Portal hypertension and hepatocellular carcinoma: Des liaisons dangereuses…

Safety/efficacy of atezolizumab + bevacizumab during anti-platelet/anticoagulation therapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study aimed to determine the safety and efficacy of atezolizumab + bevacizumab therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving anti-platelet agents or anticoagulants.

METHODS

Patients were divided into those using (IM out) and those not using (IM in) anti-platelet agents or anticoagulants, who violated the exclusion criteria of the IMbrave150 trial, and were retrospectively examined.

RESULTS

The study included 185 patients (IM in: 157; IM out: 28). For first-line treatment, progression-free survival was 184 days for IM in and 266 days for IM out (p = .136). Overall survival was 603 days for IM in and not reached for IM out (p = .265), with no significant between-group difference. Similarly, there were no significant between-group differences in progression-free survival or overall survival for later-line treatment. Haemorrhagic adverse events of ≥grade 3 were observed in 11 IM in patients and 3 IM out patients. No significant factors associated with haemorrhagic adverse events of ≥grade 3 were identified in the multivariate analysis including IM out classification, whose p value was .547. Regarding thrombotic/embolic adverse events in the IM out group, one case of exacerbation of portal vein thrombosis was observed. No deaths were directly attributable to bleeding events or exacerbations of thrombosis.

CONCLUSION

Atezolizumab + bevacizumab therapy shows similar safety and efficacy in patients receiving and those not receiving anti-platelet agents or anticoagulants; therefore, it can be considered for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving anti-platelet agents or anticoagulants.

Clinical risk factors for portal hypertension-related complications in systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

During systemic therapy, the management of portal hypertension (PH)-related complications is vital. This study aimed to clarify factors associated with the incidence and exacerbation of PH-related complications, including the usefulness of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in the management of PH-related complications during systemic therapy.

METHODS

A total of 669 patients who received systemic therapy as first-line treatment (443 patients for sorafenib, 131 for lenvatinib, and 90 for atezolizumab/bevacizumab [ATZ/BEV]) were enrolled in this retrospective study. Additionally, the lower esophageal intramural vessel diameters (EIV) on CECT and endoscopic findings in 358 patients were compared.

RESULTS

The cutoff values of the EIV diameter on CECT were 3.1 mm for small, 5.1 mm for medium, and 7.6 mm for large varices, demonstrating high concordance with the endoscopic findings. esophageal varices (EV) bleeding predictors include EIV ≥ 3.1 mm and portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT). In patients without EV before systemic therapy, factors associated with EV exacerbation after 3 months were EIV ≥ 1.9 mm and ATZ/BEV use. Predictors of hepatic encephalopathy (HE) include the ammonia level or portosystemic shunt diameter ≥ 6.8 mm. The incidence of HE within 2 weeks was significantly higher (18%) in patients with an ammonia level ≥ 73 μmol/L and a portosystemic shunt ≥ 6.8 mm. The exacerbating factors for ascites after 3 months were PVTT and low albumin levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Careful management is warranted for patients with risk factors for exacerbation of PH-related complications; moreover, the effective use of CECT is clinically important.

Does depressurization of the portal vein before liver transplantation affect the recurrence of HCC? A nested case-control study

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension (PHT) has been proven to be closely related to the development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Whether PHT before liver transplantation (LT) will affect the recurrence of HCC is not clear.

METHODS

110 patients with depressurization of the portal vein (DPV) operations (Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt-TIPS, surgical portosystemic shunt or/and splenectomy) before LT from a HCC LT cohort, matched with 330 preoperative non-DPV patients; this constituted a nested case-control study. Subgroup analysis was based on the order of DPV before or after the occurrence of HCC.

RESULTS

The incidence of acute kidney injury and intra-abdominal bleeding after LT in the DPV group was significantly higher than that in non-DPV group. The 5-year survival rates in the DPV and non-DPV group were 83.4% and 82.7% respectively (P = 0.930). In subgroup analysis, patients in the DPV prior to HCC subgroup may have a lower recurrence rate (4.7% vs.16.8%, P = 0.045) and a higher tumor free survival rate (88.9% vs.74.4%, P = 0.044) after LT under the up-to-date TNMI-II stage, while in TNM III stage, there was no difference for DPV prior to HCC subgroup compared with the DPV after HCC subgroup or the non-DPV group.

CONCLUSION

Compared with DPV after HCC, DPV treatment before HCC can reduce the recurrence rate of HCC after early transplantation (TNM I-II). DPV before LT can reduce the recurrence of early HCC.

