Search

Introduction: Macrovascular invasion (MVI) is a strong prognostic factor for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The current criteria for radiological assessment are unclear in evaluating the impact of MVI on systemic therapy. In this study, we standardized the assessment of MVI and validated its clinical relevance. Methods: Clinical data were collected from patients with advanced HCC and MVI who received first-line systemic therapy at four medical centers in Japan. First, we used macrovascular invasion progression disease (MVI-PD) to track MVI progression, and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 progression disease (RECIST v1.1-PD) to evaluate tumor enlargement other than MVI and the appearance of new lesions. Next, we assessed the prognostic value of MVI-PD and RECIST v1.1-PD. Results: Of the 207 advanced HCC patients with MVI, 189 received appropriate imaging evaluation. 40 (21.2%) patients had MVI-PD and RECIST v1.1-PD, 51 (27.0%) had prior MVI-PD, and 61 (32.3%) had prior RECIST v1.1-PD. In a landmark analysis, the prognosis of 163 patients who survived more than three months was analyzed based on the assessment of imaging response during the first three months. The median overall survival (OS) was 5.4 months in those who had MVI-PD and RECIST v1.1-PD, 7.4 months in those who had RECIST v1.1-PD only, 7.2 months in those who had MVI-PD only, and 19.7 months in patients who had neither (p

Abstract Purpose Ramucirumab was shown to be effective as a second-line treatment after sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with alpha-fetoprotein levels > 400 ng/mL in a worldwide phase 3 trial. Ramucirumab is used in patients pretreated with various systemic therapies in clinical practice. We retrospectively examined the treatment outcomes of ramucirumab administered to advanced HCC patients after diverse systemic therapies. Methods Data were collected from patients with advanced HCC who received ramucirumab at three institutions in Japan. Radiological assessments were determined according to both Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1 and modified RECIST and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 was used to assess adverse events. Results A total of 37 patients treated with ramucirumab between June 2019 and March 2021 were included in the study. Ramucirumab was administered as second, third, fourth, and fifth-line treatment in 13 (35.1%), 14 (37.8%), eight (21.6%), and two (5.4%) patients, respectively. Most patients (29.7%) who received ramucirumab as a second-line therapy were pretreated with lenvatinib. We found grade 3 or higher adverse events only in seven patients and no significant changes in the albumin-bilirubin score during ramucirumab treatment in the present cohort. The median progression-free survival of patients treated with ramucirumab was 2.7 months (95% confidence interval, 1.6–7.3). Conclusion Although ramucirumab is used for various lines of treatment other than second-line immediately after sorafenib, its safety and effectiveness were not significantly different from the findings of the REACH-2 trial.

Abstract The screening of gastroesophageal varices (GEV) is critical in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) management. Contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) is often performed in patients with HCC. Therefore, this study aimed to examine the use of CECT in screening for GEV and predicting GEV bleeding. This retrospective study enrolled 312 consecutive patients who are initially diagnosed with HCC, measured the lower esophageal (EIV) and fundal intramural vessel (FIV) diameter on CECT, examined the changes after 1, 2, and 3 years, and verified the relationship with GEV bleeding. The EIV and FIV diameter on CECT correlates well with endoscopic variceal classification. EIV significantly worsened after 2 and 3 years. FIV showed worsening at both 1, 2, and 3 years. Cumulative GEV bleeding rates were 3.7% at 1 year and 6.2% at 3 years. The multivariate analysis revealed that EIV, FIV, and portal vein tumor thrombus were associated with GEV bleeding. Furthermore, EIV deterioration at 1, 2, and 3 years correlated with GEV bleeding. In conclusion, CECT is useful in variceal management during the longitudinal clinical course of HCC, and has the potential to decrease screening endoscopy. With deterioration in EIV, treatments should be considered due to a high-risk GEV bleeding.

Background and Aims: The prognosis of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is expected to improve as multiple molecular target agents (MTAs) are now available. However, the impact of the availability of sequential MTAs has not been fully verified yet. Approach and Results: We retrospectively collected the data on the whole clinical course of 877 patients who received any MTAs as first-line systemic therapy for advanced HCC between June 2009 and March 2019. The study population was divided into 3 groups according to the date of first-line MTA administration (period 1: 2009–2012, n = 267; period 2: 2013–2016, n = 352; period 3: 2017–2019, n = 258). Then, we compared the number of MTAs used, overall survival (OS), and MTA treatment duration among the 3 groups. Analysis was also performed separately for advanced-stage and nonadvanced-stage HCC. The proportion of patients who received multiple MTAs was remarkably increased over time (1.1%, 10.2%, and 42.6% in periods 1, 2, and 3, respectively, p < 0.001). The median OS times were prolonged to 10.4, 11.3, and 15.2 months in periods 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p = 0.016). Similarly, the MTA treatment durations were extended (2.7, 3.2, and 6.6 months in periods 1, 2, and 3, respectively; p < 0.001). We confirmed that the correlation between OS and MTA treatment duration was strengthened (period 1: 0.395, period 2: 0.505, and period 3: 0.667). All these trends were pronounced in the patients with advanced-stage HCC but limited in the patients with nonadvanced-stage HCC. Conclusions: The availability of multiple MTAs had steadily improved the prognosis of patients with advanced HCC patients, particularly advanced-stage HCC patients.

