Search

The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (AB) has been a game changer in the first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and is now incorporated into most international guidelines, alongside lenvatinib and sorafenib.1 In the landmark ImBRAVE 150 trial, atezolizumab with bevacizumab improved median overall survival by 9.6 months compared to sorafenib with an HR of 0.58 ( I p i < 0.001).2 In updated results, after a median follow-up of 15.6 months, the median OS with the combination was an impressive 19.2 months, the longest OS we have seen in any phase 3 advanced HCC trial and this was accompanied by an overall response rate of 30%, more than double that of sorafenib.3 More recently, data from the COSMIC-312 trial were presented, providing the combination of atezolizumab and cabozantinib as another potential option for first-line HCC treatment.4 The combination of tremelimumab and durvalumab has also been shown to increase survival over sorafenib in the HIMALAYA trial.5 Further combination therapies being tested in ongoing phase 3 trials will likely provide even more treatment options for this group of patients, making the decision on how to choose or sequence these systemic therapies in advanced HCC more complex. Further real-world studies are needed in different populations to understand the efficacy in patients who may not fit trial criteria.8 With increasing treatment options for advanced HCC, the question of how best to choose becomes more difficult. Phase 3 randomized, open-label, multicenter study of tremelimumab (T) and durvalumab (D) as first-line therapy in patients (pts) with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC): HIMALAYA. [Extracted from the article]

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a heterogeneous disease that remains highly prevalent in many Asian countries and is the second most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Significant differences exist between Eastern and Western populations on many key aspects of HCC, contributing to the potential different treatment outcomes and challenges of clinical trial design and data interpretation. In this review, the authors compare HCC in Asia versus the West and highlight 1) differences in terms of epidemiology and trends and their correlation with etiology, 2) differences in genetics and how they relate to underlying etiology, 3) differences in treatment approaches based on existing guidelines and consensus statements, and 4) differences in clinical outcomes for Asian versus non-Asian patients with HCC in clinical trials and the implications for future clinical trial design. Cancer 2016;122:3430-3446. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: For years, the systemic therapies sorafenib and lenvatinib have represented standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The recent approval of atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab heralded the arrival of immunotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced HCC, and the field is growing, with other combination immunotherapies under investigation. Focusing on the Asia–Pacific region, where drug availability and reimbursement systems differ widely, this article reviews the evolving treatment landscape and summarises the authors' expert opinion on therapeutic decision-making to optimise outcomes in advanced HCC. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth most common driver of cancer-related death globally, with an estimated 72% of cases in Asia. For more than a decade, first-line systemic treatments for advanced or unresectable HCC were limited to the multi-targeted kinase inhibitors sorafenib and, more recently, lenvatinib. Now, treatment options have expanded to include immunotherapy, as exemplified by the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) atezolizumab combined with the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab. Additional combinations of ICIs with kinase inhibitors, other ICIs, or antiangiogenic agents are under investigation, further supporting the new era of immunotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced or unresectable HCC. We describe this evolving landscape and provide expert opinion on therapeutic best practices in the Asia–Pacific region, where different costs of, and patient access to, treatment are a challenge. With the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab likely to become the clinical standard of care, optimising treatment sequence and ensuring patient access to newer therapies remain priorities. Cost containment and treatment sequencing may be facilitated by characterisation of predictive positive and negative biomarkers. With these considerations in mind, this review and expert opinion focused on advanced HCC in the Asia–Pacific region offers perspectives of multiple stakeholders, including physicians, payer systems, and patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately 20 % of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients diagnosed in the early stages may benefit from potentially curative ablative therapies such as surgical resection, transplantation or radiofrequency ablation. For patients not eligible for such options, prognosis is poor. Sorafenib and Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT) are clinically proven treatment options in patients with unresectable HCC, and this study aims to assess overall survival following either SIRT or Sorafenib therapy for locally advanced HCC patients.Methods: This investigator-initiated, multi-centre, open-label, randomized, controlled