Preliminary experience on safety of regorafenib after sorafenib failure in recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation.

Regorafenib is one option for second-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), improving overall survival (OS) of sorafenib-tolerant patients who develop progression. We aim to evaluate the safety and outcomes of regorafenib as second-line treatment for HCC recurrence after liver transplantation (LT). This is a retrospective, multicenter, international study including regorafenib-treated LT patients (2015-2018), with analysis of baseline characteristics and evolutionary events during sorafenib/regorafenib treatment. Twenty-eight LT patients (57 years, 7% cirrhotics, 54% performance status 1) were included. Median time from LT to regorafenib initiation was 3.9 (1.1-18.5) years; median time on sorafenib was 11.3 (0.7-76.4) months and 14 (1-591) days from sorafenib discontinuation to regorafenib. During regorafenib (6.3 months), all patients had at least one adverse event (AE), the most common grade 3/4 AEs were fatigue (n = 7) and dermatological reaction (n = 5). While no liver rejection was observed, plasma levels of immunosuppressive drugs increased in five. Twenty-four patients developed progression (38% extrahepatic growth, 33% new extrahepatic lesions/vascular invasion). Median OS from regorafenib initiation was 12.9 (95% CI, 6.7-19.1) and 38.4 months (95% CI, 18.5-58.4) for the sorafenib initiation. This is the first study showing safety of regorafenib after LT, thus providing the rational of considering regorafenib in the clinical decision-making in sorafenib-tolerant patients with HCC recurrence after LT.

The impact of infection by multidrug-resistant agents in patients with cirrhosis. A multicenter prospective study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics are a serious clinical challenge. We assessed the antibiotic susceptibility of bacteria isolated from infections in patients with cirrhosis by a multicentre investigation. RESULTS: Three hundred and thirteen culture-positive infections (173 community acquired [CA] and 140 hospital acquired [HA]) were identified in 308 patients. Urinary tract infections, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and bacteremias were the most frequent. Quinolone-resistant Gram-negative isolates were 48%, 44% were extended-spectrum beta-lactamase producers and 9% carbapenem resistant. In 83/313 culture-positive infections (27%), multidrug-resistant agents (MDRA) were isolated. This prevalence did not differ between CA and HA infections. MDRA were identified in 17 of 37 patients on quinolone prophylaxis, and in 46 of 166 not on prophylaxis (45% vs 27%; P<.03). In 287 cases an empiric antibiotic therapy was undertaken, in 37 (12.9%) this therapy failed. The in-hospital mortality rate of this subset of patients was significantly higher compared to patients who received an effective broad(er)-spectrum therapy (P=.038). During a 3-month follow-up, 56/203 culture-positive patients (27.6%) died, 24/63 who have had MDRA-related infections (38%) and 32/140 who have had antibiotic-susceptible infections (22.8%) (P=.025). Multivariate analysis disclosed MDRA infection, age, hepatocellular carcinoma, bilirubin, international normalized ratio and the occurrence of portal hypertension-related complications independent predictors of death. CONCLUSIONS: Infection by MDRA is frequent in patients with cirrhosis and the prognosis is severe, especially in patients unresponsive to empiric antibiotic therapy.

The diagnostic and economic impact of contrast imaging techniques in the diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CE-US), contrast CT scan and gadolinium dynamic MRI are recommended for the characterisation of liver nodules detected during surveillance of patients with cirrhosis with US. AIM: To assess the sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy and economic impact of all possible sequential combinations of contrast imaging techniques in patients with cirrhosis with 1-2 cm liver nodules undergoing US surveillance. PATIENTS/METHODS: 64 patients with 67 de novo liver nodules (55 with a size of 1-2 cm) were consecutively examined by CE-US, CT, MRI, and a fine-needle biopsy (FNB) as diagnostic standard. Undiagnosed nodules were re-biopsied; non-malignant nodules underwent enhanced imaging follow-up. The typical radiological feature of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was arterial phase hypervascularisation followed by portal/venous phase washout. RESULTS: HCC was diagnosed in 44 (66%) nodules (2, <1 cm; 34, 1-2 cm; 8, >2 cm). The sensitivity of CE-US, CT and MRI for 1-2 cm HCC was 26, 44 and 44%, with 100% specificity, the typical vascular pattern of HCC being identified in 22 (65%) by a single technique versus 12 (35%) by at least two techniques carried out at the same time point (p=0.028). Compared with the cheapest dual examination (CE-US+CT), the cheapest single technique of stepwise imaging diagnosis of HCC was equally expensive (euro 26 440 vs euro 28 667), but led to a 23% reduction of FNB procedures (p=0.031). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cirrhosis with a 1-2 cm nodule detected during surveillance, a single imaging technique showing a typical contrast pattern confidently permits the diagnosis of HCC, thereby reducing the need for FNB examinations.

