Search

Valentina Burgio,1 Massimo Iavarone,2 Giovanni Giuseppe Di Costanzo,3 Fabio Marra,4 Sara Lonardi,5,6 Emiliano Tamburini,7 Fabio Piscaglia,8 Gianluca Masi,9,10 Ciro Celsa,11 Francesco Giuseppe Foschi,12 Marianna Silletta,13 Daniela Caterina Amoruso,14 Margherita Rimini,15 Mariangela Bruccoleri,2 Raffaella Tortora,3 Claudia Campani,4 Caterina Soldà ,6 Massimo Giuseppe Viola,16 Antonella Forgione,8 Fabio Conti,12 Francesca Salani,9,10 Silvia Catanese,9,10 Carmelo Marco Giacchetto,17 Claudia Fulgenzi,13 Carmine Coppola,14 Pietro Lampertico,18 Antonio Pellino,6,19 Gabriele Rancatore,17 Giuseppe Cabibbo,17 Francesca Ratti,20 Federica Pedica,21 Angelo Della Corte,22 Massimo Colombo,18 Francesco De Cobelli,23 Luca Aldrighetti,20 Stefano Cascinu,1,23 Andrea Casadei-Gardini1,23 1Department of Medical Oncology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, 20132, Italy; 2Foundation IRCCS Ca’ Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Milan, Italy; 3Department of Hepatology, Naples, 80131, Italy; 4Dipartimento di Medicina Sperimentale e Clinica, Università di Firenze, Firenze, Italy; 5Early Phase Clinical Trial Unit, Department of Oncology, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV-IRCCS, Padua, Italy; 6Medical Oncology Unit 1, Department of Oncology, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV - IRCCS, Padua, Italy; 7Department of Oncology and Palliative Care, Cardinale Hospital, Naples, Italy; 8Division of Internal Medicine, Hepatobiliary and Immunoallergic Disease, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy; 9Department of Translational Research and New Technologies in Medicine and Surgery, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; 10Unit of Medical Oncology 2, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Pisana, Pisa, Italy; 11Department of Surgical, Oncological and Oral Sciences (Di.Chir.On.S.), University of Palermo, Palermo, 90127, Italy; 12Internal Medicine, Infermi Hospital, Faenza (AUSL ROMAGNA), Ravenna, Italy; 13Department of Oncology, Campus Bio Medico, Roma, Italy; 14Hepatology Unit, Internal Medicine, Area Stabiese Hospital, Naples, Italy; 15Department of Oncology and Hematology, Division of Oncology, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, 4121, Italy; 16Department of General Surgery and Emergency Surgery, Cardinale Hospital, Tricase, Italy; 17Section of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, Department of Health Promotion, Mother and Child Care, Internal Medicine and Medical Specialties, PROMISE, University of Palermo, Palermo, 90127, Italy; 18Liver Center, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, 20132, Italy; 19Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padua, Padua, Italy; 20Hepatobiliary Surgery Division, Liver Center, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, 20132, Italy; 21Department of Experimental Oncology, Pathology Unit, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, 20132, Italy; 22Department of Radiology, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, 20132, Italy; 23School of Medicine, Vita-Salute San Raffaele University, Milan, 20132, ItalyCorrespondence: Andrea Casadei-GardiniDepartment of Medical Oncology, IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Via Olgettina n. 60, Milan, ItalyEmail casadeigardini@gmail.comBackground: Lenvatinib has been approved in Italy since October 2019 as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to date data on effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib are not available in our region. To fill this gap, we performed a multicentric analysis of the real-world treatment outcomes with the propensity score matching in a cohort of Italian patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with either sorafenib or lenvatinib.Aims and Methods: To evaluate the effectiveness of sorafenib and lenvatinib as primary treatment of advanced HCC in clinical practice we performed a multicentric analysis of the treatment outcomes of 288 such patients recruited in 11 centers in Italy. A propensity score was used to mitigate confounding due to referral biases in the assessment of mortality and progression-free survival.Results: Over a follow-up period of 11 months the Cox regression model showed 48% reduction of death risk for patients treated with lenvatinib (95% CI: 0.34– 0.81; p = 0.0034), compared with those treated with sorafenib. The median PFS was 9.0 and 4.9 months for lenvatinib and sorafenib arm, respectively. Patients treated with lenvatinib showed a higher percentage of response rate (29.4% vs 2.8%; p < 0.00001) compared with patients treated with sorafenib. Sorafenib was shown to be correlated with more HFSR, diarrhea and fatigue, while lenvatinib with more hypertension and fatigue.Conclusion: Our study highlighted for the first time the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in an Italian cohort of patients.Keywords: hepatocarcinoma, sorafenib, lenvatinib

