METHODS: This is a non-interventional cohort study of 90 patients with PCV from 16 international trial sites who originally completed the EVEREST II study. The long-term outcomes were assessed during a recall visit at about 6 years from commencement of EVEREST II.
RESULTS: The monotherapy and combination groups contained 41 and 49 participants, respectively. The change in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) from baseline to year 6 was not different between the monotherapy and combination groups; - 7.4 ± 23.0 versus - 6.1 ± 22.4 letters, respectively. The combination group had greater central subfield thickness (CST) reduction compared to the monotherapy group at year 6 (- 179.9 vs - 74.2 µm, p = 0.011). Fewer eyes had subretinal fluid (SRF)/intraretinal fluid (IRF) in the combination versus monotherapy group at year 6 (35.4% vs 57.5%, p = 0.032). Factors associated with BCVA at year 6 include BCVA (year 2), CST (year 2), presence of SRF/IRF at year 2, and number of anti-VEGF treatments (years 2-6). Factors associated with presence of SRF/IRF at year 6 include combination arm (OR 0.45, p = 0.033), BCVA (year 2) (OR 1.53, p = 0.046), and presence of SRF/IRF (year 2) (OR 2.59, p = 0.042).
CONCLUSION: At 6 years following the EVEREST II study, one-third of participants still maintained good vision. As most participants continued to require treatment after exiting the initial trial, ongoing monitoring and re-treatment regardless of polypoidal lesion status are necessary in PCV.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01846273.
METHODS: This multinational retrospective study enrolled patients who received Atezo-Bev as first-line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC and reached complete response (CR) or PR. Patients were categorized into three cohorts: patients who underwent curative LRT after PR, patients with PR but did not receive curative LRT, and patients achieving CR without LRT. Curative LRT included surgery, ablation, and definitive radiotherapy with imaging evidence showing disease-free status afterward.
RESULTS: A total of 243 patients were enrolled from 8 countries or regions; 31 patients received curative LRT after PR, 180 patients obtained PR but did not receive curative LRT, and 32 patients achieved CR without LRT. The curative-LRT group, compared with patients who did not receive curative LRT after PR, exhibited significantly longer PFS (median, 44.4 months vs. 18.2 months, p = 0.004) and overall survival (OS) (median, not reached vs. 34.3 months, p < 0.001). The differences remained significant after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) adjustment. By contrast, whether before or after IPTW adjustment, the curative-LRT group did not exhibit statistically significant difference in PFS, OS, and recurrence-free survival from patients who obtained CR without curative LRT.
CONCLUSION: Curative LRT may consolidate the efficacy of Atezo-Bev in patients achieving a PR, potentially prolonging survival compared to systemic therapy alone.