Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Anti-programmed cell death ligand 1-based immunotherapy in recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma with inferior vena cava tumor thrombus and metastasis: Three case reports

BACKGROUND

Recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with inferior vena cava tumor thrombus is a great challenge for oncologists and has a poor prognosis. To date, the safety and efficacy of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors are still unknown.

CASE SUMMARY

A 59-year-old male was identified as having a tumor thrombus in the inferior vena cava 3 years after surgery. The patient underwent a second surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy. However, the level of alpha-fetoprotein was elevated after 2 mo, and lung metastases and mediastinal lymph node metastases were identified. The expression of PD-L1 in HCC and inferior vena cava tumor thrombus tissues was analyzed by immunohistochemistry. Then, the patient received atezolizumab immunotherapy. The level of alpha-fetoprotein dropped to normal, the mediastinal lymph node metastases decreased in size and the lung metastases disappeared after 3 mo of immunotherapy. The patient had no signs of recurrence at 21 mo of follow-up. A 60-year-old male underwent left hepatic tumor resection, inferior vena cava incision and thrombus removal, followed by regular chemotherapy. The patient developed lung and splenic metastases after surgery. Pembrolizumab was used for six courses, and the splenic metastasis shrank, after which splenectomy was performed. The patient continued to receive pembrolizumab for thirteen courses, and the lung metastases showed no progression. A 34-year-old male was diagnosed with liver cancer with inferior vena cava tumor thrombus. The patient underwent right hepatectomy and received tislelizumab for three courses. He is still receiving immunotherapy and in good condition.

CONCLUSION

Anti-PD-L1 therapy in HCC patients with inferior vena cava tumor thrombus and metastasis is associated with relatively good patient outcomes.

Identifying Prognostic Significance of RCL1 and Four-Gene Signature as Novel Potential Biomarkers in HCC Patients

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a highly malignant disease, and it is characterized by rapid progression and low five-year survival rate. At present, there are no effective methods for monitoring the treatment and prognosis of HCC.

METHODS

The transcriptome and gene expression profiles of HCC were obtained from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) program, International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC), and Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) databases. The random forest method was applied to construct a four-gene prognostic model based on RNA terminal phosphate cyclase like 1 (RCL1) expression. The Kaplan-Meier method was performed to evaluate the prognostic value of RCL1, long noncoding RNAs (AC079061, AL354872, and LINC01093), and four-gene signature (SPP1, MYBL2, TRNP1, and FTCD). We examined the relationship between RCL1 expression and immune cells infiltration, tumor mutation burden (TMB), and microsatellite instability (MSI).

RESULTS

The results of multiple databases indicated that the aberrant expression of RCL1 was associated with clinical outcome, immune cells infiltration, TMB, and MSI in HCC patients. Meanwhile, we found that long noncoding RNAs (AC079061, AL354872, and LINC01093) and RCL1 were significantly coexpressed in HCC patients. We also confirmed that the four-gene signature was an independent prognostic factor for HCC patients. Ferroptosis potential index, immune checkpoint molecules, and clinical feature were found to have obvious correlations with risk score. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve values for the model were 0.7-0.8 in the training set and the validation set, suggesting high robustness of the four-gene signature. We then built a nomogram for facilitating the use in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that RCL1 and a novel four-gene signature can be used as prognostic biomarkers for predicting clinical outcome in HCC patients; and this model may assist in individualized treatment monitoring of HCC patients in clinical practice.

Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy Fractionation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the United States

Introduction This study aims to analyze the patterns of care, including fractionation and utilization, of hypofractionated stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods The National Cancer Database was queried for patients diagnosed with HCC from 2004 to 2014 and treated with SABR in three, four, or five fractions in 15-20Gy, 10-13Gy, or 6-12Gy per fraction, respectively. Patients with stage IV and Charlson-Deyo Comorbidity Index > 0 were excluded in order to avoid bias resulting from the selection of poorer prognosis patients. The patients were then stratified based on several characteristics including biologically equivalent doses (BEDs) of =/> 100 Gy and <100 Gy to determine whether there was an association with overall survival (OS) and a multivariable analysis (MVA) was performed to assess for potential confounding factors.  Results There were 462 patients identified in whom the most common SABR fractionation regimen was 10Gy x five fractions (25.3%), followed by 8Gy x five fractions (17.7%), and 15-16Gy x three fractions (26.4%). A total of 152 patients were treated to a BED < 100Gy, which was associated with a median OS of 20.8 months (95% CI 14.55-27.11). Three hundred and ten patients were treated to a BED =/> 100Gy, which was associated with a median OS of 30.8 months (95% CI 5.25-32.08). On MVA, BED =/> 100Gy was not significantly associated with improved OS (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64-1.14, p = 0.28). Factors that were associated with significantly worse survival were tumor size in the largest quartile (HR 2.197 CI 1.440-3.354, p < 0.0001) and T3a disease (HR 2.474 CI 1.472-4.158, p = 0.001 compared to T1).  Conclusion SABR fractionation schemes vary widely, but are most commonly 10Gy x five fractions followed by 8Gy x five fractions and 15Gy x three fractions. BED of at least 100Gy is not associated with improved OS. Further studies are needed to best identify the optimal SABR dose and fractionation.

Embolotherapy for Hepatic Oncology: Current Perspectives and Future Directions

Primary and secondary liver cancers are a major cause of mortality worldwide. Transarterial liver-directed therapy, or embolotherapy, represents an important locoregional treatment strategy for primary and secondary liver tumors. Embolotherapeutic modalities include bland embolization (transarterial embolization), chemoembolization (transarterial chemoembolization), and radioembolization or selective internal radiotherapy. A brief technical overview of embolotherapeutic modalities as well as supportive evidence for the treatment of most common primary and secondary liver tumors will be discussed in this review. Several potential future applications, including synergy with systemic therapy, interventional theranostics, and artificial intelligence will also be reviewed briefly.

Embolotherapeutic Strategies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 2020 Update

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a significant contributor to cancer-related morbidity and mortality with increasing incidence in both developing and developed countries. Embolotherapy as a locoregional therapeutic strategy consists of trans-arterial or “bland” embolization (TAE), trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE), and selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT). Trans-catheter arterial therapies can be applied along all stages of HCC, either as an alternative or neoadjuvant to surgical resection/transplantation in very early and early stage HCC or as a palliative option for local disease control in unresectable and advanced stage HCC. In advanced stage HCC, SIRT did not demonstrate superiority in comparison to systemic treatment options in several recent large prospective trials, though for carefully selected patients, may confer improved tolerability with similar disease control rates. The latest embolotherapeutic techniques and literature as they pertain to the management of HCC, as well as future directions, are reviewed in this article.

Yttrium-90 microsphere radioembolisation for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common liver neoplasm and the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Its incidence has increased dramatically since the mid-2000s. Although surgical resection and liver transplantation are the main curative treatments, only about 20% of people with early hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from these interventions. Treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma include ablative and transarterial interventions - selective yttrium-90 microsphere transarterial radioembolisation - in addition to the drug sorafenib.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the benefits and harms of yttrium-90 (Y-90) microsphere transarterial radioembolisation given as monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional interventions versus placebo, no treatment, or other similar systemic or locoregional interventions for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We performed electronic searches in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (CHBG) Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Science Citation Index - Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Science until September 2019. We manually checked the reference lists of primary studies and review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomised clinical trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. We extracted information on participants, interventions, outcomes, trial design, and trial methods. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using pre-defined domains and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. Our primary review outcomes were all-cause mortality, quality of life, and serious adverse events; our secondary outcomes were cancer-related mortality, time to progression of the tumour, tumour response, non-serious adverse events, and liver transplantation. For dichotomous variables, we calculated risk ratio (RR), and for continuous variables, we planned to calculate mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We based time-to-event data analyses on hazard ratios (HRs).

