Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in relation to treatment across BCLC stages

A prognostic model for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma within the Milan criteria undergoing non-transplant therapies, based on 1106 patients

BACKGROUND

The Milan criteria are used to select candidates with small hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for liver transplantation. Due to severe shortage of donors, majority of patients within the Milan criteria need to seek alternative treatments.

AIM

To propose a prognostic model for these patients undergoing non-transplant therapies.

METHODS

A total of 1106 HCC patients, who were within the Milan criteria and received non-transplant therapies were retrospectively analysed. Patients were randomly assigned to the derivation and validation set according to treatments. A prognostic model was constructed from independent predictors of survival identified in the multivariate Cox model of the derivation set and was confirmed in the validation set.

RESULTS

In the Cox model, serum bilirubin ≥1.5 mg/dL [risk ratio (RR): 1.525, P = 0.016], α-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥100 ng/mL (RR: 1.728, P < 0.001), mild ascites (RR: 1.705, P = 0.025) and moderate/severe ascites (RR: 4.163, P < 0.001) were independent predictors of poor survival in the derivation set (n = 553). A prognostic model with a total of 0-4 points was derived with the sum of three variables: 1 point each for bilirubin ≥1.5 mg/dL, AFP ≥100 ng/mL and mild ascites, and 2 points for moderate/severe ascites. This scoring system accurately predicted the survival in the validation set (n = 553; P < 0.001). The model consistently discriminated the survival in patients stratified by curative and noncurative treatments (both P values <0.001).

CONCLUSION

The newly proposed prognostic scoring model, based on serum bilirubin and AFP level, and severity of ascites, is informative to predict the survival in non-transplant HCC patients within the Milan criteria.

Radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma

Radioembolization is a form of brachytherapy in which intra-arterially injected (90)Y-loaded microspheres serve as sources for internal radiation purposes. It produces average disease control rates above 80% and is usually very well tolerated. Main complications do not result from the microembolic effect, even in patients with portal vein occlusion, but rather from an excessive irradiation of non-target tissues including the liver. All the evidence that support the use of radioembolization in HCC is based on retrospective series or non-controlled prospective studies. However, reliable data can be obtained from the literature, particularly since the recent publication of large series accounting for nearly 700 patients. When compared to the standard of care for the intermediate and advanced stages (transarterial embolization and sorafenib), radioembolization consistently provides similar survival rates. Two indications seem particularly appealing in the boundaries of these stages for first-line radioembolization. First, the treatment of patients straddling between the intermediate and advanced stages (intermediate patients with bulky or bilobar disease that are considered poor candidates for TACE, and advanced patients with solitary tumors invading a segmental or lobar branch of the portal vein). Second, the treatment of patients that are slightly above the criteria for resection, ablation or transplantation, for which downstaging could open the door for a radical approach. Radioembolization can also be used to treat patients progressing to TACE or sorafenib. With a number of clinical trials underway, the available evidence shows that it adds a significant value to the therapeutic weaponry against HCC of tertiary care centers dealing with this major cancer problem.