Search

PURPOSE To investigate the safety and efficacy of nivolumab plus cabozantinib with or without ipilimumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS In cohort 6 of the multicohort, open-label, phase I/II CheckMate 040 study, patients who were treatment-naive, sorafenib-intolerant, or had progressed on sorafenib were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab 240 mg once every 2 weeks plus cabozantinib 40 mg once daily (doublet arm); or nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus cabozantinib 40 mg once daily with ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 6 weeks (triplet arm). Primary objectives were safety and tolerability, objective response rate, and duration of response by investigator assessment per RECIST v1.1. Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (by blinded independent central review) and overall survival. RESULTS Seventy-one patients were randomly assigned: 36 to the doublet arm and 35 to the triplet arm. After 32.0-month median follow-up, objective response rate (95% CI) was 17% (6 to 33) and 29% (15 to 46) in the doublet and triplet arms, respectively. Median (95% CI) duration of response was 8.3 (6.9 to not estimable) months in the doublet arm and not reached (0.0 to not estimable) in the triplet arm. Median progression-free survival was 5.1 and 4.3 months, and median overall survival was 20.2 and 22.1 months for the doublet and triplet arms, respectively. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 50% and 74% of patients and treatment-related adverse events leading to discontinuation were reported for 11% and 23% in the doublet and triplet arms, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths in either arm. CONCLUSION Nivolumab plus cabozantinib with or without ipilimumab showed encouraging preliminary antitumor activity and had consistent safety profiles with those established for the individual drugs in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Purpose To evaluate survival, efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), through a pooled analysis of patients with BCLC 0, A and B HCC stages, treated with polyethylene glycol drug eluting microspheres (PEG-DEM) TACE. Materials and Methods Patients from 3 retrospective and 2 prospective registries were included. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), tumour response and safety were evaluated. Multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed to evaluate predictors of OS. Results A total of 580 patients (72.1% males, mean age 66.9 ± 10.3 years) were included. 43.5% had BCLC A, and 41.0% BCLC B disease stage, and 85.8% were Child–Pugh class A. Complete and partial response (mRECIST or RECIST1.1) were achieved in 60.14% and 27.11% of patients, with overall response and disease control rates of 87.30% and 94.60%, respectively. Median OS was 50.8 months for the total population, and 61.2 and 38.1 months for BCLC 0 + A and BCLC B patients, respectively. Median PFS for the total population, BCLC 0 + A and BCLC B groups was 15.6, 21.6 and 12.7 months, respectively. Conclusions This multicentric pooled analysis confirmed efficacy and safety of PEG-DEM TACE, with a median OS of 50.8 months.

Background: Ablation is a first-line treatment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC)-0/A hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, there are scarce data about patients’ outcomes after recurrence. The present study evaluates the impact of patient and tumor characteristics at baseline and at recurrence on the Clinical Decision-Making process. Methods: We evaluated BCLC-0/A patients treated with percutaneous ablation from January 2010 to November 2018. Clinical and radiological data such as age, tumor location at ablation, pattern of recurrence/progression, and comorbidities during follow-up were registered. Tumor location was divided into ‘suboptimal’ vs. ‘optimal’ locations for ablation. The Clinical Decision-Making was based on tumor burden, liver dysfunction, or comorbidities. The statistical analysis included the time-to-recurrence/progression, censoring at time of death, date of last follow-up or liver transplantation, and time-to-event was estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method and Cox regression models to evaluate the risk of an event of death and change of treatment strategy. Results: A total of 225 patients [39.1% BCLC-0 and 60.9% BCLC-A] were included, 190 had unifocal HCC and 82.6% were ≤3 cm. The complete response rate and median overall survival were 96% and 60.7 months. The HCC nodules number (Hazard Ratio—HR 3.1), Child-Pugh (HR 2.4), and Albumin-Bilirubin score (HR 3.2) were associated with increased risk of death during follow-up. HCC in ‘suboptimal location’ presented a shorter time to recurrence. When comorbidities prevented further loco-regional or systemic treatment, the risk of death was significantly increased (HR 2.0, p = 0.0369) in comparison to those who received treatment. Conclusions: These results expose the impact of non-liver comorbidities when considering treatment for recurrence after ablation in the real-world setting and in research trials. Ultimately, we identified an orphan population for which effective interventions are needed.

