Comparative Effectiveness of Transarterial Embolization and Sorafenib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Population-Based Study

Chemoembolization combined radiofrequency ablation vs. chemoembolization alone for treatment of beyond the Milan criteria viable hepatocellular carcinoma (CERFA): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Many previous studies evaluated a combination of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) and radiofrequency ablation (RFA) for treating early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, studies evaluating combination therapy for beyond-the-Milan criteria HCC are scarce.

METHODS

A total of 120 patients with beyond-the-Milan criteria HCC who have viable tumour after first TACE will be enrolled in this multi-institutional, parallel, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial. Patients with metastasis, vascular invasion, or a sum of tumour diameter > 8 cm will be excluded. Eligible patients will be randomly assigned to combination TACE and RFA therapy or TACE monotherapy groups. Patients in the combination therapy group will receive a second TACE and subsequent RFA at the viable tumour. Patients in the TACE monotherapy group will receive only second TACE. Patients in both groups will undergo magnetic resonance imaging 4-6 weeks after second TACE. The primary endpoint is 1-month tumour response, and secondary endpoints are progression-free survival, overall response rate, number of treatments until CR, overall survival, and change in liver function.

DISCUSSION

Although TACE can be used to treat intermediate-stage HCC, it is difficult to achieve CR by first TACE in most intermediate-stage patients. Recent studies show a survival advantage of combination therapy over monotherapy. However, most studies evaluating combination therapy included patients with a single tumour sized < 5 cm, and no studies included patients with intermediate-stage but more advanced (i.e., beyond-the-Milan criteria) HCC. This study will evaluate the efficacy of combined TACE and RFA therapy for patients with advanced HCC within the intermediate stage.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Research Information Service (CRiS) KCT0006483.

To Systematically Evaluate and Analyze the Efficacy and Safety of Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization (TACE) in the Treatment of Primary Liver Cancer

The efficacy and safety of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) are systematically evaluated in the treatment of primary liver cancer, which provides a reference for clinical practice and more in-depth research. Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CBM, CNKI, VIP, and WanFang Data, supplemented by other searches, collected all randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing TACE combined with TACE alone for HCC. The meta-analysis, after selecting the literature, extracting data, and evaluating the methodological quality of the included studies following the inclusion criteria, was performed using RevMan 5.1 software. There was statistical difference in 3-year survival rate of TACE combined with heat treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (OR = 1.72,95%CI (1.22,2.41), P=0.002, I2 = 0%, and Z = 3.12), total effective rate (OR = 1.91,95%CI (1.31,2.78), P=0.0008, I2 = 0%, and Z = 3.37), quality-of-life improvement rate (OR = 2.29,95%CI (1.62,3.23), P < 0.00001, I2 = 83%, and Z = 3.37), and complication rate (OR = 2.29,95%CI (1.62,3.23), P < 0.00001, I2 = 83%, and Z = 3.37). Compared with TACE alone, TACE combined with hyperthermia can significantly improve the survival rate and recent efficacy of patients, improve the quality of life, and have a trend to reduce the incidence of toxicity. However, its long-term efficacy and more comprehensive safety need to be verified by more sample and high-quality RCT.

Are there socio-economic inequalities in utilization of predictive biomarker tests and biological and precision therapies for cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Novel biological and precision therapies and their associated predictive biomarker tests offer opportunities for increased tumor response, reduced adverse effects, and improved survival. This systematic review determined if there are socio-economic inequalities in utilization of predictive biomarker tests and/or biological and precision cancer therapies.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Web of Science, PubMed, and PsycINFO were searched for peer-reviewed studies, published in English between January 1998 and December 2019. Observational studies reporting utilization data for predictive biomarker tests and/or cancer biological and precision therapies by a measure of socio-economic status (SES) were eligible. Data was extracted from eligible studies. A modified ISPOR checklist for retrospective database studies was used to assess study quality. Meta-analyses were undertaken using a random-effects model, with sub-group analyses by cancer site and drug class. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were computed for each study. Pooled utilization ORs for low versus high socio-economic groups were calculated for test and therapy receipt.

RESULTS

Among 10,722 citations screened, 62 papers (58 studies; 8 test utilization studies, 37 therapy utilization studies, 3 studies on testing and therapy, 10 studies without denominator populations or which only reported mean socio-economic status) met the inclusion criteria. Studies reported on 7 cancers, 5 predictive biomarkers tests, and 11 biological and precision therapies. Thirty-eight studies (including 1,036,125 patients) were eligible for inclusion in meta-analyses. Low socio-economic status was associated with modestly lower predictive biomarker test utilization (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.05; 10 studies) and significantly lower biological and precision therapy utilization (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.91; 30 studies). Associations with therapy utilization were stronger in lung cancer (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-1.00; 6 studies), than breast cancer (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.78-1.10; 8 studies). The mean study quality score was 6.9/10.

CONCLUSIONS

These novel results indicate that there are socio-economic inequalities in predictive biomarker tests and biological and precision therapy utilization. This requires further investigation to prevent differences in outcomes due to inequalities in treatment with biological and precision therapies.

Targeted arsenite-loaded magnetic multifunctional nanoparticles for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Arsenic trioxide (ATO), an FDA-approved drug for acute promyelocytic leukemia, also has great potential for treatment of solid tumors. Drug delivery powered by recent advances in nanotechnology has boosted the efficacy of many drugs, which is enlightening for applications of ATO in treating solid tumors. Herein, we reported arsenite-loaded multifunctional nanoparticles that are capable of pH-responsive ATO release for treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and real-time monitoring via magnetic resonance imaging. We fabricated these nanoparticles (designated as magnetic large-pore mesoporous silica nanoparticle (M-LPMSN)-NiAsO _x ) by loading nanoparticulate ATO prodrugs (NiAsO _x ) into the pores of large-pore mesoporous silica nanoparticles (LPMSNs) that contain magnetic iron oxide nanoparticles in the center. The surface of these nanodrugs was modified with a targeting ligand folic acid (FA) to further enhance the drug efficacy. Releasing profiles manifest the responsive discharging of arsenite in acidic environment. In vitro experiments with SMMC-7721 cells reveal that M-LPMSN-NiAsO _x -FA nanodrugs have significantly higher cytotoxicity than traditional free ATO and induce more cell apoptosis. In vivo experiments with mice bearing H22 tumors further confirm the superior antitumor efficacy of M-LPMSN-NiAsO _x -FA over traditional free ATO and demonstrate the outstanding imaging ability of M-LPMSN-NiAsO _x -FA for real-time tumor monitoring. These targeted arsenite-loaded magnetic mesoporous silica nanoparticles integrating imaging and therapy hold great promise for treatment of HCC, indicating the auspicious potential of LPMSN-based nanoplatforms.

Battle Royale: Systemic Versus Locoregional Therapy for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

OBJECTIVE

This commentary discusses research examining comparisons of locoregional therapy with systemic therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

CONCLUSION

Comparison of patient outcomes after locoregional or systemic therapy for HCC is confounded by selection bias, wherein patients chosen for locoregional therapy usually have better underlying liver function that may contribute to the observed longer survival.