Ablation of pulmonary oligometastasis in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with Lenvatinib: a retrospective multicenter study

Abstract

Background:

In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and pulmonary oligometastasis (PO), the therapeutic effects of metastases ablation remain unclear.

Objective:

This study aimed to compare the efficacy of metastases ablation combined with Lenvatinib (Ablation + Len) with that of Lenvatinib alone (Len) in patients with HCC and PO.

Design:

A multicenter retrospective study.

Methods:

This study included 202 patients in the Len group and 182 patients in the Ablation + Len group. Propensity score matching and inverse probability treatment weighting analyses were used to balance baseline variables between the two groups. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and the secondary endpoint was overall survival (OS).

Results:

The median PFS time was 11.0 ± 0.3 and 14.1 ± 0.5 months in the Len and Ablation + Len groups, respectively. The PFS (hazard ratio (HR), 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.49–0.80, p < 0.001) and OS (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42–0.86; p = 0.006) times were significantly longer in the Ablation + Len group than in the Len group. The OS (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.37–1.03; p = 0.071) and PFS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.51–1.17; p = 0.230) did not differ among patients with hepatic tumors in stable disease (SD) status. However, among patients in partial response, the OS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34–0.95; p = 0.030) and PFS (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37–0.69; p < 0.001) were significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusion:

Ablation of PO combined with Lenvatinib resulted in longer PFS and OS than treatment with Lenvatinib alone. However, patients did not derive survival benefits from the ablation of metastases when the hepatic tumors were in SD status.

Plain language summary

Ablation of pulmonary oligometastasis for hepatocellular carcinoma treated with Lenvatinib

Pulmonary oligometastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma represents a subtype and a transition point between localized disease and widespread metastases. The current guidelines only recommend systemic therapy for this subtype. Ablation of pulmonary oligometastasis might be as a valuable addition for the current guidelines for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. In this retrospective study, we enrolled patients received Lenvatinib as first-line systemic therapy. We found that ablation of pulmonary oligometastasis plus Lenvatinib showed better survival in progression-free survival and overall survival than Lenvatinib based on this multicenter dataset. Our study demonstrated that ablation of pulmonary oligometastasis was associated with longer survival. Patients could get survival benefit from ablation of metastases only when the primary tumors were effectively controlled.

Keywords

ablation advanced hepatocellular carcinoma lenvatinib prognosis pulmonary oligometastasis

Introduction

In hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the lung is the most common metastatic site, accounting for 30%–50% of all extrahepatic metastases.^1,2 Systemic therapy is the standard treatment for advanced HCC with pulmonary metastases.³ Oligometastasis, defined as a limited number of pulmonary metastases, represents a subtype and transition point between localized disease and widespread metastases.⁴ However, current guidelines do not distinguish this subtype from advanced HCC.⁵ This subtype is commonly encountered because of the large number of patients with HCC.⁶ Oligometastasis may persist for a prolonged period before progressing to widespread metastatic disease.^7–9 In addition, metastases can promote invasion of the primary tumor.¹⁰ Thus, eliminating metastases could improve the prognoses of patients with HCC.¹¹ Aggressive interventions, such as surgery or ablation of limited metastases, can lead to better outcomes.¹² Moreover, transitioning tumors from diffuse to localized status may halt their development into polymetastatic disease.^12,13 Image-guided ablation therapy, such as microwave ablation (MWA), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and cryoablation, has attracted considerable interest as a minimally invasive approach for intrathoracic metastases.^14,15 Recently, patients with pulmonary metastases from various cancers have been treated with ablation,^11,16 resulting in a high proportion of sustained complete response (CR) and relatively low morbidity.¹⁷

Kim et al.¹⁸ demonstrated the efficacy of local therapy in patients with lung metastases of HCC; however, their study included a small sample size and limited comprehensive analyses. To the best of our knowledge, no large-scale study has evaluated the clinical efficacy of Lenvatinib combined with pulmonary metastasis ablation. Lenvatinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been approved as the recommended treatment for advanced HCC¹⁹; however, its clinical benefit as monotherapy is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the survival benefits of ablation of pulmonary oligometastasis (PO) in patients with advanced HCC.

Materials and methods

Patients and study design

This multicenter, propensity-matched cohort study included patients diagnosed with advanced HCC and PO between January 2018 and June 2022 from six hospitals (including Sun Yat-Sen University Cancer Center, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Chinese PLA General Hospital, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, and The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinzhou Medical University). The follow-up period ended on June 30, 2024. This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement.^20,21 The ethics committee of each center approved this retrospective study and waived the requirement for informed consent. This study has been registered at Research Registry (researchregistry10750).

Patient inclusion and exclusion criteria

Patients fulfilling the following criteria were enrolled in the study: (1) diagnosis of primary HCC, confirmed histologically or clinically based on the criteria of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases²²; (2) presence of synchronous pulmonary metastases, defined as metastases detected within 1 month of HCC diagnosis; (3) pulmonary-only metastases detected at ⩽5 sites, with a maximum diameter of ⩽3 cm; (4) treated with Lenvatinib as first-line systemic therapy for ⩾3 months prior to study inclusion, resulting in controlled intrahepatic tumors and no metastatic progression; (5) underwent locoregional treatment, including transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) or hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), 3–7 days before Lenvatinib initiation; (6) Child–Pugh class A or B and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1; and (7) no history of other malignancies. Controlled intrahepatic tumors were defined as tumors showing partial response (PR) or stable response based on the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST).²³

Patients were excluded from the analysis for the following reasons: (1) recurrent HCC; (2) advanced HCC treated with Lenvatinib as second-line systemic therapy; (3) age <18 or >75 years; (4) advanced HCC with more than five pulmonary metastases or other nonlung metastases; (5) no response to Lenvatinib; (6) metastatic lesion size >3 cm; (7) patients who received any additional intrahepatic locoregional therapy (TACE, HAIC, or intrahepatic ablation) after the initiation of Lenvatinib and before radiologic progression were excluded; (8) incomplete clinical data; or (9) lost to follow-up within 3 months. Patients were divided into the Len group (receiving Lenvatinib alone) or the Ablation + Len group (receiving Lenvatinib and undergoing ablation of PO).

