Search

Introduction: The impact of etiology on response to immunotherapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is being debated, with contrasting findings between early and recent post hoc analyses of IMbrave-150 and metanalyses of clinical trials of PD-1/PD-L1 blockers. As a results, it is not clear whether the first-line systemic treatment atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B) is equally effective in viral and nonviral patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 885 HCC patients treated with the first-line A + B from multiple centers from Eastern and Western countries, 53.9% having viral and 46.1% nonviral etiology. Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics were analyzed with uni- and multivariate models to explore potential differences on overall survival (OS), time-to-progression (TTP), disease control rates (DCRs) based on etiology and to identify putative prognostic factors in etiology subgroups. Treatment toxicities and access to the second-line treatments and outcomes were also reported and compared between etiologies. Results: Overall, no statistically significant differences were found in median OS (mOS: viral 15.9 months; nonviral 16.3 months), TTP (mTTP: viral 8.3 months; nonviral 7.2 months), and DCRs (viral 78.1%; nonviral 80.8%) based on etiology. Prognostic factors of survival and progression were mainly shared between viral and nonviral etiologies, including alpha-fetoprotein, aspartate transaminase, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and ALBI score. Exploratory analyses highlighted a possible stronger association of immunological factors, i.e., NLR and eosinophil count, to treatment outcomes in viral patients. The toxicity profile, the access to and type of the second-line treatments and their outcome in terms of OS almost overlap in the two etiology subgroups. Conclusion: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab efficacy does not vary according to underlying etiology of HCC in a multicenter, real-world population, matching recent post hoc findings from the IMbrave-150 trial. Preliminary analyses suggest that some prognostic factors differ between viral and nonviral patients, potentially due to biological and immunological differences. Prospective and comparative trials stratifying by etiology are warranted to validate these findings and guide clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most patients receiving atezolizumab-bevacizumab (AB) for hepatocellular carcinoma will eventually experience disease progression. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are undergoing to identify second-line treatments. Where RCTs are unavailable or patients are non-eligible, sorafenib is often prescribed based on approval and reimbursement policies. However, evidence supporting this approach is minimal. To assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients who permanently discontinued AB. The ARTE database prospectively collects patients treated with AB in a real-life setting. We analysed the outcome of patients who received sorafenib as second-line treatment. Amongst 213 patients, 130 (61.0 %) permanently discontinued AB. Of them, 54 received second- line treatments, and sorafenib was prescribed in 40 patients. The disease control rate (DCR) was 10.0 %. The median progression-free (PFS) and overall survival were 3.3 (95 % confidence interval [CI] 2.7-3.9) and 6.9 months (95 % CI 2.7-11.1), respectively. In patients progressing under AB, the efficacy of sorafenib on different outcomes is limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AB) and lenvatinib can be alternatively used as first‐line systemic treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, no direct comparison of the two regimens has been performed in randomized clinical trials, making the identification of baseline differential predictors of response of major relevance to tailor the best therapeutic option to each patient. Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics of real‐world AB‐treated HCC patients were analyzed in uni‐ and multivariate analyses to find potential prognostic factors of overall survival (OS). Significant variables were incorporated in a composite score (α‐FAtE) and it was tested for specificity and sensitivity in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and in multivariate analysis for OS. The score was applied in uni‐ and multivariate analyses for OS of a comparable lenvatinib‐treated HCC population. Finally, comparison between treatments was performed in patients with low and high α‐FAtE scores and predictivity estimated by interaction analysis. Time‐to‐progression (TTP) was a secondary endpoint. OS of AB‐treated HCC patients was statistically longer in those with α‐fetoprotein <400 ng/mL (HR 0.62, p =.0407), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) <125 IU/L (HR 0.52, p =.0189) and eosinophil count ≥70/μL (HR 0.46, p =.0013). The α‐FAtE score was generated by the sum of single points attributed to each variable among the above reported. In ROC curve analysis, superior sensitivity and specificity were achieved by the score compared to individual variables (AUC 0.794, p <.02). Patients with high score had longer OS (HR 0.44, p =.0009) and TTP (HR 0.34, p <.0001) compared to low score if treated with AB, but not with lenvatinib. Overall, AB was superior to lenvatinib in high score patients (HR 0.55, p =.0043) and inferior in low score ones (HR 1.75, p =.0227). At interaction test, low α‐FAtE score resulted as negative predictive factor of response to AB (p =.0004). In conclusion, α‐FAtE is a novel prognostic and predictive score of response to first‐line AB for HCC patients that, if validated in prospective studies, could drive therapeutic choice between lenvatinib and AB. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to compare response rates of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, in first-line real-world setting. Methods: Overall cohort included Western and Eastern hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patient populations from 46 centres in 4 countries (Italy, Germany, Japan, and Republic of Korea). Results: 1312 patients were treated with lenvatinib, and 823 patients were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Objective response rate (ORR) was 38.6% for patients receiving lenvatinib, and 27.3% for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (p < 0.01; odds ratio 0.60). For patients who achieved complete response (CR), overall survival (OS) was not reached in both arms, but the result from univariate Cox regression model showed 62% reduction of death risk for patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (p = 0.05). In all multivariate analyses, treatment arm was not found to be an independent factor conditioning OS. Comparing ORR achieved in the two arms, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in all subgroups except for Eastern patients, Child–Pugh B patients, presence of portal vein thrombosis, α-feto-protein ≥ 400 ng/mL, presence of extrahepatic disease, albumin–bilirubin (ALBI) grade 2, and no previous locoregional procedures. Conclusion: Lenvatinib achieves higher ORR in all patient subgroups. Patients who achieve CR with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab can achieve OS so far never recorded in HCC patients. This study did not highlight any factors that could identify patient subgroups capable of obtaining CR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Liver transplantation (LT) represents the primary curative option for HCC. Despite the extension of transplantation criteria and conversion with down-staging loco-regional treatments, transplantation is not always possible. The introduction of new standards of care in advanced HCC including a combination of immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapies led to an improvement in response rates and could represent a promising strategy for down-staging the tumor burden. In this review, we identify reports and series, comprising a total of 43 patients who received immune checkpoint inhibitors as bridging or down-staging therapies prior to LT. Overall, treated patients registered an objective response rate of 21%, and 14 patients were reduced within the Milan criteria. Graft rejection was reported in seven patients, resulting in the death of four patients; in the remaining cases, LT was performed safely after immunotherapy. Further investigations are required to define the duration of immune checkpoint inhibitors, their minimum washout period and the LT long-term safety of this strategy. Some randomized clinical trials including immunotherapy combinations, loco-regional treatment and/or tyrosine kinase inhibitors are ongoing and will likely determine the appropriateness of immune checkpoint inhibitors' administration before LT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Although the extensive use of highly active oncological treatments has led to an increased rate of secondary resections in patients with colorectal liver metastases, it has led to questions regarding the correct surgical management of disappearing liver metastases (DLM) and small residual lesions during chemotherapy. Our study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcome of DLM and small remnant liver metastases (≤10 mm) assessed by means of hepatobiliary contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DW-MRI) in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with first-line chemotherapy treatment in order to support the clinical management and decision-making process for these liver lesions. Our results showed that DLM assessed via hepatobiliary contrast-enhanced and DW-MRI very probably indicate a complete response in patients without chemotherapy-induced sinusoidal obstruction syndrome. In these patients, a follow-up with liver MRI can be considered, and resection should be performed in the case of disease relapse. The surgical removal of small remnants of liver metastases should always be advocated whenever technically possible. We aimed to evaluate the outcome of the disappearance or small remnants of colorectal liver metastases during first-line chemotherapy assessed by hepatobiliary contrast-enhanced and diffusion-weighted MR imaging (DW-MRI). Consecutive patients with at least one disappearing liver metastasis (DLM) or small residual liver metastases (≤10 mm) assessed by hepatobiliary contrast-enhanced and DW-MRI during first-line chemotherapy were included. Liver lesions were categorized into three groups: DLM; residual tiny liver metastases (RTLM) when ≤5 mm; small residual liver metastases (SRLM) when >5mm and ≤10 mm. The outcome of resected liver metastases was assessed in terms of pathological response, whereas lesions left in situ were evaluated in terms of local relapse or progression. Fifty-two outpatients with 265 liver lesions were radiologically reviewed; 185 metastases fulfilled the inclusion criteria: 40 DLM, 82 RTLM and 60 SRLM. We observed a pCR rate of 75% (3/4) in resected DLM and 33% (12/36) of local relapse for DLM left in situ. We observed a risk of relapse of 29% and 57% for RTLM and SRLM left in situ, respectively, and a pCR rate of about 40% overall for resected lesions. DLM assessed via hepatobiliary contrast-enhanced and DW-MRI very probably indicates a complete response. The surgical removal of small remnants of liver metastases should always be advocated whenever technically possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the fifth most common cancer worldwide. For patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, therapeutic options are limited. Lenvatinib has proven to be an effective option for treating advanced diseases. For patients treated with lenvatinib, our study showed that the etiology of liver disease plays a significant role in overall survival. Patients whose liver disease was driven by nonviral etiologies showed longer survival than viral etiologies. These results are important for clinical decision-making between patients and clinicians. Background: Whether the etiology of underlying liver disease represents a prognostic factor in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with lenvatinib is still a matter of debate. This study investigates whether the viral etiology of HCC plays a prognostic role in overall survival (OS). Methods: Data derived from a multicenter series of 313 HCC patients treated with lenvatinib