Precision and Test-Retest Repeatability of Stiffness Measurement with MR Elastography: A Multicenter Phantom Study

Background MR elastography (MRE) has been shown to have excellent performance for noninvasive liver fibrosis staging. However, there is limited knowledge regarding the precision and test-retest repeatability of stiffness measurement with MRE in the multicenter setting. Purpose To determine the precision and test-retest repeatability of stiffness measurement with MRE across multiple centers using the same phantoms. Materials and Methods In this study, three cylindrical phantoms made of polyvinyl chloride gel mimicking different degrees of liver stiffness in humans (phantoms 1-3: soft, medium, and hard stiffness, respectively) were evaluated. Between January 2021 and January 2022, phantoms were circulated between five different centers and scanned with 10 MRE-equipped clinical 1.5-T and 3-T systems from three major vendors, using two-dimensional (2D) gradient-recalled echo (GRE) imaging and/or 2D spin-echo (SE) echo-planar imaging (EPI). Similar MRE acquisition parameters, hardware, and reconstruction algorithms were used at each center. Mean stiffness was measured by a single observer for each phantom and acquisition on a single section. Stiffness measurement precision and same-session test-retest repeatability were assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV) and the repeatability coefficient (RC), respectively. Results The mean precision represented by the CV was 5.8% (95% CI: 3.8, 7.7) for all phantoms and both sequences combined. For all phantoms, 2D GRE achieved a CV of 4.5% (95% CI: 3.3, 5.7) whereas 2D SE EPI achieved a CV of 7.8% (95% CI: 3.1, 12.6). The mean RC of stiffness measurement was 5.8% (95% CI: 3.7, 7.8) for all phantoms and both sequences combined, 4.9% (95% CI: 2.7, 7.0) for 2D GRE, and 7.0% (95% CI: 2.9, 11.2) for 2D SE EPI (all phantoms). Conclusion MRE had excellent in vitro precision and same-session test-retest repeatability in the multicenter setting when similar imaging protocols, hardware, and reconstruction algorithms were used. © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Tang in this issue.

Progression of portal hypertension after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for hepatocellular carcinoma-report a case and literature review

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab/bevacizumab combination therapy became the first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Gastroesophageal varices should be monitored and managed before treatment. The progression of portal hypertension during bevacizumab-containing therapy is unclear.

METHOD

A case of new development of esophageal varices, ascites, and hepatic hydrothorax during atezolizumab/bevacizumab therapy at National Taiwan University Hospital was reported, and relevant literature was reviewed.

RESULTS

We presented an 83-year-old male with resolved hepatitis B without cirrhosis. He had BCLC stage C HCC and received tri-weekly atezolizumab/bevacizumab therapy for 34 cycles with sustained partial response. Progressive ascites, esophageal varices, and hepatic hydrothorax developed, though his portal vein was patent and the tumor was under control. Five similar cases of HCC (BCLC B/C: n = 3/2) had been reported previously. Among them, three had cirrhosis with pre-existing small esophageal varices before treatment. After the administration of 1-15 cycles of atezolizumab/bevacizumab therapy, one patient had a progression of varices, and the other four developed variceal bleeding. The association between atezolizumab/bevacizumab and portal hypertension was possible, which might relate to the VEGF pathway and immune-related adverse events with progressive hepatic fibrosis.

CONCLUSION

Atezolizumab/bevacizumab treatment might exacerbate portal hypertension. Careful monitoring and management should be considered during treatment.

Incidence and Predictors of Esophagogastric Varices Bleeding in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Lenvatinib

Introduction

Lenvatinib is indicated for the forefront treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC), but its use may be limited by the risk of esophagogastric varices (EGV) bleeding. This study assessed the prevalence, predictors, and complications of EGV in aHCC patients treated with lenvatinib.

Methods

In this multicenter international retrospective study, cirrhotic patients treated with lenvatinib for aHCC, were enrolled if upper-gastrointestinal endoscopy was available within 6 months before treatment. Primary endpoint was the incidence of EGV bleeding during lenvatinib therapy; secondary endpoints were predictors for EGV bleeding, prevalence, and risk factors for the presence of EGV and high-risk EGV at baseline, as well as impact of EGV bleeding on patients' survival.

Results

535 patients were enrolled in the study (median age: 72 years, 78% male, 63% viral etiology, 89% Child-Pugh A, 16% neoplastic portal vein thrombosis [nPVT], 56% Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer-C): 234 had EGV (44%), 70 (30%) were at high risk and 59 were on primary prophylaxis. During lenvatinib treatment, 17 patients bled from EGV (3 grade 5), the 12-month cumulative incidence being 3%. The only baseline independent predictor of EGV bleeding was the presence of baseline high-risk EGV (hazard ratio: 6.94, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.23-21.57, p = 0.001). In these patients the 12-month risk was 17%. High-risk varices were independently associated with Child-Pugh B score (odds ratio [OR]: 2.12; 95% CI: 1.08-4.17, p = 0.03), nPVT (OR: 2.54; 95% CI: 1.40-4.61, p = 0.002), and platelets <150,000/μL (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.35-4.50, p = 0.003).

Conclusion

In hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with lenvatinib, the risk of EGV bleeding was mostly low but significant only in patients with high-risk EGV at baseline.

