程序性死亡受体1(PD-1)单抗联合索拉非尼或仑伐替尼治疗肝功能Child-Pugh B级不可切除肝癌患者的效果分析
DOI: 10.12449/JCH240517
Efficacy and safety of anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody combined with sorafenib or lenvatinib in treatment of patients with Child-Pugh class B unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma
-
摘要:
目的 回顾性分析酪氨酸激酶抑制剂联合免疫检查点抑制剂在肝功能Child-Pugh B级不可切除肝癌(uHCC)患者中的疗效和安全性。 方法 纳入2020年12月31日—2023年3月30日首都医科大学附属北京地坛医院收治的肝功能Child-Pugh B级的uHCC患者96例,接受仑伐替尼联合程序性细胞死亡-1(PD-1)抑制剂治疗者为L组(63例),接受索拉非尼联合PD-1抑制剂治疗者为S组(33例)。主要终点为客观缓解率(ORR),次要终点包括疾病进展时间(TTP)、总生存期(OS)、毒性、停药率和剂量调整率。符合正态分布的计量资料2组间比较采用成组t检验;非正态分布2组间比较采用Mann-Whitney U检验。计数资料2组间比较采用χ2检验。绘制生存曲线,运用Kaplan-Meier法计算2组患者的生存率,并利用Log-rank检验比较2组差异。通过Cox回归模型计算风险比(HR)和95%置信区间(95%CI),实现预后影响因素的多因素分析。 结果 96例uHCC患者中,Child-Pugh B级(7分)55例(57.3%),B级(8~9分)41例(42.7%)。L组患者的ORR显著高于S组(46.0% vs 15.2%,P=0.003)。L组和S组中位TTP(6.6个月 vs 3.5个月,P=0.48)或OS(13.8个月 vs 13.2个月,P=0.95)差异无统计学意义。Child-Pugh B级(7分)患者与Child-Pugh B级(8~9分)患者的中位TTP差异无统计学意义(6.6个月 vs 4.8个月,P=0.35),OS具有统计学意义(14.5个月 vs 8.8个月,P=0.045)。多因素分析显示,ORR是TTP(HR=0.18,95%CI:0.09~0.36,P<0.001)和OS(HR=0.20,95%CI:0.09~0.43,P<0.001)的保护因素。L组和S组总体不良反应(98.4% vs 97.0%)和≥3级不良反应的发生率(68.3% vs 63.6%)比较,差异均无统计学意义。L组和S组在剂量调整率(84.8% vs 70.2%)或停药率(56.1% vs 72.7%)方面无显著差异。 结论 与索拉非尼联合PD-1抑制剂方案相比,仑伐替尼联合PD-1抑制剂方案改善了Child-Pugh B级uHCC患者的ORR,但两组总体预后相似,总体安全性相当。 Abstract:Objective To investigate the safety and efficacy of tyrosine kinase inhibitors combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of patients with Child-Pugh class B unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). Methods A total of 96 patients with Child-Pugh class B uHCC who were admitted to Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, from December 31, 2020 to March 30, 2023 were enrolled as subjects, among whom 63 patients receiving lenvatinib combined with programmed death-1 (PD-1) inhibitor were enrolled as L group and 33 patients receiving sorafenib combined with PD-1inhibitor were enrolled as S group. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), and secondary endpoints included time to progression (TTP), overall survival (OS), toxicity, drug withdrawal rate, and dose adjustment rate. The The independent-samples t test was used for comparison of normally distributed continuous data between two groups, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparison of non-normally distributed continuous data between two groups; the chi-square test was used for comparison of categorical