Search

Background: The combination of atezolizumab-bevacizumab has been proven to be superior to sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma not amenable to locoregional treatments, be-coming the standard of care of systemic therapy.Aim: This study aimed at assessing real-world feasibility of atezolizumab-bevacizumab in patients treated with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors.Methods: Among 1447 patients treated with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors from January 2010 to December 2020, we assessed the percentage of those potentially eligible to atezolizumab-bevacizumab (according to IMbrave-150 trial criteria), and the overall survival of eligible and non-eligible patients.Results: 422 (29%) patients were qualified for atezolizumab-bevacizumab therapy. The main exclusion causes were Child-Pugh class and Performance Status. Adopting the more permissive inclusion criteria of SHARP trial, 535 patients became eligible. The median overall survival of tyrosine-kinase inhibitors patients was 14.9 months, longer in eligible patients than in their counterpart due to better baseline liver function and oncological features.Conclusion: Real-world data indicate that less than one-third of hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with tyrosine-kinase inhibitors are potentially eligible to atezolizumab-bevacizumab according to the reg-istration trial criteria. These patients have a longer survival than the non-eligible ones. If the selection criteria of atezolizumab-bevacizumab trial are maintained in clinical practice, tyrosine-kinase inhibitors will remain the most used systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma patients.(c) 2022 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ST1: Discovery and validation surgical patient cohorts. ST2: Advanced HCC patient cohort. ST3: Primer sequences for luciferase assay. ST4: Primer sequences for PCR and qPCR. ST5: Antibodies. ST6: Probe sequences for EMSA. ST7: Deregulated miR-30 family members in rat model.

Microarray analysis, cell transfection and infection, cell proliferation assay, clonogenic and sphere formation assays, TP53 hypothetical binding sites.

This file contains Supplementary Figures. SF1: Correlations between miR-30 family member in human tissues. SF2: Microarray analysis of miRNAs in the rat model. SF3: miR-30e locus and p53 regulation. SF4: MDM2 regulation by miR-30e-3p in HCC cells. SF5: MiR-30e-3p regulates cell growth and cell invasion in HCC cells. SF6: MiR-30e-3p regulates stem cell phenotype in HCC cells. SF7: MiR-30e-3p regulates drug resistance in TP53 deleted HepG2 cells. SF8: MiR-30e-3p regulates drug resistance in TP53 mutated Huh-7 cells. SF9: Circulating miR-30e-3p levels predicts sorafenib response in HCC preclinical models.

The molecular background of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is highly heterogeneous, and biomarkers predicting response to treatments are an unmet clinical need. We investigated miR-30e-3p contribution to HCC phenotype and response to sorafenib, as well as the mutual modulation of TP53/MDM2 pathway, in HCC tissues and preclinical models. MiR-30e-3p was downregulated in human and rat HCCs, and its downregulation associated with TP53 mutations. TP53 contributed to miR-30e-3p biogenesis, and MDM2 was identified among its target genes, establishing an miR-30e-3p/TP53/MDM2 feedforward loop and accounting for miR-30e-3p dual role based on TP53 status. EpCAM, PTEN, and p27 were demonstrated as miR-30e-3p additional targets mediating its contribution to stemness and malignant features. In a preliminary cohort of patients with HCC treated with sorafenib, increased miR-30e-3p circulating levels predicted the development of resistance. In conclusion, molecular background dictates miR-30e-3p dual behavior in HCC. Mdm2 targeting plays a predominant tumor suppressor function in wild-type TP53 contexts, whereas other targets such as PTEN, p27, and EpCAM gain relevance and mediate miR-30e-3p oncogenic role in nonfunctional TP53 backgrounds. Increased circulating levels of miR-30e-3p predict the development of sorafenib resistance in a preliminary series of patients with HCC and deserve future investigations.Significance:The dual role of miR-30e-3p in HCC clarifies how the molecular context dictates the tumor suppressor or oncogenic function played by miRNAs.

