Health-related quality of life in locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated by either radioembolisation or sorafenib (SARAH trial)

Role of Flex-Dose Delivery Program in Patients Affected by HCC: Advantages in Management of Tare in Our Experience

Background: Introduced in the latest BCLC 2022, endovascular trans-arterial radioembolization (TARE) has an important role in the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) as a "bridge" or "downstaging" of disease. The evolution of TARE technology allows a more flexible and personalized target treatment, based on the anatomy and vascular characteristics of each HCC. The flex-dose delivery program is part of this perspective, which allows us to adjust the dose and its radio-embolizing power in relation to the size and type of cancer and to split the therapeutic dose of Y90 in different injections (split-bolus). Methods: From January 2020 to January 2022, we enrolled 19 patients affected by unresectable HCC and candidates for TARE treatment. Thirteen patients completed the treatment following the flex-dose delivery program. Response to treatment was assessed using the mRECIST criteria with CT performed 6 and 9 months after treatment. Two patients did not complete the radiological follow-up and were not included in this retrospective study. The final cohort of this study counts eleven patients. Results: According to mRECIST criteria, six months of follow-up were reported: five cases of complete response (CR, 45.4% of cases), four cases of partial response (PR, 36.4%), and two cases of progression disease (PD, 18.2%). Nine months follow-up reported five cases of complete response (CR, 45.4%), two cases of partial response (PR, 18.2%), and four cases of progression disease (PD, 36.4%). No intra and post-operative complications were described. The average absorbed doses to the hepatic lesion and to the healthy liver tissue were 319 Gy (range 133-447 Gy) and 9.5 Gy (range 2-19 Gy), respectively. Conclusions: The flex-dose delivery program represents a therapeutic protocol capable of "saving" portions of healthy liver parenchyma by designing a "custom-made" treatment for the patient.

Transarterial Chemoembolization Plus Sorafenib versus Transarterial Chemoembolization Alone for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews

Background

Sorafenib is the standard treatment for most cases of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), based on Western and Eastern clinical guidelines. Thus, an increasing number of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus sorafenib combination therapies have been used in clinical practice. In addition, several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have explored the efficacy and safety of the combination of TACE and sorafenib. Therefore, we performed an umbrella review to summarize and evaluate these evidence-based studies.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched up to June 1, 2023. All meta-analyses that evaluated the effect of TACE plus sorafenib on HCC were considered eligible. The quality of the included meta-analyses was evaluated by AMSTAR2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews). The quality of evidence per association provided in the meta-analyses was rated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). This study was registered with PROSPERO (Registration ID: CRD42023420417).

Results

We included 12 meta-analyses, including randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, and observational studies. A total of 44 associations with overall survival, survival rate, time to disease progression, overall response rate, disease control rate, and adverse events were evaluated in this umbrella review. The quality of most associations ranged from low to very low, indicating that flaws were significant in the current meta-analyses.

Conclusion

This umbrella review identified beneficial associations between TACE and sorafenib combination therapy in advanced HCC. However, owing to the low certainty of the evidence, clinicians should interpret our results with caution when applying them in clinical practice, and high-quality studies are required in the future to confirm our results.

The estimand framework had implications in time to patient-reported outcomes deterioration analyses in cancer clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

To apply the estimand framework in time to deterioration (TTD) analysis of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and identify the appropriate statistical methods to deal with intercurrent event (IEs) such as death.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Data from phase II randomized trial were used. We estimated TTD using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 questionnaire with death as the IE, by applying Kaplan-Meier (K.M.) estimator and Cox proportional hazards (PH) model. The Fine-Gray approach was explored, accounting for death as a competing risk. The estimands targeted by the aforementioned methods were defined.

RESULTS

We analyzed the data of 64 patients with available questionnaires at baseline. The most notable differences in TTD estimates were observed for deterioration in physical functioning: the hazard ratios were 0.44 [95% CI 0.22-0.90] and 0.62 [95% CI 0.36-1.07] by either ignoring death (31 events) or considering it as deterioration (58 events), respectively (Cox-PH model). When considering death as a competing event (Fine-Gray model), the sub-HRs was 0.51 [95% CI 0.26-1.01].

CONCLUSION

Depending on the proportion and distribution of deaths occurring before deterioration between arms, the Fine-Gray competing risks model should be considered rather than KM estimator and Cox PH model to reflect the patient's experience of the disease and treatment burden.