Background: Whether the etiology of underlying liver disease represents a prognostic factor in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with lenvatinib is still a matter of debate. This study investigates whether the viral etiology of HCC plays a prognostic role in overall survival (OS). Methods: Data derived from a multicenter series of 313 HCC patients treated with lenvatinib between 2019 and 2022 were analyzed. Actuarial survival estimates were computed using the Kaplan–Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. We performed an event-based counterfactual mediation analysis to estimate direct (chronic inflammation and immunosuppression), indirect (tobacco smoking, alcohol use, illicit drug abuse with injections), and the total effect of viral etiology on OS. Results were expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. Results: Median OS was 21 months (95% CI: 20–23) in the group with other etiologies and 15 months (14–16) in the group with viral etiology (p < 0.0001). The total effect of viral etiology was associated with OS (HR 2.76, 1.32–5.21), and it was mainly explained by the pure direct effect of viral etiology (HR 2.74, 1.15–4.45). By contrast, its total indirect effect was not associated with poorer survival (HR 1.05, 0.82–2.13). These results were confirmed when considering tobacco, alcohol consumption, or injection drug abuse as potential mediators. Median progression-free survival was 9 months (8–10) in patients with other etiologies and 6 months (5–7) in patients with viral etiology (p < 0.0001). No difference in terms of adverse event rate was observed between the two groups. Conclusions: Patients affected by HCC with nonviral etiology treated with lenvatinib exhibit longer survival than those with viral etiology. This finding may have relevance in the treatment decision-making process.

Background. Sorafenib and other tyrosine kinase inhibitors are the current standard of care for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurring after liver transplantation (LT). Sorafenib is sometimes regarded as a scarcely effective treatment in this setting because of some studies showing a short overall survival (OS) indirectly compared with historical series of nontransplanted patients. Additional data from multicenter prospective studies are needed before drawing definite conclusions. Methods. Retrospective analyses of a large prospective multicenter dataset of sorafenib-treated HCC patients to report the characteristics and outcomes of LT recipients (n = 81). Results. At the baseline, LT patients had key prognostic features (high prevalence of metastatic disease, and low prevalence of macrovascular invasion, α-fetoprotein >400 ng/mL, ALBI grade >1, performance status >0) that differentiated them from the typical populations of non-LT patient reported in clinical trials and observational studies. Moreover, a relevant proportion of LT patients received concurrent locoregional (12.3%) and postprogression systemic treatments (34.2%), resulting in a median OS of 18.7 mo. Conclusions. Multimodal and sequential treatments are relatively frequent in post-LT HCC patients and contribute to a remarkable OS, together with favorable baseline characteristics. Despite the impossibility of matching with non-LT patients, our results indirectly suggest that the metastatic nature of post-LT recurrence and concurrent antirejection regimens should not discourage systemic treatments.

Background & Aims: Information on safety and efficacy of systemic treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) under dialysis are limited due to patient exclusion from clinical trials. Thus, we aimed to evaluate the rate, prevalence, tolerability, and outcome of sorafenib in this population. Methods: We report a multicenter study comprising patients from Latin America and Europe. Patients treated with sorafenib were enrolled; demographics, dose modifications, adverse events (AEs), treatment duration, and outcome of patients undergoing dialysis were recorded. Results: As of March 2018, 6156 HCC patients were treated in 44 centres and 22 patients were concomitantly under dialysis (0.36%). The median age was 65.5years, 40.9% had hepatitis C, 75% had Child-Pugh A, and 85% were Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer-C. The median time to first dose modification, treatment duration and overall survival rate were 2.4months (interquartile ranges [IQR], 0.8-3.8), 10.8months (IQR, 4.5-16.9), and 17.5months (95% CI, 7.2-24.5), respectively. Seventeen patients required at least 1 dose modification. The main causes of first dose modification were asthenia/worsening of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status and diarrhoea. At the time of death or last follow-up, four patients were still on treatment and 18 had discontinued sorafenib: 14 were due to tumour progression, 2 were sorafenib-related, and 2 were non-sorafenib-related AE. Conclusions: The outcomes observed in this cohort seem comparable to those in the non-dialysis population. Thus, to the best of our knowledge, this is the largest and most informative dataset regarding systemic treatment outcomes in HCC patients undergoing dialysis.

