, regorafenib and cabozantinib
have shown improved overall survival compared to placebo in such scenarios.
Additionally, ramucirumab has been found to enhance overall survival in patients
with serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels above 400 ng/mL, irrespective of
resistance to sorafenib. Table 1 summarizes
the survival rates and target agents for each drug, organized according to the
sequential treatment strategy for advanced HCC. Currently, there is a significant
gap in research concerning the use of approved first-line treatments, such as
lenvatinib and the atezolizumab/bevacizumab combination, as second-line options
following treatment failure. Furthermore, no research results are available on the
efficacy of using durvalumab and tremelimumab combination therapy as a second-line
systemic treatment after the failure of first-line treatments [24].
Patients who exhibit sorafenib resistance may consider regorafenib as a
second-line treatment. Regorafenib operates through three primary mechanisms:
angiogenesis inhibition, cell proliferation control, and tumor microenvironment
regulation. This oral multi-kinase inhibitor targets a variety of receptors,
including VEGFR 1-3, TIE-2, PDGFR-β, c-KIT, RET, RAF-1, and BRAF. The
simultaneous blockade of VEGF and TIE-2 receptors is thought to significantly
improve the constriction of tumor blood vessels. Studies indicate that
regorafenib also possesses immune-modulating properties; it helps prevent immune
suppression, regulates macrophages, and enhances the proliferation and
activation of CD8+ T cells, thereby boosting the anti-tumor immune response.
The RESORCE study demonstrated that patients treated with regorafenib experienced
a significantly longer median overall survival compared to the control group
(10.6 months vs. 7.8 months; HR 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50–0.79; P<0.001).
This finding established regorafenib as the first second-line systemic therapy
to show a survival benefit, culminating in its FDA approval in April 2017 for
use as a second-line treatment [25–28].
This oral molecular targeted therapy simultaneously inhibits MET, VEGFRs, RET,
and KIT, making it effective even in cases resistant to sorafenib. It functions
by inhibiting the activity of multiple tyrosine kinases and preventing receptor
phosphorylation, thereby halting signal transduction. This mechanism results in
the death of cancer cells, decreased proliferation, inhibition of metastasis,
reduced tumor blood vessel formation, and ultimately, tumor shrinkage.
A similar result was observed in the multinational phase 3 CELESTIAL trial, where
cabozantinib significantly extended median overall survival compared to the
placebo group (10.2 months vs. 8.0 months; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63–0.92;
P=0.005). Therefore, cabozantinib received approval from the EMA and FDA for the
treatment of HCC patients who had previously been treated with sorafenib,
recommending a daily dose of 60 mg. In November 2021, findings from the
COSMIC-132 trial, which investigated the combination of atezolizumab and
cabozantinib, were published. The study showed a significant improvement in PFS,
with an HR of 0.63. However, interim data did not show a significant improvement
in overall survival compared to sorafenib, pending the final analysis [29]. Similarly, the final results of the
COSMIC-312 study, reported in 2024, indicated that although the combination of
atezolizumab and cabozantinib continued to show a significant benefit in PFS, it
did not enhance overall survival compared to sorafenib. In 2020, a
matching-adjusted indirect comparison was performed to indirectly compare the
outcomes of the CELESTIAL and RESORCE trials in patients who had received
sorafenib as first-line therapy. This comparison assessed the efficacy and
safety profiles of cabozantinib and regorafenib. The findings demonstrated that
cabozantinib, compared to regorafenib, achieved a similar overall survival and a
longer PFS in patients with advanced HCC whose disease had progressed following
sorafenib treatment [30–32].
Ramucirumab is an intravenous monoclonal antibody that specifically targets
VEGFR-2. Unlike bevacizumab, ramucirumab exhibits a broader inhibitory profile
by blocking all forms of VEGF from binding to VEGFR-2, thereby effectively
halting angiogenesis due to its high binding affinity. Elevated AFP levels are
typically associated with poor prognosis and increased angiogenesis, as well as
heightened VEGFR expression. In the REACH-2 trial, which included patients with
serum AFP levels of 400 ng/mL or higher, BCLC-B/C, ECOG PS 0/1, and Child-Pugh
class A, participants who received 8 mg/kg of ramucirumab biweekly demonstrated
a significant improvement in overall survival compared to those in the placebo
group (8.5 months vs. 7.3 months; HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.531–0.949;
P=0.0199) [33–35].
