Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy with Cisplatin versus Sorafenib for Intrahepatic Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis

Efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy and its combination strategies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

With the rapid progress of systematic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), therapeutic strategies combining hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) with systematic therapy arised increasing concentrations. However, there have been no systematic review comparing HAIC and its combination strategies in the first-line treatment for advanced HCC.

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and safety of HAIC and its combination therapies for advanced HCC.

METHODS

A network meta-analysis was performed by including 9 randomized controlled trails and 35 cohort studies to carry out our study. The outcomes of interest comprised overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), tumor response and adverse events. Hazard ratios (HR) and odds ratios (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and agents were ranked based on their ranking probability.

RESULTS

HAIC outperformed Sorafenib (HR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.42-0.72; HR = 0.51, 95%CI: 0.33-0.78; OR = 2.86, 95%CI: 1.37-5.98; OR = 5.45, 95%CI: 3.57-8.30; OR = 7.15, 95%CI: 4.06-12.58; OR = 2.89, 95%CI: 1.99-4.19; OR = 0.48, 95%CI: 0.25-0.92, respectively) and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) (HR = 0.50, 95%CI: 0.33-0.75; HR = 0.62, 95%CI: 0.39-0.98; OR = 3.08, 95%CI: 1.36-6.98; OR = 2.07, 95%CI: 1.54-2.80; OR = 3.16, 95%CI: 1.71-5.85; OR = 2.67, 95%CI: 1.59-4.50; OR = 0.16, 95%CI: 0.05-0.54, respectively) in terms of efficacy and safety. HAIC + lenvatinib + ablation, HAIC + ablation, HAIC + anti- programmed cell death 1 (PD-1), and HAIC + radiotherapy had the higher likelihood of providing better OS and PFS outcomes compared to HAIC alone. HAIC + TACE + S-1, HAIC + lenvatinib, HAIC + PD-1, HAIC + TACE, and HAIC + sorafenib had the higher likelihood of providing better partial response and objective response rate outcomes compared to HAIC. HAIC + PD-1, HAIC + TACE + S-1 and HAIC + TACE had the higher likelihood of providing better complete response and disease control rate outcomes compared to HAIC alone.

CONCLUSION

HAIC proved more effective and safer than sorafenib and TACE. Furthermore, combined with other interventions, HAIC showed improved efficacy over HAIC monotherapy according to the treatment ranking analysis.

Efficacy and Safety of Hepatic Arterial Infusion Therapy with Cinobufacini in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Macrovascular Invasion: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

The presence of macrovascular invasion (MVI) is associated with poor prognosis in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Cinobufacini therapy via hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) in advanced HCC patients with MVI.

Methods

The clinical records of 130 consecutive patients with unresectable advanced HCC and MVI who had received Cinobufacini or cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (CF) treatment via HAI were retrospectively analyzed. The therapeutic efficacy, overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and adverse events were compared between the two treatment groups.

Results

The Cinobufacini group demonstrated significant curative effects on treatment via HAI compared with the CF group, including the objective response rate (44.9% vs 27.9%, P=0.048), the median OS (14.8 months vs 11.1 months, P=0.010), and the median PFS (10.3 months vs 6.0 months, P=0.006). Result in subgroup analysis of portal vein invasion grade supported the efficacy in Cinobufacini treatment, especially in the median OS of Vp1-2 (18.3 months vs 14.3 months, P=0.043) and Vp3 (15.0 months vs 11.4 months, P=0.046), as well as the median PFS of Vp1-2 (14.8 months vs 10.2 months, P=0.028) and Vp3 (10.8 months vs 6.6 months, P=0.033) compared with CF treatment. Cox proportional hazards model and forest plot analysis of factors confirmed the survival benefit from HAI with Cinobufacini over CF (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI: 0.40-0.91; P=0.010). Multivariable analysis identified portal vein invasion grade (Vp4; HR, 1.78; 95% CI: 1.03-2.16; P=0.032) and AFP (>1000; HR, 1.61; 95% CI: 1.08-1.91; P=0.039) as the independent factors for prognosis. Moreover, the total incidence of adverse events in the Cinobufacini group was significantly lower than in the CF group (60.9% vs 82.0%, P=0.009).