Outcomes and definitions

The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from the initiation of Lenvatinib to tumor progression (according to RECIST v1.1) or the last follow-up.²⁴ Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and tumor response. OS was defined as the time from the initiation of Lenvatinib to death or the last follow-up. Patients who were alive at the follow-up date were considered censored. The progression patterns were classified into three types. Type 1 was defined as progression in the lung or lung associated with any other organs. Type 2 was defined as progression occurring only in the liver. Type 3 was defined as progression in the liver associated with other non-lung organs or only in other non-lung organs (such as bone, lymph nodules, and paranephros).

Portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) was classified based on the extension of the tumor thrombus into the portal venous system as follows: type I, tumor thrombus involving the segmental branches of the portal vein or higher; type II, tumor thrombus involving the right or left portal vein; and type III, tumor thrombus involving the main portal vein.²⁵ The albumin–bilirubin grade was determined to evaluate liver function.²⁶ Pulmonary metastases were diagnosed by two experienced radiologists as new lung nodules showing enhancement on computed tomography (CT) or positron emission tomography/CT with primary HCC in the liver or pathologically confirmed pulmonary metastases of HCC.

Lenvatinib treatment

Patients with body weight ⩾60 kg were prescribed 12 mg Lenvatinib, and those with body weight <60 kg were prescribed 8 mg Lenvatinib. Lenvatinib was administered orally once daily. The drug dose was reduced, or treatment was interrupted in patients who developed grade ⩾3 severe adverse events (AEs) or unacceptable grade 2 drug-related AEs.

Ablation procedure

Ablation therapy was conducted 3 months after Lenvatinib administration. The individualized ablation scheme, including ablation modality (MWA, RFA, and cryoablation), frequency, duration, and power output, was determined by a multidisciplinary team based on the size and location of each tumor, its relationship with the surrounding organs, and patient preference. RFA was used for metastases <2 cm in diameter distant from pulmonary vessels. MWA was preferred for metastases >2 cm in diameter because of the broader thermal field. Cryoablation was used for tumors near the chest wall to minimize pleural and thoracic nerve stimulation. The optimal route for ablation needle insertion was determined using CT. Single metastases typically required one ablation session, while multiple metastases required several rounds of ablation, with a recommended interval of 3–4 weeks between sessions.

CT measurements of the ablation zone were obtained 3–4 weeks after ablation and served as the baseline for subsequent imaging follow-up. Stability, decreased size without enhancement, or disappearance of ablated lesions on CT indicated complete ablation. The use of TACE or HAIC was determined based on liver function, tumor status, clinician recommendation, and patient preference. Details of the TACE and HAIC procedures are provided in the Supplemental Materials.

Follow-up assessment

The follow-up period ended on June 30, 2024. Tumor assessments were performed every 4 weeks until radiological progression. Intrahepatic tumor status at 3 months was evaluated using mRECIST,²³ and tumor response at 6 months was assessed using RECIST v1.1.²⁴ Ablated pulmonary metastases in the Ablation + Len group were excluded from the 6-month tumor response evaluation. CR was defined as the disappearance of all intratumoral arterial enhancement. PR was defined as a reduction in the diameter of target tumors by ⩾30%. Progressive disease (PD) was defined as an increase in the total diameter of target tumors by ⩾20% or the appearance of new lesions. Stable disease (SD) was defined as the absence of CR and PR. The objective response rate (ORR) was the sum of CR and PR, and the disease control rate (DCR) was the sum of CR, PR, and SD.

Statistical analysis

Categorical variables were compared using Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate, and presented as proportions and percentages. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed using a multivariate logistic regression model, incorporating tumor size, tumor number, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels, PVTT, hepatic vein tumor thrombus (HVTT), metastasis distribution, number and size of metastases, presence of portal hypertension, and antiviral therapy status. Patients were matched in a 1:1 ratio using the nearest neighbor method with a caliber of 0.05, as previously described.^27,28 The standardized mean difference (SMD) was <0.10, indicating adequate balance. Variables with a significance level of p ⩽ 0.100 in the univariate analyses were included in the multivariate Cox regression models. To address potential bias in baseline characteristics, inverse probability treatment weighting (IPTW) was conducted.^29,30 The balance of these characteristics was examined using SMD.

For the adjusted multivariate analysis, the adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for PFS and OS was calculated using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, with 95% confidence interval (CI) for the risk of events. Confounders were progressively adjusted to assess robustness and identify potential risk factors. The variables included tumor size, tumor number, locoregional therapy, intrahepatic tumor status, AFP level, PVTT type, metastasis distribution, metastasis number, and metastasis size. The selection of confounders was based on patient characteristics prior to treatment and expert considerations. A post hoc calculation revealed that a power of >80% was achieved for the primary outcome.