Endoscopic variceal ligation versus propranolol for the primary prevention of oesophageal variceal bleeding in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: an open-label, two-centre, randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

This randomised trial aimed to address whether endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) or propranolol (PPL) is more effective at preventing initial oesophageal variceal bleeding (EVB) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

DESIGN

Patients with HCC and medium-to-large oesophageal varices (EVs) but without previous EVB were randomised to receive EVL (every 3-4 weeks until variceal eradication) or PPL (up to 320 mg daily) at a 1:1 ratio. Long-term follow-up data on EVB, other upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB), non-bleeding liver decompensation, overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs) were analysed using competing risk regression.

RESULTS

Between June 2011 and April 2021, 144 patients were randomised to receive EVL (n=72) or PPL (n=72). In the EVL group, 7 patients experienced EVB, and 30 died; in the PPL group, 19 patients had EVB, and 40 died. The EVL group had a lower cumulative incidence of EVB (Gray's test, p=0.009) than its counterpart, with no mortality difference (Gray's test, p=0.085). For patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage A/B, EVL was better than PPL in reducing EVB (p<0.001) and mortality (p=0.003). For patients beyond BCLC stage B, between-group outcomes were similar. Other UGIB, non-bleeding liver decompensation and AEs did not differ between groups. A competing risk regression model confirmed the prognostic value of EVL.

CONCLUSION

EVL is superior to PPL in preventing initial EVB in patients with HCC. The benefits of EVL on EVB and OS may be limited to patients with BCLC stage A/B and not to those with BCLC stage C/D.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01970748.

Comment on Wu et al. Baveno VII Criteria Is an Accurate Risk Stratification Tool to Predict High-Risk Varices Requiring Intervention and Hepatic Events in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma. Cancers 2023, 15, 2480

We read with great interest the original research conducted by Wu et al [...].

Portal hypertension and variceal bleeding in patients with liver cancer: Evidence gaps for prevention and management

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Portal hypertension (PHT) and HCC are 2 major complications of cirrhosis that often coexist in the same patient and impact the prognosis, especially in patients with acute variceal bleeding. In this review, we aim to discuss the best strategy for PHT screening and primary prophylaxis, as well as the management of acute variceal bleeding, to improve the management of PHT in HCC patients.

RESULTS

Recent therapeutic advances observed in the management of HCC, notably through the advent of immunotherapy, have led to a clear improvement in the survival of patients. The prevention of complications related to underlying cirrhosis, such as PHT and acute variceal bleeding, is now part of the management of HCC patients. The Baveno VII conference recently redefined screening and prophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis. However, data regarding the applicability of these criteria in patients with HCC have been sparse. From our point of view, the Baveno criteria are not appropriate to exclude high-risk esophageal varices (EV) in HCC patients, and endoscopy should be performed except in HCC patients with a liver stiffness measurement (LSM) ≥25 kPa, who should benefit from nonselective beta-blockers (NSSBs) without performing endoscopy. We are also in favor of using NSBBs as primary prophylaxis in patients with EV regardless of the size and with gastric varices since these patients display clinically significant PHT.

CONCLUSIONS

Appropriate evaluation and treatment of PHT remain major issues in improving the outcomes of HCC patients. Many questions remain unanswered, opening the field to many areas of research.

Portal-hypertension features are associated with ascites occurrence and survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated by external radiotherapy

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

We studied the impact of Portal hypertension (PHT) on ascites occurrence and on radiotherapy outcome in cirrhotic patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHOD

All cirrhotic patients that received radiotherapy for HCC between 2012 and 2022 were included. Portal hypertension-Score was built using univariate analysis with the presence of esophageal varices (EV), platelet count, history of acute variceal bleeding (AVB) and spleen size. Time-to-events data were estimated using Kaplan-Meier method with log-rank and Cox-models.

RESULTS

60 patients were included (female 27%, age 67 years-old, Child-Pugh A 82%, alcoholic/non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/hepatitis C virus 55/40/32%). 38% and 15% presented history of ascites and AVB respectively, 25% had large EV, 53.5% presented PHT score ≥ 5. 92% were BCLC-0/A, median tumor size was 30 mm. At 6 months, ascites incidence was 19% and precluded access to further HCC treatment for all patients with HCC recurrence. All PHT parameters included in the score and PHT score ≥ 5 (hazard ratio (HR) = 14.07, p = 0.01) were associated with ascites occurrence. Transplantation free survival and recurrence free survival at 1 year were 56% and 47% respectively. Albi grade 3 (HR = 3.01; p = 0.04) was independently associated with Transplantation free survival.

CONCLUSION

Radiotherapy should be cautiously performed in patients with PHT score ≥ 5 because of ascites occurrence risk precluding access to further HCC treatments.

Hepatic venous pressure gradient: Inaccurately estimates portal venous pressure gradient in alcoholic cirrhosis and portal hypertension

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension (PHT) in patients with alcoholic cirrhosis causes a range of clinical symptoms, including gastroesophageal varices and ascites. The hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG), which is easier to measure, has replaced the portal venous pressure gradient (PPG) as the gold standard for diagnosing PHT in clinical practice. Therefore, attention should be paid to the correlation between HVPG and PPG.

