Search

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a highly metastatic disease for which better therapies are urgently needed. Fibroblasts and macrophages are heterogeneous cell populations able to enhance metastasis, but the role of a macrophage-fibroblast crosstalk in regulating their pro-metastatic functions remains poorly understood. Here we deconvolve how macrophages regulate metastasis-associated fibroblast (MAF) heterogeneity in the liver. We identify three functionally distinct MAF populations, among which the generation of pro-metastatic and immunoregulatory myofibroblastic-MAFs (myMAFs) critically depends on macrophages. Mechanistically, myMAFs are induced through a STAT3-dependent mechanism driven by macrophage-derived progranulin and cancer cell-secreted leukaemia inhibitory factor (LIF). In a reciprocal manner, myMAF secreted osteopontin promotes an immunosuppressive macrophage phenotype resulting in the inhibition of cytotoxic T cell functions. Pharmacological blockade of STAT3 or myMAF-specific genetic depletion of STAT3 restores an anti-tumour immune response and reduces metastases. Our findings provide molecular insights into the complex macrophage-fibroblast interactions in tumours and reveal potential targets to inhibit PDAC liver metastasis., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: KEYNOTE-224 cohort 1 demonstrated that pembrolizumab was efficacious and tolerable in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib. We report results from KEYNOTE-224 (NCT02702414) cohort 2, which enrolled patients with advanced HCC and no prior systemic therapy., Patients and Methods: KEYNOTE-224 was an open-label, multicountry phase II trial. Eligible patients in cohort 2 had advanced HCC not amenable or refractory to locoregional therapy and not previously treated with systemic therapy. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks for ≤2 years. Primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) by central imaging review per RECIST v1.1. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), disease control rate (DCR), time to progression (TTP), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety/tolerability., Results: Between September 4, 2018, and February 20, 2019, 51 patients were allocated in cohort 2. The median time from the first dose to data cutoff (January 19, 2021) was 27 months (range, 23-29). ORR was 16% [95% confidence interval (CI), 7-29] and was similar across key subgroups. Median DOR was 16 months (range, 3-24+), and DCR was 57%. The median PFS was 4 months (95% CI, 2-8), and median TTP was 4 months (95% CI, 3-9). Median OS was 17 months (95% CI, 8-23). Grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 16% of patients., Conclusions: In patients with advanced HCC with no prior systemic therapy, pembrolizumab provided durable antitumor activity, promising OS, and had a safety profile consistent with previous observations. These findings support further evaluation of pembrolizumab-based regimens for HCC., (©2022 The Authors; Published by the American Association for Cancer Research.)

Objective: Pembrolizumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, demonstrated anti-tumour activity and tolerability in patients treated with sorafenib and with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in KEYNOTE-224. Longer-term efficacy and safety after ∼2.5 years of additional follow-up are reported., Patients and Methods: Adults with confirmed hepatocellular carcinoma who experienced progression after or intolerance to sorafenib treatment received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for ≤35 cycles or until confirmed progression, unacceptable toxicity, withdrawal of consent or investigator decision. The primary end-point was objective response rate assessed by blinded independent central review per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours v1.1. The secondary end-points included duration of response, disease control rate, time to progression, progression-free survival, overall survival and adverse events., Results: Efficacy and safety were assessed in 104 patients. The median time from first dose to data cutoff was 45.1 months (range, 41.3-49.3). Objective response rate was 18.3% (95% CI: 11.4-27.1), and median duration of response was 21.0 months (range, 3.1 to 39.5+). Disease control rate was 61.5%, and median time to progression was 4.8 months (95% CI: 3.9-7.0). Median progression-free survival was 4.9 months (95% CI: 3.5-6.7) and median overall survival was 13.2 months (95% CI: 9.7-15.3). Of 104 patients, 76 (73.1%) patients reported treatment-related adverse events; most were low grade in severity (grade 3-4, n = 26 [25.0%]; grade 5, n = 1 [1.0%]). Immune-mediated hepatitis occurred in 3 patients (all grade 3). No viral-induced hepatitis flares occurred., Conclusions: After ∼2.5 years of additional follow-up, pembrolizumab continued to provide durable anti-tumour activity and no new safety concerns were identified., Gov Identifier: NCT02702414., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: M. Kudo has received a grant and fees from Eisai, and Bristol Myers Squibb; has received fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and Eli Lilly; has served a consultant for Bayer, Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Ono; and has received a grant from Otsuka, Taiho, EA Pharma, Takeda, Gilead, AbbVie, and Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma; R.S. Finn has received fees and a grant to his institution from Merck, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Pfizer, Roche/Genentech; and has received fees from AstraZeneca and CStone; J. Edeline has received personal fees from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Ipsen, Boston Scientific, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA; and has received grants from Bristol Myers Squibb, BeiGene, and Boston Scientific; S. Cattan has nothing to disclose; S. Ogasawara has received a grant and fees from Bayer, Eisai, Eli Lilly; and has received fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, AstraZeneca, and Chugai; D. Palmer has received a grant and fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, NuCana Inc, and Sirtex; has received a grant from AstraZeneca; and has received fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, Roche, and Eisai; C. Verslype has received a grant from Baye and Ipsen and has served as a consultant for Bayer, Ipsen, and Roche; V. Zagonel has served in an advisory capacity or as a consultant for Bristol Myers Squibb and Merck; has served as a speaker for Bayer, Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, SERVIER, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly; and has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Bayer, Roche, and SERVIER; L. Fartoux has no conflicts of interest to report. A. Vogel has received fees for serving in an advisory capacity/consultant, has received speaking fees, has received fees for expert testimony, and has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, BTG, Eli Lilly, Incyte Corporation, Ipsen, Janssen, Merck, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier; D. Sarker has received fees from Eisai, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Surface Oncology; has received fees and non-financial support from Ipsen; has received non-financial support from MiNA Therapeutics; and has received a grant from Roche; G. Verset has received a grant from Terumo; has served as a consultant for Terumo and BTG; has served in an advisory capacity for Bayer, Eisai, and Roche; and has received travel expenses for attending congresses from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, and Ipsen; S.L. Chan has participated as an advisor for AstraZeneca; J. Knox has received a grant for an investigator-initiated study from Merck; and has received fees for consulting from Merck, Ipsen, and Roche; B. Daniele has received fees from Ipsen, Eisai, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, Bayer, Roche, and Amgen; and has received non-financial support from Ipsen, Bristol Myers Squibb; T. Yau has received fees for serving in an advisory capacity or as a consultant and has received honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, Exelixis, Ipsen, Eisai, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Novartis, EMD Serono, AbbVie, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Sirtex, SillaJen, Taiho, OrigiMed, New Beta Innovation, Sirtex, and H3 Biomedicine; E.B. Gurary and A. B. Siegel are employees of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA; A. Wang is an employee of Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA and has stock in Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA; A-L Cheng has received fees for consulting from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Merck Serono, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Exelixis, Nucleix, Ipsen Innovation, Bayer Healthcare, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, Roche/Genentech, BeiGene, CSR Pharma Group, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and IQVIA; has received travel support from Roche/Genentech, IQVIA, and Bayer Yakuhin; and has received speaker fees from Eisai, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Bayer Yakuhin, and Amgen Taiwan; A.X. Zhu has received fees for consulting from Merck, Eli Lilly, Bayer, Sanofi, Eisai, Exelixis, and Roche., (Copyright © 2022 Masatoshi Kudo, Richard S. Finn, Julien Edeline, Stéphane Cattan, Sadahisa Ogasawara, Daniel H. Palmer, Chris Verslype, Vittorina Zagonel, Laetitia Fartoux, Arndt Vogel, Debashis Sarker, Gontran Verset, Stephen L. Chan, Jennifer Knox, Bruno Daniele, Thomas Yau, Ellen B. Gurary, Abby B. Siegel, Anran Wang, Ann-Lii Cheng, Andrew X. Zhu, KEYNOTE-224 Investigators. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) incidence, management and survival across England were examined to determine if geographical inequalities exist., Method: 15,468 HCC cases diagnosed 2010-2016 were included. Age-standardised incidence rates, net survival and proportions receiving potentially curative treatment and presenting through each route to diagnosis adjusted for age at diagnosis, sex and area-based deprivation quintile, were calculated overall and by Cancer Alliance., Results: HCC incidence rates increased in men from 6.2 per 100,000 in 2010 to 8.8 in 2016, and in women from 1.5 to 2.2. The highest incidence rates, found in parts of the North of England and London, were nearly double the lowest. The adjusted proportion presenting as an emergency ranged 27-41% across Cancer Alliances. Odds increased with increasing deprivation quintile and age. Only one in five patients received potentially curative treatment (range 15-28%) and odds decreased with increasing deprivation and age. One-year survival in 2013-2016 ranged 38-53%., Conclusion: This population-based, nationwide analysis demonstrates clear differences in HCC incidence, management and survival across England. It highlights socioeconomic-associated variation and the need for improvement in early diagnosis and curative treatment of HCC. This research should assist policymakers, service providers and clinicians to identify regions where additional training, services and resources would be best directed., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is commonly diagnosed using non-invasive radiological criteria (NIRC) defined by the European Association for the Study of the Liver or the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. In 2017, The National Institute for Clinical Excellence mandated histological confirmation of disease to authorise the use of sorafenib in the UK., Methods: This was a prospective multicentre audit in which patients suitable for sorafenib were identified at multidisciplinary meetings. The primary analysis cohort (PAC) was defined by the presence of Child-Pugh class A liver disease and performance status 0-2. Clinical, radiological and histological data were reported locally and collected on a standardised case report form., Results: Eleven centres reported 418 cases, of which 361 comprised the PAC. Overall, 76% had chronic liver disease and 66% were cirrhotic. The diagnostic imaging was computed tomography in 71%, magnetic resonance imaging in 27% and 2% had both. Pre-existing histology was available in 45 patients and 270 underwent a new biopsy, which confirmed HCC in 93.4%. Alternative histological diagnoses included cholangiocarcinoma (CC) and combined HCC-CC. In cirrhotic patients, NIRC criteria had a sensitivity of 65.4% and a positive predictive value of 91.4% to detect HCC. Two patients (0.7%) experienced mild post-biopsy bleeding., Conclusion: The diagnostic biopsy is safe and feasible for most patients eligible for systemic therapy., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background and Objective: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Despite recent advances, more effective therapeutic options for patients with advanced HCC are still required. The aim of this Phase 2, multicenter, multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study (NCT02528643) was to investigate the potential benefit of enzalutamide in the treatment of patients with advanced HCC., Methods: Patients aged ≥ 18 years diagnosed with advanced HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C and Child-Pugh class A at screening who had progressed on, or were intolerant to, sorafenib or other anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapies) were randomized 2:1 to receive either enzalutamide 160 mg daily or placebo. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety., Results: In total, 165 patients were randomized to enzalutamide (n = 110) or placebo (n = 55). The hazard ratio (HR) (95% confidence interval [CI]) for OS was 1.15 (0.774-1.696) and median OS was 7.8 months and 7.7 months for enzalutamide and placebo, respectively. The HR (95% CI) for PFS was 1.04 (0.732-1.474) and median PFS was 2.2 months and 1.9 months for enzalutamide and placebo, respectively. The overall frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was broadly similar between the groups: 105 (98.1%) enzalutamide patients experienced ≥1 TEAEs compared with 49 (89.1%) placebo patients., Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that enzalutamide does not provide a benefit in patients with advanced HCC. No unexpected safety findings were observed in the trial. CLINICALTRIALS., Gov Identifier: NCT02528643., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Purpose: Transcription factor C/EBP-α (CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein alpha) acts as a master regulator of hepatic and myeloid functions and multiple oncogenic processes. MTL-CEBPA is a first-in-class small activating RNA oligonucleotide drug that upregulates C/EBP-α., Patients and Methods: We conducted a phase I, open-label, dose-escalation trial of MTL-CEBPA in adults with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with cirrhosis, or resulting from nonalcoholic steatohepatitis or with liver metastases. Patients received intravenous MTL-CEBPA once a week for 3 weeks followed by a rest period of 1 week per treatment cycle in the dose-escalation phase (3+3 design)., Results: Thirty-eight participants have been treated across six dose levels (28-160 mg/m 2 ) and three dosing schedules. Thirty-four patients were evaluable for safety endpoints at 28 days. MTL-CEBPA treatment-related adverse events were not associated with dose, and no maximum dose was reached across the three schedules evaluated. Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in nine (24%) patients. In 24 patients with HCC evaluable for efficacy, an objective tumor response was achieved in one patient [4%; partial response (PR) for over 2 years] and stable disease (SD) in 12 (50%). After discontinuation of MTL-CEBPA, seven patients were treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs); three patients had a complete response with one further PR and two with SD., Conclusions: MTL-CEBPA is the first saRNA in clinical trials and demonstrates an acceptable safety profile and potential synergistic efficacy with TKIs in HCC. These encouraging phase I data validate targeting of C/EBP-α and have prompted MTL-CEBPA + sorafenib combination studies in HCC., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Multiple systemic agents have recently been approved in the first- and second-line setting for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), increasing the therapeutic options for patients and treating physicians. The randomised controlled trials that led to these approvals were predominantly conducted in a population comprised of patients with advanced HCC. However, these trials also included a subset of patients who had progressed after locoregional therapies (LRTs), mostly transarterial chemoembolisation. With a greater number of systemic agents available, the role of LRTs has become a topic of debate, specifically regarding when to transition to systemic therapy in unresectable HCC and the potential opportunities for combining locoregional and systemic therapies. Trials of immuno-oncology agents (notably T cell checkpoint inhibitors) are ongoing in the advanced disease setting and these agents also present opportunities for combination therapies, both with other systemic agents and with LRTs in earlier stage disease. This article will review strategies to guide patient selection for LRT as well as the development of locoregional-systemic combinations based on scientific rationale and the challenges of clinical trial design in this setting., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Aim: To determine whether a liver tumor burden ≤25% and well-preserved liver function (albumin-bilirubin grade 1) are appropriate criteria for identifying patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who may benefit from selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) using 90 yttrium resin microspheres versus sorafenib. Patients & methods: Post-hoc analysis of patients in the intention-to-treat population of the SARAH trial (SIRT vs sorafenib) with ≤25% tumor burden and albumin-bilirubin grade 1. Primary end point: overall survival. Results: Median overall survival was 21.9 months (95% CI: 15.2-32.5, n = 37) with SIRT and 17.0 months (11.6-20.8, n = 48) with sorafenib (hazard ratios: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.44-1.21; p = 0.22). Conclusion: A combination of good liver function and low tumor burden may be relevant for selection of hepatocellular carcinoma patients for SIRT.

