Search

Most cases of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are able to be diagnosed through regular surveillance in an identifiable patient population with chronic hepatitis B or cirrhosis. Nevertheless, 50% of global cases might present incidentally owing to symptomatic advanced-stage HCC after worsening of liver dysfunction. A systematic search based on PUBMED was performed to identify relevant outcomes, covering newer surveillance modalities including secretory proteins, DNA methylation, miRNAs, and genome sequencing analysis which proposed molecular expression signatures as ideal tools in the early-stage HCC detection. In the face of low accuracy without harmonization on the analytical approaches and data interpretation for liquid biopsy, a more accurate incidence of HCC will be unveiled by using deep machine learning system and multiplex immunohistochemistry analysis. A combination of molecular-secretory biomarkers, high-definition imaging and bedside clinical indexes in a surveillance setting offers a comprehensive range of HCC potential indicators. In addition, the sequential use of numerous lines of systemic anti-HCC therapies will simultaneously benefit more patients in survival. This review provides an overview on the most recent developments in HCC theranostic platform.

Background: To present findings from a retrospective study conducted by the Ultra-Rare Sarcoma Working Group on metastatic low-grade fibromyxoid sarcoma (LGFMS), sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma (SEF), and hybrid (H)-LGFMS/SEF across 28 global centres., Methods: Patients treated at participating institutions from January 2000 to September 2022 were retrospectively selected. Diagnosis was confirmed by expert pathologists. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS-1) from metastasis detection to first progression or death. PFS-2 was calculated from therapy initiation., Results: A total of 101 patients were identified (32 LGFMS, 50 SEF, 19 H-LGFMS/SEF). Median (m) follow-up was 62.1 months. mPFS-1 was 28.7, 11.8, and 20.3 months for LGFMS, SEF, and H-LGFMS/SEF, respectively. mOS was 145.8, 41.9, and 113.5 months, respectively. Treatments included anthracycline-based chemotherapy, gemcitabine-based chemotherapy (G), pazopanib, trabectedin, others. mPFS-2 was: 20.1, 5.5, and 3.5 months in H-LGFMS/SEF, SEF, and LGFMS, respectively, with anthracyclines; 19.5, 7.7, and 6.9 months in LGFMS, SEF, and H-LGFMS/SEF, respectively, with pazopanib; 12.0, 9.7, and 3.1 months in H-LGFMS/SEF, LGFMS, and SEF, respectively. Occasional responses occurred with ifosfamide/oral cyclophosphamide, and prolonged stable disease with immune checkpoint inhibitors., Conclusions: In this series, the largest available, metastatic LGFMS, SEF, and H-LGFMS/SEF showed different courses. Systemic agents have modest efficacy, informing future trials of novel agents for these tumours., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

An update on the management of Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is provided in the present article for those interested in the UEMS/EBSQ exam in Surgical Oncology. The most recent publications in HCC, including surveillance, guidelines, and indications for liver resection, liver transplantation, and locoregional or systemic therapies, are summarised. The objective is to yield a set of main points regarding HCC that are required in the core curriculum of hepatobiliary oncological surgery., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ∼ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest DD: lecture and consulting for Novartis and Alnylam. MdT: none. AG: none. FP: Alkermes, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Bracco, BMS, EISAI, GE, Tiziana Life Sciences, Siemens Healthcare, Roche, Samsung. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Management of advanced prostate cancer has evolved rapidly with the availability of multiple systemic treatments such as androgen-receptor axis-targeted therapies (ARATs), taxane-based chemotherapy, radium-223, and other approaches. However, limited data exists on real-world treatment selection and clinical outcomes. This study examines the utilization and survival impact of these therapies in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in the real-world setting of Ontario, Canada., Methods: This study was a retrospective, longitudinal, population-based study of administrative claims data between January 2016 and April 2020. Men ≥ 66 years with mCRPC receiving advanced treatment were included. Patients were indexed on the day they initiated mCRPC treatment and followed up until death or end of study period to assess treatment and survival. Multinomial regression was used to model the association between baseline covariates, treatment and survival., Results: Median age was 75 years among the 944 mCRPC patients who received life-prolonging therapies during this time period. Over 90% of patients used an ARAT as a first-line therapy, and 71.5% received only first-line therapy before death or censoring. Of patients that received two or more lines, over 80% received subsequent therapy with a different mechanism of action. Median overall survival was 18.9 months., Conclusions: ARATs have become the predominant first-line systemic treatment option for mCRPC patients in recent years. Notably, the majority of patients received only a single line of life-prolonging therapy after developing mCRPC. In keeping with the recognized efficacy-effectiveness gap, real-world outcomes in this cohort appear poorer than in clinical trials., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The number of effective systemic therapies for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is rapidly increasing, and the advent of immunotherapy has changed the treatment paradigm for these patients, leading to significantly improved survival outcomes. However, many patients with HCC will continue to receive tyrosine kinase inhibitors, partly because of contraindications to immune checkpoint inhibitors. Currently, the best sequential first- and second-line systemic treatment remains elusive. Maintenance of optimal liver function is crucial, it is likely to impinge on temporary or permanent treatment discontinuation, and should also be considered when defining the treatment sequence. Hepatic decompensation, which does not always coincide with disease progression, is part of this complex dynamically evolving system, and must be promptly recognized and adequately managed to allow the patient to continue in the therapeutic course. The purpose of this review is to highlight and summarize the evidence on the efficacy and safety of systemic agents, with a focus on the impact of underlying cirrhosis, and to suggest new clinical outcomes for randomized controlled trials for advanced HCC to better assess the net health benefit in this specific setting., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Giuseppe Cabibbo has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for Bayer, Eisai, and Ipsen. Alessio Aghemo received grants from Abbvie, and served on board for advisory board for Gilead, abbvie, Gilead, Sobi, Intercept, MSD, Mylan, Shire. Quirino Lai: no conflict of interest exists.-        Mario Masarone: travel grants, invited speeches, advisory boards: gilead & abbvie. Travel grants: Alfasigma; advisory board: intercept. Sara Montagnese has received research funding from AlfaSigma S.p.a., Norgine Ltd., Merz Pharmaceuticals GmbH, Umecrine Cognition AB and Versantis AG.-        Francesca Romana Ponziani served as a consultant for consultant for Bayer, MSD, EISAI, Ipsen, Abbvie, Gilead, Alfasigma., (Copyright © 2022 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2019 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2019 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)