Nivolumab is an intravenous PD-1 inhibitor and a recombinant human IgG4
monoclonal antibody. It functions by binding to the PD-1 receptor on T
cells' surfaces, thereby restoring their ability to attack cancer cells.
Ipilimumab targets the CTLA-4 receptor on the cell membrane, blocking its
interaction with the ligands CD80 and CD86. This combination is conditionally
approved by the FDA as a second-line treatment following sorafenib. The
CheckMate 040 trial assessed the efficacy and safety of nivolumab and ipilimumab
in patients with advanced HCC who had previously received sorafenib treatment.
The study demonstrated that the combination therapy led to significant and
durable responses, resulting in the approval of the regimen in the United
States. This regimen involves administering nivolumab at 1 mg/kg and ipilimumab
at 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab at 240 mg every
two weeks. However, this combination has not yet been incorporated into domestic
or BCLC guidelines [36–38]. In 2024, the 5-year results from this
cohort were published, confirming the initial findings. The combination therapy
in arm A showed clinically meaningful responses and extended survival benefits
for patients with advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib, further
endorsing its use as a second-line treatment [39,40].
Pembrolizumab is a human IgG4 monoclonal antibody that targets the PD-1 receptor,
inhibiting its interaction with PD-L1 and PD-L2. Although the KEYNOTE-240 study,
which compared pembrolizumab with a placebo, did not achieve statistically
significant results in its final analysis, the findings still underscore the
drug's antitumor activity as a second-line treatment for HCC. These
results have also set the stage for further investigations [41]. In November 2018, pembrolizumab was
granted accelerated approval by the FDA, following the outcomes of the global
phase 2 KEYNOTE-224 study that included patients with advanced HCC who had
previously been treated with sorafenib.
In 2022, the phase 3 KEYNOTE-394 study evaluated pembrolizumab as a second-line
treatment compared to a placebo in Asian patients. Pembrolizumab was
administered at a dose of 200 mg every three weeks, mirroring the placebo
group's regimen. The study results indicated a significant improvement in
median overall survival (14.6 vs. 13.0 months; HR for death, 0.79; 95% CI,
0.63–0.99, P=0.0180) and PFS (2.6 vs. 2.3 months; HR for progression or
death, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60–0.92, P=0.0032). Furthermore, the objective
response rate was markedly better (12.7% vs. 1.3%, P<0.0001), reinforcing
the recommendation to use pembrolizumab as a second-line treatment for this
patient group [42,43].
Although sorafenib offers significant benefits to patients, it also has side
effects similar to those of other TKIs. Sorafenib targets the VEGF receptor
pathway and Raf kinase, both of which are essential for maintaining
physiological functions and homeostasis in the body. Inhibiting these signaling
pathways can result in therapeutic benefits but also potential side effects.
Currently, side effects such as hypertension, thyroid dysfunction, hand-foot
syndrome, and fatigue are associated with the inhibition of various tyrosine
kinases. Additionally, hypertension, arterial thromboembolism, proteinuria,
wound complications, bleeding, and gastrointestinal perforation are closely
linked to the VEGF pathway. While most side effects are manageable, severe
adverse reactions like cardiac shock or hemorrhage can be life-threatening and
may lead to the discontinuation of chemotherapy. Therefore, it is crucial to
review these side effects thoroughly [44,45].
Hypertension is one of the most commonly reported side effects of
angiogenesis inhibitors such as sorafenib and may manifest within 2 weeks of
initiating treatment. This hypertension results from the toxicity inherent
in the mechanism of action of sorafenib and is sometimes considered a
predictive marker of the drug’s antitumor efficacy, suggesting that
sorafenib is functioning effectively. Over time, the incidence of
hypertension may decrease, indicating that the body might be adapting to the
drug, which could potentially reduce the cardiovascular risks observed at
the beginning of treatment. Therefore, patients should monitor their blood
pressure weekly after starting treatment and can manage hypertension with
standard antihypertensive medications without needing to reduce the
sorafenib dose. Recent studies suggest that monitoring the steady-state
concentration of sorafenib may help in avoiding severe toxicities, including
hypertension.