Outcomes for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remain poor despite recent progress in drug development. Emerging data implicate FGF19 as a potential HCC driver, suggesting its receptor, FGFR4, as a novel therapeutic target. We evaluated fisogatinib (BLU-554), a highly potent and selective oral FGFR4 inhibitor, in a phase I dose-escalation/dose-expansion study in advanced HCC using FGF19 expression measured by IHC as a biomarker for pathway activation. For dose escalation, 25 patients received 140 to 900 mg fisogatinib once daily; the maximum tolerated dose (600 mg once daily) was expanded in 81 patients. Fisogatinib was well tolerated; most adverse events were manageable, grade 1/2 gastrointestinal events, primarily diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. Across doses, the overall response rate was 17% in FGF19-positive patients [median duration of response: 5.3 months (95% CI, 3.7-not reached)] and 0% in FGF19-negative patients. These results validate FGFR4 as a targetable driver in FGF19-positive advanced HCC. SIGNIFICANCE: Fisogatinib elicited clinical responses in patients with tumor FGF19 overexpression in advanced HCC. These results validate the oncogenic driver role of the FGFR4 pathway in HCC and the use of FGF19 as a biomarker for patient selection. See related commentary by Subbiah and Pal, p. 1646 . This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 1631 ., (©2019 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Background: Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is the standard of care for patients with intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma, while the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib improves survival in patients with advanced disease. We aimed to determine whether TACE with sorafenib improves progression-free survival versus TACE with placebo., Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (TACE 2) in 20 hospitals in the UK for patients with unresectable, liver-confined hepatocellular carcinoma. Patients were eligible if they were at least aged 18 years, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, and had Child-Pugh A liver disease. Patients were randomised 1:1 by computerised minimisation algorithm to continuous oral sorafenib (400 mg twice-daily) or matching placebo combined with TACE using drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE), which was given via the hepatic artery 2-5 weeks after randomisation and according to radiological response and patient tolerance thereafter. Patients were stratified according to randomising centre and serum α-fetoprotein concentration (<400 ng/mL and ≥400 ng/mL). Only the trial coordinator was unmasked to treatment allocation before patient progression during the study. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival defined as the interval between randomisation and progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) or death due to any cause, and was analysed by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed by intention-to-treat. The trial has been completed and the final results are reported. The trial is registered at EudraCT, number 2008-005073-36, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN93375053., Findings: Between Nov 4, 2010, and Dec 7, 2015, the trial enrolled 399 patients and was terminated after a planned interim futility analysis. 86 patients failed screening and 313 remaining patients were randomly assigned: 157 to sorafenib and 156 to placebo. The median daily dose was 660 mg (IQR 389·2-800·0) sorafenib versus 800 mg (758·2-800·0) placebo, and median duration of therapy was 120·0 days (IQR 43·0-266·0) for sorafenib versus 162·0 days (70·0-323·5) for placebo. There was no evidence of difference in progression-free survival between the sorafenib group and the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99 [95% CI 0·77-1·27], p=0·94); median progression-free survival was 238·0 days (95% CI 221·0-281·0) in the sorafenib group and 235·0 days (209·0-322·0) in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (29 [18%] of 157 patients in the sorafenib group vs 21 [13%] of 156 patients in the placebo group), abdominal pain (20 [13%] vs 12 [8%]), diarrhoea (16 [10%] vs four [3%]), gastrointestinal disorders (18 [11%] vs 12 [8%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (12 [8%] and none). At least one serious adverse event was reported in 65 (41%) of 157 patients in the sorafenib group and 50 (32%) of 156 in the placebo group, and 181 serious adverse events were reported in total, 95 (52%) in the sorafenib group and 86 (48%) in the placebo group. Three deaths occurred in each group that were attributed to DEB-TACE. Four deaths were attributed to study drug; three in the sorafenib group and one in the placebo group., Interpretation: The addition of sorafenib to DEB-TACE does not improve progression-free survival in European patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Alternative systemic therapies need to be assessed in combination with TACE to improve patient outcomes., Funding: Bayer PLC and BTG PLC., (Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) has been shown to be a poor surrogate for survival benefit with targeted therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)., Methods: We investigated whether response evaluated using modified RECIST (mRECIST) predicted overall survival (OS) using data from two Phase II clinical trials. Analyses were conducted on pooled data from 188 patients with advanced HCC treated with nintedanib or sorafenib, of whom 180 were evaluable for response. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to explore differences in OS between the responders and non-responders according to RECIST 1.0 and mRECIST criteria. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models, including factors known to influence survival, were used to compare survival according to RECIST and mRECIST response., Results: Discordance between RECIST and mRECIST evaluation was most common for assessment of partial response (12.2%) and stable disease (13.3%). OS was significantly longer in patients with response compared to patients without response-RECIST: hazard ratio (HR) 0.325 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.130-0.815), P=.0122; mRECIST: HR 0.544 (95% CI 0.335-0.881), P=.0122. HRs from the multivariate models used to evaluate response by RECIST or by mRECIST as predictors of OS approached significance for RECIST (0.40 [95% CI 0.16-1.01]; P=.053) and for mRECIST (0.62 [95% CI 0.38-1.01]; P=.053)., Conclusions: Response according to RECIST or mRECIST is associated with improved survival and should be considered as a valid endpoint for use in HCC clinical trials., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background & Aims: The Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade was proposed as an objective means to evaluate liver function in patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC). ALBI grade 1 vs 2 were proposed as stratification factors within the Child Pugh (CP) A class. However, the original publication did not provide comparison with the subclassification by points (5-15) within the CP classification., Methods: We retrospectively analysed data from patients treated with sorafenib for HCC from 17 centres in United Kingdom and France. Overall survival (OS) was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method and a Cox regression model. Discriminatory abilities of the classifications were assessed with the log likelihood ratio, Harrell's C statistics and Akaike information criterion., Results: Data from 1019 patients were collected, of which 905 could be assessed for both scores. 92% of ALBI grade 1 were CP A5 while ALBI 2 included a broad range of CP scores of which 44% were CP A6. Median OS was 10.2, 7.0 and 3.6 months for CP scores A5, A6 and >A6, respectively (P < 0.001), Hazard Ratio (HR) = 1.60 (95%CI: 1.35-1.89, P < 0.001) for A6 vs A5. Median OS was 10.9, 6.6 and 3.0 months for ALBI grade 1, 2 and 3, respectively (P < 0.001), HR = 1.68 (1.43-1.97, P < 0.001) for grade 2 vs 1. Discriminatory abilities of CP and ALBI were similar in the CP A population, but better for CP in the overall population., Conclusions: Our findings support the use CP class A as an inclusion criterion, and ALBI as a stratification factor in trials of systemic therapy., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) is a complex disease beset by underlying liver dysfunction and high molecular heterogeneity. Sorafenib, introduced in 2007, is considered the standard systemic therapy for aHCC, yet only a minority of patients show objective evidence of a response radiologically, and median overall survival is still under 1 year. Other targeted drugs for the treatment of aHCC have failed to reach their primary endpoints of improved/non-inferior overall survival in comparison with sorafenib in recent phase 3 trials. Toxicity was a significant problem, raising the question as to whether outcomes in aHCC trials are being hindered by high levels of adverse events (AEs), particularly in populations with underlying cirrhosis. This is true of six recently failed phase 3 studies involving sunitinib, erlotinib, linifanib, brivanib (two trials), and everolimus, as well as ongoing phase 2 and 3 trials of other drugs that work through similar molecular pathways. This article reviews these drugs' toxicities, with a focus on AEs as a reason for their failure in phase 3 trials of patients with aHCC. We also review completed and ongoing phase 3 studies of combination therapies with sorafenib, as well as toxicities of many of the targeted agents in aHCC, including geographic/ethnic differences, measures of toxicity, and strategies to improve management.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer death globally, and its incidence is increasing in the West, including the UK, with the increasing burden of chronic liver disease. Until recently, systemic treatment options for advanced disease were limited. However, randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib prolongs survival in appropriately selected patients, and this drug has become the standard of care for patients with advanced HCC. However, a single-technology appraisal by the NICE recommended that the UK National Health Service should not fund sorafenib on the grounds of cost-effectiveness. A number of other novel agents and combinations are currently in clinical trials, the results of which may further expand the treatment options and indications for systemic therapy in HCC. This review discusses the impact of restricting access to high-cost medications for patients with HCC in the UK, and describes potential strategies and future directions that may improve the cost-effectiveness of such drugs. It also describes the potential impact, pending national guidance, of variations in local funding decision-making on patient outcomes.