MAIN RESULTS

Six randomised trials with 1340 participants in total fulfilled the review inclusion criteria and provided data for one or more of our analysed outcomes. All trials were at high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence as low to very low. One trial compared radioembolisation plus sorafenib versus sorafenib alone in people with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. All-cause mortality, health-related quality of life, cancer-related mortality, time to progression, and tumour response rates were not reported. Serious adverse events were reported in 63 trial participants (39.6%) in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group versus 70 trial participants (38.5%) in the sorafenib group (very low-certainty evidence). Hyperbilirubinaemia was approximately three times more common in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group versus the sorafenib group (14.5% versus 4.4%; very low-certainty evidence). Fatigue was more common in the radioembolisation plus sorafenib group than in the sorafenib group, at 35.2% versus 24.2% of trial participants. Two trials compared radioembolisation versus sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in people with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. From the data we could extract, one-year all-cause mortality was 62.7% in the radioembolisation group versus 53.0% in the sorafenib group (1 trial; n = 360; very low-certainty evidence). There were no differences in the quality of life between radioembolisation and sorafenib groups (1 trial). Global health status subscore was better in the radioembolisation group than in the sorafenib group (P = 0.0048; 1 trial). Fewer participants had serious adverse events in the radioembolisation group than in the sorafenib group (27 (20.8%) in the radioembolisation group versus 57 (35.2%) in the sorafenib group; 1 trial). Median time to progression of the tumour in the radioembolisation group was 6.1 months versus 5.4 months in the sorafenib group (1 trial). The RR for disease control rate was 0.94 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.05; n = 748; 2 trials; very low-certainty evidence), favouring neither radioembolisation nor sorafenib. In two trials with 734 participants, radioembolisation seemed to be less likely to be associated with hand-foot skin reaction (RR 0.02, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; P < 0.001; low-certainty evidence), skin rash (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; low-certainty evidence), diarrhoea (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.34; low-certainty evidence), and hypertension (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.88; low-certainty evidence). No trial reported cancer-related mortality. Three trials compared radioembolisation versus chemoembolisation in people with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. From the data we could extract, none of these trials reported all-cause mortality and cancer-related mortality. The RR for serious adverse events was 1.41 (95% CI 0.63 to 3.14; n = 97; very low-certainty evidence), favouring neither radioembolisation nor chemoembolisation. One trial reported quality of life and noted no differences between intervention groups with regard to this outcome at week 12 (very low-certainty evidence). Median time to progression was not reached in the radioembolisation group and was 6.8 months in the chemoembolisation group (HR 0.122, 95% CI 0.027 to 0.557; 1 trial). Median time to progression of the tumour in the radioembolisation group was 371 days versus 336 days in the chemoembolisation group (P = 0.5764; 1 trial). Disease control rates (complete response + partial response + stable disease) were 73.3% with radioembolisation versus 76.9% with chemoembolisation (1 trial). According to World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, tumour response was reported in 52% of participants who received radioembolisation versus 63% of those who received chemoembolisation (1 trial). Patients in the chemoembolisation group experienced diarrhoea (P = 0.031; 1 trial) and hypoalbuminaemia (P < 0.001; 1 trial) more frequently. Four trials were sponsored by industry, and two by University. We found two ongoing trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Evidence showing effects of radioembolisation with or without sorafenib compared with sorafenib alone in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is highly insufficient. We cannot determine if radioembolisation plus sorafenib compared with sorafenib alone affects all-cause mortality or the occurrence of adverse events. Radioembolisation compared with sorafenib seemed to achieve equivalent survival and to cause fewer adverse effects, but our certainty was very low. Evidence showing effects of radioembolisation versus chemoembolisation in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma is also highly insufficient. Radioembolisation did not seem to differ from chemoembolisation in terms of serious adverse events and quality of life, but the certainty of evidence was very low. Further high-quality placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials are needed to assess patient-centred outcomes.