trial will enrol 360 patients with locally advanced HCC, as defined by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or stage C, without distant metastases, and which is not amenable to immediate curative treatment. Exclusion criteria include previous systemic therapy, metastatic disease, complete occlusion of the main portal vein, or a Child-Pugh score of >7. Eligible patients will be randomised 1:1 and stratified by centre and presence or absence of portal vein thrombosis to receive either a single administration of SIRT using yttrium-90 resin microspheres (SIR-Spheres®, Sirtex Medical Limited, Sydney, Australia) targeted at HCC in the liver by the trans-arterial route or continuous oral Sorafenib (Nexavar®, Bayer Pharma AG, Berlin, Germany) at a dose of 400 mg twice daily until disease progression, no further response, complete regression or unacceptable toxicity. Patients for both the Sorafenib and SIRT arms will be followed-up every 4 weeks for the first 3 months and 12 weekly thereafter. Overall survival is the primary endpoint, assessed for the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints are tumour response rate, time-to-tumour progression, progression free survival, quality of life and down-staging to receive potentially curative therapy.Discussion: Definitive data comparing these two therapies will help to determine clinical practice in the large group of patients with locally advanced HCC and improve outcomes for such patients.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT01135056 , first received 24, May 2010. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and antivascular endothelial growth factor (anti‐VEGF) is currently the first line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, there are many patients who may not be able to receive combination therapy due to underlying comorbidities or resource limitations. For these patients, systemic treatment options include single agent tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or ICI monotherapy. However, whether an optimal sequence of systemic therapy exists remains unknown. We aim to explore the impact of sequencing of TKI and ICI therapy in terms of response rates and to examine the safety of their use in sequential order. Methods: Patients with aHCC treated with both ICI and TKI between December 30, 2013 and June 13, 2018 were retrospectively identified. Patients were classified into two groups: those who received TKI in the first‐line (TKI1), followed by ICI (ICI2) and those who received ICI (ICI1) in the first‐line followed by TKI (TKI2). The primary objective of the study was to identify differences in objective response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR), as evaluated based on response evaluation criteria in solid tumor v1.1 for TKI1, TKI2, ICI1, and ICI2. Secondary objectives included comparison of progression free survival (PFS) for each line of therapy, overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). Results: Twenty‐seven and 23 patients were classified into group 1 and 2, respectively. Objective response rates of TKI1 and TKI2 were 3.8% and 17.6%, respectively (p =.28); DCR to TKI1 versus TKI2 was 23.1% versus 35.3% (p =.49). ORRs of ICI1 and ICI2 were 8.7% and 14.3%, respectively (p =.66); DCR to ICI2 versus ICI1 was 56.5% versus 42.9% (p =.37). Median PFS was not significant between TKI1 and TKI2 (PFS 3.06 versus 1.61 months, p =.097) as well as between ICI2 and ICI1 (PFS 1.84 versus 2.37 month, p =.32). Median OS was also not significantly different between both groups (OS 20.63 versus 13.93 months, p =.20) on univariable and multivariable analysis (OS adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 2.07, 95% CI.83–5.18, p =.118). The proportion of patients who experienced adverse events of any grade was similar in both groups (TKI1 59.3% versus TKI2 52.2%; ICI1 78.3% versus ICI2 70.4%). Conclusion: Our study suggests that the sequence of TKI versus ICI therapy in patients with aHCC may not matter, given similar efficacy and toxicity profile when either agent is received in the first or second‐line setting. This finding is of value in the real‐world setting, where patients may be frail or have comorbidities that render them unable to tolerate combination therapy (ICI and TKI/anti‐VEGF). For these patients, sequential exposure to both classes of drugs (ICI and TKI) may be a suitable option. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Deregulation of FGF19-FGFR4 signaling is found in several cancers, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), nominating it for therapeutic targeting. FGF401 is a potent, selective FGFR4 inhibitor with antitumor activity in preclinical models. This study was designed to determine the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), characterize PK/PD, and evaluate the safety and efficacy of FGF401 alone and combined with the anti-PD-1 antibody, spartalizumab. Methods: Patients with HCC or other FGFR4/KLB expressing tumors were enrolled. Dose-escalation was guided by a Bayesian model. Phase 2 dose-expansion enrolled patients with HCC from Asian countries (group1), non-Asian countries (group2), and patients with other solid tumors expressing FGFR4 and KLB (group3). FGF401 and spartalizumab combination was evaluated in patients with HCC. Results: Seventy-four patients were treated in the phase I with single-agent FGF401 at 50 to 150 mg. FGF401 displayed favorable PK characteristics and no food effect when dosed with low-fat meals. The RP2D was established as 120 