Recent Advances in Locoregional Therapy of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is responsible for 90% of primary hepatic cancer cases, and its incidence with associated morbidity and mortality is growing worldwide. In recent decades, there has been a revolution in HCC treatment. There are three main types of locoregional therapy: radiofrequency ablation, transarterial chemoembolisation, and transarterial radioembolisation. This article summarises recent advances in locoregional methods.

Impact of adjuvant sorafenib treatment after local ablation for HCC in the phase II SORAMIC trial

Background & Aims

The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of adjuvant sorafenib treatment compared with placebo in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who underwent local ablation.

Methods

The SORAMIC trial is a randomised controlled trial with diagnostic, local ablation, and palliative sub-study arms. After initial imaging within the diagnostic study, patients were assigned to local ablation or palliative arms. In the local ablation cohort, patients were randomised 1:1 to local ablation + sorafenib vs. local ablation + placebo. The primary endpoint was time-to-recurrence (TTR). Secondary endpoints were local control rate and safety in terms of adverse events and quality-of-life.

Results

The recruitment was terminated prematurely after 104 patients owing to slow recruitment. One patient was excluded because of a technical failure. Fifty-four patients were randomised to local ablation + sorafenib and 49 to local ablation + placebo. Eighty-eight patients who underwent standardised follow-up imaging comprised the per-protocol population. The median TTR was 15.2 months in the sorafenib arm and 16.4 months in the placebo arm (hazard ratio 1.1; 95% CI 0.53-2.2; p = 0.82). Out of 136 lesions ablated within the trial, there was no difference in local recurrence rate between sorafenib (6/69, 8.6%) and placebo groups (5/67, 5.9%; p = 0.792).Overall (92.5% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.008) and drug-related (81.4% vs. 55.1%, p = 0.003) adverse events were more common in the sorafenib arm compared with the placebo arm. Dose reduction because of adverse events were common in the sorafenib arm (79.6% vs. 30.6%, p <0.001).

Conclusions

Adjuvant sorafenib did not improve in TTR or local control rate after local ablation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma within the limitations of an early terminated trial.

Impact and implications

Local ablation is the standard of care treatment in patients with early stages of hepatocellular carcinoma, along with surgical therapies. However, there is a risk of disease recurrence during follow-up. Sorafenib, an oral medication, is a routinely used treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. This study found that sorafenib treatment after local ablation in people with early hepatocellular carcinoma did not significantly improve the disease-free period compared with placebo.

Clinical trial number

EudraCT 2009-012576-27, NCT01126645.

Early Implementation of Palliative and Supportive Care in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Early palliative and supportive care referral is the standard of care for many malignancies. This paradigm results in improvements in patients' symptoms and quality of life and decreases the costs of medical care and unnecessary procedures. Leading oncology guidelines have recommended the integration of early referral to palliative and supportive services to care pathways for advanced malignancies. Currently, early referral to palliative care within the hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) population is not utilized, with gastroenterology guidelines recommending referral of patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage D to these services. This review addresses this topic through analysis of the existing data within the oncology field as well as literature surrounding palliative care intervention in HCC. Early palliative and supportive care in HCC and its impact on patients, caregivers, and health services allow clinicians and researchers to identify management options that improve outcomes within existing service provisions.

Summary of key guidelines for locoregional treatment of HCC in Asia, Europe, South and North America

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer worldwide accounting for over 800,000 new cases in 2018, with the highest incidence in Asia and Africa where hepatitis B is the most common risk factor. In Europe, Japan, and the United States, hepatitis C chronic alcohol abuse and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease are more common risk factors. Five-year survival is low, less than 20% worldwide. HCC is a particularly challenging disease to treat because therapeutic options and prognosis must also consider hepatitis or cirrhosis independent of the malignancy. Locoregional therapies (LRT) including ablation, arterially directed therapy and external beam radiation are the preferred treatments for patients with good performance status, unresectable disease limited to the liver and preserved liver function. In practice, patients with portal vein tumor thrombus and limited extrahepatic disease may also be considered candidates for LRT. There are several guidelines developed by expert panels provide recommendations on treating this challenging disease including the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer, European Association for the Study of the Liver, European Society for Medical Oncology, American Association for the Study of the Liver Diseases, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. The purpose of this paper is to review the guidelines as they are applied clinically in regions with high incidence of HCC.

