Search

Introduction: The best first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child–Pugh (CP) class B remains unknown. The aim of the present study was to perform a real-world analysis on a large sample of patients with unresectable HCC with CP B treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab Vs Lenvatinib. Methods: The study population included patients affected by advanced (BCLC-C) or intermediate (BCLC-B) HCC patients not suitable for locoregional therapies from both the Western and Eastern world (Italy, Germany, Republic of Korea and Japan), who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or Lenvatinib as first-line treatment. All the study population presented a CP class of B. The primary endpoint of the study was the overall survival (OS) of CP B patients treated with Lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Survival curves were estimated using the product-limit method of Kaplan–Meier. The role of stratification factors was analyzed with log-rank tests. Finally, an interaction test was performed for the main baseline clinical characteristics. Results: 217 CP B HCC patients were enrolled in the study: 65 (30%) received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, and 152 (70%) received lenvatinib. The mOS for patients receiving Lenvatinib was 13.8 months (95% CI: 11.6–16.0), compared to 8.2 months (95% CI 6.3–10.2) for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment (atezolizumab plus bevacizumab Vs Lenvatinib: HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.2–3.0, p = 0.0050). No statistically significant differences were highlighted in terms of mPFS. The multivariate analysis confirmed that patients receiving Lenvatinib as first-line treatment have a significantly longer OS compared to patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (HR 2.01; 95% CI 1.29–3.25, p = 0.0023). By evaluating the cohort of patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, we found that Child B patients with ECOG PS 0, or BCLC B stage or ALBI grade 1 were those who had benefited from the treatment thus showing survival outcomes no significantly different compared to those receiving Lenvatinib. Conclusion: The present study suggests for the first time a major benefit from Lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in a large cohort of patients with CP B class HCC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IDH1-mutated cholangiocarcinomas (CCAs) are an interesting group of neoplasia with particular behavior and therapeutic implications. The aim of the present work is to highlight the differences characterizing IDH1m and IDH1wt CCAs in terms of genomic landscape. 284 patients with iCCA treated for resectable, locally advanced or metastatic disease were selected and studied with the FOUNDATION Cdx technology. A comparative genomic analysis and survival analyses for the most relevant altered genes were performed between IDH1m and IDH1wt patients. Overall, 125 patients were IDH1m and 122 IDH1wt. IDH1m patients showed higher mutation rates compared to IDH1wt in CDKN2B and lower mutation rates in several genes including TP53, FGFR2, BRCA2, ATM, MAP3K1, NOTCH2, ZNF703, CCND1, NBN, NF1, MAP3KI3, and RAD21. At the survival analysis, IDH1m and IDH1wt patients showed no statistically differences in terms of survival outcomes, but a trend in favor of IDH1wt patients was observed. Differences in prognostic values of the most common altered genes were reported. In surgical setting, in IDH1m group the presence of CDKN2A and CDKN2B mutations negatively impact DFS, whereas the presence of CDKN2A, CDKN2B, and PBRM1 mutations negatively impact OS. In advanced setting, in the IDH1m group, the presence of KRAS/NRAS and TP53 mutations negatively impact PFS, whereas the presence of TP53 and PIK3CA mutations negatively impact OS; in the IDH1wt group, only the presence of MTAP mutation negatively impact PFS, whereas the presence of TP53 mutation negatively impact OS. We highlighted several molecular differences with distinct prognostic implications between IDH1m and IDH1wt patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: In the REFLECT trial, lenvatinib was found to be noninferior compared to sorafenib in terms of overall survival. Here, we analyze the effects of lenvatinib in the real-life experience of several centers across the world and identify clinical factors that could be significantly associated with survival outcomes. Methods: The study population was derived from retrospectively collected data of HCC patients treated with lenvatinib. The overall cohort included western and eastern populations from 23 center in five countries. Results: We included 1,325 patients with HCC and treated with lenvatinib in our analysis. Median OS was 16.1 months. Overall response rate was 38.5%. Multivariate analysis for OS highlighted that HBsAg positive, NLR >3, and AST >38 were independently associated with poor prognosis in all models. Conversely, NAFLD/NASH-related etiology was independently associated with good prognosis. Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Multivariate analysis for progression-free survival revealed that NAFLD/NASH, BCLC, NLR, and AST were independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival. A proportion of 75.2% of patients suffered from at least one adverse effect during the study period. Multivariate analysis exhibited the appearance of decreased appetite grade ≥2 versus grade 0–1 as an independent prognostic factor for worse progression-free survival. 924 patients of 1,325 progressed during lenvatinib (69.7%), and 827 of them had a follow-up over 2 months from the beginning of second-line treatment. From first-line therapy, the longest median OS was obtained with the sequence lenvatinib and immunotherapy (47.0 months), followed by TACE (24.7 months), ramucirumab (21.2 months), sorafenib (15.7 months), regorafenib (12.7 months), and best supportive care (10.8 months). Conclusions: Our study confirms in a large and global population of patients with advanced HCC, not candidates for locoregional treatment the OS reported in the registration study and a high response rate with lenvatinib. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Incidental Gallbladder Cancer (IGBC) following cholecystectomy constitutes a significant portion of gallbladder cancer diagnoses. Re-exploration is advocated to optimize disease clearance and enhance survival rates. The consistent association of residual disease (RD) with inferior oncologic outcomes prompts a critical examination of re-resection's role as a modifying factor in the natural history of IGBC. All patients diagnosed with gallbladder cancer between 2012 and 2022 were included. An elastic net regularized regression model was employed to profile high-risk predictors of RD within the IGBC group. Survival outcomes were assessed based on resection margins and RD. Among the 181 patients undergoing re-exploration for IGBC, 133 (73.5 %) harbored RD, while 48 (26.5 %) showed no evidence. The elastic net model, utilizing a selected λ = 0.029, identified six coefficients associated with the risk of RD: aspiration from cholecystectomy (0.141), hepatic tumor origin (1.852), time to re-exploration >8 weeks (1.879), positive margin status (2.575), higher T stage (1.473), and poorly differentiated tumors (2.241). Furthermore, the study revealed a median overall survival of 44 months (CI 38–60) for IGBC patients with no evidence of RD, compared to 31 months (23–42) for those with RD (p < 0.001). Re-resection revealed a high incidence of RD (73.5 %), significantly correlating with poorer survival outcomes. The preoperative identification of high-risk features provides a reliable biological disease profile. This aids in strategic preselection of patients who may benefit from re-resection, underscoring the need to consolidate outcomes with tailored chemotherapy for those with unfavorable characteristics. [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: 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]

Biliary tract cancer represents a heterogeneous group of malignancies characterized by dismal prognosis and scarce therapeutic options. In the last years, a growing interest in BTC pathology has emerged, thus highlighting a significant heterogeneity of the pathways underlying the carcinogenesis process, from both a molecular and genomic point of view. A better understanding of these differences is mandatory to deepen the behavior of this complex disease, as well as to identify new targetable target mutations, with the aim to improve the survival outcomes. The authors decided to provide a comprehensive overview of the recent highlights on BTCs, with a special focus on the genetic, epigenetic and molecular alterations, which may have an interesting clinical application in the next future. In the last years, the efforts resulted from international collaborations have led to the identification of new promising targets for precision medicine approaches in the BTC setting. Further investigations and prospective trials are needed, but the hope is that these new knowledge in cooperation with the new technologies and procedures, including bio-molecular and genomic analysis as well radiomic studies, will enrich the therapeutic armamentarium thus improving the survival outcomes in a such lethal and complex disease. [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]