[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-457307-105":59,"doc-detail-457307-en":134},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":127,"head_meta":129,"extra_data":131,"updated_unix":133},105,"en","lenvatinib-continuation-versus-regorafenib-in-treating-hepatocellular-carcinoma-after-lenvatinib-failure","Lenvatinib continuation versus regorafenib in treating hepatocellular carcinoma after lenvatinib failure","","Hepatocellular carcinoma is a major global health burden, and although lenvatinib is used as first-line therapy for advanced disease, the best sequential approach after treatment failure remains unclear. A retrospective analysis of 107 consecutive patients compared lenvatinib continuation as second-line therapy versus switching to regorafenib, assessing overall survival and multiple progression-free endpoints, alongside safety and prognostic factors for post-progression outcomes.",{"@graph":69,"@context":126},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/lenvatinib-continuation-versus-regorafenib-in-treating-hepatocellular-carcinoma-after-lenvatinib-failure/457307/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/lenvatinib-continuation-versus-regorafenib-in-treating-hepatocellular-carcinoma-after-lenvatinib-failure/457307.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Terk","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-08","2026-09-30",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118,122],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What treatment sequences were compared in this study?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The study compared continuing lenvatinib as second-line therapy versus switching to regorafenib after first-line lenvatinib progression or failure.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How were patients grouped for second-line treatment?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"Patients were divided into a regorafenib group (LEN-RG, 49 patients) and a lenvatinib continuation group (LEN-CON, 58 patients) based on their second-line treatment.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"Which outcome showed the most favorable effect for the lenvatinib continuation group?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"Post-progression survival (PPS) favored the lenvatinib continuation group, with a statistically significant difference reported (P=0.019), while other progression-free endpoints were not significantly different.",{"name":123,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":124},"What safety finding differed between the two groups?",{"text":125,"@type":113},"Adverse events were broadly similar between groups, but elevated ALT was reported more frequently in the regorafenib group.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":128,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":130,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":132,"site_id":62},457307,1791094716,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":135},{"doc_id":132,"user_id":136,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":137,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":138,"file_id":139,"file_url":140,"file_type":141,"file_size":142,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":143,"language":144,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":145,"faqs":146,"seo_title":147,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":148,"read_time":149,"preview_page_count":4},1099525198933,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","Original Article  \nLenvatinib continuation versus regorafenib in treating hepatocellular carcinoma after lenvatinib failure  \nTao Pan1\\#, Chenghao Zhao1\\#, Luwen Mu1\\#, Huan Liu1, Yangchao Tong2, Zhanwang Xiang1, Huzheng Yan1, Mingming Liu3, Mingsheng Huang1  \n1Department of Interventional Radiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China; 2Department of Interventional Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, Nanchang, China; 3Department of Radiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China  \nContributions: (I) Conception and design: M Huang, M Liu, C Zhao; (II) Administrative support: M Huang, M Liu, H Liu; (III) Provision of study materials or patients: M Huang, M Liu, T Pan, L Mu; (IV) Collection and assembly of data: Z Xiang, T Pan, H Liu, L Mu; (V) Data analysis and interpretation: H Yan, T Pan, H Liu, C Zhao, Y Tong; (VI) Manuscript writing: All authors; (VII) Final approval of manuscript: All authors.  \n\\#These authors contributed equally to this work.  \nCorrespondence to: Mingsheng Huang, MD; Huzheng Yan, MD. Department of Interventional Radiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, 600 Tianhe Road, Guangzhou 510630, China. Email: [huangmsh@mail.sysu.edu.cn](huangmsh@mail.sysu.edu.cn); [yanhzh8@mail.sysu.edu.cn](yanhzh8@mail.sysu.edu.cn); Mingming  \nLiu, MD. Department of Radiology, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, 600 Tianhe Road, Guangzhou 510630, China. Email: [liumm35@mail2.sysu.edu.cn](liumm35@mail2.sysu.edu.cn).  \nBackground: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a major global health burden. Despite lenvatinib’s established role as first-line therapy for advanced HCC, the optimal sequential strategy after its failure remains uncertain. This study compared the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib continuation versus  \nswitching to regorafenib following first-line lenvatinib progression.  \nMethods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on 107 consecutive HCC patients treated with lenvatinib.  \nPatients were divided into two groups based on their second-line treatment: the regorafenib group (LEN-RG, 49 patients) and the lenvatinib continuation group (LEN-CON, 58 patients) . Baseline characteristics were collected, and overall survival (OS), post-progression survival (PPS), total progression-free survival (TPFS),  \nand post-second-line progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed.  \nResults: The median OS for the LEN-CON group was 34.4 months [95% confidence interval (CI):  \n22.4–46.4], compared to 21.8 months (95% CI: 18.56–25.05) in the LEN-RG group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.64, 95% CI: 0.40–1.02, P=0 .058] . The median PPS was 25.87 months (95% CI: 15.35–36. 38) in the LENCON group, compared to 15.33 months (95% CI: 7.39–23.28) in the LEN-RG group (HR 0.58, 95% CI:  \n0.37–0.93, P=0.019) . No significant differences were observed between the groups in TPFS or Post-SecondLine PFS. Multivariate analysis identified Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), extrahepatic metastasis, combined programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) therapy, nodule number, and treatment strategy as independent prognostic factors for PPS. Subgroup analysis indicated clinical benefits in PPS for LEN-CON patients with ECOG 0, Child-Pugh A, male gender, combined PD-1 therapy, multiple tumors, and alphafetoprotein (AFP) ≤400 ng/mL. Common adverse events (AEs) were similar between the two groups, with  \nelevated ALT more frequent in the LEN-RG group.  \nConclusions: Continuing lenvatinib as second-line therapy after failure may offer sustained survival  \nbenefits and demonstrate favorable efficacy and safety in real-world clinical practice.  \nKeywords: Lenvatinib; regorafenib; hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); second-line therapy  \n© AME Publishing Company. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2026;16(1):64 | [https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims-2025-615](https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/qims-2025-615)  \nPage 2 of 11 Pan et al. Lenvatinib con","cbCaisJWUWBTYuhd","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaisJWUWBTYuhd","pdf",910706,11,"English","# Background\n# Methods\n# Results\n# Conclusions\n# Introduction","[{\"question\":\"What treatment sequences were compared in this study?\",\"answer\":\"The study compared continuing lenvatinib as second-line therapy versus switching to regorafenib after first-line lenvatinib progression or failure.\"},{\"question\":\"How were patients grouped for second-line treatment?\",\"answer\":\"Patients were divided into a regorafenib group (LEN-RG, 49 patients) and a lenvatinib continuation group (LEN-CON, 58 patients) based on their second-line treatment.\"},{\"question\":\"Which outcome showed the most favorable effect for the lenvatinib continuation group?\",\"answer\":\"Post-progression survival (PPS) favored the lenvatinib continuation group, with a statistically significant difference reported (P=0.019), while other progression-free endpoints were not significantly different.\"},{\"question\":\"What safety finding differed between the two groups?\",\"answer\":\"Adverse events were broadly similar between groups, but elevated ALT was reported more frequently in the regorafenib group.\"}]","Lenvatinib continuation versus regorafenib in treating hepatocellular carcinoma after lenvatinib failure | PDF",1790748837,28]