Francesca Benevento,1 Anna Pecorelli,2 Horia Stefanescu,3 Zeno Sparchez,3 Ranka Vukotic,1,4 Irene Pettinari,2 Crina-Anca Grigoras,3 Francesco Tovoli,1,5 Federico Ravaioli,1 Bernardo Stefanini,1 Pietro Andreone,6 Fabio Piscaglia1,5 1Department of Medicine and Surgical Sciences (DIMEC), University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy; 2Department of Radiology, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; 3Gastroenterology Department, Liver Unit & Ultrasound Laboratory, Regional Institute of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cluj-Napoca, Romania; 4Medicina Interna 4, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy; 5Division of Internal Medicine, Hepatobiliary and Immunoallergic Diseases, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; 6Divisione di Medicina Interna a Indirizzo Metabolico-Nutrizionale, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Modena, Modena, ItalyCorrespondence: Fabio Piscaglia, Email Fabio.piscaglia@unibo.itBackground: Malignancies are generally considered a risk factor for deep vein thrombosis and may hamper the recanalisation of thrombosed veins.Aim: We investigate whether the natural course and response to anticoagulant treatment of bland portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in patients with cirrhosis complicated by hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) differ from those without HCC.Methods: Retrospective study in two hepatology referral centres, in Italy and Romania where patients with a diagnosis of PVT on cirrhosis and follow-up of at least 3 months with repeated imaging were included.Results: A total of 162 patients with PVT and matching inclusion and exclusion criteria were identified: 30 with HCC were compared to 132 without HCC. Etiologies, Child-Pugh Score (7 vs 7) and MELD scores (11 vs 12, p=0.3679) did not differ. Anticoagulation was administered to 43% HCC vs 42% nonHCC. The extension of PVT in the main portal trunk was similar: partial/total involvement was 73.3/6.7% in HCC vs 67.4/6.1% in nonHCC, p=0.760. The remainder had intrahepatic PVT. The recanalization rate was 61.5% and 60.7% in HCC/nonHCC in anticoagulated patients (p=1). Overall PVT recanalisation, including treated and untreated patients, was observed in 30% of HCC vs 37.9% of nonHCC, p=0.530. Major bleeding incidence was almost identical (3.3% vs 3.8%, p=1). Progression of PVT after stopping anticoagulation did not differ (10% vs 15.9%, respectively, HCC/nHCC, p=0.109).Conclusion: The course of bland non-malignant PVT in cirrhosis is not affected by the presence of active HCC. Treatment with anticoagulation in patients with active HCC is safe and as effective as in nonHCC patients, this can potentially allow us to use otherwise contraindicated therapies (ie TACE) if a complete recanalization is achieved with anticoagulation.Keywords: LC, liver cirrhosis, HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma, PVT, portal vein thrombosis

Regorafenib was the first drug to demonstrate a survival benefit as a second-line agent after sorafenib failure in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recent studies have shown that its mechanism of action is not only limited to its very broad spectrum of inhibition of angiogenesis, tumor proliferation, spread, and metastasis, but also to its immunomodulatory properties that have favorable effects on the very intricate role that the tumor microenvironment plays in carcinogenesis and tumor growth. In this review, we discuss rationale and evidence supporting regorafenib efficacy in HCC and that led to its approval as a second-line treatment, after sorafenib failure. We also discuss the evidence from clinical practice studies that confirm the results previously achieved in clinical trials. Finally, we analyze the potential role of regorafenib in emerging combined treatment approach with immunotherapy strategies using immune checkpoint blockade and its potential extension to patient categories not included in the registrative study.

The molecular background of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is highly heterogeneous, and biomarkers predicting response to treatments are an unmet clinical need. We investigated miR-30e-3p contribution to HCC phenotype and response to sorafenib, as well as the mutual modulation of TP53/MDM2 pathway, in HCC tissues and preclinical models. MiR-30e-3p was downregulated in human and rat HCCs, and its downregulation associated with TP53 mutations. TP53 contributed to miR-30e-3p biogenesis, and MDM2 was identified among its target genes, establishing an miR-30e-3p/TP53/MDM2 feedforward loop and accounting for miR-30e-3p dual role based on TP53 status. EpCAM, PTEN, and p27 were demonstrated as miR-30e-3p additional targets mediating its contribution to stemness and malignant features. In a preliminary cohort of patients with HCC treated with sorafenib, increased miR-30e-3p circulating levels predicted the development of resistance. In conclusion, molecular background dictates miR-30e-3p dual behavior in HCC. Mdm2 targeting plays a predominant tumor suppressor function in wild-type TP53 contexts, whereas other targets such as PTEN, p27, and EpCAM gain relevance and mediate miR-30e-3p oncogenic role in nonfunctional TP53 backgrounds. Increased circulating levels of miR-30e-3p predict the development of sorafenib resistance in a preliminary series of patients with HCC and deserve future investigations. Significance: The dual role of miR-30e-3p in HCC clarifies how the molecular context dictates the tumor suppressor or oncogenic function played by miRNAs.