mg qd. Six of 70 patients experienced grade 3 dose-limiting toxicities: increase in transaminases (n = 4) or blood bilirubin (n = 2). In phase 2, 30 patients in group 1, 36 in group 2, and 20 in group 3 received FGF401. In total, 8 patients experienced objective responses (1 CR, 7 PR; 4 each in phase I and phase II, respectively). Frequent adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (73.8%), increased AST (47.5%), and ALT (43.8%). Increase in levels of C4, total bile acid, and circulating FGF19, confirmed effective FGFR4 inhibition. Twelve patients received FGF401 plus spartalizumab. RP2D was established as FGF401 120 mg qd and spartalizumab 300 mg Q3W; 2 patients reported PR. Conclusions: At biologically active doses, FGF401 alone or combined with spartalizumab was safe in patients with FGFR4/KLB-positive tumors including HCC. Preliminary clinical efficacy was observed. Further clinical evaluation of FGF401 using a refined biomarker strategy is warranted. Trial registration: NCT02325739. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Currently, only one drug, sorafenib, is FDA approved for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), achieving modest objective response rates while still conferring an overall survival benefit. Unlike other solid tumors, no oncogenic addiction loops have been validated as clinically actionable targets in HCC. Outcomes of HCC could potentially be improved if critical molecular subclasses with distinct therapeutic vulnerabilities can be identified, biomarkers that predict recurrence or progression early can be determined and key epigenetic, genetic or microenvironment drivers that determine best response to a specific targeting treatment can be uncovered. Our group and others have examined the molecular heterogeneity of hepatocellular carcinoma. We have developed a panel of patient derived xenograft models to enable focused pre-clinical drug development of rationally designed therapies in specific molecular subgroups. We observed unique patterns, including synergies, of drug activity across our molecularly diverse HCC xenografts, pointing to specific therapeutic vulnerabilities for individual tumors. These efforts inform clinical trial designs and catalyze therapeutic development. It also argues for efficient strategic allocation of patients into appropriate enriched clinical trials. Here, we will discuss some of the recent important therapeutic studies in advanced HCC and also some of the potential strategies to optimize clinical therapeutic development moving forward. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Single-agent nivolumab showed durable responses, manageable safety, and promising survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the phase 1-2 CheckMate 040 study. We aimed to investigate nivolumab monotherapy compared with sorafenib monotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.Methods: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at medical centres across 22 countries and territories in Asia, Australasia, Europe, and North America, patients at least 18 years old with histologically confirmed advanced hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for, or whose disease had progressed after, surgery or locoregional treatment; with no previous systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, with Child-Pugh class A and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and regardless of viral hepatitis status were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system to receive nivolumab (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02576509.Findings: Between Jan 11, 2016, and May 24, 2017, 743 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (nivolumab, n=371; sorafenib, n=372). At the primary analysis, the median follow-up for overall survival was 15·2 months (IQR 5·7-28·0) for the nivolumab group and 13·4 months (5·7-25·9) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 16·4 months (95% CI 13·9-18·4) with nivolumab and 14·7 months (11·9-17·2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·72-1·02]; p=0·075; minimum follow-up 22·8 months); the protocol-defined significance level of p=0·0419 was not reached. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (1 [<1%] of 367 patients in the nivolumab group vs 52 [14%] of patients in the sorafenib group), aspartate aminotransferase increase (22 [6%] vs 13 [4%]), and hypertension (0 vs 26 [7%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. Four deaths in the nivolumab group and one death in the sorafenib group were assessed as treatment related.Interpretation: First-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve overall survival compared with sorafenib, but clinical activity and a favourable safety profile were observed in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Thus, nivolumab might be considered a therapeutic option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs are contraindicated or have substantial risks.Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb in collaboration with Ono Pharmaceutical. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) use in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing. Real‐world data on efficacy and safety, however, are lacking. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients with advanced HCC seen at our center who received at least one dose of an ICI between May 2015 and June 2018. Data cutoff was December 31, 2018. Responses were evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 criteria. Results: Of 114 patients, 88.6% were male. Median age was 66 years, 96.5% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group of 0–1. 