Efficacy and Safety of Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Previously Treated With Sorafenib: The CheckMate 040 Randomized Clinical Trial

Anti-angiogenesis Revisited: Combination with Immunotherapy in Solid Tumors

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Both anti-angiogenesis and immunotherapy are well-established therapeutic options in solid tumors. Here, we review the rationale as well as clinical evidence of combining these two approaches.

RECENT FINDINGS

There is strong rationale and substantial preclinical and clinical evidence that anti-angiogenesis plays a pivotal role in overcoming immunotherapy resistance. The combination of an anti-angiogenic agent and a checkpoint inhibitor offers a more robust treatment option in many clinical trials in a wide variety of solid tumor types. Combination of anti-angiogenesis and immunotherapy has emerged as a standard of care in some tumor types and the indication is expected to expand to more tumor types in the years to come.

Evolving therapeutic strategies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Introduction: While sorafenib dominated the therapeutic arena in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for almost a decade, newer agents and combinations have been changing the therapeutic landscape in the last years.Areas covered: The authors outline the etiopathogenesis and evaluate the diagnostics in HCC, followed by a comprehensive review of the currently approved and experimental treatment approaches, with a focus on various systemic agents and combinations of agents. The manuscript was subdivided into relevant categories, thus making it applicable for both clinical practice and research endeavors.Expert opinion: Recently, combination therapies including immune checkpoint inhibitors with anti-VEGF/R agents have shown superior clinical efficacy in HCC. The Atezolizumab-bevacizumab combination is currently the preferred first-line therapy. Single-agents cabozantinib and regorafenib as well as nivolumab-ipilimumab combination are favored as second-line therapies. Further research is needed to identify the predictors of response to various treatments and establish the distinct patient profiles that will derive most benefit. Tumor mutation analysis and germline mutation testing could identify rational therapeutic targets in HCC in the near future. As the skyline for new therapeutic agents and combinations in HCC continues to expand, the outlook as of today is cautiously optimistic in this still difficult-to-treat malignant neoplastic disease.

A Rare Presentation of Checkpoint Inhibitor Induced Distal RTA

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have opened a new era in treating advanced malignancies, resulting in a rapid increase in utilization, given the remarkable clinical outcomes. The incidence of immune-related adverse events increased due to the immunologic effects of these therapeutic agents. However, immune-related renal adverse events remain low, representing only a small incidence of reported cases. Common renal toxicity described includes acute interstitial nephritis, minimal change disease, and immune complex glomerulonephritis. Renal tubular acidosis has occasionally been reported but is highly uncommon. This report presents a case of a 68-year-old woman with a known history of metastatic melanoma undergoing treatment with ipilimumab+nivolumab, who developed distal renal tubular acidosis requiring stress dose steroids and sodium bicarbonate for treatment. We describe the clinical characteristics, potential mechanisms, and management of this case, highlighting the need among clinicians utilizing immune check inhibitors to be aware of this immune-related disease entity.

Hepatocellular carcinoma in patients with renal dysfunction: Pathophysiology, prognosis, and treatment challenges

The population of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) overlaps to a high degree with those for chronic kidney disease (CKD) and end-stage renal disease (ESRD). The degrees of renal dysfunction vary, from the various stages of CKD to dialysis-dependent ESRD, which often affects the prognosis and treatment choice of patients with HCC. In addition, renal dysfunction makes treatment more difficult and may negatively affect treatment outcomes. This study summarized the possible causes of the high comorbidity of HCC and renal dysfunction. The possible mechanisms of CKD causing HCC involve uremia itself, long-term dialysis status, immunosuppressive agents for postrenal transplant status, and miscellaneous factors such as hormone alterations and dysbiosis. The possible mechanisms of HCC affecting renal function include direct tumor invasion and hepatorenal syndrome. Finally, we categorized the risk factors that could lead to both HCC and CKD into four categories: Environmental toxins, viral hepatitis, metabolic syndrome, and vasoactive factors. Both CKD and ESRD have been reported to negatively affect HCC prognosis, but more research is warranted to confirm this. Furthermore, ESRD status itself ought not to prevent patients receiving aggressive treatments. This study then adopted the well-known Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer guidelines as a framework to discuss the indicators for each stage of HCC treatment, treatment-related adverse renal effects, and concerns that are specific to patients with pre-existing renal dysfunction when undergoing aggressive treatments against CKD and ESRD. Such aggressive treatments include liver resection, simultaneous liver kidney transplantation, radiofrequency ablation, and transarterial chemoembolization. Finally, focusing on patients unable to receive active treatment, this study compiled information on the latest systemic pharmacological therapies, including targeted and immunotherapeutic drugs. Based on available clinical studies and Food and Drug Administration labels, this study details the drug indications, side effects, and dose adjustments for patients with renal dysfunction. It also provides a comprehensive review of information on HCC patients with renal dysfunction from disease onset to treatment.

Redefining Intermediate-Stage HCC Treatment in the Era of Immune Therapies

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. At diagnosis, most patients are ineligible for curative surgery, and approximately 20% of patients are diagnosed with advanced-stage disease. A significant proportion of patients fall under an unresectable or intermediate-stage disease who have liver-limited disease but are not surgical candidates because of large tumor size, number of lesions, or technically inoperable disease. In this unique intermediate-stage patient population, locoregional therapies have been the de facto mainstay of treatment because of high local response rates and favorable safety profile, especially in the context of minimally effective systemic therapies. However, not all patients who receive locoregional therapy for incurable disease have improved survival, and importantly, some of these patients never receive systemic therapy because of disease progression or further decline in hepatic function. Meanwhile, with the remarkable progress that has been made with systemic therapy in the past few years, revisiting the treatment of intermediate-stage HCC seems prudent. In this review, we will highlight current and emerging strategies for treating patients with unresectable, liver-limited HCC.

A selective HDAC8 inhibitor potentiates antitumor immunity and efficacy of immune checkpoint blockade in hepatocellular carcinoma

Insufficient T cell infiltration into noninflamed tumors, such as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), restricts the effectiveness of immune-checkpoint blockade (ICB) for a subset of patients. Epigenetic therapy provides further opportunities to rewire cancer-associated transcriptional programs, but whether and how selective epigenetic inhibition counteracts the immune-excluded phenotype remain incompletely defined. Here, we showed that pharmacological inhibition of histone deacetylase 8 (HDAC8), a histone H3 lysine 27 (H3K27)-specific isozyme overexpressed in a variety of human cancers, thwarts HCC tumorigenicity in a T cell-dependent manner. The tumor-suppressive effect of selective HDAC8 inhibition was abrogated by CD8⁺ T cell depletion or regulatory T cell adoptive transfer. Chromatin profiling of human HDAC8-expressing HCCs revealed genome-wide H3K27 deacetylation in 1251 silenced enhancer-target gene pairs that are enriched in metabolic and immune regulators. Mechanistically, down-regulation of HDAC8 increased global and enhancer acetylation of H3K27 to reactivate production of T cell-trafficking chemokines by HCC cells, thus relieving T cell exclusion in both immunodeficient and humanized mouse models. In an HCC preclinical model, selective HDAC8 inhibition increased tumor-infiltrating CD8⁺ T cells and potentiated eradication of established hepatomas by anti-PD-L1 therapy without evidence of toxicity. Mice treated with HDAC8 and PD-L1 coblockade were protected against subsequent tumor rechallenge as a result of the induction of memory T cells and remained tumor-free for greater than 15 months. Collectively, our study demonstrates that selective HDAC8 inhibition elicits effective and durable responses to ICB by co-opting adaptive immunity through enhancer reprogramming.

Intersection of Two Checkpoints: Could Inhibiting the DNA Damage Response Checkpoint Rescue Immune Checkpoint-Refractory Cancer?

Metastatic cancers resistant to immunotherapy require novel management strategies. DNA damage response (DDR) proteins, including ATR (ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related), ATM (ataxia telangiectasia mutated) and DNA-PK (DNA-dependent protein kinase), have been promising therapeutic targets for decades. Specific, potent DDR inhibitors (DDRi) recently entered clinical trials. Surprisingly, preclinical studies have now indicated that DDRi may stimulate anti-tumor immunity to augment immunotherapy. The mechanisms governing how DDRi could promote anti-tumor immunity are not well understood; however, early evidence suggests that they can potentiate immunogenic cell death to recruit and activate antigen-presenting cells to prime an adaptive immune response. Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is well suited to test these concepts. It is inherently immunogenic as ~50% of patients with advanced MCC persistently benefit from immunotherapy, making MCC one of the most responsive solid tumors. As is typical of neuroendocrine cancers, dysfunction of p53 and Rb with upregulation of Myc leads to the very rapid growth of MCC. This suggests high replication stress and susceptibility to DDRi and DNA-damaging agents. Indeed, MCC tumors are particularly radiosensitive. Given its inherent immunogenicity, cell cycle checkpoint deficiencies and sensitivity to DNA damage, MCC may be ideal for testing whether targeting the intersection of the DDR checkpoint and the immune checkpoint could help patients with immunotherapy-refractory cancers.

