Search

Introduction: Lenvatinib is indicated for the forefront treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC), but its use maybe limited by the risk of esophagogastric varices (EGV) bleeding. This study assessed the prevalence, predictors, and complications of EGV in aHCC patients treated with lenvatinib. Methods: In this multicenter international retrospective study, cirrhotic patients treated with lenvatinib for aHCC, were enrolled if upper-gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) available within 6 months before treatment. Primary endpoint was the incidence of EGV bleeding during lenvatinib therapy; secondary endpoints were predictors for EGV bleeding, prevalence and risk factors for the presence of EGV and high risk EGV at baseline, impact of EGV bleeding on patients’ survival. Results: 535 patients were enrolled in the study [median age 72 years, 78% male, 63% viral aetiology, 89% Child-Pugh A, 16% neoplastic portal vein thrombosis (nPVT), 56% BCLC-C]: 234 had EGV (44%): 70 (30%) at high-risk and 59 on primary prophylaxis. During lenvatinib treatment, 17 patients bled from EGV (3 grade 5), the 12-month cumulative incidence being 3%. The only baseline independent predictor of EGV bleeding was the presence of baseline high risk EGV (HR 6.94, 95% CI 2.23-21.57, p=0.001). In these patients the 12-month risk was 17%. High risk varices were independently associated with Child-Pugh B score (OR 2.12; 95%CI 1.08-4.17, p=0.03), nPVT (OR 2.54; 95%CI 1.40-4.61, p=0.002) and platelets

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

Introduction: In the REFLECT trial, lenvatinib was found to be non-inferior compared to sorafenib in terms of Overall Survival. Here, we analyze the effects of lenvatinib in the real-life experience of several centers across the world, and to identify clinical factors that could be significantly associated with survival outcomes. Methods: The study population derived from retrospectively collected data of HCC patients treated with lenvatinib. The overall cohort included Western and Eastern populations from 23 centres in five countries. Results: We included 1325 patients with HCC and treated with lenvatinib in our analysis. Median OS was 16.1 months. Overall response rate was 38.5%. Multivariate analysis for OS highlighted that HBsAg positive, NLR >3 and AST >38 were independently associated with poor prognosis in all models. Conversely, NAFLD/NASH related aetiology was independently associated with good prognosis. Median progression free survival was 6.3 months. Multivariate analysis for Progression Free survival revealed that NAFLD/NASH, BCLC, NLR and AST as independent prognostic factors for progression free survival. A proportion of 75.2% of patients suffered from at least one adverse effect during the study period. Multivariate analysis exhibited that the appearance of decreased appetite Grade ≥ 2 versus Grade 0-1 as an independent prognostic factor for worse Progression Free Survival. 924 patients on 1325 progressed during lenvatinib (69.7%), and 827 of them had a follow-up over two-months from the beginning of second line treatment. From first line therapy the longest median OS was obtained with the sequence lenvatinib and immunotherapy (47.0 months), followed by TACE (24.7 months), ramucirumab (21.2 months), sorafenib (15.7 months), regorafenib (12.7 months) and best supportive care (10.8 months). Conclusions: Our study confirms in a large and global population of patients with advanced HCC not candidate to locoregional treatment the OS reported in the registration study and a high response rate with lenvatinib.

Introduction: The prognosis of patients undergoing transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is extremely variable, and a confounding factor is that TACE is often repeated several times. We retrospectively evaluated the accuracy of different prognostic scores and staging systems in estimating overall survival (OS) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: An analysis considering prognostic models as time-varying variables was performed, calculating OS from the time of TACE to the time of the subsequent treatment. Total follow-up time for each patient was therefore split into several observation times accounting for each TACE procedure. Values of the likelihood ratio test (LRT) and Akaike information criterion (AIC) were used to compare different systems. Univariable and multivariable analyses were conducted to identify additional factors predictive of OS. We analyzed 1,610 TACE performed in 1,058 patients recorded in the Italian Liver Cancer database from 2008 through 2016. Results: The median OS of the enrolled patients was 41 months. According to LRT χ2 and AIC values based on the time-varying analysis, mHAP-III achieved the best values (41.72 and 4,625.49, respectively, p < 0.0001), indicating the highest predictive performance compared with all other scores (HAP, mHAP-II, ALBI, and pALBI) and staging systems (MELD, ITALICA, CLIP, MESH, MESIAH, JIS, HKLC, and BCLC). In the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, mHAP-III maintained an independent effect on OS (hazard ratio 1.31, 95% CI: 1.10–1.55, p < 0.0001). Time-varying age, alcoholic etiology, radiologic response to TACE, and performing ablation or surgery after TACE were additional significant variables resulting from the multivariable model. Conclusion: An innovative time-varying analysis revealed that mHAP-III was the most accurate model in predicting OS in patients with HCC undergoing TACE. Other clinical pre- and post-TACE variables were also found to be relevant for this prediction.