Background The aim of the study was to analyze the association between the liver uptake of Gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine penta-acetic acid (Gd-EOB-DTPA) in the hepatobiliary phase (HBP) in cirrhotic patients and the presence of clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), and how these features impact on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) detection in the HBP. Patients and methods Post-hoc analysis of a prospective cohort of 62 cirrhotic patients with newly US-detected nodule between 1–2 cm (study group). Twenty healthy subjects were used as control group. Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the liver contrast uptake in the HBP assessed by Relative Liver-Enhancement (RLE), Liver-Spleen (LSCR), Liver-Muscle (LMCR), and Liver-Kidney Contrast-Ratio (LKCR), Contrast Enhancement Index (CEI), and Hepatic Uptake (HUI), and biliary excretion, were registered. CSPH was confirmed invasively (HVPG > 10 mmHg) or by indirect parameters. The appearance of HCC at the HBP was analyzed. Results Nineteen patients (30.6%) did not have CSPH. In 41 patients (66.1%) the final diagnosis was HCC. All indices were significantly higher in the control group, indicating a more intense HBP liver signal intensity compared to patients with cirrhosis, even if the comparison was restricted to patients with no CSPH. CSPH was associated to a lower rate of HCC hypointensity in the HBP (51.9% vs. 85.7% without CSPH, p = 0.004). Conclusions Liver uptake of Gd-EOB-DTPA at the HBP is decreased in cirrhosis even if the liver function is minimally impaired and it falls down significantly in patients with CSPH compromising the recognition of hypointense lesions. This fact may represent a limitation for the detection of small HCC in patients with cirrhosis and CSPH.

Dermatologic adverse events (DAEs) are associated with a better outcome in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) irrespective of the therapeutic agent received. The exact mechanisms associated with the development of DAEs are unknown although several studies point to direct toxicity of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) to the skin or an immune-mediated reaction triggered by the oncologic treatment. As is the case in other conditions, individual genetic variants may partially explain a higher risk of DAEs.To evaluate the contribution of several gene variants to the risk of developing DAEs in HCC patients treated with TKIs.We first analyzed 27 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from 12 genes selected as potential predictors of adverse event (AE) development in HCC patients treated with sorafenib [Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer 1 (BCLC1) cohort]. Three additional cohorts were analyzed forThe BCLC1 cohort showed that patients with arterial hypertension (AHT) (HR = 1.61;DAE development in HCC patients receiving TKIs could be explained by the

Polyethylene glycol drug-eluting microspheres (PEG-DEMs) can be loaded to elute doxorubicin. The current study evaluated the pharmacokinetic profile and safety of PEG-DEMs in the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).The current prospective, multicenter, dose-escalation study enrolled 25 patients (68% men) with early or intermediate stage HCC and a performance status of 0. Patients in Cohort I were assigned to receive target doxorubicin doses of 75, 100, or 150 mg. Analyses were performed on the basis of the specific dose of doxorubicin that the patients received because some patients received less than the assigned dose. Patients in Cohort II received the maximum safe tested dose. Adverse events were classified according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03. The tumor response was evaluated every 3 months according to the European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors.The maximum tested safe dose of doxorubicin was 150 mg. For the groups that received ≤75, 75-100, and 101-150 mg of doxorubicin, the peak plasma concentrations were 286.7 ng/mL ± 220.1, 157.1 ng/mL ± 94.6, and 245.4 ng/mL ± 142.8, respectively; the areas under the curves calculated from 0 to 24 h were 421.7 (ng × h)/mL ± 221.2, 288.1 (ng × h)/mL ± 100.9, and 608.3 (ng × h)/mL ± 319.3, respectively, with almost complete clearance at 24 h. There was no death within 30 d. The best objective response rate was 81%, and the disease control rate was 91%. The median overall survival was 27.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 17.5 months to not evaluated [n.e.]); the median progression-free survival was 9.8 months (95% CI, 5.5 months to n.e.).PEG-DEMs demonstrated a favorable safety profile with low systemic concentration of doxorubicin, and promising efficacy.