Survival curves for OS and PFS were constructed using the Kaplan–Meier method with the log-rank test. All statistical tests were two-sided, and p < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 22.0; SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), R software (version 4.1.3; http://www.r-project.org), and PASS software (version 2021, V21.0.3; NCSS, LLC, Kaysville, USA). Detailed statistical analyses are provided in the Supplemental Materials.

Results

Baseline characteristics

The results are reported in compliance with the STROBE recommendations for quality assurance. A flowchart of patient selection is shown in Figure 1. Of the 1268 patients with advanced HCC who received Lenvatinib, 384 patients with PO met the inclusion criteria and were eligible for enrollment, including 202 patients in the Len group and 182 in the Ablation + Len group. The median duration of follow-up was 23.0 (5.5–48.0) months in the Len group and 34.5 (4.5–52.0) months in the Ablation + Len group. In the entire cohort, 80, 66, and 36 patients in the Ablation + Len group underwent RFA, MWA, and cryoablation, respectively. All patients in the Ablation + Len group achieved complete ablation of PO. The Ablation + Len group had a higher proportion of patients with ⩽2 metastases (47.8% vs 36.1%, p = 0.021) and metastases size <2 cm (52.7% vs 40.6%, p = 0.016) than the Len group (Table 1). PSM generated 159 pairs of patients with balanced characteristics between the two groups. The SMD was well-balanced after IPTW (all less than 0.1; Figure S1). Table S1 shows the baseline comparisons between the censored and enrolled cases. Table S2 presents the baseline characteristics of the IPTW cohort. The three ablation modalities did not significantly affect PFS or OS in the entire cohort or PSM cohort (Figure S2). TACE and HAIC had no significant effect on PFS or OS in the Len (Figure S3) or Ablation + Len group (Figure S4) in the entire or PSM cohort.

Figure 1.

The flow chart of patients’ selection.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of patients in Len and Ablation + Len groups.

Characteristics	Entire cohort				PSM cohort
	Len	Ablation + Len	p Value	SMD	Len	Ablation +Len	p Value	SMD
	(n = 202)	(n = 182)	p Value	SMD	(n = 159)	(n = 159)	p Value	SMD
Age			0.897	0.013			0.799	0.028
⩽60	151 (74.8)	135 (74.2)			116 (73.0)	118 (74.2)
>60	51 (25.2)	47 (25.8)			43 (27.0)	41 (25.8)
Sex			0.997	<0.001			0.701	0.043
Male	182 (90.1)	164 (90.1)			143 (89.9)	145 (91.2)
Female	20 (9.9)	18 (9.9)			16 (10.1)	14 (8.8)
ALT, U/L			0.134	0.153			0.116	0.176
⩽40	112 (55.4)	87 (47.8)			89 (56.0)	74 (46.5)
>40	90 (44.6)	95 (52.2)			70 (44.0)	85 (53.5)
AST, U/L			0.276	0.111			0.910	0.063
⩽40	81 (40.1)	83 (45.6)			73 (45.9)	74 (46.5)
>40	121 (59.9)	99 (54.4)			86 (54.1)	85 (53.5)
Tumor size in liver, cm			0.177	0.138			0.907	0.013
⩽10	122 (60.4)	122 (67.0)			101 (63.5)	102 (64.2)
>10	80 (39.6)	60 (33.0)			58 (36.5)	57 (35.8)
Tumor number in liver			0.897	0.013			0.649	0.051
⩽3	79 (39.1)	70 (38.5)			68 (42.8)	64 (40.3)
>3	123 (60.9)	112 (61.5)			91 (57.2)	95 (59.7)
Locoregional therapy			0.685	0.079			0.338	0.081
Absent	43 (21.3)	33 (18.1)			31 (19.4)	26 (16.4)
Present	159 (78.7)	149 (81.9)			128 (80.6)	133 (83.6)
AFP, ng/mL			0.277	0.111			0.492	0.077
⩽400	111 (55.0)	110 (60.4)			93 (58.5)	99 (62.3)
>400	91 (45.0)	72 (39.6)			66 (41.5)	60 (37.7)
PVTT type			0.147	0.237			0.472	0.179
No	110 (54.5)	95 (52.2)			93 (58.5)	91 (57.2)
I	18 (8.9)	30 (16.5)			18 (11.3)	22 (13.8)
II	37 (18.3)	30 (16.5)			19 (11.9)	25 (15.7)
III	37 (18.3)	27 (14.8)			29 (18.2)	21 (13.2)
HVTT			0.150	0.147			0.259	0.126
No	190 (94.1)	164 (90.1)			151 (95.0)	146 (91.8)
Yes	12 (5.9)	18 (9.9)			8 (5.0)	13 (8.2)
Child–Pugh class			0.495	0.092			0.182	0.136
A	171 (84.7)	149 (81.7)			136 (85.5)	127 (79.9)
B	31 (15.3)	33 (18.3)			23 (14.5)	32 (20.1)
ALBI grade			0.400	0.139			0.219	0.066
Grade 1	88 (43.6)	73 (40.1)			71 (44.7)	61 (38.4)
Grade 2	103 (51.0)	103 (56.6)			79 (49.7)	93 (58.5)
Grade 3	11 (5.4)	6 (3.3)			9 (5.7)	5 (3.1)
Metastases distribution			0.731	0.035			0.574	0.063
Unilateral	103 (51.0)	96 (52.7)			86 (54.1)	81 (50.9)
Bilateral	99 (49.0)	86 (47.3)			73 (45.9)	78 (49.1)
Metastases number			0.021	0.238			1.000	<0.001
1–2	73 (36.1)	87 (47.8)			67 (42.1)	67 (42.1)
3–5	129 (63.9)	95 (52.2)			92 (57.9)	92 (57.9)
Metastases size			0.017	0.245			0.911	0.013
<2 cm	82 (40.6)	96 (52.7)			74 (46.5)	75 (47.2)
2–3 cm	120 (59.4)	86 (47.3)			85 (53.5)	84 (52.8)
Hepatitis			0.440	0.079			0.221	0.137
No	25 (12.4)	18 (9.9)			22 (13.8)	15 (9.4)
Yes	177 (87.6)	164 (90.1)			137 (86.2)	144 (90.6)
HBV DNA			0.944	0.007			0.787	0.030
Negative	157 (77.7)	142 (78.0)			123 (77.4)	125 (78.6)
Positive	45 (22.3)	40 (22.0)			36 (22.6)	34 (21.4)
Anti-virus			0.708	0.038			1.000	<0.001
No	38 (18.8)	37 (20.3)			29 (18.2)	29 (18.2)
Yes	164 (81.2)	145 (79.7)			130 (81.8)	130 (81.8)
Cirrhosis			0.914	0.011			0.822	0.025
No	101 (50.0)	90 (49.5)			81 (50.9)	83 (52.2)
Yes	101 (50.0)	92 (50.5)			78 (49.1)	76 (47.8)
Portal hypertension			0.097	0.169			1.000	<0.001
No	167 (82.7)	138 (75.8)			128 (80.5)	128 (80.5)
Yes	35 (17.3)	44 (24.2)			31 (19.5)	31 (19.5)

AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; ALBI, albumin-bilirubin; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; HBV DNA, hepatitis B virus deoxyribonucleic acid; HVTT, hepatic vein tumor thrombus; Len, Lenvatinib; PVTT, portal vein tumor thrombus; SMD, standard mean difference.

Efficacy evaluation

The status of intrahepatic tumors was evaluated at 3 months using the mRECIST criteria. The PR and SD status of intrahepatic tumors were not significantly different between the two groups in the entire (p = 0.184), PSM (p = 0.715), or IPTW (p = 0.136) cohort (Table 2). At the 6-month evaluation, PO was completely ablated in the Ablation + Len group. In the PSM cohort, the ORR and DCR were 64.8% and 84.9% in the Len group and 74.8% and 89.7% in the Ablation + Len group, respectively. The proportions of CR, PR, SD, and PD did not differ significantly between the two groups in the entire (p = 0.002), PSM (p = 0.037), or IPTW (p = 0.018) cohort (Table 2).

Table 2.

Efficacy outcomes in Ablation + Len and Len groups.

Evaluation		Entire cohort			PSM cohort			IPTW cohort
		Len	Ablation + Len	p Value	Len	Ablation + Len	p value	Len	Ablation + Len	p Value
		(n = 202)	(n = 182)	p Value	(n = 159)	(n = 159)	p value	(n = 383)	(n = 382)	p Value
Status of intrahepatic tumors at 3-month	PR	128 (63.4)	127 (69.8)	0.184	112 (70.4)	109 (68.6)	0.715	254 (66.3)	255 (66.8)	0.136
	SD	74 (36.6)	55 (30.2)		47 (29.6)	50 (31.4)		129 (33.7)	127 (33.2)
6-Month evaluation	CR	1 (0.5)	10 (5.5)	0.002	1 (0.6)	8 (5.0)	0.037	2 (0.5)	19 (5.0)	0.018
	PR	112 (55.4)	115 (63.2)		102 (64.2)	111 (69.8)		224 (58.5)	235 (61.5)
	SD	33 (16.3)	27 (14.8)		32 (20.1)	23 (14.5)		57 (14.9)	61 (16.0)
	PD	56 (27.7)	30 (16.5)		24 (15.1)	17 (10.7)		100 (26.1)	67 (17.5)

The status of intrahepatic tumors at 3-month were evaluated according to mRECIST. The 6-month evaluation of all tumors was assessed according to the RECIST v 1.1 criteria.

CR, complete response; IPTW, inverse probability treatment weighting; Len, Lenvatinib; Len, Lenvatinib; PD, progressive disease; PR, partial response; PSM, Propensity score matching; SD, stable disease.

PFS in the Len and Ablation + Len groups

In the entire cohort, progression occurred in 175 of the 202 patients (86.6%) in the Len group and 143 of the 182 patients (78.6%) in the Ablation + Len group. The number of progression events was significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.037). The median PFS was 10.5 ± 0.6 months (95% CI, 9.3–11.7) in the Len group and 13.0 ± 0.7 months (95% CI, 11.7–14.3) in the Ablation + Len group. The 6-, 12-, and 24-month PFS rates were 85.6%, 38.4%, and 5.4% in the Len group and 89.0%, 56.4%, and 18.1% in the Ablation + Len group, respectively (Table S3). In the PSM cohort, the 6-, 12-, and 24-month PFS rates were 91.8%, 37.1%, and 8.1% in the Len group and 95.0%, 65.2%, and 19.1% in the Ablation + Len group, respectively. PFS was significantly better in the Ablation + Len group than in the Len group in the entire (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49–0.78; p < 0.001; Figure 2(a)), PSM (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49–0.80, p < 0.001; Figure 2(b)), and IPTW (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.49–0.81, p < 0.001) cohorts (Figure 2(c)).