data between two groups. Survival curves were plotted, and the Kaplan-Meier method was used to calculate the survival rate of patients in both groups, while the Log-rank test was used for comparison between the two groups. The Cox regression model was used to calculate hazard ratio (HR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) and perform the multivariate analysis of influencing factors for prognosis. Results Among the 96 patients with uHCC, 55 (57.3%) had Child-Pugh class B (7 points) uHCC and 41 (42.7%) had Child-Pugh class B (8—9 points) uHCC. The L group had a significantly higher ORR than the S group (46.0% vs 15.2%, P=0.003), and there were no significant differences between the L group and the S group in median TTP (6.6 months vs 3.5 months, P=0.48) or OS (13.8 months vs 13.2 months, P=0.95). There was no significant difference in median TTP between the patients with Child-Pugh class B (7 points) uHCC and those with Child-Pugh class B (8—9 points) uHCC (6.6 months vs 4.8 months, P=0.35), while there was a significant difference in OS between these two groups of patients (14.5 months vs 8.8 months, P=0.045). The multivariate analysis showed that ORR was a protective factor for both TTP (HR=0.18, 95%CI: 0.09 — 0.36, P<0.001) and OS (HR=0.20, 95%CI: 0.09 — 0.43, P<0.001). There were no significant differences between the L group and the S group in the overall incidence rate of adverse reactions (98.4% vs 97.0%) and the incidence rate of grade≥3 adverse reactions (68.3% vs 63.6%), and there were also no significant differences between the two groups in dose adjustment rate (84.8% vs 70.2%) and drug withdrawal rate (56.1% vs 72.7%). Conclusion Compared with the regimen of sorafenib combined with PD-1 inhibitor, the regimen of lenvatinib combined with PD-1 inhibitor can improve the ORR of patients with Child-Pugh class B uHCC, with similar prognosis and safety profile between the two groups. -
肝纤维化作为多种慢性肝病的共同病理过程,其发生机制尚不明确,目前普遍认为肝星状细胞(HSC)活化是其关键环节。正常的肝细胞损伤后,HSC受各种理化因素刺激后转化为肌成纤维细胞,分泌大量的细胞外基质(ECM),ECM产生和降解失衡,肝脏结构重塑,进而导致肝纤维化[1]。晚期肝纤维化通常进展为严重的肝硬化,最终导致肝癌的发生[2]。肝纤维化仍然是全球主要的健康负担,目前尚缺乏有效的抗肝纤维化生物或化学药物,明确肝纤维化的治疗靶点有重要意义[3]。
坏死性凋亡作为一种新型的程序性细胞死亡模式,具有与坏死相似的形态学特征,如细胞变圆和肿胀、线粒体功能障碍、膜电位缺失、细胞膜形成膜孔、完整性丧失,其微观结构为坏死小体,死亡方式为质膜发生爆炸样破裂,并放大周围炎症反应[4]。其发生机制主要与受体相互作用蛋白激酶1(receptor-interacting protein kinase 1,RIPK1)、受体相互作用蛋白激酶3(receptor-interacting protein kinase 3,RIPK3)及底物混合谱系激酶结构域样蛋白(mixed lineage kinase domain-like protein,MLKL)的级联激活密切相关。随着对肝纤维化发病机制探索的不断深入,已有学者证实坏死性凋亡可通过影响肝细胞、HSC、肝巨噬细胞和肝窦内皮细胞的活性与功能,参与多种病因诱发的肝纤维化的发生发展。本文着重阐述坏死性凋亡在肝纤维化中的研究进展,旨在为肝纤维化防治提供新的思路。