PDF file, 10.8MB, Supplementary Table 1: Clinical characteristics of human hepatocellular carcinoma samples. Supplementary Table 2: Clinical Characteristics of 5 public HCC datasets. Supplementary Table 3: Wnt-pathway mRNA list: 210 Wnt-related genes from the literature. Supplementary Table 4: Wnt-pathway miRNA list: 49 Wnt-related miRNAs from the literature. Supplementary Table 5: Significantly differentially expressed Wnt-related genes in CTNNB1- and Wnt-TGF_-class samples of the training set. Supplementary Table 6: Summary of dysregulated CTNNB1- and Wnt-TGF_-Wnt-genes according to their cellular localization and their known or suspected function. Supplementary Table 7: Expression of known liver-related Wnt-target-genes. Supplementary Table 8: Correlation of Wnt-related transcription factors to Wnt-target-genes in the training set. Supplementary Table 9: Frequency _catenin IHC positive samples and CTNNB1 mutations Wnt-related and non-Wnt-related subclasses of HCC in the in training (T) and validation (V) sets. Supplementary Table 10: Differentially expressed Wnt-related-miRNAs in 89 HCC samples of the training set. Supplementary Table 11: Enrichment of samples identified by CTNNB1-, Wnt-TGF__ WntGenes- and CTNNB1-mutation-signature in CTNNB1 and Wnt-TGF_ subclasses in 5 independent datasets (Fisher's Exact Test). Supplementary Table 12: 21 Liver Cancer cell lines analyzed by GSEA for gene expression profiles similar to either CTNNB1 or Wnt-TGF_ class. Supplementary Figure 1: Differential Expression of Wnt-pathway mRNAs in the CTNNB1- and Wnt-TGF Beta-classes in the training set. Supplementary Figure 2: Differential Expression of Wnt-pathway-miRNAs in the CTNNB1- and Wnt-TGF Beta-classes in the training set. Supplementary Figure 3: Validation of CTNNB1- and Wnt-TGF Beta-specific Wnt-related mRNA profiles and mutation-status in 5 public HCC datasets. Supplementary Figure 4: Validation of the mutation signature in an independent cohort of HCC. Supplementary Figure 5: Correlation of gene expression data from 21 different liver cancer cell lines with CTNNB1 and Wnt-TGF Beta class signatures by GSEA. Supplementary Figure 6: Baseline luciferase levels in Wnt reporter liver cancer cells stably transduced with TCF/LEF luciferase reporter. Supplementary Figure 7: Sorafenib decreases beta-catenin protein levels in 4 liver cancer cell lines.

The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) datasets allow unprecedented gene expression analyses. Here, using these datasets, we performed pan-cancer and pan-tissue identification of coding and long noncoding RNA (lncRNA) transcripts differentially expressed in tumors and preferentially expressed in healthy tissues and/or tumors. Pan-cancer comparison of mRNAs and lncRNAs showed that lncRNAs were deregulated in a more tumor-specific manner. Given that lncRNAs are more tissue-specific than mRNAs, we identified healthy tissues that preferentially express lncRNAs upregulated in tumors and found that testis, brain, the digestive tract, and blood/spleen were the most prevalent. In addition, specific tumors also upregulate lncRNAs preferentially expressed in other tissues, generating a unique signature for each tumor type. Most tumors studied downregulated lncRNAs preferentially expressed in their tissue of origin, probably as a result of dedifferentiation. However, the same lncRNAs could be upregulated in other tumors, resulting in "bimorphic" transcripts. In hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the upregulated genes identified were expressed at higher levels in patients with worse prognosis. Some lncRNAs upregulated in HCC and preferentially expressed in healthy testis or brain were predicted to function as oncogenes and were significantly associated with higher tumor burden, and poor prognosis, suggesting their relevance in hepatocarcinogenesis and/or tumor evolution. Taken together, therapies targeting oncogenic lncRNAs should take into consideration the healthy tissue, where the lncRNAs are preferentially expressed, to predict and decrease unwanted secondary effects and increase potency.Significance:Comprehensive analysis of coding and noncoding genes expressed in different tumors and normal tissues, which should be taken into account to predict side effects from potential coding and noncoding gene-targeting therapies.