Hypertension induced by TKIs is linked to several complications, including a
reduction in left ventricular ejection fraction, heart failure, and coronary
artery disease. In a randomized, double-blind clinical study, myocardial
ischemia or infarction occurred in 4.9% of patients treated with sorafenib,
compared to only 0.4% in the placebo group. This damage is thought to arise
from the inhibition of RAF1 and BRAF kinases, which disrupts the ERK kinase
cascade and directly suppresses myocardial cell survival. However, cardiac
damage caused by sorafenib can generally be managed effectively if the
patient's heart function is closely monitored and appropriate
treatment is administered.
Sorafenib treatment is associated with arterial thromboembolism across
various cancer types. However, research on the high-risk factors for
sorafenib-induced arterial thromboembolism remains limited, and consensus on
prevention and management strategies has not been established. Due to the
risk of bleeding, preventive anticoagulant measures such as aspirin are not
universally recommended when used concurrently. Consequently, patients who
experience such events should discontinue sorafenib, and those with
atherosclerosis should use the drug with caution.
Patients treated with sorafenib have reported a range of bleeding
complications, including nosebleeds, hemoptysis, gastrointestinal bleeding,
vaginal bleeding, and even cerebral hemorrhage. A meta-analysis of studies
on anti-angiogenic therapy in patients with HCC and renal cell carcinoma
showed that sorafenib increased the risk of bleeding events of all grades
compared to control groups (OR 1.77, 95% CI, 1.04–3.0). [46] The inhibition of the VEGF pathway
may disrupt platelet activation, hinder thrombus formation following trauma,
and decrease subendothelial matrix deposition, which in turn raises the risk
of bleeding. Given the significant concerns of bleeding and arterial
thromboembolism during sorafenib treatment, careful monitoring of patients
and tailored treatment approaches are crucial.
Hand-foot skin reactions (HFSR) are the most prevalent dose-limiting toxicity
associated with sorafenib, often occurring during treatment and frequently
necessitating dose adjustments. This adverse effect significantly impacts
the quality of life of patients, making its management a critical component
of the treatment plan. HFSR is characterized by symptoms such as
erythematous, edematous, and painful blisters on the palms and soles.
Typically, these reactions develop within 2 to 4 weeks of starting
sorafenib, with a median onset time of 18.4 days. Notably, TKI-induced HFSR
often presents with hyperkeratotic lesions surrounded by erythema, primarily
affecting areas such as joints, palms, and soles. Meta-analyses have
reported an overall incidence of HFSR across all grades ranging from 30% to
40%, with grade 2 or higher lesions occurring in 8% to 9% of cases. This
underscores the need for thorough monitoring and appropriate management of
this common side effect in patients undergoing sorafenib treatment.
Gastrointestinal disturbances are commonly observed during sorafenib
treatment, manifesting as diarrhea, vomiting, nausea, and loss of appetite.
Diarrhea is the most frequently reported symptom among these. Typically,
these gastrointestinal side effects are mild, classified as grade 1 or 2;
however, more severe effects, classified as higher grades, can disrupt a
patient's daily activities and require proper management. Medications
such as loperamide can be employed to manage the symptoms. Dose adjustments
are generally unnecessary unless severe grade 3 or 4 side effects occur.
Renal toxicity, characterized by proteinuria and acute kidney injury, is a
known dose-limiting side effect of sorafenib treatment, although it occurs
infrequently. The inhibition of the VEGF pathway and subsequent damage to
glomerular capillary endothelial cells are believed to play a role in these
complications. Consequently, it is essential to monitor and manage blood
pressure during sorafenib treatment to prevent renal complications.
Common side effects typically emerge within the first 4–6 months of
treatment and generally resolve after 5–6 months. Effective
management during this period is essential, as these effects can
significantly affect daily life. Similar side effects have been noted with
lenvatinib, another multikinase inhibitor similar to sorafenib. However, the
incidence of serious adverse reactions was significantly higher in the
lenvatinib group, at 43%, compared to 30% in the sorafenib group [47,48].
