Prognostic model for predicting outcome and guiding treatment decision for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma treated with lenvatinib monotherapy or lenvatinib plus immunotherapy.

Background: Lenvatinib monotherapy and combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) were widely applied for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). However, many patients failed to benefit from the treatments. A prognostic model was needed to predict the treatment outcomes and guide clinical decisions. Methods: 304 patients receiving lenvatinib monotherapy or lenvatinib plus ICI for uHCC were retrospectively included. The risk factors derived from the multivariate analysis were used to construct the predictive model. The C-index and area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated to assess the predictive efficiency. Results: Multivariate analysis revealed that protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist-II (PIVKA-II) (HR, 2.05; P=0.001) and metastasis (HR, 2.07; P<0.001) were independent risk factors of overall survival (OS) in the training cohort. Herein, we constructed a prognostic model called PIMET score and stratified patients into the PIMET-low group (without metastasis and PIVKA-II<600 mAU/mL), PIMET-int group (with metastasis or PIVKA-II>600 mAU/mL) and PIMET-high group (with metastasis and PIVKA-II>600 mAU/mL). The C-index of PIMET score for the survival prediction was 0.63 and 0.67 in the training and validation cohort, respectively. In the training cohort, the AUC of 12-, 18-, and 24-month OS was 0.661, 0.682, and 0.744, respectively. The prognostic performances of the model were subsequently validated. The AUC of 12-, 18-, and 24-month OS was 0.724, 0.726, and 0.762 in the validation cohort. Subgroup analyses showed consistent predictive value for patients receiving lenvatinib monotherapy and patients receiving lenvatinib plus ICI. The PIMET score could also distinguish patients with different treatment responses. Notably, the combination of lenvatinib and ICI conferred survival benefits to patients with PIMET-int or PIMET-high, instead of patients with PIMET-low. Conclusion: The PIMET score comprising metastasis and PIVKA-II could serve as a helpful prognostic model for uHCC receiving lenvatinib monotherapy or lenvatinib plus ICI. The PIMET score could guide the treatment decision and facilitate precision medicine for uHCC patients.