Transarterial chemoembolization plus immune checkpoint inhibitor as postoperative adjuvant therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus: A multicenter cohort study

Adjuvant Transarterial Chemoembolization With Sorafenib for Portal Vein Tumor Thrombus: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Certain patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus could benefit from surgical resection, and postoperative adjuvant therapy may lower the incidence of tumor recurrence.

Objective

To compare the efficacy and safety of sorafenib plus transarterial chemoembolization vs sorafenib alone as postoperative adjuvant therapy for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a phase 3, multicenter, randomized clinical trial conducted in 5 hospitals in China. A total of 158 patients were enrolled and randomized from October 2019 to March 2022, with a median follow-up of 28.4 months. Portal vein tumor thrombus was graded by the Cheng classification. Eligible patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with Cheng grade I to III portal vein tumor thrombus (ie, involving segmental or sectoral branches, right- or left-side branch, or main trunk of portal vein) were included.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive transarterial chemoembolization with sorafenib or sorafenib alone as postoperative adjuvant therapy. Sorafenib treatment was started within 3 days after randomization, with an initial dose of 400 mg orally twice a day. In the transarterial chemoembolization with sorafenib group, transarterial chemoembolization was performed 1 day after the first administration of sorafenib.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary end point was recurrence-free survival. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in patients who received at least 1 dose of study treatment.

Results

Of 158 patients included, the median (IQR) age was 54 (43-61) years, and 140 (88.6%) patients were male. The median (IQR) recurrence-free survival was significantly longer in the transarterial chemoembolization with sorafenib group (16.8 [12.0-NA] vs 12.6 [7.8-18.1] months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39-0.83; P = .002). The median (IQR) overall survival was also significantly longer with transarterial chemoembolization with sorafenib than with sorafenib alone (30.4 [20.6-NA] vs 22.5 [15.4-NA] months; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36-0.91; P = .02). The most common grade 3/4 adverse event was hand-foot syndrome (23 of 79 patients in the transarterial chemoembolization with sorafenib group [29.1%] vs 24 of 79 patients in the sorafenib alone group [30.4%]). There were no treatment-related deaths in either group. The transarterial chemoembolization with sorafenib group did not show additional toxicity compared with the sorafenib monotherapy group.

Conclusion and Relevance

In this study, the combination of sorafenib and transarterial chemoembolization as postoperative adjuvant therapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombus resulted in longer recurrence-free survival and overall survival than sorafenib alone and was well tolerated.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04143191.

Can adjuvant immune checkpoint inhibitors improve the long-term outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma with high-risk recurrent factors after liver resection? A meta-analysis and systematic review

Background

Administering adjuvant therapy following liver resection is crucial for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exhibiting high-risk recurrence factors. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective against unresectable HCC; however, their effectiveness and safety for this specific patient group remain uncertain.

Methods

We conducted an extensive literature search across four scholarly databases to identify relevant studies. Our primary endpoints were overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and adverse events (AEs). OS and RFS were quantified using hazard ratios (HRs), whereas the 1-, 2-, and 3-year OS and RFS rates were expressed as risk ratios (RRs). Additionally, the incidence of AEs was calculated.

Results

Our meta-analysis included 11 studies (N = 3,219 patients), comprising two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine retrospective studies. Among these, eight studies reported HRs for OS, showing a statistically significant improvement in OS among patients receiving adjuvant ICIs (HR, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.80; p < 0.0001). All included studies reported HRs for RFS, indicating a favorable impact of adjuvant ICIs (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52-0.73; p < 0.0001). Moreover, aggregated data demonstrated improved 1- and 2-year OS and RFS rates with adjuvant ICIs. The incidence rate of AEs of any grade was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.49-0.91), with grade 3 or above AEs occurring at a rate of 0.12 (95% CI, 0.05-0.20).

Conclusion

Adjuvant ICI therapy can enhance both OS and RFS rates in patients with HCC exhibiting high-risk recurrence factors, with manageable AEs.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails PROSPERO, identifier CRD42023488250.

Liver-Directed Therapy Combined with Systemic Therapy: Current Status and Future Directions

In the past several decades, major advances in both systemic and locoregional therapies have been made for many cancer patients. This has led to modern cancer treatment algorithms frequently calling for active interventions by multiple subspecialists at the same time. One of the areas where this can be clearly seen is the concomitant use of locoregional and systemic therapies in patients with primary or secondary cancers of the liver. These combined algorithms have gained favor over the last decade and are largely focused on the allure of the combined ability to control systemic disease while at the same time addressing refractory/resistant clonal populations. While the general concept has gained favor and is likely to only increase in popularity with the continued establishment of viable immunotherapy treatments, for many patients questions remain. Lingering concerns over the increase in toxicity when combining treatment methods, patient selection, and sequencing remain for multiple cancer patient populations. While further work remains, some of these questions have been addressed in the literature. This article reviews the available data on three commonly treated primary and secondary cancers of the liver, namely, hepatocellular carcinoma, cholangiocarcinoma, and metastatic colorectal cancer. Furthermore, strengths and weaknesses are reviewed and future directions are discussed.

Friend or Foe? Locoregional Therapies and Immunotherapies in the Current Hepatocellular Treatment Landscape

Over the last several decades, a number of new treatment options for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been developed. While treatment decisions for some patients remain clear cut, a large numbers of patients have multiple treatment options, and it can be hard for multidisciplinary teams to come to unanimous decisions on which treatment strategy or sequence of treatments is best. This article reviews the available data with regard to two treatment strategies, immunotherapies and locoregional therapies, with a focus on the potential of locoregional therapies to be combined with checkpoint inhibitors to improve outcomes in patients with locally advanced HCC. In this review, the available data on the immunomodulatory effects of locoregional therapies is discussed along with available clinical data on outcomes when the two strategies are combined.

Trial watch: immunotherapeutic strategies on the horizon for hepatocellular carcinoma

The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting PD-L1/PD-1 and CTLA-4 has transformed the oncology practice of hepatocellular carcinoma. However, only 25-30% of the patients with advanced HCC treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab or tremelimumab-durvalumab (STRIDE) respond initially, and mechanistic biomarkers and novel treatment strategies are urgently needed for patients who present with or acquire resistance to first-line ICI-based therapies. The recent approval of the STRIDE regimen has also engendered new questions, such as patient selection factors (e.g. portal hypertension and history of variceal bleed) and biomarkers, and the optimal combination and sequencing of ICI-based regimens. Triumphs in the setting of advanced HCC have also galvanized considerable interest in the broader application of ICIs to early- and intermediate-stage diseases, including clinical combination of ICIs with locoregional therapies. Among these clinical contexts, the role of ICIs in liver transplantation - which is a potentially curative strategy unique to HCC management - as a bridge to liver transplant in potential candidates or in the setting of post-transplant recurrence, warrants investigation in view of the notable theoretical risk of allograft rejection. In this review, we summarize and chart the landscape of seminal immuno-oncology trials in HCC and envision future clinical developments.