Background and aim Safety of regorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) has been recently demonstrated. We aimed to assess the survival benefit of regorafenib compared to best supportive care (BSC) in LT-patients after sorafenib discontinuation. Methods This observational multicenter retrospective study included LT-patients with HCC-recurrence who discontinued first-line sorafenib. Group-1 was constituted by regorafenib-treated patients, while control group was selected among patients treated with best supportive care (BSC) due to unavailability of second-line options at the time of sorafenib discontinuation and who were sorafenib-tolerant progressors (group-2). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) of group-1 compared to group-2. Secondary endpoints were safety and OS of sequential treatment sorafenib+regorafenib/BSC. Results Among 132 LT-patients who discontinued sorafenib included in the study, 81 patients were sorafenib-tolerant: 36 received regorafenib (group-1) and 45 (group-2) received BSC. Overall, 24 (67%) patients died in group-1 and 40 (89%) in group-2: the median OS was significantly longer in group-1 than in group-2 (13.1 vs 5.5 months; p=0.002). Regorafenib treatment was an independent predictor of reduced mortality (HR 0.37, 95%CI 0.16-0.89, p=0.02). Median treatment duration with regorafenib was 7.0 (95%CI 5.5-8.5) months; regorafenib dose was reduced in 22 (61%) patients for adverse events and discontinued for tumor progression in 93%. The median OS calculated from sorafenib start was 28.8 months (95%CI: 17.6-40.1) in group-1 vs 15.3 months (95%CI: 8.8-21.7) in group-2 (p=0.002). Conclusions Regorafenib is an effective second-line treatment after sorafenib in patients with HCC-recurrence after LT.

Liver transplant (LT) recipients are vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2-infection (COVID-19), due to immunosuppression and comorbidities. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on LT recipients compared to general population in the Campania region. In this prospective double-centre study, we enrolled all consecutive adult LT recipients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infection. Data were collected at diagnosis of COVID-19 and during follow-up and compared with the regional population. Thirty LT recipients (3.28%) developed SARS-CoV-2-infection (76.66% male, median age 62.61 years). Sixteen (53.33%) were symptomatic. Common symptoms were fever, cough, fatigue, and anosmia. Twenty-five (83.33%) were outpatients, 5 (16.66%) required hospitalization (6.66% admitted to Intensive Care Unit, 6.62% developed Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and 6.66% died). Immunosuppressors were in 3 (10%) patients. Incidence rate of COVID-19 was similar between LT patients and general population (3.28% vs 4.37%, p = 0.142) with higher rate of symptoms in LT patients (53.33% vs 15.87%, p

Background and Aims: Liver transplant (LT) recipients are vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2-infection (COVID-19), due to immunosuppression and comorbidities. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on LT recipients compared to general population in the Campania region.Methods: In this case-control double-centre study, we enrolled all consecutive adult LT recipients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infection. Data were collected at diagnosis of COVID-19 and during follow-up and compared with the regional population. Results: Thirty LT recipients (3.28%) developed SARS-CoV-2-infection (76.6% male, median age 62.6 years). Sixteen (53.3%) were symptomatic. Common symptoms were fever, cough, fatigue, and anosmia. Twenty-five (83.4%) were outpatients, 5 (16.6%) required hospitalization (6.6% admitted to Intensive Care Unit, 6.6% developed Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and 6.6% died). Immunosuppressors were in 3 (10%) patients. Incidence rate of COVID-19 was similar between LT patients and general population (3.28% vs 4.37%, p=0.1) with higher rate of symptoms in LT patients (46.67% vs 15.87%, pConclusions: LT is not a risk factor for acquiring COVID-19. Nonetheless, LT patients are more frequently symptomatic, although comparable to the general population for hospitalization rate and mortality.

The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and its relationship with several metabolic parameters obtained through PET in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) submitted to radioembolization with Y-microspheres (Y-radioembolization).Records of 20 subjects affected by ICC and submitted to Y-radioembolization were retrospectively evaluated. In all cases, pretreatment NLR was carried out and fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) PET/CT was acquired with the calculation of the following metabolic parameters: maximum and mean standardized uptake value (SUVmax and SUVmean), metabolic total volume and total lesion glycolysis. After Y-radioembolization, all patients underwent regular imaging and laboratory follow-up.All patients presented F-FDG-avid hepatic tumors at pretreatment PET/CT examination. NLR significantly correlated with SUVmax (r = 0.64; P = 0.002) and SUVmean (r = 0.67; P = 0.001). After treatment with Y-microspheres, the mean OS resulted 12.5 ± 1.5 months. When the average pretreatment NLR value (i.e. 2.7) was used as a cutoff for patients' stratification, subjects with low NLR (2.7) had a significantly longer OS than those with high NLR (2.7). At Cox regression analysis including bilirubin, age, the presence of extrahepatic disease, hepatitis C virus/hepatitis B virus status and PET-derived parameters, only NLR resulted to be a significant predictor of OS (P = 0.01; hazard ratio = 13.1, 95% confidence interval = 1.6-102.7).NLR is correlated with SUVmax-mean values in ICC and resulted to be an easy available predictor of survival in patients submitted to treatment with Y-microspheres.