between 2019 and 2022 were analyzed. Actuarial survival estimates were computed using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. We performed an event-based counterfactual mediation analysis to estimate direct (chronic inflammation and immunosuppression), indirect (tobacco smoking, alcohol use, illicit drug abuse with injections), and the total effect of viral etiology on OS. Results were expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. Results: Median OS was 21 months (95% CI: 20–23) in the group with other etiologies and 15 months (14–16) in the group with viral etiology (p < 0.0001). The total effect of viral etiology was associated with OS (HR 2.76, 1.32–5.21), and it was mainly explained by the pure direct effect of viral etiology (HR 2.74, 1.15–4.45). By contrast, its total indirect effect was not associated with poorer survival (HR 1.05, 0.82–2.13). These results were confirmed when considering tobacco, alcohol consumption, or injection drug abuse as potential mediators. Median progression-free survival was 9 months (8–10) in patients with other etiologies and 6 months (5–7) in patients with viral etiology (p < 0.0001). No difference in terms of adverse event rate was observed between the two groups. Conclusions: Patients affected by HCC with nonviral etiology treated with lenvatinib exhibit longer survival than those with viral etiology. This finding may have relevance in the treatment decision-making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Immunotherapy is now the standard front-line therapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. However, there remains a substantial proportion of patient who do not respond to this treatment, and few predictive and prognostic biomarkers exist that can identify patients most likely to benefit from immunotherapy. Inflammation plays a role in driving tumor formation and progression. The aim of our study was to evaluate the prognostic utility of two blood-based markers of inflammation, which have the advantage of being easily accessible and inexpensive, and we found that one may predict survival outcomes in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with our current standard of care immunotherapy regimen. Systemic inflammation is a key risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) progression and poor outcomes. Inflammatory markers such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) may have prognostic value in HCC treated with standard of care atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo-Bev). We conducted a multicenter, international retrospective cohort study of patients with unresectable HCC treated with Atezo-Bev to assess the association of NLR and PLR with overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rates. Patients with NLR ≥ 5 had a significantly shorter OS (9.38 vs. 16.79 months, p < 0.001) and PFS (4.90 vs. 7.58 months, p = 0.03) compared to patients with NLR < 5. NLR ≥ 5 was an independent prognosticator of worse OS (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.22–3.56, p = 0.007) but not PFS. PLR ≥ 300 was also significantly associated with decreased OS (9.38 vs. 15.72 months, p = 0.007) and PFS (3.45 vs. 7.11 months, p = 0.04) compared to PLR < 300, but it was not an independent prognosticator of OS or PFS. NLR and PLR were not associated with objective response or disease control rates. NLR ≥ 5 independently prognosticated worse survival outcomes and is worthy of further study and validation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) had been explored extensively in patients affected by unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. These agents were expected to be the keystones of the disease's first-line treatment because they were theoretically able to revert the immune suppressive tumor microenvironment of the cancerous liver, and because of their manageable safety profile. However, when used as monotherapies, they showed important activity and efficacy limitations. In this mini-review, we summarize the characteristics of the different ICIs-based regimens which constitute the present gold standard of first-line treatment, then, moving from their shortcomings, we discuss the rationale supporting the strategies currently under investigation: systemic triplets and new paradigms of immune-therapeutic agents such as CAR-T and vaccines. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are a key component of different stages of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment, particularly in the first line of treatment. A lesson on the primary resistance which hampers their efficacy and activity was learned from the failure of the trials which tested them as first-line mono-therapies. Despite the combination of anti-PD(L)1 agents with anti-VEGF, anti CTLA4, or TKIs demonstrating relevant improvements in efficacy, the "doublets strategy" still shows room for improvement, due to a limited overall survival benefit and a high rate of progressive disease as best response. In this review, we discuss the results from the currently tested doublet strategies (i.e., atezolizumab+bevacizumab, durvalumab+tremelimumab with a mention to the newly presented ICIs/TKIs combinations), which highlight the need for therapeutic improvement. Furthermore, we examine the rationale and provide an overview of the ongoing trials testing the treatment intensification strategy with triplet drugs: anti-PD1+anti-CTLA4+anti-VEGF/TKIs and anti-PD1+anti-VEGF+alternative immunity targets. Lastly, we report on the alternative strategy to integrate ICIs into the new paradigm of immune therapeutics constituted by CAR-T and anti-cancer vaccines. This review provides up-to-date knowledge of ongoing clinical trials of the aforementioned strategies and critical insight into their mechanistic premises. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This multicenter study investigated the predictive value of baseline AFP and on-treatment AFP response for survival in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with regorafenib. Materials & methods: A total of 578 patients with HCC treated with regorafenib from 12 institutions in South Korea and Italy were included. Baseline AFP (cutoff, 400 ng/ml) and AFP response (20% reduction from baseline) were analyzed for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: Baseline AFP below 400 ng/ml was a significant factor that was independently associated with longer OS and PFS. AFP response was also a significant factor independently associated with longer OS and PFS. Conclusion: Baseline AFP and AFP response may be used as prognostic factors for survival in HCC treated with regorafenib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Lenvatinib is a standard of care option in first‐line therapy of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In the present study, we aim to identify, in patients with HCC treated with lenvatinib, a possible association between occurrence and grading of adverse events (AEs) and outcome. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of 606 Japanese and Italian patients treated with lenvatinib in first‐line setting and investigated the possible correlation between the onset of AEs, toxicity grade (G) and outcome measures such as overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS). Results: The appearance of arterial hypertension G ≥ 2 independently predicted prolonged OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46–0.93, P =.0188], whereas decreased appetite G ≥ 2 independently predicted decreased OS (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.25–2.32, P =.0007) by multivariate analysis. Appearance of hand‐foot skin reaction independently predicted prolonged PFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56–0.93, P =.0149), whereas decreased appetite G ≥ 2 predicted decreased PFS (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.04–1.77, P =.0277). Conclusions: Our main findings are that the occurrence of arterial hypertension G ≥ 2 is a predictor of longer survival, whereas decreased appetite G ≥ 2 predicts for a poor prognosis. A careful management of AEs under lenvatinib treatment for HCC is required, to improve patients' quality of life, minimize the need for treatment discontinuation and achieve optimal outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Recently, three published phase III trials highlighted the superiority of investigational drugs compared to placebo, thus leading to their approval in the second-line setting. We report here a MAIC of second-line MKI options for patients with HCC previously treated with sorafenib using individual real-world data of regorafenib and aggregate data of second-line cabozantinib from the CELESTIAL trial. Methods: Data from 278 patients who received regorafenib as second-line therapy after sorafenib failure for unresectable HCC were used as IPD. Data inclusion were adapted to those reported in the CELESTIAL trial in the subset of patients who received sorafenib as the only prior therapy. Survival medians and rates were obtained from Kaplan–Meier curves, and differences between regorafenib and cabozantinib groups were explored through Cox regression adjusted for weights originating from MAIC. Results: The median OS of the weighted regorafenib group was 11.1 months (IQR: 5.6–16.4) and 11.3 (IQR: 6.7–22.4) for cabozantinib; HR 0.83 (95%CI 0.62–1.09). The median PFS of the weighted regorafenib group was 3.0 months (IQR: 1.9–4.8) and 5.5 (IQR: 2.3–9.3) for cabozantinib; HR 0.50 (95%CI 0.41–0.62). In the subgroup who received prior sorafenib for < 3 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 6.5 months (IQR: 4.7–10.9) and 9.5 months (IQR: 5.9–18.2) for cabozantinib; HR 0.68 (95%CI 0.39–1.16). In the subgroup receiving prior sorafenib for 3 to < 6 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 8.0 months (IQR: 4.2–15.2) and 11.5 (IQR: 6.5–23.9) for cabozantinib; HR 0.66 (95%CI 0.42–1.02). In the subgroup receiving prior sorafenib for ≥ 6 months, the median OS of the regorafenib group was 13.4 (IQR: 8.1–46.5) and 12.3 (IQR: 6.6–22.9) for cabozantinib; HR 0.89 (95%CI 0.52–1.51). Conclusion: Our results confirmed no differences between regorafenib and cabozantinib in terms of OS. However, in earlier progressors on prior sorafenib a larger benefit might be expected from cabozantinib treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Advanced Hepatocarcinoma (HCC) is an important health problem worldwide. Recently, the REFLECT trial demonstrated the non‐inferiority of Lenvatinib compared to Sorafenib in I line setting, thus leading to the approval of new first‐line standard of care, along with Sorafenib. Aims and methods: With aim to evaluate the optimal choice between Sorafenib and Lenvatinib as primary treatment in clinical practice, we performed a multicentric analysis with the propensity score matching on 184 HCC patients. Results: The median overall survival (OS) were 15.2 and 10.5 months for Lenvatinib and Sorafenib arm, respectively. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) was 7.0 and 4.5 months for Lenvatinib and Sorafenib arm, respectively. Patients treated with Lenvatinib showed a 36% reduction of death risk (p = 0.0156), a 29% reduction of progression risk (p = 0.0446), a higher response rate (p < 0.00001) and a higher disease control rate (p = 0.002). Sorafenib showed to be correlated with more hand‐foot skin reaction and Lenvatinib with more hypertension and fatigue. We highlighted the prognostic role of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG‐PS), bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase and eosinophils for Sorafenib. Conversely, albumin, aspartate aminotransferase (AST), alkaline phosphatase and Neutrophil‐Lymphocyte Ratio (NLR) resulted prognostic in Lenvatinib arm. Finally, we highlighted the positive predictive role of albumin > Normal Value (NV), ECOG > 0, NLR < 3, absence of Hepatitis C Virus positivity, and presence of portal vein thrombosis in favor of Lenvatinib arm. Eosinophil < 50 and ECOG > 0 negatively predicted the response to Sorafenib. Conclusion: SLenvatinib showed to better perform in a real‐word setting compared to Sorafenib. More researches are needed to validate the predictor factors of response to Lenvatinib rather than Sorafenib. Key points: Recently, the REFLECT trial demonstrated the non‐inferiority of Lenvatinib compared to Sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) I line