Functional analysis with GSEA. A. Enrichment plots of cell cycle genes for each lncRNA. B. Specific enrichment plots for the indicated lncRNAs. FDR q-value = 0. NES indicates the normalized enrichment score. C. Expression correlation of LINC00665 with ZNF gene clusters of chr 19. Pearson correlation of the expression of the indicated genes with the levels of LINC00665. All genes have been ordered by location at chr19 p12, q13.41 or q13.12, where LINC00665 gene is located.

Coding and lncRNAs specifically or preferentially expressed in different tissues or tumors. Donor tissues. Values (in percentage) used to build the pie chart of Fig. 4B. IPA. Ingenuity analysis of cancer categories enriched for mRNAs donated by the indicated tissues. p values are indicated. Only tumors with a p value higher than 1.0E-03 are indicated. GO. Gene ontology analysis of the functions enriched for mRNAs donated by the indicated tissues. FDR values are indicated.

Purpose: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a heterogeneous cancer with active Wnt signaling. Underlying biologic mechanisms remain unclear and no drug targeting this pathway has been approved to date. We aimed to characterize Wnt-pathway aberrations in HCC patients, and to investigate sorafenib as a potential Wnt modulator in experimental models of liver cancer.Experimental Design: The Wnt-pathway was assessed using mRNA (642 HCCs and 21 liver cancer cell lines) and miRNA expression data (89 HCCs), immunohistochemistry (108 HCCs), and CTNNB1-mutation data (91 HCCs). Effects of sorafenib on Wnt signaling were evaluated in four liver cancer cell lines with active Wnt signaling and a tumor xenograft model.Results: Evidence for Wnt activation was observed for 315 (49.1%) cases, and was further classified as CTNNB1 class (138 cases [21.5%]) or Wnt-TGFβ class (177 cases [27.6%]). CTNNB1 class was characterized by upregulation of liver-specific Wnt-targets, nuclear β-catenin and glutamine-synthetase immunostaining, and enrichment of CTNNB1-mutation-signature, whereas Wnt-TGFβ class was characterized by dysregulation of classical Wnt-targets and the absence of nuclear β-catenin. Sorafenib decreased Wnt signaling and β-catenin protein in HepG2 (CTNNB1 class), SNU387 (Wnt-TGFβ class), SNU398 (CTNNB1-mutation), and Huh7 (lithium-chloride-pathway activation) cell lines. In addition, sorafenib attenuated expression of liver-related Wnt-targets GLUL, LGR5, and TBX3. The suppressive effect on CTNNB1 class–specific Wnt-pathway activation was validated in vivo using HepG2 xenografts in nude mice, accompanied by decreased tumor volume and increased survival of treated animals.Conclusions: Distinct dysregulation of Wnt-pathway constituents characterize two different Wnt-related molecular classes (CTNNB1 and Wnt-TGFβ), accounting for half of all HCC patients. Sorafenib modulates β-catenin/Wnt signaling in experimental models that harbor the CTNNB1 class signature. Clin Cancer Res; 18(18); 4997–5007. ©2012 AACR.