1. 坏死性凋亡
坏死性凋亡过程错综复杂,由众多信号分子和蛋白参与,RIPK1和RIPK3在其中发挥关键调控作用,MLKL被磷酸化导致细胞膜受损是其枢纽环节。多种途径参与了坏死性凋亡的激活,其中研究最为广泛的是TNF-α介导的坏死性凋亡信号转导机制。TNF-α受刺激后,肿瘤坏死因子受体1易位至脂质膜,并募集RIPK1、肿瘤坏死因子受体相关死亡结构域(TNF receptor associated death domian,TRADD)、细胞凋亡抑制蛋白1/2和肿瘤坏死因子受体相关因子2,形成复合物Ⅰ[5]。复合物I形成后,在不同信号转导复合物的影响下,决定细胞存亡[6]。
当复合物Ⅰ中的泛素化受到抑制时,其各组分会从细胞膜上释放形成TRADD依赖性复合体(复合体Ⅱa)和RIPK1依赖性复合体(复合体Ⅱb),在复合体Ⅱb形成后,若细胞凋亡受阻或Caspase-8活性受到抑制,则会诱导细胞发生坏死性凋亡。随后,诱导RIPK1的自磷酸化,RIPK3通过其RIP同源相互作用结构域磷酸化,形成关键的坏死体。RIPK1磷酸化会激活RIPK3,RIPK3在T357和S358位点磷酸化MLKL,发生磷酸化后,MLKL寡聚并易位到细胞膜上,导致孔隙形成,损伤相关模式分子(damage associated molecular patterns,DAMP)以及促炎细胞因子释放,最终导致细胞膜破坏后坏死性凋亡的发生,引起组织炎症和器官损伤[8]。
线粒体活性氧(ROS)介导坏死性凋亡的机制包括ROS激活丝氨酸残基161上的RIPK1自磷酸化,以及RIPK3募集形成坏死体。凋亡相关因子(factor-related apoptosis,Fas)是另一种死亡受体,在半胱天冬酶抑制剂存在的情况下,也可通过激活RIPK3和下游MLKL来诱导坏死性凋亡。
2. 坏死性凋亡在肝纤维化中的作用
越来越多的研究表明,坏死性凋亡作为炎症的重要触发因素,在各种肝病的发病过程中发挥不同的作用[9]。一方面,去除RIP3激酶活性可以预防小鼠酒精性肝病的发生并抑制四氯化碳(CCl4)诱导的肝纤维化;另一方面,RIP3降低小鼠在高脂饮食条件下肝损伤的发生[10],MLKL基因敲除小鼠脂肪性肝炎发生率显著降低。此外,不同类型的肝内细胞发生坏死性凋亡,可促进或延缓肝纤维化的进程,发挥双刃剑作用[11-12],总结不同细胞类型的坏死性凋亡与肝纤维化的关系见表1。
表 1 肝内细胞坏死性凋亡与肝纤维化的关系Table 1. Relationship between intrahepatic cell necroptosis and liver fibrosis肝内细胞类型 发生坏死性凋亡后
对肝纤维化的影响
主要作用机制 治疗思路 肝细胞 促进 促进促炎因子DAMP释放,诱导HSC活化 抑制其坏死性凋亡 HSC 抑制 直接抑制HSC活化 靶向促进其发生坏死性凋亡 M1巨噬细胞 抑制 促进促炎因子DAMP释放,诱导HSC活化 靶向促进其发生坏死性凋亡 M2巨噬细胞 促进 吞噬死亡肝细胞,清除促炎因子,抑制HSC活化 抑制其坏死性凋亡 肝窦内皮细胞 促进 调节肝脏内环境能力受损,促进HSC活化 抑制其坏死性凋亡 2.1 不同细胞类型坏死性凋亡与肝纤维化的关系
2.1.1 肝细胞坏死性凋亡
肝细胞死亡被认为是触发肝纤维化的关键因素[13],目前的主要观点认为坏死性凋亡会加剧肝细胞的炎症反应[14],坏死肝细胞释放的DAMP刺激炎症反应的发生,激活HSC,促进肝纤维化发生。基于此,阻止肝细胞发生坏死性凋亡或许能有效避免HSC活化从而延缓肝纤维化的进程。
肝脏坏死性凋亡的发生随着年龄的增长而增加,并且与促炎细胞因子和纤维化标志物表达呈正相关,用坏死性凋亡抑制素1(necrostatin‐1s,Nec‐1s)进行短期治疗,可有效减少坏死性凋亡、促炎细胞因子的表达和老年小鼠的肝纤维化程度[15]。O-连接的β-N-乙酰氨基葡萄糖修饰可防止肝细胞坏死性凋亡和肝纤维化的启动,其机制与RIPK3和MLML的表达增加有关[16]。一种称为SA1009的肝细胞坏死相关DAMP的表达与肝纤维化程度呈正相关[17];非酒精性脂肪性肝病患者外周血中TNF-α和肝组织中RIPK3和MLKL表达明显增加;TNF-α可诱导小鼠原代肝细胞产生更多的ROS,而下调RIPK3可以减少ROS,减轻肝细胞的坏死性凋亡[18]。在小鼠正常肝细胞株AML-12或原代肝细胞中,RIPK小干扰RNA不仅能通过抑制脂质生成基因减少棕榈酸(palmitic acid,PA)诱导的脂质积累,还能减弱PA诱导的氧化应激与炎症反应[19]。MLKL促进肝损伤和肝纤维化,敲除MLKL可减少肝细胞坏死和HSC活化,显著改善CCl4和胆管结扎诱导的肝损伤和肝纤维化,靶向敲除肝细胞中MLKL可能是治疗肝纤维化的有效方法[20]。此外,线粒体未折叠的蛋白质反应可以通过减少细胞氧化应激、维持线粒体正常功能,从而缓解乙醇诱导的肝细胞坏死性凋亡和炎症损伤,延缓肝纤维化进程[21]。
综上,在肝细胞层面,靶向运用坏死性凋亡抑制剂、抑制DAMP活性或者敲除RIPK1、RIPK3及MLKL,减少DAMP引发的炎症反应,从而避免HSC活化,是治疗肝纤维化的有效靶点和途径。
2.1.2 HSC坏死性凋亡
HSC的坏死性凋亡与肝细胞的坏死性凋亡对于肝纤维化的影响不同,HSC坏死性凋亡抑制其本身活化增殖,从而减轻肝纤维化[22]。有趣的是,其他研究[23]发现缺乏MLKL磷酸化和寡聚化的HSC不发生坏死性凋亡,而是通过自噬体和NF-κB途径被激活,MLKL抑制剂可减弱HSC的活化。
