Search

Importance: Whether patients with Child-Pugh class B (CP-B) cancer with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) benefit from active anticancer treatment vs best supportive care (BSC) is debated., Objective: To evaluate the association of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapies vs BSC with overall survival (OS) of patients with uHCC and CP-B liver dysfunction., Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective, multicenter, international clinical case series examined data of patients with CP-B with uHCC who were receiving first-line ICI-based regimens from September 2017 to December 2022 whose data were extracted from an international consortium and compared with a cohort of patients with CP-B receiving BSC. Patients were treated in tertiary care centers across Europe, US, and Asia in routine clinical practice. After applying the inclusion criteria, 187 and 156 patients were left in the ICI and BSC groups, respectively. The propensity score was calculated for the following variables: age, alpha-fetoprotein levels, Child-Pugh score, extrahepatic spread, portal vein tumor thrombosis, cirrhosis, ascites, and baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status., Exposures: Patients in the ICI group received first-line systemic therapy with either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A+B) (n = 141) or nivolumab (n = 46)., Main Outcomes and Measures: OS in the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) populations was the main outcome, and it was estimated with Kaplan-Meier method; univariable Cox regression test was used to make comparisons between the 2 groups., Results: The median age was 66 (IQR, 61-72) and 73 (IQR, 66-81) years in the ICI (33 women [18%]) and BSC groups (41 women [26%]), respectively. In the IPTW populations, median OS was significantly longer in the ICI group (7.50 months; 95% CI, 5.62-11.15) compared with BSC (4.04 months; 95% CI, 3.03-5.03; hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43-0.80; P < .001). Multivariable analysis confirmed that ICI exposure was associated with a reduction of approximately 50% in the risk of death (hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.35-0.86; P < .001), and the presence of portal vein tumor thrombosis, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score of greater than 1, and alpha-fetoprotein levels of 400 ng/mL or greater were associated with increased risk of death., Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this case series provide comparative evidence of improved survival in association with ICI treatment compared with BSC in patients with uHCC with CP-B liver dysfunction.

Introduction and Objectives: Autoimmune liver diseases (AILD) are rare causes hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and data on the efficacy and tolerability of anti-tumor therapies are scarce. This pan-European study aimed to assess outcomes in AILD-HCC patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) or transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) compared with patients with more common HCC etiologies, including viral, alcoholic or non-alcoholic fatty liver disease., Materials and Methods: 107 patients with HCC-AILD (AIH:55; PBC:52) treated at 13 European centres between 1996 and 2020 were included. 65 received TACE and 28 received TKI therapy. 43 (66 %) were female (median age 73 years) with HCC tumor stage BCLC A (34 %), B (46 %), C (9 %) or D (11 %). For each treatment type, propensity score matching was used to match AILD to non-AILD-HCC on a 1:1 basis, yielding in a final cohort of 130 TACE and 56 TKI patients for comparative analyses of median overall survival (mOS) and treatment tolerability., Results: HCC-AILD patients showed comparable mOS to controls for both TACE (19.5 vs. 22.1 months, p = 0.9) and TKI (15.4 vs. 15.1 months, p = 0.5). Adverse events were less frequent in AILD-HCC patients than controls (33 % % vs. 62 %, p = 0.003). For TKIs, there were no significant differences in adverse events (73% vs. 86%, p = 0.2) or interruption rates (44% vs. 36 %, p = 0.7)., Conclusions: In summary, this study demonstrates comparable mOS for AILD-HCC patients undergoing local and systemic treatments, with better tolerability than HCC of other causes. TKIs remain important therapeutic options for AILD-HCC patients, particularly given their exclusion from recent immunotherapy trials., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest A.L. reports receiving consulting fees from Advanz Pharma, AlfaSigma, Takeda, and Albireo Pharma, and speaker fees from Gilead, Abbvie, MSD, Intercept Pharma, AlfaSigma, GSK, and Incyte. BS received grant support from AstraZeneca and Eisai; speaker honoraria from Eisai; and travel support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Ipsen, and Gilead. MP received travel support from Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, and Roche; he is a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, and Roche; and he received travel support from Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, and Roche. HW received consulting and speaker fees from Roche, AstraZeneca, Eisai, and Ipsen., (Copyright © 2024 Fundación Clínica Médica Sur, A.C. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite the recent advances in cancer treatment, the therapeutic options for patients with biliary tract cancer are still very limited and the prognosis very poor. More than 50% of newly diagnosed patients with biliary tract cancer are not amenable to curative surgical treatment and thus treated with palliative systemic treatment. Malignant bile duct obstructions in patients with perihilar and/or ductal cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) represents one of the most important challenges in the management of these patients, owning to the risk represented by developing life-threatening cholangitis which, in turn, limits the use of systemic treatment. For this reason, endoscopic stenting and/or bile duct decompression is the mainstay of treatment of these patients. Data on efficacy and safety of adding radiofrequency ablation (RFA) to biliary stenting is not conclusive. The aim of this multicenter, randomized trial is to evaluate the effect of intraductal RFA prior to bile duct stenting in patients with unresectable perihilar or ductal CCA undergoing palliative systemic therapy., Methods/design: ACTICCA-2 is a multicenter, randomized, controlled, open-label, investigator-initiated trial. 120 patients with perihilar or ductal CCA with indication for biliary stenting and systemic therapy will be randomized 1:1 to receive either RFA plus bile duct stenting (interventional arm) or bile duct stenting alone (control arm). Patients will be stratified by trial site and tumor location (perihilar vs. ductal). Both arms receive palliative systemic treatment according to the local standard of care determined by a multidisciplinary tumorboard. The primary endpoint is time to first biliary event, which is determined by an increase of bilirubin to > 5 mg/dl and/or the occurrence of cholangitis leading to premature stent replacement and/or disruption of chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints include overall survival, safety according to NCI CTCAE v5, quality of life assessed by questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BIL21), clinical event rate at 6 months after RFA and total days of over-night stays in hospital. Follow-up for the primary endpoint will be 6 months, while survival assessment will be continued until end of study (maximum follow-up 30 month). All patients who are randomized and who underwent endoscopic stenting will be used for the primary endpoint analysis which will be conducted using a cause-specific Cox proportional hazards model with a frailty for trial site and fixed effects for the treatment group, tumor location, and stent material., Discussion: ACTICCA-2 is a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial to assess efficacy and safety of adding biliary RFA to bile duct stenting in patients with CCA receiving palliative systemic treatment., Trial Registration: The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06175845) and approved by the local ethics committee in Hamburg, Germany (2024-101232-BO-ff). This manuscript reflects protocol version 1 as of January 9th, 2024., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: There is an unmet need for effective therapies in pretreated advanced biliary tract cancer. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of nanoliposomal irinotecan and fluorouracil plus leucovorin compared with fluorouracil plus leucovorin as second-line treatment for biliary tract cancer., Methods: NALIRICC was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial done in 17 German centres for patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, metastatic biliary tract cancer, and progression on gemcitabine-based therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous infusions of nanoliposomal irinotecan (70 mg/m 2 ), fluorouracil (2400 mg/m 2 ), and leucovorin (400 mg/m 2 ) every 2 weeks (nanoliposomal irinotecan group) or fluorouracil (2400 mg/m 2 ) plus leucovorin (400 mg/m 2 ) every 2 weeks (control group). Randomisation was by permutated block randomisation in block sizes of four, stratified by primary tumour site. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival was the primary endpoint, which was evaluated in all randomly assigned patients. Secondary efficacy outcomes were overall survival, objective response rate, and quality of life. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. Enrolment for this trial has been completed, and it is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043547., Finding: Between Dec 4, 2017, and Aug 2, 2021, 49 patients were randomly assigned to the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 51 patients to the control group. Median age was 65 years (IQR 59-71); 45 (45%) of 100 patients were female. Median progression-free survival was 2·6 months (95% CI 1·7-3·6) in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 2·3 months (1·6-3·4) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·87 [0·56-1·35]). Median overall survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 5·3-10·6) in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 8·2 months (5·4-11·9) in the control group (HR 1·08 [0·68-1·72]). The objective response rate was 14% (95% CI 6-27; seven patients) in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 4% (1-14; two patients) in the control group. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group were neutropenia (eight [17%] of 48 vs none in the control group), diarrhoea (seven [15%] vs one [2%]), and nausea (four [8%] vs none). In the control group, the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were cholangitis (four [8%] patients vs none in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group) and bile duct stenosis (four [8%] vs three [6%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 16 (33%) patients in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group (grade 2-3 diarrhoea in five patients; one case each of abdominal infection, acute kidney injury, pancytopenia, increased blood bilirubin, colitis, dehydration, dyspnoea, infectious enterocolitis, ileus, oral mucositis, and nausea). One (2%) treatment-related serious adverse event occurred in the control group (worsening of general condition). Median duration until deterioration of global health status, characterised by the time from randomisation to the initial observation of a score decline exceeding 10 points, was 4·0 months (95% CI 2·2-not reached) in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 3·7 months (2·7-not reached) in the control group., Interpretation: The addition of nanoliposomal irinotecan to fluorouracil plus leucovorin did not improve progression-free survival or overall survival and was associated with higher toxicity compared with fluorouracil plus leucovorin. Further research is necessary to define the role of irinotecan-based combinations in second-line treatment of biliary tract cancer., Funding: Servier and AIO-Studien., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests AV reports consulting fees, honoraria, and participation in advisory or data safety monitoring boards for AstraZeneca, Amgen, BeiGene, Boehringer Mannheim, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), BTG, Daichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier, Sirtex, Tahio, and Terumo; honoraria from GSK, Imaging Equipment (AAA), and Jiangsu Hengrui Medicines; and support for attending meetings or travel from Roche, MSD, and Astellas. SB reports consulting fees from Servier, AstraZeneca, BMS, and MSD; honoraria from Servier and MSD; and travel support from Lilly. DZ reports honoraria from AstraZeneca and Roche; and support for attending meetings or travel from Amgen and AstraZeneca. UG reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Novartis, and Falk; participation in advisory or data safety monitoring boards for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, MSD, BMS, Ipsen, Sanofi, and Celltrion; leadership or fiduciary roles for German Cancer Society (DKG) Board of Directors, Cancer Society of North Rhine Westphalia Chairman; and stock or stock options for Bayer and Biontech. TG reports grants or contracts from German Research Foundation (DFG), German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe), Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss, Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Incyte; consulting fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, FoundationMedicine, Lilly, MCI, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, Servier, Deciphera, and Boehringer Ingelheim; honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Lilly, MSD, Novartis, Sanofi Aventis, Servier, and Roche; payment for expert testimony from Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (BfArM) and Daiichi Sankyo; participation in advisory or data safety monitoring boards for Bayer, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, FoundationMedicine, Lilly, MCI, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Sanofi Aventis, and Servier; and leadership or fiduciary roles for AIO-Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie, Board of Directors, and University Cancer Center Frankfurt. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In recent years, owing to advances in our understanding of hepatocarcinogenesis, rare primary liver cancers (PLCs), including combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma, fibrolamellar carcinoma, and hepatic epithelioid hemangioendothelioma have garnered increased attention. In this position paper, an international panel of experts representing oncology, hepatology, pathology, radiology, surgery, and molecular biology has summarised the available information and evidence on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of rare PLCs. While clinical trials of systemic treatments are underway for some rare PLCs, it is evident that more research, involving national and international collaboration, is required., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background and Aims: Unlike other malignancies, hepatic functional reserve competes with tumor progression in determining the risk of mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the relative contribution of hepatic decompensation over tumor progression in influencing overall survival (OS) has not been assessed in combination immunotherapy recipients., Approach and Results: From the AB-real observational study (n = 898), we accrued 571 patients with advanced/unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, Child-Pugh A class treated with frontline atezolizumab + bevacizumab (AB). Hepatic decompensation and tumor progression during follow-up were studied in relationship to patients' OS using a time-dependent Cox model. Baseline characteristics were evaluated as predictors of decompensation in competing risks analysis. During a median follow-up of 11.0 months (95% CI: 5.1-19.7), 293 patients (51.3%) developed tumor progression without decompensation, and 94 (16.5%) developed decompensation. In multivariable time-dependent analysis, decompensation (HR: 19.04, 95% CI: 9.75-37.19), hepatocellular carcinoma progression (HR: 9.91, 95% CI: 5.85-16.78), albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 2/3 (HR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.69-2.77), and number of nodules >3(HR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.28-2.08) were independently associated with OS. Pretreatment ALBI grade 2/3 (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR]: 3.35, 95% CI: 1.98-5.67) was independently associated with decompensation, whereas viral etiology was protective (sHR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.34-0.87). Among patients with viral etiology, effective antiviral treatment was significantly associated with a lower risk of decompensation (sHR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25-0.93)., Conclusions: Hepatic decompensation identifies patients with the worst prognosis following AB and is more common in patients with baseline ALBI >1 and nonviral etiology. Effective antiviral treatment may protect from decompensation, highlighting the prognostic disadvantage of patients with nonviral etiologies and the importance of multidisciplinary management to maximize OS., (Copyright © 2024 American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background & Aims: Immune-related liver injury (irLI) is commonly observed in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to compare the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of irLI between patients receiving ICIs for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vs. other solid tumours., Methods: Two separate cohorts were included: 375 patients with advanced/unresectable HCC, Child-Pugh A class treated with first-line atezolizumab+bevacizumab from the AB-real study, and a non-HCC cohort including 459 patients treated with first-line ICI therapy from the INVIDIa-2 multicentre study. IrLI was defined as a treatment-related increase of aminotransferase levels after exclusion of alternative aetiologies of liver injury. The incidence of irLI was adjusted for the duration of treatment exposure., Results: In patients with HCC, the incidence of any grade irLI was 11.4% over a median treatment exposure of 4.4 months (95% CI 3.7-5.2) vs. 2.6% in the INVIDIa-2 cohort over a median treatment exposure of 12.4 months (95% CI 11.1-14.0). Exposure-adjusted-incidence of any grade irLI was 22.1 per 100-patient-years in patients with HCC and 2.1 per 100-patient-years in patients with other solid tumours (p <0.001), with median time-to-irLI of 1.4 and 4.7 months, respectively. Among patients who developed irLI, systemic corticosteroids were administered in 16.3% of patients with HCC and 75.0% of those without HCC (p <0.001), and irLI resolution was observed in 72.1% and 58.3%, respectively (p = 0.362). In patients with HCC, rates of hepatic decompensation and treatment discontinuation due to irLI were 7%. Grade 1-2 irLI was associated with improved overall survival only in patients with HCC (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.96)., Conclusions: Despite higher incidence and earlier onset, irLI in patients with HCC is characterised by higher rates of remission and lower requirement for corticosteroid therapy (vs. irLI in other solid tumours), low risk of hepatic decompensation and treatment discontinuation, not negatively affecting oncological outcomes., Impact and Implications: Immune-related liver injury (irLI) is common in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but whether irLI is more frequent or it is associated with a worse clinical course in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), compared to other tumours, is not known. Herein, we compared characteristics and outcomes of irLI in two prospective cohorts including patients treated with ICIs for HCC or for other oncological indications. irLI is significantly more common and it occurs earlier in patients with HCC, also after adjustment for duration of treatment exposure. However, outcomes of patients with HCC who developed irLI are not negatively affected in terms of requirement for corticosteroid therapy, hepatic decompensation, treatment discontinuation and overall survival., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Die Übersicht über die Interessenskonflikte der Autorinnen und Autoren ist im Leitlinienreport veröffentlicht.

Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass die Interessenkonflikte im Leitlinienreport dargelegt sind.

Competing Interests: Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Background & Aims: Sex-related differences in the immune pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), particularly related to oestrogen-dependent secretion of pro-tumourigenic cytokines, are well-known. Whether sex influences the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy is not known., Methods: We performed a restricted maximum likelihood random effects meta-analysis of five phase III trials that evaluated immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced HCC and reported overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) stratified by sex to evaluate sex-related differences in OS. In a real-world cohort of 840 patients with HCC from 22 centres included between 2018 and 2023, we directly compared the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab (A+B) between sexes. Radiological response was reported according to RECIST v1.1. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed for OS and progression-free survival (PFS)., Results: In the meta-analysis, immunotherapy was associated with a significant OS benefit only in male (pooled HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.73-0.86) but not in female (pooled HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.70-1.03) patients with HCC. When directly comparing model estimates, no differences in the treatment effect between sexes were observed. Among 840 patients, 677 (81%) were male (mean age 66 ± 11 years), and 163 (19%) were female (mean age 67 ± 12 years). Type and severity of adverse events were similar between the two groups. OS and PFS were comparable between males and females upon uni- and multivariable analyses (aHR for OS and PFS: 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.04; 1.02, 95% CI 0.80-1.30, respectively). Objective response rates (24%/22%) and disease control rates (59%/59%) were also similar between sexes., Conclusion: Female phase III trial participants experienced smaller OS benefit following ICI therapy for advanced HCC, while outcomes following A+B treatment were comparable between sexes in a large real-world database. Based on the ambiguous sex-related differences in survival observed here, further investigation of sex-specific clinical and biologic determinants of responsiveness and survival following ICIs are warranted., Impact and Implications: While immune checkpoint inhibitors have emerged as standard of care for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, there are conflicting reports on whether the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy differs between females and males. Our study suggests ambiguous sex-related differences in outcomes from immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Further investigation of sex-specific clustering in clinicopathologic and immunologic determinants of responsiveness to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy should be prioritised., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023429625., Competing Interests: The authors have nothing to disclose regarding the work under consideration for publication. The following authors disclose conflicts of interests outside the submitted work: L.B. has nothing to disclose. B.Sc. received travel support from AbbVie, AstraZeneca, Gilead and Ipsen as well as grant support from AstraZeneca. C.A.M.F. has nothing to disclose. A.D. is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Imperial BRC, by grant funding from the European Association for the Study of the Liver (2021 Andrew Burroughs Fellowship) and from Cancer Research UK (RCCPDB- Nov21/100008). A.D. received educational support for congress attendance and consultancy fees from Roche. K.P. has nothing to disclose. M.B.R. has nothing to disclose. E.L.M. is a salaried employee of Berry Consultants. J.C. has nothing to disclose. N.N. has nothing to disclose. P.-C.L. has nothing to disclose. L.W. has nothing to disclose. C.A. has nothing to disclose. A.K. has nothing to disclose. An.S. has nothing to disclose. B.St. has nothing to disclose. A.Ca. has nothing to disclose. T.P. has nothing to disclose. Y.I.A. has nothing to disclose. S.C. has nothing to disclose. B.W. has nothing to disclose. A.P. has nothing to disclose. Y.-H.H. has nothing to disclose. S.P. has nothing to disclose. C.V. has nothing to disclose. F.S. has nothing to disclose. G.M. has nothing to disclose. D.B. has nothing to disclose. A.V. has nothing to disclose. J.v.F. has received advisory board fees from Roche. K.S. has nothing to disclose. M.S. has nothing to disclose. M.T. served as a speaker and/or consultant and/or advisory board member for Albireo, BiomX, Falk, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Falk, Genfit, Gilead, Hightide, Intercept, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Phenex, Pliant, Regulus, Siemens and Shire, and received travel support from AbbVie, Falk, Gilead, and Intercept as well as grants/research support from Albireo, Alnylam, Cymabay, Falk, Gilead, Intercept, MSD, Takeda, and UltraGenyx. He is also co-inventor of patents on the medical use of 24-norursodeoxycholic acid. Ad.S. is supported by grant funding from CRUK, served as a speaker for Merck and Chugai and received grants from Histosonics, Transgene, Oncolytics and Theolytics. H.W. has received lecture and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Roche, and Eisai. F.P. has received honoraria for advisory board or lecturing from Astrazeneca, Bayer, Bracco, ESAOTE, EISAI, Exact Sciences, GE, IPSEN, MSD, Roche, Samsung, Siemens Healthineers. P.R.G. received honoraria from Bayer, Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Adaptimmune, BMS, Eisai, MSD, Sirtex, Lilly, Roche, Guerbet, Ipsen and Daiichi-Sankyo. R.S. has nothing to disclose. M.K. received lecture fees from Eli Lilly, Bayer, Eisai, Chugai, Takeda, AstraZeneca as well as grant support from Taiho, Otsuka, EA Pharma, AbbVie, Eisai, Chugai, GE Healthcare; and acts on advisory boards from Chugai, Roche, AstraZeneca, Eisai. A.G.S. has served as a consultant or on advisory boards for Genentech, AztraZeneca, Eisai, Exelixis, Bayer, Boston Scientific, FujiFilm Medical Sciences, Exact Sciences, Roche, Glycotest, Freenome, and GRAIL. Dr. Singal’s research is conducted with support from National Cancer Institute R01 MD012565 and R01 CA256977. A.I. has nothing to disclose. S.V.U. has served on advisory boards for Eisai, Astra Zeneca, IgM biosciences and received institutional support for research from AbbVie, Inc, Adlai Nortye, ArQule, Inc, AstraZeneca, Atreca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene Corporation, Ciclomed LLC, Erasca, Evelo Biosciences, Inc, Exelexis, G1 Therapeutics, Inc, GlaxoSmithKline GSK, IGM biosciences, Incyte, Isofol, Klus Pharma, Inc, Macrogenics, Merck Co. Inc, Mersana Therapeutics, OncoMed Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Pfizer, Regeneron, Inc, Revolution Medicines, Inc, Synermore Biologics Co, Takeda, Tarveda Therapeutics, Tesaro, Tempest, Vigeo Therapeutics Inc. (all funds to institution). N.D.P. serves as a consultant for Exact Sciences, Eli Lilly, Freenome, Astra Zeneca and has served on advisory boards of Genentech, Eisai, Bayer, Exelixis, Wako/Fujifilm and has received research funding from Bayer, Target Pharmasolutions, Exact Sciences, and Glycotest. A.Co. served as consultant/advisory role for AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Roche, IQVIA and OncoC4. He also received speaker’s fees from AstraZeneca, Pierre-Fabre, EISAI. A.K. has nothing to disclose. L.R. reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Servier, Taiho Oncology, Zymeworks; lecture fees from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck, Serono, Roche, Sanofi, Servier; travel expenses from AstraZeneca; research grants (to Institution) from Agios, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Zymeworks. H.J.C. has nothing to disclose. D.J.P. is supported by grant funding from the Wellcome Trust Strategic Fund (PS3416) and acknowledges grant support from the Cancer Treatment and Research Trust (CTRT); the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre; and the AIRC MFAG Grant No. 25697, Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro Foundation, Milan, Italy. D.J.P. acknowledges the following COIs: Lecture fees: Bayer Healthcare, Astra Zeneca, EISAI, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Roche, Ipsen; Travel expenses: Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Roche, Bayer Healthcare; Consulting fees: Mina Therapeutics, Boeringer Ingelheim, Ewopharma, EISAI, Ipsen, Roche, H3B, Astra Zeneca, DaVolterra, Mursla, Avammune Therapeutics, LiFT Biosciences, Exact Sciences; Research funding (to institution): MSD, BMS, GSK. M.P. served as a speaker and/or consultant and/or advisory board member for Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, and Roche, and received travel support from Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, and Roche. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has high recurrence rates exceeding 50% despite curative resection. The serum biomarker alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) is a well-known prognostic marker for HCC. EpCAM-positive circulating tumor cells (CTC) have a high predictive value for early HCC recurrence after curatively intended resection, most likely indicating micro-metastases at the time of resection. However, sensitivity remains low. The objective of this study was to evaluate a composite test comprising both CTC and AFP to identify patients at high risk for early HCC recurrence. We prospectively enrolled 58 patients undergoing curative intended resection for HCC at a tertiary referral center. Blood specimens were obtained prior to resection and analyzed for EpCAM-positive CTC and serum AFP levels. A positive result was defined as either detection of CTC or AFP levels ≥ 400 ng/ml. Eight patients tested positive for CTC, seven for AFP, and two for both markers. A positive composite test was significantly associated with shorter early recurrence-free survival (5 vs. 16 months, p = 0.005), time to recurrence (5 vs. 16 months, p = 0.011), and overall survival (37 vs. not reached, p = 0.034). Combining CTC and AFP identified patients with poor outcome after surgical resection, for whom adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapies may be particularly desirable., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Since the introduction of the combination treatment of anti-programmed death-ligand 1 antibody atezolizumab and anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab (AB), median overall survival in HCC has drastically improved. However, evidence on the efficacy and safety of the novel treatment standard in patients with prior exposure to systemic treatment is scarce. The aim of this global, multicenter, observational study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AB in patients after previous systemic therapy., Methods: We screened our global, multicenter, prospectively maintained registry database for patients who received any systemic therapy before AB. The primary end point was overall survival; secondary end points were time-to-progression, progression-free survival, objective response rate, and safety (rate and severity of adverse events)., Results: Among 493 patients who received AB for unresectable HCC, 61 patients received prior systemic therapy and were included in this analysis. The median age of the study population was 66 years, with 91.8% males. Predominant risk factors for HCC were viral hepatitis (59%) and alcohol (23%). Overall survival for AB was 16.2 (95% CI, 14.5-17.9) months, time-to-progression and progression-free survival were 4.1 (95% CI, 1.5-6.6) and 3.1 (95% CI, 1.1-5.1) months, respectively. The objective response rate was 38.2% (7.3% with complete and 30.9% with partial response). Overall survival was not influenced by treatment line (2nd vs. >2nd) or previous systemic treatment modality (tyrosine kinase inhibitors vs. immune checkpoint inhibitors). Treatment-related adverse events of all grades according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events were documented in 42.6% of patients, with only 13.1% of grade ≥3, including one death., Conclusion: In this observational study, AB emerges as a safe and efficacious treatment option in patients with HCC previously treated with other systemic therapy., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Background: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo/Bev) is first line-treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Body mass index (BMI) has demonstrated predictive value for response to immunotherapy in non-HCC cancer types. Our study investigated the effect of BMI on safety and efficacy of real-life use of Atezo/Bev for unresectable HCC., Methods: 191 consecutive patients from seven centres receiving Atezo/Bev were included in the retrospective study. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) defined by RECIST v1.1 were measured in overweight (BMI ≥ 25) and non-overweight (BMI < 25) patients. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were evaluated., Results: Patients in the overweight cohort (n = 94) had higher rates of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and lower rates of Hepatitis B compared to non-overweight cohort (n = 97). Baseline Child-Pugh class and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage were similar between cohorts, with lower rates of extrahepatic spread in the overweight group. Overweight patients had similar OS compared to non-overweight (median OS 15.1 vs. 14.9 months; p = 0.99). BMI did not influence median PFS (7.1 vs. 6.1 months; p = 0.42), ORR (27.2% vs. 22.0%; p = 0.44) and DCR (74.1% vs. 71.9%; p = 0.46). There were higher rates of atezolizumab-related fatigue (22.3% vs. 10.3%; p = 0.02) and bevacizumab-related thrombosis (8.5% vs. 2.1%; p = 0.045) in the overweight patients, but overall trAEs and treatment discontinuation were comparable between cohorts., Conclusion: Atezo/Bev has comparable efficacy in overweight HCC patients, with an increase in treatment-related fatigue and thrombosis. Combination therapy is safe and efficacious to use in overweight patients, including those with underlying NAFLD., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Die Übersicht über die Interessenskonflikte der Autorinnen und Autoren ist im Leitlinienreport veröffentlicht.

