Search

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma has limited treatment options, but there has been extensive growth recently with cabozantinib, regorafenib, lenvatinib, nivolumab, atezolizumab, and bevacizumab, which are some of the treatments that have received FDA approval just over the last three years. Because HCC tumor microenvironment is potentially immunogenic and typically characterized by inflammation, immunotherapy has been proposed as a potential novel therapeutic approach, which has prompted studies in advanced HCC patients investigating various immune-therapeutic strategies such as CAR-T cell therapy, checkpoint inhibitors, and onco-vaccines. The anti-PD-1 checkpoint inhibitors nivolumab and pembrolizumab have been FDA approved as a second line treatment in patients who progressed or are intolerant to Sorafenib. To build up on the success of PD-1 monotherapy, combinatorial regimens with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus VEGF targeted agents have shown positive results in various malignancies including HCC. The combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is the new addition to the HCC treatment armamentarium following a pivotal study that demonstrated an improvement in OS over frontline sorafenib. Other novel immune-based approaches and oncolytic viruses are in the early phases of clinical evaluation. These innovative approaches enhance the intensity of cancer-directed immune responses and will potentially impact the outlook of this aggressive disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several targeted agents including multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (mTKIs) and immunotherapy (IO) agents have been approved for use beyond the frontline setting in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Due to lack of prospective head-to-head comparative trials, there is no standardized way for alternating those agents beyond frontline. Therefore, we performed a retrospective review of the Kansas University (KU) cancer registry to determine whether IO may be superior to non-IO therapy. Patients with advanced HCC were divided into two groups based on the second-line systemic regimen received (IO vs. non-IO). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated under the Kaplan–Meier and Cox proportional hazards models. No statistically significant differences in PFS and OS were found, although a non-significant delayed separation in the survival curve favoring IO was identified (median PFS 3.9 months vs. 3 months; median OS 10 months vs. 10 months respectively for IO vs. non-IO). This retrospective analysis is one of the earliest and largest studies comparing second-line IO and non-IO therapies thus far reported. Future studies should aim to define specific biomarkers for response prediction and treatment optimization based on individual patient and tumor characteristics. Furthermore, combinatorial therapeutic strategies is an evolving approach showing early promising signal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]