Background: Due to its poor survival, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is held to be a much more aggressive cancer than hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In most published series, patients were diagnosed when symptomatic. However, ICC is now increasingly being discovered during the surveillance for HCC in cirrhosis. Whether this earlier detection of ICC is associated with an equally dismal prognosis or not is unknown. Methods: This is amulticenter retrospective study of consecutive ICC patients. Patients were stratified into subgroups according to the absence/presence of cirrhosis. A propensity score matching was performed to reduce the potential biases. Cirrhotic patients were further stratified according to their surveillance status. The lead-time bias and its potential effects were also estimated. Results: We gathered 184 patients. Eighty-five patients (46.2%) were cirrhotic. Liver cirrhosis was not related to a worse overall survival (33.0 vs. 32.0 months, p = 0.800) even after the propensity score analysis (43.0 in vs. 44.0 months in 54 pairs of patients, p = 0.878). Among the cirrhotic population, 47 (55.3%) patients had received a diagnosis of ICC during a surveillance programme. The 2 subgroups differed in maximum tumour dimensions (30 vs. 48 mm in surveyed and non-surveyed patients, respectively). Surveyed patients were more likely to receive surgical treatments (59.8 vs. 28.9%, p = 0.003). Overall survival was higher in surveyed patients (51.0 vs. 21.0 months, p < 0.001). These benefits were confirmed after correcting for the lead-time bias. Conclusions: Cirrhotic patients have different clinical presentation and outcomes of ICC according to their surveillance status. In our series, ICC in cirrhosis was not associated with worse OS. Cirrhosis itself should not discourage either surgical or non-surgical treatments.

Background: Comprehensive and contemporary data pertaining large populations of patients with Primary Biliary Cholangitis (PBC) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are missing. Aim: To describe main characteristics and outcome of PBC patients with HCC diagnosed in the new millennium. Methods: Analysing the Italian Liver Cancer registry we identified 80 PBC patients with HCC diagnosed after the year 2000, and described their clinical characteristics, access to treatment and survival. Results: Median age of patients was 71 years and 50.0% were males. Cirrhosis was present in 86.3% of patients, being well-compensated in 58.0%. Median HCC diameter was smaller in patients under surveillance (2.6vs 4.0cm, P=0.007). Curative treatment, feasible in 50.0% of patients, was associated with improved survival compared to palliative and supportive care (42vs 33vs 6 months, P

Background An enhanced surveillance schedule has been proposed for cirrhotics with viral etiology, who are considered at extremely high-risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Aims We compared the 3- and 6-months surveillance interval, evaluating cancer stage at diagnosis and patient survival. Methods Data of 777 HBV and HCV cirrhotic patients with HCC diagnosed under a 3-months (n = 109, 3MS group) or a 6-months (n = 668, 6MS group) surveillance were retrieved from the Italian Liver Cancer database. Survival in the 3MS group was considered as observed and adjusted for lead-time bias, and survival analysis was repeated after a propensity score matching. Results The 3-months surveillance interval neither reduced the share of patients diagnosed outside the Milano criteria, nor increased their probability to receive curative treatments. The median survival of 6MS patients (55.0 months [45.9–64.0]) was not significantly different from the observed (47.0 months [35.0–58.9]; p = 0.43) and adjusted (44.9 months [33.4–56.4]; p = 0.30) survival of 3MS patients. A propensity score analysis confirmed the absence of a survival advantage for 3MS patients. Conclusions A tightening of surveillance schedule does not increase the diagnosis of early-stage tumors, the feasibility of curative treatments and the survival. Therefore, we should maintain the 6-months interval in the surveillance of viral cirrhotics.