Competing Interests: Die Übersicht über die Interessenskonflikte der Autorinnen und Autoren ist im Leitlinienreport veröffentlicht.

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.

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is an aggressive tumor associated with a high rate of recurrence after resection. An important risk factor for recurrence is the presence of occult metasta-ses, which are not radiologically detectable at the time of diagnosis. There are currently no biomarkers for the preoperative assessment of micrometastases. A previous study demonstrated the prognostic relevance of circulating tumor cells (CTC) in patients with advanced CCA but the potential of CTCs as a preoperative marker for detecting occult metastases has not been investigated so far. In this two-phase study, we first recruited a cohort of 27 patients with histologically proven, metastatic CCA or gallbladder cancer (GBCA) to assess feasibility (feasibility cohort, FC). CTCs were measured in the peripheral blood using the CellSearch System (CSS) between October 2012 and January 2017. Subsequently, in 11 patients undergoing curative-intended resection for CCA (intrahepatic CCA: n =4; extrahepatic CCA n= 6; gallbladder cancer: n=1), peripheral and central venous blood specimens were obtained to improve detection rate by simultaneous measurement and to elucidate distribution of CTCs in different venous compartments. Presence of CTCs detection was correlated with postoperative TNM-status. In the FC, CTCs (range 1-3 cells, median: 1) were detected in 40% (11/27) patients and were signifi-cantly associated with worse overall survival (hazard ratio: 3.59; 95% CI: 1.79- 7.1; p = 0.04). By combined peripheral and central measurement, CTC detection was increased to 54% (6/11) in the resection cohort (RC) and was associated with metastases that were only identified during the surgical procedure (peritoneal carcinoma: n = 1; infiltration of the duodenum: n = 1) or immediately after surgery (evidence of pulmonary metastases by CT scan two days after resection, not evident on initial tumor staging prior resection). Taken together, in this single center pilot study, we demonstrated that CTCs are detectable in CCA patients and are associated with significantly impaired survival in patients at metastatic stage. Detection rate prior to surgery was improved to >50% by combined peripheral and central measurement. Moreover, preoperative CTC detection may indicate existing metastases and could help to stratify patients more accurately., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Fründt, von Felden, Krause, Heumann, Li, Riethdorf, Pantel, Huber, Lohse, Wege and Schulze.)

Background and Aims: Combination atezolizumab/bevacizumab is the gold standard for first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Our study investigated the efficacy and safety of combination therapy in older patients with HCC., Methods: 191 consecutive patients from eight centres receiving atezolizumab and bevacizumab were included. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) defined by RECIST v1.1 were measured in older (age ≥ 65 years) and younger (age < 65 years) age patients. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were evaluated., Results: The elderly (n = 116) had higher rates of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (19.8% vs. 2.7%; p < .001), presenting with smaller tumours (6.2 cm vs 7.9 cm, p = .02) with less portal vein thrombosis (31.9 vs. 54.7%, p = .002), with fewer patients presenting with BCLC-C stage disease (50.9 vs. 74.3%, p = .002). There was no significant difference in OS (median 14.9 vs. 15.1 months; HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.65-2.02 p = .63) and PFS (median 7.1 vs. 5.5 months; HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.54-1.92; p = .72) between older age and younger age. Older patients had similar ORR (27.6% vs. 20.0%; p = .27) and DCR (77.5% vs. 66.1%; p = .11) compared to younger patients. Atezolizumab-related (40.5% vs. 48.0%; p = .31) and bevacizumab-related (44.8% vs. 41.3%; p = .63) trAEs were comparable between groups. Rates of grade ≥3 trAEs and toxicity-related treatment discontinuation were similar between older and younger age patients. Patients 75 years and older had similar survival and safety outcomes compared to younger patients., Conclusions: Atezolizumab and bevacizumab therapy is associated with comparable efficacy and tolerability in older age patients with unresectable HCC., (© 2022 The Authors. Liver International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: IMbrave150 has established the superiority of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab over sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)., Methods: We generated a prospectively maintained database including patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable HCC across Europe, Asia and USA. Clinico-pathologic characteristics were assessed for their prognostic influence on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in univariable and multivariate analyses. Overall response rate by RECIST v1.1 and treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) per CTCAE v.5.0 were reported., Results: Out of 433 patients, 296 Child-Pugh A and ECOG performance status01 patients received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in first line and were included. Patients were mostly male (82.7%), cirrhotic (75%) with history of viral hepatitis (65.9%). Overall, 68.9% had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer C-stage HCC with portal vein tumour thrombosis (PVTT, 35%) and extrahepatic spread (EHS, 51.7%). After a median follow-up of 10.0 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 9.4-10.4), median OS and PFS were 15.7 (95% CI: 14.5-NE) and 6.9 months (95% CI: 6.1-8.3), respectively. In the response-evaluable patients (n = 273), overall response rate was 30.8%. Overall, 221 patients (74.6%) developed TRAEs, with 70 (23.6%) reporting grade 3 or higher TRAEs; 25 (8.4%) patients had bleeding events. OS was independently associated with baseline Albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade and PVTT. Shorter PFS was associated with AFP≥ 400 ng/ml, worse ALBI and presence of EHS., Conclusion: This global observational study confirms the reproducible safety and efficacy of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in routine clinical practice. Within Child-Pugh-A criteria, the presence of PVTT and higher ALBI grade identify patients with poorer survival., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement AD received educational support for congress attend-ance from Roche. JvF received advisory board fees from Roche. HW received lecture fees and advisory board honoraria from Roche, Bayer, Ipsen, Eisai, BMS. VEG is employee and shareholder of F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd. AS received research grants (to institution) from AstraZeneca, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Exelixis, Clovis, KAHR medical, Actuate therapeutics, Incyte Corp. and Advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Exelixis, and Pfizer. PRG reports a consulting or advisory role and received honoraria from AdaptImmune, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Sirtex; has been on a speakers bureau for straZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Sirtex; has received research funding from Bayer and Roche; has provided expert testimony for Lilly; and has received travel or accommodation expenses from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, and Roche. DB has received lecture and speaker fees from Bayer Healthcare, the Falk Foundation Germany and consulting fees from Boston Scientific. AV reports honoraria for speaker, consultancy and advisory role from Roche, AstraZeneca, EISAI, Bayer, Merck, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Incyte, PierreFabre, Ipsen, and Sanofi. BS received travel support from Gilead, Ipsen and AbbVie. NP received consulting fees from Amgen, Merck Serono, Servier; lectures fees from AbbVie, Gilead, Lilly, Sanofi; travel expenses from Amgen, ArQule; and institutional research funding from Basilea, Merck Serono, Servier. TP received consulting fees from Bayer; and institutional research funding from Bayer, Lilly, Roche. RS received consulting fees for EISAI, Roche, Bayer, SIRTEX, Novartis; research funding (to institution) from Incyte, Novartis, Astex Pharmaceuticals, Bayer and Boston Scientific. MP is an investigator for Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Lilly, and Roche; he received speaker honoraria fromBayer, BMS, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, and Roche; he is a consultant for Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, and Roche; he received travel support from Bayer and BMS. AC received con-sulting fees from MSD, BMS, AstraZeneca, Roche; speakers' fee from AstraZeneca, MSD, Novartis and Astellas. LR received consulting fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Taiho Oncology, Zymeworks; lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi; travel expenses from Ipsen; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Zymeworks. AGS has served on advisory boards or as consultant for Genentech, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Bayer, Exelixis, BMS, Roche, Glycotest, Exact Sciences, FujiFilm Medical Sciences, GRAIL. DJP received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, BMS, Roche, Eisai, Falk Foundation, travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, DaVolterra, Mursla, Exact Sciences and Astra Zeneca; research funding (to institution) from MSD and BMS. VEG is employed by F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest. The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organisation or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed. No writing assistance was utilised in the production of this manuscript., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AtezoBev) is the standard of care for first-line treatment of unresectable HCC. No evidence exists as to its use in routine clinical practice in patients with impaired liver function., Approach and Results: In 216 patients with HCC who were consecutively treated with AtezoBev across 11 tertiary centers, we retrospectively evaluated treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) graded (G) according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0, including in the analysis all patients treated according to label (n = 202, 94%). We also assessed overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response (ORR), and disease control rates (DCR) defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Disease was mostly secondary to viral hepatitis, namely hepatitis C (n = 72; 36%) and hepatitis B infection (n = 35, 17%). Liver function was graded as Child-Pugh (CP)-A in 154 patients (76%) and CP-B in 48 (24%). Any grade trAEs were reported by 143 patients (71%), of which 53 (26%) were G3 and 3 (2%) G4. Compared with CP-A, patients with CP-B showed comparable rates of trAEs. Presence and grade of varices at pretreatment esophagogastroduodenoscopy did not correlate with bleeding events. After a median follow-up of 9.0 months (95% CI, 7.8-10.1), median OS was 14.9 months (95% CI, 13.6-16.3), whereas median PFS was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.2-8.5). ORR and DCR were respectively 25% and 73%, with no difference across CP classes., Conclusions: This study confirms reproducible safety and efficacy of AtezoBev in routine practice. Patients with CP-B reported similar tolerability compared with CP-A, warranting prospective evaluation of AtezoBev in this treatment-deprived population., (© 2022 The Authors. Hepatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