Reductions in AFP and PIVKA-II can predict the efficiency of anti-PD-1 immunotherapy in HCC patients

BACKGROUND

Few biomarkers can predict the efficiency of PD-1 blockade in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to investigate the prognostic role of AFP and PIVKA-II in HCC patients receiving anti-PD-1 immunotherapy.

METHODS

A total of 235 HCC patients treated with PD-1 blockade were enrolled. Serum AFP and PIVKA-II levels were collected before and after treatments. The patients were divided into groups based on the reduction in AFP and PIVKA-II: AFP reduction ≤50% vs AFP reduction > 50% and PIVKA-II reduction ≤50% vs PIVKA-II reduction > 50%. The primary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Binary logistic regression analyses were used to explore the related factors of ORR. A Cox proportional hazards model was employed to identify the potential prognostic factors of PFS and OS.

RESULTS

Among all the patients, 34.9% (82/235) achieved a complete or partial response. There was a positive correlation between AFP reduction > 50% or PIVKA-II reduction> 50% and the ORR of PD-1 blockade (P < 0.001 and = 0.003). PFS was significantly improved in patients with AFP reduction > 50% and PIVKA-II reduction > 50% (p < 0.001 and = 0.021). In addition, AFP reduction > 50% and PIVKA-II reduction> 50% were positively correlated with longer OS (p = 0.003 and 0.006).

CONCLUSION

Early reductions in AFP and PIVKA-II can be predictors of the efficacy of PD-1 blockade in HCC patients.

Evolution of systemic treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was considered an inherently refractory tumor in the chemotherapy era (1950-2000). However, systemic therapy has evolved to molecular targeted therapy and immunotherapy, and nine treatment regimens have been approved worldwide during the past 20 years. The approved regimens target tumor angiogenesis or tumor immunity, the two cancer hallmarks. Recently, the combination of atezolizumab (antiprogrammed cell death ligand 1) and bevacizumab (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor) has improved the efficacy of systemic therapy in treating advanced HCC without excessive toxicities or deterioration of quality of life. This review summarizes the major advances in systemic therapy and provides future perspectives on the next-generation systemic therapy for advanced HCC.

Combinatorial therapy in tumor microenvironment: Where do we stand?

The tumor microenvironment plays a pivotal role in tumor initiation and progression by creating a dynamic interaction with cancer cells. The tumor microenvironment consists of various cellular components, including endothelial cells, fibroblasts, pericytes, adipocytes, immune cells, cancer stem cells and vasculature, which provide a sustained environment for cancer cell proliferation. Currently, targeting tumor microenvironment is increasingly being explored as a novel approach to improve cancer therapeutics, as it influences the growth and expansion of malignant cells in various ways. Despite continuous advancements in targeted therapies for cancer treatment, drug resistance, toxicity and immune escape mechanisms are the basis of treatment failure and cancer escape. Targeting tumor microenvironment efficiently with approved drugs and combination therapy is the solution to this enduring challenge that involves combining more than one treatment modality such as chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy, immunotherapy and nanotherapy that can effectively and synergistically target the critical pathways associated with disease pathogenesis. This review shed light on the composition of the tumor microenvironment, interaction of different components within tumor microenvironment with tumor cells and associated hallmarks, the current status of combinatorial therapies being developed, and various growing advancements. Furthermore, computational tools can also be used to monitor the significance and outcome of therapies being developed. We addressed the perceived barriers and regulatory hurdles in developing a combinatorial regimen and evaluated the present status of these therapies in the clinic. The accumulating depth of knowledge about the tumor microenvironment in cancer may facilitate further development of effective treatment modalities. This review presents the tumor microenvironment as a sweeping landscape for developing novel cancer therapies.

m6A Regulator-Associated Modification Patterns and Immune Infiltration of the Tumor Microenvironment in Hepatocarcinoma

Background: Immunotherapy elicits durable responses in many tumors. Nevertheless, the positive response to immunotherapy always depends on the dynamic interactions between the tumor cells and infiltrating lymphocytes in the tumor microenvironment (TME). Currently, the application of immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has achieved limited success. The ectopic modification of N6-methyladenosine (m6A) is a common feature in multiple tumors. However, the relationship between m6A modification with HCC clinical features, prognosis, immune cell infiltration, and immunotherapy efficacy remains unclear.

Materials and Methods: Here, we comprehensively evaluated m6A modification clusters based on 22 m6A regulators and systematically explored the relationship between m6A modification with tumor progression, prognosis, and immune cell infiltration characteristics. The m6Ascore was calculated by principal component analysis to quantify the m6A modifications of individual patients. Key regulators involved in immunoregulation in HCC were identified using immunohistochemistry and immunofluorescence.

Results: Three distinct m6A modification clusters were identified. The m6A clusters were significantly associated with clinical features, prognosis, and immune cell infiltration. The three clusters were highly consistent with the three tumor immune phenotypes, i.e., immune-excluded, immune-inflamed, and immune-desert. Comprehensive bioinformatics analysis revealed that high m6Ascore was closely associated with tumor progression, poor prognosis, and immunotherapy non-response. m6A regulators were dysregulated in HCC tissues. Hence, they play a role as predictors of poor prognosis. Tissue microarray demonstrated that overexpressed YTHDF1 was associated with low CD3⁺ and CD8⁺ T cell infiltration in HCC.

Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate that m6A modification patterns play a crucial role in the tumor immune microenvironment and the prognosis of HCC. High YTHDF1 expression is closely associated with low CD3⁺ and CD8⁺ T cell infiltration in HCC.

Cabozantinib in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Efficacy and Safety Data from an International Multicenter Real-Life Cohort

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The multikinase inhibitor cabozantinib has been approved for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib. We report safety and efficacy data of an international, multicenter, real-life cohort of patients with advanced HCC treated with cabozantinib.

METHODS

Patients with HCC who were treated with cabozantinib were retrospectively identified across 11 centers in Austria, Switzerland, and Germany. Patients' characteristics, adverse events, duration of treatment and overall survival (OS) data were analyzed until April 1, 2020.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients from 11 centers were included. The predominant underlying liver diseases were NAFLD/NASH in 26 (30%) and hepatitis C infection in 21 (24%) patients. Seventy-eight patients (89%) were classified as Barcelona clinic liver cancer (BCLC) stage C. Sixty patients (68%) were Child-Pugh A, whereas 22 (25%) were Child-Pugh B, respectively. Cabozantinib was used as systemic second- and third-line or later treatment in 41 (47%) and 46 (52%) patients, respectively. The following best responses under cabozantinib were documented: partial response in 6 (7%), stable disease in 28 (32%), and progressive disease in 28 (32%) patients, respectively. Fifty-two patients (59%) died during follow-up. The median OS from start of cabozantinib treatment was 7.0 months in the entire cohort and 9.7 months in Child-Pugh A patients, while Child-Pugh B patients had a median OS of 3.4 months, respectively. Thirty-seven (42%) patients fulfilled the CELESTIAL inclusion and exclusion criteria, showing a median OS of 11.1 months. Most common adverse events were fatigue (15.6%) and diarrhea (15.6%).

CONCLUSION

Cabozantinib treatment was effective, safe, and feasible in patients with advanced HCC in patients with compensated cirrhosis. Patients in the real-life setting had more advanced liver disease - in which 25% of patients were Child-Pugh B. However, OS in patients with Child-Pugh A cirrhosis was similar to that reported in the phase 3 trial (CELESTIAL).

The Outcomes of Systemic Treatment in Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinomas Following Liver Transplants

BACKGROUND

Treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrences following liver transplant (LT) is challenging. Most clinical trials of systemic therapies for advanced HCC excluded patients with any history of organ transplant. We aimed to assess the outcomes in using various systemic therapies in patients with post-LT recurrence.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with HCC and recurrences following LT at a large tertiary centre from 2005 to 2018 were reviewed. Overall survival (OS), response rates and adverse events (AEs) were analysed.

RESULTS

Forty-three consecutive patients with a recurrence of HCC following LT were identified from 2005 to 2018. Median OS from diagnosis of recurrence was 17 months (CI 11.3, 22.7). Early recurrence within 12 months of transplant was associated with a significantly worse median survival of 10 months (CI 8.5, 11.4) compared to 26 months (CI 18.8, 33.2) when recurrences occurred after 12 months from transplant (p < 0.001) with a hazard ratio of 0.104 (log-rank test, p < 0.001). A total of 41 patients had received systemic therapies and 79.1% of them were on sorafenib as the first-line treatment. Among these patients treated with sorafenib, median OS from recurrence was 14 months (CI 7.3, 20.7). Hand-foot syndrome (34.7%) was most common among AEs followed by diarrhoea (26.7%). Overall, AEs led to dose interruptions in 8.8% of patients. Notably, 47.1% of patients received subsequent lines of systemic therapies after sorafenib.