Immune checkpoint molecules are pivotal in regulating anti-cancer T-cell
responses and are expressed on T-cells, antigen-presenting cells such as
dendritic cells and macrophages, and tumor cells. These molecules are essential
for naturally suppressing T-cell activity and maintaining self-tolerance. Major
inhibitory receptors of immune checkpoints include PD-1, PD-L1, CTLA-4, LAG-3,
and TIM-3, while co-stimulatory proteins such as CD25, GITR, and OX40 promote
T-cell expansion. Consequently, ICIs that target PD-1, PD-L1, CTLA-4, TIM-3, and
LAG-3 have shown significant safety and efficacy in treating HCC. Additionally,
immunotherapeutic drugs are not metabolized in the liver, which may lead to
predictable pharmacokinetic profiles in patients with cirrhosis [49]. In the treatment of advanced HCC, ICIs
have improved survival rates compared to sorafenib, but they are also associated
with a spectrum of adverse effects that necessitate careful monitoring. Although
the precise mechanisms are not fully understood, these effects are often related
to the depletion and exhaustion of regulatory T cells, which play a vital role
in maintaining tolerance induced by ICI therapy, especially through CTLA-4
blockade. The depletion of these cells can result in decreased anti-inflammatory
cytokines, increased proliferation of CD8+ T cells, and early B-cell
alterations, potentially leading to immune-related adverse events. These side
effects differ from those associated with traditional chemotherapy, as they can
be more unpredictable in their onset and may persist longer. This article will
discuss the specific side effects associated with key ICIs, including nivolumab,
ipilimumab, atezolizumab, bevacizumab, tremelimumab, and durvalumab, in sequence
[50,51].
A recombinant human IgG4 monoclonal antibody, administered intravenously,
functions as a PD-1 inhibitor. It binds to the PD-1 receptors on the surface
of T cells, thereby restoring their ability to combat cancer cells.
In a phase 3 multinational randomized controlled trial (CheckMate 459), a
comparison between nivolumab and sorafenib revealed an overall incidence of
adverse events at 70%, with 22% of patients experiencing grade 3 or higher
adverse events. The most common side effects were fatigue (15%), pruritus
(13%), rash (11%), AST elevation (11%), diarrhea (8%), decreased appetite
(6%), nausea (5%), weight loss (1%), and hypertension (1%). Severe adverse
events (grade 3 or higher) included AST elevation (6%), diarrhea (1%), and
palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia. Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred
more frequently in the sorafenib group (47% vs. 18%), although mild side
effects were similarly distributed between the two groups (48% vs. 44%).
Ipilimumab, a CTLA-4 inhibitor, can be used in combination with nivolumab for
treatment. The most commonly reported side effects are pruritus (45%), rash
(29%), diarrhea (24%), hypothyroidism (20%), fatigue (18%), adrenal
insufficiency (14%), and decreased appetite (12%). Additionally, there was a
rare instance of a treatment-related death caused by grade 5 pneumonia.
Among patients treated with atezolizumab/bevacizumab, 98% experienced side
effects. Of these, 63% reported grade 3 to 4 side effects, and 7%
experienced grade 5 side effects. The most common side effects were
hypertension (29.8%), fatigue (20.4%), proteinuria (20.1%), hepatitis (AST
elevation, 19.5%), pruritus (19.5%), diarrhea (18.8%), decreased appetite
(17.6%), rash (12.5%), and nausea (12.2%). Severe side effects included
upper gastrointestinal bleeding and increased risks of cardiotoxicity,
thromboembolic stroke, and gastrointestinal perforation associated with
bevacizumab.
A meta-analysis was conducted to assess the risk of bleeding in HCC patients
undergoing treatment with atezolizumab/bevacizumab. This analysis, which
included 28 studies, indicated an overall bleeding incidence of 8.42% (95%
CI, 5.72%–11.54%), with grade 5 bleeding occurring in 2.06% of cases
(95% CI, 0.56–4.22). Gastrointestinal bleeding, particularly variceal
bleeding, was identified as the most common bleeding site, with an incidence
of 5.48% (95% CI, 3.98%–7.17%). The incidence of bleeding was found
to be 2.11 times higher (95% CI, 1.21–3.66) when compared to
treatment with TKIs. Additionally, high body mass index and high
albumin-bilirubin grade were significant predictors of bleeding
complications [52].
In the HIMALAYA clinical study, 75.8% of the patients experienced side
effects, with 25.8% encountering grade 3 to 4 adverse reactions. The most
common side effects were diarrhea (26.5%), pruritus (22.9%), rash (22.4%),
loss of appetite (17%), fatigue (17%), fever (12.9%), nausea (12.1%),
elevated AST (12.4%), and hypothyroidism (10.3%).