The combination of the anti-PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab and the anti-VEGF bevacizumab is the first approved immunotherapeutic regimen for first-line therapy in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), currently approved in more than 80 countries. The efficacy and tolerability of this regimen suggest that the use of atezolizumab + bevacizumab could be extended to the treatment of patients with intermediate-stage HCC in combination with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). The authors describe the rationale and design of the DEMAND study. This investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized phase II study is the first trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab + bevacizumab prior to or in combination with TACE in patients with intermediate-stage HCC. The primary end point is the 24-month survival rate; secondary end points include objective response rate, progression-free survival, safety and quality of life. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04224636 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Palliative treatment of elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is often challenging due to comorbidities or frailty, and data about the outcome and overall survival (OS) in these patients are limited. This was a retrospective single centre study. Patients were grouped according to their age as young (<60 years; YP), intermediate (60-70 years; IP) or elderly (>70 years; EP). Administration of chemotherapy or transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) was defined as palliative treatment. Therapy-related adverse events (AE) were assessed via CTCAE 5.0. Out of 656 patients analyzed, n = 359 received palliative treatment: YP: n = 90; IP: n = 127 and EP: n = 142. The median OS (months) in patients receiving TACE ( n = 254) was 17 vs. 18 vs. 20 months for YP, IP, and EP, respectively ( p = 0.44) and 15 vs. 16 vs. 17 months ( p = 0.56), respectively, in patients receiving chemotherapy ( n = 105). AEs differed non-significantly between the subgroups. Multivariate analysis revealed impaired liver function and advanced tumor stage as significant factors for impaired OS. In this study, the mOS and rate of AEs were equal between elderly and younger HCC patients receiving palliative treatment. Therefore, we propose regular palliative treatment stratification in spite of the high age of patients.