AIM

To explore the correlation between HVPG and PPG in patients with alcoholic cirrhosis and PHT.

METHODS

Between January 2017 and June 2020, 134 patients with alcoholic cirrhosis and PHT who met the inclusion criteria underwent various pressure measurements during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt procedures. Correlations were assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient to estimate the correlation coefficient (r) and determination coefficient (R2). Bland-Altman plots were constructed to further analyze the agreement between the measurements. Disagreements were analyzed using paired t tests, and P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

In this study, the correlation coefficient (r) and determination coefficient (R2) between HVPG and PPG were 0.201 and 0.040, respectively (P = 0.020). In the 108 patients with no collateral branch, the average wedged hepatic venous pressure was lower than the average portal venous pressure (30.65 ± 8.17 vs. 33.25 ± 6.60 mmHg, P = 0.002). Hepatic collaterals were identified in 26 cases with balloon occlusion hepatic venography (19.4%), while the average PPG was significantly higher than the average HVPG (25.94 ± 7.42 mmHg vs 9.86 ± 7.44 mmHg; P < 0.001). The differences between HVPG and PPG < 5 mmHg in the collateral vs no collateral branch groups were three cases (11.54%) and 44 cases (40.74%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

In most patients, HVPG cannot accurately represent PPG. The formation of hepatic collaterals is a vital reason for the strong underestimation of HVPG.

The evolving role of lenvatinib at the new era of first-line hepatocellular carcinoma treatment

Emergence of multi-targeted kinase inhibitors (MTIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have changed the landscape of management in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Combination therapy involving ICI has superseded sorafenib as the first-line treatment option for advanced HCC due to their superior response rates and survival benefits based on recently published phase III trials. However, the role of first-line lenvatinib remains uncertain as no prospective trials have compared its efficacy with ICI in advanced HCC. Several retrospective studies have shown that first-line lenvatinib may not be inferior to ICI combination. Indeed, a growing body of evidence suggests that ICI treatment is associated with inferior treatment outcome in non-viral HCC patients, questioning the supremacy of ICI treatment in all patients and rendering first-line lenvatinib as a potential preferred treatment option. Furthermore, in high-burden intermediate-stage HCC, accumulating evidence supports first-line lenvatinib, or in combination with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), as a preferred treatment option over TACE alone. In this Review, we describe the latest evidence surrounding the evolving role of first-line lenvatinib in HCC.

The Role of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt (TIPS) in Treating Portal Hypertension in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Liver cancer is very frequent, and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounts for the majority of liver cancer cases. Its growing incidence has been greatly affected by the increasing prevalence of metabolic-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD). The latter is a new epidemic in our era. In fact, HCC is often generated from noncirrhotic liver and its treatment benefits from surgical and nonsurgical approaches, potentially bridged by transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) use. TIPS use is an effective treatment for portal hypertension complications, but its application in patients with HCC and clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) remains controversial due to concerns about tumor rupture, dissemination, and increased toxicity. The technical feasibility and safety of TIPS use in HCC patients have been evaluated in several studies. Despite concerns about intraprocedural complications, retrospective studies have shown high success rates and low complication rates in TIPS placement for HCC patients. TIPS use in combination with locoregional treatments, such as transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) or transarterial radioembolization (TARE), has been explored as a treatment option for HCC patients with portal hypertension. These studies have shown improved survival rates in patients undergoing TIPS in combination with locoregional treatments. However, the efficacy and toxicity of TACE in combination with TIPS use require careful evaluation, as changes in venous and arterial flow can affect treatment outcomes and complications. The results from studies evaluating the impact of TIPS on systemic therapy and surgical options are also promising. In conclusion, the TIPS is a sufficiently safe, useful item available for physicians treating complications of portal hypertension. Moreover, a TIPS can be used in combination with locoregional therapy in HCC patients. Systemic chemotherapy can also benefit of the use of TIPS placement. A complex interplay affects TIPS use with surgery. The latter needs further data. The TIPS is a useful and safe add-on treatment, changing the natural course of HCC progression. Its use is regulated by a sophisticated physiologic and pathophysiologic flow of evidence.