Background: Inflammation is a long-established hallmark of liver fibrosis and carcinogenesis. Eosinophils are emerging as crucial components of the inflammatory process influencing cancer development. The role of blood eosinophils in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving systemic treatment is an unexplored field. Objective: The objective of this study was to analyse the prognostic role of the baseline eosinophil count in patients with sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma. Patients and methods: A training cohort of 92 patients with advanced- or intermediate-stage sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma and two validation cohorts of 65 and 180 patients were analysed. Overall survival and progression-free survival in relation to baseline eosinophil counts were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results: A negative prognostic impact of low baseline eosinophil counts (< 50*109/L) was demonstrated in all cohorts (training cohort: hazard ratio = 50.1, 95% confidence interval 11.6-216.5, p < 0.0001 for low vs high eosinophil counts; first validation cohort: hazard ratio = 4.55, 95% confidence interval 1.24-16.65, p = 0.022; second validation cohort: hazard ratio = 3.21, 95% confidence interval 1.83-5.64, p < 0.0001). Moreover, low eosinophil counts had a negative prognostic role in patients progressing on or intolerant to sorafenib who received second-line regorafenib, but not capecitabine or best supportive care. Conclusions: Our analysis identified baseline blood eosinophil counts as a new prognostic factor in patients with sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma. Concerning second-line therapies, eosinophil counts were associated with survival outcomes only in regorafenib-treated patients, suggesting a possible predictive role in this setting.

Background: Direct-acting antivirals are highly effective for the treatment of hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection, regardless race/ethnicity. We aimed to evaluate demographic, virological and clinical data of HCV-infected migrants vs. natives consecutively enrolled in the PITER cohort. Methods: Migrants were defined by country of birth and nationality that was different from Italy. Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-squared test and multiple logistic regression were used. Results: Of 10,669 enrolled patients, 301 (2.8%) were migrants: median age 47 vs. 62 years, (p < 0.001), females 56.5% vs. 45.3%, (p < 0.001), HBsAg positivity 3.8% vs. 1.4%, (p < 0.05). Genotype 1b was prevalent in both groups, whereas genotype 4 was more prevalent in migrants (p < 0.05). Liver disease severity and sustained virologic response (SVR) were similar. A higher prevalence of comorbidities was reported for natives compared to migrants (p < 0.05). Liver disease progression cofactors (HBsAg, HIV coinfection, alcohol abuse, potential metabolic syndrome) were present in 39.1% and 47.1% (p > 0.05) of migrants and natives who eradicated HCV, respectively. Conclusion: Compared to natives, HCV-infected migrants in care have different demographics, HCV genotypes, viral coinfections and comorbidities and similar disease severity, SVR and cofactors for disease progression after HCV eradication. A periodic clinical assessment after HCV eradication in Italians and migrants with cofactors for disease progression is warranted.

Background: Inflammation is a long-established hallmark of liver fibrosis and carcinogenesis. Eosinophils are emerging as crucial components of the inflammatory process influencing cancer development. The role of blood eosinophils in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving systemic treatment is an unexplored field. Objective: The objective of this study was to analyse the prognostic role of the baseline eosinophil count in patients with sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma. Patients and Methods: A training cohort of 92 patients with advanced- or intermediate-stage sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma and two validation cohorts of 65 and 180 patients were analysed. Overall survival and progression-free survival in relation to baseline eosinophil counts were estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. Results: A negative prognostic impact of low baseline eosinophil counts (< 50*109/L) was demonstrated in all cohorts (training cohort: hazard ratio = 50.1, 95% confidence interval 11.6–216.5, p < 0.0001 for low vs high eosinophil counts; first validation cohort: hazard ratio = 4.55, 95% confidence interval 1.24–16.65, p = 0.022; second validation cohort: hazard ratio = 3.21, 95% confidence interval 1.83–5.64, p < 0.0001). Moreover, low eosinophil counts had a negative prognostic role in patients progressing on or intolerant to sorafenib who received second-line regorafenib, but not capecitabine or best supportive care. Conclusions: Our analysis identified baseline blood eosinophil counts as a new prognostic factor in patients with sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma. Concerning second-line therapies, eosinophil counts were associated with survival outcomes only in regorafenib-treated patients, suggesting a possible predictive role in this setting.