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of repeated administration of 90Y-microspheres in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) relapsed after the first radioembolization (RE). Methods: Nine patients with ICC relapsed after the first 90Y-RE were enrolled. Six patients presented recurrence in the right hepatic lobe, 3 in the left lobe. All subjects underwent a second administration of 90Y-resin microspheres. Toxicity was assessed according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE, version 4.02). After the repeated treatment, all patients were submitted to follow-up with laboratory, imaging, and clinical examinations. Results: The mean cumulative activity administered considering both treatments was 2.7 ± 0.5 GBq. After the second treatment, 3 patients presented complete metabolic response (33.3%) and 6 had partial response (66.6%). The following adverse events were registered: transient increased levels of liver enzymes (grade 1 = 4; grade 2 = 2), hyperbilirubinemia (grade 1 = 2), ascites (grade 2 = 1), and duodenal ulcer (grade 2 = 1). Two patients developed a significant shrinking of the targeted hepatic lobe, as for radiation lobectomy. No case of RE-induced liver disease was registered. Median overall survival was 16.5 ± 1.4 months after the first RE. Conclusions: The authors' results suggest that repeated administration of 90Y-microspheres may be considered in patients affected by ICC relapsed after the first 90Y-RE.

INTRODUCTION: Prognostic classifications for patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) facilitate stratification in trials and inform clinical decision making. Recently, 3 different prognostic models (hepatoma arterial-embolization prognosis [HAP] score, sorafenib advanced HCC prognosis [SAP] score, and Prediction Of Survival in Advanced Sorafenib-treated HCC [PROSASH]-II) have been proposed specifically for patients treated with sorafenib. This study aimed to compare the prognostic performance of different scores. METHODS: We analyzed a large prospective database gathering data of 552 patients treated with sorafenib from 7 Italian centers. The performance of the HAP, SAP, and PROSASH–II models were compared with those of generic HCC prognostic models (including the Barcelona Clinic for Liver Cancer and Italian Liver Cancer staging systems, albumin–bilirubin grade, and Child-Pugh score) to verify whether they could provide additional information. RESULTS: The PROSASH-II model improved discrimination (C-index 0.62) compared with existing prognostic scores (C-index ≤0.59). Its stratification significantly discriminated patients, with a median overall survival of 21.5, 15.3, 9.3, and 6.0 months for risk group 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The HAP and SAP score were also validated but with a poorer performance compared with the PROSASH-II. DISCUSSION: Although suboptimal, PROSASH-II is the most effective prognostic classification model among other available scores in a large Italian population of patients treated with sorafenib.

Aim: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus-specific reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) represents the diagnostic gold standard. We explored the value of chest ultrasonography to predict positivity to SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR in suspected COVID-19 cases. Patients & methods: Consecutive patients with suspect COVID-19 were included if they had fever and/or history of cough and/or dyspnea. Lung ultrasound score (LUSS) was computed according to published methods. Results: A total of 76 patients were included. A 3-variable model based on aspartate transaminase (AST) > upper limit of normal, LUSS >12 and body temperature >37.5°C yielded an overall accuracy of 91%. Conclusion: A simple LUSS-based model may represent a powerful tool for initial assessment in suspected cases of COVID-19., Lay abstract The gold standard for diagnosis of COVID-19 is RT-PCR. During a pandemic emergency, it may be useful to identify suspect symptomatic patients who may safely be observed without undergoing testing for COVID-19. In this work, a simple model based on the findings of lung ultrasound, AST levels and fever showed an overall accuracy of 91% to predict the results of RT-PCR.