62.3% received monotherapy ICI. 18.4% of patients had Child‐Pugh (CP) B disease on initiation of ICI, and 69.3% had an ALBI grade of 2. 54.4% were known to have chronic hepatitis B (HBV) or were previously infected, and 11.4% had hepatitis C. Baseline HBV viral load (VL) ranged from undetectable to 8 210 000 IU/mL. 35.1% received prior systemic treatment. 28.9% received prior sorafenib. Over a median follow‐up duration of 13.8 months (10.4–15.8), ORR was 18.4%, and DCR was 50.9%. Median progression‐free survival was 2.7 months (1.3–4.0), and median overall survival (OS) was 13.9 months (6.9–16.2). Thirty‐one patients (27.2%) received further systemic therapy after ICI discontinuation. On multivariable analyses, lower albumin level, higher bilirubin level, diuretic‐refractory ascites, and HBV‐associated HCC were associated with poorer OS. 69.3% of patients experienced adverse events (AE) of any grade, 14.9% of these being grade 3–4. No grade 5 AE were observed. Use of antiviral therapy was associated with a lower risk of grade 3 or above hepatic AEs (P = 0.048), whereas high baseline HBV VL was not associated with an increased risk of reactivation or hepatic AE. Discussion: We have demonstrated that the real‐world performance of ICIs in advanced HCC appears comparable to that observed in clinical trials for HCC patients with CP A cirrhosis. While prognosis of patients with advanced HCC and CP B cirrhosis remains poor even with ICI, usage of ICI is likely to be safe. Patients with HBV with a baseline HBV VL ≥100 IU/mL may receive ICI safely, especially if they are on antiviral treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) and Child-Pugh B liver function are often excluded from clinical trials. In previous studies, overall survival for these patients treated with sorafenib was ∼3–5 months; thus, new treatments are needed. Nivolumab, alone or in combination with ipilimumab, is conditionally approved in the United States to treat patients with aHCC who previously received sorafenib. We describe nivolumab monotherapy outcomes in patients with Child-Pugh B status. This phase I/II, open-label, non-comparative, multicentre trial (27 centres) included patients with Child-Pugh B (B7–B8) aHCC. Patients received intravenous nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks until unacceptable toxicity or disease progression. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) by investigator assessment (using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1) and duration of response. Safety was assessed using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.0. Twenty-five sorafenib-naive and 24 sorafenib-treated patients began treatment between November 2016 and October 2017 (median follow-up, 16.3 months). Investigator-assessed ORR was 12% (95% CI 5–25%) with 6 patients responding; disease control rate was 55% (95% CI 40–69%). Median time to response was 2.7 months (interquartile range, 1.4–4.2), and median duration of response was 9.9 months (95% CI 9.7–9.9). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported in 25 patients (51%) and led to discontinuation in 2 patients (4%). The most frequent grade 3/4 TRAEs were hypertransaminasemia (n = 2), amylase increase (n = 2), and aspartate aminotransferase increase (n = 2). The safety of nivolumab was comparable to that in patients with Child-Pugh A aHCC. Nivolumab showed clinical activity and favourable safety with manageable toxicities, suggesting it could be suitable for patients with Child-Pugh B aHCC. In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, almost all systemic therapies require very good liver function, i.e. Child-Pugh A status. The evidence from this study suggests that nivolumab shows clinical activity and an acceptable safety profile in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with Child-Pugh B status who have mild to moderate impairment of liver function or liver decompensation that might rule out other therapies. Further studies are warranted to assess the safety and efficacy of nivolumab in this patient population. NCT01658878. [Display omitted] • This is the first report, to our knowledge, of immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy in patients with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh B liver function status. • Median OS with nivolumab was longer than the historical OS rate for patients treated with sorafenib (7.6 months vs. 2.5–5.4 months, respectively). • Clinically meaningful stabilisation of liver function was observed, as evidenced by maintained or improved Child-Pugh scores and albumin-bilirubin scores. • Nivolumab had a favourable safety profile with manageable toxicities when used in patients with Child-Pugh B advanced HCC and was comparable to that seen in patients with Child-Pugh A HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy targeting anti-programmed cell death-1 (anti-PD-1) or its ligand (anti-PD-L1) is the backbone of numerous combination regimens aimed at improving the objective response and survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Clinical trials of immuno-oncology regimens in other cancer types have shed light on issues of study design, including how to choose candidate regimens based on early-phase trial results, statistical considerations in trials with multiple primary endpoints, and the importance of predictive biomarkers. In this review, the updated data from early-phase trials of combination