There have been reports on the relationship between immune-related adverse
events and prognosis. Patients who experienced these immune-related side
effects showed an improvement in PFS, although there was no significant
difference in overall survival. A meta-analysis revealed that patients who
developed skin, gastrointestinal, or endocrine-related side effects
following nivolumab treatment exhibited a positive correlation with
favorable outcomes. The objective response rate after treatment with
nivolumab/ipilimumab was positively correlated with the occurrence of skin
or gastrointestinal events, but not with other side effects. However, in
cases involving anti-PD-(L)-1 monotherapy or combination therapy, patients
who experienced grade 2 or higher treatment-related adverse effects
demonstrated improved overall survival (HR, 0.55; 95% CI,
0.34–0.88).
In 2023, a meta-analysis was conducted to compare the side effects of
sorafenib and first-line immunotherapy in treating HCC. The analysis
revealed that patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with ICIs
exhibited a higher incidence of all-grade pruritus. Conversely, those
receiving sorafenib faced increased risks of diarrhea and HFSR. There were
no significant differences observed in the rates of fatigue, elevated
aspartate transaminase levels, rash, hypertension, or decreased appetite
[53].
A new paradigm in HCC treatment is emerging, with a particular emphasis on
combination therapies such as atezolizumab with bevacizumab, durvalumab with
tremelimumab, and various traditional kinase inhibitors. These therapeutic
strategies are designed to target the complex biological pathways of liver cancer,
aiming to inhibit tumor growth and metastasis, and thereby improve survival rates in
cases of advanced liver cancer. Clinicians must be well-versed in the latest
treatments for advanced HCC and understand the specific indications for each to
recommend the most appropriate therapy for individual patients. Additionally, since
ICIs have been associated with previously unobserved side effects, careful attention
and monitoring are required.
References
1. Kang MJ, Jung KW, Bang SH, Choi SH, Park EH, Yun EH, et al. Cancer statistics in Korea: incidence, mortality, survival, and
prevalence in 2020. Cancer Res Treat. 2023; 55(2):385–399. DOI: 10.4143/crt.2023.447. PMID: 36915245. PMCID: PMC10101796.
2. Llovet JM, Kelley RK, Villanueva A, Singal AG, Pikarsky E, Roayaie S, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021; 7(1):6. DOI: 10.1038/s41572-020-00240-3. PMID: 33479224.
3. Reig M, Forner A, Rimola J, Ferrer-Fàbrega J, Burrel M, Garcia-Criado Á, et al. BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment
recommendation: the 2022 update. J Hepatol. 2022; 76(3):681–693. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.018. PMID: 34801630. PMCID: PMC8866082.
4. Lee YR. A multidisciplinary approach with immunotherapies for advanced
hepatocellular carcinoma. J Liver Cancer. 2023; 23(2):316–329. DOI: 10.17998/jlc.2023.09.04. PMID: 37743048. PMCID: PMC10565553.
5. Finn RS, Qin S, Ikeda M, Galle PR, Ducreux M, Kim TY, et al. Atezolizumab plus vevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular
carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2020; 382(20):1894–1905. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1915745. PMID: 32402160.
6. Choo SP, Nahon P. Atezolizumab and bevacizumab for HCC in the real
world. Liver Int. 2022; 42(4):727–728. DOI: 10.1111/liv.15204. PMID: 35289074.
7. Vogel A, Finn RS, Blanchet Zumofen MH, Heuser C, Alvarez JS, Leibfried M, et al. Atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab for the management
of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the first-line setting:
systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Liver Cancer. 2023; 12(6):510–520. DOI: 10.1159/000533166. PMID: 38058419. PMCID: PMC10697759.
8. Park J, Lee YB, Ko Y, Park Y, Shin H, Hur MH, et al. Comparison of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib for
hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis. J Liver Cancer. 2024; 24(1):81–91. DOI: 10.17998/jlc.2023.12.25. PMID: 38246747. PMCID: PMC10990665.
9. Jácome AA, Castro ACG, Vasconcelos JPS, Silva MHCR, Lessa MAO, Moraes ED, et al. Efficacy and safety associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors
in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2021; 4(12):e2136128. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.36128. PMID: 34870682. PMCID: PMC8649834.