CONCLUSIONS

Early recurrence within 1 year from transplant was the most significant risk factor. Treatment efficacy and adverse events and tolerability of sorafenib were comparable with those in the setting of advanced HCC without transplant.

Phase 1b/2 trial of tepotinib in sorafenib pretreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with MET overexpression

BACKGROUND

This Phase 1b/2 study evaluated tepotinib, a highly selective MET inhibitor, in US/European patients with sorafenib pretreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) with MET overexpression.

METHODS

Eligible adults had aHCC, progression after ≥4 weeks of sorafenib, and, for Phase 2 only, MET overexpression. Tepotinib was administered once daily at 300 or 500 mg in Phase 1b ('3 + 3' design), and at the recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D) in Phase 2. Primary endpoints were dose-liming toxicities (DLTs; Phase 1b) and 12-week investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS; Phase 2).

RESULTS

In Phase 1b (n = 17), no DLTs occurred and the RP2D was confirmed as 500 mg. In Phase 2 (n = 49), the primary endpoint was met: 12-week PFS was 63.3% (90% CI: 50.5-74.7), which was significantly greater than the predefined null hypothesis of ≤15% (one-sided binomial exact test: P < 0.0001). Median time to progression was 4 months. In Phase 2, 28.6% of patients had treatment-related Grade ≥3 adverse events, including peripheral oedema and lipase increase (both 6.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Tepotinib was generally well tolerated and the RP2D (500 mg) showed promising efficacy and, therefore, a positive benefit-risk balance in sorafenib pretreated aHCC with MET overexpression.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02115373.

The evolving treatment paradigm of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: putting all the pieces back together

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The therapeutic landscape of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has become notably complex in recent years. With this review, we aimed to put the most recent findings in perspective and tried to delineate the rapidly changing treatment algorithm.

RECENT FINDINGS

The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has become the new first-line standard of care treatment for unresectable HCC after the positive results of the phase 3 IMbrave150 study. Nivolumab monotherapy failed to demonstrate advantage versus sorafenib in the CheckMate 459 trial, while two different therapeutic strategies (sintilimab and bevacizumab biosimilar and donafenib) outperformed sorafenib in two phase 2/3 studies conducted in the Chinese population. Several immunotherapy combinations are currently under study in large phase 3 trials after promising results in earlier phase studies. About further lines of treatment, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab was approved for sorafenib-pretreated patients after the positive results of the phase 1/2 CheckMate 040 study and apatinib was proven effective in the Chinese population in a phase 2/3 study, while pembrolizumab as monotherapy did not show statistically significant superiority when compared with placebo in the KEYNOTE-240 study.

SUMMARY

Because of the growing complexity of advanced HCC treatment, the implementation of predictive biomarkers of response is eagerly needed.

Trial eligibility in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Does it support clinical practice in underrepresented subgroups?

Although hepatocellular carcinoma is considered a highly lethal malignancy, recent therapeutic advances have been achieved during the last 10 years. This scenario resulted in an unprecedented improvement in survival for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, almost reaching 20-26 mo of overall survival after first-second line sequential treatment. The advent of the combination of atezolizumab with bevacizumab showed, for the first time, superiority over sorafenib with improvement in overall survival. However, first and second-line trials were correctly based on the premise that a strict selection of patients enhances the power to capture the positive effect of treatment by excluding competing risks for mortality such as liver failure, decompensated cirrhosis or other underlying medical conditions. As a result, the inclusion criteria used in clinical trials do not support the use of novel therapies in several real-world scenarios involving underrepresented subgroups, such as patients with unpreserved liver function, other comorbid conditions, a history of solid-organ transplantation, autoimmune disorders and those with a high risk of bleeding. The present text aims at discussing treatment strategies in these subgroups.

Favorable response to second-line atezolizumab and bevacizumab following progression on nivolumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A case report demonstrating that anti-VEGF therapy overcomes resistance to checkpoint inhibition

RATIONALE

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a deadly disease in part due to decades of limited therapeutic options. With recent advances in our understanding of the tumor biology, several promising treatment strategies involving targeted and immunotherapies have emerged. However, enhancing their modest efficacy in HCC and other gastrointestinal malignancies is essential to improving survival.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A man in his late 50s with a history of type 2 diabetes mellitus and morbid obesity initially presented with progressive abdominal pain and anorexia prompting an abdominal computed tomography scan that revealed a large solitary liver mass with extensive local involvement.

DIAGNOSES

Although there were features consistent with a primary gastric tumor on subsequent endoscopic evaluation leading to early diagnostic uncertainty, his clinical picture, including a dominant liver mass, immunohistochemical staining profile, and significantly elevated alpha fetoprotein ultimately favored HCC.

INTERVENTIONS

The patient received palliative systemic therapy with infusional fluorouracil for a presumed gastric primary, however restaging scans after 3 cycles demonstrated disease progression. The consensus from a multidisciplinary discussion was that his pathology was more consistent with primary HCC. He was subsequently started on nivolumab with a partial response, although after 5 months, he progressed prompting initiation of second-line atezolizumab and bevacizumab with a favorable response.

OUTCOMES

The addition of atezolizumab and bevacizumab led to a sustained biochemical and radiographic response that appeared to overcome the resistance to nivolumab monotherapy. Aside from several mild immune-related adverse effects, his quality of life has greatly improved and he has tolerated treatment well to date.

LESSONS

Our findings suggest that vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition can overcome resistance to checkpoint inhibition in advanced HCC by resulting in a unique synergy that has never before been described in patients. The biological rationale for this response is likely attributable to the immunomodulatory effects of antiangiogenic agents, promoting an immunostimulatory microenvironment that can be exploited by immune checkpoint inhibitors for more effective antitumor activity. Given the considerable benefit patients may derive following progression on first-line treatment, it is important to consider this strategic combination of therapies which can ultimately lead to improved patient outcomes.

Intracerebral administration of CTLA-4 and PD-1 immune checkpoint blocking monoclonal antibodies in patients with recurrent glioblastoma: a phase I clinical trial

Background

Patients with recurrent glioblastoma (rGB) have a poor prognosis with a median overall survival (OS) of 30–39 weeks in prospective clinical trials. Intravenous administration of programmed cell death protein 1 and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 inhibitors has low activity in patients with rGB. In this phase I clinical trial, intracerebral (IC) administration of ipilimumab (IPI) and nivolumab (NIVO) in combination with intravenous administration of NIVO was investigated.

Methods

Within 24 hours following the intravenous administration of a fixed dose (10 mg) of NIVO, patients underwent a maximal safe resection, followed by injection of IPI (10 mg; cohort-1), or IPI (5 mg) plus NIVO (10 mg; cohort-2) in the brain tissue lining the resection cavity. Intravenous administration of NIVO (10 mg) was repeated every 2 weeks (max. five administrations). Next generation sequencing and RNA gene expression profiling was performed on resected tumor tissue.

Results

Twenty-seven patients were enrolled (cohort-1: n=3; cohort-2: n=24). All patients underwent maximal safe resection and planned IC administrations and preoperative NIVO. Thirteen patients (cohort-1: n=3; cohort-2: n=10) received all five postoperative intravenous doses of NIVO. In cohort-2, 14 patients received a median of 3 (range 1–4) intravenous doses. Subacute postoperative neurological deterioration (n=2) was reversible on steroid treatment; no other central nervous system toxicity was observed. Immune-related adverse events were infrequent and mild. GB recurrence was diagnosed in 26 patients (median progression-free survival (PFS) is 11.7 weeks (range 2–152)); 21 patients have died due to progression. Median OS is 38 weeks (95% CI: 27 to 49) with a 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year OS-rate of, respectively, 74.1% (95% CI: 57 to 90), 40.7% (95% CI: 22 to 59), and 27% (95% CI: 9 to 44). OS compares favorable against a historical cohort (descriptive Log-Rank p>0.003). No significant difference was found with respect to PFS (descriptive Log-Rank test p>0.05). A higher tumor mRNA expression level of B7-H3 was associated with a significantly worse survival (multivariate Cox logistic regression, p>0.029).

Conclusion

IC administration of NIVO and IPI following maximal safe resection of rGB was feasible, safe, and associated with encouraging OS.

Trial registration

NCT03233152.

