Effects of Subsequent Systemic Anticancer Medication Following First-Line Lenvatinib: A Post Hoc Responder Analysis from the Phase 3 REFLECT Study in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Early Clinical Outcomes of Durvalumab Plus Tremelimumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Real-World Comparison with First-Line or Later-Line Treatment

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Durvalumab plus tremelimumab (Durva/Treme) has recently been approved as a first-line or later-line treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC) in Japan. We assessed the real-world outcomes of Durva/Treme for u-HCC, with a focus on treatment efficacy and safety.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 22 patients with u-HCC treated with Durva/Treme at Iwate Medical University during the period from 2023 to 2024, with a comparison of the clinical outcomes between patients who received Durva/Treme as first-line and later-line treatments. We further evaluated changes in the modified albumin-bilirubin (mALBI) grade during treatment.

RESULTS

There were 10 patients in the first-line group and 12 patients in the later-line treatment group. During the follow-up with a median duration of 7.6 months, the median progression-free survival (first-line versus later-line: 4.7 months versus 2.9 months, p = 0.85), the objective response rate (0.0% versus 16.7%, p = 0.48), the disease control rate (60.0% versus 58.4%, p = 1.00), and the incidence of any adverse event (50.0% versus 75.0%, p = 0.38) were not statistically different between the two groups. The changes in the mALBI scores were not statistically significant (p = 0.75).

CONCLUSIONS

Durva/Treme may be effective and safe for patients with u-HCC, even in patients who receive Durva/Treme as a later-line treatment.

Real-World Study of Systemic Treatment after First-Line Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Asia-Pacific Countries

Introduction: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is a commonly used first-line regimen for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment owing to its superior outcomes compared to sorafenib. However, optimal subsequent treatment options for patients with HCC who progressed on first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab remain unclear. Methods: This multinational, multi-institutional, retrospective study included patients with HCC from 22 centers in five Asia-Pacific countries who were treated with first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, which was discontinued for any reason. The endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) according to patient characteristics and second-line regimens. Results: Between June 2016 and May 2023, 1,141 patients were treated with first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, of whom 629 (55.1%) received subsequent treatment. Sorafenib and lenvatinib were the most commonly administered second-line regimens (53.9% and 25.6%, respectively). Overall, the median PFS and OS were 2.9 and 8.0 months, respectively. Lenvatinib had longer PFS (4.0 vs. 2.3 months) and OS (8.0 vs. 6.3 months) than sorafenib. Patients treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) plus immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) (n = 50, 8.3%) showed PFS and OS of 5.4 and 12.6 months, respectively. Lower tumor burden and lenvatinib or TKI plus ICI use were associated with longer second-line PFS. Preserved liver function was associated with improved OS. Conclusions: In patients with HCC who progressed on first-line atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, sorafenib and lenvatinib were the most commonly used second-line regimens in Asia-Pacific countries, with lenvatinib resulting in longer OS than sorafenib. The second-line TKI plus ICI combination exhibited promising efficacy, suggesting the potential role of continuing ICIs beyond disease progression.

Improvements in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma to repeat implementation of primary protocol after cancer progression occurs following sequential systemic therapy and a clinical trial: A case report

INTRODUCTION

Systemic therapy is recommended for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, drug resistance occurs over time when patients receive systemic therapy, resulting in cancer progression. Due to the lack of relevant clinical trials, optimizing subsequent treatments after cancer progression remains elusive.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 52-year-old male patient presented with epigastric discomfort and fatigue for almost 1 month with a past history of chronic hepatitis B virus infection for 30 years.

DIAGNOSIS

Based on the patient's performance status, tumor status assessed by computed tomography, liver function, he was diagnosed with HCC at BCLC stage C.

INTERVENTIONS AND OUTCOMES

He first received transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with sintilimab and lenvatinib as first-line treatment and experienced 10-month progression-free survival. After cancer progression, the patient participated in a clinical trial of ABSK-011, a novel fibroblast growth factor receptor 4 inhibitor, with a frustrating result. Then, the patient underwent TACE and received sintilimab plus lenvatinib again. Surprisingly, the tumor had a partial response, and the patient's serum alpha-fetoprotein returned to normal.

LESSONS

The combined treatment of TACE plus systemic therapy might be an appropriate subsequent treatment.

Four-year overall survival update from the phase III HIMALAYA study of tremelimumab plus durvalumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

In the phase III HIMALAYA study (NCT03298451) in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC), STRIDE (Single Tremelimumab Regular Interval Durvalumab) significantly improved overall survival (OS) versus sorafenib; durvalumab monotherapy was noninferior to sorafenib for OS. Results reported herein are from a 4-year updated OS analysis of HIMALAYA.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Participants with uHCC and no previous systemic treatment were randomized to STRIDE (n = 393), durvalumab (n = 389), or sorafenib (n = 389). The updated data cut-off was 23 January 2023. OS and serious adverse events (AEs) were assessed. Additionally, baseline characteristics and subsequent therapies were analyzed in long-term survivors (≥36 months beyond randomization).

RESULTS

For STRIDE, durvalumab, and sorafenib, median [95% confidence interval (CI)] follow-up was 49.12 months (46.95-50.17 months), 48.46 months (46.82-49.81 months), and 47.31 months (45.08-49.15 months), respectively. OS hazard ratio (95% CI) for STRIDE versus sorafenib was 0.78 (0.67-0.92). The 36-month OS rate for STRIDE was 30.7% versus 19.8% for sorafenib. The 48-month OS rate remained higher for STRIDE at 25.2%, versus 15.1% for sorafenib. The long-term OS benefit of STRIDE was observed across clinically relevant subgroups and was further improved in participants who achieved disease control. Long-term survivors with STRIDE (n = 103) included participants across clinically relevant subgroups, and 57.3% (59/103) had no reported subsequent anticancer therapy. No new serious treatment-related AEs occurred with STRIDE from the primary analysis (17.5%; 68/388). Durvalumab maintained OS noninferiority to sorafenib and no late-onset safety signals were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

These data represent the longest follow-up to date in phase III studies in uHCC. The unprecedented 3- and 4-year OS rates reinforce the sustained long-term OS benefit of STRIDE versus sorafenib. STRIDE maintained a tolerable yet differentiated safety profile from other current uHCC therapies. Results continue to support the long-term benefits of STRIDE in a diverse population, reflective of uHCC globally.

The Impact of Sequential Therapies after First-Line Systemic Therapies in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background: The therapeutic options for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have greatly expanded recently, and current first-line therapies include sorafenib, lenvatinib, and atezolizumab-bevacizumab. The aim of this study was to investigate the therapeutic efficacy of sequential systemic treatments after progressing to the first-line agent in patients with unresectable HCC. Methods: Data were collected from subjects with HCC, BCLC stage B or C, who received first-line sorafenib, lenvatinib, or atezolizumab-bevacizumab from September 2020 to December 2022. The patients who progressed after first-line therapy were evaluated according to individual clinical status in order to decide whether or not to accept sequential therapy. The clinical baseline characteristics and overall survival (OS) of enrolled patients were collected and further analyzed. Results: Among the 127 enrolled patients, percentage of sequential therapy was 67.9%, 21.6%, and 37.5% in those with tumor progression after first-line sorafenib, lenvatinib, or atezolizumab-bevacizumab, respectively. Acceptance of sequential therapy (HR 0.46, p = 0.041) and presentation of ALBI grade I (HR 0.36, p = 0.002) had a significantly positive impact on OS. Pre-treatment ALBI grade had a significant impact on the decision to accept sequential therapy in patients with progressed HCC. Conclusions: The patients who were able to undergo sequential therapy had a better survival outcome compared to those who received only one agent, and the pre-treatment ALBI level might be regarded as a cornerstone tool to assess survival outcomes in patients undergoing treatment for HCC.