10. Tella SH, Kommalapati A, Mahipal A, Jin Z. First-line targeted therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: role of
atezolizumab/bevacizumab combination. Biomedicines. 2022; 10(6):1304. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines10061304. PMID: 35740326. PMCID: PMC9220769.
11. France NL, Blair HA. Tremelimumab: a review in advanced or unresectable hepatocellular
carcinoma. Target Oncol. 2024; 19(1):115–123. DOI: 10.1007/s11523-023-01026-9. PMID: 38236364. PMCID: PMC10954993.
12. Maestri M, Pallozzi M, Santopaolo F, Cerrito L, Pompili M, Gasbarrini A, et al. Durvalumab: an investigational agent for unresectable
hepatocellular carcinoma. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2022; 31(4):347–360. DOI: 10.1080/13543784.2022.2033208. PMID: 35072571.
13. Patel TH, Brewer JR, Fan J, Cheng J, Shen YL, Xiang Y, et al. FDA approval summary: tremelimumab in combination with durvalumab
for the treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular
carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2024; 30(2):269–273. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-23-2124. PMID: 37676259. PMCID: PMC10841291.
14. Kelley RK, Sangro B, Harris W, Ikeda M, Okusaka T, Kang YK, et al. Safety, efficacy, and pharmacodynamics of tremelimumab plus
durvalumab for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma:
randomized expansion of a phase I/II study. J Clin Oncol. 2021; 39(27):2991–3001. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.20.03555. PMID: 34292792. PMCID: PMC8445563.
15. Kane RC, Farrell AT, Madabushi R, Booth B, Chattopadhyay S, Sridhara R, et al. Sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular
carcinoma. Oncologist. 2009; 14(1):95–100. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2008-0185. PMID: 19144678.
16. Cucchetti A, Piscaglia F, Pinna AD, Djulbegovic B, Mazzotti F, Bolondi L. Efficacy and safety of systemic therapies for advanced
hepatocellular carcinoma: a network meta-analysis of phase III
trials. Liver Cancer. 2017; 6(4):337–348. DOI: 10.1159/000481314. PMID: 29234637. PMCID: PMC5704710.
17. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, Hilgard P, Gane E, Blanc JF, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359(4):378–390. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa0708857. PMID: 18650514.
18. Mousa AB. Sorafenib in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular
carcinoma. Saudi J Gastroenterol. 2008; 14(1):40–42. DOI: 10.4103/1319-3767.37808. PMID: 19568496. PMCID: PMC2702892.
19. Matsuki M, Hoshi T, Yamamoto Y, Ikemori-Kawada M, Minoshima Y, Funahashi Y, et al. Lenvatinib inhibits angiogenesis and tumor fibroblast growth
factor signaling pathways in human hepatocellular carcinoma
models. Cancer Med. 2018; 7(6):2641–2653. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.1517. PMID: 29733511. PMCID: PMC6010799.
20. Lee MMP, Chan LL, Chan SL. The role of lenvatinib in the era of immunotherapy of
hepatocellular carcinoma. J Liver Cancer. 2023; 23(2):262–271. DOI: 10.17998/jlc.2023.07.17. PMID: 37589044. PMCID: PMC10565543.
21. Obi S, Sato T, Sato S, Kanda M, Tokudome Y, Kojima Y, et al. The efficacy and safety of lenvatinib for advanced hepatocellular
carcinoma in a real-world setting. Hepatol Int. 2019; 13(2):199–204. DOI: 10.1007/s12072-019-09929-4. PMID: 30671808.
22. Bang K, Casadei-Gardini A, Yoo C, Iavarone M, Ryu MH, Park SR, et al. Efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in patients with recurrent
hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation. Cancer Med. 2023; 12(3):2572–2579. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.5123. PMID: 36812124. PMCID: PMC9939097.
23. Llovet JM, Kudo M, Merle P, Meyer T, Qin S, Ikeda M, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus lenvatinib plus placebo for
advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (LEAP-002): a randomised, double-blind,
phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2023; 24(12):1399–1410. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00469-2. PMID: 38039993.
24. Hwang SY, Lee SL, Liu H, Lee SS. Second-line treatment after failure of immune checkpoint
inhibitors in hepatocellular carcinoma: tyrosine kinase inhibitor, retrial
of immunotherapy, or locoregional therapy? Liver Cancer. 2024; 13(3):246–255. DOI: 10.1159/000534303. PMID: 38894810. PMCID: PMC11185856.
