Search

The aim of any oncological treatment is not just to eliminate the tumour, but to maximise patient survival and quality of life. Since the liver has a vital function, any radical treatment that severely compromises liver function will result in a shortening of life expectancy, rather than a prolongation. Furthermore, even non-severe liver damage may prevent the delivery of further effective therapies. This is particularly important in the case of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), as it is associated with underlying cirrhosis in most patients – cirrhosis itself is not only a potentially lethal disease and independent prognostic factor in HCC, but it also makes liver function fragile. Accordingly, some information about liver dysfunction is included in most staging systems for HCC and can be used to guide the selection of treatments that the functional liver reserve can tolerate. Unfortunately, the prediction of functional damage to the liver in the case of antitumor treatments is very challenging and still suboptimal in any given patient. Moreover, while the assessment of functional reserve can now be used to avoid postoperative liver failure in the surgical setting, its use has been less well clarified for non-surgical therapies, which is of particular relevance today, as several lines of effective non-surgical treatments, including systemic therapies, have become available. The present article will a) critically review the implications of the assessment of liver functional reserve in patients with HCC, b) illustrate the available tools to assess liver functional reserve and c) discuss the role of functional assessment for each type of non-surgical therapy for HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2010, modified RECIST (mRECIST) criteria were proposed as a way of adapting the RECIST criteria to the particularities of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We intended to overcome some limitations of RECIST in measuring tumour shrinkage with local and systemic therapies, and also to refine the assessment of progression that could be misinterpreted with conventional RECIST 1.1, due to clinical events related to the natural progression of chronic liver disease (development of ascites, enlargement of lymph nodes, etc.). mRECIST has served its purpose since being adopted or included in clinical practice guidelines (European, American and Asian) for the management of HCC; it has also been instrumental for assessing response and time-to-event endpoints in several phase II and III investigations. Nowadays, mRECIST has become the standard tool for measurement of radiological endpoints at early/intermediate stages of HCC. At advanced stages, guidelines recommend both methods. mRECIST has been proven to capture higher objective response rates in tumours treated with molecular therapies and those responses have shown to be independently associated with better survival. With the advent of novel treatment approaches (i.e. immunotherapy) and combination therapies there is a need to further refine and clarify some concepts around the performance of mRECIST. Similarly, changes in the landscape of standard of care at advanced stages of the disease are pointing towards progression-free survival as a potential primary endpoint in some phase III investigations, as effective therapies applied beyond progression might mask overall survival results. Strict recommendations for adopting this endpoint have been reported. Overall, we review the performance of mRECIST during the last decade, incorporating novel clarifications and refinements in light of emerging challenges in the study and management of HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Around half of patients with HCC will receive systemic therapies during their life span. The pivotal positive sorafenib trial and regulatory approval in 2007 was followed by a decade of negative studies with drugs leading to marginal antitumoral efficacy, toxicity, or trials with a lack of enrichment strategies. This trend has changed over the last 2 years with several compounds, such as lenvatinib (in first-line) and regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab and nivolumab (in second-line), showing clinical benefit. These successes came at a cost of increasing the complexity of decision-making, and ultimately, impacting the design of future clinical trials. Nowadays, life expectancy with single active agents has surpassed the threshold of 1 year and sequential strategies have provided encouraging outcomes. Overall survival (OS) remains the main endpoint in phase III investigations, but as in other solid tumours, there is a clear need to define surrogate endpoints that both reliably recapitulate survival benefits and can be assessed before additional efficacious drugs are administered. A thorough analysis of 21 phase III trials published in advanced HCC demonstrated a moderate correlation between progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression (TTP) and OS (R = 0.84 and R = 0.83, respectively). Nonetheless, the significant differences in PFS identified in 7 phase III studies only correlated with differences in OS in 3 cases. In these cases, the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was ≤0.6. Thus, this threshold is herein proposed as a potential surrogate endpoint of OS in advanced HCC. Conversely, PFS with an HR between 0.6–0.7, despite significance, was not associated with better survival, and thus these magnitudes are considered uncertain surrogates. In the current review, we discuss the reasons for positive or negative phase III trials in advanced HCC, and the strengths and limitations of surrogate endpoints (PFS, TTP and objective response rate [ORR]) to predict survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]