setting, thus leading to the approval of new first‐line standard of careWith aim to evaluate the optimal choice between Sorafenib and Lenvatinib as primary treatment in clinical practice, we performed a multicentric analysis with the propensity score matching on 184 HCC patientsIn our analysis, Lenvatinib showed to better perform in a real‐word setting compared to Sorafenib. More researches are needed to validate the predictor factors of response to Lenvatinib rather than Sorafenib [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Lenvatinib has been approved in Italy since October 2019 as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to date data on effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib are not available in our region. To fill this gap, we performed a multicentric analysis of the real-world treatment outcomes with the propensity score matching in a cohort of Italian patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with either sorafenib or lenvatinib. Aims and Methods: To evaluate the effectiveness of sorafenib and lenvatinib as primary treatment of advanced HCC in clinical practice we performed a multicentric analysis of the treatment outcomes of 288 such patients recruited in 11 centers in Italy. A propensity score was used to mitigate confounding due to referral biases in the assessment of mortality and progression-free survival. Results: Over a follow-up period of 11 months the Cox regression model showed 48% reduction of death risk for patients treated with lenvatinib (95% CI: 0.34– 0.81; p = 0.0034), compared with those treated with sorafenib. The median PFS was 9.0 and 4.9 months for lenvatinib and sorafenib arm, respectively. Patients treated with lenvatinib showed a higher percentage of response rate (29.4% vs 2.8%; p < 0.00001) compared with patients treated with sorafenib. Sorafenib was shown to be correlated with more HFSR, diarrhea and fatigue, while lenvatinib with more hypertension and fatigue. Conclusion: Our study highlighted for the first time the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in an Italian cohort of patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cabozantinib has been approved by the European Medicine Agency (EMA) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib. Cabozantinib is also being tested in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors in the frontline setting. Real-life clinical data of cabozantinib for HCC are still lacking. Moreover, the prognostic factors for HCC treated with cabozantinib have not been investigated. Methods: We evaluated clinical data and outcome of HCC patients who received cabozantinib in the legal context of named patient use in Italy. Results: Ninety-six patients from 15 centres received cabozantinib. All patients had preserved liver function (Child-Pugh A), mostly with an advanced HCC (77.1%) in a third-line setting (75.0%). The prevalence of performance status (PS) > 0, macrovascular invasion (MVI), extrahepatic spread, and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) >400 ng/mL was 50.0, 30.2, 67.7, and 44.8%, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival were 12.1 (95% confidence interval 9.4–14.8) and 5.1 (3.3–6.9) months, respectively. Most common treatment-related adverse events (AEs) were fatigue (67.7%), diarrhoea (54.2%), anorexia (45.8%), HFSR (43.8%), weight loss (24.0%), and hypertension (24.0%). Most common treatment-related Grade 3–4 AEs were fatigue (6.3%), HFSR (6.3%), and increased aminotransferases (6.3%). MVI, ECOG-PS > 0, and AFP >400 ng/mL predicted a worse OS. Discontinuation for intolerance and no new extrahepatic lesions at the progression were associated with better outcomes. Conclusions: In a real-life Western scenario (mostly in a third-line setting), cabozantinib efficacy and safety data were comparable with those reported in its registration trial. Data regarding the prognostic factors might help in patient selection and design of clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: A link has been established between malnutrition, immunological status, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The prognostic nutritional index (PNI) has been recognized as a prognostic indicator in early‐stage HCC and in patients treated with first‐line therapy. However, to date, the role of the PNI in HCC patients treated with regorafenib has not been reported. Methods: We undertook a multicentric analysis on a cohort of 284 patients affected by advanced HCC treated with regorafenib. The PNI was calculated as follows: 10 × serum albumin concentration (g/dl) + 0.005 × peripheral lymphocyte count (number/mm3). Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to investigate the association between PNI and survival outcomes. Results: A PNI cut‐off value of 44.45 was calculated by a receiver operating characteristic analysis. The median overall survival was 12.8 and 7.8 months for patients with high (>44.45) and low (≤44.45) PNI, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.43–0.77; p = 0.0002). In the univariate and multivariate analyses, low PNI value and increased serum bilirubin level emerged as independent prognostic factors for overall survival. No differences were found between high and low PNI in terms of progression‐free survival (p = 0.14). Conclusion: If validated, the PNI could represent an easy‐to‐use prognostic tool able to guide the clinical decision‐making process in HCC patients treated with regorafenib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Data from common clinical practice were used to generate balanced cohorts of patients receiving either sorafenib or lenvatinib, for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, with the final aim to investigate their declared equivalence. Methods: Clinical features of lenvatinib and sorafenib patients were balanced through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology, which weights patients' characteristics and measured outcomes of each patient in both treatment arms. Overall survival was the primary endpoint and occurrence of adverse events was the secondary. Results: The analysis included 385 patients who received lenvatinib, and 555 patients who received sorafenib. In the unadjusted