25. Granito A, Forgione A, Marinelli S, Renzulli M, Ielasi L, Sansone V, et al. Experience with regorafenib in the treatment of hepatocellular
carcinoma. Therap Adv Gastroenterol. 2021; 14:17562848211016959. DOI: 10.1177/17562848211016959. PMID: 34104211. PMCID: PMC8165525.
26. Bruix J, Tak WY, Gasbarrini A, Santoro A, Colombo M, Lim HY, et al. Regorafenib as second-line therapy for intermediate or advanced
hepatocellular carcinoma: multicentre, open-label, phase II safety
study. Eur J Cancer. 2013; 49(16):3412–3419. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2013.05.028. PMID: 23809766.
27. Ravi S, Singal A. Regorafenib: an evidence-based review of its potential in
patients with advanced liver cancer. Core Evid. 2014; 9:81–87. DOI: 10.2147/CE.S48626. PMID: 25114628. PMCID: PMC4109634.
28. Finn RS, Merle P, Granito A, Huang YH, Bodoky G, Pracht M, et al. Outcomes of sequential treatment with sorafenib followed by
regorafenib for HCC: additional analyses from the phase III RESORCE
trial. J Hepatol. 2018; 69(2):353–358. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.04.010. PMID: 29704513.
29. Abou-Alfa GK, Meyer T, Cheng AL, El-Khoueiry AB, Rimassa L, Ryoo BY, et al. Cabozantinib in patients with advanced and progressing
hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018; 379(1):54–63. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1717002. PMID: 29972759. PMCID: PMC7523244.
30. Deng S, Solinas A, Calvisi DF. Cabozantinib for HCC treatment, from clinical back to
experimental models. Front Oncol. 2021; 11:756672. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2021.756672. PMID: 34722310. PMCID: PMC8548824.
31. Kelley RK, Mollon P, Blanc JF, Daniele B, Yau T, Cheng AL, et al. Comparative efficacy of cabozantinib and regorafenib for advanced
hepatocellular carcinoma. Adv Ther. 2020; 37(6):2678–2695. DOI: 10.1007/s12325-020-01378-y. PMID: 32424805. PMCID: PMC7467441.
32. Shang R, Song X, Wang P, Zhou Y, Lu X, Wang J, et al. Cabozantinib-based combination therapy for the treatment of
hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut. 2021; 70(9):1746–1757. DOI: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-320716. PMID: 33144318. PMCID: PMC8089119.
33. Luca E, Marino D, Di Maio M. Ramucirumab, a second-line option for patients with
hepatocellular carcinoma: a review of the evidence. Cancer Manag Res. 2020; 12:3721–3729. DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S216220. PMID: 32547208. PMCID: PMC7246316.
34. Syed YY. Ramucirumab: a review in hepatocellular carcinoma. Drugs. 2020; 80(3):315–322. DOI: 10.1007/s40265-020-01263-6. PMID: 32034692.
35. Yen CC, Yen CJ. Safety of ramucirumab treatment in patients with advanced
hepatocellular carcinoma and elevated alpha-fetoprotein. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2022; 21(2):157–166. DOI: 10.1080/14740338.2022.1995353. PMID: 34668832.
36. Yau T, Kang YK, Kim TY, El-Khoueiry AB, Santoro A, Sangro B, et al. Efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with
advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib: the
CheckMate 040 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020; 6(11):e204564. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4564. PMID: 33001135. PMCID: PMC7530824.
37. Tsang J, Wong JSL, Kwok GGW, Li BCW, Leung R, Chiu J, et al. Nivolumab + ipilimumab for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
previously treated with Sorafenib. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021; 15(6):589–598. DOI: 10.1080/17474124.2021.1899808. PMID: 33666530.
38. Saung MT, Pelosof L, Casak S, Donoghue M, Lemery S, Yuan M, et al. FDA approval summary: nivolumab plus ipilimumab for the treatment
of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with
sorafenib. Oncologist. 2021; 26(9):797–806. DOI: 10.1002/onco.13819. PMID: 33973307. PMCID: PMC8417871.