immunotherapy for HCC are summarised. Since the most extensively tested combination regimens for advanced HCC comprise anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 agents plus antiangiogenic agents, the relative benefit and antitumor mechanism of antiangiogenic multikinase inhibitors versus specific VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors are discussed. Other critical issues in the development of combination immunotherapy, including optimal management of immune-related adverse events and the value of ICI therapy in combination with locoregional treatment for HCC, are also explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Objective responses and survival were comparable between intent-to-treat (ITT) overall population and Asian cohort. • Median overall survival in Asian patients was similar across HCC aetiologies. • Nivolumab had a manageable safety profile in both the ITT overall population and Asian cohort. Nivolumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, is approved in several countries to treat sorafenib-experienced patients with HCC, based on results from the CheckMate 040 study (NCT01658878). Marked differences exist in HCC clinical presentation, aetiology, treatment patterns and outcomes across regions. This analysis assessed the safety and efficacy of nivolumab in the Asian cohort of CheckMate 040. CheckMate 040 is an international, multicentre, open-label, phase I/II study of nivolumab in adults with advanced HCC, regardless of aetiology, not amenable to curative resection or local treatment and with/without previous sorafenib treatment. This analysis included all sorafenib-experienced patients in the intent-to-treat (ITT) overall population and Asian cohort. The analysis cut-off date was March 2018. There were 182 and 85 patients in the ITT population and Asian cohort, respectively. In both populations, most patients were older than 60 years, had BCLC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer) Stage C disease, and had received previous systemic therapy. A higher percentage of Asian patients had HBV infections, extrahepatic metastases and prior therapies. Median follow-up was 31.6 and 31.3 months for the ITT and Asian patients, respectively. Objective response rates were 14% and 15% in the ITT population and Asian cohort, respectively. In the Asian cohort, patients with HBV, HCV or those who were uninfected had objective response rates of 13%, 14% and 21%, respectively. The median duration of response was longer in the ITT (19.4 months) vs. Asian patients (9.7 months). Median overall survival was similar between the ITT (15.1 months) and Asian patients (14.9 months), and unaffected by aetiology in Asian patients. The nivolumab safety profile was similar and manageable across both populations. Nivolumab safety and efficacy are comparable between sorafenib-experienced ITT and Asian patients. The CheckMate 040 study evaluated the safety and efficacy of nivolumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who were refractory to previous sorafenib treatment or chemotherapy. This subanalysis of the data showed that treatment responses and safety in patients in Asia were similar to those of the overall treatment population, providing support for nivolumab as a treatment option for these patients. Clinical trial number: NCT01658878. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The majority of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are inoperable and results with conventional chemotherapy are dismal. Many end up with no treatment options and resort to alternative medicine. The authors report the use of Coriolus versicolor (CV) in advanced HCC patients with poor liver function or who were unfit to receive standard therapy. Methods: Fifteen eligible cases were randomized 2:1 to either CV or placebo. The primary endpoint was the median time to progression (TTP) between both arms. Secondary endpoints include evaluating response rates, toxicity, quality of life (QOL), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Further correlative studies were performed looking at the effect of CV on the immune system. Results: The median treatment duration was 1.5 cycles and 3 cycles on the placebo and CV arm, respectively. Median TTP was 2.5 (1.4-5.3) months compared to 4.2 (0.4-4.2) months in the CV and placebo arm, respectively, hazard ratio (HR) 0.70 (0.16-3.05 p = 0.634). Median PFS was 2.5 (1.4-5.3) months in the CV and 1.1 (0.4-4.2) months in the placebo arm, HR 0.42 (0.13-1.34, p = 0.144). Median OS was 6.5 (3.3-24.1) and 2.2 (0.8-23.3) months, respectively, HR 0.35 (0.10-1.25, p = 0.105). Social and emotional functioning scores were higher in the CV group compared to placebo group on treatment. CV subjects had less appetite loss and pain symptoms compared to placebo subjects during treatment. Conclusions: There was no difference in TTP with use of CV compared to placebo. CV subjects generally had better QOL on treatment compared to placebo subjects. The utility of this supplement in patients whose primary treatment goal is palliation should be further explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The safety and tolerability of sequential radioembolization-sorafenib therapy is unknown. An open-label, single arm, investigator-initiated Phase II study (NCT0071279) was conducted at four Asia-Pacific centers to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sequential radioembolization-sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) not amenable to curative therapies. Methods: Sorafenib (400 mg twice-daily) was