Safety and Efficacy of Lenvatinib in Very Old Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Data concerning the use of lenvatinib in very old patients (≥ 80 years) are limited, although the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in this patient population is constantly increasing.

OBJECTIVE

This analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in a large cohort of very old patients (≥ 80 years) with unresectable HCC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was conducted on a cohort of 1325 patients from 46 centers in four Western and Eastern countries (Italy, Germany, Japan, and the Republic of Korea) who were undergoing first-line treatment with lenvatinib between July 2010 and February 2022. Patients were stratified according to age as very old (≥ 80 years) and not very old (< 80 years).

RESULTS

The median overall survival (OS) was 15.7 months for patients < 80 years old and 18.4 months for patients ≥ 80 years old [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.25, p = 0.8281]. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months for patients < 80 years old and 6.5 months for patients ≥ 80 years old (HR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91-1.25, p = 0.3954). No differences between the two study groups were found in terms of disease control rate (DCR; 80.8% versus 78.8%; p = 0.44) and response rate (RR; 38.2% versus 37.9%; p = 0.88). Patients < 80 years old experienced significantly more hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) grade ≥ 2 and decreased appetite grade ≥ 2. Conversely, patients ≥ 80 years old experienced significantly more fatigue grade ≥ 2. In the very old group, parameters associated with prognosis were AFP, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC), and Child-Pugh score. BCLC stage was the only independent predictor of overall survival (OS; HR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.11-2.29, p = 0.01115).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlights the same efficacy and safety of lenvatinib between very old and not very old patients.

Changing treatment landscape associated with improved survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a nationwide, population-based study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is undergoing a historic transformation with the approval of several new systemic therapies in the last few years. This study aimed to examine the impact of this changing landscape on survival and costs in a Western nationwide, real-world cohort.

METHODS

A nationwide representative claims database (InGef) was screened for HCC cases between 2015 and 2020. Survival in an era with only sorafenib (period A, January 2015 to July 2018) and after approval of lenvatinib and other systemic treatments (period B, August 2018 to December 2020) was analysed. Health care costs were assessed.

RESULTS

We identified 2876 individuals with HCC in the study period. The proportion of patients receiving systemic therapy increased significantly over time, from 11.8% in 2015 to 15.1% in 2020 (p < 0.0001). The median overall survival in period B was 6.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.9-8.9) and in period A was 5.3 months (95% CI: 4.5-6.3; p = 0.046). In period B, the median overall survival with lenvatinib was 9.7 months (95% CI: 6.3-18.4) versus 4.8 months with sorafenib (95% CI: 4.0-7.1, p = 0.008). Costs for prescription drugs per patient increased from €6150 in 2015 to €9049 in 2020 (p < 0.0001), and costs for outpatient care per patient increased from €1646 to €2149 (p = 0.0240).

CONCLUSION

The approval of new systemic therapies resulted in a survival benefit in patients with HCC. The magnitude of the effect is modest and associated with a moderate increase in health costs.

Methylated SEPT9 assay-based liquid biopsy as a biomarker in molecular targeted agent-treated hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

The development of molecular targeted agents (MTAs) has changed the treatment strategy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, currently, there are no established predictive biomarkers for the treatment efficacy of MTAs. Previously, we developed a novel liquid biopsy test for HCC screening using sensitive methylated DNA testing of septin 9 gene (SEPT9). Here, we hypothesized that SEPT9 could be used as a biomarker for MTA treatment efficacy.

METHODS

We enrolled 157 patients receiving sorafenib or lenvatinib as a first-line therapy and allocated 85 and 72 patients to the training and validation cohorts, respectively. For the methylation assay, DNA was treated with methylation-sensitive restriction enzymes, followed by multiplex droplet digital PCR. Various clinical parameters were compared with clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

The multivariate analysis revealed Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (≥ 1; p = 0.048), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) (≥ 400 ng/mL; p < 0.001), and methylated-septin-9 (m-SEPT9) (≥ 205 copies/mL; p = 0.018) as significant predictors of poor overall survival (OS) in the training cohort. m-SEPT9 was identified as a predictor of poor OS in the validation cohort. We developed a predictive score, called the MTA score, consisting of these three significant OS parameters (two points were added for AFP and one point for each of the other predictors). Patients with MTA scores ≥ 2 showed a significantly poor prognosis compared to those with MTA scores ≤ 1 in both the training and validation cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

m-SEPT9 could be a potential predictive biomarker for survival in patients with HCC treated with MTAs.

The New Era of Systemic Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From the First Line to the Optimal Sequence

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents the most common primary liver cancer and is considered a major global health problem as one of the leading causes of cancer-related death in the world. Due to the increase in life expectancy and the epidemiological growth of specific risk factors, such as metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), the incidence of HCC is growing globally, and mortality rates are still high. Moreover, patients frequently present at an intermediate or advanced tumor stage, when curative treatments, such as surgical resection, liver transplantation or ablation are no longer applicable. In these cases, trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE), trans-arterial radioembolization (TARE), and systemic therapy are the only suitable options to achieve disease control. The multi-kinase inhibitor Sorafenib has been the only systemic treatment available for unresectable advanced HCC for almost a decade, but in the last couple of years new therapeutic options have emerged. Recent advances in understanding the interactions between the tumor and its microenvironment, especially cancer immune escape, led to the advent of immunotherapy. Currently, first-line systemic treatment for HCC is represented by the combination of the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) monoclonal antibody, but many other ICIs have been investigated, such as Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab, Durvalumab and Ipilimumab. However, the problem of second- and third-line therapies, and the correct sequence of treatments remains open and is not addressed in most studies. This explains the urge to find new systemic treatments that can improve the survival and quality of life in patients that can go beyond the first line of treatment. The aim of this paper is to offer a complete overview of the most recent innovations in systemic treatments for unresectable locally advanced and metastatic HCC, including emerging therapies, with a particular focus on treatment sequences. Moreover, we will provide an outlook on possible future approaches to patients who progress beyond first-line therapies.

The rapidly evolving landscape of HCC: Selecting the optimal systemic therapy

Over the past years, there has been a remarkable advance in the systemic treatment options for advanced HCC. The overall survival has gradually increased over time, with larger benefits for patients with sensitive tumors and preserved liver function, the latter being an essential condition for the delivery of sequential lines of treatment and optimization of clinical outcomes. With the approval of new first-line agents and the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapies, the treatment landscape of advanced HCC is becoming wider than ever. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and, more recently, durvalumab plus tremelimumab have entered the clinical practice and are the current standard of care for treatment-naïve patients, surpassing sorafenib and lenvatinib monopoly. As no head-to-head comparisons are available among all the first-line treatment options, the recommendation for the most appropriate choice and sequence is patient-driven and integrates efficacy data with clinical comorbidities, background liver disease, and the safety profile of available drugs. In addition, predictive biomarkers for successful patients' stratification are yet to be available and constitute the focus of ongoing research. The treatment algorithm is likely to become even more complex since systemic therapeutic approaches are now being translated into earlier stages of the disease, with an impact on the evolution of the sequential treatment of patients with HCC.