Patient-reported outcomes in HCC: A scoping review by the Practice Metrics Committee of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

HCC is a leading cause of mortality in patients with advanced liver disease and is associated with significant morbidity. Despite multiple available curative and palliative treatments, there is a lack of systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in HCC.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases Practice Metrics Committee conducted a scoping review of PROs in HCC from 1990 to 2021 to (1) synthesize the evidence on PROs in HCC and (2) provide recommendations on incorporating PROs into clinical practice and quality improvement efforts. A total of 63 studies met inclusion criteria investigating factors associated with PROs, the relationship between PROs and survival, and associations between HCC therapy and PROs. Studies recruited heterogeneous populations, and most were cross-sectional. Poor PROs were associated with worse prognosis after adjusting for clinical factors and with more advanced disease stage, although some studies showed better PROs in patients with HCC compared to those with cirrhosis. Locoregional and systemic therapies were generally associated with a high symptom burden; however, some studies showed lower symptom burden for transarterial radiotherapy and radiation therapy. Qualitative studies identified additional symptoms not routinely assessed with structured questionnaires. Gaps in the literature include lack of integration of PROs into clinical care to guide HCC treatment decisions, unknown impact of HCC on caregivers, and the effect of palliative or supportive care quality of life and health outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Evidence supports assessment of PROs in HCC; however, clinical implementation and the impact of PRO measurement on quality of care and longitudinal outcomes need future investigation.

Transarterial Radioembolization Versus Atezolizumab-Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Time to Deterioration in Quality of Life

Introduction

Given the relatively short life expectancy of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), quality of life (QOL) plays a significant role in treatment selection. This analysis aimed to compare time to deterioration (TTD) in QOL with transarterial radioembolization (TARE) and atezolizumab–bevacizumab, as well as sorafenib, in advanced and unresectable HCC.

Methods

Patient-level data from SARAH (TARE using SIR-Spheres^® Y-90 resin microspheres [SIR-Spheres] versus sorafenib) and aggregate data from IMbrave150 (atezolizumab–bevacizumab versus sorafenib) randomized controlled trials were used to conduct an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC). Patients with a Child–Pugh score B in SARAH were excluded to align with exclusion criteria in IMbrave150. To identify potential effect modifiers for adjustment, the literature was searched and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were implemented using SARAH data. Patients from SARAH were then weighted to balance with baseline characteristics from IMbrave150. Median TTD in QOL and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated.

Results

Four potential effect modifiers were identified and used for adjustment: cause of disease (viral/non-viral), macrovascular invasion, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, and alpha-fetoprotein level. The MAIC included 217 patients from SARAH (TARE = 94; sorafenib = 123). Median TTD in QOL was 11.23 and 8.64 months for atezolizumab–bevacizumab and TARE, respectively (HR = 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75–1.50; p = 0.725). A sensitivity analysis was conducted adjusting for cause of disease defined as hepatitis B/hepatitis C/non-viral: median TTD in QOL was higher for TARE compared with atezolizumab–bevacizumab (19.88 vs 11.23 months; HR = 0.66; 95% CI 0.36–1.19; p = 0.163). Sorafenib resulted in the shortest TTD in QOL, with statistically significant differences in both base case and sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

TARE using SIR-Spheres may achieve similar TTD in QOL compared with atezolizumab–bevacizumab, as the analyses found no statistically significant differences between these two interventions. Both TARE using SIR-Spheres and atezolizumab–bevacizumab seem to be more efficacious than sorafenib in maintaining QOL.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02099-0.

For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as physicians treating hepatocellular carcinoma, the quality of life that different treatments can offer represents an increasingly important aspect to consider when choosing treatments. Transarterial radioembolization and atezolizumab–bevacizumab are two potential treatments for advanced and unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, but no clinical trials have directly compared the outcomes of these two therapeutic options. With the data available (patient-level data from a clinical trial of transarterial radioembolization using SIR-Spheres^® Y-90 resin microspheres [SIR-Spheres] versus sorafenib and data from a trial of atezolizumab–bevacizumab versus sorafenib from the literature), this study indirectly compared the time to deterioration of quality of life (i.e., how long quality of life is maintained) after treatment with transarterial radioembolization and atezolizumab–bevacizumab. The study showed that quality of life may be preserved over a similar time period with transarterial radioembolization using SIR-Spheres and atezolizumab–bevacizumab; also, both transarterial radioembolization using SIR-Spheres and atezolizumab–bevacizumab seem to maintain patients’ quality of life over a longer period of time compared with sorafenib. These results are expected to enrich the existing evidence on which patients and physicians can base their decisions, allowing them to choose the most appropriate treatment by assessing the treatments’ characteristics as a whole.