活化的HSC对细胞凋亡具有抵抗作用,这种作用主要来自抗凋亡基因Bcl-2,HSC可以在长时间的无血清培养状态,暴露于Fas配体、神经生长因子、TNF-α、多柔比星、依托泊苷和氧化应激介质(如过氧化氢、超氧阴离子和4-羟基壬烯醛)的情况下存活[24],因此,活化的HSC对于坏死性凋亡是否也具有这种抵抗作用值得进一步研究。双氢青蒿素(dihydroartemisinin,DHA)通过剂量依赖降低HSC的活力,这主要是通过促进RIP1、RIP3的表达及MLKL的磷酸化来实现的,进一步研究发现,DHA可能通过激活HSC内Nrt2信号分子来诱导HSC的坏死性凋亡[25]。姜黄素治疗肝纤维化的部分机制是通过诱导HSC坏死性凋亡,清除活化的HSC,该作用与Sirt1/Notch信号通路具有相关性;内质网应激抑制剂4-PBA可预防姜黄醇诱导的坏死性凋亡,提示HSC中内质网应激与坏死性凋亡之间存在潜在联系[26];此外,姜黄醇通过JNK1/2-ROS信号通路,靶向介导HSC坏死,对于肝纤维化的治疗具有潜在价值[22]。
综上,在HSC层面,关注点应集中在如何促进HSC发生坏死性凋亡以减轻ECM沉积。目前缺乏靶向促进HSC坏死性凋亡的化学药物,中草药有效成分在此方面展示了较为满意的效果,如上述姜黄醇和DHA。因此,挖掘靶点明确的促坏死性凋亡药物任重道远。
2.1.3 巨噬细胞坏死性凋亡
巨噬细胞通过产生促炎因子,调节免疫系统稳态,在许多疾病中发挥重要作用。在肝纤维化进程中,M1巨噬细胞促进炎症因子的释放,诱导HSC活化,促进纤维蛋白和ECM形成[27];受损和死亡的肝细胞会被M2巨噬细胞吞噬,坏死肝细胞释放的DAMP、其他有害物质和含有纤维化非编码RNA外泌体的释放也会因此受到抑制,从而减轻肝纤维化[28]。
Kupffer细胞是位于肝脏的巨噬细胞,MLKL对于Kupffer细胞发挥吞噬作用非常重要,缺乏MLKL的Kupffer细胞对生物颗粒的摄取会减少[29]。虽然M2巨噬细胞可通过抑制肝细胞坏死性凋亡,发挥重要的抗炎作用,但目前并没有确切的证据表明Kupffer细胞在肝纤维化期间发生坏死性凋亡。肝纤维化患者的肝组织和肝纤维化模型小鼠中的M1巨噬细胞数量均有所增加,RIP3缺乏可通过ROCK1抑制TLR4→NF-κB信号通路,减少肝脏中巨噬细胞的聚集,从而减轻肝脏炎症和肝纤维化。此外,RIPK3激活应激活化蛋白激酶释放促炎介质(如单细胞趋化蛋白1)后,M1巨噬细胞被募集到受损肝脏处加重肝纤维化[30]。
总之,在肝巨噬细胞层面,暴露于慢性炎症中的M1巨噬细胞吞噬和清扫功能会显著降低,还会增加释放炎性细胞因子的能力,形成恶性循环。Nec-1s减少了炎症反应和M1巨噬细胞聚集,因此Nec-1s的作用靶点可能在于清除衰老细胞,但不能排除其他靶点效应。所以,未来的研究重点在于使用其他抑制坏死性凋亡的药物或RIPK3及MLKL的遗传敲除模型来探讨具体的靶点效应。
2.1.4 肝窦内皮细胞坏死性凋亡
肝窦内皮细胞作为肝脏内主要的非实质细胞,占肝脏细胞总数的15%~20%,是调节肝脏微环境的重要因素。功能失调的肝细胞和内皮细胞主要通过协同作用调节NASH的发生和发展,影响HSC的活化,从而影响肝纤维化的进程[31]。
肝窦内皮细胞可阻止Kupffer细胞和HSC活化,调节肝内血管阻力和门静脉压力,发挥抗炎和抗肝纤维化的作用[32]。在肝损伤以及纤维化发生之前,肝窦内皮细胞就可发生毛细血管化,造成肝细胞与肝血窦之间的物质交换障碍、肝细胞缺氧,加重氧化应激反应和炎症反应[33];特异性敲除肝窦内皮细胞MLKL可抑制TGF-β→Smad 2/3信号通路的激活,破坏肝窦内皮细胞和HSC之间的促纤维化串扰,从而减轻NASH模型小鼠的肝纤维化[34]。
上述研究结果表明,防止正常肝窦内皮细胞发生坏死性凋亡可能是防治肝纤维化的有效策略。
2.2 不同病因肝纤维化中的坏死性凋亡
2.2.1 药物性肝损伤
对乙酰氨基酚(APAP)过量使用会造成明显的肝损伤,主要表现为ALT水平升高,并且会诱导RIP3表达,促进肝纤维化,实验证实Nec-1治疗可有效减轻APAP引起的肝损伤[35]。达拉非尼通过干预RIPK3激酶活性也能起到类似效果[36]。因此靶向阻断坏死性凋亡的发生可能会减轻药物损伤引起的肝纤维化。
2.2.2 酒精性脂肪性肝病
长期乙醇喂养的小鼠肝脏中RIPK3表达明显增加,RIPK3的缺失可有效缓解酒精性肝病引起的肝纤维化[37],但运用Nec-1干预并没有减轻酒精性肝损伤,这表明RIPK可能以独立形式参与酒精性肝病。坏死性凋亡可能通过抑制肝细胞炎症及脂肪变性,减轻酒精引起的肝纤维化。RIPK3特异性抑制剂的研发将有利于促进酒精性脂肪性肝病的防治。
2.2.3 免疫性肝损伤
刀豆蛋白A直接激活T淋巴细胞,通过免疫系统造成肝损伤和肝纤维化。在刀豆蛋白感染肝脏后,RIPK1和MLML蛋白表达增加,而MLML敲除的小鼠肝损伤有所减轻[38]。虽然对于坏死性凋亡在免疫性肝损伤方面的调控机制尚不明确,但其对免疫性肝损伤防治研究具有重要价值。
2.2.4 病毒性肝炎
有研究[39]发现HCV在引起肝细胞死亡时也会诱发其发生坏死性凋亡,但Nec-1治疗并未有效改善肝细胞的坏死性凋亡,未来仍需要更多的研究来探索如何有效利用坏死性凋亡调控病毒性肝炎引起的肝纤维化。其他更多的病因,包括坏死性凋亡在代谢等相关因素影响下造成肝损伤,进而导致肝纤维化的作用机制仍缺乏相应的研究。
3. 总结与展望