Baveno VII Criteria Is an Accurate Risk Stratification Tool to Predict High-Risk Varices Requiring Intervention and Hepatic Events in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The Baveno VII criteria are used in patients with liver cirrhosis to predict high-risk varices in patients with liver cirrhosis. Yet its use in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has not been validated. HCC alone is accompanied with a higher variceal bleeding risk due to its association with liver cirrhosis and portal vein thrombosis. The use of systemic therapy in advanced HCC has been thought to further augment this risk. Upper endoscopy is commonly used to evaluate for the presence of varices before initiation of treatment with systemic therapy. Yet it is associated with procedural risks, waiting time and limited availability in some localities which may delay the commencement of systemic therapy. Our study successfully validated the Baveno VI criteria with a 3.5% varices needing treatment (VNT) missed rate, also with acceptable <5% VNT missed rates when considering alternative liver stiffness (LSM) and platelet cut-offs. The Baveno VII clinically significant portal hypertension rule-out criteria (LSM < 15 kPa and platelet >150 × 10⁹/L) also revealed a low frequency (2%) of hepatic events, whilst the rule-in criteria (LSM > 25 kPa) was predictive of a higher proportion of hepatic events (14%). Therefore, our study has successfully validated the Baveno VII criteria as a non-invasive stratification of the risk of variceal bleeding and hepatic decompensation in the HCC population.

Portal hypertension in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and immunotherapy: prognostic relevance of CT-morphologic estimates

BACKGROUND

Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) has been identified as an important prognostic factor in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) undergoing curative treatment. This study aimed to assess PH estimates as prognostic factors in patients with HCC treated with immunotherapy.

METHODS

All patients with HCC treated with an immunotherapeutic agent in first or subsequent lines at our tertiary care center between 2016 and 2021 were included (n = 50). CSPH was diagnosed using the established PH score for non-invasive PH estimation in pre-treatment CT data (cut-off ≥ 4). Influence of PH on overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was assessed in uni- and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Based on the PH score, 26 patients (52.0%) were considered to have CSPH. After treatment initiation, patients with CSPH had a significantly impaired median OS (4.1 vs 33.3 months, p < 0.001) and a significantly impaired median PFS (2.7 vs 5.3 months, p = 0.02). In multivariable Cox regression, CSPH remained significantly associated with survival (HR 2.9, p = 0.015) when adjusted for established risk factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-invasive assessment of CSPH using routine CT data yielded an independent prognostic factor in patients with HCC and immunotherapy. Therefore, it might function as an additional imaging biomarker to detect high-risk patients with poor survival and possibly for treatment decision making.

Clinical risk factors for ascites in metastatic pancreatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Malignant ascites is common in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) and its management still remains a clinical challenge. Early identification of patients at risk for ascites development may support and guide treatment decisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data of patients treated for mPC at the Medical University of Vienna between 2010 and 2019 were collected by retrospective chart review. Ascites was defined as clinically relevant accumulation of intraperitoneal fluid diagnosed by ultrasound or computer tomography scan of the abdomen. We investigated the association between general risk factors, metastatic sites, liver function, systemic inflammation as well as portal vein obstruction (PVO) and ascites development.

RESULTS

Among 581 patients with mPC included in this study, 122 (21.0%) developed ascites after a median of 8.7 months after diagnosis of metastatic disease. The occurrence of ascites led to an 8.9-fold increased risk of death [confidence interval (CI) 7.2-11, P < 0.001] with a median overall survival of 1 month thereafter. Clinical risk factors for ascites were male sex [hazard ratio (HR) 1.71, CI 1.00-2.90, P = 0.048], peritoneal carcinomatosis (HR 6.79, CI 4.09-11.3, P < 0.001), liver metastases (HR 2.16, CI 1.19-3.91, P = 0.011), an albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score grade 3 (HR 6.79, CI 2.11-21.8, P = 0.001), PVO (HR 2.28, CI 1.15-4.52, P = 0.019), and an elevated C-reactive protein (CRP) (HR 4.19, CI 1.58-11.1, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

Survival after diagnosis of ascites is very limited in mPC patients. Male sex, liver and peritoneal metastases, impaired liver function, PVO, as well as systemic inflammation were identified as independent risk factors for ascites development in this uniquely large real-life patient cohort.

Clinical application of Magnetic resonance elastography in hepatocellular carcinoma: from diagnosis to prognosis

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer and a major public health problem worldwide. Liver fibrosis is closely correlated with liver functional reserve and the risk of HCC development. Meanwhile, malignant tumors generally have high cellularity compared to benign tumors, which results in increased stiffness. Magnetic resonance elastography (MRE) has emerged as a new non-invasive technique for assessing tissue stiffness with excellent diagnostic accuracy, not only for assessing liver fibrosis but also for measuring tumor stiffness. Recent studies provide new evidence that MRE may play an important role in the management of patients with HCC and show several novel clinical applications, such as predicting the development of HCC, differentiating between benign/malignant liver lesions (FLL) and HCC pathological grades, assessing treatment response, and predicting recurrence after treatment, although some findings are controversial. Therefore, we conducted this review to summarize these novel applications of MRE in HCC patients and also discuss their limitations and future advancement.