Critical review of multidisciplinary non-surgical local interventional ablation techniques in primary or secondary liver malignancies

Local non-surgical interventional percutaneous ablation represents nowadays an important part of the potential treatment strategies. Although surgical ablation represents the gold standard, in the past decade there was an expansion in the use of non-surgical ablative techniques: radiofrequency, microwave, laser, cryoablation, irreversible electroporation, and interventional radiotherapy (brachytherapy) in primary as well as secondary liver cancers. With the growing experience in the field, there was implemented a new pillar for cancer treatment, together with surgery, chemotherapy as well as radiotherapy, so-called interventional oncology (IO). To date, there are no published papers regarding a comparative interdisciplinary evaluation of all these non-surgical interventional local ablation therapies. Our paper offers a critical interdisciplinary overview of the treatments in both primary and secondary liver tumors, including from a cost-effective point of view. Furthermore, the present status of education in IO and a comparison of actual economic aspects of the treatments are also provided.

Selective internal radiation therapy: an effective treatment for hormonal syndromes in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors

The hormone secretion in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET) causes an important interference in patients' quality of life. We present two cases of pNET metastatic to the liver (a pancreatic endocrine carcinoma with a severe hormonal syndrome and an insulinoma with severe crisis of hypoglycemia and coma) refractory to conventional treatments, which were finally solved with selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT), a nonstandard level 1 therapy. We show two examples of an excellent control of symptoms together with a long survival after treatment with SIRT. The evidence supporting the use of this therapy is level 2. Our case reports strongly support the use of SIRT for the severe clinical syndrome in pNET metastatic to the liver and refractory to somatostatin analogs.

The Expanding Role of Systemic Therapy in the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents a global health problem, with the majority of patients presenting at an advanced or incurable stage. The development of effective systemic therapy options for this disease has been challenging because many HCC patients suffer from underlying liver cirrhosis that precludes the safe delivery of systemic therapy. The current review seeks to provide an overview of the current systemic therapeutic approaches for advanced HCC as well as some of the novel management strategies that are currently being evaluated.

NCCN Guidelines Insights: Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 1.2017

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers provide treatment recommendations for cancers of the liver, gallbladder, and bile ducts. The NCCN Hepatobiliary Cancers Panel meets at least annually to review comments from reviewers within their institutions, examine relevant new data from publications and abstracts, and reevaluate and update their recommendations. These NCCN Guidelines Insights summarize the panel's discussion and most recent recommendations regarding locoregional therapy for treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Interventional Oncology in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Progress Through Innovation

The clinical management of hepatocellular carcinoma has evolved greatly in the last decade mostly through recent technical innovations. In particular, the application of cutting-edge image guidance has led to minimally invasive solutions for complex clinical problems and rapid advances in the field of interventional oncology. Many image-guided therapies, such as transarterial chemoembolization and radiofrequency ablation, have meanwhile been fully integrated into interdisciplinary clinical practice, whereas others are currently being investigated. This review summarizes and evaluates the most relevant completed and ongoing clinical trials, provides a synopsis of recent innovations in the field of intraprocedural imaging and tumor response assessment, and offers an outlook on new technologies, such as radiopaque embolic materials. In addition, combination therapies consisting of locoregional therapies and systemic molecular targeted agents (e.g., sorafenib) remain of major interest to the field and are also discussed. Finally, we address the many substantial advances in immune response pathways that have been related to the systemic effects of locoregional therapies. Knowledge of these new developments is crucial as they continue to shape the future of cancer treatment, further establishing interventional oncology along with surgical, medical, and radiation oncology as the fourth pillar of cancer care.

Early stage hepatocellular carcinoma in the elderly: A SEER database analysis

BACKGROUND

Scarce evidence exists regarding the management of elderly patients (≥70years) with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study assessed the presentation and outcomes of elderly patients with early stage HCC.