Mutational Landscape and Precision Medicine in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth most common malignancy worldwide and exhibits a universal burden as the incidence of the disease continues to rise. In addition to curative-intent therapies such as liver resection and transplantation, locoregional and systemic therapy options also exist. However, existing treatments carry a dismal prognosis, often plagued with high recurrence and mortality. For this reason, understanding the tumor microenvironment and mutational pathophysiology has become the center of investigation for disease control. The use of precision medicine and genetic analysis can supplement current treatment modalities to promote individualized management of HCC. In the search for personalized medicine, tools such as next-generation sequencing have been used to identify unique tumor mutations and improve targeted therapies. Furthermore, investigations are underway for specific HCC biomarkers to augment the diagnosis of malignancy, the prediction of whether the tumor environment is amenable to available therapies, the surveillance of treatment response, the monitoring for disease recurrence, and even the identification of novel therapeutic opportunities. Understanding the mutational landscape and biomarkers of the disease is imperative for tailored management of the malignancy. In this review, we summarize the molecular targets of HCC and discuss the current role of precision medicine in the treatment of HCC.

Sequential therapies after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib first-line treatments in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this retrospective proof-of-concept study was to compare different second-line treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and progressive disease (PD) after first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 1381 patients had PD at first-line therapy. 917 patients received lenvatinib as first-line treatment, and 464 patients atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line.

RESULTS

49.6% of PD patients received a second-line therapy without any statistical difference in overall survival (OS) between lenvatinib (20.6months) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line (15.7months; p = 0.12; hazard ratio [HR]= 0.80). After lenvatinib first-line, there wasn't any statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p = 0.27; sorafenib HR: 1; immunotherapy HR: 0.69; other therapies HR: 0.85). Patients who underwent trans-arterial chemo-embolization (TACE) had a significative longer OS than patients who received sorafenib (24.7 versus 15.8months, p < 0.01; HR=0.64). After atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line, there was a statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p < 0.01; sorafenib HR: 1; lenvatinib HR: 0.50; cabozantinib HR: 1.29; other therapies HR: 0.54). Patients who received lenvatinib (17.0months) and those who underwent TACE (15.9months) had a significative longer OS than patients treated with sorafenib (14.2months; respectively, p = 0.01; HR=0.45, and p < 0.05; HR=0.46).

CONCLUSION

Approximately half of patients receiving first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab access second-line treatment. Our data suggest that in patients progressed to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is lenvatinib, while in patients progressed to lenvatinib, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is immunotherapy.

Ginsenoside Rh2: A shining and potential natural product in the treatment of human nonmalignant and malignant diseases in the near future

BACKGROUND

Ginseng is well-known as one of the most valuable and commonly used Chinese medicines not only in ancient China but also worldwide including East, Russia, Southeast Asia, North America and some Western European countries. Ginsenosides, as one of the main high active components of Ginseng, have various pharmacological activities, such as anti-inflammatory, antianaphylaxis, anti-depression, and anticancer activities. Ginsenoside Rh2 (Rh2), one of the major bioactive ginsenosides in Panax ginseng, also exhibits versatile pharmacological activities, such as increasing non-specific resistance and specific immune response, improving cardiac function and fibrosis, anti-inflammatory effects and antitumor effects, which may serve as an excellent medicinal potential.

PURPOSE

As one of hundreds of ginsenosides being identified from ginseng, Rh2 exerts a markedly pharmacological effect on various diseases without severe toxicity, it has attracted many researchers 'attention. Although Rh2 plays important roles in some animal models and cell lines to simulate human diseases, its underlying molecular mechanisms have yet to be determined. During the past ten years, nearly 450 studies on Rh2 in the treatment of complex disease have been reported, however, up to now, no comprehensive reviews about the roles of Rh2 in animal models and cellular lines of human nonmalignant and malignant diseases have been conducted.

METHOD

We searched articles on ginsenoside-related diseases from December 2010 to February 2023 in peer-reviewed and nonclinical databases, which include Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, China national knowledge internet and Medline, and using the following keywords: Ginsenoside Rh2, Human diseases, Cancer, Mechanisms, Chinese herbal medicine, Natural products and Signaling pathway.

RESULTS

Therefore, in this review, we make a comprehensive summary on the roles of Rh2 and support the potential mechanisms of Rh2 according to the disease classification, including nonmalignant disease such as ulcerative colitis, neuropathic pain, Asthma, myocardial injury, depression and malignant disease such as breast cancer, colorectal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma and gastric cancer. Finally, the combination therapy of Rh2 and other medications in human diseases are summarized, apart from that, there are other problems such as the bioavailability of oral administration Rh2 to be overcome in following research.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide strong evidence that Ginsenoside Rh2 plays important roles in the treatment of nonmalignant and malignant diseases.

2022 KLCA-NCC Korea practice guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the fourth most common cancer among men in South Korea, where the prevalence of chronic hepatitis B infection is high in middle and old age. The current practice guidelines will provide useful and sensible advice for the clinical management of patients with HCC. A total of 49 experts in the fields of hepatology, oncology, surgery, radiology, and radiation oncology from the Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center Korea Practice Guideline Revision Committee revised the 2018 Korean guidelines and developed new recommendations that integrate the most up-to-date research findings and expert opinions. These guidelines provide useful information and direction for all clinicians, trainees, and researchers in the diagnosis and treatment of HCC.

Immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma: how will it reshape treatment sequencing?

The treatment landscape of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has broadened with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) setting a novel standard of care. With the increased number of therapies either in first or in further line, disentangling the possible treatment sequences has become much more complex. Yet, all the second-line therapies have been evaluated after sorafenib. After ICIs, offering multikinase inhibitors is a widespread approach, either shifting forward sorafenib or lenvatinib, or choosing among regorafenib or cabozantinib, already approved in the refractory setting. Under specific circumstances, ICIs could be maintained beyond disease progression in patients with proven clinical benefit, as supported by some data emerging from phase III clinical trials with immunotherapy in HCC. Rechallenge with ICIs is an additional attractive alternative, although requiring careful and individual evaluation as efficacy and safety of such a strategy have not been yet clarified. Still, a considerable number of patients displays primary resistance to ICIs and might benefit from antiangiogenics either alone or in addition to ICIs instead. Hopefully, the ongoing clinical trials will enlighten regarding the most effective treatment pathways. The identification of predictive correlates of response to immunotherapy will help treatment allocation at each stage, thus representing an urgent matter to address in HCC research. With programmed death ligand 1 expression, tumor mutational burden, and microsatellite status being inadequate biomarkers in HCC, patient characteristics, drug safety profile, and regulatory approval remain key elements to acknowledge in routine practice. Despite the tissue remaining a preferred source, biomarkers discovery could take advantage of liquid biopsy to overcome the matter of tissue availability and track tumor changes. Lastly, tumor genetic phenotypes, tumor microenvironment features, gut microbiome, and markers of immune response and systemic inflammation are all potential emergent predictors of response to ICIs, pending validation in the clinical setting.

Lenvatinib plus immune checkpoint inhibitors or locoregional therapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: Lessons learned and moving forwards

Hepatocellular carcinoma is one of the deadliest neoplasms around the world, and a major proportion of patients are diagnosed in an advanced state not amenable to curative treatment. Lenvatinib, a promising first-line targeted therapy, has shown antitumour activity in both preclinical studies and clinical trials. Emerging evidence indicates that a combination of lenvatinib plus anti-PD-1 inhibitors or locoregional therapies exerts a stronger antitumour effect than monotherapy and even offers the possibility of long-term survival while maintaining acceptable tolerability. Several studies have also shown the superiority of lenvatinib over sorafenib in combination strategies. This review addresses the rationale behind lenvatinib-based combination therapies and comprehensively summarizes various clinical studies investigating lenvatinib in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), locoregional therapies, and other systemic treatments. We discuss the unsatisfactory search for suitable biomarkers and key ongoing trials in this field.

Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors plus molecular targeted agents after the progression of lenvatinib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

Lenvatinib is a standard first-line systemic therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) and is widely used in all lines. However, the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) plus molecular targeted agents (MTAs) after the progression of lenvatinib treatment are unclear.

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the anticancer effects of ICI plus MTA in patients with aHCC who progressed after lenvatinib.

Methods

We retrospectively included aHCC patients treated with ICI plus MTA after the progression of lenvatinib from two medical centers. Participants who continued lenvatinib treatment were classified into the "ICI+Lenva" group, while the "ICI+Others" group included patients receiving other MTAs. The efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS), overall survival (OS), and tumor response following RECIST v1.1. Safety was evaluated according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0.

Results

In this study, 85 eligible aHCC patients were enrolled, including 58 in the ICI+Lenva group and 27 in the ICI+Others group. At a median follow-up time of 22.8 months, the median PPS and PFS were 14.0 (95% CI: 9.0-18.2) and 4.5 months (95% CI: 3.5-8.3), respectively. The objective response and disease control rates were 10.6% and 52.9%, respectively. No significant differences were observed in any of the efficacy endpoints between the two groups. Prolonged PPS was associated with Child-Pugh grade A, AFP < 400 IU/ml, and concomitant locoregional treatment. All patients experienced adverse events (AEs), but no fatal AEs were observed.

Conclusion

ICI plus MTA in aHCC patients after the progression of lenvatinib presented high antitumor activity and safety. Patients could continue lenvatinib treatment and receive ICIs as well as locoregional treatment to achieve better OS.

2022 KLCA-NCC Korea Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the fourth most common cancer among men in South Korea, where the prevalence of chronic hepatitis B infection is high in middle and old age. The current practice guidelines will provide useful and sensible advice for the clinical management of patients with HCC. A total of 49 experts in the fields of hepatology, oncology, surgery, radiology, and radiation oncology from the Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center Korea Practice Guideline Revision Committee revised the 2018 Korean guidelines and developed new recommendations that integrate the most up-to-date research findings and expert opinions. These guidelines provide useful information and direction for all clinicians, trainees, and researchers in the diagnosis and treatment of HCC.

Second-line treatment options for hepatocellular carcinoma: current state and challenges for the future

INTRODUCTION

Since the approval of sorafenib for systemic treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), many tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown efficacy and tolerability as first-line treatments. On the other hand, these first-line therapies are associated with low objective response and drug resistance. Many drugs have been successfully tested for second-line treatment of advanced HCC. While the rapid proliferation of second-line treatments for advanced HCC brings hope to patients, it also complicates clinical decision-making.

AREAS COVERED

This review aims to facilitate decisions by summarizing the latest guidelines for second-line treatment of HCC in various countries or regions. We then review existing second-line treatment options and discuss challenges that should be addressed in the future. A literature search was conducted in April 2022 of PubMed/Medline, Cochrane library, and abstracts of international cancer meetings.

EXPERT OPINION

There is no standard second-line treatment, especially for the case of sequential treatment after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo+bev) and further studies focused on sequential treatment are warranted in this setting. The design of clinical trials, different etiologies, and complications or quality of life (QoL) are interesting issues in the second-line setting.

Determinants of Treatment Benefit and Post-Treatment Survival for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Enrolled in Second-Line Trials after the Failure of Sorafenib Treatment

Second-line treatments are standard care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with preserved liver function who are intolerant of or progress on first-line therapy. However, determinants of treatment benefit and post-treatment survival (PTS) remain unknown. HCC patients previously treated with sorafenib and enrolled in second-line clinical trials were pooled according to the investigational treatment received and the subsequent regulatory approval: approved targeted agents and immune checkpoint inhibitors (AT) or other agents (OT) not subsequently approved. Univariate and multivariate analyses using Cox proportional hazards models established relationships among treatments received, clinical variables, and overall survival (OS) or PTS. For 174 patients (80 AT; 94 OT) analyzed, baseline factors for longer OS in multivariate analysis were second-line AT, absence of both portal vein thrombosis and extrahepatic spread (EHS). Treatment with AT (versus OT) was associated with significantly longer OS among patients with EHS (pinteraction = 0.005) and patients with low neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR; pinteraction = 0.032). Median PTS was 4.0 months (95% CI 2.8−5.3). At second-line treatment discontinuation, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels <400 ng/dl, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 1, and enrolment onto subsequent trials independently predicted longer PTS. Treatment with AT, PVT, and EHS were prognostic factors for OS, while AFP, ALBI grade and enrolment onto a third-line trial were prognostic for PTS. Presence of EHS and low NLR were predictors of greater OS benefit from AT.

Primary Resistance to Immunotherapy-Based Regimens in First Line Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Perspectives on Jumping the Hurdle

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are a key component of different stages of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment, particularly in the first line of treatment. A lesson on the primary resistance which hampers their efficacy and activity was learned from the failure of the trials which tested them as first-line mono-therapies. Despite the combination of anti-PD(L)1 agents with anti-VEGF, anti CTLA4, or TKIs demonstrating relevant improvements in efficacy, the "doublets strategy" still shows room for improvement, due to a limited overall survival benefit and a high rate of progressive disease as best response. In this review, we discuss the results from the currently tested doublet strategies (i.e., atezolizumab+bevacizumab, durvalumab+tremelimumab with a mention to the newly presented ICIs/TKIs combinations), which highlight the need for therapeutic improvement. Furthermore, we examine the rationale and provide an overview of the ongoing trials testing the treatment intensification strategy with triplet drugs: anti-PD1+anti-CTLA4+anti-VEGF/TKIs and anti-PD1+anti-VEGF+alternative immunity targets. Lastly, we report on the alternative strategy to integrate ICIs into the new paradigm of immune therapeutics constituted by CAR-T and anti-cancer vaccines. This review provides up-to-date knowledge of ongoing clinical trials of the aforementioned strategies and critical insight into their mechanistic premises.

2022 KLCA-NCC Korea practice guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer worldwide and the fourth most common cancer among men in South Korea, where the prevalence of chronic hepatitis B infection is high in middle and old age. The current practice guidelines will provide useful and sensible advice for the clinical management of patients with HCC. A total of 49 experts in the fields of hepatology, oncology, surgery, radiology, and radiation oncology from the Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center Korea Practice Guideline Revision Committee revised the 2018 Korean guidelines and developed new recommendations that integrate the most up-to-date research findings and expert opinions. These guidelines provide useful information and direction for all clinicians, trainees, and researchers in the diagnosis and treatment of HCC.

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.

Assessment and Monitoring of Response to Systemic Treatment in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Insights

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) management has become more complex as novel therapies have been proven effective. After sorafenib, the approval of other multikinase inhibitors (MKIs) and immune checkpoints inhibitors (ICIs) has considerably increased the number of systemic therapies available. Therefore, careful assessment and monitoring of response to systemic treatment are essential to identify surrogate endpoints of overall survival (OS) in clinical trials and reliable tools to gauge treatment benefit in clinical practice. Progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) are early informative parameters of efficacy that are not influenced by further lines of therapy. However, none of them has shown sufficient surrogacy to be recommended in place of OS in phase 3 trials. With such a wealth of therapeutic options, the prime intent of tumor assessments is no longer limited to identifying progressive disease to spare ineffective treatments to non-responders. Indeed, the early detection of responders could also help tailor treatment sequencing. Tumor assessment relies on the Response Evaluation Criteria for Solid Tumors (RECIST), which are easy to interpret - being based on dimensional principles - but could misread the activity of targeted agents. The HCC-specific modified RECIST (mRECIST), considering both the MKI-induced biological modifications and some of the cirrhosis-induced liver changes, better capture tumor response. Yet, mRECIST could not be considered a standard in advanced HCC. Further prognosticators including progression patterns, baseline and on-treatment liver function deterioration, and baseline alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) levels and AFP response have been extensively evaluated for MKIs. However, limited information is available for patients receiving ICIs and regarding their predictive role. Finally, there is increasing interest in incorporating novel imaging techniques which go beyond sizes and novel serum biomarkers in the advanced HCC framework. Hopefully, multiparametric models grouping dimensional and functional radiological parameters with biochemical markers will most precisely reflect treatment response.

