Impact of metformin, statin, aspirin and insulin on the prognosis of uHCC patients receiving first line Lenvatinib or Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3930860/v1

Download PDF

Article

Impact of metformin, statin, aspirin and insulin on the prognosis of uHCC patients receiving first line Lenvatinib or Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3930860/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 30 Aug, 2024

Read the published version in Scientific Reports →

You are reading this latest preprint version

INTRODUCTION: Recently, in Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) setting, the use of metformin has been associated to a trend toward worse response rate, overall survival and progression free survival in patients who received immunotherapy.

METHODS AND MATERIAL: The study population included individuals from both Eastern and Western regions with a confirmed diagnosis of HCC and receiving first line treatment with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed by Cox proportional. For the analysis, patients were stratified based on their use of concomitant medication or not.

RESULTS: At the time of database lock, 319 deaths were observed: 209 in the Lenvatinib cohort, 110 in the Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab cohort. In the Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab arm, 50 (16.5%) patients were on chronic metformin use. At the univariate analysis for OS, patients who used metformin showed significantly shorter OS compared to patients who did not use metformin (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.2). Multivariate analysis confirmed that patients in metformin group had significantly shorter OS compared to patients in no-metformin group (HR 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1-3.1). At the univariate analysis for PFS, patients in metformin group had significantly shorter PFS compared to patients in no-metformin group (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.6). Multivariate analysis confirmed that patients in metformin group had significantly shorter PFS compared to patients in no-metformin group (HR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1-2.7; p=0.0147). No differences were reported in terms of ORR and DCR between patients in metformin group and those in no-metformin group. In the Lenvatinib cohort, 65 (15%) patients were recorded to chronically use metformin. No statistically significant differences in terms of both OS and PFS were found between patients in metformin group and patients in no-metformin group .

CONCLUSION: This analysis unveils a negative prognostic role associated with metformin use specifically within the Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab group.

Biological sciences/Cancer/Cancer therapy

Biological sciences/Cancer/Gastrointestinal cancer/Liver cancer/Hepatocellular carcinoma

Advanced HCC

Atezolizumab

Bevacizumab

Lenvatinib BMI

Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) is currently a global health challenge and represents the sixth most common cancer and the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide (1). Recently, immunotherapy has become an important part of the therapeutic armamentarium for advanced HCC. The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has been settled as the new first-line standard of care, along with Lenvatinib and Sorafenib, for patients affected by advanced HCC (2). Furthermore, the dual immune checkpoint inhibitors blockade has been recently tested in the HIMALAYA trial, thus leading to positive results (3). In all the aforementioned studies, no preplanned subgroup analyses highlighted different efficacy basing on clinical factors, including etiology. In recent years, a growing body of evidence has emerged that suggest that patients affected by advanced HCC arising from metabolic dysfunction related steatosis liver disease (MASLD) and metabolic dysfunction related steatohepatitis (MASH) may be less responsive to immunotherapy (4–7). However, MASLD/MASH is considered a frequent manifestation of metabolic disease, and therefore several comorbidities need to be taken into account in the clinical decision-making process for these patients. Among others, diabetes is a frequent manifestation and metformin is one of the most commonly used drugs for this type of disease. Discordant evidences about the metformin’s antineoplastic properties have been highlighted (8–10). Recently, Kang and collaborators conducted a retrospective analysis on 111 patients affected by advanced HCC who received immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and demonstrated that the use of metformin was associated with a trend towards worse objective response rates (ORR), overall survival (OS), and progression-free survival (PFS), even without reaching statistical significance (11). Building upon these findings, the aim of the present study was to investigate the potential prognostic role of metformin use and other concomitant medications (such as statins, insulin, and aspirin) in a cohort of advanced HCC patients who received Lenvatinib or Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab as first-line treatment.

Patients and Procedures

The study encompassed a diverse population drawn from both Eastern and Western regions, spanning Japan, Portugal, Germany, and Italy. Participants were required to have a confirmed diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), validated either through histological examination or appropriate imaging studies, in accordance with international guidelines. These individuals were classified as being at stage B or C according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system and were considered unsuitable candidates for loco-regional therapies.

Baseline characteristics were documented by each participating institution and subsequently verified through centralized review. Patients were assigned to receive either Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab, administered from August 2018 to March 2023, or Lenvatinib, administered from November 2017 to April 2023, as their primary treatment. Lenvatinib dosing followed the protocol established by the REFLECT trial: patients received a daily oral dose of 12 mg if their baseline body weight was ≥ 60 kg or 8 mg if it was < 60 kg. Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab treatment adhered to the regimen outlined in the IMbrave150 trial: patients received intravenous infusions of 1200 mg of atezolizumab alongside 15 mg/kg of body weight of bevacizumab every 3 weeks. Treatment response was evaluated using computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging scans and categorized as complete response (CR), partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), or progressive disease (PD) based on local review, following modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) 1.1 guidelines. Patients continued treatment until either clinical benefit was observed as determined by the treating physician or until unacceptable toxicity occurred.

