Search

Background: Patient fitness is important for guiding treatment. Muscle mass, as a reflection thereof, can be objectively measured. However, the role of East-West differences remains unclear. Therefore, we compared the impact of muscle mass on clinical outcomes after liver resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in a Dutch [the Netherlands (NL)] and Japanese [Japan (JP)] setting and evaluated the predictive performance of different cutoff values for sarcopenia., Method: In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, patients with HCC undergoing liver resection were included. The skeletal muscle mass index (SMI) was determined on computed tomography scans obtained within 3 months before surgery. The primary outcome measure was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcome measures were: 90-day mortality, severe complications, length of stay, and recurrence-free survival. The predictive performance of several sarcopenia cutoff values was studied using the concordance index (C-index) and area under the curve. Interaction terms were used to study the geographic effect modification of muscle mass., Results: Demographics differed between NL and JP. Gender, age, and body mass index were associated with SMI. Significant effect modification between NL and JP was found for BMI. The predictive performance of sarcopenia for both short-term and long-term outcomes was higher in JP compared to NL (maximum C-index: 0.58 vs. 0.55, respectively). However, differences between cutoff values were small. For the association between sarcopenia and OS, a strong association was found in JP [hazard ratio (HR) 2.00, 95% CI [1.230-3.08], P =0.002], where this was not found in NL (0.76 [0.42-1.36], P =0.351). The interaction term confirmed that this difference was significant (HR 0.37, 95% CI [0.19-0.73], P =0.005)., Conclusions: The impact of sarcopenia on survival differs between the East and West. Clinical trials and treatment guidelines using sarcopenia for risk stratification should be validated in race-dependent populations prior to clinical adoption., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Access to the liver transplant waitlist for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) depends on tumour presentation, biology, and response to treatments. The Milan Criteria (MC) represent the benchmark for expanded criteria that incorporate additional prognostic factors. The purpose of this study was to determine the added value of skeletal muscle index (SMI) in HCC patients beyond the MC., Method: Patients with HCC that were transplanted beyond the MC were included in this retrospective multicentre study. SMI was quantified using the Computed Tomography (CT) within 3 months prior to transplantation. Cox regression models were used to identify predictors of overall survival (OS). The discriminative performance of SMI extended Metroticket 2.0 and AFP models was also assessed., Results: Out of 889 patients transplanted outside the MC, 528 had a CT scan within 3 months prior to liver transplantation (LT), of whom 176 (33%) were classified as sarcopenic. The median time between assessment of the SMI and LT was 1.8 months (IQR: 0.77-2.67). The median follow-up period was 5.1 95% CI [4.7-5.5] years, with a total of 177 recorded deaths from any cause. In a linear regression model with SMI as the dependent variable, only male gender (8.55 95% CI [6.51-10.59], P < 0.001) and body mass index (0.74 95% CI [0.59-0.89], P < 0.001) were significant. Univariable survival analysis of patients with sarcopenia versus patients without sarcopenia showed a significant difference in OS (HR 1.44 95% CI [1.07 - 1.94], P = 0.018). Also the SMI was significant (HR 0.98 95% CI [0.96-0.99], P = 0.014). The survival difference between the lowest SMI quartile versus the highest SMI quartile was significant (log-rank: P = 0.005) with 5 year OS of 57% and 71%, respectively. Data from 423 patients, describing 139 deaths, was used for multivariate analysis. Both sarcopenia (HR 1.45 95% CI [1.02 - 2.05], P = 0.036) and SMI were (HR 0.98 95% CI [0.95-0.99], P = 0.035) significant. On the survival scale this translates to a 5 year OS difference of 11% between sarcopenia and no sarcopenia. Whereas for SMI, this translates to a survival difference of 8% between first and third quartiles for both genders., Conclusions: Overall, we can conclude that higher muscle mass contributes to a better long-term survival. However, for individual patients, low muscle mass should not be considered an absolute contra-indication for LT as its discriminatory performance was limited., (© 2022 The Authors. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society on Sarcopenia, Cachexia and Wasting Disorders.)