A Very Short Course of HBIg+NA Followed by Entecavir or Tenofovir Monotherapy Prevents HBV Recurrence in Low-Risk Liver Transplant Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Monoprophylaxis with third-generation nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) can be safely adopted in hepatitis B virus (HBV)-positive, liver transplantation (LT) patients after at least 6 months of HBV immunoglobulin (HBIg)+NA. We investigated the efficacy of earlier initiation of post-LT entecavir (ETV) or tenofovir (TDF) monoprophylaxis. METHODS: Between September 2011 and January 2017, all consecutive hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive transplanted patients were scheduled to receive HBIg with ETV or TDF for a period related to the risk for HBV reinfection: 1. low-risk patients (HBeAg-negative and HBV DNA < 12 IU/mL before LT) were due to withdraw from HBIg once HBsAg had become negative after a minimum of 7 days of HBIg+NA; 2. high-risk patients were due to receive HBIg for at least 6 months, after which they continued with third-generation NA monotherapy, only. RESULTS: Twenty patients with a median interquartile range (IQR) follow-up of 46 (64-39) months were enrolled in the study (40% receiving ETV, 60% receiving TDF). Two low-risk patients refused early HBIg withdrawal and were therefore treated and analyzed along with the high-risk group. Eventually, there were 2 groups: group A, which included 12 low-risk patients, and group B, which included 8 patients (six high-risk, 2 low-risk). After transplantation, group A and B patients received HBIg+NA for a median (IQR) time of 7 (9-7) days and 9 (13-5) months, respectively. All 20 recipients demonstrated HBV DNA < 12 IU/mL and stable graft function during follow-up. Two patients (10%), 1 from each group, had HBsAg relapse. Notably, both patients who relapsed had hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosed before LT and showed very low levels (< 0.25 IU/mL) of HBsAg after recurrence. CONCLUSION: In low-risk HBsAg-positive recipients, HBIg may be safely discontinued within 2 weeks of LT and replaced by ETV or TDF monotherapy.

Entecavir or tenofovir monotherapy prevents HBV recurrence in liver transplant recipients: A 5-year follow-up study after hepatitis B immunoglobulin withdrawal.

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest that oral third-generation nucleos(t)ide analogs (NA) monoprophylaxis following hepatitis B immunoglobulin (HBIg) withdrawal may be effective to prevent HBV reinfection after liver transplantation (LT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 01/2010 and 03/2012, all HBV monoinfected and HBV/HDV co-infected LT patients followed in our centre withdrew HBIg ±â€¯NA and were commenced on either ETV or TDF as monotherapy. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients were included in the study (55% TDF, 45% ETV). Group A comprised 69 HBV monoinfected patients and Group B 8 HBV/HDV co-infected patients. After HBIg withdrawal, Groups A and B patients were followed for 69 (range 13-83) months and 61 (range 31-78) months, respectively. No Group B patients had HBsAg or HBV DNA recurrence, while 6 (9%) Group A patients became HBsAg-positive after a median of 18 (range 1-40) months. The cumulative 5-year incidence of HBsAg recurrence was 9%. All 6 patients demonstrated undetectable HBV-DNA levels and stable graft function during 30 months of additional follow-up. In 3/6 patients, seroconversion was transitory, while the remaining 3 showed HBsAg levels <0.13 IU/mL over the entire period of observation. Pre-LT HCC emerged as the strongest predictor of HBsAg recurrence. CONCLUSION: HBIG can be safely discontinued in HBsAgpositive LT recipients and replaced by ETV or TDF monotherapy.