Figure 2.

Survival curves of PFS in the entire (a) and PSM (b) and IPTW (c) cohorts. Survival curves of OS in the entire (d) and PSM (e) and IPTW (f) cohorts.

Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses of the PSM cohort revealed that Lenvatinib therapy (HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.25–2.09; p < 0.001), tumor number >3 (HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.04–1.79; p = 0.026), absence of locoregional therapy (HR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.18–2.31; p = 0.004), intrahepatic tumors in SD status (HR, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.99–3.57; p < 0.001), and PVTT type III (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.14–2.46; p = 0.009) were risk factors associated with poorer PFS (Table 3). Stratified analysis of PFS demonstrated that Ablation + Len outperformed Len significantly across most variables (Figure S5).

Table 3.

Univariate and multivariate analysis of prognostic factors for PFS in PSM cohort.

Variables	Univariate analysis		Multivariate analysis
Variables	HR (95% CI)	p Value	HR (95% CI)	p Value
Treatment type
Len vs Ablation + Len	1.60 (1.24–2.06)	<0.001	1.62 (1.25–2.09)	<0.001
Age
>60 vs ⩽60	1.17 (0.88–1.55)	0.276
Sex
Male vs female	1.28 (0.83–1.96)	0.267
ALT, U/L
>40 vs ⩽40	0.95 (0.74–1.22)	0.684
AST, U/L
>40 vs ⩽40	1.31 (1.02–1.68)	0.036	1.19 (0.91–1.56)	0.196
Tumor size in liver, cm
>10 vs ⩽10	1.13 (0.88–1.46)	0.334
Tumor number in liver
>3 vs ⩽3	1.68 (1.30–2.16)	<0.001	1.36 (1.04–1.79)	0.026
Locoregional therapy
Absent vs present	1.79 (1.30–2.46)	<0.001	1.65 (1.18–2.31)	0.004
Status of intrahepatic tumors
SD vs PR	2.74 (2.10–3.59)	<0.001	2.66 (1.99–3.57)	<0.001
AFP, ng/mL
>400 vs ⩽400	1.28 (0.99–1.65)	0.053	1.28 (0.97–1.67)	0.077
PVTT type
No	Reference		Reference
I	1.21 (0.82–1.79)	0.338	1.06 (0.71–1.57)	0.779
II	1.25 (0.87–1.82)	0.223	1.16 (0.78–1.71)	0.467
III	1.88 (1.34–2.64)	<0.001	1.67 (1.14–2.46)	0.009
HVTT
Yes vs No	1.21 (0.72–2.05)	0.468
Child–Pugh class
B vs A	1.18 (0.81–1.31)	0.376
ALBI grade
Grade 1	Reference		Reference
Grade 2	1.26 (0.97–1.63)	0.079	1.27 (0.97–1.66)	0.078
Grade 3	1.42 (0.76–2.66)	0.271	1.1 (0.58–2.1)	0.768
Metastases distribution
Bilateral vs unilateral	1.08 (0.84–1.38)	0.549
Metastases number
3–5 vs 1–2	1.39 (1.08–1.78)	0.011	1.08 (0.79–1.48)	0.615
Metastases size
<2 vs 2–3 cm	1.39 (1.09–1.79)	0.009	1.15 (0.85–1.55)	0.368
HBV DNA, IU/mL
Negative vs positive	1.16 (0.87–1.55)	0.318
Anti-virus
No vs yes	1.31 (1.23–1.53)	<0.001	1.38 (0.99–1.91)	0.053
Cirrhosis
Yes vs no	1.05 (0.82–1.35)	0.695
Portal hypertension
Yes vs no	1.40 (1.03–1.91)	0.031	0.89 (0.63–1.25)	0.490

AFP, alpha-fetoprotein; ALBI, albumin-bilirubin; ALT, alanine aminotransferase; AST, aspartate aminotransferase; HBV DNA, hepatitis B virus deoxyribonucleic acid; HR, hazard ratio; HVTT, hepatic vein tumor thrombus; Len, Lenvatinib; PR, partial response; PVTT, portal vein tumor thrombus; SD, stable disease.

OS analysis in the Len and Ablation + Len groups

In the entire cohort, 99 of the 202 patients (49.0%) in the Len group and 71 of the 182 patients (39.0%) in the Ablation + Len group experienced cancer-related death (p = 0.049). The median OS was 23.0 ± 1.2 months (95% CI, 20.7–25.3) in the Len group and 31.3 ± 1.2 months (95% CI, 28.9–33.7) in the Ablation + Len group. In the entire cohort, the 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS rates were 86.3%, 47.5%, and 19.0% in the Len group and 91.5%, 65.2%, and 26.2% in the Ablation + Len group, respectively (Table S4). In the PSM cohort, the corresponding OS rates were 89.8%, 55.8%, and 8.2% in the Len group and 97.4%, 64.2%, and 27.7% in the Ablation + Len group. OS was significantly longer in the Ablation + Len group than in the Len group in the entire (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.45–0.83; p = 0.001; Figure 2(d)), PSM (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.42–0.86; p = 0.006; Figure 2(e)), and IPTW (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44–0.85; p = 0.001) cohorts (Figure 2(f)). The univariate and multivariate analyses of OS after PSM are shown in Table S5. A stratified analysis of OS revealed that Ablation + Len outperformed Len significantly across most variables (Figure S6).