Background: Multiple systemic therapy options have been recently approved for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In particular, immuno-oncology combination therapies can now achieve impressive response rates and significantly prolonged survival with good tolerability. These immuno-oncology (IO)-based combinations are currently not only evaluated for the therapy of advanced HCC, but increasingly also in earlier stages in terms of peri-interventional therapy concepts and also for down-sizing to local therapies. In the context of liver transplantation (LTx), a particularly critical benefit/risk assessment must be made before the use of immunotherapeutics in the context of multimodal concepts, since the risk of a potentially lethal rejection can be significantly increased by immunotherapy., Methods: This review is based on a selective literature search performed between December 2020 and April 2021 in the PubMed and Cochrane Library databases. Guidelines, expert opinions, and recommendations from professional societies were given special consideration., Results: Nearly one in five LTx in Germany are performed due to HCCs. In this context, LTx is a curative therapy option not only for the underlying liver disease but also for the malignant tumor. Individual case reports indicate that IO therapy prior to LTx may increase the risk of rejection or liver failure after subsequent liver transplantation. Since 2015, immunotherapeutics have also been widely used for tumor therapy in patients after LTx. In small case series, rejection rates of 36%, associated with rejection-related mortality of 20% of treated patients, have been described. A similar incidence of rejection has also been described following the use of immunotherapeutics in patients after other organ transplantations., Conclusion: In the context of organ transplantation, IO therapy carries the risk of graft rejection, which can lead to graft loss and also patient death. However, from today's point of view, IO-based therapy can be considered in the context of organ transplantation with a careful benefit/risk assessment., Competing Interests: Arndt Vogel: Beratertätigkeit/Vorträge: Amgen, Roche, Bayer, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, Novartis, EISAI, AstraZeneca, Merck, Incyte, Ipsen, PierreFabre, MSD, Sirtex, BTG, Servier, Terumo. Martina Sterneck: keine. Florian W. R. Vondran: keine. Oliver Waidmann: Beratertätigkeit: Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Servier, Shire. Vortragstätigkeit: AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Ipsen, Novartis, Roche, Shire. Erstattung von Reisekosten: Abbvie, Bayer, BMS, Gilead, Ipsen, Medac, Merck. Klinische Studien: Basilea, Incyte, Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung, Medac, Merck Serono, MSD. Ingo Klein: keine. Udo Lindig: keine. Silvio Nadalin: keine. Utz Settmacher: keine. Frank Tacke: Beratungs- und Vortragstätigkeit: Roche, BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Chiesi, Novartis. Hans-Jürgen Schlitt: keine. Henning Wege: Berater- und Vortragshonorare von Bayer, Roche, MSD und Eisai. Studien für Roche, MSD und Eisai, (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Immunotherapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab represents the new standard of care in systemic front-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, biomarkers that predict treatment success and survival remain an unmet need., Methods: Patients with HCC put on PD-(L)1-based immunotherapy were included in a training set (n = 190; 6 European centers) and a validation set (n = 102; 8 European centers). We investigated the prognostic value of baseline variables on overall survival using a Cox model in the training set and developed the easily applicable CRAFITY (CRP and AFP in ImmunoTherapY) score. The score was validated in the independent, external cohort, and evaluated in a cohort of patients treated with sorafenib (n = 204)., Results: Baseline serum alpha-fetoprotein ≥100 ng/ml (hazard ratio [HR] 1.7; p = 0.007) and C-reactive protein ≥1 mg/dl (HR, 1.7; p = 0.007) were identified as independent prognostic factors in multivariable analysis and were used to develop the CRAFITY score. Patients who fulfilled no criterion (0 points; CRAFITY-low) had the longest median overall survival (27.6 (95% CI 19.5-35.8) months), followed by those fulfilling 1 criterion (1 point; CRAFITY-intermediate; 11.3 (95% CI 8.0-14.6) months), and patients meeting both criteria (2 points; CRAFITY-high; 6.4 (95% CI 4.8-8.1) months; p <0.001). Additionally, best radiological response (complete response/partial response/stable disease/progressive disease) was significantly better in patients with lower CRAFITY score (CRAFITY-low: 9%/20%/52%/20% vs. CRAFITY-intermediate: 3%/25%/36%/36% vs. CRAFITY-high: 2%/15%/22%/61%; p = 0.003). These results were confirmed in the independent validation set and in different subgroups, including Child-Pugh A and B, performance status 0 and ≥1, and first-line and later lines. In the sorafenib cohort, CRAFITY was associated with survival, but not radiological response., Conclusions: The CRAFITY score is associated with survival and radiological response in patients receiving PD-(L)1 immunotherapy. The score may help with patient counseling but requires prospective validation., Lay Summary: The immunotherapy-based regimen of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab represents the new standard of care in systemic first-line therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Biomarkers to predict treatment outcome are an unmet need in patients undergoing immunotherapy for HCC. We developed and externally validated a score that predicts outcome in patients with HCC undergoing immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockers., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest B.S. received travel support from AbbVie, Ipsen and Gilead. K.P. nothing to disclose. M.K. received honoraria from BMS and AstraZeneca as consultant and is an investigator for AstraZeneca. F.H. received travel support from Bayer, Abbvie, and Gilead. F.F. received travel support from Abbvie and Novartis, and speaker fees from Abbvie and MSD. O.W. served as consultant for Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Merck, Novartis, Roche, Servier, and Shire. He served as a speaker for Abbvie, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Falk, Ipsen, Novartis, Roche, and Shire. He received travel support from Abbvie, BMS, Ipsen, Novartis, and Servier. V.H. has nothing to disclose. K.S. Served as consultant for Ipsen and Bayer, and conducts studies for Bayer, Roche, Lilly, MSD, and BMS. J.v.F. has received advisory board fees from Roche. T.W.F. has nothing to disclose. M.S. has nothing to disclose. H.H. received compensations as a member of a scientific advisory board of Lilly. K.S. has nothing to disclose. S.S. has nothing to disclose. P.R. has nothing to disclose. A.R.S. has served at advisory boards and received consulting honoraria from AMGEN, AAA, Bayer, BMS, IPSEN, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier. J.C.M. has received consulting honoraria from Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Intercept, MSD, Sanofi, Vifor for work performed outside the current study. N.N.R. has nothing to disclose. F.K. received speakers' fees from Bayer, Ipsen, MSD, Eisai, Shire, Sirtex and has received travel grants from Eisai, Janssen, Ipsen and Novartis. D.T.W. served as speaker/expert testimony for AstraZeneca, Eisai, BMS, Celgene, Incyte, Ipsen, Falk, Novartis, Roche Pharma AG, Servier, Shire Baxelta, and Sirtex; he received travel support from Bayer Health Pharma, Celgene, Ipsen, Novartis, and SIRTEX, and research grants/funding from Servier. M.P.E. received consulting honoraria from BMS and MSD. A.T. received consulting honoraria and /or lecture fees from Bayer, IPSEN, Lilly, BMS, Eisai Novartis, Roche, Intercept, Falk, AbbVie, and Gilead. He received and travel grants from IPSEN, AbbVie, and Gilead. He is an investigator for IPSEN and GILEAD. S.D.D. received consulting honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, BMS, IPSEN, Lilly, Merck, BMS, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, and Servier, and travel grants from Amgen, BMS, IPSEN, Roche, and Servier. D.J.P. received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare, Bayer Healthcare, Falk, BMS, EISAI and Roche; travel expenses from BMS, MSD and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, H3B, Roche, Astra Zeneca, and DaVolterra; research funding (to institution) from MSD, BMS. T.P. received consulting fees from IQVIA and Bayer; and institutional research funding from Lilly, Roche, Bayer. T.M. has nothing to disclose. L.B. has nothing to disclose. C.M. has nothing to disclose. M.M. served as a speaker and/or consultant and/or advisory board member for AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Collective Acumen, Gilead, and W. L. Gore & Associates and received travel support from AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Gilead. T.R. received speaker fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Roche, W.L. Gore and MSD, grant support from Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Gilead, Guerbet, Abbvie, Phenex Pharmaceuticals, Philips, W.L. Gore, and MSD, served as a consultant for Abbvie, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Intercept and MSD and received travel support from Gilead, Roche, MSD, and Gore. M.T. received speaker fees from Bristol-Myers Squibb (BMS), Falk Foundation, Gilead, Intercept and Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD); advisory board fees from Abbvie, Albireo, Boehringer Ingelheim, BiomX, Falk Pharma GmbH, GENFIT, Gilead, Intercept, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Phenex, Regulus and Shire; travel grants from AbbVie, Falk, Gilead, and Intercept; and research grants from Albireo, CymaBay, Falk, Gilead, Intercept, MSD, and Takeda. He is also coinventor of patents on the medical use of norUDCA filed by the Medical University of Graz. N.P. received consulting fees from Amgen, Merck Serono, Servier; lectures fees from AbbVie, Gilead, Lilly; travel fees from Amgen, ArQule; and institutional research funding from Basilea, Merck Serono, Servier. L.R. has received consulting fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Genenta, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, IQVIA, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi, Zymeworks; lectures fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Bayer, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi; travel expenses from Ipsen; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, AstraZeneca, BeiGene, Eisai, Exelixis, Fibrogen, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Zymeworks. M.B. received compensations as a member of scientific advisory boards of Bayer, Bristol–Meyers Squibb, EISAI, IPSEN, and MSD. J.T. served as consultant for Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Ipsen, and Roche, received travel support from BMS and Ipsen, and speaking fees from Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Ipsen, and Roche. He is also an investigator for Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Ipsen, and Roche. A.W. received compensations as a member of scientific advisory boards for BMS, Wako, Sanofi and. He served as a speaker for Leo Pharma, Eisai, Ipsen and Roche and received travel support from Merck and Servier. H.W. served as speaker for Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, and Roche, and as a consultant for Bayer, Eisai, Lilly, BMS, Roche, and Ipsen. He conducts studies for Bayer, Roche, Lilly, MSD, and BMS. J.F.D. received compensations as a member of scientific advisory boards of Abbvie, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Falk, Galapagos, Genfit, Genkyotex, Gilead Sciences, HepaRegenix, Intercept, Lilly, Merck, and Novartis. M.P.R. is advisor/consultant for Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, and Roche; he served as a speaker for Bayer, Eisai, Ipsen, Lilly, and Roche; he is an investigator for Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Exelixis, Lilly, and Roche. A.V. served as consultant for Roche, Bayer, Lilly, BMS, Eisai, and Ipsen, and received speaking fees form Roche, Bayer, Lilly, BMS, Eisai, and Ipsen. He is also an investigator for Roche, Bayer, Lilly, BMS, Eisai, and Ipsen. M.P. is an investigator for Bayer, BMS, Lilly, and Roche, he received speaker honoraria from Bayer, BMS, Eisai, and MSD, he is a consultant for Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Eisai, Lilly, Roche, and MSD, and he received travel support from Bayer, BMS, and Roche. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Lenvatinib is approved as first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The efficacy of lenvatinib in Caucasian real-world patients is insufficiently defined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of lenvatinib in a multi-center cohort (ELEVATOR) from Germany and Austria., Methods: A retrospective data analysis of 205 patients treated with first-line systemic lenvatinib at 14 different sites was conducted. Overall survival, progression free survival, overall response rate and adverse event rates were assessed and analyzed., Results: Patients receiving lenvatinib in the real-world setting reached a median overall survival of 12.8 months, which was comparable to the results reported from the REFLECT study. Median overall survival (mOS) and progression free survival (mPFS) was superior in those patients who met the inclusion criteria of the REFLECT study compared to patients who failed to meet the inclusion criteria (mOS 15.6 vs 10.2 months, HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.81, p=0.002; mPFS 8.1 vs 4.8 months HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46-0.91, p=0.0015). For patients with an impaired liver function according to the Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade, or reduced ECOG performance status ≥2, survival was significantly shorter compared to patients with sustained liver function (ALBI grade 1) and good performance status (ECOG performance status 0), respectively (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.07-2.66, p=0.023; HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.19-4.23, p=0.012). Additionally, macrovascular invasion (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.02-2.37, p=0.041) and an AFP ≥200 ng/mL (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.03-2.34, p=0.034) were confirmed as independent negative prognostic factors in our cohort of patients with advanced HCC., Conclusion: Overall, our data confirm the efficacy of lenvatinib as first-line treatment and did not reveal new or unexpected side effects in a large retrospective Caucasian real-world cohort, supporting the use of lenvatinib as meaningful alternative for patients that cannot be treated with IO-based combinations in first-line HCC., Competing Interests: Honoraria for speaker, consultancy, and advisory role to A.V.: Roche, Bayer, Sanofi, BMS, Lilly, Novartis, EISAI, AstraZeneca, Merck, Ipsen, PierreFabre, and MSD. Honoraria for speaker, consultancy, and advisory role to A.S.: Roche, BMS, and Servier. Honoraria for speaker, consultancy, and advisory role to M.A.G.C.: Roche, Bayer, EISAI, MSD, and Servier. Honoraria for speaker, consultancy, and advisory role to C.M.L.: Roche, Novartis, EISAI, MSD, CSL Behring, AbbVie, and Gilead. Honoraria for speaker to C.L.: EISAI. Honoraria for speaker role to P.J.: Ipsen. Honoraria for speaker and advisory role to U.E.: AstraZeneca, Bayer, EISAI, Ipsen, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, and SIRTEX. Honoraria for speaker and advisory role to A.W.: Bayer, BMS, Eisai and Sanofi, Leo Pharma, Eisai, Ipsen, and Roche, travel support from Merck and Servier, A.W. is an Editorial Board Member of Liver Cancer. A.J. received speaker fees from AbbVie, MSD, Eisai, and Roche; travel grant from Servier, BMS, Amgen, and Lilly, sponsoring from Lilly, Cellgene, and Amgen, and personal fees from Servier, Amgen, Eisai, and Bayer. Honoraria for speaker and advisory board to A.K.: Roche Pharma AG; Eisai GmbH; Abbvie Deutschland, Janssen-Cilag; Boston Scientific Corp.; Micro-Tech Europe. Honoraria for speaker and advisory role to R.G.: Ad-Boards Bayer, Eisai/MSD, Ipsen, and Roche. Travel support and honoraria for speaker to F.F.: Abbvie, Ipsen, and Fresenius. Honoraria for speaker, consultancy, and advisory role to O.W.: Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD, Novatis, Roche, Servier, Shire, AstraZeneca, Abbvie, Gilead, and Medac. Honoraria for speaker, consultancy, and advisory role to M.V.: Roche, BMS, EISAI, Bayer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Merck Serono, Sirtex, MSD, Ipsen, Nordic Pharma, and Amgen. Honoraria for speaker, consultancy, and advisory role to J.B.: Roche, BMS, EISAI, MSD, Novartis, and Ipsen. Honoraria for speaker, consultancy, and advisory role to A.D.: Roche, Bayer, Lilly, Novartis, EISAI, AstraZeneca, Merck, Ipsen, PierreFabre, Service, and Merck., (Copyright © 2022 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background and Aims: Patients with liver cirrhosis (LC) are considered to be at increased risk for mortality when acquiring SARS-CoV-2 infection and subsequently developing Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals are regarded as sites with increased risk of infection. Therefore, patient contacts are often limited to urgent indications, which could negatively affect disease monitoring. However, data regarding actual infection rates in cirrhotic patients is limited. The aim of this prospective study was to assess the incidence of COVID-19 in patients with LC with/without hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with physical presentation at our University Medical Center., Methods: Patients were enrolled between 1st April and 30th June 2020 at the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. Symptoms of upper airway infection at baseline and presence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (IgG/IgM/IgA) were assessed at baseline and follow-up (FU) using an Electro-chemiluminescence immunoassay (Roche Elecsys). FU visits, including liver function test, clinical assessment and symptom questionnaire, were conducted after 6-8 weeks (FU-1) and 6 months (FU-2). Prior to inclusion of the first patient, obligatory face masks and personal distance were implemented as protective measures., Results: A total of 150 patients were enrolled, 23% (n = 35) also had diagnosis of HCC (median age: 64 years, range: 19-86), 69% were male. Liver function according to Child-Pugh score (CPS) was: CPS A: 46% (n = 62); CPS B: 37% (n = 50); CPS C: 17% (n = 23). Clinical symptoms indicating upper airway infection were present in 53% (n = 77): shortness of breath (n = 40) and coughing (n = 28) were the most frequent. For the 150 patients enrolled, 284 outpatient visits were registered and 33 patients were admitted to the University Medical Center during the follow-up period. After a median of 52 days, n = 110 patients completed FU-1 and n = 72 completed FU-2 after a median of 6.1 months. Only in one patient, an 80-year-old man with stable liver function (CPS A) and advanced HCC, SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were detected at baseline and FU-1, while antibody testing was negative in the remaining patients at baseline, FU-1 and FU-2., Conclusion: The incidence of COVID-19 at our tertiary medical center during the pandemic was low in LC and HCC patients, when simple protective measures were implemented. Therefore, a routine care for patients with chronic liver diseases does not increase the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and should be maintained with protective measures., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) constitutes 80% of all primary liver cancers. Based on key developments in the understanding of its carcinogenesis and the advancement of treatment options, detailed algorithms and practice guidelines have been published to guide the clinical management of HCC. Furthermore, several subclasses of HCC have been described based on molecular profiles and linked to pathological characteristics, clinical features, and disease aggressiveness. Most recently, the combination of the checkpoint inhibitor atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has significantly increased treatment response in the first line systemic treatment of HCC. Unfortunately, rare HCC variants, in particular fibrolamellar liver cancer (FLC), combined hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA), and sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma (sHCC), were excluded from phase III studies. Therefore, data for decision-making and treatment allocation for these distinct entities, representing 1-5% of all primary liver cancers, is scarce. Moreover, most of the knowledge available for these rare HCC variants is based on registry data and retrospective studies. In this position paper, we briefly summarize the current clinical knowledge regarding FLC, cHCC-CCA, and sHCC. Based on our summary, we propose future clinical research activities within the framework of the European Reference Network on Hepatological Diseases (ERN RARE-LIVER)., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background and Aims: The multikinase inhibitor cabozantinib has been approved for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib. We report safety and efficacy data of an international, multicenter, real-life cohort of patients with advanced HCC treated with cabozantinib., Methods: Patients with HCC who were treated with cabozantinib were retrospectively identified across 11 centers in Austria, Switzerland, and Germany. Patients' characteristics, adverse events, duration of treatment and overall survival (OS) data were analyzed until April 1, 2020., Results: Eighty-eight patients from 11 centers were included. The predominant underlying liver diseases were NAFLD/NASH in 26 (30%) and hepatitis C infection in 21 (24%) patients. Seventy-eight patients (89%) were classified as Barcelona clinic liver cancer (BCLC) stage C. Sixty patients (68%) were Child-Pugh A, whereas 22 (25%) were Child-Pugh B, respectively. Cabozantinib was used as systemic second- and third-line or later treatment in 41 (47%) and 46 (52%) patients, respectively. The following best responses under cabozantinib were documented: partial response in 6 (7%), stable disease in 28 (32%), and progressive disease in 28 (32%) patients, respectively. Fifty-two patients (59%) died during follow-up. The median OS from start of cabozantinib treatment was 7.0 months in the entire cohort and 9.7 months in Child-Pugh A patients, while Child-Pugh B patients had a median OS of 3.4 months, respectively. Thirty-seven (42%) patients fulfilled the CELESTIAL inclusion and exclusion criteria, showing a median OS of 11.1 months. Most common adverse events were fatigue (15.6%) and diarrhea (15.6%)., Conclusion: Cabozantinib treatment was effective, safe, and feasible in patients with advanced HCC in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Patients in the real-life setting had more advanced liver disease - in which 25% of patients were Child-Pugh B. However, OS in patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis was similar to that reported in the phase 3 trial (CELESTIAL)., Competing Interests: F.F. received travel support from Abbvie and Ipsen and speaker fees from AbbVie. B.S. received travel support from AbbVie, Gilead, and Ipsen. C.L. reports no conflicts of interest. J.B. served as Consultant for BTGPLC, BMS, MSD, Roche, and Eisai. He served as a Speaker for BTGPLC, Eisai, and Novartis. He received travel support from Ipsen, BTGPLC, and BMS. He is an investigator for MSD, BMS, Lilly. T.W.F. reports no conflicts of interest. C.C. received fees and travel support from Eisai, MSD, Ipsen, and Falk Foundation. A.B. reports no conflicts of interest. D.B. served as a consultant for Bayer Healthcare, Boston Scientific, and Falk Foundation. J.W. served as a consultant/speaker and received travel support from BMS, Eisai, Falk, Gilead, Ipsen, MSD, and Novartis. He is an investigator for MSD. T.M. reports no conflicts of interest. F.K. has received speakers' fees from Bayer, Ipsen, MSD, Eisai, Shire, Sirtex and has received travel grants from Eisai, Janssen, Ipsen, and Novartis. D.T.W. reports no conflicts of interest. M.S. served as a consult for Bayer Healthcare, and Falk Foundation. T.J.E: served as a speaker and/or consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD, Roche, and Servier. He received travel support from Ipsen. He received financial support for scientific projects from Servier. A.W. is an Editorial Board Member of Liver Cancer. H.W. served as speaker for Bayer, Eisai, and Ipsen, and as a consultant for Bayer, Eisai, Lilly, BMS, Roche, and Ipsen. He conducts studies for Bayer, Roche, Lilly, MSD, and BMS. M.V. received honoraria from Merck Serono, Bayer Vital, and Sirtex and is a member of the advisory boards of Ipsen, Roche, Bayer, Lilly, Nordic Pharma, BMS, MSD, and Amgen. C.L. served as a speaker and/or consultant for AbbVie, Gilead, MSD, Norgine, Falk, Eisai, Roche, Behring, and travel received support from AbbVie and Gilead. M.P. is an investigator for Bayer, BMS, Lilly, and Roche; he received speaker honoraria from Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Lilly, and MSD; he is a consultant for Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Eisai, Lilly, MSD, and Roche; he received travel support from Bayer and BMS. J-F.D. served in advisory committees: Abbvie, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Falk, Genfit, Genkyotex, Gilead Sciences, HepaRegenix, Intercept, Lilly, Merck, and Novartis. Speaking and teaching: Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Intercept, Genfit, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, and Roche. O.W. served as a speaker and/or consultant for AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, Eisai, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Servier, and Shire. He received travel support from Abbvie, Bayer, BMS, Gilead, Ipsen, Medac, and Merck. He received financial support for scientific projects from Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung, IPSEN, Medac, Merck Serono, and Novartis. He is an investigator for Basilea, Incyte, and MSD., (Copyright © 2021 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background & Aims: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems and it may have heavily impacted patients with liver cancer (LC). Herein, we evaluated whether the schedule of LC screening or procedures has been interrupted or delayed because of the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: An international survey evaluated the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical practice and clinical trials from March 2020 to June 2020, as the first phase of a multicentre, international, and observational project. The focus was on patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma, cared for around the world during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave., Results: Ninety-one centres expressed interest to participate and 76 were included in the analysis, from Europe, South America, North America, Asia, and Africa (73.7%, 17.1%, 5.3%, 2.6%, and 1.3% per continent, respectively). Eighty-seven percent of the centres modified their clinical practice: 40.8% the diagnostic procedures, 80.9% the screening programme, 50% cancelled curative and/or palliative treatments for LC, and 41.7% modified the liver transplantation programme. Forty-five out of 69 (65.2%) centres in which clinical trials were running modified their treatments in that setting, but 58.1% were able to recruit new patients. The phone call service was modified in 51.4% of centres which had this service before the COVID-19 pandemic (n = 19/37)., Conclusions: The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic had a tremendous impact on the routine care of patients with liver cancer. Modifications in screening, diagnostic, and treatment algorithms may have significantly impaired the outcome of patients. Ongoing data collection and future analyses will report the benefits and disadvantages of the strategies implemented, aiding future decision-making., Lay Summary: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems globally. Herein, we assessed the impact of the first wave pandemic on patients with liver cancer and found that routine care for these patients has been majorly disrupted, which could have a significant impact on outcomes., Competing Interests: SM.-M.: Speaker fees from Bayer and travel funding from 10.13039/100004326Bayer and 10.13039/501100014382Eisai. V.S.: Travel grants from 10.13039/100004326Bayer. A.F.: Lecture fees from Bayer, Gilead and MSD; consultancy fees from Bayer, AstraZeneca, Roche and Guerbert. J-C.N.: Received research grant from 10.13039/100004326Bayer for Inserm UMR1138. L.R.: Reports receiving consulting fees from Amgen, ArQule, AstraZeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Celgene, Eisai, Exelixis, Hengrui, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Roche, Sanofi; lectures fees from AbbVie, Amgen, Eisai, Gilead, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Roche, Sanofi; travel fees from Ipsen; and institutional research funding from Agios, ARMO BioSciences, 10.13039/100004325AstraZeneca, BeiGene, 10.13039/501100003769Eisai, 10.13039/100010544Exelixis, 10.13039/100006591Fibrogen, Incyte, 10.13039/501100014382Ipsen, 10.13039/100004312Lilly, 10.13039/100007054MSD, 10.13039/100004337Roche. B.S.: Reports consultancy fees from Adaptimmune, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, BTG, Eli Lilly, Ipsen, Novartis, Merck, Roche, Sirtex Medical, Terumo; and research grants from 10.13039/100002491BMS and Sirtex Medical. J. Bruix: Consultancy: AbbVie, ArQule, Astra, Basilea, Bayer, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead, Kowa, Lilly, Medimune, Novartis, Onxeo, Polaris, Quirem, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Sirtex, Terumo/Grants: 10.13039/100004326Bayer and 10.13039/501100014382Ipsen. M.S.Z.: Received speaker fees and travel grants from 10.13039/100004326Bayer and 10.13039/100014869BTG, 10.13039/100007054MSD. M.B.: Consultant and Advisory Board for: Bayer Pharma, Ipsen, BMS, Eisai, Roche, AstraZeneca, Sirtex Medical. D.J.P.: Received lecture fees from ViiV Healthcare and Bayer Healthcare and travel expenses from BMS and Bayer Healthcare; consulting fees for Mina Therapeutics, EISAI, Roche, and AstraZeneca; received research funding (to institution) from MSD and BMS. T.M.: Consultancy: Eisai, Roche, BTG, Ipsen, Bayer, Adaptimmune. Research funding: Bayer, BTG. H.W.: Served as speaker for Bayer, Eisai, and Ipsen, and as a consultant for Bayer, Eisai, Lilly, BMS, Roche, and Ipsen. B.M.: Consultancy: Bayer-Shering Pharma /Speaker fees: Eisai, MSDG. C. Consultancy fees from Bayer, Ipsen. P.R.G.: Bayer, BMS, MSD, AstraZeneca, Adaptimmune, Sirtex, Lilly Ipsen, Roche, Eisai. M.R.A.S.: Has received Research grants, advisory board or speaker fees for 10.13039/100006483AbbVie, 10.13039/100004326Bayer, Biolab, Intercept, 10.13039/501100014382Ipsen, 10.13039/100008799Gilead, 10.13039/100009947MSD, 10.13039/100004336Novartis, and 10.13039/100004337Roche. J.T.: Has received research grants from 10.13039/100004337Roche and 10.13039/501100014382Ipsen. He has received speaker and consulting honoraria from AstraZeneca, Amgen, Bayer Healthcare, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Eisai, Ipsen, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dome, Lilly Imclone, and Roche. J. Bridgewater: Consultancy Bayer, BMS, Incyte, Taiho, Roche, MSD and Merck Serono. Research funding from Incyte. G.C.: Consultancy fees from Bayer, Ipsen. A.L.: Consultancy CAScination, Advisory Board Neuwave and Histosonics. H.T.: Speaker fees from AbbVie, Gilead, MSD, and Bayer. R.V.: Research grant from 10.13039/100006483Abbvie. A.M.M.P.: Speaker honorarium from Bayer, BMS, Boston Scientific and EISAI. Consulting honorarium from Bayer, AstraZeneca and EISAI. Advisory honorarium from Bayer, AstraZeneca and EISAI. Grants from 10.13039/100004326Bayer and 10.13039/100008497Boston Scientific. M.D.: Has received consulting and training fees from Bayer and Eisai. B.B.: Reports Consultancy for GenMab (paid to Institution); Advisory Boards for Roche (paid to Institution), Eisai Europe Limited (paid to Institution), research grant from 10.13039/100006436Celgene Ltd (paid to Institution), Speakers Bureau for Eisai Europe Limited (paid to Institution), Travel and registration for Congress from Bayer. L.d.F.: Lectures fees from BMS, Roche and Bayer. B.M.M.: Advisory/Speaker: Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Ipsen, Merck, Roche, Sanoffi Genzyme, Taiho. Expert Testimony: Eisai, Roche. Travel: Eisai, Merck. Research: Sillajen (Individual); AstraZeneca, H3/Eisai, Galera, GSK, Exelixis (Institution). M.S.: Travel/ accommodation/meeting expenses: Bayer. Eisai. Speaker fees: Bayer. C.R.L.: Travel grants from 10.13039/100004326Bayer. M.R-G.: Reports grants from Intercept, grants from 10.13039/100005564Gilead-Sciences, personal fees from Shionogi, personal fees from Alfa-Wasserman, personal fees from Prosciento, personal fees from Kaleido, personal fees from Novonrdisk, personal fees from MSD, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Allergan, personal fees from Boehriger-Ingelheim, personal fees from Zydus, personal fees from Intercept Pharma, personal fees from Gilead-Sciences, outside the submitted work. F.P.: Disclosures: Received speaker honoraria from Bayer, Roche, LKM-Biotoscana, RAFFO. Research Grants from INC Argentinean 10.13039/100013137National Institute of Corrections, 10.13039/100004337Roche. V.M.: Lectures sponsored by Bayer. G.B.: Advisory board Eli-Lilly and Incyte. M. Vergara: Travel grants from 10.13039/100004326Bayer, 10.13039/100008799Gilead, 10.13039/100009947MSD and 10.13039/100006483Abbvie. Lectures sponsored by Gilead, Abbvie, Intercept, and MSD. M.L.: Lectures and educational presentations: Abbvie. Travel/accommodation, meeting expenses covered by Bayer, Gilead, Abbvie. M.I.: Received speaker honoraria from Bayer, Gilead Sciences, BMS, Janssen, Ipsen, MSD, BTG-Boston Scientific, AbbVie, EISAI, and was consultant for BTG-Boston Scientific, Bayer, and Guerbet. M.R.: Consultancy: Bayer-Schering Pharma, BMS, Roche, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Lilly, BTG/Paid conferences: Bayer-Schering Pharma, BMS, Gilead, Lilly/Research Grants: 10.13039/100004326Bayer-Schering Pharma, 10.13039/501100014382Ipsen. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (© 2021 The Authors.)