METHODS

Patient with early stage HCC (T1/T2N0M0), ≥70years, diagnosed between 2004 and 2013 were identified from the SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results) database. Propensity score matching (for receipt of localized treatment) was performed considering baseline characteristics (age, gender, race, tumor (T) stage, tumor size, fibrosis score, alpha fetoprotein level and histological subtype).

RESULTS

A total of 6693 patients were identified. The median age group was 75-80years, and 2457 patients received local treatment (either surgical or non-surgical treatment). Both before and after propensity score matching, cancer-specific and overall survival (P<0.0001 for all) were better in the local treatment group. When stratifying the overall survival according to age group (70-80years vs. >80years) in the post matching cohort, patients treated with local treatment have better overall survival than those not treated regardless of the age group (P<0.0001 for both groups). In multivariate analysis of the matched population: local treatment, normal AFP and age (70-80years) were associated with better overall survival (P<0.0001, P<0.0001, P=0.047; respectively).

CONCLUSION

Within the known limitations of the current SEER analysis, it may be cautiously suggested that elderly patients with early HCC should be properly selected for potentially curative local therapies. Prospective confirmation of these results should be conducted.

Management of people with early- or very early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma: an attempted network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (primary liver cancer) is classified in many ways. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) group staging classifies the cancer based on patient's life expectancy. People with very early- or early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma have single tumour or three tumours of maximum diameter of 3 cm or less, Child-Pugh status A to B, and performance status 0 (fully functional). Management of hepatocellular carcinoma is uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the comparative benefits and harms of different interventions used in the treatment of early or very early hepatocellular carcinoma through a network meta-analysis and to generate rankings of the available interventions according to their safety and efficacy. However, it was not possible to assess whether the potential effect modifiers were similar across different comparisons. Therefore, we did not perform the network meta-analysis and instead assessed the benefits and harms of different interventions versus each other or versus sham or no intervention using standard Cochrane methodology.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index Expanded, and trials registers to September 2016 to identify randomised clinical trials (RCTs) on hepatocellular carcinoma.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included only RCTs, irrespective of language, blinding, or publication status, in participants with very early- or early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of the presence of cirrhosis, portal hypertension, aetiology of hepatocellular carcinoma, size and number of the tumours, and future remnant liver volume. We excluded trials including participants who were previously liver transplanted. We considered interventions compared with each other, sham, or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We calculated the odds ratio, mean difference, rate ratio, or hazard ratio with 95% confidence intervals using both fixed-effect and random-effects models based on available-participant analysis with Review Manager 5. We assessed the risk of bias according to Cochrane, controlled risk of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis using Stata, and the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen trials met the inclusion criteria for this review. Four trials (593 participants; 574 participants included for one or more analyses) compared surgery versus radiofrequency ablation in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma, eligible to undergo surgery. Fourteen trials (2533 participants; 2494 participants included for various analyses) compared different non-surgical interventions in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma, not eligible to undergo surgery. Overall, the quality of evidence was low or very low for all outcomes for both comparisons. Surgery versus radiofrequency ablationThe majority of participants had cirrhotic livers, and the hepatocellular carcinoma was of viral aetiology. The trials did not report the participants' portal hypertension status or whether they received adjuvant antiviral treatment or adjuvant immunotherapy. The average follow-up ranged from 29 months to 42 months (3 trials).There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for surgery versus radiofrequency ablation (hazard ratio 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 1.08; 574 participants; 4 trials; I² = 68). Cancer-related mortality was lower in the surgery group (20/115 (17.4%)) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (43/115 (37.4%)) (odds ratio 0.35, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.65; 230 participants; 1 trial). Serious adverse events (number of participants) was higher in the surgery group (14/60 (23.3%)) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (1/60 (1.7%)) (odds ratio 17.96, 95% CI 2.28 to 141.60; 120 participants; 1 trial). The number of serious adverse events was higher in the surgery group (adjusted rate 11.3 events per 100 participants) than in the radiofrequency ablation group (3/186 (1.6 events per 100 participants)) (rate ratio 7.02, 95% CI 2.29 to 21.46; 391 participants; 2 trials; I² = 0%). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. One trial was funded by a party with vested interests; three trials were funded by parties without any vested. Non-surgical interventionsThe majority of participants had cirrhotic livers, and the hepatocellular carcinoma was of viral aetiology. Most trials did not report the portal hypertension status of the participants, and none of the trials reported whether the participants received adjuvant antiviral treatment or adjuvant immunotherapy. The average follow-up ranged from 6 months to 37 months (11 trials). Trial participants, who were not eligible for surgery, were treated with radiofrequency ablation, laser ablation, microwave ablation, percutaneous acetic acid injection, percutaneous alcohol injection, a combination of radiofrequency ablation with systemic chemotherapy, a combination of radiofrequency ablation with percutaneous alcohol injection, a combination of transarterial chemoembolisation with percutaneous alcohol injection, or a combination of transarterial chemoembolisation with radiofrequency ablation.The mortality at maximal follow-up was higher in the percutaneous acetic acid injection (hazard ratio 1.77, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.79; 125 participants; 1 trial) and percutaneous alcohol injection (hazard ratio 1.49, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.88; 882 participants; 5 trials; I² = 57%) groups compared with the radiofrequency ablation group. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for any of the other comparisons. The proportion of people with cancer-related mortality at maximal follow-up was higher in the percutaneous alcohol injection group (adjusted proportion 16.8%) compared with the radiofrequency ablation group (20/232 (8.6%)) (odds ratio 2.18, 95% CI 1.22 to 3.89; 458 participants; 3 trials; I² = 0%). There was no evidence of a difference in any of the comparisons that reported serious adverse events (number of participants or number of events). None of the trials reported health-related quality of life. Five trials were funded by parties without any vested interest; the source of funding was not available in the remaining trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence was of low or very low quality. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up between surgery and radiofrequency ablation in people eligible for surgery. All-cause mortality at maximal follow-up was higher with percutaneous acetic acid injection and percutaneous alcohol injection than with radiofrequency ablation in people not eligible for surgery. There was no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality at maximal follow-up for the other comparisons. High-quality RCTs designed to assess clinically important differences in all-cause mortality and health-related quality of life, and having an adequate follow-up period (approximately five years) are needed.