Treatment of portal hypertension in patients with HCC in the era of Baveno VII

Portal hypertension (PHT) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) often coexist, and their association impairs the prognosis of patients with cirrhosis. The interplay between these two conditions is of major therapeutic significance, both from the perspective of offering adequate treatment for HCC and for preventing or managing the complications of PHT. Recommendations on the management of PHT were heavily revised at the last Baveno VII conference, redefining screening and extending the indications for prophylaxis. PHT can preclude locoregional therapies, and TIPS placement can be discussed in patients with HCC. New systemic therapies for HCC can influence the level of PHT and favour bleeding. Complications of PHT should be prevented and treated adequately in all patients, especially those presenting with advanced HCC. Specific aspects of the management of both conditions will be discussed in the present expert opinion, which considers very recent data in the HCC field.

Outcomes of beta blocker use in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

Background

In patients with cirrhosis, portal hypertension increases intestinal permeability, dysbiosis, and bacterial translocation, promoting an inflammatory state that can lead to the progression of liver disease and development of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to investigate whether beta blockers (BBs), which can mediate portal hypertension, conferred survival benefits in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).

Methods

We conducted a retrospective, observational study of 578 patients with unresectable HCC treated with ICI from 2017 to 2019 at 13 institutions across three continents. BB use was defined as exposure to BBs at any time during ICI therapy. The primary objective was to assess the association of BB exposure with overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives were to evaluate the association of BB use with progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST 1.1 criteria.

Results

In our study cohort, 203 (35%) patients used BBs at any point during ICI therapy. Of these, 51% were taking a nonselective BB. BB use was not significantly correlated with OS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.12, 95% CI 0.9-1.39, P = 0.298), PFS (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.83-1.26, P = 0.844) or ORR (odds ratio [OR] 0.84, 95% CI 0.54-1.31, P = 0.451) in univariate or multivariate analyses. BB use was also not associated with incidence of adverse events (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.96-1.97, P = 0.079). Specifically, nonselective BB use was not correlated with OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.66-1.33, P = 0.721), PFS (HR 0.92, 0.66-1.29, P = 0.629), ORR (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.58-2.49, P = 0.623), or rate of adverse events (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.46-1.47, P = 0.510).

Conclusion

In this real-world population of patients with unresectable HCC treated with immunotherapy, BB use was not associated with OS, PFS or ORR.

Screening and management of portal hypertension in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A French practice survey

BACKGROUND

Portal hypertension (PHT) and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are two major complications of cirrhosis that are closely linked and impact patients prognosis, particularly acute variceal bleeding (AVB). Therefore, PHT screening and AVB prophylaxis are major issues to improve the outcome of the patients, but practices may vary among physicians.

METHODS

We submitted hepatologists, gastroenterologists and digestive oncologists to a questionnaire of 70 items about PHT screening and management to evaluate their practice.

RESULTS

95 out of 847 physicians responded to the questionnaire (hepatologists 63.2%, Oncologists/gastroenterologists 36.8%). In patients with advanced HCC, PHT was assessed by endoscopy in 80.0% of cases. HCC progression motivated a new for 12.6% of respondents while no intent to control was declared for 49.5% of them. AVB primary prophylaxis for large size esophageal varices (EV) was impacted by the presence of red marks at endoscopy. In the absence of a red mark, prophylaxis with non-selective betablockers (NSSB) was proposed in 70.5% of cases for patients undergoing TKI and 63.2% undergoing Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab, whereas the combination of endoscopic band ligation (EBL) and NSBB was preferred in 41.1% of patients undergoing TKI versus 53.7% undergoing Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab in case of a red mark. The initiation of a systemic treatment was lower in patients with an history of AVB <6 months, which was even more significant for Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab combination (51.6%) compared to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (72.6%) (p<0.001). Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab was initiated in 43% of participants in case of AVB <6 months versus 95% if >6 months (p<0.001). In case of AVB on Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab, 43.2% continued the treatment after regression of EV, 24.2% continued Atezolizumab alone and 14.7% permanently stopped the treatment.

CONCLUSION

Strategies for screening and management of PHT in advanced HCC remain very heterogeneous among physicians, suggesting the need to improve PHT knowledge and dedicated studies for advanced HCC.

Risk Factors for Hepatic Encephalopathy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Sorafenib or Lenvatinib Treatment: A Real-World Study

Purpose

This study aimed to investigate the incidence rate and risk factors for hepatic encephalopathy (HE) among unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) patients with liver cirrhosis who received sorafenib or lenvatinib treatment.

Patients and Methods

uHCC patients with cirrhosis who received first-line sorafenib or lenvatinib treatment between September 2014 and February 2021 were continually reviewed in our single-center retrospective study. The Hepatic Encephalopathy Scoring Algorithm was used to evaluate the occurrence and grade of HE during treatment, and logistic regression models were used to further explore the risk factors for HE.