cohort, lenvatinib did not show a survival advantage over sorafenib (HR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.70‐1.02). After IPTW adjustment, lenvatinib still not returned a survival advantage over sorafenib (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.62‐1.07) even in presence of balanced baseline characteristics. Lenvatinib provided longer survival than sorafenib in patients previously submitted to TACE (HR: 0.69), with PS of 0 (HR: 0.73) or without extrahepatic disease (HR: 0.69). Conclusion: Present results confirmed randomized controlled trial in the real‐life setting, but also suggests that in earlier stages some benefit can be expected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sorafenib represents one of the therapeutic strongholds for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but unfortunately, predictive factors are lacking. We previously reported that the VEGF single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) rs2010963 and rs4604006 might correlate with clinical outcomes in sorafenib-treated HCC patients.Objective: The objective of the ALICE-2 study is to define a prognostic angiogenesis profile to better identify HCC patients who are more likely to benefit from sorafenib treatment.Patients and Methods: From 2008 to 2015, all consecutive HCC patients receiving sorafenib according to the Italian label were tested for specific HIF-1α, VEGF, and VEGFR SNPs. Results from angiogenesis genotyping were then correlated with clinical outcome parameters.Results: Globally, a total of 210 patients were enrolled. At multivariate analysis rs12434438 of HIF1α, rs2010963 of VEGF-A, and rs4604006 of VEGF-C were confirmed as independent predictive factors. At the combined analysis of significant SNPs, the presence of two favourable alleles of rs2010963 and rs4604006 of VEGF compared to only one or to none favourable alleles, was able to identify three separate patients populations with different time-to-progression (TTP) (10.8 vs. 5.6 vs. 3.7 months, respectively; p < 0.0001) and overall survival (OS) (19.0 vs. 13.5 vs. 7.5 months, respectively; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, the presence of the GG genotype of rs12434438 (HIF-1α) seemed able to select a population with a particularly poor outcome, independently from the clinical effect of the two VEGF SNPs (TTP: 2.6 months, HR: 0.54, p = 0.0374; OS: 6.6 months, p = 0.0061, HR: 0.43).Conclusions: Our findings show that polymorphism analysis of HIF-1α, VEGF, and VEGFR genes may represent a prognostic panel to better identify HCC patients who are more likely to benefit from sorafenib treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Early assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) response during sorafenib (SO) treatment is challenging, since tumor necrosis, extension and radiological appearance can be inhomogeneous. We evaluated the predictive value of different imaging criteria - such as Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), modified RECIST (mRECIST), tumor density and volume variations - in the early follow-up of SO treatment. Methods: The study included 22 patients. CT images from baseline and 2 months were reviewed to assess response according to RECIST 1.1, mRECIST, EASL, Choi's criteria (decreased tumor density by ≥15%) and arterial-enhancing tumor volume ratio; α-fetoprotein (AFP) variations were expressed as AFP ratio. Results: The response criteria and volume measurements were reproducible (k > 0.80). The overall disease control rate was 40.9% by EASL and mRECIST, and 27.3% by RECIST 1.1; a ≥15% decrease in tumor density was observed in 9 patients (40.9%). The mean volume ratio was 1.73 ± 2.12, the mean AFP ratio 14 ± 37. The 1-year survival rate was 65.9%. Volume ratio was the only predictive factor for survival, with 1-year cumulative survival rates of 90% for volume ratios ≤1.1 and of 45.4% for volume ratios >1.1 (p = 0.04). Conclusions: Tumor volume measurements are reproducible and might provide an early predictive marker of response in HCC patients treated with SO. © 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains one of the most common neoplasms in the world. Doxifluridine is an oral fluoropyrimidine derivative activated to 5-fluorouracil by uridine phosphorylase which is more expressed in malignant cells. Therefore, we conducted a phase II study to evaluate the activity of oral doxifluridine in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Twenty-five advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients entered the study; doxifluridine was given orally at the initial daily total dose of 2,250 mg for 4 consecutive days every week. All patients are evaluable for toxicity: these included mainly grade 1–2 (WHO) diarrhea, stomatitis, nausea and vomiting; 4 patients (16%) experienced grade 3–4 diarrhea. Twenty-four patients are evaluable for response and 1 complete and 3 partial responses have been observed (response rat 17%, 95% confidence interval: 5–37). Oral doxifluridine at the dose and schedule we used, although having only modest activity in advanced HCC, may represent an alternative to other frequently used chemotherapeutic agents, because of its favorable toxicity profile and its simple route of administration.Copyright © 2000 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The most frequently used first-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Upon progression after this treatment, the standard of care in many countries is sorafenib, due to the lack of reimbursement for other drugs. Several randomized trials are currently underway to clarify the best second-line therapy in patients with HCC. This real-world study aimed to compare outcomes reached by lenvatinib and sorafenib second-line therapy in this setting. Methods: The overall cohort included 891 patients with HCC from 5 countries treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in first-line setting between October 2018 and April 2022. At the data cut-off (May 2022), 41.5% of patients were continuing a first-line treatment, 5.5% were lost at follow-up, and 53.0% of patients had progressive disease after first-line therapy. 