Systemic Treatment for Older Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The incidence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma is growing and age at diagnosis is increasing; however, despite the unprecedented wealth of therapeutic options for advanced HCC, its optimal management in some categories, such as older adults, is yet to be defined. Even though age is not an exclusion criterion per se, most of the landmark trials enrolled a limited number of senior patients, raising some concerns on the potential benefit of active treatments in this group. The identification of more vulnerable patients remains a crucial issue in clinical practice. In fact, the suitability assessment for systemic therapy through performance status metrics might underestimate or conversely overestimate the fitness of older patients, failing to detect other relevant impairments. Thus, the assessment of frailty through geriatric screening scales is largely necessary. In addition, most of the available data relate to the use of sorafenib, while very little is known about the most recent therapeutic agents. Age subgroup analyses provided by many of the pivotal trials did not find significant efficacy or safety differences across ages; however, the most widely used cut-off age of 65 years may not be very informative for the current older population. Regarding immunotherapy, the clinical benefit reported with immune checkpoint inhibitors reassures their safe use in senior patients and supports further investigations to assess their efficacy in this population.

Second-line treatments for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS

A plethora of second-line therapies have been recently introduced for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment with promising results. A meta-analysis of second-line treatments for HCC has been performed to better tailor their use based on improved patient stratification and to identify the best available option.

METHODS

Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating second-line treatment for advanced HCC in patients already treated with sorafenib. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and drug withdrawal due to adverse events. Network meta-analyses were performed considering placebo as the basis for comparison in efficacy and safety analyses. Subgroup stratification considered gender, age, sorafenib-responsiveness and drug tolerability, viral infection, macrovascular invasion, HCC extrahepatic spread, performance status, and alpha-fetoprotein levels.

RESULTS

Fourteen phase II or III randomized controlled trials, involving 5,488 patients and 12 regimens, were included in the analysis. Regorafenib (hazard ratio (HR) = 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50-0.79), cabozantinib (HR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.63-0.92), and ramucirumab (HR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.70-0.76) significantly prolonged OS compared with placebo. Cabozantinib (HR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.36-0.52), regorafenib (HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.37-0.56), ramucirumab (HR = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.43-0.68), brivanib (HR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.42-0.76), S-1 (HR = 0.60, 95% CI = 0.46-0.77), axitinib (HR = 0.62, 95% CI = 0.44-0.87), and pembrolizumab (HR = 0.72, 95% CI = 0.57-0.90) significantly improved PFS compared with placebo. None of the compared drugs deemed undoubtedly superior after having performed a patients' stratification.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this network meta-analysis suggest the use of regorafenib and cabozantinib as second-line treatments in HCC.

Clinical Trials of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Introduction: Several immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) are under clinical development in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and the field is advancing rapidly. In this comprehensive review, we discuss published results and report on ongoing clinical trials. Methods: A literature search was carried out using PubMed and EMBASE; data reported at international meetings and clinicaltrials.gov were included as well. The search was updated 5 March 2021. We evaluated studies with monotherapy CPI's, combinations of CPI's and combinations of CPI's with other treatment modalities separately. Only studies with at least 10 included patients were considered. Results: We identified 2649 records published in the English language literature. After review, 29 studies remained, including 12 studies with preliminary data only. The obtained overall response rate of PD-1/PDL-1 monotherapy in phase II studies in the second-line setting was 15-20% with disease control in approximately 60% of patients. The responses were of long duration in a subset of patients. Furthermore, the safety profiles were manageable. However, a phase III study comparing nivolumab with sorafenib in the first-line setting and a phase III study evaluating pembrolizumab versus best supportive care in the second-line setting did not meet their prespecified endpoints. More recently, a phase I/II study of nivolumab and ipilimumab has resulted in a response rate of approximately 30% with a median OS of 22 months in the second-line setting. Multiple trials have been initiated to evaluate CPIs in combination with molecularly targeted drugs, especially anti-angiogenic drugs or local therapy. A phase III study investigating atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in the first-line setting showed significantly increased survival in the combination arm. Conclusions: The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab represents a new standard of care in the first-line setting for fit patients with preserved liver function. CPIs can produce durable tumor remission and induce long-standing anti-tumor immunity in a subgroup of patients with advanced HCC. Although phase III trials of CPI monotherapy have been negative, the combination of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors with other anti-angiogenic drugs, CTLA-4 inhibitors or other modalities may result in new treatment options for patients with HCC. Research on predictive biomarkers is crucial for further development of CPIs in HCC.

Sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) versus sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (ORIENT-32): a randomised, open-label, phase 2-3 study

BACKGROUND

China has a high burden of hepatocellular carcinoma, and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is the main causative factor. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma have a poor prognosis and a substantial unmet clinical need. The phase 2-3 ORIENT-32 study aimed to assess sintilimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) plus IBI305, a bevacizumab biosimilar, versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

This randomised, open-label, phase 2-3 study was done at 50 clinical sites in China. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically diagnosed or clinically confirmed unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, no previous systemic treatment, and a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion. In the phase 2 part of the study, patients received intravenous sintilimab (200 mg every 3 weeks) plus intravenous IBI305 (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks). In the phase 3 part, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either sintilimab plus IBI305 (sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily; sorafenib group), until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was done using permuted block randomisation, with a block size of six, via an interactive web response system, and stratified by macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic metastasis, baseline α-fetoprotein, and ECOG performance status. The primary endpoint of the phase 2 part of the study was safety, assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The co-primary endpoints of the phase 3 part of the study were overall survival and independent radiological review committee (IRRC)-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03794440. The study is closed to new participants and follow-up is ongoing for long-term outcomes.

FINDINGS

Between Feb 11, 2019 and Jan 15, 2020, we enrolled 595 patients: 24 were enrolled directly into the phase 2 safety run-in and 571 were randomly assigned to sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar (n=380) or sorafenib (n=191). In the phase 2 part of the trial, 24 patients received at least one dose of the study drug, with an objective response rate of 25·0% (95% CI 9·8-46·7). Based on the preliminary safety and activity data of the phase 2 part, in which grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in seven (29%) of 24 patients, the randomised phase 3 part was started. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2020), the median follow-up was 10·0 months (IQR 8·5-11·7) in the sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group and 10·0 months (8·4-11·7) in the sorafenib group. Patients in the sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group had a significantly longer IRRC-assessed median progression-free survival (4·6 months [95% CI 4·1-5·7]) than did patients in the sorafenib group (2·8 months [2·7-3·2]; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·56, 95% CI 0·46-0·70; p<0·0001). In the first interim analysis of overall survival, sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar showed a significantly longer overall survival than did sorafenib (median not reached [95% CI not reached-not reached] vs 10·4 months [8·5-not reached]; HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·43-0·75; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-4 treatment-emergent adverse events were hypertension (55 [14%] of 380 patients in the sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group vs 11 [6%] of 185 patients in the sorafenib group) and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (none vs 22 [12%]). 123 (32%) patients in the sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group and 36 (19%) patients in the sorafenib group had serious adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events that led to death occurred in six (2%) patients in the sintilimab-bevacizumab biosimilar group (one patient with abnormal liver function, one patient with both hepatic failure and gastrointestinal haemorrhage, one patient with interstitial lung disease, one patient with both hepatic faliure and hyperkalemia, one patient with upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and one patient with intestinal volvulus) and two (1%) patients in the sorafenib group (one patient with gastrointestinal haemorrhage and one patient with death of unknown cause).

INTERPRETATION

Sintilimab plus IBI305 showed a significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefit versus sorafenib in the first-line setting for Chinese patients with unresectable, HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma, with an acceptable safety profile. This combination regimen could provide a novel treatment option for such patients.

FUNDING

Innovent Biologics.

TRANSLATION

For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Dual Targeting of Sorafenib-Resistant HCC-Derived Cancer Stem Cells

Sorafenib, an oral multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitor, has been the first-line therapy for the treatment of patients with advanced HCC, providing a survival benefit of only three months in approximately 30% of patients. Cancer stem cells (CSCs) are a rare tumour subpopulation with self-renewal and differentiation capabilities, and have been implicated in tumour growth, recurrence and drug resistance. The process of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) contributes to the generation and maintenance of the CSC population, resulting in immune evasion and therapy resistance in several cancers, including HCC. The aim of this study is to target the chemoresistant CSC population in HCC by assessing the effectiveness of a combination treatment approach with Sorafenib, an EMT inhibitor and an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI). A stem-cell-conditioned serum-free medium was utilised to enrich the CSC population from the human HCC cell lines Hep3B, PLC/PRF/5 and HepG2. The anchorage independent spheres were characterised for CSC features. The human HCC-derived spheres were assessed for EMT status and expression of immune checkpoint molecules. The effect of combination treatment with SB431542, an EMT inhibitor, and siRNA-mediated knockdown of programmed cell death protein ligand-1 (PD-L1) or CD73 along with Sorafenib on human HCC-derived CSCs was examined with cell viability and apoptosis assays. The three-dimensional spheres enriched from human HCC cell lines demonstrated CSC-like features. The human HCC-derived CSCs also exhibited the EMT phenotype along with the upregulation of immune checkpoint molecules. The combined treatment with SB431542 and siRNA-mediated PD-L1 or CD73 knockdown effectively enhanced the cytotoxicity of Sorafenib against the CSC population compared to Sorafenib alone, as evidenced by the reduced size and proliferation of spheres. Furthermore, the combination treatment of Sorafenib with SB431542 and PD-L1 or CD73 siRNA resulted in an increased proportion of an apoptotic population, as evidenced by flow cytometry analysis. In conclusion, the combined targeting of EMT and immune checkpoint molecules with Sorafenib can effectively target the CSC tumour subpopulation.