Adverse events (AEs) were assessed and graded using the National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) version 5.0. Management of AEs allowed for treatment interruptions and/or dose reductions as deemed necessary.

Ethical approval

for the study was obtained from the respective Ethics Committees at each participating center, and the study was conducted in compliance with Good Clinical Practice guidelines, the Declaration of Helsinki, local laws, and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 concerning the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data. The protocol number assigned by the ethics committee was 113/INT/2021.

Statistical analysis

Demographic, clinical, and pathological characteristics of the patients were gathered and summarized utilizing descriptive statistics. Categorical variables underwent comparison via the Fisher exact test, while continuous variables were compared using the t-test. Survival curves for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were generated using Kaplan-Meier estimates.

Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted utilizing Cox proportional hazards models to examine potential associations between patients' baseline characteristics and survival outcomes (OS and PFS). Overall response and objective response rate were computed. Objective response rate (ORR) was defined as the proportion of patients achieving complete response (CR) and partial response (PR), while disease control rate (DCR) encompassed ORR plus the proportion of stable disease (SD).

For analysis purposes, patients were stratified based on their use of concomitant medication. In particular, patients were categorized into either the metformin group or the no-metformin group. Concomitant medication usage was determined at baseline before initiating first-line treatment. A significance level of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Statistical analysis was conducted using the MedCalc package (MedCalc® version 16.8.4).

Study Population

Overall, 730 consecutive patients with HCC met inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Among them, 430 (59%) patients received Lenvatinib and 300 (41%) patients received Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab.

At the time of database lock, 319 deaths were observed: 209 in the Lenvatinib cohort, 110 in the Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab cohort. The median follow-up was 14.7 months (95% CI: 12.4–51.1) for Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab patients and 21.0 months (95% CI: 18.4–55.3) for Lenvatinib patients. The two cohorts of patients were almost homogeneous, except for the proportion of patients with diabetes (42.5% in Lenvatinib cohort Vs 35% in Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab cohort), BCLC B (45% in Lenvatinib cohort Vs 38% in Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab cohort), portal vein’s involvement (15.5% in Lenvatinib cohort Vs 26.5% in Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab cohort), and NLR ≥ 3 (24% in Lenvatinib cohort Vs 14% in Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab cohort).

The complete baseline characteristics in the two cohorts of patients are reported in Table 1.

Table 1

Baseline patients’ characteristics in the two cohorts (Lenvatinib and Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumanb).
	LENVATINIB (n = 430)	ATEZOLIZUMAB PLUS BEVACIZUMAB (n = 300)
SEX Male Female	358 (83) 72 (17)	233 (78) 67 (22)	0.068537
VIRAL Y N NA	249 (58) 178 (41) 3 (1)	157 (52.5) 142 (47) 1 (0.5)	0.129097
NASH Y N NA	121 (28) 305 (70.5) 4 (1.5)	69 (23) 229 (76) 2 (1)	0.122745
DIABETES Y N NA	182 (42.5) 246 (57) 2 (0.5)	105 (35) 194 (64.5) 1 (0.5)	0.045443
METFORMIN Y N NA	65 (15) 363 (84.5) 2 (0.5)	50 (16.5) 249 (83) 1 (0.5)	0.606169
STATIN Y N NA	37 (8.5) 227 (53) 166 (38.5)	41 (13.5) 258 (86) 1 (0.5)	1.000000
ASPIRIN Y N NA	47 (11) 219 (51) 164 (38)	45 (15) 254 (84.5) 1 (0.5)	0.425474
INSULIN Y N NA	29 (7) 237 (55) 164 (38)	32 (10.5) 267 (89) 1 (0.5)	1.000000
CHILD A B NA	387 (90) 31 (7) 12 (3)	266 (88.5) 29 (9.5) 5 (2)	0.274485
BCLC B C NA	193 (45) 227 (53) 10 (2)	115 (38) 184 (61.5) 1 (0.5)	0.047178
ECOG 0 >0 NA	328 (76.5) 100 (23) 2 (0.5)	221 (73.5) 77 (25.5) 2 (1)	0.482295
PVT Y N NA	66 (15.5) 319 (74) 45 (10.5)	80 (26.5) 177 (59) 43 (14.5)	0.000050
AFP >400 ≤400 NA	117 (27.5) 303 (70.5) 10 (2)	93 (31) 197 (65.5) 10 (3.5)	0.241967
NLR ≥3 <3 NA	102 (24) 249 (58) 79 (18)	43 (14) 163 (54.5) 94 (31.5)	0.035902
ALBUMIN ≤3.5 >3.5 NA	139 (32) 276 (64.5) 15 (3.5)	83 (27.5) 208 (69.5) 9 (3)	0.187623
BILIRUBIN >2 ≤2 NA	38 (9) 374 (87) 18 (4)	19 (6) 274 (91.5) 7 (2.5)	0.208849
EHD Y N NA	164 (38) 265 (61.5) 1 (0.5)	102 (34) 196 (65) 2 (1)	0.274458