We aimed to identify a specific microRNA (miRNA) pattern to determine diagnostic and prognostic value in plasma exosomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. A two-stage study was carried out: exosomal miRNAs were quantified in plasma of HCC patients and healthy individuals by PCR-based microarray cards containing 45 different miRNAs (training cohort). Then, four deregulated miRNAs (miR-16, miR-146a, miR-192, and miR-221) were quantified in the validation analysis using exosomes derived from 85 HCC patients, 50 liver cirrhosis patients, and 20 healthy individuals. Exosomal miR-146a ( p = 0.0001), miR-192 ( p = 0.002) and miR-221 ( p = 0.032) were upregulated only in HCC patients. Repeated 10-fold cross validation showed that miR-146a differentiated HCC from liver cirrhosis patients with AUC of 0.80 ± 0.14 (sensitivity: 81 ± 13%, specificity: 58 ± 22%) in a logistic regression model. High miR-192 presence is associated with poor overall survival (OS) in all HCC patients ( p = 0.027) and was predictor of OS in HCC patients in an uni- and multivariate Cox regression model. Moreover, decreased miR-16 levels correlated with OS in liver cirrhosis patients ( p = 0.034). Our results emphasized that exosomes secreted into the plasma carry differentially expressed miRNAs of which in particular, miR-192, miR-146, and miR-16 are promising diagnostic and prognostic markers for both HCC and liver cirrhosis patients.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can have viral or non-viral causes 1-5 . Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is an important driver of HCC. Immunotherapy has been approved for treating HCC, but biomarker-based stratification of patients for optimal response to therapy is an unmet need 6,7 . Here we report the progressive accumulation of exhausted, unconventionally activated CD8 + PD1 + T cells in NASH-affected livers. In preclinical models of NASH-induced HCC, therapeutic immunotherapy targeted at programmed death-1 (PD1) expanded activated CD8 + PD1 + T cells within tumours but did not lead to tumour regression, which indicates that tumour immune surveillance was impaired. When given prophylactically, anti-PD1 treatment led to an increase in the incidence of NASH-HCC and in the number and size of tumour nodules, which correlated with increased hepatic CD8 + PD1 + CXCR6 + , TOX + , and TNF + T cells. The increase in HCC triggered by anti-PD1 treatment was prevented by depletion of CD8 + T cells or TNF neutralization, suggesting that CD8 + T cells help to induce NASH-HCC, rather than invigorating or executing immune surveillance. We found similar phenotypic and functional profiles in hepatic CD8 + PD1 + T cells from humans with NAFLD or NASH. A meta-analysis of three randomized phase III clinical trials that tested inhibitors of PDL1 (programmed death-ligand 1) or PD1 in more than 1,600 patients with advanced HCC revealed that immune therapy did not improve survival in patients with non-viral HCC. In two additional cohorts, patients with NASH-driven HCC who received anti-PD1 or anti-PDL1 treatment showed reduced overall survival compared to patients with other aetiologies. Collectively, these data show that non-viral HCC, and particularly NASH-HCC, might be less responsive to immunotherapy, probably owing to NASH-related aberrant T cell activation causing tissue damage that leads to impaired immune surveillance. Our data provide a rationale for stratification of patients with HCC according to underlying aetiology in studies of immunotherapy as a primary or adjuvant treatment.