Conclusion

Cinobufacini therapy via HAI is a viable strategy for curing advanced HCC with MVI, due to prolonged survival and a superior safety profile.

Pseudo-capsulated Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy Versus Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

The effectiveness and safety of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) or transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for cases with single pseudo-capsuled hepatocellular carcinoma (pHCC), as well as their survival outcomes, were investigated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 196 cases with single pHCC (diameter >5 cm) receiving initial HAIC (n = 92) and TACE (n = 104) were enrolled. The propensity score match (PSM) approach based on Cox models was employed to tune any possible imbalance in treatment assignment. The overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and partial response rate (PRR) of the subjects were investigated using the log-rank test. The independent risk factors for outcomes were investigated by univariate and multivariate analyses, and the results were analyzed using the Cox regression model.

RESULTS

The median follow-up of the subjects was 22.3 months. After PSM, no significant difference was found in the OS of the HAIC and TACE groups (OS, 12.0 vs. 16.8 months; P = .267), while the median PFS of the TACE group was prolonged compared with the HAIC group (PFS, 5.7 vs. 2.8 months; P = .003). Moreover, PRR and ORR of the TACE group were prolonged compared with the HAIC group (PRR, 34.6% vs. 21.7%; P = .046; ORR, 35.6% vs. 21.7%; P = .033). The nomogram model showed high predictive accuracy and significant discrimination.

CONCLUSION

TACE therapy could delay tumor progression compared with HAIC for cases with a single pHCC.

External radiotherapy combined with sorafenib has better efficacy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has a very low resectable rate. This meta-analysis aimed to compare efficacy of three combination strategies in treatment of advanced unresectable HCC with a view of guiding future selection of the best combination therapy for sorafenib and local therapy. A search was conducted to identify relevant literature published between April 2013 and May 2022, and then compared efficacy of sorafenib combined with external radiotherapy (SOF + RT), sorafenib with transarterial chemoembolization (SOF + TACE), sorafenib with hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (SOF + HAIC), sorafenib (SOF), external radiotherapy (RT), transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), and hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) were studied and analyzed. Finally, the results were statistically analyzed using R 3.5.3 software and Stata/SE 15.0 software. A total of 46 studies, involving 7595 patients, were included in the meta-analysis. Analysis of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) of seven related treatment interventions revealed that the combination therapy had significantly higher efficacy than monotherapies. Among the combination therapies, SOF + RT was associated with the best OS and PFS rates, and the least adverse events compared to the other treatment modalities. The efficacy of combination therapy was better than monotherapy. In combination therapy, the overall survival time and progression-free survival time of SOF + RT were longer, and the adverse reactions were less. Therefore, SOF + RT may be the best choice for sorafenib combined with local therapy.

Development and validation of a diagnostic and prognostic model for lung metastasis of hepatocellular carcinoma: a study based on the SEER database

Background

Lung metastasis (LM) is a common occurrence in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and it is associated with a poorer prognosis compared to HCC patients without LM. This study aimed to identify predictors and prognostic factors for LM in HCC patients as well as develop diagnostic and prognostic nomograms specifically tailored for LM in HCC patients.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted on HCC patients from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database, covering the period from 2010 to 2015. The study employed multivariate logistic regression analysis to identify risk factors associated with LM in HCC patients. Additionally, multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis was utilized to investigate prognostic factors for HCC patients with LM. Subsequently, two nomograms were developed to predict the risk and prognosis of LM in HCC patients. The performance of the nomograms was evaluated through calibration curves, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and decision curve analysis (DCA).

Result

This retrospective study included a total of 5,934 patients diagnosed with HCC, out of which 174 patients were diagnosed with LM. Through multivariate logistic regression analysis, several independent risk factors for LM in HCC patients were identified, including tumor grade, tumor size, American Joint Committee for Cancer (AJCC) T stage, and AJCC N stage. Furthermore, multivariate Cox analysis revealed that tumor grade, delayed treatment, surgery, and radiation were independent prognostic factors for HCC patients with LM. To assess the predictive power of the developed nomograms, calibration curves, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, and decision curve analysis (DCA) were employed. The findings demonstrated that the nomograms exhibited satisfactory performance in both the training and validation sets. Additionally, the prognostic nomogram effectively stratified HCC patients with LM into low- and high-risk groups for mortality.