FDA Approval Summary: Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab for the Treatment of Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Previously Treated with Sorafenib

On March 10, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab for the treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) previously treated with sorafenib. The recommended approved dosage was nivolumab 1 mg/kg i.v. plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg i.v. every 3 weeks for four cycles, followed by nivolumab 240 mg i.v. every 2 weeks. The approval was based on data from cohort 4 of CheckMate 040, which randomized patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HCC previously treated with or who were intolerant to sorafenib to receive one of three different dosing regimens of nivolumab in combination with ipilimumab. Investigator-assessed overall response rate (ORR) was the primary endpoint, and ORR assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR) was an exploratory endpoint. BICR-assessed ORR and duration of response (DoR) form the primary basis of the FDA's regulatory decision, and BICR-assessed ORR was comparable in all three arms at 31%-32% with 95% confidence interval [CI] 18%-47%. The DoR ranged from 17.5 to 22.2 months across the three arms, with overlapping 95% CIs. Adverse events (AEs) were generally consistent with the known AE profiles of nivolumab and ipilimumab, and no new safety events were identified. This article summarizes the FDA review of the data supporting the approval of nivolumab and ipilimumab for the treatment of HCC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nivolumab and ipilimumab combination therapy is another option for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who experience radiographic progression during or after sorafenib or sorafenib intolerance. No new toxicities were identified, but, as expected, increased toxicity was observed with the addition of ipilimumab to nivolumab as compared with nivolumab alone, which is also approved for the same indication. Whether to administer nivolumab as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab is expected to be a joint decision between the oncologist and patient, taking into consideration the potential for a higher likelihood of response and the potentially higher rate of toxicity with the combination.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors in treatment of soft-tissue sarcoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Soft-tissue sarcomas (STSs) are rare malignancies, accounting for approximately 1% of adult cancer. Metastatic disease carries a poor prognosis, and various efforts have been made to improve the prognosis of advanced STS, to date with little success. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) have substantially improved prognosis for many cancer types. Their role in the treatment of STS, however, remains unravelled.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of the study is to assess the activity of ICPIs in the treatment of STS.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Furthermore, abstracts from European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and Connective Tissue Society Oncology (CTOS) congress were searched from 2017 until 2020. Prospective clinical trials investigating ICPIs, either monotherapy or combination therapy, in STS were available for inclusion. The outcomes of interest were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and major toxicity. Cut-off for clinical activity was defined as an ORR of ≥0.15. Subgroup analysis was carried out as per treatment category, disease setting and histologic subtype, using a random effects model.

RESULTS

We identified 27 studies, including a total of 1012 patients (range 6-85) with more than 25 histologic subtypes. The pooled ORR was 0.14 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.18), DCR was 0.55 (95% CI 0.43-0.66), mean PFS range was 1.8-11.5 months and mean OS was 6.1-34.7 months. The pooled ORR as per treatment category was 0.14 for anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD1) monotherapy (95% CI 0.07-0.23), 0.16 for anti-PD1 + anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (95% CI 0.06-0.29), 0.20 for anti-PD1 + tyrosine kinase inhibitor (95% CI 0.06-0.38), 0.20 for anti-PD1 + chemo (95% CI 0.06-0.38) and 0.08 for anti-PD1 + immunomodulator (95% CI 0.01-0.19). The pooled ORR as per disease setting was as follows: neoadjuvant treatment, 0.09 (0.00-0.25); advanced disease first line, 0.23 (0.15-0.32) and advanced pretreated, 0.13 (0.09-0.19). High response rates were seen in classic Kaposi sarcoma (CKS), alveolar soft part sarcoma (ASPS) and undifferentiated pleomorphic sarcoma (UPS) with ORR of 0.69 (95% CI 0.51-0.82), 0.35 (95% CI 0.27-0.44) and 0.20 (95% CI 0.15-0.27), respectively. Activity was limited in gastrointestinal stromal tumour (ORR 0.01 [95% CI 0.0-0.08]), uterine leiomyosarcoma (ORR 0.06 [95% CI 0.02-0.18]), leiomyosarcoma (ORR 0.10 [95% CI 0.06-0.17]) and liposarcoma (ORR 0.11 [95% CI 0.07-0.17]).

CONCLUSION

Clinical activity of ICPIs in STS is highly variable and depends on histologic subtype, disease setting and concomitant treatment strategy. Activity was high in CKS, ASPS and UPS. Early incorporation of ICPIs in combination with chemotherapy seems a promising strategy that warrants further interest. Translational research integrating molecular profile, biological behaviour and response to ICPIs should determine their role in treatment of STS.

Real-world evidence in hepatocellular carcinoma

Real-world evidence includes all health-related information, such as electronic health records, insurance claims, pharmacy records and wearables that are obtained outside of clinical trials. These data can provide critical insights into the natural history of disease and evaluate the safety and effectiveness of treatment regimens used in clinical practice. Real-world data have been applied to varying degrees by global regulatory agencies to inform and expedite many phases of drug development and help refine the use of therapeutic regimens after marketing, especially in populations that are under-represented in registration trials. For the management of hepatocellular carcinoma, early detection provides the best chance for curative therapies, whose success has been evaluated in numerous cohorts. The availability of novel systemic therapies, including kinase inhibitors and immunotherapies, has provided new treatment options and improved survival in patients with advanced stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Real-world longitudinal observational studies can help understand the long-term safety and effectiveness of these agents.

Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) clinical practice guideline on immune checkpoint inhibitor-related adverse events

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are the standard of care for the treatment of several cancers. While these immunotherapies have improved patient outcomes in many clinical settings, they bring accompanying risks of toxicity, specifically immune-related adverse events (irAEs). There is a need for clear, effective guidelines for the management of irAEs during ICI treatment, motivating the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) to convene an expert panel to develop a clinical practice guideline. The panel discussed the recognition and management of single and combination ICI irAEs and ultimately developed evidence- and consensus-based recommendations to assist medical professionals in clinical decision-making and to improve outcomes for patients.

Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Subgroup Analysis of Asian Patients in the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-240 Trial

INTRODUCTION

KEYNOTE-240 investigated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) in sorafenib-treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Results for the subgroup of patients from Asia are described.

METHODS

Adults with advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib were randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab or placebo plus BSC. Here, the Asian subgroup comprised patients enrolled in Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Thailand. Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) per blinded central imaging review and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) per blinded central imaging review, duration of response (DOR), and safety.

RESULTS

The Asian subgroup included 157 patients. As of January 2, 2019, the median follow-up in this subgroup was 13.8 months for pembrolizumab and 8.3 months for placebo. The median PFS was 2.8 months for pembrolizumab (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6-4.1) versus 1.4 months (95% CI 1.4-2.4) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48; 95% CI 0.32-0.70). The median OS was 13.8 months (95% CI 10.1-16.9) for pembrolizumab versus 8.3 months (95% CI 6.3-11.8) for placebo (HR 0.55; 95% CI 0.37-0.80). ORR was 20.6% (95% CI 13.4-29.5) for pembrolizumab versus 2.0% (95% CI 0.1-10.6) for placebo (difference: 18.5%; 95% CI 8.3-27.6). The median DOR was 8.6 and 2.8 months for pembrolizumab and placebo, respectively. Any grade treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 63 patients (58.9%) receiving pembrolizumab and 24 patients (48.0%) receiving placebo; 14 (13.1%) and 2 (4.0%) patients experienced grade 3-5 TRAEs, respectively. No treatment-related deaths occurred.

CONCLUSION

Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and was well tolerated in the Asian subgroup of KEYNOTE-240. A trend toward greater benefit with pembrolizumab in the Asian subgroup was observed compared with the overall cohort, supporting further evaluation of pembrolizumab treatment in this population.

Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Japan: JSH Consensus Statements and Recommendations 2021 Update

The Clinical Practice Manual for Hepatocellular Carcinoma was published based on evidence confirmed by the Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hepatocellular Carcinoma along with consensus opinion among a Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) expert panel on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Since the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines are based on original articles with extremely high levels of evidence, expert opinions on HCC management in clinical practice or consensus on newly developed treatments are not included. However, the practice manual incorporates the literature based on clinical data, expert opinion, and real-world clinical practice currently conducted in Japan to facilitate its use by clinicians. Alongside each revision of the JSH Guidelines, we issued an update to the manual, with the first edition of the manual published in 2007, the second edition in 2010, the third edition in 2015, and the fourth edition in 2020, which includes the 2017 edition of the JSH Guideline. This article is an excerpt from the fourth edition of the HCC Clinical Practice Manual focusing on pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of HCC. It is designed as a practical manual different from the latest version of the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines. This practice manual was written by an expert panel from the JSH, with emphasis on the consensus statements and recommendations for the management of HCC proposed by the JSH expert panel. In this article, we included newly developed clinical practices that are relatively common among Japanese experts in this field, although all of their statements are not associated with a high level of evidence, but these practices are likely to be incorporated into guidelines in the future. To write this article, coauthors from different institutions drafted the content and then critically reviewed each other's work. The revised content was then critically reviewed by the Board of Directors and the Planning and Public Relations Committee of JSH before publication to confirm the consensus statements and recommendations. The consensus statements and recommendations presented in this report represent measures actually being conducted at the highest-level HCC treatment centers in Japan. We hope this article provides insight into the actual situation of HCC practice in Japan, thereby affecting the global practice pattern in the management of HCC.

Nivolumab + Ipilimumab for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with Sorafenib

INTRODUCTION

The systemic treatment of advanced, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has undergone an evolution in recent years. In March 2020, a combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab was approved by the FDA for treatment of patients with advanced HCC who received prior sorafenib. This was based on the results of the phase I/II CheckMate-040 cohort 4 trials, which showed a promising overall response rate and encouraging overall survival with a manageable safety profile.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the pharmacology, efficacy and safety of nivolumab-ipilimumab in advanced HCC with prior sorafenib. Other existing systemic treatment options for advanced HCC will be described and compared to nivolumab-ipilimumab. Impact of different dose regimes, ongoing research and future developments of nivolumab-ipilimumab will be discussed. We focus on the analysis from the aforementioned CheckMate-040 cohort 4 registration trial.

EXPERT OPINION

The approval of nivolumab-ipilimumab in the second-line treatment of advanced HCC by the FDA is an important development for treatment of advanced HCC. However, further investigations are needed to optimize dosing regimens and explore the use of nivolumab-ipilimumab in other combinations and settings.

Clinical Indicators for Long-Term Survival with Immune Checkpoint Therapy in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Introduction

Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma have a dismal prognosis; only a subset of patients with advanced HCC will benefit from treatment with immunotherapy. We searched for clinical characteristics predicting exceptional long-term survival in HCC patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Methods

We compared clinical characteristics of 59 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with immunotherapy with and without locoregional therapy between 2013–2019. We compared patients who lived less than 12 months with patients who lived more than 3 years. Traits of short-term (31 patients) and long-term (5 patients) survivors were compared. Patients who died between 12 months and 3 years of starting treatment on protocol were not included in the analysis.

Results

Two out of five patients (40%) in the long-term survival group had a partial response (PR) or a complete response (CR) per the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST), while, of the 31 patients in the short-term survival group, only 2 (6.5%) had a CR or PR. Two of the 5 patients with a long-term survival had immune-related adverse events grade 3 or 4 (IrAEs-3/4). None of the patients in the short-term survival group had IrAEs-3/4. The patients, who presented with IrAEs-3/4, which included colitis and adrenal insufficiency, continued to have a response off treatment. The median overall survival (OS) was 11.8 months (95% CI: 7.8–15.4 months), with a 12-month OS of 46.6% (95% CI: 33.4–58.8%) and a 3-year OS of 12.5% (95% CI: 5.0–23.7%).

Conclusion

We found a possible association between immune-related adverse events grade 3 and 4 and long-term survival in patients with advanced HCC. The cases in our analysis represent extraordinary defiance of the usual predicted dismal course of advanced HCC.

Tumor Immune Microenvironment and Immunosuppressive Therapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Review

Liver cancer has the fourth highest mortality rate of all cancers worldwide, with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) being the most prevalent subtype. Despite great advances in systemic therapy, such as molecular-targeted agents, HCC has one of the worst prognoses due to drug resistance and frequent recurrence and metastasis. Recently, new therapeutic strategies such as cancer immunosuppressive therapy have prolonged patients' lives, and the combination of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) and VEGF inhibitor is now positioned as the first-line therapy for advanced HCC. Since the efficacy of ICIs depends on the tumor immune microenvironment, it is necessary to elucidate the immune environment of HCC to select appropriate ICIs. In this review, we summarize the findings on the immune microenvironment and immunosuppressive approaches focused on monoclonal antibodies against cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated protein 4 and programmed cell death protein 1 for HCC. We also describe ongoing treatment modalities, including adoptive cell transfer-based therapies and future areas of exploration based on recent literature. The results of pre-clinical studies using immunological classification and animal models will contribute to the development of biomarkers that predict the efficacy of immunosuppressive therapy and aid in the selection of appropriate strategies for HCC treatment.

Evolving Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Asia-Pacific Region: A Review and Multidisciplinary Expert Opinion

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth most common driver of cancer-related death globally, with an estimated 72% of cases in Asia. For more than a decade, first-line systemic treatments for advanced or unresectable HCC were limited to the multi-targeted kinase inhibitors sorafenib and, more recently, lenvatinib. Now, treatment options have expanded to include immunotherapy, as exemplified by the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) atezolizumab combined with the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab. Additional combinations of ICIs with kinase inhibitors, other ICIs, or antiangiogenic agents are under investigation, further supporting the new era of immunotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced or unresectable HCC. We describe this evolving landscape and provide expert opinion on therapeutic best practices in the Asia-Pacific region, where different costs of, and patient access to, treatment are a challenge. With the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab likely to become the clinical standard of care, optimising treatment sequence and ensuring patient access to newer therapies remain priorities. Cost containment and treatment sequencing may be facilitated by characterisation of predictive positive and negative biomarkers. With these considerations in mind, this review and expert opinion focused on advanced HCC in the Asia-Pacific region offers perspectives of multiple stakeholders, including physicians, payer systems, and patients.

Regorafenib Combined with Other Systemic Therapies: Exploring Promising Therapeutic Combinations in HCC

Regorafenib was the first drug to demonstrate a survival benefit as a second-line agent after sorafenib failure in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recent studies have shown that its mechanism of action is not only limited to its very broad spectrum of inhibition of angiogenesis, tumor proliferation, spread, and metastasis, but also to its immunomodulatory properties that have favorable effects on the very intricate role that the tumor microenvironment plays in carcinogenesis and tumor growth. In this review, we discuss rationale and evidence supporting regorafenib efficacy in HCC and that led to its approval as a second-line treatment, after sorafenib failure. We also discuss the evidence from clinical practice studies that confirm the results previously achieved in clinical trials. Finally, we analyze the potential role of regorafenib in emerging combined treatment approach with immunotherapy strategies using immune checkpoint blockade and its potential extension to patient categories not included in the registrative study.

Cellular based treatment modalities for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary malignancy of the liver and is unfortunately associated with an overall poor prognosis and high mortality. Early and intermediate stages of HCC allow for treatment with surgical resection, ablation and even liver transplantation, however disease progression warrants conventional systemic therapy. For years treatment options were limited to molecular-targeting medications, of which sorafenib remains the standard of care. The recent development and success of immune checkpoint inhibitors has proven to be a breakthrough in the treatment of HCC, but there is an urgent need for the development of further novel therapeutic treatments that prolong overall survival and minimize recurrence. Current investigation is focused on adoptive cell therapy including chimeric antigen receptor-T cells (CAR-T cells), T cell receptor (TCR) engineered T cells, dendritic cells, natural killer cells, and tumor infiltrating lymphocyte cells, which have shown remarkable success in the treatment of hematological and solid tumor malignancies. In this review we briefly introduce readers to the currently approved systemic treatment options and present clinical and experimental evidence of HCC immunotherapeutic treatments that will hopefully one day allow for revolutionary change in the treatment modalities used for unresectable HCC. We also provide an up-to-date compilation of ongoing clinical trials investigating CAR-T cells, TCR engineered T cells, cancer vaccines and oncolytic viruses, while discussing strategies that can help overcome commonly faced challenges when utilizing cellular based treatments.

