Up to seven criteria in selection of systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Transarterial chemoembolization combined with molecular targeted agents plus immune checkpoint inhibitors for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma beyond the up-to-seven criteria: a propensity score-matching analysis

PURPOSE

Not all patients benefit from transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) due to the heterogeneity of the tumour burden in intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). To compare the outcomes of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) combined with molecular-targeted agents plus immune checkpoint inhibitors (TACE-MTAs-ICIs) with those of TACE for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC) that were beyond the up-to-seven criteria.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between January 2019 and July 2022, 130 patients diagnosed with uHCC beyond the up-to-seven criteria were retrospectively identified, including 47 patients who received TACE-MTAs-ICIs and 83 patients who received TACE alone. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS); the secondary endpoints included tumour response and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

There were 43 matched patients. The median OS and PFS times in the TACE-MTAs-ICIs group were significantly longer than those in the TACE group (OS: 27.2 vs. 15.9 months, p = 0.007; PFS: 15.4 months vs. 4.8 months, p < 0.001). The objective response rate (ORR) in the TACE-MTAs-ICIs group was higher than that in the TACE group (65.1% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.010). Reversible AEs (grade 3 or 4) occurred differently in TACE-MTAs-ICIs and TACE groups (83.7% vs. 51.2%, p = 0.001). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that TACE-MTAs-ICIs treatment was an independent favourable prognostic factor for both PFS and OS (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

For uHCC patients beyond the up-to-seven criteria, TACE-MTAs-ICIs provided superior ORR and OS. Early combined TACE and systemic treatment should shift for patients who are beyond these criteria.

PIVKA-II combined with tumor burden score to predict long-term outcomes of AFP-negative hepatocellular carcinoma patients after liver resection

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to establish a simple prognostic scoring model based on tumor burden score (TBS) and PIVKA-II to predict long-term outcomes of α-fetoprotein (AFP)-negative hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients.

METHODS

511 patients were divided into the training cohort (n = 305) and the validation cohort (n = 206) at a ratio of 6:4. Receiver operating characteristic curves (ROC) were established to identify cutoff values of TBS and PIVKA-II. Kaplan-Meier curves were used to analyze survival outcomes. The multivariable Cox regression was used to identify variables independently associated with survival outcomes. The predictive performance of the TBS-PIVKA II score (TPS) model was compared with Barcelona clinic liver cancer (BCLC) stage and American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC TNM) stage.

RESULTS

The present study established the TPS model using a simple scoring system (0, 1 for low/high TBS [cutoff value: 4.1]; 0, 1 for low/high PIVKA-II [cutoff value: 239 mAU/mL]). The TPS scoring model was divided into three levels according to the summation of TBS score and PIVKA-II score: TPS 0, TPS 1, and TPS 2. The TPS scoring model was able to stratify OS (training: p < 0.001, validation: p < 0.001) and early recurrence (training: p < 0.001; validation: p = 0.001) in the training cohort and the validation cohort. The TPS score was independently associated with OS (TPS 1 vs. 0, HR: 2.28, 95% CI: 1.01-5.17; TPS 2 vs. 0, HR: 4.21, 95% CI: 2.01-8.84) and early recurrence (TPS 1 vs. 0, HR: 3.50, 95% CI: 1.71-7.16; TPS 2 vs. 0, HR: 3.79, 95% CI: 1.86-7.75) in the training cohort. The TPS scoring model outperformed BCLC stage and AJCC TNM stage in predicting OS and early recurrence in the training cohort and the validation cohort. But the TPS scoring model was unable to stratify the late recurrence in the training cohort (p = 0.872) and the validation cohort (p = 0.458).

CONCLUSIONS

The TPS model outperformed the BCLC stage and AJCC TNM stage in predicting OS and early recurrence of AFP-negative HCC patients after liver resection, which might better assist surgeons in screening AFP-negative HCC patients who may benefit from liver resection.

Clinical consensus statement: Establishing the roles of locoregional and systemic therapies for the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in Canada

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide and approximately one-third of patients present with intermediate-stage disease. The treatment landscape of intermediate-stage HCC is rapidly evolving due to developments in local, locoregional and systemic therapies. Treatment recommendations focused on this heterogenous disease stage and that take into account the Canadian reality are lacking. To address this gap, a pan-Canadian group of experts in hepatology, transplant, surgery, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine, interventional radiology, and medical oncology came together to develop consensus recommendations on management of intermediate-stage HCC relevant to the Canadian context.

METHODS

A modified Delphi framework was used to develop consensus statements with strengths of recommendation and supporting levels of evidence graded using the AHA/ACC classification system. Tentative consensus statements were drafted based on a systematic search and expert input in a series of iterative feedback cycles and were then circulated via online survey to assess the level of agreement.

RESULTS & CONCLUSION

The pre-defined ratification threshold of 80 % agreement was reached for all statements in the areas of multidisciplinary treatment (n = 4), intra-arterial therapy (n = 14), biologics (n = 5), radiation therapy (n = 3), surgical resection and transplantation (n = 7), and percutaneous ablative therapy (n = 4). These generally reflected an expansion in treatment options due to developments in previously established or emergent techniques, introduction of new and more active therapies and increased therapeutic flexibility. These developments have allowed for greater treatment tailoring and personalization as well as a paradigm shift toward strategies with curative intent in a wider range of disease settings.