Conclusion

These two nomograms optimally predicted the risk and prognosis of LM in HCC patients. Both nomograms have satisfactory performance. This would help clinicians to make accurate clinical decisions.

Optimal interventional treatment for liver cancer: HAIC, TACE or iTACE?

Primary liver cancer is a common and lethal malignancy in China. Transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is globally recognized as the preferred treatment modality for the non-surgical resection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), while transcatheter arterial infusion (TAI) is another effective interventional treatment for HCC. In recent years, hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) has gained increasing attention as an application-regulated modality for TAI. Owing to the current debate in the medical community regarding the use of HAIC and TACE for the treatment of HCC, the application of both approaches should be considered at a higher level, with a broader perspective and a more normative aspect. Accordingly, we aimed to define the rational combination of liver cancer TAI/HAIC with TACE as infusion transcatheter chemoembolization (iTACE), which suggests that the two interventions are not superior but lead to a mutually beneficial situation. In this review, we sought to discuss the development, specification, application, challenge and innovation, debate, and union of TAI/HAIC and TACE, and the clinical application and latest research on iTACE. We aimed to introduce new concepts of iTACE and expect new breakthroughs in the treatment of liver cancer owing to the combined use of the two major interventional tools.

Efficacy and safety of HAIC alone vs. HAIC combined with lenvatinib for treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

To investigate efficacy and safety of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy combined with lenvatinib (HAIC-Len) and HAIC alone for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (Ad-HCC). Totally 349 patients with Ad-HCC participated in the research from February 2018 to October 2020. On the basis of propensity score matching (PSM), 132 and 110 cases were assigned to the HAIC group and the HAIC-Len group, respectively, with a ratio of 1:1. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and complications were compared between two groups. The Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were utilized to estimate cumulative OS and PFS. Additionally, uni- and multi-variate Cox regression models were employed to identify significant independent factors. The median follow-up period in this study was set to be 20.8 months. Following PSM, the one-, two- and three-year cumulative OS rates in the HAIC-Len and HAIC groups were 63.6%, 12.1%, and 3.0%, and 47.2%, 11.8%, and 2.7%, respectively, with a significant difference (P < 0.001). The first-three-year cumulative incidence rates PFS in the HAIC-Len and the HAIC groups were 15.2%, 1.5%, and ND, and 11.8%, 4.5%, and 3.6%, respectively, with no significant difference detected (P = 0.092). BMI (HR 0.709. 95% CI 0.549, 0.915. P = 0.008) and AST (HR 1.005. 95% CI 1.003, 1.007. P < 0.001) represented independent prognostic factors for OS. Additionally, the two groups exhibited no significant difference in the incidence rates of adverse events. HAIC-Len significantly improved survival outcomes of patients with Ad-HCC and demonstrated acceptable toxicity compared to HAIC alone.

Revisiting Hepatic Artery Infusion Chemotherapy in the Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) is a well-established and common treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), particularly in East Asia. However, HAIC is not recognized internationally. Although several trials have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of HAIC, evidence corroborating its overall survival (OS) benefits compared with standard treatments is insufficient. Nevertheless, HAIC may provide prominent benefits in selected patients such as patients with portal vein thrombosis or high intrahepatic tumor burden. Moreover, HAIC has been combined with several therapeutic agents and modalities, including interferon-alpha, multikinase inhibitors, radiation therapy, and immunotherapy, to augment its treatment efficacy. Most of these combinations appeared to increase overall response rates compared with HAIC alone, but results regarding OS are inconclusive. Two prospective randomized controlled trials comparing HAIC plus sorafenib with sorafenib alone have reported conflicting results, necessitating further research. As immunotherapy-based combinations became the mainstream treatments for advanced HCC, HAIC plus immunotherapy-based treatments also showed encouraging preliminary results. The trials of HAIC were heterogeneous in terms of patient selection, chemotherapy regimens and doses, HAIC combination agent selections, and HAIC technical protocols. These heterogeneities may contribute to differences in treatment efficacy, thus increasing the difficulty of interpreting trial results. We propose that future trials of HAIC standardize these key factors to reveal the clinical value of HAIC-based treatments for HCC.