综上所述,不同肝内细胞类型的坏死性凋亡在肝纤维化的发生发展进程中起到双刃剑的作用,肝细胞发生坏死性凋亡会加速肝纤维化,M1巨噬细胞中坏死性凋亡因子的缺乏有利于延缓肝纤维化,而诱导活化HSC发生坏死性凋亡则可延缓肝纤维化进程,肝窦内皮细胞坏死性凋亡的研究目前还比较缺乏,但通过抑制坏死性凋亡延缓或者阻止肝窦内皮细胞毛细血管化可能是治疗肝纤维化的有效靶点。许多中药及其活性成分已被证明可以通过多种途径调节肝内细胞的坏死性凋亡,从而起到延缓肝纤维化的作用,这为肝纤维化的治疗开辟了新的途径[40]。另外,其他类型的肝脏细胞与坏死性凋亡之间是否具有相关性,且在不同病因肝纤维化进程中发挥怎样的作用,都需要进一步研究,以利于确定有前景的肝纤维化相关分子靶点,为研发有效的抗肝纤维化药物提供新的思路与方向。
-
表 1 2组患者一般资料及肿瘤情况比较
Table 1. Baseline patient demographic and disease characteristics
指标 合计 L组(n=63) S组(n=33) 统计值 P 值 年龄(岁) 62(29~82) 62(30~82) 64(29~74) Z=-0.10 0.92 男/女(例) 84/12 55/8 29/4 χ2=0.01 0.94 ECOG评分[例(%)] χ2=0.86 0.40 0分 49(51.0) 30(47.6) 19(57.6) 1分 47(49.0) 33(52.4) 14(42.4) 嗜肝病毒感染[例(%)] χ2=3.13 0.21 HBV 86(89.6) 54(85.7) 32(97.0) HCV 7(7.3) 6(9.5) 1(3.0) 非HBV或HCV 3(3.1) 3(4.8) 0(0.0) Child-Pugh评分 χ2=0.00 >0.05 B级(7分) 55(57.3) 36(57.1) 19(57.6) B级(8~9分) 41(42.7) 27(42.9) 14(42.4) 肝外转移[例(%)] χ2=0.58 0.52 有 40(41.7) 28(44.4) 12(36.4) 无 56(58.3) 35(55.6) 21(63.6) 合并门静脉癌栓[例(%)] χ2=0.32 0.66 有 59(61.5) 40(63.5) 19(57.6) 无 37(38.5) 23(36.5) 14(42.4) 靶病灶直径(cm) 8.9(8.8~10.8) 9.0(7.5~11.2) 7.9(6.2~10.2) Z=-1.61 0.07 肝内肿瘤个数[例(%)] χ2=0.56 0.50 1~3个 63(65.6) 43(68.3) 20(60.6) ≥4个 33(34.4) 20(31.7) 13(39.4) AFP[例(%)] χ2=0.83 0.39 ≥400 ng/mL 55(57.3) 34(54.0) 21(63.6) <400 ng/mL 41(42.7) 29(46.0) 12(36.4) 表 2 依据mRECIST标准评估的肿瘤反应率
Table 2. Response rates according to the mRECIST
疗效 L组(n=63) S组(n=33) χ2值 P值 CR[例(%)] 0(0.0) 0(0.0) PR[例(%)] 29(46.0) 5(15.2) 9.03 0.003 SD[例(%)] 25(39.7) 19(57.6) 2.79 0.134 PD[例(%)] 9(14.3) 9(27.3) 2.40 0.172 DCR(%) 85.7 72.7 2.40 0.171 表 3 依据iRECIST标准评估的肿瘤反应率
Table 3. Response rates according to the iRECIST
疗效 L组(n=63) S组(n=33) χ2值 P值 iCR[例(%)] 0(0.0) 0(0.0) iPR[例(%)] 29(46.0) 5(15.2) 9.03 0.003 iSD[例(%)] 25(39.7) 19(57.6) 2.79 0.134 iUPD[例(%)] 9(14.3) 9(27.3) 2.40 0.172 iCPD[例(%)] 9(14.3) 9(27.3) 2.40 0.172 DCR(%) 85.7 72.7 2.40 0.171 表 4 TTP的多变量Cox比例风险模型分析
Table 4. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model for time to progression
变量 HR 95%CI P值 ORR(是=0/否=1) 0.18 0.09~0.36 <0.001 肿瘤最大径(≤7 cm=0/>7 cm=1) 0.55 0.29~1.06 0.074 AFP(≥400 ng/mL=0/<400 ng/mL=1) 1.00 0.58~1.72 >0.05 肝外转移(有=0/无=1) 1.44 0.86~2.42 0.171 表 5 OS的多变量Cox比例风险模型分析
Table 5. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model for overall survival
变量 HR 95%CI P值 ORR(是=0/否=1) 0.20 0.09~0.43 <0.001 肿瘤最大径(≤7 cm=0/>7 cm=1) 0.45 0.21~0.99 0.048 AFP(≥400 ng/mL=0/<400 ng/mL=1) 1.06 0.57~1.97 0.874 Child-Pugh分级(7分=0/8~9分=1) 1.29 0.72~2.31 0.403 -
