Real-world multicentre analysis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A+B): Efficacy, esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) uptake and bleeding complications.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
4105 Background: The IMbrave150 trial established A+B as a standard of care for HCC and an EGD within 6 months (mos) of starting treatment to detect esophagogastric varices and prevent bleeding complications was advised. However, the value of performing EGD in all patients (pts) is unknown. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all HCC pts treated with A+B between July 2020 to August 2022 at 5 cancer centres from the Canadian provinces of Ontario, Alberta and Manitoba (members of the HCC-CHORD Consortium). Pts characteristics and treatment history including efficacy, EGD details and bleeding events were collected. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR) were calculated. A comparative analysis was conducted to compare the correlation between the EGD uptake and bleeding events. Results: A total of 112 pts were identified (median age 66 years, 87% male, 24% East Asian, 67% liver cirrhosis, 33% HCV, 25% HBV, 15% NASH, 23% BCLC B, 71% BCLC C, 91% Child-Pugh A, 29% main portal vein invasion, 45% ALBI grade 1 and 54% ALBI grade 2). Prior to systemic, 61% had locoregional therapies. 90% received A+B as first-line therapy, while 9% received it as second-line and 1% as third-line. Outcomes of pts treated with A+B are shown. Before starting A+B, 78 pts (70%) had completed an EGD within 6 mos. Of these, 32 pts (41%) had evidence of varices on EGD, and 15 (20%) required treatment with either banding or beta-blockers. All bleeding events in this population was 15% (n=17). Bleeding rates in the EGD and non-EGD groups were 18% (n=14) and 9% (n=3), respectively. Bleeding adverse events were 5%(n=6) gastrointestinal vs 10%(n=11) non-gastrointestinal (6 epistaxis, 1 ecchymosis, 1 periodontal and 3 unspecified). The GI bleeding rates in the EGD and non-EGD groups were 6% (n=5) and 3% (n=1). Conclusions: Outcomes of HCC pts treated with A+B in Canada are comparable to those observed in the IMbrave150 trial. Our study detected and treated varices at twice the rate of the IMbrave150 trial among the EGD group, reflecting real-world treatment of a high-risk population. Yet, pts who had no EGD before starting A+B, presumably due to a low risk of portal hypertension based on physicians’ judgement, did not experience more bleeding/GI bleeding than those who had an EGD. This supports the approach of selective EGD prior to A+B, and more guidelines are needed in this area. Outcomes and response rate of patients(pts) treated with Atezolizumab with Bevacizumab in this study. [Table: see text]
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".