BackgroundNivolumab is Food and Drug Administration approved in sorafenib-experienced, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Post-registration data of treatment in a real-world setting is lacking.Patients and methodsWe performed an international, multicenter observational study to confirm safety and efficacy of nivolumab in 233 patients treated outside clinical trials from eight centers in North America, Europe and Asia.ResultsPatients received nivolumab for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C (n=191, 92.0%) and Child-Pugh (CP) A (n=158, 67.8%) or B (n=75, 32.2%) HCC as first (n=85, 36.5%) or second to fourth systemic therapy line (n=148, 63.5%). Objective response rate (ORR) was 22.4% and disease control rate was 52.1%. Median overall survival (OS) was 12.2 months (95% CI 8.4 to 16.0) and median progression-free survival was 10.1 months (95% CI 6.1 to 14.2). Treatment-related adverse events of grade >2 occurred in 26 patients (11.2%). Efficacy and safety were similar across CP classes and therapy line. OS was shorter in CP-B than A (7.3 months vs 16.3 months, p=0.05). Achievement of an objective response predicted for improved OS (25.4 months vs 13.2 months, pConclusionsThis study confirms safety and efficacy of nivolumab in advanced HCC across various lines of therapy and degrees of liver dysfunction. Despite equal ORR and toxicity to nivolumab, patients with CP-B functional class have shorter survival than the patients with CP-A.

none 7 no Background & Aims: Pain management in cirrhosis is a clinical challenge. Most analgesics are metabolized in the liver and cirrhosis may deeply alter their concentration, favouring the appearance of side effects. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of oral prolonged-release association of oxycodone/naloxone tablets (OXN) in the treatment of moderate/severe cancer pain in cirrhotic patients with metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: We enrolled n = 32 HCC patients with moderate/severe cancer pain unresponsive to paracetamol alone or associated with codeine or tramadol. All patients received an initial OXN dose of 5 mg bid to be gradually increased in case of insufficient analgesia. At baseline and follow-up visits, we evaluated: pain intensity (using the Numerical Rating Scale, NRS), patients' autonomy in daily activities (Barthel Functioning Index); bowel dysfunction (Bowel Function Index, BFI), signs of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) and other opioid-induced side effects. Results: No clinically significant adverse effects were reported (median follow-up 122 days). No significant worsening of the BFI score was noted and no cases of HE were detected. Two patients (6.3%) discontinued treatment before T14 because of mild nausea and dizziness. The remaining n = 30 patients were assessed for efficacy. Treatment led to a significant reduction in the mean of pain scores both at T14 (-37.1 ± 16.3%, P < .001) and at T28 (-55.6 ± 21.5%, P < .001); Barthel scores showed gradual and significant increase from T0 (81.6 ± 13.0) to T14 (86.5 ± 11.4, P = .001) and to T28 (88.3 ± 13.6, P = .009). Conclusions: OXN may be considered a safe and effective option in the fragile population of cirrhotic patients. Tovoli, Francesco; De Lorenzo, Stefania; Samolsky Dekel, Boaz G.; Piscaglia, Fabio; Benevento, Francesca; Brandi, Giovanni; Bolondi, Luigi Tovoli, Francesco; De Lorenzo, Stefania; Samolsky Dekel, Boaz G.; Piscaglia, Fabio; Benevento, Francesca; Brandi, Giovanni; Bolondi, Luigi

The molecular background of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is highly heterogeneous, and biomarkers predicting response to treatments are an unmet clinical need. We investigated miR-30e-3p contribution to HCC phenotype and response to sorafenib, as well as the mutual modulation of

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a worldwide problem, with a high prevalence in nonindustrialized countries and a rising incidence in industrialized countries. Its close association with chronic liver diseases and liver cirrhosis represents a significant challenge in its treatment. Sorafenib, the first front-line systemic treatment for unresectable HCC cases, was approved only in 2007. The role of sorafenib remained largely unchallenged until very recently, with the sole exception of a trial demonstrating the noninferiority of lenvatinib, another tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The therapeutic scenario changed dramatically in 2020, when the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab proved to be significantly superior to sorafenib and, thus, establishing a new standard of care. In this monograph we provide an update about the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab reported in the clinical trials of HCC, as monotherapy or in combination with other agents.