A Review of Current and Emerging Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma remains a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. Liver disease including cirrhosis and viral hepatitis remains among the leading causes of hepatocellular carcinoma and despite increased screening, many patients are diagnosed in the advanced stages precluding them from locoregional therapy. Therapeutic agents for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma were limited to Sorafenib for several years; however, with the emergence of molecular targeted therapies including tyrosine kinase inhibitors and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, in addition to immunotherapies, the way hepatocellular carcinoma is treated has changed significantly. In this review, we summarize the key clinical trials that lead to the approval of these agents for systemic treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma and discuss the preferred sequence of treatment options as well as prospective studies for management of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Patterns and outcomes of subsequent therapy after immune checkpoint inhibitor discontinuation in HCC

The availability of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the management of advanced hepatocellular cancer (HCC) has changed the treatment paradigm. There are emerging questions regarding the efficacy of subsequent anticancer therapies. The primary aim of this retrospective, multicenter study was to examine the types of anticancer treatment received after ICIs and to assess the impact on post-ICI survival. We established an international consortium of 11 tertiary-care referral centers located in the USA (n = 249), Europe (n = 74), and Asia (n = 97), and described patterns of care following ICI therapy. The impact of subsequent therapy on overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and presented with a 95% confidence interval (CI). A total of 420 patients were treated with ICIs for advanced HCC after one line of systemic therapy (n = 371, 88.8%): 31 (8.8%) had died, 152 (36.2%) received best supportive care (BSC) following ICIs, and 163 patients (38.8%) received subsequent anticancer therapy. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs, n = 132, 80.9%), in particular sorafenib (n = 49, 30.0%), were the most common post-ICI therapy followed by external beam radiotherapy (n = 28, 17.2%), further immunotherapy (n = 21, 12.9%), locoregional therapy (n = 23, 14.1%), chemotherapy (n = 9, 5.5%), and surgery (n = 6, 3.6%). Receipt of post-ICI therapy was associated with longer median OS compared with those who had received BSC (12.1 vs. 3.3 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.4 (95% CI: 2.7-5.0). No difference in OS was noted in those patients who received TKI before ICIs compared with those who received ICIs followed by TKI. Conclusion: Post-ICI therapy is associated with OS in excess of 12 months, suggesting a role for therapeutic sequencing. OS from TKI therapy was similar to that reported in registration studies, suggesting preserved efficacy following ICIs.

New treatment paradigm with systemic therapy in intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma

Since the approval of sorafenib for the treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in 2007 (in 2009 in Japan), five more regimens have been approved: lenvatinib, and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for first-line treatment, and regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab for second-line treatment, which are currently available for clinical use. The positive results of durvalumab, a programmed cell death ligand 1 antibody, plus tremelimumab, an anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 antibody, were also presented at the 2022 American Society Clinical Oncology Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium as superior to sorafenib in prolonging the overall survival; this combination is expected to be approved by the end of 2022. These systemic therapies are changing the treatment paradigm not only for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma but also for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. This review focuses on the role of systemic therapy in intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

Systemic Treatment of Advanced Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma after First-Line Therapy: Expert Recommendations from Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Asia has a high burden of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to the high rates of chronic hepatitis B infection and accounts for 70% of HCC cases globally. In the past 20 years, the systemic treatment landscape of advanced HCC has evolved substantially - from tyrosine kinase inhibitors to immune-oncology agents plus anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. The appropriate sequence of therapies has become critical in optimizing patient outcomes given the increase in systemic therapeutic options. This article evaluates the evidence and provides expert recommendations for the use of systemic therapies after first-line treatment in patients with advanced HCC.

SUMMARY

Based on three virtual meetings held in early 2021, a team of 17 experts comprising oncologists, a hepatologist, and a hepatobiliary surgeon from Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan reviewed available data about systemic treatments for HCC after first line and formulated 28 statements. These statements aimed to provide expert guidance on selecting first and subsequent lines of therapies as well as recommending therapies in special circumstances, such as poor liver function, posttransplantation, recent gastrointestinal bleeding, or autoimmune diseases. Data supporting the statements were drawn from clinical trials and real-world studies. The 28 statements were then evaluated anonymously using a 5-point Likert scale, and 24 reached consensus, predefined as achieving 75% agreement. Statements generated covered the selection of first-line systemic therapy, considerations and goals of second-line systemic therapies, treatment selection following first-line therapy, and treatment recommendations following first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors, immune-oncology monotherapy, or immune-oncology combination therapy. The authors also shared expert opinion on the use of second-line systemic therapy in patients with liver dysfunction, liver transplantation, and recent gastrointestinal or autoimmune disease.

KEY MESSAGES

These expert statements summarize the latest data and expert opinion on selecting systemic treatment following first-line therapy in patients with unresectable advanced or metastatic HCC.

Significance of post‐progression therapy after tyrosine kinase inhibitors for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Background and Aim

Molecular‐targeted therapies such as sorafenib and lenvatinib have long been used as first‐line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, adverse events or limited therapeutic effects may necessitate the change to another therapeutic option, known as post‐progression therapy. To investigate the significance of post‐progression therapy, we analyzed the outcomes of aHCC patients following first‐line molecular‐targeted therapy in a real‐world study.

Methods

This retrospective, multicenter study involved patients with aHCC who received sorafenib or lenvatinib as first‐line therapy between January 2011 and September 2021.

Results

In total, 513 patients were analyzed: 309 treated with sorafenib and 204 with lenvatinib. The overall response and disease control rates were 15 and 50%, respectively, in the sorafenib group and 30 and 75%, respectively, in the lenvatinib group (P < 0.001). Kaplan–Meier analysis revealed no significant differences in progression‐free survival and overall survival (OS) between the two treatments. Multivariate analysis revealed that fibrosis‐4 index, disease control rate, post‐progression therapy, and use of an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) were significantly associated with OS. OS was significantly longer in patients who received post‐progression therapy than in those who did not (log‐rank P < 0.001). Most patients who received an ICI as post‐progression therapy had previously received lenvatinib. Among lenvatinib‐treated patients, OS was significantly longer in patients who received an ICI than in patients received another or no post‐progression therapy (P = 0.004).

Conclusion

The introduction of newer drugs for post‐progression therapy is expected to prolong survival. ICI‐based regimens appear to be effective after lenvatinib.

Systemic Therapy in Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Multiple new tyrosine kinase inhibitors, immunotherapies and anti-angiogenic therapies are now available for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this article, we reviewed the evidence supporting these new therapies.

RECENT FINDINGS

The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has become a new standard of care for initial systemic therapy in eligible patients, replacing sorafenib in the first line for many patients. Lenvatinib, a multikinase inhibitor, is also a new first line treatment option for patients who are not eligible for immunotherapy. Several additional options for second line treatment were also reviewed in detail in this paper. New systemic therapies for advanced HCC have prolonged overall survival. However, these new therapies are primarily approved for patients with Child-Pugh A classification with few options for patients with Child-Pugh B disease. Further work is needed to expand options for patients with more advanced liver disease and to optimize the sequencing of these new therapies.

