Background In SILIUS (NCT01214343), combination of sorafenib and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy did not significantly improve overall survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) compared with sorafenib alone. In this study, we explored the relationship between objective response by mRECIST and overall survival (OS) in the sorafenib group, in the combination group and in all patients in the SILIUS trial. Methods Association between objective response and OS in patients treated with sorafenib (n=103), combination (n=102) and all patients (n=205) were analyzed. The median OS of responders was compared with that of non-responders. Landmark analyses were performed according to objective response at several fixed time points, as sensitivity analyses, and the effect on OS was evaluated by Cox regression analysis with objective response as a time-dependent covariate, with other prognostic factors was performed. Results In the sorafenib group, OS of responders (n = 18) was significantly better than that of non-responders (n = 78) (p < 0.0001), where median OS was 27.2 (95% CI, 16.0–not reached) months for responders and 8.9 (95% CI, 6.5–12.6) months for non-responders. HRs from landmark analyses at 4, 6, and 8 months were 0.45 (p=0.0330), 0.37 (p=0.0053), and 0.36 (p=0.0083), respectively. Objective response was an independent predictor of OS based on unstratified Cox regression analyses. In the all patients and the combination group, similar results were obtained. Conclusion In the SILIUS trial, objective response was an independent prognostic factor for OS in patients with HCC.

Background: Although transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is the standard of care for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), this is a largely heterogeneous disease that includes a subgroup of patients who do not benefit from TACE. The treatment strategy for this subgroup of patients currently remains an unmet need in clinical practice. Here, we performed a proof-of-concept study that lenvatinib may be more favourable treatment option over TACE as an initial treatment in intermediate-stage HCC patients with large or multinodular tumours exceeding the up-to-seven criteria. Methods: This proof-of-concept study included 642 consecutive patients with HCC initially treated with lenvatinib or conventional TACE (cTACE) between January 2006 and December 2018. Of these patients, 176 who received lenvatinib or cTACE as an initial treatment and met the eligibility criteria [unresectable, beyond the up-to-seven criteria, no prior TACE/systemic therapy, no vascular invasion, no extrahepatic spread and Child-Pugh A liver function] were selected for the study. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for patient demographics. Results: After propensity-score matching, outcome of 30 patients prospectively treated with lenvatinib (14 in clinical trials, 1 in early access program and 15 in real world setting) and 60 patients treated with cTACE as the initial treatment was compared. The change of ALBI score from baseline to the end of treatment were -2.61 to -2.61 for 30 patients in lenvatinib group (p = 0.254) and -2.66 to -2.09 in cTACE group (p < 0.01), respectively. The lenvatinib group showed a significantly higher objective response rate (73.3% vs. 33.3%; p < 0.001) and significantly longer median progression-free survival than the cTACE group (16.0 vs. 3.0 months; p < 0.001). Overall survival was significantly longer in the lenvatinib group than in the cTACE group (37.9 vs. 21.3 months; hazard ratio: 0.48, p < 0.01). Conclusion: In patients with large or multinodular intermediate-stage HCC exceeding the up-to-seven criteria with Child-Pugh A liver function, who usually do not benefit from TACE, lenvatinib provides more favorable outcome than TACE.