39. Melero I, Yau T, Kang YK, Kim TY, Santoro A, Sangro B, et al. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab combination therapy in patients with
advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib: 5-year
results from CheckMate 040. Ann Oncol. 2024; 35(6):537–548. DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2024.03.005. PMID: 38844309.
40. Liu JKH, Irvine AF, Jones RL, Samson A. Immunotherapies for hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Med. 2022; 11(3):571–591. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4468. PMID: 34953051. PMCID: PMC8817091.
41. Merle P, Kudo M, Edeline J, Bouattour M, Cheng AL, Chan SL, et al. Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular
carcinoma: longer term follow-up from the phase 3 KEYNOTE-240
trial. Liver Cancer. 2023; 12(4):309–320. DOI: 10.1159/000529636. PMID: 37901200. PMCID: PMC10601873.
42. Qin S, Fang W, Ren Z, Ou S, Lim HY, Zhang F, et al. A phase 3 study of pembrolizumab versus placebo for previously
treated patients from Asia with hepatocellular carcinoma: health-related
quality of life analysis from KEYNOTE-394. Liver Cancer. 2024; 13(4):389–400. DOI: 10.1159/000535338. PMID: 39114760. PMCID: PMC11305669.
43. Qin S, Chen Z, Fang W, Ren Z, Xu R, Ryoo BY, et al. Pembrolizumab versus placebo as second-line therapy in patients
from Asia with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized,
double-blind, phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2023; 41(7):1434–1443. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.00620. PMID: 36455168. PMCID: PMC9995104.
44. Brunocilla PR, Brunello F, Carucci P, Gaia S, Rolle E, Cantamessa A, et al. Sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma: prospective study on
adverse events, quality of life, and related feasibility under daily
conditions. Med Oncol. 2013; 30(1):345. DOI: 10.1007/s12032-012-0345-2. PMID: 23263829.
45. Rimassa L, Danesi R, Pressiani T, Merle P. Management of adverse events associated with tyrosine kinase
inhibitors: improving outcomes for patients with hepatocellular
carcinoma. Cancer Treat Rev. 2019; 77:20–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2019.05.004. PMID: 31195212.
46. Duffy A, Wilkerson J, Greten TF. Hemorrhagic events in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated
with antiangiogenic therapies. Hepatology. 2013; 57(3):1068–1077. DOI: 10.1002/hep.26120. PMID: 23112096. PMCID: PMC3584189.
47. Boudou-Rouquette P, Ropert S, Mir O, Coriat R, Billemont B, Tod M, et al. Variability of sorafenib toxicity and exposure over time: a
pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis. Oncologist. 2012; 17(9):1204–1212. DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0439. PMID: 22752067. PMCID: PMC3448414.
48. Li Y, Gao ZH, Qu XJ. The adverse effects of sorafenib in patients with advanced
cancers. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2015; 116(3):216–221. DOI: 10.1111/bcpt.12365. PMID: 25495944.
49. Hato T, Goyal L, Greten TF, Duda DG, Zhu AX. Immune checkpoint blockade in hepatocellular carcinoma: current
progress and future directions. Hepatology. 2014; 60(5):1776–1782. DOI: 10.1002/hep.27246. PMID: 24912948. PMCID: PMC4211962.
50. Song YG, Yoo JJ, Kim SG, Kim YS. Complications of immunotherapy in advanced hepatocellular
carcinoma. J Liver Cancer. 2024; 24(1):9–16. DOI: 10.17998/jlc.2023.11.21. PMID: 38018074. PMCID: PMC10990673.
51. Sangro B, Chan SL, Meyer T, Reig M, El-Khoueiry A, Galle PR. Diagnosis and management of toxicities of immune checkpoint
inhibitors in hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2020; 72(2):320–341. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.10.021. PMID: 31954495. PMCID: PMC7779342.
52. Song YG, Yeom KM, Jung EA, Kim SG, Kim YS, Yoo JJ. Risk of bleeding in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated
with atezolizumab/bevacizumab: a systematic review and
meta-analysis. Liver Cancer. 2024; May. 22. [Epub]. DOI: 10.1159/000539423.
53. Rizzo A, Carloni R, Ricci AD, Cusmai A, Laforgia M, Calabrò C, et al. Treatment-related adverse events of first-line immunotherapy
versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a
meta-analysis. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2023; 22(4):323–329. DOI: 10.1080/14740338.2023.2152793. PMID: 36426773.