Sensitivity analysis

After stepwise adjustment for confounders in PFS analysis, the final adjusted HR from the multivariate analysis was 0.64 (95% CI, 0.51–0.82; Table S6). The multivariate analysis of PFS using the PSM cohort yielded an adjusted HR of 0.60 (95% CI, 0.46–0.77), and the multivariate analysis of the IPTW cohort yielded an adjusted HR of 0.68 (95% CI, 0.53–0.87; Table S7). After stepwise adjustment of variables in OS analysis, the adjusted HR from the multivariate analysis was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.50–0.96; Table S6). The multivariate analysis of OS using the PSM cohort yielded an adjusted HR of 0.56 (95% CI, 0.38–0.81), and the multivariate analysis of OS using the IPTW cohort yielded an adjusted HR of 0.65 (95% CI, 0.46–0.93; Table S7). The PFS with a power of 0.9960 and the OS with a power of 0.9926 imply sufficient reliability (Table S8).

Subgroup analysis of the effects of intrahepatic tumor status on prognosis

The PSM cohort included 221 patients with PR and 97 patients with SD (Table 3). PFS (HR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.26–0.44; p < 0.001; Figure 3(a)) and OS (HR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.14–0.31; p < 0.001) were significantly different between the SD and PR groups (Figure 3(b)). In patients with SD status, no significant difference was detected in PFS (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.51–1.17; p = 0.230; Figure 3(c)) or OS (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.37–1.03; p = 0.071; Figure 3(d)) between the Len and Ablation + Len groups. Conversely, in patients with PR status, PFS (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37–0.69; p < 0.001; Figure 3(e)) and OS (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.34–0.95; p = 0.030; Figure 3(f)) were significantly different between the two groups.

Figure 3.

Survival curves of PFS (a) and OS (b) for hepatic tumors in SD and PR status in the PSM cohort. Survival curves of PFS (c) and OS (d) between Len and Ablation + Len groups in SD status. Survival curves of PFS (e) and OS (f) between Len and Ablation + Len groups in PR status.

Progression patterns in the Len and Ablation + Len groups

As shown in Table S9, patients in the Ablation + Len group showed a higher proportion of type 2 progression and a lower proportion of type 1 progression compared with the Len group before and after PSM. Progression patterns were significantly different between the Len and Ablation + Len groups in the entire (p = 0.005) and PSM (p = 0.017) cohorts. Analysis of post-progression survival (post-OS) revealed significant differences in post-OS (both p < 0.001) among the three types of progression pattern in the entire (p < 0.001, Figure 4(a)) and PSM (p < 0.001, Figure 4(b)) cohorts. Specifically, the type 2 progression pattern (the liver-only type) had the best post-OS among the three types. No significant difference in post-OS was detected between the two groups in the entire (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.87–1.63; p = 0.500) and PSM (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.75–1.53; p = 0.900) cohorts (Figure S7). Thus, ablation of oligometastasis mainly prolonged OS by extending PFS.

Figure 4.

Survival curves of post-progression survival in entire cohort (a) and PSM cohort (b) of three progression patterns. Type 1 was defined as progression on lung or lung associated with any other organs. Type 2 was defined as progression on liver only. Type 3 was defined as liver associated with other non-lung organs or just other non-lung organs (such as bone, lymph nodule, or paranephros).

Treatment-related AEs

The main AEs are listed in Table S10. Most patients experienced AEs. Patients with grades 1–2 AEs received symptomatic treatment or dose reduction to alleviate symptoms. For grades 3–4 AEs, treatment was temporarily discontinued until the AEs were alleviated or resolved. Among patients in the Ablation + Len group, the most common AEs were related to chest pain, particularly for tumors near the chest wall. Analgesia was administered before ablation. Seven cases (3.8%) of severe pneumothorax occurred, necessitating closed drainage of the pleural cavity. A total of 64 patients with Child–Pugh class B were included in our cohort. These patients took liver-protecting medicine after Lenvatinib administration. Four patients in the Len group and five in the Ablation + Len group developed severe liver toxicities (elevated alanine transaminase, elevated aspartate transaminase, and hyperbilirubinemia) during treatment; these nine patients had Child–Pugh class B and required dose reductions/interruptions.

Discussion

Systemic therapy is currently recommended for advanced HCC.³¹ However, guidelines from the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases,³² American Society of Clinical Oncology,³³ National Comprehensive Cancer Network,³⁴ European Society for Medical Oncology,³⁵ and European Association for the Study of the Liver^35,36 do not specifically address PO. The lung is a common site of metastasis in patients with HCC, and limited pulmonary metastases are relatively common.^2,37 However, the treatment and prognosis of PO have not been thoroughly studied, warranting further exploration to obtain clinical evidence.

Ablation therapy is a relatively painless and well-tolerated option for pulmonary metastases.^38–40 However, strong clinical evidence is required to establish the feasibility of this technique for treating PO. In this study, we demonstrated that the PFS and OS were significantly longer in the Ablation + Len group than in the Len group, possibly because the first ablation can precisely inactivate oligometastasis, substantially reducing local tumor burden and delaying disease progression.⁴¹ The second ablation combined with systemic therapy may reduce tumor heterogeneity and lower the risk of drug resistance.⁴² We hypothesize that the ablation of pulmonary metastases reduced Lenvatinib resistance.