Table 2

Uni and multi-variate analysis for OS in the cohort of patients treated with Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.
VARIABLES	UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS			MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
	HR	95% CI	P VALUE	HR	95% CI	P VALUE
SEX Female Male	1,37	0.86–2.19	0.1846	1.35	0.86–2.14	0.1941
VIRAL N Y	1.23	0.84–1.80	0.2805
NASH Y N	1.23	0.78–1.95	0.3744	1.17	0.72–1.91	0.5322
DIABETES Y N	1.39	0.93–2.09	0.1100
METFORMIN Y N	1.87	1.08–3.24	0.0248	1.74	1.02–2.96	0.0413
STATIN Y N	1.03	0.59–1.80	0.9057
ASPIRIN N Y	1.02	0.60–1.71	0.9541
INSULIN Y N	1.49	0.78–2.83	0.2274
CHILD B A	3.49	1.57–7.76	0.0021	2.02	1.07–3.83	0.0308
BCLC C B	1.28	0.88–1.88	0.1975
ECOG 0 > 0	1.08	0.68–1.71	0.7321
PORTAL VEIN THROMBOSIS Y N	1.63	1.03–2.60	0.0371
AFP > 400 ≤ 400	1.53	1.00-2.34	0.0495	1.23	0.80–1.90	0.3514
NLR ≥ 3 < 3	1.46	0.75–2.84	0.2134
ALBUMIN ≤ 3.5 > 3.5	3.49	2.19–5.56	< 0.0001
BILIRUBIN > 2 ≤ 2	2.22	0.87–5.69	0.0971
ALT > 30 ≤ 30	2.00	1.37–2.92	0.0003	1.55	0.94–2.56	0.0843
AST > 28 ≤ 28	2.59	1.70–3.95	< 0.0001	2.68	1.31–5.49	0.0070
EXTRA HEPATIC DISEASE Y N	1.22	0.82–1.82	0.3215

Table 3

Uni and multi-variate analysis for PFS in the cohort of patients treated with Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.
VARIABLES	UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS			MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
	HR	95% CI	P VALUE	HR	95% CI	P VALUE
SEX Female Male	1,04	0.70–1.56	0.8376	0.94	0.61–1.45	0.7849
VIRAL N Y	1.06	0.77–1.46	0.7150
NASH Y N	1.03	0.70–1.52	0.8750
DIABETES Y N	1.20	0.85–1.70	0.2867
METFORMIN Y N	1.61	0.99–2.62	0.0212	1.71	1.09–2.68	0.0147
STATIN Y N	1.32	0.76–2.28	0.2686
ASPIRIN N Y	1.36	0.79–2.35	0.2036
INSULIN Y N	1.12	0.63–1.99	0.6912
CHILD B A	1.93	0.91–4.12	0.0210	1.87	1.01–3.45	0.0147
BCLC C B	1.22	0.88–1.69	0.2378
ECOG > 0 0	1.05	0.73–1.52	0.7848
PORTAL VEIN THROMBOSIS Y N	1.12	0.77–1.64	0.5345
AFP > 400 ≤ 400	1.45	1.01–2.09	0.0295	1.41	0.99-2.00	0.0573
NLR ≥ 3 < 3	1.36	0.82–2.28	0.2067
ALBUMIN ≤ 3.5 > 3.5	1.48	1.00-2.20	0.0301
BILIRUBIN > 2 ≤ 2	3.89	1.10-13.85	< 0.0001
ALT > 30 ≤ 30	1.17	0.85–1.61	0.3403
AST > 28 ≤ 28	1.02	0.70–1.50	0.9050
EXTRA HEPATIC DISEASE Y N	1.22	0.86–1.74	0.2400

Use of statins, aspirin, insulin and metformin and clinical outcome in Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab group

In the Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab cohort, there were no statistically significant differences observed in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) between patients who chronically used statins, aspirin, or insulin compared to those who did not. Within the Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab arm, 50 (16.5%) patients were on chronic metformin therapy. Baseline characteristics were similar between patients in the metformin and no-metformin groups, except for etiology (viral etiology: 24% vs. 58%, p = 0.000011; MASH etiology: 50% vs. 18%, p = 0.000005; in the metformin and no-metformin groups, respectively), statin use (36% vs. 9% in metformin vs. no-metformin groups, p = 0.000007), aspirin use (26% vs. 12.5% in metformin vs. no-metformin groups, p = 0.026006), and insulin use (22% vs. 8.5% in metformin vs. no-metformin groups, p = 0.009734). Univariate analysis revealed that patients using metformin had significantly shorter OS [14.9 months (95% CI 6.4–16.3) vs. 19.7 (95% CI 16.0-30.4); HR 1.9 (95% CI 1.1–3.2) p = 0.0248] and PFS [4.5 months (95% CI 2.9–14.2) vs. 5.8 (95% CI 4.1–34.0); HR 1.6 (95% CI 1.0-2.6) p = 0.0212] compared to those not using metformin. Multivariate analysis confirmed that patients in the metformin group had significantly shorter OS (HR 1.9; 95% CI, 1.1–3.1; p = 0.0163) and PFS (HR 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1–2.7; p = 0.0147) compared to those in the no-metformin group. There were no differences in terms of objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) between the metformin and no-metformin groups (p = 0.722399 and p = 0.866298, respectively). Additionally, no significant differences in adverse events were detected between the two groups (Supplementary table).

