Curative versus palliative treatments for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicentric weighted comparison

Superselective ablative chemo-ethanol embolization for recurrent single hepatocellular carcinoma: a 6-month outcome analysis

BACKGROUNDS/AIMS

To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of superselective ablative chemo-ethanol embolization (SACE) for the treatment of patients with recurrent single hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 22 patients (19 men; median age, 63 years [range, 38-86]) with Child-Pugh class of A/ B/C (16/3/3) that underwent SACE between January and June 2023 for recurrent single HCCs measuring ≤5 cm in diameter using a mixture of 99% ethanol and ethiodized oil/doxorubicin emulsion. The primary endpoint was the 6-month tumor response, and the secondary endpoints were the 1-month tumor response and treatment-related safety. This study was approved by our institutional review board, and the requirement for informed consent was waived.

RESULTS

SACE was successfully performed in 22 patients (95.2%). The complete response rates at 1-month and 6-month after treatment were 100.0% and 83.3%, respectively. At 6-month, local tumor progression occurred in one patient and intrahepatic distant metastasis was found in six patients (30.0%). No 6-month mortalities were reported. No adverse events greater than grade 2 or laboratory deteriorations were observed. Biliary complications or liver abscesses were not observed.

CONCLUSIONS

SACE for a single rHCC was highly effective in achieving a favorable 6-month tumor response and showed acceptable adverse events. However, further prospective studies are required to verify these findings.

Long-term survival analysis of ultrasound-guided percutaneous microwave ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma conforming to the Milan criteria: primary versus recurrent HCC

BACKGROUND

This study compared long-term outcomes between patients with initial hepatocellular carcinoma (IHCC) and those with recurrent HCC (RHCC) treated with microwave ablation (MWA).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 425 patients with HCCs (294 IHCCs and 131 RHCCs) within the Milan criteria who were treated with ultrasound-guided percutaneous MWA between January 2008 and November 2021. All patients with RHCC had previously undergone MWA for initial HCC. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were compared between the IHCC and RHCC groups before and after propensity score matching (PSM).

RESULTS

Before matching, the 1-, 3-, 5-, and 10-year OS rates in the IHCC group were 95.9%, 78.5%, 60.2%, and 42.5%, respectively, which were significantly higher than those in the RHCC group (93.8%, 70.0%, 42.0%, and 6.6%, respectively). This difference remained significant after PSM. However, subgroup analyses suggested that there were no significant differences in OS rates between IHCC and RHCC in patients with solitary HCC ≤3.0 cm, AFP ≤200 ng/mL, ablative margins ≥0.5 cm, or Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade 1. RFS was significantly higher in IHCC than in RHCC before and after PSM, as well as in subgroup analyses. ALBI grade (hazard ratio (HR), 2.38; 95% CI: 1.46-3.86; p < 0.001), serum AFP level (HR, 2.07; 95% CI: 1.19-3.62; p = 0.010) and ablative margins (HR, 0.18; 95% CI: 0.06-0.59; p = 0.005) were independent prognostic factors for OS of RHCC. Serum AFP(HR, 1.29; 95% CI: 1.02-1.63, p = 0.036) level was the only factor associated with RFS in RHCC.

CONCLUSIONS

MWA yielded comparable OS in IHCC and RHCC patients with solitary HCC ≤3.0 cm, AFP ≤200 ng/mL, ablative margins ≥0.5 cm, or ALBI grade 1.

Survival benefit of second line therapies for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: repeated hepatectomy, thermoablation and second-line transplant referral in a real life national scenario

BACKGROUND

Despite second-line transplant(SLT) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma(rHCC) leads to the longest survival after recurrence(SAR), its real applicability has never been reported. The aim was to compare the SAR of SLT versus repeated hepatectomy and thermoablation(CUR group).

METHODS

Patients were enrolled from the Italian register HE.RC.O.LE.S. between 2008 and 2021. Two groups were created: CUR versus SLT. A propensity score matching (PSM) was run to balance the groups.