The positive outcomes after ablation of PO support guidelines recommending ablation of oligometastasis when primary tumors are under effective control. We also demonstrated that the three ablation modalities showed no survival difference in the Ablation + Len group. Analysis of survival difference between subgroups revealed no difference in OS and PFS between the Len and Ablation + Len groups when intrahepatic tumors were in SD status. However, significant differences in OS and PFS were noted in the PR cohort. Thus, primary tumors must be effectively controlled to benefit from the ablation of PO. Notably, most patients with HCC die of liver-related complications rather than metastases, primarily because of the high intrahepatic tumor burden.⁴³ Thus, liver disease should be carefully assessed when considering the ablation of metastases, as liver disease is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality.^44,45

No difference in intrahepatic tumor status was detected between the two groups before ablation. However, 6 months after ablation, the Ablation + Len group exhibited superior control efficacy than the Len group, indicating that ablation of metastases contributed significantly to improving tumor control. Furthermore, patients in the Ablation + Len group experienced a higher proportion of liver-only progression and a lower proportion of lung or lung-related progression. Locoregional therapy was effective for liver-only progression, enhancing tumor control and resulting in the best post-OS outcome among the three progression types. Pneumothorax was the most common AE associated with ablation of pulmonary metastases. However, it resolved spontaneously in most cases. The second most common AE was cough, which typically resolved without treatment. We did not observe any clinical deterioration in respiratory function, although spirometry was not performed after ablation.

This study had several limitations. First, it was a retrospective study, which implies unavoidable bias among patients receiving the two treatments. Although we conducted multicenter studies to obtain more comprehensive and reliable results, randomized controlled trials are needed to fully evaluate the efficacy of ablation for PO. Second, we did not include atezolizumab and bevacizumab combination therapy, which has been the first-line treatment for advanced HCC since 2020, due to the higher costs of these drugs compared with Lenvatinib in China. Third, this study recruited patients between January 2018 and June 2022 from six hospitals, and many patients died during the follow-up. The post-progression treatment modality, hepatic functional reserve parameters, and performance status at progression were not recorded. In addition, the generalizability of the results to the populations of Western countries requires further verification.

Conclusion

Our study demonstrated that combining the ablation of PO with Lenvatinib prolonged OS and PFS compared with Lenvatinib alone. In the subgroup analyses, patients did not achieve survival benefits from metastasis ablation when the primary tumors were in SD status, but both OS and PFS improved significantly when the primary tumors were in PR status. In addition, the Ablation + Len group showed a higher proportion of liver-only progression.

Supplemental Material

sj-doc-1-tam-10.1177_17588359261432042 – Supplemental material for Ablation of pulmonary oligometastasis in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with Lenvatinib: a retrospective multicenter study

Supplemental material, sj-doc-1-tam-10.1177_17588359261432042 for Ablation of pulmonary oligometastasis in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with Lenvatinib: a retrospective multicenter study by Ye Li, Yigong Ren, Hui Li, Ruixia Li, Hongji You, Yanyang Zhang, Wei Wang, Mingyu Liu, Zhimei Huang, Qunfang Zhou and Feng Duan in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-tam-10.1177_17588359261432042 – Supplemental material for Ablation of pulmonary oligometastasis in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with Lenvatinib: a retrospective multicenter study

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-tam-10.1177_17588359261432042 for Ablation of pulmonary oligometastasis in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with Lenvatinib: a retrospective multicenter study by Ye Li, Yigong Ren, Hui Li, Ruixia Li, Hongji You, Yanyang Zhang, Wei Wang, Mingyu Liu, Zhimei Huang, Qunfang Zhou and Feng Duan in Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to appreciate all patients and their families for their cooperation. In addition, we are thankful to all the research staff and co-investigators involved in this investigation.

Declarations

ORCID iD

Qunfang Zhou

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Takahashi

Ikeda

Nakajima

, et al. Prognostic analysis of surgical resection for pulmonary metastasis from hepatocellular carcinoma. World J Surg 2016; 40: 2178–2185.

Woo

Rhee

Yoo

, et al. Lung and lymph node metastases from hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of pathological aspects. Liver Int 2022; 42: 199–209.

Sangro

Sarobe

Hervás-Stubbs

, et al. Advances in immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 18: 525–543.

Shultz

Filippi

Thariat

, et al. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for pulmonary oligometastases and oligometastatic lung cancer. J Thorac Oncol 2014; 9: 1426–1433.

Altayar

O’Shea

, et al. AGA clinical practice guideline on systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2022; 162: 920–934.

Xie

Shi

Zhou

, et al. Clinical practice guidelines and real-life practice in hepatocellular carcinoma: a Chinese perspective. Clin Mol Hepatol 2023; 29: 206–216.

Turajlic

Litchfield

, et al. Tracking cancer evolution reveals constrained routes to metastases: TRACERx renal. Cell 2018; 173: 581–594.e12.

Abbosh

Birkbak

Wilson

, et al. Phylogenetic ctDNA analysis depicts early-stage lung cancer evolution. Nature 2017; 545: 446–451.

Haffner

Mosbruger

Esopi

, et al. Tracking the clonal origin of lethal prostate cancer. J Clin Invest 2013; 123: 4918–4922.

10.

Turajlic

Swanton

Metastasis as an evolutionary process. Science 2016; 352: 169–175.

11.

De Baère

Aupérin

Deschamps

, et al. Radiofrequency ablation is a valid treatment option for lung metastases: experience in 566 patients with 1037 metastases. Ann Oncol 2015; 26: 987–991.