Results

A total of 454 eligible patients were enrolled in our study, with 214 and 240 patients in the sorafenib and lenvatinib groups, respectively. At time of data cut-off (2021-12), the incidence of HE in sorafenib group (4.2%, 95% CI:2-7%) was significantly lower than that in lenvatinib group (11.3%,95% CI:7-15%) (p = 0.006), with alcoholic cirrhosis [OR: 5.857 (95% CI: 1.519-22.591)], Child-Pugh >7 [OR: 3.023 (95% CI: 1.135-8.053)], blood ammonia ≥38.65 μmol/L [OR: 4.693 (95% CI: 1.782-12.358)], total bile acid ≥29.5 μmol/L [OR: 11.047 (95% CI: 4.414-27.650)] and duration of treatment ≥5.6 months [OR: 4.350 (95% CI: 1.701-11.126)] to be risk factors for the occurrence of HE during first-line systemic therapy.

Conclusion

In our study, for off-label uHCC patients (Child-Pugh >7) with alcoholic cirrhosis, hyperammonemia, hypercholesterolemia, and estimated longer duration of treatment, the application of lenvatinib has to be cautious, which needs to be confirmed in future clinical trials.

A history of variceal bleeding is associated with further bleeding under atezolizumab-bevacizumab in patients with HCC

BACKGROUND

Atezolizumab-bevacizumab is the new standard for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) but its impact on portal hypertension (PHT) is unknown. We aimed to identify predictive factors of acute variceal bleeding (AVB) and to monitor PHT parameters under treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study including all cirrhotic patients treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab since 2020. We performed monitoring of PHT using upper endoscopy at inclusion and at 6 months and hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) at inclusion, 3 and 6 months after the beginning of treatment. We also included a retrospective series of patients treated with sorafenib. Time-to-events data were estimated by Kaplan-Meier with the log-rank test, along with Cox models.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab were included (male 79.1%, Child-Pugh A 86%). At baseline, 48.8% were treated with curative anticoagulation, 16.3% already experienced AVB and 25.6% had large oesophageal varices (EV). Sorafenib group characteristics were similar. Vascular invasion was present in 60.5% and median was HVPG 8.5 mm Hg. No significant modification in HVPG and EV size was observed at 6 months in the whole cohort but also when considering vascular invasion and radiological response. 14% presented AVB within a median time of occurrence of 3 months, without bleeding-related death. In multivariate analysis, history of AVB (HR = 10.58, p = .03) was associated with AVB. AVB incidence was higher in atezolizumab-bevacizumab compared to sorafenib group (21% vs. 5% at 1 year, p = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

Atezolizumab-bevacizumab treatment was associated with a higher risk of AVB compared to sorafenib. A history of AVB was associated with AVB during follow-up, which questions the use of bevacizumab in this setting.

Clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) on early-stage HCC following hepatectomy: What's the impact?

BACKGROUND AND AIM

The impact of currently clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH) for patients with early-stage HCC after surgery remains controversial. The purpose of this study is to understand the specific effect of CSPH on patients with early-stage (BCLC A stage) HCC after surgery.

METHODS

We collected data from 386 HCC patients treated at two centers from December 2009 to January 2017.224 patients (all treated by hepatectomy) were in BCLC stage A, of which, 122 had no CSPH, and 102 had CSPH. There were 162 patients in BCLC stage B (who underwent surgery, TACE, and conservative treatment). The prognosis of the CSPH and non-CSPH groups in BCLC stage A was compared using the Kaplan-Meier method. We used multivariate Cox regression to analyze prognostic factors in patients in BCLC stage A and compared the prognosis of the two groups with the BCLC stage B group.

RESULTS

Among the 224 BCLC stage A patients after surgery, the overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) of the CSPH group were worse than those of the non-CSPH group (P < 0.001, HR = 2.340[1.554-3.523]; P < 0.001, HR = 2.577[1.676-3.812]) The multivariate Cox proportional hazards model indicated that CSPH was an independent prognostic factor for OS and RFS in BCLC stage A patients. BCLC stage A patients with CSPH treated by hepatectomy had a comparable prognosis to BCLC B stage patients (P = 0.378), and the OS and RFS (P = 0.229; P = 0.077) in the CSPH (BCLC A) group were also comparable to BCLC stage B patients treated with surgery alone.

CONCLUSIONS

CSPH can affect the surgical prognosis of early-stage (BCLC stage A) HCC. BCLC stage A patients with CSPH have a prognosis comparable to patients with BCLC stage B. An additional stage, such as the BCLC stage A-B, can be considered.

Preliminary evidence of safety and tolerability of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh A and B cirrhosis: A real-world study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AtezoBev) is the standard of care for first-line treatment of unresectable HCC. No evidence exists as to its use in routine clinical practice in patients with impaired liver function.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

In 216 patients with HCC who were consecutively treated with AtezoBev across 11 tertiary centers, we retrospectively evaluated treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) graded (G) according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0, including in the analysis all patients treated according to label (n = 202, 94%). We also assessed overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response (ORR), and disease control rates (DCR) defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Disease was mostly secondary to viral hepatitis, namely hepatitis C (n = 72; 36%) and hepatitis B infection (n = 35, 17%). Liver function was graded as Child-Pugh (CP)-A in 154 patients (76%) and CP-B in 48 (24%). Any grade trAEs were reported by 143 patients (71%), of which 53 (26%) were G3 and 3 (2%) G4. Compared with CP-A, patients with CP-B showed comparable rates of trAEs. Presence and grade of varices at pretreatment esophagogastroduodenoscopy did not correlate with bleeding events. After a median follow-up of 9.0 months (95% CI, 7.8-10.1), median OS was 14.9 months (95% CI, 13.6-16.3), whereas median PFS was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.2-8.5). ORR and DCR were respectively 25% and 73%, with no difference across CP classes.