The efficacy and safety of Nivolumab combined with Ipilimumab in the immunotherapy of cancer: a meta-analysis

Background and Objective: Nivolumab and Ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors. The combination of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab has been reported to have complementary effects in the treatment of metastatic melanoma. The combination therapy of Nivolumab and Ipilimumab (N+I) has shown synergistic effects in cancer immunotherapy but this is still controversial due to the higher incidence of toxicity. Hence, we conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of Nivolumab combined with Ipilimumab and compared the different dosing schedules of the N+I combination.Methods: By searching in PubMed, PMC, Cochrane library and major conference abstracts, eligible sixteen studies including N+I therapy and Nivolumab monotherapy were selected to analyze overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and high-grade (3-4) adverse effects (AEs). Results: Compared with monotherapy of Nivolumab, N+I significantly improved ORR (RR=1.40 [95% CI 1.27, 1.54], P<0.00001) and PFS (Hazard Ratio (HR)=0.83 [95% CI 0.77, 0.90], P<0.00001), but not OS (HR=0.93 [95% CI 0.84, 1.03], P=0.16). In a sub-analysis, the combination of Nivolumab 1mg/kg plus Ipilimumab 3mg/kg (N1I3) and Nivolumab 3mg/kg plus Ipilimumab 1mg/kg (N3I1) achieved better ORR and PFS than Nivolumab 3mg/kg (N3) alone. Remarkably, OS was also prolonged with the N1I3 combination compared with the N3I1 combination or N3. Furthermore, a higher incidence of high-grade AEs also occurred with the combination therapy of N1I3.Conclusions: N+I combination therapy showed greater ORR and PFS compared with Nivolumab monotherapy. N1I3 combination provided the benefit of ORR, PFS and OS but was associated with a higher incidence of toxicity.

The Evolving Role of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of most common cancers and the fourth leading cause of death worldwide. Commonly, HCC development occurs in a liver that is severely compromised by chronic injury or inflammation. Liver transplantation, hepatic resection, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), and targeted therapies based on tyrosine protein kinase inhibitors are the most common treatments. The latter group have been used as the primary choice for a decade. However, tumor microenvironment in HCC is strongly immunosuppressive; thus, new treatment approaches for HCC remain necessary. The great expression of immune checkpoint molecules, such as programmed death-1 (PD-1), cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), lymphocyte activating gene 3 protein (LAG-3), and mucin domain molecule 3 (TIM-3), on tumor and immune cells and the high levels of immunosuppressive cytokines induce T cell inhibition and represent one of the major mechanisms of HCC immune escape. Recently, immunotherapy based on the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as single agents or in combination with kinase inhibitors, anti-angiogenic drugs, chemotherapeutic agents, and locoregional therapies, offers great promise in the treatment of HCC. This review summarizes the recent clinical studies, as well as ongoing and upcoming trials.

Advances in drug development for hepatocellular carcinoma: clinical trials and potential therapeutic targets

Although hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the deadliest health burdens worldwide, few drugs are available for its clinical treatment. However, in recent years, major breakthroughs have been made in the development of new drugs due to intensive fundamental research and numerous clinical trials in HCC. Traditional systemic therapy schemes and emerging immunotherapy strategies have both advanced. Between 2017 and 2020, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a variety of drugs for the treatment of HCC, including multikinase inhibitors (regorafenib, lenvatinib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab), immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab and pembrolizumab), and bevacizumab combined with atezolizumab. Currently, there are more than 1000 ongoing clinical trials involving HCC, which represents a vibrant atmosphere in the HCC drug research and development field. Additionally, traditional Chinese medicine approaches are being gradually optimized. This review summarizes FDA-approved agents for HCC, elucidates promising agents evaluated in clinical phase I/II/III trials and identifies emerging targets for HCC treatment. In addition, we introduce the development of HCC drugs in China. Finally, we discuss potential problems in HCC drug therapy and possible future solutions and indicate future directions for the development of drugs for HCC treatment.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Overview of the Changing Landscape of Treatment Options

The last three years have seen remarkable progress in comprehending predisposing factors and upgrading our treatment arsenal concerning hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Until recently, there were no means to withstand the progression of viral hepatitis-associated liver cirrhosis to HCC. A deeper understanding of the molecular mechanism of the disease, the use of biomarkers, and the follow-up, allowed us to realize that conventional chemotherapy failing to increase survival in patients with advanced HCC tends to be exiled from clinical practice. Multi-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as sorafenib, lenvatinib targeting mainly the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1–3 VEGFRs 1–3 provided until recently the standard of care for these patients, as first- or second-line treatment. Since May 2020, the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab combination (immunotherapy plus anti-VEGF) has become the new reference standard in first-line HCC treatment. Additionally, anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) immunotherapy can be used as a second-line treatment following first-line treatment’s failure. Phase III clinical trials have recently suggested the efficacy of novel anti-angiogenic factors such as cabozantinib and ramucirumab as a second-line treatment option. With considerations about toxicity arising, clinical trials are investigating combinations of the aforementioned targeted therapies with immunotherapy as first-line treatment. This paper aims to perform a systematic review describing the evolving treatment options for HCC over the last decades, ranging from neoadjuvant treatment to systemic therapy of advanced-stage HCC. With the landscape of HCC treatment shifting towards novel agents the forming of a new therapeutic algorithm for HCC seems to be imperative.

Cabozantinib: An evolving therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is rising in incidence and remains a leading cause of cancer-related death. After a decade of disappointing trials following the approval of sorafenib for patients with advanced HCC, a number of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and monoclonal antibodies targeting angiogenesis and immune checkpoints have recently been approved. The phase 3 CELESTIAL trial demonstrated improved progression-free and overall survival with the TKI cabozantinib compared to placebo, supporting it as a treatment option for patients with advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib. Cabozantinib blocks multiple key pathways of HCC pathogenesis, including VEGFR, MET, and the TAM (TYRO3, AXL, MER) family of receptor kinases, and promotes an immune-permissive tumor microenvironment. Here, we review the mechanisms of action of cabozantinib, including effects on tumor growth and its immunomodulatory properties, providing pre-clinical rationale for combination strategies with checkpoint inhibitors. We discuss the design and outcomes of CELESTIAL including improved survival across subgroups defined by age, disease etiology, baseline AFP level, prior therapies (including duration of prior sorafenib), and tumor burden. Cabozantinib had a manageable safety profile with dose modification. Studies combining cabozantinib with atezolizumab (COSMIC-312) and durvalumab (CAMILLA) in the first and second-line settings are ongoing, as well as a neoadjuvant study of cabozantinib with nivolumab. Future investigations are warranted to define the use of cabozantinib in patients with Child-Pugh B liver function and identify markers predictive of clinical benefit. The role of cabozantinib in HCC continues to evolve with an anticipated role in immunotherapy combinations.

Randomised Phase 1b/2 trial of tepotinib vs sorafenib in Asian patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with MET overexpression

Background

This open-label, Phase 1b/2 study evaluated the highly selective MET inhibitor tepotinib in systemic anticancer treatment (SACT)-naive Asian patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) with MET overexpression.

Methods

In Phase 2b, tepotinib was orally administered once daily (300, 500 or 1,000 mg) to Asian adults with aHCC. The primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and adverse events (AEs). Phase 2 randomised SACT-naive Asian adults with aHCC with MET overexpression to tepotinib (recommended Phase 2 dose [RP2D]) or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was independently assessed time to progression (TTP).

Results

In Phase 1b (n = 27), no DLTs occurred; the RP2D was 500 mg. In Phase 2 (n = 90, 45 patients per arm), the primary endpoint was met: independently assessed TTP was significantly longer with tepotinib versus sorafenib (median 2.9 versus 1.4 months, HR = 0.42, 90% confidence interval: 0.26–0.70, P = 0.0043). Progression-free survival and objective response also favoured tepotinib. Treatment-related Grade ≥3 AE rates were 28.9% with tepotinib and 45.5% with sorafenib.

Conclusions

Tepotinib improved TTP versus sorafenib and was generally well tolerated in SACT-naive Asian patients with aHCC with MET overexpression.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01988493.

Combination anti-PD1 and ipilimumab therapy in patients with advanced melanoma and pre-existing autoimmune disorders

Background

Clinical trials of immunotherapy have excluded patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease. While the safety and efficacy of single agent ipilimumab and anti-PD1 antibodies in patients with autoimmune disease has been examined in retrospective studies, no data are available for combination therapy which has significantly higher toxicity risk. We sought to establish the safety and efficacy of combination immunotherapy for patients with advanced melanoma and pre-existing autoimmune diseases.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study of patients with advanced melanoma and pre-existing autoimmune disease who received combination ipilimumab and anti-PD1 at 10 international centers from March 2015 to February 2020. Data regarding the autoimmune disease, treatment, toxicity and outcomes were examined in patients.

Results

Of the 55 patients who received ipilimumab and anti-PD1, the median age was 63 years (range 23–83). Forty-six were treated with ipilimumab and nivolumab and nine with ipilimumab and pembrolizumab.