initiated 14 days post-radioembolization with yttrium-90 (90Y) resin microspheres given as a single procedure. The primary endpoints were safety and tolerability and best overall response rate (ORR) using RECIST v1.0.Secondary endpoints included: disease control rate (complete [CR] plus partial responses [PR] and stable disease [SD]) and overall survival (OS). Results: Twenty-nine patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B (38%) or C (62%) HCC received a median of 3.0 GBq (interquartile range, 1.0) 90Y-microspheres followed by sorafenib (median dose/day, 600.0 mg; median duration, 4.1 months). Twenty eight patients experienced ≥1 toxicity; 15 (52%) grade ≥3. Best ORR was 25%, including 2 (7%) CR and 5 (18%) PR, and 15 (54%) SD. Disease control was 100% and 65% in BCLC stage B and C, respectively. Two patients (7%) had sufficient response to enable radical therapy. Median survivals for BCLC stage B and C were 20.3 and 8.6 months, respectively. Conclusions: This study shows the potential efficacy and manageable toxicity of sequential radioembolization-sorafenib. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00712790. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early diagnosis of hepatocellullar carcinoma (HCC) remains a challenge. The current practice of serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) measurement is inadequate. Here we utilized a proteomic approach to identify novel serum biomarkers for distinguishing HCC patients from non-cancer controls. We profiled the serum proteins in a group of 58 resectable HCC patients and 11 non-HCC chronic hepatitis B (HBV) carrier samples from the Singapore General Hospital (SGH) using the RayBio® L-Series 507 Antibody Array and found 113 serum markers that were significantly modulated between HCC and control groups. Selected potential biomarkers from this list were quantified using a multiplex sandwich enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) array in an expanded SGH cohort (126 resectable HCC patients and 115 non-HCC chronic HBV carriers (NC group)), confirming that serum prolactin and monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) were significantly upregulated in HCC patients. This finding of serum MCP-1 elevation in HCC patients was validated in a separate cohort of serum samples from the Mochtar Riady Institute for Nanotechnology, Indonesia (98 resectable HCC, 101 chronic hepatitis B patients and 100 asymptomatic HBV/HCV carriers) by sandwich ELISA. MCP-1 and prolactin levels were found to correlate with AFP, while MCP-1 also correlated with disease stage. Subsequent receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of AFP, prolactin and MCP-1 in the SGH cohort and comparing their area under the ROC curve (AUC) indicated that neither prolactin nor MCP-1 on their own performed better than AFP. However, the combination of AFP+MCP-1 (AUC, 0.974) had significantly superior discriminative ability than AFP alone (AUC, 0.942; p<0.001). In conclusion, prolactin and MCP-1 are overexpressed in HCC and are conveniently quantifiable in patients’ sera by ELISA. MCP-1 appears to be a promising complementary biomarker for HCC diagnosis and this MCP-1+AFP model should be further evaluated as potential biomarker on a larger scale in patients at-risk of HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Corrigendum to "Nivolumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Sorafenib-experienced Asian cohort analysis" [J Hepatol 71 (2019) 543-552] It has come to our attention that there is an error in Table 4 of our manuscript. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Many patients with advanced HCC progress on standard-of-care therapy. Nivolumab is a fully human anti-programmed death-1 (PD-1) IgG4 monoclonal antibody that demonstrated durable responses (objective response rate [ORR], 20%; median duration of response [DOR], 9.9 mo; 9-mo overall survival [OS] rate, 74%) in patients with advanced HCC in the dose-expansion (EXP) phase of the CheckMate 040 study (NCT01658878; El-Khoueiry, Sangro et al. 2017). Here we present survival and durability of response data in both sorafenibnaive and -experienced patients with advanced HCC in CheckMate 040. Methods: Patients naive to or previously treated with sorafenib received nivolumab in phase 1/2 dose-escalation (ESC; 0.1-10 mg/kg) and -EXP (3 mg/kg) cohorts every 2 weeks regardless of PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) status. Primary endpoints were safety/ tolerability (ESC) and ORR (EXP; ORR was reported by investigator [INV] and blinded independent central review) using RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included DOR, disease control rate (DCR), and OS. Biomarkers were assessed using pretreatment tumor samples. Results: Patients (N=262) had median follow-up durations of 14-16 mo across the cohorts. Overall, 98% of patients (258/262) had Child-Pugh scores of 5-6. In sorafenib-naive patients (n=80), the ORR (INV) was 23%, with 39% of responses (7/18) ongoing. The DCR was 63%; 40% of patients had stable disease ?6 mo. In sorafenibexperienced patients (n=182; 91% progressed on sorafenib), the ORRs (INV) were 16%-19%. Overall, responses occurred regardless of etiology or tumor-cell PD-L1 expression. Nivolumab had a manageable safety profile consistent with that reported in other tumor types. Conclusion: Nivolumab demonstrated durable responses with long-term survival and favorable safety in both sorafenib-naive and -experienced patients with advanced HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]