Background: Many prognostic models for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) have been developed to inform patients and doctors about individual prognosis. Previous reviews of these models were qualitative and did not assess performance at external validation. We assessed the performance of prognostic models for HCC and set a benchmark for biomarker studies., Methods: All externally validated models predicting survival for patients with resected HCC were systematically reviewed. After selection, we extracted descriptive statistics and aggregated c-indices using meta-analysis., Results: Thirty-eight validated prognostic models were included. Models used on average 7 (IQR:4-9) prognostic factors. Tumor size, tumor number, and vascular invasion were almost always included. Alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) was commonly incorporated since 2007. Recently, the more subjective items ascites and encephalopathy have been dropped. Eight established models performed poor to moderate at external validation, with a pooled C-index below 0.7; including the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) system, the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) 7th edition, the Cancer of the Liver Italian (CLIP) Program, and the Japan Integrated Staging (JIS) score. Out of 24 prognostic models predicting OS, only 6 (25%) had good performance at external validation with pooled C-indices above 0.7; the Li-post (0.77), Li-OS (0.74), Yang-pre (0.74), Yang-post (0.76), Shanghai-score (0.70), and Wang-nomogram (0.71). Models improved over time, but overall performance and study quality remained low., Conclusions: Six validated prognostic models demonstrated good performance for predicting survival after resection of HCC. These models can guide patients and doctors and are a benchmark for future models incorporating novel biomarkers., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The 'Prediction Of Survival in Advanced Sorafenib-treated HCC' (PROSASH) model addressed the heterogeneous survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib in clinical trials but requires validation in daily clinical practice. This study aimed to validate, compare and optimize this model for survival prediction., Methods: Patients treated with sorafenib for HCC at five tertiary European centres were retrospectively staged according to the PROSASH model. In addition, the optimized PROSASH-II model was developed using the data of four centres (training set) and tested in an independent dataset. These models for overall survival (OS) were then compared with existing prognostic models., Results: The PROSASH model was validated in 445 patients, showing clear differences between the four risk groups (OS 16.9-4.6 months). A total of 920 patients (n = 615 in training set, n = 305 in validation set) were available to develop PROSASH-II. This optimized model incorporated fewer and less subjective parameters: the serum albumin, bilirubin and alpha-foetoprotein, and macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread and largest tumour size on imaging. Both PROSASH and PROSASH-II showed improved discrimination (C-index 0.62 and 0.63, respectively) compared with existing prognostic scores (C-index ≤0.59)., Conclusions: In HCC patients treated with sorafenib, individualized prediction of survival and risk group stratification using baseline prognostic and predictive parameters with the PROSASH model was validated. The refined PROSASH-II model performed at least as good with fewer and more objective parameters. PROSASH-II can be used as a tool for tailored treatment of HCC in daily practice and to define pre-planned subgroups for future studies., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Upon FDA/EMEA registration for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), sorafenib received a broader therapeutic indication than the eligibility criteria of the landmark SHARP trial. This allowed treatment of SHARP non-eligible patients in daily clinical practice., Aim: To assess sorafenib efficacy and safety in SHARP eligible and non-eligible patients, and determine the validity of the current therapeutic indication as described by the FDA/EMEA., Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients treated with sorafenib for advanced HCC at two Dutch tertiary referral centers between 2007 and 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were time to progression (TTP), response rate, adverse events and reasons for discontinuation. Outcomes were compared between SHARP eligible and non-eligible patients., Results: One hundred and ninety-three of 257 (75%) patients were SHARP eligible. SHARP eligible patients (9.5 months, 95% CI 7.7-11.3) had a longer median OS than non-eligible patients (5.4 months, 95% CI 3.6-7.1) (log-rank p < .001). SHARP non-eligible patients were more often Child-Pugh B, had higher AST and ALT levels and developed more grade 3-4 liver dysfunction (44 versus 23%, p < .001) during treatment. SHARP ineligibility remained the strongest predictor of OS (HR 1.78, 95% CI 1.32-2.41) and an independent predictor of TTP (HR 1.45, 95% CI 1.05-2.00) in multivariable analysis., Conclusions: Landmark trial outcomes of sorafenib for HCC are reproducible in daily practice, provided that the SHARP eligibility criteria are respected. Based on the findings of this and previous studies, sorafenib usage should be restricted to Child-Pugh A patients.