Combining immune checkpoint inhibitor with lenvatinib prolongs survival than lenvatinib alone in sorafenib-experienced hepatocellular carcinoma patients

BACKGROUND

Lenvatinib and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) were approved as the promising agents for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Nevertheless, the benefits of combining ICI with lenvatinib in sorafenib-experienced patients remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate whether the combination use of ICI and lenvatinib provides better survival than lenvatinib alone in advanced stage HCC patients.

METHODS

From March 2018 to August 2019, a total of 53 unresectable HCC patients receiving lenvatinib were recruited. Treatment response was evaluated by dynamic image including computed tomography or MRI. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and predictors for survival were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 53 patients, the median age was 67.2 years old, and 66.4% were male. Twenty-one patients had sorafenib-experienced history. Eighteen patients (34%) died with median follow-up duration of 8.1 months. Patient receiving lenvatinib had median OS of 16.9 [95% confidence interval (CI): 10.1-23.7] months, and PFS of 7.23 (95% CI: 4.8-9.7) months. In multivariate Cox regression analysis, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade III (adjusted HR: 6.699, P = 0.0039) and the history of sorafenib treatment (adjusted HR: 4.476, P = 0.0457) were the independent predictive factor for OS. In sorafenib-experienced patients, those combined treated with ICI (N = 14) showed significantly better survival than monotherapy with lenvatinib (median: 12.8 vs 4.1 months, log-rank P = 0.008).

CONCLUSION

The ALBI grade and sorafenib treatment history were predictors for OS in HCC patients receiving lenvatinib. For sorafenib-experienced patients, combining ICI with lenvatinib achieved better OS than lenvatinib alone.

Analysis of Survival and Response to Lenvatinib in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Simple Summary

With the recent increase in the number of drug therapy options for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (u-HCC), the key issue has become how to prolong overall survival (OS). The aim was to evaluate the association between radiological response and OS in patients treated with lenvatinib as a first-line systemic treatment for u-HCC. Radiological response using both Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) is a predictor of OS and achieving an objective response at the first evaluation is an independent prognostic factor for OS. In addition, if an objective response is obtained at the initial evaluation, continuation of treatment appears desirable because prolonged OS can be expected; but, if stable disease is obtained at the initial evaluation, one should determine whether to continue or switch to the next treatment, with careful consideration of factors related to the tumor and hepatic reserve at the initial evaluation.

Abstract

The association between radiological response and overall survival (OS) was retrospectively evaluated in patients treated with lenvatinib as a first-line systemic treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. A total of 182 patients with Child–Pugh class A liver function and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of zero or one were enrolled. Radiological evaluation was performed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST). Initial radiological evaluation confirmed significant stratification of OS by efficacy judgment with both RECIST and mRECIST, and that initial radiological response was an independent prognostic factor for OS on multivariate analysis. Furthermore, in patients with stable disease (SD) at initial evaluation, macrovascular invasion at the initial evaluation on RECIST and modified albumin–bilirubin grade at initial evaluation on mRECIST were independent predictors of OS on multivariate analysis. In conclusion, if objective response is obtained at the initial evaluation, continuation of treatment appears desirable because prolonged OS can be expected; but, if SD is obtained at the initial evaluation, one should determine whether to continue or switch to the next treatment, with careful consideration of factors related to the tumor and hepatic reserve at the initial evaluation.

Prospect of lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma in the new era of systemic chemotherapy

The phase III clinical trial of the novel molecular targeted agent (MTA) lenvatinib for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (REFLECT trial) found that lenvatinib was non-inferior to sorafenib in overall survival. Recently, the efficacy of multiple MTAs, including lenvatinib, in practice has been reported, and therapeutic strategies for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) intermediate stage HCC are undergoing major changes. Based on these results, lenvatinib could be recommended for patients with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE)-refractory, ALBI grade 1, within the up-to-seven criteria in the BCLC intermediate stage. Lenvatinib provides a more favorable outcome than TACE, even in cases with large or multinodular HCC beyond the up-to-seven criteria with Child-Pugh grade A. When patients meet the definitions of TACE-refractory or TACE-unsuitable, switching to systemic chemotherapy, including lenvatinib, is for favorable for preserving liver function. If initial treatment, including MTA, has a significant therapeutic effect and downstaging of HCC is obtained, additional TACE or surgical resection should be considered. Lenvatinib also has a therapeutic effect for poorly differentiated type and non-simple nodular type HCC thanks to the survival-prolonging effect of this drug. Furthermore, a significant therapeutic effect is expected in tumors with more than 50% liver involvement or main portal vein invasion, which have traditionally been considered to have a poor prognosis in patients. This suggests that at the start of lenvatinib treatment, HCC patients with ALBI grade 1 may be able to maintain liver functional reserve.

Evolution of Survival Impact of Molecular Target Agents in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The prognosis of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is expected to improve as multiple molecular target agents (MTAs) are now available. However, the impact of the availability of sequential MTAs has not been fully verified yet.

APPROACH AND RESULTS

We retrospectively collected the data on the whole clinical course of 877 patients who received any MTAs as first-line systemic therapy for advanced HCC between June 2009 and March 2019. The study population was divided into 3 groups according to the date of first-line MTA administration (period 1: 2009-2012, n = 267; period 2: 2013-2016, n = 352; period 3: 2017-2019, n = 258). Then, we compared the number of MTAs used, overall survival (OS), and MTA treatment duration among the 3 groups. Analysis was also performed separately for advanced-stage and nonadvanced-stage HCC. The proportion of patients who received multiple MTAs was remarkably increased over time (1.1%, 10.2%, and 42.6% in periods 1, 2, and 3, respectively, p < 0.001). The median OS times were prolonged to 10.4, 11.3, and 15.2 months in periods 1, 2, and 3, respectively (p = 0.016). Similarly, the MTA treatment durations were extended (2.7, 3.2, and 6.6 months in periods 1, 2, and 3, respectively; p < 0.001). We confirmed that the correlation between OS and MTA treatment duration was strengthened (period 1: 0.395, period 2: 0.505, and period 3: 0.667). All these trends were pronounced in the patients with advanced-stage HCC but limited in the patients with nonadvanced-stage HCC.

CONCLUSIONS

The availability of multiple MTAs had steadily improved the prognosis of patients with advanced HCC patients, particularly advanced-stage HCC patients.

Adverse events as potential predictive factors of activity in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with lenvatinib

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Lenvatinib is a standard of care option in first-line therapy of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In the present study, we aim to identify, in patients with HCC treated with lenvatinib, a possible association between occurrence and grading of adverse events (AEs) and outcome.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 606 Japanese and Italian patients treated with lenvatinib in first-line setting and investigated the possible correlation between the onset of AEs, toxicity grade (G) and outcome measures such as overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

The appearance of arterial hypertension G ≥ 2 independently predicted prolonged OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.93, P = .0188], whereas decreased appetite G ≥ 2 independently predicted decreased OS (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.25-2.32, P = .0007) by multivariate analysis. Appearance of hand-foot skin reaction independently predicted prolonged PFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.93, P = .0149), whereas decreased appetite G ≥ 2 predicted decreased PFS (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.04-1.77, P = .0277).

CONCLUSIONS

Our main findings are that the occurrence of arterial hypertension G ≥ 2 is a predictor of longer survival, whereas decreased appetite G ≥ 2 predicts for a poor prognosis. A careful management of AEs under lenvatinib treatment for HCC is required, to improve patients' quality of life, minimize the need for treatment discontinuation and achieve optimal outcome.

Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis in hepatocarcinoma: new insights about its prognostic role in patients treated with lenvatinib

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment remains a big challenge in the field of oncology. The liver disease (viral or not viral) underlying HCC turned out to be crucial in determining the biologic behavior of the tumor, including its response to treatment. The aim of this analysis was to investigate the role of the etiology of the underlying liver disease in survival outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a multicenter retrospective study on a large cohort of patients treated with lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced HCC from both Eastern and Western institutions. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed.

RESULTS

Among the 1232 lenvatinib-treated HCC patients, 453 (36.8%) were hepatitis C virus positive, 268 hepatitis B virus positive (21.8%), 236 nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) correlate (19.2%) and 275 had other etiologies (22.3%). The median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 6.2 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.9-6.7 months] and the median overall survival (mOS) was 15.8 months (95% CI 14.9-17.2 months). In the univariate analysis for OS NASH-HCC was associated with longer mOS [22.2 versus 15.1 months; hazard ratio (HR) 0.69; 95% CI 0.56-0.85; P = 0.0006]. In the univariate analysis for PFS NASH-HCC was associated with longer mPFS (7.5 versus 6.5 months; HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71-0.99; P = 0.0436). The multivariate analysis confirmed NASH-HCC (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.48-0.86; P = 0.0028) as an independent prognostic factor for OS, along with albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, extrahepatic spread, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, portal vein thrombosis, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status and alpha-fetoprotein. An interaction test was performed between sorafenib and lenvatinib cohorts and the results highlighted the positive predictive role of NASH in favor of the lenvatinib arm (P = 0.0047).

CONCLUSION

NASH has been identified as an independent prognostic factor in a large cohort of patients with advanced HCC treated with lenvatinib, thereby suggesting the role of the etiology in the selection of patients for tyrosine kinase treatment. If validated, this result could provide new insights useful to improve the management of these patients.

Systemic treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: An EASL position paper

The last 5 years have witnessed relevant advances in the systemic treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. New data have emerged since the development of the EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma in 2018. Drugs licensed in some countries now include 4 oral multi-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib and cabozantinib), 1 anti-angiogenic antibody (ramucirumab) and 4 immune checkpoint inhibitors, alone or in combination (atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab, ipilimumab in combination with nivolumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab in monotherapy). Prolonged survival in excess of 2 years can be expected in most patients with sensitive tumours and well-preserved liver function that renders them fit for sequential therapies. With different choices available in any given setting, the robustness of the evidence of efficacy and a correct matching of the safety profile of a given agent with patient characteristics and preferences are key in making sound therapeutic decisions. The recommendations in this document amend the previous EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines and aim to help clinicians provide the best possible care for patients today. In view of several ongoing and promising trials, further advances in systemic therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma are foreseen in the near future and these recommendations will have to be updated regularly.

Lenvatinib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients with Nonviral Infection Who Were Unlikely to Respond to Immunotherapy: A Retrospective, Comparative Study

AIM

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo + bev) shows a good overall survival (OS) in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. However, the OS of patients with nonviral infection is quite worse than that in those with viral infection. The present study investigated the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in patients with nonviral infection, who were unlikely to obtain benefit from atezo + bev.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter retrospective study that included 139 advanced HCC patients treated with lenvatinib between March 2018 and September 2020.

RESULTS

The median age was 72 years, and 116 patients (83.5%) were male. Based on the etiology of liver disease, 84 (60.4%) and 55 patients (39.6%) were assigned to the viral infection and nonviral infection groups, respectively. The significant extents in patient characteristics were not observed in both groups. The objective response rate per mRECIST and progression-free survival (PFS) did not differ significantly between the viral infection and nonviral infection groups (36.0 vs. 33.0%, p = 0.85; and 7.6 vs. 7.5 months, p = 0.94, respectively). The 1-year survival rates were 68.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 57.7-79.7%) in the viral infection group and 59.5% (95% CI 45.2-73.8%) in the nonviral infection group. The viral infection group was not a significant factor associated with the PFS or OS in a multivariate analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Lenvatinib shows no significant difference in response between patients with and without viral infection. Treatment strategies based on the etiology of liver disease may lead to good clinical outcome.

Cellular based immunotherapy for primary liver cancer

Primary liver cancer (PLC) is a common malignancy with high morbidity and mortality. Poor prognosis and easy recurrence on PLC patients calls for optimizations of the current conventional treatments and the exploration of novel therapeutic strategies. For most malignancies, including PLC, immune cells play crucial roles in regulating tumor microenvironments and specifically recognizing tumor cells. Therefore, cellular based immunotherapy has its instinctive advantages in PLC therapy as a novel therapeutic strategy. From the active and passive immune perspectives, we introduced the cellular based immunotherapies for PLC in this review, covering both the lymphoid and myeloid cells. Then we briefly review the combined cellular immunotherapeutic approaches and the existing obstacles for PLC treatment.

Lenvatinib: established and promising drug for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

: The evolving therapeutic landscape of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) includes the increasing implementation of target-therapy and immunotherapy. Lenvatinib, a multi-target tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), is an emerging first-line therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Its approval has changed the scenario of first-line therapies for advanced HCC, where just sorafenib proved clinical efficacy for over a decade.

AREAS COVERED

: The current evidence on the role of lenvatinib for patients with advanced HCC is reviewed in this article. Particularly, therapeutic mechanisms and clinical efficacy of lenvatinib are summarized and the management of adverse events is discussed. In addition, future perspectives on the emerging role of combine therapy for HCC are highlighted.

EXPERT OPINION

In the first line, lenvatinib was found to be non-inferior to sorafenib for overall survival, with significantly better progression-free survival and objective response rate. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are now part of HCC treatment, and recently the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has become the recommended standard of care first-line therapy for selected patients. The antitumor and immunomodulatory activities that lenvatinib shows in preclinical studies, and the positive outcomes achieved using a combination of lenvatinib plus ICIs, open new perspectives for advanced HCC treatment.

The evolving treatment paradigm of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: putting all the pieces back together

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The therapeutic landscape of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has become notably complex in recent years. With this review, we aimed to put the most recent findings in perspective and tried to delineate the rapidly changing treatment algorithm.

RECENT FINDINGS

The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has become the new first-line standard of care treatment for unresectable HCC after the positive results of the phase 3 IMbrave150 study. Nivolumab monotherapy failed to demonstrate advantage versus sorafenib in the CheckMate 459 trial, while two different therapeutic strategies (sintilimab and bevacizumab biosimilar and donafenib) outperformed sorafenib in two phase 2/3 studies conducted in the Chinese population. Several immunotherapy combinations are currently under study in large phase 3 trials after promising results in earlier phase studies. About further lines of treatment, the combination of ipilimumab and nivolumab was approved for sorafenib-pretreated patients after the positive results of the phase 1/2 CheckMate 040 study and apatinib was proven effective in the Chinese population in a phase 2/3 study, while pembrolizumab as monotherapy did not show statistically significant superiority when compared with placebo in the KEYNOTE-240 study.

SUMMARY

Because of the growing complexity of advanced HCC treatment, the implementation of predictive biomarkers of response is eagerly needed.

Trial eligibility in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Does it support clinical practice in underrepresented subgroups?