Use of statins, aspirin, insulin and metformin and clinical outcome in Lenvatinib group

In the Lenvatinib group of patients, no statistically significant differences in terms of both OS and PFS were observed in patients who were on chronic use of statins, aspirin, or insulin compared to those who were not.

In the Lenvatinib cohort, 65 (15%) patients were recorded to chronically use metformin.

At the univariate analysis, no statistically significant differences in terms of OS were found between patients in metformin group and patients in no-metformin group [respectively, 16.6 months (95% CI 14.8–51.3) vs. 19.5 (95% CI 15.1–36.2); HR 1.2 (95% CI 0.8–1.8) p = 0.3164] (Table 4).

Table 4

Uni and multi-variate analysis for OS in the cohort of patients treated with Lenvatinib
VARIABLES	UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS			MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
	HR	95% CI	P VALUE	HR	95% CI	P VALUE
SEX Female Male	1,21	0.81–1.80	0.3448	1.48	0.96–2.28	0.0793
VIRAL Y N	1.24	0.94–1.64	0.1262
NASH N Y	1.12	0.82–1.53	0.4860
DIABETES N Y	1.20	0.91–1.58	0.2030
METFORMIN N Y	1.21	0.83–1.76	0.3164
STATIN N Y	1.15	0.71–1.87	0.5602
ASPIRIN N Y	1.02	0.60–1.71	0.9541
INSULIN Y N	1.59	0.86–2.94	0.1359
CHILD B A	8.76	4.27–17.98	< 0.0001	3.50	1.97–6.24	< 0.0001
BCLC C B	1.60	1.21–2.11	0.0009
ECOG > 0 0	1.73	1.22–2.44	0.0019	1.58	1.07–2.34	0.0218
PORTAL VEIN THROMBOSIS Y N	1.36	0.91–2.05	0.1000
AFP > 400 ≤ 400	3.07	2.16–4.36	< 0.0001	2.28	1.59–3.27	< 0.0001
NLR ≥ 3 < 3	1.54	1.07–2.21	0.0099	1.68	1.19–2.37	0.0034
ALBUMIN ≤ 3.5 > 3.5	2.29	1.67–3.14	< 0.0001
BILIRUBIN > 2 ≤ 2	1.43	0.89–2.30	0.1375
ALT > 22 ≤ 22	1.70	1.27–2.26	0.0003	0.73	0.49–1.08	0.1148
AST > 56 ≤ 56	3.54	2.45–5.12	< 0.0001	1.70	1.16–2.50	0.0071
EXTRA HEPATIC DISEASE Y N	1.53	1.14–2.04	0.0041

The multivariate analysis confirmed that the use of metformin was not a prognostic factor for OS in the cohort of patients who received Lenvatinib (Table 4).

At the univariate analysis, no statistically significant differences in terms of PFS were found between patients in metformin group and patients in no-metformin group [respectively, 4.7 months (95% CI 3.7–24.2) vs. 4.4 months (95% CI 3.8–41.8); HR 1.0 (95% CI 0.8–1.4) p = 0.8542] (Table 5).

Table 5

Uni and multi-variate analysis for PFS in the cohort of patients treated with Lenvatinib
VARIABLES	UNIVARIATE ANALYSIS			MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
	HR	95% CI	P VALUE	HR	95% CI	P VALUE
SEX Female Male	1.77	1.17–2.68	0.0006	1.75	1.24–2.47	0.0015
VIRAL Y N	1.12	0.89–1.43	0.3410
NASH N Y	1.13	0.87–1.45	0.3685
DIABETES N Y	1.12	0.88–1.42	0.3423
METFORMIN N Y	1.03	0.76–1.39	0.8542
STATIN N Y	1.26	0.81–1.95	0.3536
ASPIRIN Y N	1.36	0.84–2.19	0.1605
INSULIN Y N	1.60	0.90–2.87	0.0518
CHILD B A	1.95	1.09–3.50	0.0021	1.87	1.19–2.93	0.0068
BCLC C B	1.07	0.84–1.35	0.5966
ECOG > 0 0	1.08	0.82–1.43	0.5886
PORTAL VEIN THROMBOSIS Y N	1.06	0.76–1.49	0.7159
AFP > 400 ≤ 400	1.63	1.22–2.18	0.0002	1.56	1.19–2.04	0.0013
NLR ≥ 3 < 3	1.28	0.97–1.69	0.0619
ALBUMIN ≤ 3.5 > 3.5	1.43	1.10–1.87	0.0044
BILIRUBIN > 2 ≤ 2	1.04	0.71–1.53	0.8226
ALT > 22 ≤ 22	1.00	0.78–1.29	0.9873
AST > 56 ≤ 56	1.22	0.92–1.16	0.1382
EXTRA HEPATIC DISEASE Y N	1.09	0.85–1.38	0.4946
HFSR N Y	1.42	1.05–1.91	0.0219	0.83	0.62–1.11	0.2031
HYPERTENSION N Y	1.41	1.10–1.82	0.0122	0.86	0.67–1.10	0.2337
FATIGUE Y N	1.04	0.83–1.32	0.7242
DIARRHEA N Y	1.39	1.05–1.84	0.0386
DECREASE APPETITE N Y	1.02	0.81–1.29	0.8373
PROTEINURIA N Y	1.00	0.77–1.31	0.9715