Introduction: The number of efficacious systemic agents for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has rapidly increased over the past 3 years. However, guidance for optimal sequential systemic treatment in patients with advanced disease and experience with outcome and safety profiles are lacking., Objective: We aimed to assess efficacy and tolerability of sequential systemic therapy of advanced HCC., Methods: Our single-center study prospectively followed 14 patients who received multiple, sequential systemic therapies after progression or intolerance to sorafenib. Endpoints were overall and progression-free survival (OS, PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE)., Results: Patients had well-compensated liver function and good performance status at start of each systemic therapy. Agents included sorafenib ( n = 14), regorafenib ( n = 10), immunotherapy with nivolumab or pembrolizumab ( n = 10), lenvatinib ( n = 3), ramucirumab ( n = 2), and others, with a median of 3 lines of systemic therapy per patient. Median OS was 37.4 months from initiation of first-line therapy with sorafenib. PFS and ORR for sorafenib, regorafenib, and immunotherapy were 6.6, 5.3, and 6.6 months, and 15.4, 11.1, and 22.2%, respectively. TEAE were frequent (46-80%), but mostly manageable during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy and without the need for termination in most patients. However, TEAE due to immunotherapy (60%) led to cessation of treatment in 40% of the patients., Conclusions: Sequential systemic therapy is able to prolong median OS in selected patients with advanced HCC to more than 3 years. TEAE are frequent, but manageable, and the quality of adverse events depends on the respective agent. Further investigation of potential predictive biomarkers for treatment allocation is needed., Competing Interests: H.W. has received consulting fees from Bayer, Eisai, Roche, Ipsen, BMS, and Lilly. K.S. has advised/consulted for Ipsen and Bayer. All remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest for the submitted work., (Copyright © 2020 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: The translational interest in the intratumoral heterogeneity of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been increasing. The dismal prognosis of this pathology is linked to the features of the HCC harbouring cancer stem cells (CSC), represented by EpCAM-expression. However, the extent of the impact of intratumoral distribution of CSC-features, both on the recurrence after curative resection and on clinical outcome, remains unknown. To address this, we investigated the spatial heterogeneity of CSC-features with the aim of identifying the unique HCC patient subgroups amenable to adjuvant treatment., Methods: We designed a tissue microarray (TMA) from patients who had received liver resection between 2011 and 2017. Tumor specimens were sampled at multiple locations (n = 3-8). EpCAM-positivity was assessed for intensity and proportion by applying a score dividing three groups: (i) negative (E-/-); (ii) heterogeneous (E-/+); and (iii) homogeneous (E+/+). The groups were further analysed with regard to time-to-recurrence (TTR) and recurrence-free-survival (RFS)., Results: We included 314 tumor spots from 69 patients (76.8% male, median age 66, liver cirrhosis/fibrosis 75.8%). The risk factors were alcohol abuse (26.2%), NASH (13.1%), HBV (15.5%), HCV (17.9%) and others (27.4%), representative of a typical Western cohort. E+/+ patients experienced significantly shorter TTR and RFS compared to E+/- and E-/- patients (TTR 5 vs. 19 months, p = 0.022; RFS 5 vs. 14 vs. 21 months, p = 0.016). Only homogeneous EpCAM-positivity correlated with higher AFP levels (> 400 ng/ml, p = 0.031)., Conclusions: Spatial heterogeneity of EpCAM-expression was markedly present in the cohort. Of note, only homogeneous EpCAM-expression correlated significantly with early recurrence, whereas heterogeneous EpCAM-expression was associated with clinical endpoints comparable to EpCAM-negativity. We identified a unique HCC subtype associated with a high risk of tumor recurrence.

Background: Tunneled peritoneal drainage catheters are described as an effective and relatively safe method in the management of malignant and non-malignant refractory ascites. Therapeutic advantages, linked to their use, are self-management of ascites and palliative care at home. Complications occur rarely. We describe an ascending colon perforation after implantation of a peritoneal drainage in a patient with refractory ascites due to liver cirrhosis., Case Presentation: The 68-year-old male was admitted to the intensive care unit due to severe community acquired pneumonia. The ascites drainage was inserted in order to reduce the intra-abdominal pressure and enable appropriate ventilation. A few hours later, bowel content could be detected in the tube and an abdominal computed tomography confirmed the intestinal perforation. Notably, there was no pneumoperitoneum and peritonitis had not yet set in. The catheter was removed during an emergency laparotomy and sutured closure of both perforation sites was performed., Conclusion: Patients with septated ascites and intraperitoneal adhesions are at potential higher risk of bowel perforation during implantation of an indwelling peritoneal catheter. A mini-laparotomy is, therefore, necessary in order to ensure safe implantation and positioning of the catheter in those cases.

Background and Aims: Carriage of rs738409:G in patatin-like phospholipase domain containing 3 (PNPLA3) is associated with an increased risk for developing alcohol-related cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recently, rs72613567:TA in hydroxysteroid 17-beta dehydrogenase 13 (HSD17B13) was shown to be associated with a reduced risk for developing alcohol-related liver disease and to attenuate the risk associated with carriage of PNPLA3 rs738409:G. This study explores the risk associations between these two genetic variants and the development of alcohol-related cirrhosis and HCC., Approach and Results: Variants in HSD17B13 and PNPLA3 were genotyped in 6,171 participants, including 1,031 with alcohol-related cirrhosis and HCC, 1,653 with alcohol-related cirrhosis without HCC, 2,588 alcohol misusers with no liver disease, and 899 healthy controls. Genetic associations with the risks for developing alcohol-related cirrhosis and HCC were determined using logistic regression analysis. Carriage of HSD17B13 rs72613567:TA was associated with a lower risk for developing both cirrhosis (odds ratio [OR], 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.88; P = 8.13 × 10 -6 ) and HCC (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.89; P = 2.27 × 10 -4 ), whereas carriage of PNPLA3 rs738409:G was associated with an increased risk for developing cirrhosis (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.54-1.88; P = 1.52 × 10 -26 ) and HCC (OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.58-1.98; P = 2.31 × 10 -23 ). These associations remained significant after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index, type 2 diabetes, and country. Carriage of HSD17B13 rs72613567:TA attenuated the risk for developing cirrhosis associated with PNPLA3 rs738409:G in both men and women, but the protective effect against the subsequent development of HCC was only observed in men (OR allelic , 0.75; 95% CI, 0.64-0.87; P = 1.72 × 10 -4 )., Conclusions: Carriage of variants in PNPLA3 and HSD17B13 differentially affect the risk for developing advanced alcohol-related liver disease. A genotypic/phenotypic risk score might facilitate earlier diagnosis of HCC in this population., (© 2019 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases.)