Supplementary Information from Focal Gains of VEGFA and Molecular Classification of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

PTTG1 is almost undetectable in adult livers but is highly expressed in hepatocarcinoma. While little is known about its involvement in liver fibrosis, PTTG1 expression is associated with DLK1. We assessed the role of the PTTG1/DLK1 pathway in fibrosis progression and the potential therapeutic effect of PTTG1 silencing in fibrosis.Pttg1 and Dlk1 were studied in liver and isolated cell populations of control and fibrotic rats and in human liver biopsies. The fibrotic molecular signature was analysed in Pttg1Pttg1 and Dlk1 mRNA selectively increased in fibrotic rats paralleling fibrosis progression. Serum DLK1 concentrations correlated with hepatic collagen content and systemic and portal haemodynamics. Human cirrhotic livers showed greater PTTG1 and DLK1 transcript abundance than non-cirrhotic, and reduced collagen was observed in Pttg1 Pttg1Pttg1/Dlk1 are selectively overexpressed in the cirrhotic liver and participate in ECM turnover regulation. Pttg1 disruption decreases Dlk1 transcription and attenuates collagen deposition. PTTG1/DLK1 signalling is a novel pathway for targeting the progression of liver fibrosis.

PURPOSE This phase I/II study evaluated tremelimumab (anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen-4 monoclonal antibody) and durvalumab (antiprogrammed death ligand-1 monoclonal antibody) as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), including a novel regimen featuring a single, priming dose of tremelimumab (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02519348 ). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with HCC who had progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomly assigned to receive T300 + D (tremelimumab 300 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg [one dose each during the first cycle] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), durvalumab monotherapy (1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), tremelimumab monotherapy (750 mg once every 4 weeks [seven doses] and then once every 12 weeks), or T75 + D (tremelimumab 75 mg once every 4 weeks plus durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks [four doses] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks). Safety was the primary end point. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 and overall survival; exploratory end points included circulating lymphocyte profiles. RESULTS A total of 332 patients were enrolled (T300 + D, n = 75; durvalumab, n = 104; tremelimumab, n = 69; and T75 + D, n = 84). Tolerability was acceptable across arms, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in 37.8%, 20.8%, 43.5%, and 24.4%, respectively. Confirmed ORRs (95% CI) were 24.0% (14.9 to 35.3), 10.6% (5.4 to 18.1), 7.2% (2.4 to 16.1), and 9.5% (4.2 to 17.9), respectively. An early expansion of CD8+ lymphocytes was associated with response across arms, with highest proliferating CD8+ lymphocyte levels occurring in the T300 + D arm. The median (95% CI) overall survival was 18.7 (10.8 to 27.3), 13.6 (8.7 to 17.6), 15.1 (11.3 to 20.5), and 11.3 (8.4 to 15.0) months in the T300 + D, durvalumab, tremelimumab, and T75 + D arms, respectively. CONCLUSION All regimens were found to be tolerable and clinically active; however, the T300 + D regimen demonstrated the most encouraging benefit-risk profile. The unique pharmacodynamic activity and association with ORR of the T300 + D regimen further support its continued evaluation in HCC.

The American College of Radiology has released the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) scheme which categorizes focal liver lesions (FLLs) in patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) according to the degree of risk of nodules to be HCC. It subgroups FLL in LR-1 (definitely benign), LR-2 (probably benign), LR-3 (intermediate probability of malignancy), LR-4 (probably HCC), LR-5 (definitely HCC), and LR-M (probable malignancy not specific for HCC). Computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI) and contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) LI-RADS diagnostic algorithm have the goal to standardize the acquisition, interpretation, reporting, and data collection for imaging examinations in patients at risk for HCC. Nevertheless, there remain controversial issues that should be dealt with. The aim of this review is to discuss the pros and cons of the interpretation and reporting part of CT/MRI and CEUS LI-RADS diagnostic algorithm to permit future refinements of the scheme and optimize patient and nodule management.