The multivariate analysis confirmed that the use of metformin was not a prognostic factor for PFS in the cohort of patients who received Lenvatinib (Table 5).

No differences were reported in terms of ORR and DCR between patients in metformin group and those in no-metformin group (p = 0.661410 and p = 0.669873, respectively) (Supplementary table).

This analysis has highlighted, for the first time, the use of metformin as a negative prognostic factor in a cohort of patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for advanced HCC. Conversely, the utilization of metformin was found to have no prognostic impact in a cohort of patients with advanced HCC who received Lenvatinib as a first-line treatment. Recently, Kang and colleagues performed an analysis on a cohort of patients treated with immunotherapy for advanced HCC and highlighted worse survival outcomes in patients included in the metformin group compared to those in the no-metformin groups, even without reaching the statistical significance (11). Our study encompassed a larger patient sample receiving first-line treatment for advanced HCC (Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab or Lenvatinib), whereas the previous study focused exclusively on patients who received immunotherapy in either the first or subsequent lines of treatment. However, our findings provide substantial support, based on a larger patient cohort, to the notion that individuals receiving immunotherapy for advanced HCC and using metformin as a chronic medication exhibit inferior survival outcomes when compared to those not taking metformin chronically. Preclinical evidence provides a biological rationale for the anticancer properties of metformin. Metformin has been demonstrated to improve the restoring of CD8 + tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) from immune exhaustion (12)and to reduce hypoxic status in tumor microenvironment and improve intra-tumoral T cell function (13). In addition, metformin could inhibit the differentiation of naïve CD4 + T cells into regulatory T cells (Tregs), thus blocking the activation of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs) and reverting the M2-like polarization of tumor associated macrophages (TAMs) (14). hese evidence seems to suggest that the combination of immunotherapy and metformin could act in synergism and potentially enhancing the anticancer response. In the field of HCC, additional factors contribute to shaping the overall scenario. Unlike other oncologic diseases, HCC develops within the context of hepatopathy, which can have various underlying etiologies. These different etiologies have been shown to exert distinct effects on the immune microenvironment, resulting in diverse carcinogenic pathways (4–7). In addition both preclinical and retrospective clinical data support the hypothesis that patients with MASH-related HCC could be less responsive to immune checkpoint inhibitors (7). Wabitsch and colleagues recently confirmed that patients with MASH-related HCC are less responsive to immunotherapy, due to aberrant activation and exhaustion of CD8 + T cells (15). In the same work, authors demonstrated that metformin treatment restores the motility and metabolism of CD8 + T cells, thus enhancing the anti-tumor immune responses (15), which is inconsistent with the present analysis. As expected, in our analysis the proportion of MASH-related HCC in the metformin-group of patients is higher, which could have influenced the results reported. Nevertheless, after correction for etiology, the multivariate analysis confirmed the negative prognostic factor of the chronic use of metformin in the cohort of patients who received Atezolizumab plus BevacizumabConcerning the absence of prognostic impact of metformin use in patients who received Lenvatinib, several considerations could be done. In a previous work, the concomitant use of metformin and sorafenib was associated with worse OS and PFS in a cohort of patients affected by advanced HCC, due to a competitive action on PI3K and MAPK signaling exerted by metformin, which leads to the development of resistance to sorafenib (16, 17). Although belonging to the same class of drugs, Lenvatinib and Sorafenib present different target spectra, which could explain the varying results when combined with metformin. In a recent work, Chen and colleagues showed that Lenvatinib and Metformin both suppress the activation of AKT signaling pathway thus leading to the nuclear aggregation of downstream effector FOXO3. Finally, interactions between metformin and oncologic treatments depend also to the timing, since the pathways and, consequently, the biological behavior of an HCC arising in a patient already treated with metformin is different from that of an HCC arising in a patient who, at some point, undergoes treatment with metformin.