Despite the key-role of the Prostate Imaging and Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) in the diagnosis and characterization of prostate cancer (PCa), this system remains to be affected by several limitations, primarily associated with the interpretation of equivocal PI-RADS 3 lesions and with the debated role of Dynamic Contrast Enhanced-Magnetic Resonance Imaging (DCE-MRI), which is only used to upgrade peripheral PI-RADS category 3 lesions to PI-RADS category 4 if enhancement is focal. We aimed at investigating the usefulness of radiomics for detection of PCa lesions (Gleason Score ≥ 6) in PI-RADS 3 lesions and in peripheral PI-RADS 3 upgraded to PI-RADS 4 lesions (upPI-RADS 4). Multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) data of patients who underwent prostatic mpMRI between April 2013 and September 2018 were retrospectively evaluated. Biopsy results were used as gold standard. PI-RADS 3 and PI-RADS 4 lesions were re-scored according to the PI-RADS v2.1 before and after DCE-MRI evaluation. Radiomic features were extracted from T2-weighted MRI (T2), Apparent diffusion Coefficient (ADC) map and DCE-MRI subtracted images using PyRadiomics. Feature selection was performed using Wilcoxon-ranksum test and Minimum Redundancy Maximum Relevance (mRMR). Predictive models were constructed for PCa detection in PI-RADS 3 and upPI-RADS 4 lesions using at each step an imbalance-adjusted bootstrap resampling (IABR) on 1000 samples. 41 PI-RADS 3 and 32 upPI-RADS 4 lesions were analyzed. Among 293 radiomic features, the top selected features derived from T2 and ADC. For PI-RADS 3 stratification, second order model showed higher performances (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve—AUC— = 80%), while for upPI-RADS 4 stratification, first order model showed higher performances respect to superior order models (AUC = 89%). Our results support the significant role of T2 and ADC radiomic features for PCa detection in lesions scored as PI-RADS 3 and upPI-RADS 4. Radiomics models showed high diagnostic efficacy in classify PI-RADS 3 and upPI-RADS 4 lesions, outperforming PI-RADS v2.1 performance.

The role of dynamic contrast-enhanced-MRI (DCE-MRI) for Prostate Imaging-Reporting and Data System (PI-RADS) scoring is a controversial topic. In this retrospective study, we aimed to measure the added value of DCE-MRI in combination with T2-weighted (T2W) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) using PI-RADS v2.1, in terms of reproducibility and diagnostic accuracy, for detection of prostate cancer (PCa) and clinically significant PCa (CS-PCa, for Gleason Score ≥ 7). 117 lesions in 111 patients were identified as suspicion by multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) and addressed for biopsy. Three experienced readers independently assessed PI-RADS score, first using biparametric MRI (bpMRI, including DWI and T2W), and then multiparametric MRI (also including DCE). The inter-rater and inter-method agreement (bpMRI- vs. mpMRI-based scores) were assessed by Cohen’s kappa (κ). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis was performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy for PCa and CS-PCa detection among the two scores. Inter-rater agreement was excellent for the three pairs of readers (κ ≥ 0.83), while the inter-method agreement was good (κ ≥ 0.73). Areas under the ROC curve (AUC) showed similar high-values (0.8 ≤ AUC ≤ 0.85). The reproducibility of PI-RADS v2.1 scoring was comparable and high among readers, without relevant differences, depending on the MRI protocol used. The inclusion of DCE did not influence the diagnostic accuracy.

PURPOSE This study aims to evaluate the prognostic role of the decrease in total lesion glycolysis (TLG) assessed by fluorine-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-FDG) PET-computed tomography (CT) 1 month after yttrium-90-radioembolization (Y-RE) in patients affected by hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with portal vein tumour thrombosis (PVTT). PATIENTS AND METHODS Twenty-one patients with histologically proven poorly differentiated HCC and evidence of PVTT at the enhanced multislice CT underwent Y-RE. All patients underwent an F-FDG PET-CT scan at baseline and 1 month after the loco-regional therapy. The variation in TLG (ΔTLG) between the two studies was calculated. Patients were divided in two groups (group 1: 1 month ΔTLG >50%, group 2: ΔTLG

Background The BCLC algorithm is the standard system for clinical management of HCC. Data on adherence to this therapeutic paradigm are scarce. Aims This field-practice study aimed to provide a description of HCC cirrhotic patients in Southern Italy, to evaluate the adherence to BCLC guidelines and its impact on patients’ survival. Methods We analyzed the region-wide Italian database of Progetto Epatocarcinoma Campania, which includes data of HCC cirrhotic patients, prospectively collected from January 2013 to December 2015 in 16 regional centers. Results Overall 1008 HCC patients were enrolled: 70.6% patients received therapies recommended by BCLC algorithm, while 29.4% underwent different treatments. Among patients who were treated in adherence to guidelines, a higher rate of diagnosis on surveillance programs, better liver function, lower rate of AFP >200ng/ml, more early stage and monofocal HCC, lower frequency of nodules >5cm, portal vein thrombosis and metastases were observed. The overall survival was evaluated according to HCC stage and no differences between group and patients managed differently were found. The multivariate analysis showed that non-adherence to treatment guidelines was independently associated to the BCLC stage B, Child-Pugh classes B-C, and to the presence of neoplastic thrombosis and metastases. Conclusion Adherence to BCLC algorithm in field-practice was high in early and end stage HCC patients, but it was poor in intermediate and advanced patients.

