Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34189869›Full record

Trial reportCancer medicine2021

Characterization of response to atezolizumab + bevacizumab versus sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma: Results from the IMbrave150 trial.

Riad Salem, Daneng Li, Nicolas Sommer, Sairy Hernandez, Wendy Verret, Beiying Ding, Riccardo Lencioni

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Cancer medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 55 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Riad SalemDepartment of Radiology, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9745-1825
Daneng LiDepartment of Medical Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center and Beckman Research Institute, Duarte, CA, USA.
Nicolas SommerGenentech, Inc, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Sairy HernandezGenentech, Inc, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Wendy VerretGenentech, Inc, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Beiying DingGenentech, Inc, South San Francisco, CA, USA.
Riccardo LencioniDepartment of Radiology, University of Pisa School of Medicine, Pisa, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4835-8920
City of Hope · USNorthwestern University · USUniversity of Pisa · IT

Funding

This manuscript was sponsored by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. and Genentech, Inc. Support for third-party writing assistance was provided by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIMbrave150 is a phase III trial that assessed atezolizumab + bevacizumab (ATEZO/BEV) versus sorafenib (SOR) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and demonstrated a significant improvement in clinical outcomes. Exploratory analyses characterized objective response rate (ORR), depth (DpR), and duration of response (DoR), and patients with a complete response (CR).

methodsPatients were randomized 2:1 to intravenous ATEZO (1200 mg) + BEV (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks or oral SOR (400 mg) twice daily. Tumors were evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1) and HCC-modified RECIST (mRECIST). ORR by prior treatment and largest baseline liver lesion size, DoR, time to response (TTR), and complete response (TTCR) were analyzed.

resultsFor both criteria, responses favored ATEZO/BEV versus SOR regardless of prior treatment and in patients with lesions ≥3 cm. Median TTR was 2.8 months per RECIST 1.1 (range: 1.2-12.3 months) and 2.8 months per mRECIST (range: 1.1-12.3 months) with ATEZO/BEV. Patients receiving ATEZO/BEV had a greater DpR, per both criteria, across baseline liver lesion sizes. Characteristics of complete responders were similar to those of the intent-to-treat population. In complete responders receiving ATEZO/BEV per mRECIST versus RECIST 1.1, respectively, median TTCR was shorter (5.5 vs. 7.0 months), mean baseline sum of lesion diameter was longer (5.0 [SD, 5.1] vs. 2.6 [SD, 1.4] cm), and mean largest liver lesion size was larger (4.8 [SD, 4.2] vs. 2.3 [SD, 1.0] cm).

conclusionsThese data highlight the improved ORR, DpR, and CR rates with ATEZO/BEV in unresectable HCC.

Indexed as

Administration, IntravenousAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedAntineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy ProtocolsBevacizumabCarcinoma, HepatocellularFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansLiver NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingProgression-Free SurvivalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedatezolizumabBevacizumabSorafenibhepatocellular carcinomaimmunotherapyResponse Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors

Identifiers

PMID34189869
PMCPMC8366100
OpenAlexW3176209044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.