Ralf-Dieter Hofheinz,1 Jordi Bruix,2 George D Demetri,3 Axel Grothey,4 Marisca Marian,5 Jennifer Bartsch,6 Dawn Odom6 1Interdisciplinary Tumor Center, University of Heidelberg, Mannheim, Germany; 2Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) Group, Hospital Clinic. IDIBAPS, University of Barcelona, CIBERehd, Barcelona, Spain; 3Ludwig Center, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; 4Gastrointestinal Cancer Research, West Cancer Center, OneOncology, Germantown, TN, USA; 5Oncology, Pharmaceuticals Division of Bayer AG, Basel, Switzerland; 6Department of Biostatistics, RTI Health Solutions, Research Triangle Park, NC, USACorrespondence: Ralf-Dieter HofheinzInterdisciplinary Tumor Center, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer Ufer 1-3, Mannheim, 68167, GermanyTel +49 621 383 2855Fax +49 621 383 2488Email ralf.hofheinz@umm.dePurpose: The efficacy and safety of regorafenib have been demonstrated in phase 3 trials for multiple tumor types, including metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) (CORRECT [NCT01103323]; CONCUR [NCT01584830]), advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) (GRID [NCT01271712]), and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (RESORCE [NCT01774344]). The objective of this post hoc exploratory analysis was to explore the impact of regorafenib on delaying health-related quality of life (HRQOL) deterioration across these tumor types.Patients and Methods: HRQOL data (assessed with EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D questionnaires) were pooled for all trials to determine time until definitive deterioration (TUDD), defined as the patient’s first minimal clinically important deterioration in HRQOL score from baseline that does not resolve, using stratified Kaplan–Meier estimators and Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for relevant trial, cancer type, and baseline covariates. Additional analyses based on cancer type were conducted by pooling mCRC trials (CORRECT and CONCUR) and pooling the two mCRC trials with the HCC trial (RESORCE).Results: A total of 1699 patients with HRQOL data were pooled across the four trials. The results showed that regorafenib significantly delayed TUDD compared with placebo across all three tumor types. Median time to deterioration across the five scales ranged from 16.3 to 24.1 weeks for regorafenib and 8.6 to 12.1 weeks for placebo. The results from the individual studies, the pooled mCRC trials, and the pooled mCRC and HCC trials were similar to the overall pooled results.Conclusion: A pooled analysis of four phase 3 trials demonstrated that regorafenib delayed a clinically relevant exploratory endpoint, defined as TUDD, compared with placebo across three different tumor types (mCRC, GIST, and HCC), which supports a novel benefit of the impact of regorafenib with respect to patients with these three types of cancers by allowing initial declines in HRQOL to resolve and patients the opportunity to continue treatment.Keywords: gastrointestinal cancer, metastatic colorectal cancer, hepatocellular cancer, quality of life, regorafenib

Background Despite atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A + B) is currently the first‐line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, some patients will not be adequate for this combination. In the setting of sorafenib some adverse events have been proposed as prognostic factors. Objective To characterize the early diarrhoea development as prognostic factor in 344 HCC patients. Methods The development of early diarrhoea in sorafenib treatment defined as patients who developed diarrhoea and needed dose modification within the first 60 days of treatment (e‐diarrhoea) and 3‐grouping variables were analysed: Patients with e‐diarrhoea, patients who developed diarrhoea after the first 60 days of treatment (L‐diarrhoea) and patients that never developed diarrhoea (never diarrhoea). Results The median overall survival in sorafenib treated patients was significantly different across groups (6.8 months for e‐diarrhoea, 26.7 months for L‐diarrhoea and 13.3 months for never‐diarrhoea). The emergence of e‐diarrhoea was associated with poor outcomes (hazard ratio [HR] 1.84 [95%CI 1.15–2.95]), while there was no increased/decreased risk of dismal evolution in patients with L‐diarrhoea (HR 0.66 [95%CI 0.42–1.03]). Conclusion The emergence of e‐diarrhoea in HCC patients treated with sorafenib is an early predictor of dismal evolution under this therapy. Thus, prompt identification of these non‐responders may be useful for an early switch to second‐line therapies., Key Summary Established knowledge on this subject Diarrhoea is a frequent adverse event of sorafenib and its emergence has been associated to better outcomes. What are the significant and/or new findings of this study? Early diarrhoea (e‐diarrhoea) in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib is an early predictor of dismal evolution.Diarrhoea under sorafenib should not be taken as a predictive parameter of lack of benefit.E‐diarrhoea could be used as clinical biomarker for switching to second‐line therapies.