Introduction Prognostic classifications for patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) facilitate stratification in trials and inform clinical decision making. Recently, 3 different prognostic models (hepatoma arterial-embolization prognosis [HAP] score, sorafenib advanced HCC prognosis [SAP] score, and Prediction Of Survival in Advanced Sorafenib-treated HCC [PROSASH]-II) have been proposed specifically for patients treated with sorafenib. This study aimed to compare the prognostic performance of different scores. Methods We analyzed a large prospective database gathering data of 552 patients treated with sorafenib from 7 Italian centers. The performance of the HAP, SAP, and PROSASH-II models were compared with those of generic HCC prognostic models (including the Barcelona Clinic for Liver Cancer and Italian Liver Cancer staging systems, albumin-bilirubin grade, and Child-Pugh score) to verify whether they could provide additional information. Results The PROSASH-II model improved discrimination (C-index 0.62) compared with existing prognostic scores (C-index ≤0.59). Its stratification significantly discriminated patients, with a median overall survival of 21.5, 15.3, 9.3, and 6.0 months for risk group 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The HAP and SAP score were also validated but with a poorer performance compared with the PROSASH-II. Discussion Although suboptimal, PROSASH-II is the most effective prognostic classification model among other available scores in a large Italian population of patients treated with sorafenib.

Purpose: Metronomic capecitabine (MC) is a well-tolerated systemic treatment showing promising results in one retrospective study, as second-line therapy after sorafenib failure, in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: 117 patients undergoing MC were compared to 112 patients, eligible for this treatment, but undergoing best supportive care (BSC) after sorafenib discontinuation for toxicity or HCC progression. The two groups were compared for demographic and clinical features. A multivariate regression analysis was conducted to detect independent prognostic factors. To balance confounding factors between the two groups, a propensity score model based on independent prognosticators (performance status, neoplastic thrombosis, causes of sorafenib discontinuation and pre-sorafenib treatment) was performed. Results: Patients undergoing MC showed better performance status, lower tumor burden, lower prevalence of portal vein thrombosis, and better cancer stage. Median (95% CI) post-sorafenib survival (PSS) was longer in MC than in BSC patients [9.5 (7.5–11.6) vs 5.0 (4.2–5.7)months (p < 0.001)]. Neoplastic thrombosis, cause of sorafenib discontinuation, pre-sorafenib treatment and MC were independent prognosticators. The benefit of capecitabine was confirmed in patients after matching with propensity score [PSS: 9.9 (6.8–12.9) vs. 5.8 (4.8–6.8)months, (p = 0.001)]. MC lowered the mortality risk by about 40%. MC achieved better results in patients who stopped sorafenib for adverse events than in those who progressed during it [PSS: 17.3 (10.5–24.1) vs. 7.8 (5.2–10.1) months, (p = 0.035)]. Treatment toxicity was low and easily manageable with dose modulation. Conclusions: MC may be an efficient and safe second-line systemic therapy for HCC patients who discontinued sorafenib for toxicity or tumor progression.

Prostate cancer (PCa) is a disease affecting an increasing number of men worldwide. Several efforts have been made to identify imaging biomarkers to non-invasively detect and characterize PCa, with substantial improvements thanks to multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging (mpMRI). In recent years, diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI) was proposed to be directly related to tissue physiological and pathological characteristic, while the radiomic approach was proven to be a key method to study cancer imaging phenotypes. Our aim was to compare a standard radiomic model for PCa detection, built using T2-weighted (T2W) and Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (ADC), with an advanced one, including DKI and quantitative Dynamic Contrast Enhanced (DCE), while also evaluating differences in prediction performance when using 2D or 3D lesion segmentation. The obtained results in terms of diagnostic accuracy were high for all of the performed comparisons, reaching values up to 0.99 for the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and 0.98 for both sensitivity and specificity. In comparison, the radiomic model based on standard features led to prediction performances higher than those of the advanced model, while greater accuracy was achieved by the model extracted from 3D segmentation. These results provide new insights into active topics of discussion, such as choosing the most convenient acquisition protocol and the most appropriate postprocessing pipeline to accurately detect and characterize PCa.