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms reproducible safety and efficacy of AtezoBev in routine practice. Patients with CP-B reported similar tolerability compared with CP-A, warranting prospective evaluation of AtezoBev in this treatment-deprived population.

Case Report: Exacerbation of varices following atezolizumab plus bevacizumab treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: A case series and literature review

Recently, a combined regimen of atezolizumab and bevacizumab (AB) treatment has been approved as a first-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), contributing to prolonged survival. However, we often encounter cases where treatment must be discontinued due to the occurrence of adverse events. One of these events, which is often fatal, is gastrointestinal bleeding. To clarify the clinical effects of gastrointestinal bleeding after AB treatment, we evaluated patients with HCC who were treated with AB at our institution. Of the 105 patients, five treated with AB developed gastrointestinal bleeding, necessitating treatment discontinuation. Additionally, we encountered two cases where exacerbation of varicose veins was observed, and AB therapy could be continued by preventive treatment of varices. In conclusion, an appropriate follow-up is required during treatment with AB to prevent possible exacerbation of varicose veins.

Haemostatic alterations in patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma: laboratory evidence and clinical implications

Venous thrombosis is a frequent complication in cancer and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer and a leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, and it is associated with preexisting cirrhosis in 90% of cases. Patients with cirrhosis acquire complex alterations in their haemostatic system that may predispose them to bleed or thrombotic complications. There is growing evidence that HCC may tilt the haemostatic equilibrium in cirrhosis towards hypercoagulability, thus increasing the risk of venous thrombosis. Previously described mechanisms of HCC-driven thrombophilia include thrombocytosis and increased platelet activation/function, increased fibrinogen concentration/polymerization, enhanced thrombin generation, hypofibrinolysis, and release of tissue factor-expressing microvesicles. Nevertheless, there are currently no specific guidelines on risk stratification and management of thromboprophylaxis in patients with cirrhosis and HCC. Our review endeavours to summarize the latest findings on epidemiology, risk factors and pathogenesis of non-malignant venous thrombosis in patients with cirrhosis and HCC, and provide evidence in support of tailored management of thrombotic risk in these patients.

Two cases of rapid progression of esophageal varices after atezolizumab-bevacizumab treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma

We report two cases of rapid progression of esophageal varices after atezolizumab-bevacizumab treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Case 1: a man in his 60s with hepatitis C-related liver cirrhosis after viral eradication by direct acting antiviral. He was diagnosed with HCC 8 years previously. He had undergone surgical resection 4 times, radio-frequency ablation (RFA) several times, and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE). However, HCC progressed and could not be controlled by locoregional treatment. Systemic chemotherapy was, therefore, selected. Atezolizumab-bevacizumab was administered after lenvatinib and sorafenib failure. Before starting treatment, his liver function was preserved (Child-Pugh score 5 and class A). His alpha fetoprotein and des-gamma-carboxyprothrombin levels were 3.6 ng/mL and 443 mAU/mL, respectively. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy showed no remarkable esophageal varices before atezolizumab-bevacizumab treatment. Nine months after the initiation of atezolizumab-bevacizumab, the patient was admitted for hematemesis from esophageal varices. The disease control of HCC was classified as stable disease (SD) for the liver and lung metastases, and partial response for the lymph node metastases. Neither AST nor ALT was markedly elevated in the clinical course. Endoscopic variceal ligation (EVL) for the spurting point of large esophageal varices with red wale signs was able to successfully achieve hemostasis. Atezolizumab-bevacizumab was stopped and additional EVL eradicated the esophageal varices. However, the post-banding ulcer was prolonged in comparison to usual cases. Case 2: a man in his 60s with hepatitis C-related liver cirrhosis after viral eradication by direct acting antiviral therapy. He was diagnosed with HCC 6 years previously. He had received RFA 2 times and TACE 7 times. Atezolizumab-bevacizumab was administered after lenvatinib failure. The disease control of HCC was classified as SD; however, the esophageal varices ruptured after 15 courses of atezolizumab-bevacizumab. Neither AST nor ALT were markedly elevated in the clinical course. The esophageal varices of these patients did not require treatment before atezolizumab-bevacizumab; however, they rapidly worsened and ruptured during atezolizumab-bevacizumab treatment. Although rare, similar cases with rapid progression of portal hypertension after atezolizumab-bevacizumab have been reported. We should pay attention to the worsening of esophageal varices during atezolizumab-bevacizumab treatment and poor wound healing after EVL.