Regorafenib is a diphenylurea oral multikinase inhibitor, structurally comparable to sorafenib, which targets a variety of kinases implicated in angiogenic and tumor growth-promoting pathways. Regorafenib was the first agent to positively show significant survival advantage as a second-line therapy in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who had previously failed first-line treatment with sorafenib. Recent evidence has shown that its antitumor efficacy is due to a comprehensive spectrum of tumor neo-angiogenesis and proliferation inhibition and immunomodulatory effects on the tumor microenvironment, which plays a crucial role in tumor development. This review addresses the rationale and supporting evidence for regorafenib’s efficacy in HCC that led to regorafenib’s approval as a second-line therapy. In addition, we review proof from clinical practice studies that validate the RESORCE trial results. We discuss regorafenib’s potential role in the newly emerging therapeutic strategy based on combination with immune checkpoint blockade and its possible extensibility to patient categories not enrolled in the registrative study.

In the latest years, antineoplastic immunotherapy revolutionised the therapeutic landscape in oncology. First shown to be effective in melanoma and non-small cell lung carcinoma, immune checkpoint inhibitors are now being tested for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preliminary results have been particularly promising. As a consequence, an increasing number of clinical trials are underway. The role of the immune system in carcinogenesis (with particular reference to tumour escape immune mechanisms), as well as the current immunotherapy trials for HCC in its different clinical scenarios, are the subject of this review. In particular, we aim to provide fresh updates about these novel therapeutic agents which promise to shape the future therapeutic scenario of HCC.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains among the neoplastic diseases with the most unfavorable prognosis. Historically, systemic treatments for HCC have been scarce. In particular, sorafenib was the only registered drug for the treatment of unresectable HCC until 2017. Last year, regorafenib was approved by the global regulatory agencies as second-line therapy. Since then, further randomized, controlled trials have been successful in this patient population. This paper deals with the most recent data concerning cabozantinib and ramucirumab, the two drugs that have recently demonstrated efficacy in phase III, randomized, controlled trials in HCC patients who failed previous treatment with sorafenib.

To assess the inter-operator concordance and the potential sources of discordance in defining response to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). All patients who received sorafenib between September 2008 and February 2015 were scrutinised for this retrospective study. Images were evaluated separately by three radiologists with different expertise in liver imaging (operator 1, >10 years; operator 2, 5 years; operator 3, no specific training in liver imaging), according to: response evaluation radiological criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) 1.1, modified RECIST (mRECIST) and response evaluation criteria in cancer of the liver (RECICL). The overall response concordance between the more expert operators was good, irrespective of the criteria (RECIST 1.1, ĸ = 0.840; mRECIST, ĸ = 0.871; RECICL, ĸ = 0.819). Concordance between the less expert operator and the other colleagues was lower. The most evident discordance was in target lesion response assessment, with expert operators disagreeing mostly on lesion selection and less expert operators on lesion measurement. As a clinical correlate, overall survival was more tightly related with “progressive disease” as assessed by the expert compared to the same assessment performed by operator 3. Decision on whether a patient is a responder or progressor under sorafenib may vary among different operators, especially in case of a non-specifically trained radiologist. Regardless of the adopted criteria, patients should be evaluated by experienced radiologists to minimise variability in this critical instance. • Inter-operator variability in the assessment of response to sorafenib is poorly known. • The concordance between operators with expertise in liver imaging was good. • Target lesions selection was the main source of discordance between expert operators. • Concordance with non-specifically trained operator was lower, independently from the response criteria. • The non-specifically trained operator was mainly discordant in measurements of target lesions.

Sorafenib has been the only approved systemic treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for almost a decade. Recently, two new drugs showed positive results in two Phase III studies. The RESORCE trial identified regorafenib as a valid second-line treatment for patients progressing to sorafenib, the REFLECT trial showed that lenvatinib is noninferior to sorafenib as front-line treatment. Following these trials, the therapeutic scenario will be dominated by anti-VEGFR drugs, with three different molecules showing a proven anticancer activity. Some open problems still remain and different immunotherapy trials are underway, following promising preliminary results. In this review we analyze: the most recent advancements about patients treated with sorafenib; the results of RESORCE and REFLECT trials; and the ongoing Phase III clinical trials. Finally, we discuss how they could address the current problems and possibly reshape the future of the systemic treatments for HCC.