Laser ablation (LA) is a useful tool to fight liver tumors. This minimally invasive technique is particularly useful in patients affected by hepatocellular carcinoma. In fact, in most of cases these patients are also affected by cirrhosis; the presence of portal hypertension and reduced liver function often preclude the use of surgery. The use of thin bare-tip fibers also allows the treatment of nodules in difficult and at-risk locations. There is some skepticism about the use of LA for treating liver metastases; however, many retrospective and case-series studies show that this technique is safe and effective in prolonging the duration of survival.

Around 71 million people worldwide are chronically infected with hepatitis C. HCV prevalence among individuals born in the United States between 1945 and 1965 is estimated to be about 3%. In Italy, about 2% of the population is chronically infected with HCV. Since chronic HCV infection is often asymptomatic, many patients require access to medical care only in an advanced phase of the disease. The best strategy for bringing out hidden chronic HCV infection remains uncertain. The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of an FDA-approved rapid salivary, point-of-care (POC) assay for anti-HCV, performed in patients aged between 45 and 80 years old who were referred to the emergency department of a large hospital in southern Italy and were all unaware of their HCV serostatus. In all, 966 patients were interviewed during the study period. Among them, 220 patients were enrolled. Notably, 25/588 (4%) reported to be anti-HCV positive. Of these, 19 were already being treated with direct-acting antivirals (DAA). Among the enrolled patients, two (0.9%) tested anti-HCV positive and 218 (99.1%) were negative at screening. Both patients with a positive test were male, below the age of 54, with a previous history of intravenous drug abuse, a low level of education, and who had had at least one experience of unprotected sex. We scheduled a visit for treatment evaluation for every positive patient who was not on treatment. Neither of the two de novo patients and 3/6 (50%) patients who were aware of their anti-HCV positivity came to the follow-up visit. Our study shows that a screening strategy for HCV infection in ED is feasible and that about 1% of patients attending the ED and who are unaware of their conditions are anti-HCV positive. Moreover, a non-negligible proportion of subjects, though aware of their condition, was not linked to any hepatologic center.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS It is paramount to identify predictors of treatment failure with direct antiviral agents in 'field-practice' patients, including people who inject drugs (PWID). Data on the efficacy of glecaprevir/pibrentasvir (GLE/PIB) in a field-practice scenario are scant. The multicentre MISTRAL study enrolled 1177 patients, including PWID, to assess real-life efficacy and safety of GLE/PIB and to identify the predictive factors for this treatment. METHODS This was a prospective, longitudinal study. The outcome variable was the rate of sustained virological response (SVR) at week 12. RESULTS A total of 123 patients (10%) were infected from hepatitis C virus (HCV) 3. METAVIR fibrosis score was F4 in 104 subjects (9%); 118 patients (10%) were PWID. Overall, 1163/1177 (99%) patients achieved SVR. The baseline clinical factors discriminating between treatment success and treatment failure were age at treatment (P = 0.031) and creatinine level (P = 0.034). SVR rates were not influenced by gender, substance abuse, previous treatment, treatment duration, fibrosis or chronic kidney disease stage. Compared with non-substance users, the 118 PWID exhibited a significantly different genotype pattern distribution (χ2

An array of management choices has gradually been introduced into clinical practice over the last two decades, with definite advantages for cirrhotic patients with HCC. Thanks to the development of clinically based systems such as Barcelona clinical liver cancer (BCLC) classifications, which stratifies patients according to tumor stage and underlying cirrhosis, radical therapies such as hepatic resection (HR), liver transplantation (LT) and percutaneous locoregional ablation are recommended in patients with early-stage tumors (BCLC 0 and A). These indications are based essentially on tumor volume, the status of the underlying liver disease and the performance status, but the presence of comorbidities, and the patient’s age may influence clinician’s choice