Abstract Background and Aim Immune checkpoint inhibitors and their combination with other agents have recently been available in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Hence, a thorough understanding of the tumor microenvironment based on tumor samples is yet to be achieved. This study aimed to explore the tumor microenvironment in advanced HCC in terms of microsatellite instability‐high (MSI‐H) by using tumor samples from advanced HCC patients eligible for systemic therapy. Methods MSI‐H was assessed by polymerase chain reaction, and the expression of mismatch repair proteins, PD‐L1, CD8, VEGF, and HLA‐class1 was evaluated by immunohistochemistry. Whole‐exome sequencing was performed for MSI‐H tumor samples. Results Of 50 patients, one (2.0%) was confirmed with MSI‐H. In the MSI‐H advanced HCC tumor, a high tumor mutation burden, infiltration of CD8+ lymphocytes, and low expression of VEGF were identified. Although PD‐L1 expression was negative, there was shrinkage of tumor following pembrolizumab. However, another tumor nonresponsive to pembrolizumab was present simultaneously. Checking the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database, we found a similar case to this patient. The TCGA case had unique gene features of miR‐21 and miR‐155 overexpression and hypermethylation of the MSH2 gene. Conclusion We identified a very small number of MSI‐H cases in HCC using one tumor biopsy sample for each patient with advanced HCC. In addition, epigenetic aberrations possibly lead to MSI‐H in HCC patients. Since different HCC clones might coexist in the liver, sampling from multiple tumors should be considered to clarify the true proportion of MSI‐H in HCC and to analyze tumor microenvironments.

Macrovascular invasion (MVI), including portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT), is strongly associated with poor prognosis in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). While recommended standard treatment for patients with advanced HCC is systemic therapy, various treatment approaches, including resection, transarterial chemoembolization, and radiation, have been empirically suggested to improve prognosis by eliminating or controlling MVI. Herein, we report our experience of a case with advanced HCC where MVI was controlled by carbon-ion radiotherapy (CIRT) while on systemic therapy, resulting in a prolonged survival. A female patient with HCC in her early 60s had multiple intrahepatic lesions (maximum 60 mm in diameter) with PVTT. The PVTT of this patient had reached the main trunk of the portal vein despite the use of lenvatinib. The other intrahepatic lesions of the patient, except PVTT, had been controlled by lenvatinib. Therefore, hoping to control PVTT, we attempted CIRT. The patient resumed lenvatinib therapy after the irradiation. During lenvatinib re-treatment, no evident progression of PVTT was observed in the patient.

Background: There is no standard posttreatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in whom lenvatinib therapy has failed. This study aimed to investigate rates of migration to posttreatment after lenvatinib and to explore candidates for second-line agents in the patients with failed lenvatinib therapy. Methods: We retrospectively collected data on patients with advanced HCC who received lenvatinib as the first-line agent in 7 institutions. Results: Overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) of 178 patients who received lenvatinib as the first-line agent were 13.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.5–15.2) and 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.6–7.8), respectively. Sixty-nine of 151 patients (45.7%) who discontinued lenvatinib moved on to posttreatment. The migration rates from lenvatinib to the second-line agent and from the second-line agent to the third-line agent were 41.7 and 44.4%, respectively. Based on multivariate analysis, response to lenvatinib (complete or partial response according to modified RECIST) and discontinuation of lenvatinib due to radiological progression, as well as male were associated with a significantly higher probability of migration to posttreatment after lenvatinib. On the other hand, alpha-fetoprotein levels of 400 ng/mL or higher was correlated with a significantly lower probability of migration to posttreatment after lenvatinib. Of 63 patients who received second-line systemic therapy, 53 (84.2%) were administered sorafenib. PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) for sorafenib treatment were 1.8 months (95% CI, 0.6–3.0), 1.8%, and 20.8%, respectively. According to the Cox regression hazard model, Child-Pugh class B significantly contributed to shorter PFS. PFS, ORR, and DCR of 22 patients who received regorafenib after lenvatinib in any lines were 3.2 months (range, 1.5–4.9 months), 13.6%, and 36.3%, respectively. Similarly, PFS, ORR, and DCR of 17 patients who received regorafenib after lenvatinib in the third-line (after sorafenib) were 3.8 months (range, 1.1–6.5 months), 17.6%, and 41.2%, respectively. Conclusion: Sorafenib may not be a candidate for use as a posttreatment agent after lenvatinib, according to the results of the present study. Regorafenib has the potential to become an appropriate posttreatment agent after lenvatinib.

Abstract Background and Aim Standardization of the sedation protocol during radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is needed. This randomized, single‐blind, investigator‐initiated trial compared clinical outcomes during and after RFA using propofol and midazolam, respectively, in patients with HCC. Methods Few‐ and small‐nodule HCC patients (≤3 nodules and ≤3 cm) were randomly assigned to either propofol or midazolam. Patient satisfaction was assessed using a 100‐mm visual analog scale (VAS) (1 mm = not at all satisfied, 100 mm = completely satisfied). Sedation recovery rates 1, 2, 3, and 4 h after RFA were evaluated based on Modified Observer's Assessment of Alertness/Sedation (MOAA/S) scores; full recovery was defined as a MOAA/S score of 5. Results Between July 2013 and September 2017, 143 patients with HCC were enrolled, and 135 patients were randomly assigned to the treatment group. Compared with midazolam, propofol exhibited similar median procedural satisfaction (propofol: 73.1 mm, midazolam: 76.9 mm, P = 0.574). Recovery rates 1 and 2 h after RFA were higher in the propofol group than in the midazolam group. Meanwhile, recovery rates observed 3 and 4 h after RFA were similar in the two groups. The safety profiles during and after RFA were almost identical in the two groups. Conclusion Patient satisfaction was almost identical in patients receiving propofol and midazolam sedation during RFA. Propofol sedation resulted in reduced recovery time compared with midazolam sedation in patients with HCC. The safety profiles of both propofol and midazolam sedation during and after RFA were acceptable.