Eighteen patients (33%) had a flare of their autoimmune disease including 4 of 7 with rheumatoid arthritis, 3 of 6 with psoriasis, 5 of 10 with inflammatory bowel disease, 3 of 19 with thyroiditis, 1 of 1 with Sjogren’s syndrome, 1 of 1 with polymyalgia and 1 of 1 with Behcet’s syndrome and psoriasis. Eight (44%) patients ceased combination therapy due to flare. Thirty-seven patients (67%) had an unrelated immune-related adverse event (irAE), and 20 (36%) ceased combination immunotherapy due to irAEs. There were no treatment-related deaths. Patients on immunosuppression (OR 4.59; p=0.03) had a higher risk of flare.

The overall response rate was 55%, with 77% of responses ongoing. Median progression free survival and overall survival were 10 and 24 months, respectively. Patients on baseline immunosuppression had an overall survival of 11 months (95% CI 3.42 to 18.58) compared with 31 months without (95% CI 20.89 to 41.11, p=0.005).

Conclusions

In patients with pre-existing autoimmune disease, not on immunosuppression and advanced melanoma, combination ipilimumab and anti-PD1 has similar efficacy compared with previously reported trials. There is a risk of flare of pre-existing autoimmune disorders, particularly in patients with inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatologic conditions, and patients on baseline immunosuppression.

Combining anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and -programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) agents for cancer immunotherapy

Introduction: Cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4) and programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) represent inhibitory immune checkpoints. Combination immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy with anti-CTLA-4 plus anti-PD-1 antibodies in preclinical models demonstrated greater anti-tumor effect than therapy with either antibody alone. Based upon this anti-tumor effect, anti-CTLA-4 plus anti-PD-1 antibodies have since been tested in a patients, across tumor types, with advanced malignancies.Areas covered: Herein we describe the biologic rationale for combining anti-CTLA-4 plus anti-PD-1 antibodies, the early studies which established different treatment schedules of the ICI combination in melanoma, the definitive studies which established the role for anti-CTLA-4 plus anti-PD-1 antibodies in patients with advanced malignancies and the toxicity profiles of these agents. We also discuss several experimental disease settings where combined CTLA-4 and PD-1 blockade is being explored.Expert opinion: We anticipate that combination therapy with anti-CTLA-4 plus anti-PD-1 antibodies will become a treatment standard for patients with cancers both responsive and unresponsive to single agent ICI therapy. Given the toxicity profile, we expect that most patients will be treated with lower doses of anti-CTLA-4 and full doses of anti-PD-1 antibodies, however, there may be instances in which a higher dose of anti-CTLA-4 is preferred.

Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer, and cancer of the bile ducts (intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma). Due to the multiple modalities that can be used to treat the disease and the complications that can arise from comorbid liver dysfunction, a multidisciplinary evaluation is essential for determining an optimal treatment strategy. A multidisciplinary team should include hepatologists, diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, and pathologists with hepatobiliary cancer expertise. In addition to surgery, transplant, and intra-arterial therapies, there have been great advances in the systemic treatment of HCC. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy option for patients with advanced HCC. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab became the first regimen to show superior survival to sorafenib, gaining it FDA approval as a new frontline standard regimen for unresectable or metastatic HCC. This article discusses the NCCN Guidelines recommendations for HCC.

Immunotherapy Updates in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Simple Summary

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) carries a grim prognosis, which has historically been compounded by a lack of available systemic therapies. Sorafenib monotherapy was the standard of care for front-line treatment of advanced HCC for many years, despite both poor tolerability and lack of durable responses. In the past few years, there have been several clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced HCC. Use of immune checkpoint inhibitors alone, and in combination with targeted therapies, has led to improved outcomes in both treatment-naïve and subsequent line treatment of advanced HCC. Here we review the role of immunotherapy in the treatment of HCC, describe the mechanistic basis for combination with targeted therapy, and summarize the recent published data as well as ongoing clinical trials for the use of immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced HCC.

Abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the second most common cause of cancer death worldwide. HCC tumor development and treatment resistance are impacted by changes in the microenvironment of the hepatic immune system. Immunotherapy has the potential to improve response rates by overcoming immune tolerance mechanisms and strengthening anti-tumor activity in the tumor microenvironment. In this review, we characterize the impact of immunotherapy on outcomes of advanced HCC, as well as the active clinical trials evaluating novel combination immunotherapy strategies. In particular, we discuss the efficacy of atezolizumab and bevacizumab as demonstrated in the IMbrave150 study, which created a new standard of care for the front-line treatment of advanced HCC. However, there are multiple ongoing trials that may present additional front-line treatment options depending on their efficacy/toxicity results. Furthermore, the preliminary data on the application of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) cell therapy for treatment of HCC suggests this may be a promising option for the future of advanced HCC treatment.

Comparison of Surgical Resection and Systemic Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Vascular Invasion: National Cancer Database Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Small studies from outside of the USA suggest excellent outcomes after surgical resection for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with vascular invasion. The study aims to (1) compare overall survival after surgical resection and systemic therapy among patients with HCC and vascular invasion and (2) determine factors associated with receipt of surgical resection in a US population.

METHODS

HCC patients with AJCC clinical TNM stage 7th T3BN0M0 diagnosed between 2010 and 2017 from the National Cancer Database were analyzed. Cox and logistic regression analyses identified factors associated with overall survival and receipt of surgical resection.

RESULTS

Of 11,259 patients with T3BN0M0 HCC, 325 (2.9%) and 4,268 (37.9%) received surgical resection and systemic therapy, respectively. In multivariable analysis, surgical resection was associated with improved survival compared to systemic therapy (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.496, 95% confidence interval: 0.426-0.578) with a median survival of 21.4 and 8.1 months, respectively. Superiority of surgical resection was observed in noncirrhotic and cirrhotic subgroups and propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting adjusted analysis. Asians were more likely to receive surgical resection, whereas Charlson comorbidity ≥3, elevated alpha-fetoprotein, smaller tumor size, care in a community cancer program, and the South or West region were associated with a lower likelihood of surgical resection.

CONCLUSION

HCC patients with vascular invasion may benefit from surgical resection compared to systemic therapies. Demographic and clinical features of HCC patients and region and type of treating facility were associated with surgical resection versus systemic treatment.

The Use of Cabozantinib in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Hong Kong-A Territory-Wide Cohort Study

(1) Background: Cabozantinib is approved in sorafenib-exposed advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). We evaluated the real-life pattern of use, efficacy, and tolerability of cabozantinib in aHCC. (2) Methods: This territory-wide study included consecutive aHCC patients who received cabozantinib between February 2018 and September 2020 in Hong Kong. The objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AE) were assessed. (3) Results: Overall, 42 patients were included. Approximately 83.3% had Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. About 64.3% received cabozantinib as a single agent, and the remaining 35.7% received cabozantinib as an add-on to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). For single-agent patients, the median follow-up was 6.7 months. The ORR was 3.7%, DCR was 44.4%, and the median OS was 8.28 months. About 74.1% of patients experienced any AEs with 7.4% having grade ≥3 AEs. Among patients who received prior ICIs (n = 16), the ORR was 6.3%, and the median OS was 8.28 months. An exploratory analysis of patients who received cabozantinib as an add-on to ICIs showed an ORR of 6.7% and a median OS of 15.1 months, with 73.3% having any AE and 13.3% having grade ≥3 AEs. (4) Conclusions: Cabozantinib had good anti-tumor activity, survival benefits, and acceptable tolerability in real-life aHCC patients.

The Current Landscape of Clinical Trials for Systemic Treatment of HCC

Simple Summary

Liver cancer is a life-threatening disease. Apart from surgery and catheter-guided therapies, drugs are a central pillar for its treatment. Clinical trials are research studies that are designed to evaluate the treatment effect of a given drug. Therefore, they are the driving force behind innovation and medical progress. One such innovation in the past years has been immunotherapy, which has become increasingly important for treating cancer. Recently, the first such therapy has been approved for the treatment of liver cancer. Current clinical trials are exploring the benefit of immunotherapy and other therapies for this disease. This article gives an overview of such trials paying attention to the different underlying treatment strategies and the varying clinical settings, depending on the stage of the disease.

Abstract

The clinical development of systemic treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has gained significant momentum in recent years. After the unexpected failure of the phase 3 trials testing the PD1-inhibitors nivolumab and pembrolizumab as monotherapy in advanced HCC, a multitude of trials employing different agents in various combinations and at different disease stages have been initiated. The first positive results reported for the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab, as the first line treatment of advanced HCC, will bring lasting change to the management of HCC and has increased the odds of success for alternative combination therapies. This review article seeks to provide clarity on the complex and evolving landscape of clinical trials on systemic treatments of HCC. It covers current trials which test various systemic treatments (i) in the first and second line in advanced HCC, (ii) in intermediate HCC, (iii) as adjuvant as well as (iv) neoadjuvant strategies, and (v) including immune interventions other than immune checkpoint inhibition.