Background and Aim In patients with cirrhosis and small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), thermal ablation is currently recognized as an effective local treatment. Among thermal procedures, radiofrequency ablation (RFA) is the most diffusely used and is the standard against which any new treatment should be compared. In retrospective studies, laser ablation (LA) resulted as safe and effective as RFA. Therefore, we performed a non-inferiority randomized trial comparing RFA with LA in patients with cirrhosis and HCC within Milan criteria. Methods Overall, 140 patients with 157 HCC nodules were randomly assigned to receive RFA or LA. The primary end-point was the proportion of complete tumor ablation (CTA). Secondary end-points were time to local progression (TTLP) and overall survival (OS). Results Per patient CTA rates after RFA and LA were 97.4% (95% CI, 91.0–99.3) and 95.7% (88.1–98.5), respectively (difference = 1.4%, 95% CI from −6.0% to + 9.0%). Per nodule CTA rates for RFA and LA were 97.4% (91.0–99.3) and 96.3% (89.6–98.7), respectively (difference = 1.1%, from −5.7% to + 8.1%). The mean TTLP was comparable between RFA group (42.0 months; 95% CI, 36.83–47.3) and LA group (46.7 months; 95% CI, 41.5–51.9) (P = .591). The mean OS was 42 months in both groups and survival probability at 1 and 3 years was 94% and 89% in RFA group, and 94% and 80% in LA group. Conclusion LA resulted not inferior to RFA in inducing the CTA of HCC nodules and therefore it should be considered as an evaluable alternative for thermal ablation of small HCC in cirrhotic patients.

ABSTRACT Understanding the best use of sorafenib is essential in order to maximize clinical benefit in hepatocellular carcinoma. Based on Phase III and noninterventional study data, as well as our extensive experience, we discuss dose modification in order to manage adverse events, disease response evaluation and how to maximize treatment benefit. Sorafenib should be initiated at the approved dose (400 mg twice daily) and reduced/interrupted as appropriate in order to manage adverse events. Dose modification should be considered before discontinuation. Appropriate tumor response assessment is critical. Focusing on radiologic response may result in premature sorafenib discontinuation; symptomatic progression should also be considered. If second-line therapies or trials are unavailable, continuing sorafenib beyond radiologic progression may provide a clinical benefit. Our recommendations enable the maximization of treatment duration, and hence clinical benefit, for patients.

Over the past decade, the advancements in massively parallel sequencing have provided a new paradigm in biomedical research to uncover the genetic basis of human diseases. Integration of ‘omics information has begun transforming clinical management of cancer patients in terms of diagnostics and treatment options, giving rise to the era of precision medicine. Currently, nucleic acids for molecular profiling for patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are typically obtained from resected tumor materials or transplanted neoplastic liver and occasionally from biopsies. Given the intrinsic risks associated with such invasive procedures, circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) has been proposed as an alternative source for tumor DNA. Circulating cfDNA is a type of cell-free nucleic acid that derives from apoptotic, necrotic, as well as living eukaryotic cells. Importantly, the detection of abnormal forms of circulating cfDNA that originate from cancer cells provides a new tool for cancer detection, disease monitoring, and molecular profiling. Currently, cfDNA is beginning to be adopted into clinical practice as a non-invasive tool to monitor disease by tracking the evolution of disease-specific genetic alterations in several major cancer types. Moreover, cfDNA is demonstrating potential clinical value as a surrogate to assess the molecular makeup of tumors and to overcome the sampling biases inherent to intra-tumor genetic heterogeneity, especially in the metastatic setting. With the improvements in ‘omics and molecular biology techniques, coupled with the increasing understanding in the molecular pathogenesis of cancer, it can be anticipated that the detection and analysis of cfDNA will become more specific and sensitive and thus enable cfDNA analysis to be used as a diagnostic aid in patients with early-stage disease and perhaps even in a screening setting. In this review, we provide an overview of the latest findings on the role and potential utility of cfDNA analysis in the diagnosis, management, and screening of HCC.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) develops in about 3-4% of cirrhotic patients every year. The squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCCA) has been found elevated in liver cancer specimens by immunohistochemistry, and detected in complex with IgM (SCCA-IgM) in the serum of patients with HCC. The aim of this study was to evaluate the ability of serological SCCA-IgM levels to predict the efficacy of HCC therapy.From April 2012 to April 2014, 131 patients with a new diagnosis of HCC were enrolled. The HCC diagnosis was made according to the EASL guidelines. The patients were staged and treated according to the BCLC Staging System: BCLC stages A and B were treated with locoregional therapy, and BCLC stage C was treated with Sorafenib. Response to therapy was evaluated according to the mRECIST criteria. Serum SCCA-IgM levels were determined by a commercially available ELISA kit at basal time (TAt baseline and one month into therapy, SCCA-IgM levels were significantly lower (p value.05) in patients who responded to therapy compared to those who did not respond (median SCCA-IgM level [25th + 75th percentile] at TOur study suggests that the SCCA-IgM determination could be helpful in predicting the response to therapy in patients with HCC.