Background Few data exist on real-life adherence to international guidelines for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. We analysed the rate of adherence to American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines, to identify reasons for discrepancy with treatments performed in our centre. Methods 227 consecutive cirrhotics with a first hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis (2005–2010) were retrospectively evaluated and stratified based on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer system: 126 early, 50 intermediate, 40 advanced, and 11 end stage. Results Early hepatocellular carcinomas were theoretically eligible for resection ( n = 27), liver transplantation ( n = 36), and percutaneous treatment ( n = 63). In practice, 15/27 (55.5%), 31/36 (86.1%), and 22/63 (34.9%) respectively were treated as recommended. Reasons for discrepancy were age/comorbidity, tumour location, ultrasound visibility, surgical contraindications. Transarterial chemoembolisation was performed in 25/126 early hepatocellular carcinomas (19.8%), resection in 11/63 early hepatocellular carcinomas eligible for percutaneous treatment (17.5%). Transarterial chemoembolisation was excluded in 16/50 intermediate hepatocellular carcinomas (32%). Resection or transarterial chemoembolisation was performed in 6/40 advanced hepatocellular carcinomas (15%). Conclusion Overall, 60% of patients were treated according to American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases guidelines. Approximately 28% of hepatocellular carcinomas were “under-treated” and 7% treated more aggressively than recommended. Peculiarities of individual patients can lead the multidisciplinary team to personalise real-life treatments.

Sorafenib is the standard treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with advanced stage disease. Although its effectiveness has been demonstrated by randomized clinical trials and confirmed by field practice studies, reliable markers predicting therapeutic response have not yet been identified. Like other tyrosine kinase inhibitors, treatment with sorafenib is burdened by the development of adverse effects, the most frequent being cutaneous toxicity, diarrhoea, arterial hypertension and fatigue. In recent years, several studies have analysed the correlation between off-target effects and sorafenib efficacy in patients with HCC. In this review, an overview of the studies assessing the prognostic significance of sorafenib-related adverse events is provided.

Background No standard second-line treatments are available for hepatocellular carcinoma patients who fail sorafenib therapy. We assessed the safety and efficacy of metronomic capecitabine after first-line sorafenib failure. Methods Retrospective analysis of consecutive hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving metronomic capecitabine between January 2012 and November 2014. The primary end-point was safety, secondary end-point was efficacy, including time-to-progression and overall survival. Results Twenty-six patients (80% Child–Pugh A, 80% Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C) received metronomic capecitabine (500 mg/bid). Median treatment duration was 3.2 months (range 0.6–31). Fourteen (53%) patients experienced at least one adverse event. The most frequent drug-related adverse events were bilirubin elevation (23%), fatigue (15%), anaemia (11%), lymphoedema (11%), and hand–foot syndrome (7.6%). Treatment was interrupted in 19 (73%) for disease progression, in 4 (15%) for liver deterioration, and in 1 (3.8%) for adverse event. Disease control was achieved in 6 (23%) patients. Median time-to-progression was 4 months (95% confidence interval 3.2–4.7). Median overall survival was 8 months (95% confidence interval 3.7–12.3). Conclusions Metronomic capecitabine was well tolerated in hepatocellular carcinoma patients who had been treated with sorafenib. Preliminary data show potential anti-tumour activity with long-lasting disease control in a subgroup of patients that warrants further evaluation in a phase III study.

BACKGROUND: A recent randomized study conducted on newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM) patients demonstrated that concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide added to standard radiotherapy had a survival advantage compared with radiotherapy alone. The overall survival benefit of this aggressive treatment, however, was attenuated in older or poor performance status patients. The aim of the present study was to verify the activity and the toxicity of temozolomide administration concurrent and adjuvant to radiotherapy as first-line treatment for elderly GBM patients, and to explore correlations between clinical outcome and O6 methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status. METHODS: Newly diagnosed GBM patients ≥65 years were considered eligible. Treatment comprised radiotherapy (60 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks) plus continuous daily temozolomide (75 mg/m2/day), followed by 12 maintenance temozolomide cycles (150 mg/m2 once a day for 5 consecutive days every 28 days) if MRI showed no enhancement suggesting a tumor; otherwise, chemotherapy was delivered until complete response or unequivocal progression. RESULTS: A total of 58 patients (34 males; median age, 68 years; range, 65-82 years) were enrolled. Sixteen patients (43%) presented MGMT promoter methylated and 21 unmethylated (57%) status. The median progression-free survival and median survival time (MST) were 9.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.6-10.5) and 13.7 months (95% CI, 10-17.3 months), respectively. Mental status deterioration grade 3-4 was detected in 25% of patients. Leukoencephalopathy was diagnosed in 10% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The overall and progression-free survival of patients given concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide are greater than in those given radiotherapy alone; however, this regimen incurs a greater deterioration in mental status. Further randomized trials should, therefore, be conducted to investigate the efficacy and against the toxicity of this regimen as first-line therapy in patients with GBM. Cancer 2009. © 2009 American Cancer Society.