12.

Baba

Watanabe

Yoshida

, et al. Radiofrequency ablation for pulmonary metastases from gastrointestinal cancers. Ann Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2014; 20: 99–105.

13.

Lyu

Kong

Pan

, et al. Survival benefits of computed tomography-guided thermal ablation for adrenal metastases from hepatocellular carcinoma. Int J Hyperthermia 2019; 36: 1003–1011.

14.

Rangamuwa

Leong

Weeden

, et al. Thermal ablation in non-small cell lung cancer: a review of treatment modalities and the evidence for combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Transl Lung Cancer Res 2021; 10: 2842–2857.

15.

Lubner

Brace

Hinshaw

, et al. Microwave tumor ablation: mechanism of action, clinical results, and devices. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2010; 21: S192–S203.

16.

Peng

Yang

, et al. Multicentre study of microwave ablation for pulmonary oligorecurrence after radical resection of non-small-cell lung cancer. Br J Cancer 2021; 125: 672–678.

17.

Delpla

de Baere

Varin

, et al. Role of thermal ablation in colorectal cancer lung metastases. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13: 908.

18.

Kim

, et al. Efficacy of local therapy for oligometastatic hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matched analysis. J Hepatocell Carcinoma 2021; 8: 35–44.

19.

Kudo

Finn

Qin

, et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2018; 391: 1163–1173.

20.

World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013; 310: 2191–2194.

21.

Von Elm

Altman

Egger

, et al. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 344–349.

22.

Heimbach

Kulik

Finn

, et al. AASLD guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2018; 67: 358–380.

23.

Llovet

Lencioni

mRECIST for HCC: performance and novel refinements. J Hepatol 2020; 72: 288–306.

24.

Schwartz

Litière

de Vries

, et al.RECIST 1.1-update and clarification: from the RECIST committee. Eur J Cancer 2016; 62: 132–137.

25.

Sun

Guo

, et al. Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus in China (2021 edition). Liver Cancer 2022; 11: 315–328.

26.

Demirtas

D’Alessio

Rimassa

, et al. ALBI grade: evidence for an improved model for liver functional estimation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. JHEP Rep 2021; 3: 100347.

27.

Wang

, et al. Tenofovir vs. Entecavir on prognosis of hepatitis B virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma after curative resection. J Gastroenterol 2022; 57: 185–198.

28.

Yuan

Yang

, et al. TACE-HAIC combined with targeted therapy and immunotherapy versus TACE alone for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumour thrombus: a propensity score matching study. Int J Surg 2023; 109: 1222–1230.

29.

Lee

Hsu

, et al. Daily aspirin associated with a reduced risk of hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: a population-based cohort study. EClinicalMedicine 2023; 61: 102065.

30.

Zeng

Tao

Dong

, et al. Impact of three-dimensional reconstruction visualization technology on short-term and long-term outcomes after hepatectomy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity-score-matched and inverse probability of treatment-weighted multicenter study. Int J Surg 2024; 110: 1663–1676.

31.

Huang

Yang

Chung

, et al. Targeted therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Signal Transduct Target Ther 2020; 5: 146.

32.

Singal

Llovet

Yarchoan

, et al. AASLD practice guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2023; 78: 1922–1965.

33.

Gordan

Kennedy

Abou-Alfa

, et al. Systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: ASCO guideline update. J Clin Oncol 2024; 42: 1830–1850.

34.

Benson

D’Angelica

Abbott

, et al. Hepatobiliary cancers, version 2.2021, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021; 19: 541–565.

35.

Vogel

Chan

Dawson

, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: ESMO clinical practice guideline for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2025; 36: 491–506.

36.

Cappuyns

Corbett

Yarchoan

, et al. Critical appraisal of guideline recommendations on systemic therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a review. JAMA Oncol 2024; 10(3): 395–404.

37.

Wang

Zhan

, et al. Clinical factors predictive of a better prognosis of pulmonary metastasectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Thorac Surg 2019; 108: 1685–1691.

38.

Mal

Domini

Wadhwa

, et al. Thermal ablation for primary and metastatic lung tumors: single-center analysis of peri-procedural and intermediate-term clinical outcomes. Clin Imaging 2023; 98: 11–15.

39.

Ghosn

Solomon

SB.

Current management of oligometastatic lung cancer and future perspectives: results of thermal ablation as a local ablative therapy. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13: 5202.

40.

Nezami

Khorshidi

Mansur

, et al. Primary and metastatic lung cancer: rationale, indications, and outcomes of thermal ablation. Clin Lung Cancer 2023; 24: 389–400.

41.

Lorber

Andor

Dietsche

, et al. Exploring the spatiotemporal genetic heterogeneity in metastatic lung adenocarcinoma using a nuclei flow-sorting approach. J Pathol 2019; 247: 199–213.

42.

Choi

Lee

Kim

, et al. Efficacy of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy in patients with oligometastatic hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase II study. J Hepatol 2024; 81: 84–92.

43.

Uchino

Tateishi

Shiina

, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma with extrahepatic metastasis: clinical features and prognostic factors. Cancer 2011; 117: 4475–4483.

44.

Brown

Tsilimigras

Ruff

, et al. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: a review. JAMA Surg 2023; 158: 410–420.

45.

Jung

Jang

You

, et al. Role of intrahepatic tumor control in the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and extrahepatic metastases. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2012; 27: 684–689.