Biliary tract cancer (BTC) is a rare disease with a heterogeneous nomenclature. Carcinomas of the intra- and extrahepatic biliary tract as well as gallbladder cancer are oftentimes combined in clinical research and treatment algorithms. However, these different cancer types vary not only in their anatomical features, but also in the underlying molecular alterations.Surgery remains the only chance of cure. Adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine for 6 months should be recommended after curative intended surgery. In the palliative first-line treatment of advanced BTC, the combination chemotherapy gemcitabine and cisplatin remains the only evidence-based standard. For second-line treatment, the combination of 5-FU, folinic acid and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) is a treatment option based on preliminary data from a randomized phase 3 study. Potential targeted therapies showing efficacy in prospective clinical studies are, for example, IDH-, BRAF-/MEK- and FGFR-inhibitors as well as immunotherapy. Therefore, in the era of personalized medicine, molecular testing should be offered to all patients with advanced disease and indication for systemic treatment., Competing Interests: Marianne Sinn: Reisekostenunterstützung Servier, Amgen; Honorare(Advisory boards, Vorträge) Leo Pharma, Sanofi, Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Incyte, Pfizer, Servier.Henning Wege: Studiengelder und Beraterhonorare Lilly, MSD, Incyte, Basilea.Alexander Stein: institutionelle Forschungsunterstützung Deutsche Krebshilfe, BMS, Merck, Servier; Beratungshonorare MSD, Astra Zeneca, Lilly, Roche, Merck, BMS., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Background & Aims: The prevalence of nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) associated hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing. However, strategies for detection of early-stage HCC in patients with NASH have limitations. We assessed the ability of the GALAD score, which determines risk of HCC based on patient sex; age; and serum levels of α-fetoprotein (AFP), AFP isoform L3 (AFP-L3), and des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP), to detect HCC in patients with NASH., Methods: We performed a case-control study of 125 patients with HCC (20% within Milan Criteria) and 231 patients without HCC (NASH controls) from 8 centers in Germany. We compared the performance of serum AFP, AFP-L3, or DCP vs GALAD score to identify patients with HCC using receiver operating characteristic curves and corresponding area under the curve (AUC) analyses. We also analyzed data from 389 patients with NASH under surveillance for HCC in Japan, followed for a median of 167 months. During the 5-year screening period, 26 patients developed HCC. To compensate for irregular intervals of data points, we performed locally weighted scatterplot smoothing, linear regression, and a non-linear curve fit to assess development of GALAD before HCC development., Results: The GALAD score identified patients with any stage HCC with an AUC of 0.96 - significantly greater than values for serum levels of AFP (AUC, 0.88), AFP-L3 (AUC, 0.86) or DCP (AUC, 0.87). AUC values for the GALAD score were consistent in patients with cirrhosis (AUC, 0.93) and without cirrhosis (AUC, 0.98). For detection of HCC within Milan Criteria, the GALAD score achieved an AUC of 0.91, with a sensitivity of 68% and specificity of 95% at a cutoff of -0.63. In a pilot Japanese cohort study, the mean GALAD score was higher in patients with NASH who developed HCC than in those who did not develop HCC as early as 1.5 years before HCC diagnosis. GALAD scores were above -0.63 approximately 200 days before the diagnosis of HCC., Conclusions: In a case-control study performed in Germany and a pilot cohort study in Japan, we found the GALAD score may detect HCC with high levels of accuracy in patients with NASH, with and without cirrhosis. The GALAD score can detect patients with early-stage HCC, and might facilitate surveillance of patients with NASH, who are often obese, which limits the sensitivity of detection of liver cancer by ultrasound., (Copyright © 2020 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most frequent primary liver cancer and the second most lethal malignancy worldwide. In the Western world, HCC predominantly develops in patients with liver cirrhosis. Therefore, application of locoregional interventions and systemic agents should be based on an interdisciplinary evaluation, most importantly, taking the functional liver reserve into account. This review summarizes current treatment lines and novel strategies in the management of HCC. For the most part, randomized controlled trials and large meta-analyses are reported, with an emphasis on systemic therapies., Summary: In patients with limited hepatic disease and sufficient liver function, resection and local ablation are the most frequently employed curative locoregional therapies. Due to recurrence rates of up to 70% within 5 years and in patients with compromised liver function not amenable to these local modalities, liver transplantation remains superior in terms of tumor control and long-term survival. However, its applicability is limited because of the increasing gap between available donor organs and patients on the waiting list. Transarterial chemoembolization is commonly employed to bridge patients to transplantation and also serves as standard of care for patients not suitable for other local therapies. Recently, various phase 3 trials have reported a clinical benefit for the tyrosine kinase inhibitors lenvatinib, regorafenib, and cabozantinib in HCC. In addition, ramucirumab, an angiostatic antibody, also improves survival in second-line systemic therapy. This opens new avenues in the sequential application of treatment lines, and thus early response assessment is necessary to fully utilize the clinical impact of locoregional therapies and systemic therapies and to shift patients to further treatment lines before hepatic deterioration., Key Messages: Clinical decision-making in hepatocellular carcinoma is based on an interdisciplinary evaluation. Liver transplantation should always be considered as long-term curative treatment option, especially in T2 patients. In palliative treatment, early response assessment is required to advance patients to the next treatment line before decompensation., Competing Interests: Henning Wege has received consulting and lecture fees from Bayer, Eisai, Roche, Lilly, Ipsen, and Merck Sharp & Dohme. Jun Li and Harald Ittrich declare no conflict of interests., (Copyright © 2019 by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: Cytotoxic chemotherapy is generally ineffective in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. We assessed the intravenous perfusion of doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in whom previous sorafenib therapy had failed., Methods: We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 70 sites in 11 countries. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with one or more previous systemic therapies, including sorafenib, were randomly assigned to receive 30 mg/m 2 doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles (30 mg/m 2 group), 20 mg/m 2 doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles (20 mg/m 2 group), or standard care using a computer-generated randomisation list prepared by the funder and stratified by geographic region. Patients in the experimental groups received perfusion of the drug every 4 weeks and those in the control group received any systemic anticancer therapy (except sorafenib) as per investigator decision. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the population of patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01655693., Findings: Between June 15, 2012, and Jan 27, 2017, 541 patients were screened, of whom 144 were excluded and 397 were randomly assigned to one of the groups (133 to the 30 mg/m 2 group; 130 to the 20 mg/m 2 group; and 134 to the control group). Median follow-up was 22·7 months (IQR 11·2-34·9). After pooling the doxorubicin groups for the efficacy analysis, median overall survival was 9·1 months (95% CI 8·1-10·4) in the pooled doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles group and 9·0 months (7·1-11·8) in the control group (HR 1·00 [95% CI 0·78-1·28], two-sided p=0·99). 227 (94%) of 242 patients who received doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles and 100 (75%) of 134 patients in the control group had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. The most common drug-related grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (25 [10%] of 242 treated with doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles and eight [6%] of 134 in the control group), asthenia (six [2%] and four [3%]), and thrombocytopenia (three [1%] and ten [7%]). Six (2%) patients treated with doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles and one (1%) of those in the control group were deemed by investigators to have had a drug-related death. Serious adverse events occurred in 74 (31%) patients who received doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles and 48 (36%) in the control group., Interpretation: Doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles did not improve overall survival for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in whom previous sorafenib treatment had failed., Funding: Onxeo., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Programmed cell death protein-1-targeted immunotherapy has shown promising results in phase II studies of hepatocellular carcinoma., Aim: To evaluate safety and efficacy of nivolumab and pembrolizumab in an international, multicentre, real-world cohort of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma., Methods: Sixty-five patients treated with nivolumab (n = 34) or pembrolizumab (n = 31) between July 10, 2015 and December 31, 2018 (data cut-off) across six centres in Austria and Germany were retrospectively analysed., Results: Child-Pugh class A/B/C was 32 (49%)/28 (43%)/5 (8%). Immunotherapy was used as systemic first-/second-/third-/fourth-line treatment in 9 (14%)/27 (42%)/26 (40%)/3 (5%) patients. Fifty-four patients had at least one follow-up imaging and were, therefore, available for radiological response assessment. The overall response and disease control rates were 12% and 49% respectively. Of 52 evaluable patients, four (8%) had hyperprogressive disease. Median time to progression was 5.5 (95% CI, 3.5-7.4) months, median progression-free survival was 4.6 (95% CI, 3.0-6.2) months, and median overall survival was 11.0 (95% CI, 8.2-13.8) months. Most common adverse events were infections (n = 7), rash (n = 6), pruritus (n = 3), fatigue (n = 3), diarrhoea (n = 3) and hepatitis (n = 3). Efficacy and safety results were comparable between Child-Pugh A and B patients; however, median overall survival (OS) was shorter in Child-Pugh B patients (16.7 vs 8.6 months; P = 0.065). There was no difference in terms of efficacy and adverse events between patients who received immunotherapy as first-/second-line and third-/fourth-line respectively., Conclusions: Programmed cell death protein-1-targeted immunotherapy with nivolumab or pembrolizumab showed promising efficacy and safety in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, including subjects with Child-Pugh stage B and patients with intensive pretreatment., (© 2019 The Authors. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the deadliest cancers due to its late diagnosis with the main risk factor being liver cirrhosis (LC). Glycan structures from glycoproteins are usually altered in cancer. Blood plasma from 111 healthy and sick donors was analyzed to determine the post-translational modifications (PTM) of intact Aα-, Bβ-, and γ-subunits of fibrinogen, a glycoprotein predominantly produced in liver cells. Glycosylation and phosphorylation of the protein species were quantified by liquid chromatography coupled to mass spectrometry to correlate PTMs to pathological cases. Quantities of the PTMs were used for statistical classification by principal component analysis (PCA) and multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). As relevant clinical finding, patients with liver disease (HCC and/or LC) were distinguished from individuals without relevant chronic liver disease with 91% sensitivity and 100% specificity. Within the group of patients with liver disease, a robust separation between LC and HCC was not possible. In more detail, the phosphorylation of Aα-subunit is decreased in HCC patients, whereas the monophosphorylated state is significantly increased in LC patients. In terms of glycosylation, the amount of O-glycans in the Aα-subunit is decreased in LC patients, while sialylation and fucosylation of N-type glycans of Bβ- and γ-subunits are increased in LC and HCC. Based on PTM of fibrinogen, starting from plasma we can assign the status of an individual as healthy or as liver disease in less than 3 h.

Objectives: Variants in patatin-like phospholipase domain-containing 3 (PNPLA3; rs738409), transmembrane 6 superfamily member 2 (TM6SF2; rs58542926), and membrane bound O-acyltransferase domain containing 7 (MBOAT7; rs641738) are risk factors for the development of alcohol-related cirrhosis. Within this population, PNPLA3 rs738409 is also an established risk factor for the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The aim of this study was to explore possible risk associations of TM6SF2 rs58542926 and MBOAT7 rs641738 with HCC., Methods: Risk variants in PNPLA3, TM6SF2, and MBOAT7 were genotyped in 751 cases with alcohol-related cirrhosis and HCC and in 1165 controls with alcohol-related cirrhosis without HCC. Association with the risk of developing HCC was analyzed using multivariate logistic regression., Results: The development of HCC was independently associated with PNPLA3 rs738409 (OR adjusted 1.84 [95% CI 1.55-2.18], p = 1.85 × 10 -12 ) and TM6SF2 rs58542926 (OR adjusted 1.66 [1.30-2.13], p = 5.13 × 10 -05 ), using an additive model, and controlling the sex, age, body mass index, and type 2 diabetes mellitus; the risk associated with carriage of MBOAT7 rs641738 (OR adjusted 1.04 [0.88-1.24], p = 0.61) was not significant. The population-attributable fractions were 43.5% for PNPLA3 rs738409, 11.5% for TM6SF2 rs58542926, and 49.9% for the carriage of both the variants combined., Conclusions: Carriage of TM6SF2 rs58542926 is an additional risk factor for the development of HCC in people with alcohol-related cirrhosis. Carriage of both PNPLA3 rs738409 and TM6SF2 rs58542926 accounts for half of the attributable risk for HCC in this population. Genotyping will allow for more precise HCC risk-stratification of patients with alcohol-related cirrhosis, and genotype-guided screening algorithms would optimize patient care.