Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common malignancy across the world. Alongside improvement in local approaches for early stages, the prognosis of patients with advanced disease remains poor. The tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib was the first drug approved for advanced HCC. During the past decade, this has been extensively explored in real-life settings, such as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 2, Child-Pugh B liver function, chronic kidney disease, HIV infection, transplant recipients and the elderly. After 10 years, the multikinase inhibitor lenvatinib was approved in first-line setting. The Phase III REFLECT trial established the non-inferiority of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib in terms of overall survival, meanwhile exploratory analysis suggests a potential benefit over sorafenib for patients with HBV chronic infection and positive alpha-fetoprotein value. Experience with lenvatinib for patients not matching the REFLECT trial criteria remains promising but still retrospective. Indeed, the treatment sequence after lenvatinib still remains a crucial issue, considering that standard second-line options were tested only in patients who progressed to sorafenib. Overall, the choice between lenvatinib and sorafenib should take into account key selection criteria from randomized trials, evidence to date in special clinical situations, the physician's experience and patient's preference. Fast approval of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for advanced HCC brought an additional element in this scenario. Undoubtedly, lenvatinib and sorafenib remain available options for patients who are not suitable or those progressed to combination immunotherapy. It is conceivable that new systemic options will contribute to design a new treatment algorithm for HCC in the near future. Meanwhile, prospective studies and biomarker analysis are needed to help physicians in the choice between lenvatinib and sorafenib.