The present study has several limitations, primarily stemming from its retrospective and multicenter nature. Selection bias among patients cannot be entirely ruled out, and it's important to consider the absence of centralized imaging review for the evaluation of PFS. Finally, data about doses and schedule of use of metformin as well as data on concomitant medications for diabetes were unavailable, due to the large retrospective and multicentric design of the study. Further investigations and prospective validations on external cohort are needed in order to verify our results. Nevertheless the present study represents the first analysis focusing on the role of metformin in a large cohort of patients with advanced HCC, who underwent first-line therapy with either Lenvatinib or Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab. This analysis unveils a negative prognostic role associated with metformin use specifically within the Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab group. Our findings corroborated in a larger sample size the earlier study by Kang and colleagues adding a crucial piece to the complex puzzle of the interaction between metformin and immunotherapy for patients dealing with advanced HCC.

Conflict of Interest:

A.C.G. has received grants and personal fees from MSD, Eisai, Bayer, and is an advisor for MSD, Eisai, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca and GSK.

The other coauthors have no conflict of interest.

Funding: The present work received no financial support.

Acknowledgments: nothing to declare.

Authors' contributions:

Conception and design: A. Casadei Gardini, J. Presa, M. Rimini.

Acquisition of data (acquired and managed patients): All authors.

Analysis and interpretation of data: A. Casadei-Gardini, J. Presa, M. Rimini.

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: A. Casadei-Gardini, J. Presa, M. Rimini.

Final approval of manuscript: All authors.

Institutional Review Board Statement: The Ethical Review Board of each Institutional Hospital approved the present study. This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed Consent Statement: Written informed consent for treatment was obtained for all patients.

Data Availability Statement: Data available on request from the authors (contact: [email protected]).

Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, Bray F. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–249. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660. Epub 2021 Feb 4. PMID: 33538338.
Finn RS, Qin S, Ikeda M, Galle PR, Ducreux M, Kim TY, Kudo M, Breder V, Merle P, Kaseb AO, Li D, Verret W, Xu DZ, Hernandez S, Liu J, Huang C, Mulla S, Wang Y, Lim HY, Zhu AX, Cheng AL; IMbrave150 Investigators. Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(20):1894–1905. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1915745. PMID: 32402160.
Abou-Alfa GK, Chan SL, Kudo M, et al. Phase 3 randomized, open-label, multicenter study of tremelimumab and durvalumab as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: HIMALAYA. J Clin Oncol 2022;40:379. 10.1200/JCO.2022.40.4_suppl.379 -.
Pfister D, Núñez NG, Pinyol R, Govaere O, Pinter M, Szydlowska M, Gupta R, Qiu M, Deczkowska A, Weiner A, Müller F, Sinha A, Friebel E, Engleitner T, Lenggenhager D, Moncsek A, Heide D, Stirm K, Kosla J, Kotsiliti E, Leone V, Dudek M, Yousuf S, Inverso D, Singh I, Teijeiro A, Castet F, Montironi C, Haber PK, Tiniakos D, Bedossa P, Cockell S, Younes R, Vacca M, Marra F, Schattenberg JM, Allison M, Bugianesi E, Ratziu V, Pressiani T, D'Alessio A, Personeni N, Rimassa L, Daly AK, Scheiner B, Pomej K, Kirstein MM, Vogel A, Peck-Radosavljevic M, Hucke F, Finkelmeier F, Waidmann O, Trojan J, Schulze K, Wege H, Koch S, Weinmann A, Bueter M, Rössler F, Siebenhüner A, De Dosso S, Mallm JP, Umansky V, Jugold M, Luedde T, Schietinger A, Schirmacher P, Emu B, Augustin HG, Billeter A, Müller-Stich B, Kikuchi H, Duda DG, Kütting F, Waldschmidt DT, Ebert MP, Rahbari N, Mei HE, Schulz AR, Ringelhan M, Malek N, Spahn S, Bitzer M, Ruiz de Galarreta M, Lujambio A, Dufour JF, Marron TU, Kaseb A, Kudo M, Huang YH, Djouder N, Wolter K, Zender L, Marche PN, Decaens T, Pinato DJ, Rad R, Mertens JC, Weber A, Unger K, Meissner F, Roth S, Jilkova ZM, Claassen M, Anstee QM, Amit I, Knolle P, Becher B, Llovet JM, Heikenwalder M. NASH limits anti-tumour surveillance in immunotherapy-treated HCC. Nature. 2021;592(7854):450–456. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03362-0. Epub 2021 Mar 24. PMID: 33762733; PMCID: PMC8046670.
Rimini M, Kudo M, Tada T, Shigeo S, Kang W, Suda G, Jefremow A, Burgio V, Iavarone M, Tortora R, Marra F, Lonardi S, Tamburini E, Piscaglia F, Masi G, Cabibbo G, Foschi FG, Silletta M, Kumada T, Iwamoto H, Aoki T, Goh MJ, Sakamoto N, Siebler J, Hiraoka A, Niizeki T, Ueshima K, Sho T, Atsukawa M, Hirooka M, Tsuji K, Ishikawa T, Takaguchi K, Kariyama K, Itobayashi E, Tajiri K, Shimada N, Shibata H, Ochi H, Yasuda S, Toyoda H, Fukunishi S, Ohama H, Kawata K, Tani J, Nakamura S, Nouso K, Tsutsui A, Nagano T, Takaaki T, Itokawa N, Okubo T, Arai T, Imai M, Joko K, Koizumi Y, Hiasa Y, Cucchetti A, Ratti F, Aldrighetti L, Cascinu S, Casadei-Gardini A. Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in hepatocarcinoma: new insights about its prognostic role in patients treated with Lenvatinib. ESMO Open. 2021;6(6):100330. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2021.100330. Epub 2021 Nov 27. PMID: 34847382; PMCID: PMC8710492.
Rimini M, Rimassa L, Ueshima K, Burgio V, Shigeo S, Tada T, Suda G, Yoo C, Cheon J, Pinato DJ, Lonardi S, Scartozzi M, Iavarone M, Di Costanzo GG, Marra F, Soldà C, Tamburini E, Piscaglia F, Masi G, Cabibbo G, Foschi FG, Silletta M, Pressiani T, Nishida N, Iwamoto H, Sakamoto N, Ryoo BY, Chon HJ, Claudia F, Niizeki T, Sho T, Kang B, D'Alessio A, Kumada T, Hiraoka A, Hirooka M, Kariyama K, Tani J, Atsukawa M, Takaguchi K, Itobayashi E, Fukunishi S, Tsuji K, Ishikawa T, Tajiri K, Ochi H, Yasuda S, Toyoda H, Ogawa C, Nishimur T, Hatanaka T, Kakizaki S, Shimada N, Kawata K, Tanaka T, Ohama H, Nouso K, Morishita A, Tsutsui A, Nagano T, Itokawa N, Okubo T, Arai T, Imai M, Naganuma A, Koizumi Y, Nakamura S, Joko K, Iijima H, Hiasa Y, Pedica F, De Cobelli F, Ratti F, Alrighetti L, Kudo M, Cascinu S, Casadei-Gardini A. Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab versus Lenvatinib or sorafenib in non-viral unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: an international propensity score matching analysis. ESMO Open. 2022;7(6):100591. doi: 10.1016/j.esmoop.2022.100591. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36208496.
Rimini M, Persano M, Tada T, Suda G, Shimose S, Kudo M, Cheon J, Finkelmeier F, Lim HY, Presa J, Masi G, Yoo C, Lonardi S, Piscaglia F, Kumada T, Sakamoto N, Iwamoto H, Aoki T, Chon HJ, Himmelsbach V, Pressiani T, Montes M, Vivaldi C, Soldà C, Hiraoka A, Sho T, Niizeki T, Nishida N, Steup C, Hirooka M, Kariyama K, Tani J, Atsukawa M, Takaguchi K, Itobayashi E, Fukunishi S, Tsuji K, Ishikawa T, Tajiri K, Ochi H, Yasuda S, Toyoda H, Ogawa C, Nishimura T, Hatanaka T, Kakizaki S, Shimada N, Kawata K, Tada F, Ohama H, Nouso K, Morishita A, Tsutsui A, Nagano T, Itokawa N, Okubo T, Arai T, Imai M, Kosaka H, Naganuma A, Koizumi Y, Nakamura S, Kaibori M, Iijima H, Hiasa Y, Burgio V, Rimassa L, Scartozzi M, Cascinu S, Casadei-Gardini A. Real-World Data for Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: How Does Adherence to the IMbrave150 Trial Inclusion Criteria Impact Prognosis? Target Oncol. 2023;18(2):221–233. doi: 10.1007/s11523-023-00953-x. Epub 2023 Mar 15. PMID: 36920648.