none 48 no Background: In HCV-infected cirrhotic patients with successfully treated early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the time to HCC recurrence and the effects of sustained viral eradication (SVR) by interferon (IFN)-based or IFN-free regimens on HCC recurrence remain unclear. Aim: To perform an indirect comparison of time to recurrence (TTR) in patients with successfully treated early HCC and active HCV infection with those of patients with SVR by IFN-based and by IFN-free regimens. Methods: We evaluated 443 patients with HCV-related cirrhosis and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stage A/0 HCC who had a complete radiological response after curative resection or ablation. Active HCV infection was present in 328, selected from the Italian Liver Cancer group cohort; 58 patients had SVR achieved by IFN-free regimens after HCC cure, and 57 patients had SVR achieved by IFN-based regimens after HCC cure. Individual data of patients in the last two groups were extracted from available publications. Results: TTR by Kaplan–Meier curve was significantly lower in patients with active HCV infection compared with those with SVR both by IFN-free (P = 0.02) and by IFN-based (P < 0.001) treatments. TTR was similar in patients with SVR by IFN-free or by IFN-based (P = 0.49) strategies. Conclusion: In HCV-infected, successfully treated patients with early HCC, SVR obtained by IFN-based or IFN-free regimens significantly reduce tumour recurrence without differences related to the anti-viral strategy used. Petta, S.; Cabibbo, G.; Barbara, M.; Attardo, S.; Bucci, L.; Farinati, F.; Giannini, E.G.; Tovoli, F.; Ciccarese, F.; Rapaccini, G.L.; Di Marco, M.; Caturelli, E.; Zoli, M.; Borzio, F.; Sacco, R.; Virdone, R.; Marra, F.; Felder, M.; Morisco, F.; Benvegnù, L.; Gasbarrini, A.; Svegliati-Baroni, G.; Foschi, F.G.; Olivani, A.; Masotto, A.; Nardone, G.; Colecchia, A.; Persico, M.; Boccaccio, V.; Craxì, A.; Bruno, S.; Trevisani, F.; Cammà, C; the Italian Liver Cancer (ITALICA) Group [ ; Maurizio Biselli; Paolo Caraceni; Alessandro Cucchetti; Marco Domenicali; Fabio Piscaglia; Annagiulia Gramenzi; Alessandro Granito; Donatella Magalotti; Carla Serra; Giulia Negrini; Lucia Napoli; Veronica Salvatore; Francesca Benevento;] Petta, S.; Cabibbo, G.; Barbara, M.; Attardo, S.; Bucci, L.; Farinati, F.; Giannini, E.G.; Tovoli, F.; Ciccarese, F.; Rapaccini, G.L.; Di Marco, M.; Caturelli, E.; Zoli, M.; Borzio, F.; Sacco, R.; Virdone, R.; Marra, F.; Felder, M.; Morisco, F.; Benvegnù, L.; Gasbarrini, A.; Svegliati-Baroni, G.; Foschi, F.G.; Olivani, A.; Masotto, A.; Nardone, G.; Colecchia, A.; Persico, M.; Boccaccio, V.; Craxì, A.; Bruno, S.; Trevisani, F.; Cammà, C; the Italian Liver Cancer (ITALICA) Group [ ; Maurizio Biselli; Paolo Caraceni; Alessandro Cucchetti; Marco Domenicali; Fabio Piscaglia; Annagiulia Gramenzi; Alessandro Granito; Donatella Magalotti; Carla Serra; Giulia Negrini; Lucia Napoli; Veronica Salvatore; Francesca Benevento;]