External beam radiotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common liver neoplasm, the sixth most common cancer worldwide, and the third most common cause of cancer mortality. Moreover, its incidence has increased dramatically in the past decade. While surgical resection and liver transplantation are the main curative treatments, only around 20% of people with early hepatocellular carcinoma may benefit from these therapies. Current treatment options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma include various ablative and transarterial therapies in addition to the drug sorafenib.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of external beam radiotherapy in the management of localised unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), and clinicaltrials.gov registry. We also checked reference lists of primary original studies and review articles manually for further related articles (cross-references) up to October 6, 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible studies included all randomised clinical trials comparing external beam radiotherapy either as a monotherapy or in combination with other systemic or locoregional therapies versus placebo, no treatment, or other systemic or locoregional therapies for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used a random-effects model as well as a fixed-effect model meta-analysis but in case of discrepancy between the two models (e.g. one giving a significant intervention effect, the other no significant intervention effect), we reported both results; otherwise, we reported only the results from the fixed-effect model meta-analysis. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using predefined risk of bias domains; assessed risks of random errors with Trial Sequential Analysis; and presented the review results incorporating the methodological quality of the trials using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine randomised clinical trials with 879 participants fulfilled our inclusion criteria. All trials were at high risk of bias, and we rated the evidence as low to very low quality. All of the included trials compared combined external beam radiotherapy plus chemoembolisation versus chemoembolisation alone in people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma; moreover, three of the trials compared external beam radiotherapy alone versus chemoembolisation alone. All trials were conducted in China. The median age in most of the included trials was around 52 years, and most trial participants were male. The median follow-up duration ranged from one to three years. None of the trials reported data on cancer-related mortality, quality of life, serious adverse events, or time to progression of the tumour. For the comparison of radiotherapy plus chemoembolisation versus chemoembolisation alone, the risk ratio for one-year all-cause mortality was 0.51 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41 to 0.62; P < 0.001; 9 trials; low-quality evidence); for complete response rate was 2.14 (95% CI 1.47 to 3.13; P < 0.001; 7 trials; low-quality evidence); and for overall response rate defined as complete response plus partial response was 1.58 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.78; P < 0.001; 7 trials; low-quality evidence), all in favour of combined treatment with external beam radiotherapy plus transarterial chemoembolisation and seemingly supported by our Trial Sequential Analysis. Additionally, the combined treatment was associated with a higher risk of elevated total bilirubin and elevated alanine aminotransferase. The risk ratio for the risk of elevated alanine aminotransferase was 1.41 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.84; P = 0.01; very low-quality evidence), while for elevated total bilirubin it was 2.69 (95% CI 1.34 to 5.40; P = 0.005; very low-quality evidence). For the comparison of radiotherapy versus chemoembolisation, the risk ratio for one-year all-cause mortality was 1.21 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.50; 3 trials; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence) which was not supported by our Trial Sequential Analysis.In addition, we found seven ongoing randomised clinical trials evaluating different external beam radiotherapy techniques for people with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low- and low-quality evidence suggesting that combined external beam radiotherapy and chemoembolisation may be associated with lower mortality and increased complete and overall response rates, despite an increased toxicity as expressed by a higher rise of bilirubin and alanine aminotransferase. A high risk of systematic errors (bias) as well as imprecision and inconsistency suggest that these findings should be considered cautiously and that high-quality trials are needed to assess further the role of external beam radiotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

