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

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Beyond the Border of Advanced Stage Therapy

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the deadliest emergent health issue around the globe. The stronger oncogenic effect, proteins, and weakened immune response are precisely linked with a significant prospect of developing HCC. Several conventional systemic therapies, antiangiogenic therapy, and immunotherapy techniques have significantly improved the outcomes for early-, intermediate-, and advanced-stage HCC patients, giving new hope for effective HCC management and prolonged survival rates. Innovative therapeutic approaches beyond conventional treatments have altered the landscape of managing HCC, particularly focusing on targeted therapies and immunotherapies. The advancement in HCC treatment suggested by the Food and Drug Administration is multidimensional treatment options, including multikinase inhibitors (sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, ramucirumab, and cabozantinib) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (atezolizumab, pembrolizumab, durvalumab, tremelimumab, ipilimumab, and nivolumab), in monotherapy and in combination therapy to increase life expectancy of HCC patients. This review highlights the efficacy of multikinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors in monotherapy and combination therapy through the analysis of phase II, and III clinical trials, targeting the key molecular pathways involved in cellular signaling and immune response for the prospective treatment of advanced and unresectable HCC and discusses the upcoming combinations of immune checkpoint inhibitors-tyrosine kinase inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors-vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors. Finally, the hidden challenges with pharmacological therapy for HCC, feasible solutions for the future, and implications of possible presumptions to develop drugs for HCC treatment are reported.

Average treatment effect of facility hepatopancreatobiliary malignancy case volume on survival of patients with nonoperatively managed hepatobiliary malignancies

BACKGROUND

Surgical volume-outcome relationships have been described for a variety of procedures. There is scant literature on total institutional volume and outcomes in patients who are nonoperatively managed. We examined the average treatment effect of total hepatopancreatobiliary malignancy case volume on survival outcomes of patients with nonresected hepatobiliary malignancies.

METHODS

We identified patients with hepatopancreatobiliary malignancies [pancreatic adenocarcinoma, pancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms, hepatocellular carcinoma, biliary tract cancers] within the National Cancer Database (2004-2018). We determined percentile thresholds based on the total annual hepatopancreatobiliary malignancy case volume. We then identified nonoperatively managed patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or biliary tract cancers. We used inverse probability-weighted Cox regression to estimate the effect of facility volume on overall survival.

RESULTS

We identified 710,988 patients with hepatopancreatobiliary malignancies. Total annual hepatopancreatobiliary malignancy case volume of 32, 71, and 177 cases/year corresponded to the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles. A total of 96,420 with hepatocellular carcinoma and 52,627 patients with biliary tract cancers were managed nonoperatively. In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or biliary tract cancer, treatment at ≥25th, ≥50th, and ≥75th percentile facilities was associated with improved median, 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival compared with treatment at lower-percentile facilities. On inverse probability-weighted Cox analysis, treatment at higher-percentile facilities resulted in a lower hazard of death. Consistent findings were observed in patients with early or intermediate/advanced hepatocellular carcinoma or metastatic biliary tract cancers.

CONCLUSION

Patients with nonoperatively managed hepatocellular carcinoma or biliary tract cancer who receive treatment at higher-volume facilities have improved survival outcomes. These data suggest regionalization of care for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma or biliary tract cancer to high-volume centers may improve survival.

Clinical care in hepatocellular carcinoma: A mixed methods assessment of experiences and challenges of oncology professionals

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare providers (HCPs) may face numerous dilemmas in optimally screening, diagnosing, and treating patients with, and/or at risk for, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to achieve a greater understanding of the challenges in HCC care which in turn could delineate HCP educational opportunities within this oncologic sub-specialty.

METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was used to identify practice gaps and clinical barriers experienced by US-based medical oncologists, hepatologists, oncology physician assistants, oncology nurse practitioners, and interventional radiologists involved in HCC care. The qualitative (semi-structured interview) and quantitative (survey) data collection approaches were deployed sequentially with findings subsequently triangulated.

RESULTS

A total of 214 HCPs participated in this study. Analysis revealed challenges related to screening and diagnosing HCC, specifically in applying appropriate screening guidelines, and the optimal use and decisions related to diagnostic imaging and biopsy. Issues related to treatment selection included the application of existing HCC guidelines in treatment decision-making, weighing risk/benefit ratios of various antineoplastics regimens (i.e., tyrosine kinase inhibitors-TKIs, immunotherapy agents, chemotherapy), sequencing therapies, potential toxicity management, and optimally educating patients about their HCC.

CONCLUSION

These findings highlight the educational needs of those involved in HCC care and provide a starting point for clinicians to both reflect on their practice and identify opportunities to enhance communication within the HCC team and between provider and patient. There is an opportunity to optimize continuing professional development interventions that address the identified gaps in clinical practice specifically related to teamwork and interdisciplinary communication.

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.

Liver function after combined selective internal radiation therapy or sorafenib monotherapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND & AIMS

SORAMIC is a previously published randomised controlled trial assessing survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who received sorafenib with or without selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT). Based on the per-protocol (PP) population, we assessed whether the outcome of patients receiving SIRT+sorafenib vs. sorafenib alone was affected by adverse effects of SIRT on liver function.

METHODS

The PP population consisted of 109 (SIRT+sorafenib) vs. 173 patients (sorafenib alone). Comparisons were made between subgroups who achieved a significant survival benefit or trend towards improved survival with SIRT and the inverse group without a survival benefit: <65 years-old vs. ≥65 years-old, Child-Pugh 5 vs. 6, no transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) vs. prior TACE, no cirrhosis vs. cirrhosis, non-alcohol- vs. alcohol-related aetiology. The albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score was used to monitor liver function over time during follow-up.

RESULTS

ALBI scores increased in all patient groups during follow-up. In the PP population, ALBI score increases were higher in the SIRT+sorafenib than the sorafenib arm (p = 0.0021 month 4, p <0.0001 from month 6). SIRT+sorafenib conferred a survival benefit compared to sorafenib alone in patients aged <65 years-old, those without cirrhosis, those with Child-Pugh 5, and those who had not received TACE. A higher increase in ALBI score was observed in the inverse subgroups in whom survival was not improved by adding SIRT (age ≥65 years-old, p <0.05; cirrhosis, p = 0.07; Child-Pugh 6, p <0.05; prior TACE, p = 0.08).

CONCLUSION

SIRT frequently has a negative, often subclinical, effect on liver function in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, which may impair prognosis after treatment. Careful patient selection for SIRT as well as prevention of clinical and subclinical liver damage by selective treatments, high tumour uptake ratio, and medical prophylaxis could translate into better efficacy.

CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER

EudraCT 2009-012576-27, NCT01126645 LAY SUMMARY: This study of treatments in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma found that selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) has an adverse effect on liver function that may affect patient outcomes. Patients should be carefully selected before they undergo SIRT and the treatment technique should be optimised for maximum protection of non-target liver parenchyma.

Atezolizumab and bevacizumab as first line therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Practical considerations in routine clinical practice

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver cancer. For advanced HCC, sorafenib was considered the standard of care for more than ten years. Recently the atezolizumab and bevacizumab combination has become standard of care for these patients without contraindications to either immune checkpoint inhibitors or antiangiogenic therapy. We now review the practical aspects of the atezolizumab and bevacizumab combination, including current evidence, indications, contraindications, management of adverse events, sequencing of this combination, areas of current knowledge gaps and future areas of active clinical research of this combination for busy clinicians in clinical practice.