RESULTS

743 patients were enrolled, CUR = 611 and SLT = 132. Median age at recurrence was 71(IQR 6575) years old and 60(IQR 53-64, p < 0.001) for CUR and SLT respectively. After PSM, median SAR for CUR was 43 months(95%CI = 37 - 93) and not reached for SLT(p < 0.001). SLT patients gained a survival benefit of 9.4 months if compared with CUR. MilanCriteria(MC)-In patients were 82.7% of the CUR group. SLT(HR 0.386, 95%CI = 0.23 - 0.63, p < 0.001) and the MELD score(HR 1.169, 95%CI = 1.07 - 1.27, p < 0.001) were the only predictors of mortality. In case of MC-Out, the only predictor of mortality was the number of nodules at recurrence(HR 1.45, 95%CI= 1.09 - 1.93, p = 0.011).

CONCLUSION

It emerged an important transplant under referral in favour of repeated hepatectomy or thermoablation. In patients with MC-Out relapse, the benefit of SLT over CUR was not observed.

Network meta-analysis of the prognosis of curative treatment strategies for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after hepatectomy

BACKGROUND

Recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) is a common outcome after curative treatment. Retreatment for rHCC is recommended, but no guidelines exist.

AIM

To compare curative treatments such as repeated hepatectomy (RH), radiofrequency ablation (RFA), transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and liver transplantation (LT) for patients with rHCC after primary hepatectomy by conducting a network meta-analysis (NMA).

METHODS

From 2011 to 2021, 30 articles involving patients with rHCC after primary liver resection were retrieved for this NMA. The Q test was used to assess heterogeneity among studies, and Egger’s test was used to assess publication bias. The efficacy of rHCC treatment was assessed using disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

From 30 articles, a total of 17, 11, 8, and 12 arms of RH, RFA, TACE, and LT subgroups were collected for analysis. Forest plot analysis revealed that the LT subgroup had a better cumulative DFS and 1-year OS than the RH subgroup, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.96 (95%CI: 0.31-2.96). However, the RH subgroup had a better 3-year and 5-year OS compared to the LT, RFA, and TACE subgroups. Hierarchic step diagram of different subgroups measured by the Wald test yielded the same results as the forest plot analysis. LT had a better 1-year OS (OR: 1.04, 95%CI: 0.34-03.20), and LT was inferior to RH in 3-year OS (OR: 10.61, 95%CI: 0.21-1.73) and 5-year OS (OR: 0.95, 95%CI: 0.39-2.34). According to the predictive P score evaluation, the LT subgroup had a better DFS, and RH had the best OS. However, meta-regression analysis revealed that LT had a better DFS (P < 0.001) as well as 3-year OS (P = 0.881) and 5-year OS (P = 0.188). The differences in superiority between DFS and OS were due to the different testing methods used.

CONCLUSION

According to this NMA, RH and LT had better DFS and OS for rHCC than RFA and TACE. However, treatment strategies should be determined by the recurrent tumor characteristics, the patient’s general health status, and the care program at each institution.

Machine Learning Predictive Model to Guide Treatment Allocation for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Surgery

Importance

Clear indications on how to select retreatments for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are still lacking.

Objective

To create a machine learning predictive model of survival after HCC recurrence to allocate patients to their best potential treatment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Real-life data were obtained from an Italian registry of hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2008 and December 2019 after a median (IQR) follow-up of 27 (12-51) months. External validation was made on data derived by another Italian cohort and a Japanese cohort. Patients who experienced a recurrent HCC after a first surgical approach were included. Patients were profiled, and factors predicting survival after recurrence under different treatments that acted also as treatment effect modifiers were assessed. The model was then fitted individually to identify the best potential treatment. Analysis took place between January and April 2021.

Exposures

Patients were enrolled if treated by reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, chemoembolization, or sorafenib.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Survival after recurrence was the end point.

Results

A total of 701 patients with recurrent HCC were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 71 [9] years; 151 [21.5%] female). Of those, 293 patients (41.8%) received reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, 188 (26.8%) received sorafenib, and 220 (31.4%) received chemoembolization. Treatment, age, cirrhosis, number, size, and lobar localization of the recurrent nodules, extrahepatic spread, and time to recurrence were all treatment effect modifiers and survival after recurrence predictors. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the predictive model was 78.5% (95% CI, 71.7%-85.3%) at 5 years after recurrence. According to the model, 611 patients (87.2%) would have benefited from reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, 37 (5.2%) from sorafenib, and 53 (7.6%) from chemoembolization in terms of potential survival after recurrence. Compared with patients for which the best potential treatment was reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, sorafenib and chemoembolization would be the best potential treatment for older patients (median [IQR] age, 78.5 [75.2-83.4] years, 77.02 [73.89-80.46] years, and 71.59 [64.76-76.06] years for sorafenib, chemoembolization, and reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, respectively), with a lower median (IQR) number of multiple recurrent nodules (1.00 [1.00-2.00] for sorafenib, 1.00 [1.00-2.00] for chemoembolization, and 2.00 [1.00-3.00] for reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation). Extrahepatic recurrence was observed in 43.2% (n = 16) for sorafenib as the best potential treatment vs 14.6% (n = 89) for reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation as the best potential treatment and 0% for chemoembolization as the best potential treatment. Those profiles were used to constitute a patient-tailored algorithm for the best potential treatment allocation.