Summary The design and execution of clinical trials relies on strict definitions and criteria to avoid heterogeneous decisions by investigators at different sites. Ideally, definitions and decision making in clinical practice should mimic those implemented in trials, but this is not the case. Target populations are narrowly defined in trials, with the goal of evaluating activity and toxicity, and ultimately, demonstrating a survival benefit. In real-world practice, patients may not fit into the stringent inclusion/exclusion criteria of clinical trials. The evaluation of activity may also differ and the common policy to stop therapy upon progression may not be followed if progression is minor. Indeed, registration of progression may not reflect treatment failure or resistance. Parameters such as response according to RECIST criteria, time to progression and progression-free survival are not fully informative and cannot be assumed as a definitive surrogate for survival, which is the hardest endpoint in therapeutic cancer studies. This difference is because of the varying methods used to evaluate drug activity and tumour evolution, which ultimately dictates patient outcome. This expert opinion exposes the current discrepancies between research trials and clinical practice. Understanding the origin and limitations of such a conundrum should be the first step in refining the criteria that define drug activity, toxicity and treatment failure. Otherwise, evidence-based clinical practice and precision oncology will be an unattainable reality.

Hepatocellular carcinoma remains a global health challenge affecting close to 1 million cases yearly. Liver transplantation provides the best long-term outcomes for those meeting strict criteria. Efforts have been made to expand these criteria, whereas others have attempted downstaging approaches. Although locoregional approaches to downstaging are appealing and have demonstrated efficacy, limitations and challenges exists including poor imaging modality to assess response and appropriate endpoints along the process. Recent advances in systemic treatments including immune checkpoint inhibitors alone or in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors have prompted the discussion regarding their role for downstaging disease prior to transplantation. Here, we provide a review of prior locoregional approaches for downstaging, new systemic agents and their role for downstaging, and finally, key and critical considerations of the assessment, endpoints, and optimal designs in clinical trials to address this key question.

Treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has experienced major advancements since the last update of the official Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Advancements in the field have emerged in all areas, but in this manuscript, we present those that have primed a change in the strategy and comment why some encouraging data in select interventions are still considered immature and in need of further research to gain their incorporation into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that is needed to take clinical decisions in individual patients so that the recommendation takes into account all the needed parameters to allow a personalised approach.

Background & aims Sorafenib and lenvatinib are the first-line treatments approved in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but information is lacking about the relationships between their pharmacokinetics, patients pharmacogenetic profiles, adverse events (AE) and overall survival. We aimed to elucidate these relationships of tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors, such as sorafenib, in order to improve the design of trials testing it in combination with checkpoint inhibitors. Methods We assessed the pharmacokinetics of sorafenib and its N-oxide metabolite at day-0, day-7, day-30, day-60, day-90, day-120, day-150 and day-180 and nine single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in five genes related to sorafenib metabolism/transport to identify the best point for starting the combination between tyrosine kinases and checkpoint inhibitors. Results We prospectively included 49 patients (96% cirrhotic, 37% hepatitis-C, 82% Child-Pugh-A and 59% BCLC-C). Pharmacokinetic values peaked at day-7 and progressively declined until day-60. In the 16 patients without further dose modifications after day-60, pharmacokinetic values remained stable through day-180 (sorafenib P = .90; N-oxide P = .93). Pharmacokinetic values were higher in patients with early dermatological adverse events and lower in patients with early diarrhoea. Sorafenib and N-oxide pharmacokinetic values varied linearly with different alleles of MRP2*3972. Conclusions Sorafenib's pharmacokinetics is heterogeneous across HCC patients. This heterogeneity affects adverse events development and must be taken into account in setting the dose and timing of its combination with checkpoint inhibitors.