VESPRO: An Individual Patient Data Prospective Meta-Analysis of Selective Internal Radiation Therapy Versus Sorafenib for Advanced, Locally Advanced, or Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma of the SARAH and SIRveNIB Trials

Background

Untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has an overall poor prognosis. Currently there are 2 ongoing prospective randomized controlled trials that are evaluating the efficacy and safety of sorafenib and selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) with yttrium-90 resin microspheres in patients with advanced HCC. The SorAfenib versus Radioembolisation in Advanced Hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH; 459 patients) trial is being performed in Europe and the SIRt VErsus SorafeNIB (SIRveNIB; 360 patients) trial in the Asia Pacific region. Prospectively combining the results, these trials will not only allow for increased precision to estimate efficacy (in terms of survival), but will also provide increased statistical power for subgroup analyses.

Objective

To ensure the prospectivity and transparency of the meta-analysis.

Methods

The sirVEnib and SARAH merge PROject (VESPRO) is an individual, patient-data prospective meta-analysis of the SIRveNIB and SARAH randomized trials. The VESPRO protocol includes prespecified hypotheses, inclusion criteria, and outcome measures. The primary outcome measure is overall survival and secondary outcomes include tumor response rate, progression-free survival, progression in the liver as first event, and disease control in the liver. Pooling of toxicity results will allow for robust safety profiles to be established for both therapies, and provides increased statistical power to investigate treatment effects in key subgroups. Analyses will be performed in the intent-to-treat population stratified by trial.

Results

Both studies are expected to demonstrate a survival benefit for SIRT together with a better toxicity profile compared with sorafenib. It is also anticipated that liver progression as the first event would be longer in the intervention compared with the control.

Conclusions

As the results of the 2 trials are not yet known, the methodological strength is enhanced, as biases inherent in conventional meta-analyses are avoided. This has the effect of providing this meta-analysis with the advantages of a single, large,randomized study of 819 patients. It is anticipated that the SARAH and SIRveNIB trial results will be published separately and together with the combined meta-analysis results from VESPRO. The combined dataset will allow the effect of the interventions to be explored with improved reliability/precision with respect to prespecified patient and intervention-level characteristics.

Trial Registration

Australian New Zealand Trials Registry: ACTRN12617000030370.