Conclusions and Relevance

The herein presented algorithm should help in allocating patients with recurrent HCC to the best potential treatment according to their specific characteristics in a treatment hierarchy fashion.

Surgical Strategies for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma after Resection: A Review of Current Evidence

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer, and both liver resection and liver transplantation are considered potentially curative options. However, high recurrence rates affect the prognosis depending both on the primary HCC pathology characteristics or on the type and time of the relapse. While great attention has been usually posted on treatment algorithms for the first HCC, treatment algorithms for recurrent HCC (rHCC) are lacking. In these cases, surgery still represents a curative option with both redo hepatectomy and/or salvage liver transplantation, which are considered valid treatments in selected patients. In the current era of personalised medicine with promises of new systemic-targeted immuno-chemotherapies, we wished to perform a narrative review of the literature on the role of surgical strategies for rHCC.

Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Patterns, Detection, Staging and Treatment

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide with the incidence of recurrence being as high as 88% even among patients who have undergone curative-intent treatment. Despite improvements in overall survival, recurrence remains a challenge necessitating accurate reappraisal of patient and disease status. To that end, accurate staging of recurrent HCC is a necessity to provide better care for these patients. Risk factors for poor survival after HCC recurrence have been identified and include characteristics of the primary disease, such as tumor multifocality, large size (≥5 cm), macroscopic vascular or microscopic lymphovascular invasion, preoperative a-fetoprotein (AFP) levels, R0 resection, and the presence of impaired liver function. Close surveillance with imaging is warranted following curative-intent therapy, with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) being the preferred approach to identify small, early recurrent HCCs. Treatment decisions at the time of recurrence involve ruling out extrahepatic disease and identifying candidates for potentially curative-intent repeat treatment options. Patients with recurrent disease are, however, very diverse in terms of tumor morphology and biologic behavior, as well as residual hepatic functional reserve. Patients with preserved liver function may benefit from repeat liver resection or ablation. Patients with recurrence within the Milan criteria may even be candidates for salvage liver transplantation, while multimodality treatment with combination of liver-directed therapies appears to enhance oncologic outcomes for individuals with advanced recurrent disease. A “one-size-fits-all” approach in staging recurrent HCC does not exist. Rather, individualized and evidence-based decision-making is necessary in order to optimize outcomes for patients with recurrent HCC.

The largest western experience on salvage hepatectomy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma: propensity score-matched analysis on behalf of He.RC.O.Le.Study Group

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate, in a large Western cohort, perioperative and long-term oncological outcomes of salvage hepatectomy (SH) for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (rHCC) after primary hepatectomy (PH) or locoregional treatments.

METHODS

Data were collected from the Hepatocarcinoma Recurrence on the Liver Study Group (He.RC.O.Le.S.) Italian Registry. After 1:1 propensity score-matched analysis (PSM), two groups were compared: the PH group (patients submitted to resection for a first HCC) and the SH group (patients resected for intrahepatic rHCC after previous HCC-related treatments).

RESULTS

2689 patients were enrolled. PH included 2339 patients, SH 350. After PSM, 263 patients were selected in each group with major resected nodule median size, intraoperative blood loss and minimally invasive approach significantly lower in the SH group. Long-term outcomes were compared, with no difference in OS and DFS. Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed only microvascular invasion as an independent prognostic factor for OS.

CONCLUSION

SH proved to be equivalent to PH in terms of safety, feasibility and long-term outcomes, consistent with data gathered from East Asia. In the awaiting of reliable treatment-allocating algorithms for rHCC, SH appears to be a suitable alternative in patients fit for surgery, regardless of the previous therapeutic modality implemented.