Although hepatocellular carcinoma is considered a highly lethal malignancy, recent therapeutic advances have been achieved during the last 10 years. This scenario resulted in an unprecedented improvement in survival for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, almost reaching 20-26 mo of overall survival after first-second line sequential treatment. The advent of the combination of atezolizumab with bevacizumab showed, for the first time, superiority over sorafenib with improvement in overall survival. However, first and second-line trials were correctly based on the premise that a strict selection of patients enhances the power to capture the positive effect of treatment by excluding competing risks for mortality such as liver failure, decompensated cirrhosis or other underlying medical conditions. As a result, the inclusion criteria used in clinical trials do not support the use of novel therapies in several real-world scenarios involving underrepresented subgroups, such as patients with unpreserved liver function, other comorbid conditions, a history of solid-organ transplantation, autoimmune disorders and those with a high risk of bleeding. The present text aims at discussing treatment strategies in these subgroups.

Skeletal Muscle Volume Is an Independent Predictor of Survival after Sorafenib Treatment Failure for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Few studies exist on the relationship between post-progression survival (PPS) and skeletal muscle volume in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients receiving sorafenib. This study aimed to analyze the effects of muscle volume on clinical outcomes. We retrospectively enrolled 356 HCC patients. Various clinical parameters, including skeletal muscle index, were analyzed as predictors of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and PPS. Patients with high muscle volume showed longer survival or PPS than those with low muscle volume (median survival time: 12.8 vs. 9.5 months, p = 0.005; median PPS: 8.2 vs. 6.3 months, p = 0.015); however, no differences in PFS were found. Multivariate analysis indicated that muscle volume was an independent predictor of PPS and OS. Skeletal muscle volume was a PPS predictor in HCC patients receiving sorafenib. Therefore, survival can be prolonged by the upregulation of skeletal muscle volume, especially in HCC patients with skeletal muscle depletion.

Posttreatment after Lenvatinib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND

There is no standard posttreatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in whom lenvatinib therapy has failed. This study aimed to investigate rates of migration to posttreatment after lenvatinib and to explore candidates for second-line agents in the patients with failed lenvatinib therapy.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data on patients with advanced HCC who received lenvatinib as the first-line agent in 7 institutions.

RESULTS

Overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) of 178 patients who received lenvatinib as the first-line agent were 13.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.5-15.2) and 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.6-7.8), respectively. Sixty-nine of 151 patients (45.7%) who discontinued lenvatinib moved on to posttreatment. The migration rates from lenvatinib to the second-line agent and from the second-line agent to the third-line agent were 41.7 and 44.4%, respectively. Based on multivariate analysis, response to lenvatinib (complete or partial response according to modified RECIST) and discontinuation of lenvatinib due to radiological progression, as well as male were associated with a significantly higher probability of migration to posttreatment after lenvatinib. On the other hand, alpha-fetoprotein levels of 400 ng/mL or higher was correlated with a significantly lower probability of migration to posttreatment after lenvatinib. Of 63 patients who received second-line systemic therapy, 53 (84.2%) were administered sorafenib. PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) for sorafenib treatment were 1.8 months (95% CI, 0.6-3.0), 1.8%, and 20.8%, respectively. According to the Cox regression hazard model, Child-Pugh class B significantly contributed to shorter PFS. PFS, ORR, and DCR of 22 patients who received regorafenib after lenvatinib in any lines were 3.2 months (range, 1.5-4.9 months), 13.6%, and 36.3%, respectively. Similarly, PFS, ORR, and DCR of 17 patients who received regorafenib after lenvatinib in the third-line (after sorafenib) were 3.8 months (range, 1.1-6.5 months), 17.6%, and 41.2%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Sorafenib may not be a candidate for use as a posttreatment agent after lenvatinib, according to the results of the present study. Regorafenib has the potential to become an appropriate posttreatment agent after lenvatinib.

Beyond First-Line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Until recently, the treatment landscape for hepatocellular cancer (HCC) was dominated by tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) which offered an overall survival (OS) benefit when used both in the first-and second-line setting compared to best supportive care. However, the treatment landscape has changed with the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of HCC with significant improvement in OS and progression free survival reported with combination atezolizumab and bevacizumab compared to sorafenib in the first-line setting. Nonetheless, the response to ICIs is 20–30% and invariably patients will progress. What remains unclear is which therapeutics should be used following ICI exposure. Extrapolating from the evidence base in renal cell carcinoma, subsequent therapy with TKIs offers both a response and survival benefit and are recommended by European guidelines. However, there are a number of novel therapies emerging that target mechanisms of ICI resistance that hold promise both in combination with ICI or as subsequent therapy. This paper will discuss the evidence for ICIs in HCC, the position of second-line therapies following ICIs and research strategies moving forward.

Clinical Characterisation and Management of the Main Treatment-Induced Toxicities in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Cirrhosis

The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continues to increase worldwide, particularly in Western countries. In almost all cases, HCC develops in subjects with hepatic cirrhosis, often as the result of hepatitis B or C virus infection, alcohol abuse or metabolic forms secondary to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Patients with HCC and hepatic symptoms can therefore present symptoms that are attributable to both conditions. These patients require multidisciplinary management, calling for close interaction between the hepatologist and the oncologist. Indeed, the treatment of HCC requires, depending on the disease stage and the degree of hepatic impairment, locoregional therapies that can in turn be broken down into surgical and nonsurgical treatments and systemic treatments used in the event of progression after the administration of locoregional treatments. The past decade has seen the publication of countless papers of great interest that have radically changed the scenario of treatment for HCC. Novel therapies with biological agents and immunotherapy have come to be standard options in the approach to treatment of this cancer, obtaining very promising results where in the past chemotherapy was almost never able to have an impact on the course of the disease. However, in addition to being costly, these drugs are not devoid of adverse effects and their management cannot forgo the consideration of the underlying hepatic impairment. Patients with HCC and cirrhosis therefore require special attention, starting from the initial characterisation needed for an appropriate selection of those to be referred for treatment, as these patients are almost never fit. In this chapter, we will attempt to investigate and clarify the key points of the management of the main toxicities induced by locoregional and systemic treatments for HCC secondary to cirrhosis.

Lenvatinib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Literature Review

Lenvatinib, which is an oral multikinase inhibitor, showed non-inferiority to the sorafenib in terms of overall survival (OS) and a higher objective response rate (ORR) and better progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A good liver function and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) intermediate stage were the key factors in achieving therapeutic efficacy. The management of adverse events plays an important role in continuing lenvatinib treatment. While sequential therapies contributed to prolonging overall survival, effective molecular targeted agents for the administration after lenvatinib have not been established. Repeated transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) was associated with a decline in the liver function and poor therapeutic response in BCLC intermediate patients. Recently, the Asia-Pacific Primary Liver Cancer Expert (APPLE) Consensus Statement proposed the criteria for TACE unsuitability. Upfront systemic therapy may be better for the BCLC intermediate stage HCC patients with a high tumor burden, while selective TACE will be recommended for obtaining a curative response in patients with a low tumor burden. This article reviews the therapeutic response, management of adverse events, post-progression treatment after Lenvatinib, and treatment strategy for BCLC intermediate stage HCC.

Systemic therapy of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

For a decade, sorafenib remained the only approved first-line treatment and standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The treatment landscape has been evolving rapidly over the past 2 years with the approval of additional first-and second-line systemic treatments, most of which are targeted therapies. The expected approval of immunotherapies constitutes a paradigm shift: for the first time in years, a checkpoint inhibitor in combination with a VEGF antibody recently outperformed sorafenib with regards to efficacy. The wider availability of systemic therapies increases the chance for longer overall survival but raises new questions concerning the role of local options, treatment choice and sequential treatment. Following an expert discussion at the German Cancer Congress 2020 in Berlin, this article aims to summarize the current evidence on and experience of treatment choice and sequence in first- and second-line therapy.