Unlabelled: This is a phase II clinical trial investigating the safety and efficacy of intravenous vaccination with mature autologous dendritic cells (DCs) pulsed ex vivo with a liver tumor cell line lysate (HepG2) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). HCC is an attractive target for immunotherapy as evidenced by an active recruitment of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes that are capable of lysing autologous tumor cells in ex vivo studies. DCs are the most potent antigen-presenting cells, with the capacity to take up, process, and present tumor antigens to T cells and stimulate an immune response, thus providing a rational platform for vaccine development. Thirty-five patients with advanced HCC and not suitable for radical or loco-regional therapies received a maximum of six DC vaccinations each at 3-week intervals. In total, 134 DC infusions were administered with no significant toxicity and no evidence of autoimmunity. Twenty-five patients who received at least three vaccine infusions were assessed clinically for response. The radiologically determined disease control rate (combined partial response and stable disease >or=3 months) was 28%. In 17 patients the baseline serum alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) was >or= 1,000 ng/mL; in four of these patients, it fell to <30% of baseline following vaccination. In one patient there was a radiological partial response associated with a fall in AFP to <10% of baseline. Immune responses were assessed using an ELIspot assay of interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) release. In several cases there was induction of T cell responses to the vaccine and/or AFP following vaccination., Conclusion: Autologous DC vaccination in patients with HCC is safe and well tolerated with evidence of antitumor efficacy assessed radiologically and serologically, with generation of antigen-specific immune responses in some cases.

For the minority of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), surgical or locally ablative therapies may offer the prospect of cure. However, the majority of patients present with advanced disease, such that treatment with curative intent is no longer possible. For some of these patients, with good hepatic reserve and a patent portal venous system, chemoembolisation may afford a modest survival benefit. The remainder of patients are frequently treated with systemic therapies with palliative intent. However, no drug treatment has yet clearly demonstrated a significant beneficial effect on survival or quality of life. Thus, there is an urgent need for novel approaches. Gene- and immunotherapy approaches using a variety of strategies are in development at present. HCC possesses several characteristics that make it an attractive target for these therapies. This review aims to summarise the approaches to gene- and immunotherapy for HCC, with particular reference to strategies that are entering clinical trials. It will then describe some of the obstacles to the success of these new approaches and provide opinion regarding ongoing and future developments. The challenge remains to design clinical trials to optimally evaluate these agents and allow feedback to the laboratory for their ongoing development.

For the minority of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), surgical or locally ablative therapies may offer the prospect of cure. However, the majority of patients present with advanced disease such that treatment with curative intent is no longer possible. For some of these patients, with good hepatic reserve and a patent portal venous system, chemoembolisation may afford a modest survival benefit. The remainder of patients are frequently treated with systemic therapies with palliative intent. This review aims to summarise the current systemic treatment approaches for HCC in the adjuvant and palliative setting before reviewing the evidence for novel therapies emerging in this field. At present there are a number of interesting therapeutic agents with potential activity in HCC. The challenge now is the design of clinical trials to optimally evaluate these agents.

Purpose: Virus-directed enzyme prodrug therapy depends on selective delivery of virus encoding a prodrug-activating enzyme to tumor, followed by systemic treatment with prodrug to achieve high levels of the activated cytotoxic at the intended site of action. The use of the bacterial enzyme nitroreductase to activate CB1954 (5-(aziridin-1-yl)-2,4-dinitrobenzamide) to a short lived, highly toxic DNA cross-linking agent has been demonstrated in tumor xenografts. In this study, we report the first clinical trial investigating the feasibility, safety, and transgene expression of a replication-defective adenovirus encoding nitroreductase (CTL102) in patients with liver tumors., Patients and Methods: Patients with resectable primary or secondary (colorectal) liver cancer received a single dose of CTL102 delivered by direct intratumoral inoculation 3 to 8 days before surgical resection., Results: Eighteen patients were treated with escalating doses of CTL102 (range, 10(8)-5 x 10(11) virus particles). The vector was well tolerated with minimal side effects, had a short half-life in the circulation, and stimulated a robust antibody response. Dose-related increases in tumoral nitroreductase expression measured by immunohistochemical analysis have been observed., Conclusion: Direct intratumoral inoculation of CTL102 to patients with primary and secondary liver cancer is feasible and well tolerated. The high level of nitroreductase expression observed at 1 to 5 x 10(11) virus particles mandates further studies in patients with inoperable tumors who will receive CTL102 and CB1954.