[1] MITTAL S, EL-SERAG HB, SADA YH, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma in the absence of cirrhosis in United States veterans is associated with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease[J]. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2016, 14( 1): 124- 131. e 1. DOI: 10.1016/j.cgh.2015.07.019. [2] CHAPIN WJ, HWANG WT, KARASIC TB, et al. Comparison of nivolumab and sorafenib for first systemic therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis[J]. Cancer Med, 2023, 12( 1): 189- 199. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.4906. [3] MARRERO JA, KUDO M, VENOOK AP, et al. Observational registry of sorafenib use in clinical practice across Child-Pugh subgroups: The GIDEON study[J]. J Hepatol, 2016, 65( 6): 1140- 1147. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2016.07.020. [4] MCNAMARA MG, SLAGTER AE, NUTTALL C, et al. Sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with advanced Child-Pugh B hepatocellular carcinoma-a meta-analysis[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2018, 105: 1- 9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.09.031. [5] CHOI WM, LEE DB, SHIM JH, et al. Effectiveness and safety of nivolumab in child-pugh B patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A real-world cohort study[J]. Cancers(Basel), 2020, 12( 7): 1968. DOI: 10.3390/cancers12071968. [6] OGUSHI K, CHUMA M, UOJIMA H, et al. Safety and efficacy of lenvatinib treatment in child-pugh A and B patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in clinical practice: A multicenter analysis[J]. Clin Exp Gastroenterol, 2020, 13: 385- 396. DOI: 10.2147/CEG.S256691. [7] KUDO M, MATILLA A, SANTORO A, et al. CheckMate 040 cohort 5: A phase I/II study of nivolumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis[J]. J Hepatol. 2021, 75( 3): 600- 609. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2021.04.047. [8] FINN RS, QIN SK, IKEDA M, et al. Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma[J]. N Engl J Med, 2020, 382( 20): 1894- 1905. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1915745. [9] KUDO M, FINN RS, QIN SK, et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: A randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial[J]. Lancet, 2018, 391( 10126): 1163- 1173. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30207-1. [10] FAN J, GAO Q. Immunotherapy for hepacellular carcinoma: where there is hope, there is brightness[J]. Chin J Dig Surg, 2022, 21( 2): 199- 204. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20220215-00080.樊嘉, 高强. 肝癌的免疫治疗:有希望便是光明[J]. 中华消化外科杂志, 2022, 21( 2): 199- 204. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115610-20220215-00080. [11] General Office of National Health Commission. Standard for diagnosis and treatment of primary liver cancer(2022 edition)[J]. J Clin Hepatol, 2022, 38( 2): 288- 303. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.02.009.国家卫生健康委办公厅. 原发性肝癌诊疗指南(2022年版)[J]. 临床肝胆病杂志, 2022, 38( 2): 288- 303. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5256.2022.02.009. [12] MISCHEL AM, ROSIELLE DA. Eastern cooperative oncology group performance status#434[J]. J Palliat Med, 2022, 25( 3): 508- 510. DOI: 10.1089/jpm.2021.0599. [13] LLOVET JM, LENCIONI R. mRECIST for HCC: Performance and novel refinements[J]. J Hepatol, 2020, 72( 2): 288- 306. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.09.026. [14] SEYMOUR L, BOGAERTS J, PERRONE A, et al. iRECIST: Guidelines for response criteria for use in trials testing immunotherapeutics[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2017, 18( 3): e143- e152. DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(17)30074-8. [15] US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(CTCAE), Version 5.0. 2017. https://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_5.0 https://evs.nci.nih.gov/ftp1/CTCAE/CTCAE_5.0 [16] ABOU-ALFA GK, AMADORI D, SANTORO A, et al. Safety and efficacy of sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma(HCC) and child-pugh A versus B cirrhosis[J]. Gastrointest Cancer Res, 2011, 4( 2): 40- 44. [17] KØSTNER AH, SORENSEN M, OLESEN RK, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A nationwide retrospective study of efficacy and tolerability[J]. Sci World J, 2013, 2013: 931972. DOI: 10.1155/2013/931972. [18] XIE ER, YEO YH, SCHEINER B, et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitors for child-pugh class B advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. JAMA Oncol, 2023, 9( 10): 1423- 1431. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2023.3284. [19] FINN RS, KUDO M, MERLE P, et al. LBA34 Primary results from the phase III LEAP-002 study: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus lenvatinib as first-line(1L) therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma(aHCC)[J]. Ann Oncol, 2022, 33: S1401. DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.08.031. [20] QIN SK, CHAN SL, GU SZ, et al. Camrelizumab plus rivoceranib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma(CARES-310): A randomised, open-label, international phase 3 study[J]. Lancet, 2023, 402( 10408): 1133- 1146. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00961-3. [21] REN ZG, XU JM, BAI YX, et al. Sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar(IBI305) versus sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma(ORIENT-32): A randomised, open-label, phase 2-3 study[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2021, 22( 7): 977- 990. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00252-7. [22] WU CJ, LEE PC, HUNG YW, et al. Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for systemic therapy-naïve and-experienced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. Cancer Immunol Immunother, 2022, 71( 11): 2631- 2643. DOI: 10.1007/s00262-022-03185-6. [23] XU JM, SHEN J, GU SZ, et al. Camrelizumab in combination with apatinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma(RESCUE): A nonrandomized, open-label, phase II trial[J]. Clin Cancer Res, 2021, 27( 4): 1003- 1011. DOI: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2571. [24] TSUCHIYA K, KUROSAKI M, SAKAMOTO A, et al. The real-world data in Japanese patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma treated with lenvatinib from a nationwide multicenter study[J]. Cancers(Basel), 2021, 13( 11): 2608. DOI: 10.3390/cancers13112608. [25] KUO HY, CHIANG NJ, CHUANG CH, et al. Impact of immune checkpoint inhibitors with or without a combination of tyrosine kinase inhibitors on organ-specific efficacy and macrovascular invasion in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma[J]. Oncol Res Treat, 2020, 43( 5): 211- 220. DOI: 10.1159/000505933. [26] CASADEI GARDINI A, PUZZONI M, MONTAGNANI F, et al. Profile of lenvatinib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: Design, development, potential place in therapy and network meta-analysis of hepatitis B and hepatitis C in all Phase III trials[J]. Onco Targets Ther, 2019, 12: 2981- 2988. DOI: 10.2147/OTT.S192572. [27] PFISTER D, NÚÑEZ NG, PINYOL R, et al. NASH limits anti-tumour surveillance in immunotherapy-treated HCC[J]. Nature, 2021, 592( 7854): 450- 456. DOI: 10.1038/s41586-021-03362-0. [28] RIMINI M, RIMASSA L, UESHIMA K, et al. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib or sorafenib in non-viral unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: An international propensity score matching analysis[J]. ESMO Open, 2022, 7( 6): 100591. DOI: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100591. -