Mei ZB, Zhang ZJ, Liu CY, Liu Y, Cui A, Liang ZL, Wang GH, Cui L. Survival benefits of metformin for colorectal cancer patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e91818. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0091818. Erratum in: PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e103652. PMID: 24647047; PMCID: PMC3960145.
Sonnenblick A, Agbor-Tarh D, Bradbury I, Di Cosimo S, Azim HA Jr, Fumagalli D, Sarp S, Wolff AC, Andersson M, Kroep J, Cufer T, Simon SD, Salman P, Toi M, Harris L, Gralow J, Keane M, Moreno-Aspitia A, Piccart-Gebhart M, de Azambuja E. Impact of Diabetes, Insulin, and Metformin Use on the Outcome of Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Primary Breast Cancer: Analysis From the ALTTO Phase III Randomized Trial. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(13):1421–1429. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2016.69.7722. Epub 2017 Mar 13. PMID: 28375706; PMCID: PMC5455460.
Reni M, Dugnani E, Cereda S, Belli C, Balzano G, Nicoletti R, Liberati D, Pasquale V, Scavini M, Maggiora P, Sordi V, Lampasona V, Ceraulo D, Di Terlizzi G, Doglioni C, Falconi M, Piemonti L. (Ir)relevance of Metformin Treatment in Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: An Open-Label, Randomized Phase II Trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(5):1076–85. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-15-1722. Epub 2015 Oct 12. PMID: 26459175.
Kang S, Khalil L, McCook-Veal A, Liu Y, Galvin J, Draper A, Kokabi N, Diab M, Shaib W, Alese O, Gbolahan O, El-Rayes B, Akce M. Impact of metformin on clinical outcomes in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Liver Cancer International. March 2023
Eikawa S, Nishida M, Mizukami S, Yamazaki C, Nakayama E, Udono H. Immune-mediated antitumor effect by type 2 diabetes drug, metformin. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(6):1809–14. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1417636112. Epub 2015 Jan 26. PMID: 25624476; PMCID: PMC4330733.
Scharping NE, Menk AV, Whetstone RD, Zeng X, Delgoffe GM. Efficacy of PD-1 Blockade Is Potentiated by Metformin-Induced Reduction of Tumor Hypoxia. Cancer Immunol Res. 2017;5(1):9–16. doi: 10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-16-0103. Epub 2016 Dec 9. PMID: 27941003; PMCID: PMC5340074.
Li L, Wang L, Li J, Fan Z, Yang L, Zhang Z, Zhang C, Yue D, Qin G, Zhang T, Li F, Chen X, Ping Y, Wang D, Gao Q, He Q, Huang L, Li H, Huang J, Zhao X, Xue W, Sun Z, Lu J, Yu JJ, Zhao J, Zhang B, Zhang Y. Metformin-Induced Reduction of CD39 and CD73 Blocks Myeloid-Derived Suppressor Cell Activity in Patients with Ovarian Cancer. Cancer Res. 2018;78(7):1779–1791. doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-17-2460. Epub 2018 Jan 26. PMID: 29374065; PMCID: PMC5882589.
Wabitsch S, McCallen JD, Kamenyeva O, Ruf B, McVey JC, Kabat J, Walz JS, Rotman Y, Bauer KC, Craig AJ, Pouzolles M, Phadke I, Catania V, Green BL, Fu C, Diggs LP, Heinrich B, Wang XW, Ma C, Greten TF. Metformin treatment rescues CD8⁺ T-cell response to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in mice with NAFLD. J Hepatol. 2022;77(3):748–760. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2022.03.010. Epub 2022 Apr 1. PMID: 35378172; PMCID: PMC9391315.
Casadei Gardini A, Marisi G, Scarpi E, Scartozzi M, Faloppi L, Silvestris N, Masi G, Vivaldi C, Brunetti O, Tamberi S, Foschi FG, Tamburini E, Tenti E, Ricca Rosellini S, Ulivi P, Cascinu S, Nanni O, Frassineti GL. Effects of metformin on clinical outcome in diabetic patients with advanced HCC receiving sorafenib. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2015;16(18):2719–25. doi: 10.1517/14656566.2015.1102887. Epub 2015 Oct 29. PMID: 26513009.
Casadei Gardini A, Faloppi L, De Matteis S, Foschi FG, Silvestris N, Tovoli F, Palmieri V, Marisi G, Brunetti O, Vespasiani-Gentilucci U, Perrone G, Valgiusti M, Granato AM, Ercolani G, Negrini G, Tamburini E, Aprile G, Passardi A, Santini D, Cascinu S, Frassineti GL, Scartozzi M. Metformin and insulin impact on clinical outcome in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma receiving sorafenib: Validation study and biological rationale. Eur J Cancer. 2017;86:106–114. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.09.003. Epub 2017 Oct 3. PMID: 28985579.

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 30 Aug, 2024

Read the published version in Scientific Reports →

Editorial decision: Revision requested
16 May, 2024
Reviews received at journal
01 May, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
24 Apr, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
22 Apr, 2024
Reviews received at journal
04 Apr, 2024
Reviewers agreed at journal
25 Mar, 2024
Reviewers invited by journal
21 Mar, 2024
Editor assigned by journal
21 Mar, 2024
Editor invited by journal
18 Mar, 2024
Submission checks completed at journal
18 Mar, 2024
First submitted to journal
05 Feb, 2024

You are reading this latest preprint version

Impact of metformin, statin, aspirin and insulin on the prognosis of uHCC patients receiving first line Lenvatinib or Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

INTRODUCTION

METHODS

Patients and Procedures

Statistical analysis

RESULTS

Study Population

Use of statins, aspirin, insulin and metformin and clinical outcome in Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab group

Use of statins, aspirin, insulin and metformin and clinical outcome in Lenvatinib group

DISCUSSION

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Supplementary Files

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1