51.5% of patients with progressive disease received a second-line treatment, while 48.5% did not receive any subsequent therapy. Between patients receiving second-line treatment, 11.1% of patients underwent transarterial chemoembolization, 21.0% received sorafenib, 35.4% underwent lenvatinib, and 32.5% were treated with other drugs. Results: Lenvatinib second-line subgroup achieved a median overall survival (mOS) of 18.9 months, significative longer (p = 0.01; hazard ratio [HR]: 2.24) compared to sorafenib subgroup that reached a mOS of 14.3 months. The multivariate analysis highlighted albumin-bilirubin 1 grade (p < 0.01; HR: 5.23) and lenvatinib second-line therapy (p = 0.01; HR: 2.18) as positive prognostic factors for OS. The forest plot highlighted a positive trend in terms of OS in favor of patients treated with lenvatinib second-line regardless of baseline characteristics before first-line therapy. Conclusion: These results suggest that, in patients with HCC progressed to first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib second-line therapy is associated to an improved survival compared to sorafenib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systemic therapies have improved the management of hepatocellular carcinoma, but there is still a need to further enhance overall survival in first-line advanced stages. This study aimed to evaluate the addition of pembrolizumab to lenvatinib versus lenvatinib plus placebo in the first-line setting for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. In this global, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study (LEAP-002), patients aged 18 years or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, Child Pugh class A liver disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no previous systemic treatment were enrolled at 172 global sites. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a central interactive voice-response system (block size of 4) to receive lenvatinib (bodyweight <60 kg, 8 mg/day; bodyweight ≥60 kg, 12 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or lenvatinib plus placebo. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, macrovascular portal vein invasion or extrahepatic spread or both, α-fetoprotein concentration, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Dual primary endpoints were overall survival (superiority threshold at final overall survival analysis, one-sided p=0·019; final analysis to occur after 532 events) and progression-free survival (superiority threshold one-sided p=0·002; final analysis to occur after 571 events) in the intention-to-treat population. Results from the final analysis are reported. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03713593 , and is active but not recruiting. Between Jan 17, 2019, and April 28, 2020, of 1309 patients assessed, 794 were randomly assigned to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n=395) or lenvatinib plus placebo (n=399). Median age was 66·0 years (IQR 57·0–72·0), 644 (81%) of 794 were male, 150 (19%) were female, 345 (43%) were Asian, 345 (43%) were White, 22 (3%) were multiple races, 21 (3%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 21 (3%) were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 13 (2%) were Black or African American, and 46 (6%) did not have available race data. Median follow up as of data cutoff for the final analysis (June 21, 2022) was 32·1 months (IQR 29·4–35·3). Median overall survival was 21·2 months (95% CI 19·0–23·6; 252 [64%] of 395 died) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 19·0 months (17·2–21·7; 282 [71%] of 399 died) with lenvatinib plus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·84; 95% CI 0·71–1·00; stratified log-rank p=0·023). As of data cutoff for the progression-free survival final analysis (April 5, 2021), median progression-free survival was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·4–8·4; 270 events occurred [42 deaths; 228 progressions]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 8·0 months (6·3–8·2; 301 events occurred [36 deaths; 265 progressions]) with lenvatinib plus placebo (HR 0·87; 95% CI 0·73–1·02; stratified log-rank p=0·047). The most common treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events were hypertension (69 [17%] of 395 patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group vs 68 [17%] of 395 patients) in the lenvatinib plus placebo group), increased aspartate aminotransferase (27 [7%] vs 17 [4%]), and diarrhoea (25 [6%] vs 15 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (1%) patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (due to gastrointestinal haemorrhage and hepatorenal syndrome [n=1 each] and hepatic encephalopathy [n=2]) and in three (1%) patients in the lenvatinib plus placebo group (due to gastrointestinal haemorrhage, hepatorenal syndrome, and cerebrovascular accident [n=1 each]). In earlier studies, the addition of pembrolizumab to lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma has shown promising clinical activity; however, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab did not meet prespecified significance for improved overall survival and progression-free survival versus lenvatinib plus placebo. Our findings do not support a change in clinical practice. Eisai US, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib have not been compared in a randomised controlled trial. We conducted a retrospective multi-centre study to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and atezolizumab with bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC in the real-world scenario. Clinical features of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab patients were balanced through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology, which weights patients' characteristics and measured outcomes of each patient in both treatment arms. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end-point. The analysis included 1341 patients who received lenvatinib, and 864 patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. After IPTW adjustment, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab did not show a survival advantage over lenvatinib HR 0.97 (p = 0.739). OS was prolonged by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab over lenvatinib in viral patients (HR: 0.76; p = 0.024). Conversely, OS was prolonged by lenvatinib in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (HR: 1.88; p = 0.014). In the IPTW-adjusted population, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab provided better safety profile for most of the recorded adverse events. Our study did not identify any meaningful difference in OS between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib. Although some hints are provided suggesting that patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease might benefit more from lenvatinib therapy and patients with viral aetiology more from atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. • No randomised trial has been conducted to compare atezolizumab plus bevacizumab to lenvatinib. • Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab did not show a survival advantage over lenvatinib. • Lenvatinib provided longer in patients with NASH/NAFLD. • Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab provided longer in patients with viral aetiology. • Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab consistently reduced any toxicity and those graded as 3–4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this retrospective proof-of-concept study was to compare different second-line treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and progressive disease (PD) after first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. A total of 1381 patients had PD at first-line therapy. 917 patients received lenvatinib as first-line treatment, and 464 patients atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line. 49.6% of PD patients received a second-line therapy without any statistical difference in overall survival (OS) between lenvatinib (20.6 months) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line (15.7 months; p = 0.12; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80). After lenvatinib first-line, there wasn't any statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p = 0.27; sorafenib HR: 1; immunotherapy HR: 0.69; other therapies HR: 0.85). Patients who underwent trans-arterial chemo-embolization (TACE) had a significative longer OS than patients who received sorafenib (24.7 versus 15.8 months, p < 0.01; HR = 0.64). After atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line, there was a statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p < 0.01; sorafenib HR: 1; lenvatinib HR: 0.50; cabozantinib HR: 1.29; other therapies HR: 0.54). Patients who received lenvatinib (17.0 months) and those who underwent TACE (15.9 months) had a significative longer OS than patients treated with sorafenib (14.2 months; respectively, p = 0.01; HR = 0.45, and p < 0.05; HR = 0.46). Approximately half of patients receiving first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab access second-line treatment. Our data suggest that in patients progressed to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is lenvatinib, while in patients progressed to lenvatinib, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is immunotherapy. • About half of progressed patients undergo second-line therapy. • Second-line TACE achieve significantly longer survivals than second-line sorafenib. • After lenvatinib, immunotherapy is the systemic treatment with the longest survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are no systemic treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) whose disease progresses during sorafenib treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients with HCC who have progressed during sorafenib treatment.Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done at 152 sites in 21 countries, adults with HCC who tolerated sorafenib (≥400 mg/day for ≥20 of last 28 days of treatment), progressed on sorafenib, and had Child-Pugh A liver function were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) by a computer-generated randomisation list and interactive voice response system and stratified by geographical region, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic disease, and α-fetoprotein level to best supportive care plus oral regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily during weeks 1-3 of each 4-week cycle. Investigators, patients, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (defined as time from randomisation to death due to any cause) and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774344.Findings: Between May 14, 2013, and Dec 31, 2015, 843 patients were screened, of whom 573 were enrolled and randomised (379 to regorafenib and 194 to placebo; population for efficacy analyses), and 567 initiated treatment (374 received regorafenib and 193 received placebo; population for safety analyses). Regorafenib improved overall survival with a hazard ratio of 0·63 (95% CI 0·50-0·79; one-sided p<0·0001); median survival was 10·6 months (95% CI 9·1-12·1) for regorafenib versus 7·8 months (6·3-8·8) for placebo. Adverse events were reported in all regorafenib recipients (374 [100%] of 374) and 179 (93%) of 193 placebo recipients. The most common clinically relevant grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent events were hypertension (57 patients [15%] in the regorafenib group vs nine patients [5%] in the placebo group), hand-foot skin reaction (47 patients [13%] vs one [1%]), fatigue (34 patients [9%] vs nine patients [5%]), and diarrhoea (12 patients [3%] vs no patients). Of the 88 deaths (grade 5 adverse events) reported during the study (50 patients [13%] assigned to regorafenib and 38 [20%] assigned to placebo), seven (2%) were considered by the investigator to be related to study drug in the regorafenib group and two (1%) in the placebo group, including two patients (1%) with hepatic failure in the placebo group.Interpretation: Regorafenib is the only systemic treatment shown to provide survival benefit in HCC patients progressing on sorafenib treatment. Future trials should explore combinations of regorafenib with other systemic agents and third-line treatments for patients who fail or who do not tolerate the sequence of sorafenib and regorafenib.Funding: Bayer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]