To compare the frequency of transient arterial-phase respiratory-motion-related artifacts in liver MRI after extracellular gadolinium and gadoxetic acid injection, and to determine the impact of these artifacts on the detection of focal areas of enhancement on arterial-phase images. Intra-patient comparison of 82 cirrhotic patients who prospectively underwent liver MR with extracellular gadolinium and with gadoxetic acid within 1 month. Two readers independently assessed the quality of dynamic T1-weighted MR images (pre-contrast, arterial, and portal-venous phases), rating respiratory-motion-related artifacts on four-point scale (0 [none]–3 [non-diagnostic]). We dichotomized these assessments, which were compared using McNemar’s test, defining transient arterial-phase respiratory-motion-related artifacts as a study with a pre-contrast score

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.

Introduction: Atezolizumab (ATEZO) plus bevacizumab (BEVA) represents the new standard of care for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the choice of the second-line treatment after the failure of immunotherapy-based first-line remains elusive. Taking into account the weaknesses of the available evidence, we developed a simulation model based on available phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to identify optimal risk/benefit sequential strategies. Methods: A Markov model was built to estimate the overall survival (OS) of sequential first- and second-line systemic treatments. Sequences starting with first-line ATEZO plus BEVA followed by 5 second-line treatments (sorafenib [SORA], lenvatinib [LENVA], regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab) were compared. The probability of transition between states (initial treatment, cancer progression, and death) was derived from RCTs. Life-year gained (LYG) was the main outcome. Rates of severe adverse events (SAEs) (≥ grade 3) were calculated. The incremental safety-effectiveness ratio (ISER) was calculated as the difference in probability of SAEs divided by LYG between the 2 most effective sequences. Results: ATEZO plus BEVA followed by LENVA (median OS, 24 months) or SORA (median OS, 23 months) was the most effective sequence, producing a LYG of 0.50 and 0.42 year, respectively. ATEZO plus BEVA followed by SORA was the safest sequence (SAEs 63%). At a willingness-to-risk threshold of 10% of SAEs for LYG, ATEZO plus BEVA followed by second-line SORA was favored in 72% of cases, while at a threshold of 30% of SAEs for LYG, ATEZO plus BEVA followed by second-line LENVA was favored in 69% of cases. Conclusion: Our simulation model provides a strong rationale to support ongoing trials evaluating second-line tyrosine-kinase inhibitors after first-line ATEZO plus BEVA. Future evidence from ongoing RCTs and prospective real-world studies are needed to prove the net health benefit of sequential treatment options for advanced HCC.

In patients with HCV-related cirrhosis the annual risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is 2–4%.1 However, with the advent of highly effective and well tolerated direct-acting antivirals...

BACKGROUND & AIMS:The RESORCE trial showed that regorafenib improves overall survival (OS) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma progressing during sorafenib treatment (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.78; p

[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.

Systemic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been boosted by the incorporation of new agents after many negative phase III trials in the decade since the approval of sorafenib. Sorafenib introduced the concept that targeting specific hallmarks of hepatocarcinogenesis could modify the dismal prognosis of this disease, with the drug remaining a cornerstone in the upfront therapy for advanced HCC. The design of clinical trials in this malignancy is complicated by important obstacles related to patient selection, prognostic assessment and the need for endpoints that correlate with improvement in survival outcomes. In addition, the currently used criteria to determine treatment response or progression might prevent physicians from making appropriate clinical judgements and interpreting evidence arising from trials. In this Review, we discuss the advances in systemic therapy for HCC and critically review trial designs in HCC. Although novel therapies, such as new targeted agents and immunotherapies, are being rapidly incorporated, it is paramount to design future clinical trials based on the lessons learned from past failures and successes. The design of clinical trials for hepatocellular carcinoma is complicated by a number of obstacles. In this Review, the authors discuss the advances in systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma and critically discuss trial designs in the context of past successes and failures.