Impact of body mass index on the prognosis of unresectable HCC patients receiving first-line Lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

INTRODUCTION: Overweight is a negative prognostic factor in the general population in the long term. However, the role of body mass index (BMI) in the short-mid term in advanced tumours is unclear. The present analysis investigates the role of BMI weight classes in a large sample of patients affected by HCC and receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib as first-line treatment. METHODS AND MATERIAL: The cohort included consecutive patients affected by BCLC-c and BCLC-B HCC patients from a multicenter international study group who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib as first-line therapy. Population was stratified according to the BMI in under-, over- and normal-weight according to the conventional thresholds. The primary objective of the study was to evaluate the prognostic and predictive impact of BMI in patients affected by advanced or intermediate HCC. Survival curves were estimated using the product-limit method of Kaplan-Meier. The role of stratification factors was analysed with log-rank tests. RESULTS: 1292 consecutive patients with HCC were analysed. 466 (36%) patients were treated with lenvatinib and 826 (64%) patients were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. In the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab arm, 510 (62%) patients were normal-weight, 52 (6%) underweight and 264 (32%) overweight. At the univariate analysis for OS, underweight patients had significantly shorter OS compared to normal-weight patients, whereas no differences were found between normal-weight versus overweight. Multivariate analysis confirmed that underweight patients had significantly shorter OS compared to normal-weight patients (HR: 1.7; 95% CI: 1.0-2.8; p = .0323). In the lenvatinib arm, 26 patients (5.6%) were categorized as underweight, 256 (54.9%) as normal-weight, and 184 (39.5%) as overweight. At the univariate analysis for OS, no significant differences were found between normal-weight versus underweight and between normal-weight versus overweight, which was confirmed at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSION: Our analysis highlighted a prognostic role of BMI in a cohort of patients with advanced HCC who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, while no prognostic role for low BMI was apparent in patients who received lenvatinib.

A meta-analysis and real-world cohort study on the sex-related differences in efficacy and safety of immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background & Aims: Sex-related differences in the immune pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), particularly related to oestrogen-dependent secretion of pro-tumourigenic cytokines, are well-known. Whether sex influences the efficacy and safety of immunotherapy is not known. Methods: We performed a restricted maximum likelihood random effects meta-analysis of five phase III trials that evaluated immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in advanced HCC and reported overall survival (OS) hazard ratios (HRs) stratified by sex to evaluate sex-related differences in OS. In a real-world cohort of 840 patients with HCC from 22 centres included between 2018 and 2023, we directly compared the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab (A+B) between sexes. Radiological response was reported according to RECIST v1.1. Uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed for OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Results: In the meta-analysis, immunotherapy was associated with a significant OS benefit only in male (pooled HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.73-0.86) but not in female (pooled HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.70-1.03) patients with HCC. When directly comparing model estimates, no differences in the treatment effect between sexes were observed. Among 840 patients, 677 (81%) were male (mean age 66 ± 11 years), and 163 (19%) were female (mean age 67 ± 12 years). Type and severity of adverse events were similar between the two groups. OS and PFS were comparable between males and females upon uni- and multivariable analyses (aHR for OS and PFS: 0.79, 95% CI 0.59-1.04; 1.02, 95% CI 0.80-1.30, respectively). Objective response rates (24%/22%) and disease control rates (59%/59%) were also similar between sexes. Conclusion: Female phase III trial participants experienced smaller OS benefit following ICI therapy for advanced HCC, while outcomes following A+B treatment were comparable between sexes in a large real-world database. Based on the ambiguous sex-related differences in survival observed here, further investigation of sex-specific clinical and biologic determinants of responsiveness and survival following ICIs are warranted. Impact and implications: While immune checkpoint inhibitors have emerged as standard of care for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma, there are conflicting reports on whether the efficacy of cancer immunotherapy differs between females and males. Our study suggests ambiguous sex-related differences in outcomes from immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Further investigation of sex-specific clustering in clinicopathologic and immunologic determinants of responsiveness to immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy should be prioritised. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023429625.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Modern Context for an Ancient Disease.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide [...].

Sequential therapies after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib first-line treatments in hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this retrospective proof-of-concept study was to compare different second-line treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and progressive disease (PD) after first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1381 patients had PD at first-line therapy. 917 patients received lenvatinib as first-line treatment, and 464 patients atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line. RESULTS: 49.6% of PD patients received a second-line therapy without any statistical difference in overall survival (OS) between lenvatinib (20.6months) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line (15.7months; p = 0.12; hazard ratio [HR]= 0.80). After lenvatinib first-line, there wasn't any statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p = 0.27; sorafenib HR: 1; immunotherapy HR: 0.69; other therapies HR: 0.85). Patients who underwent trans-arterial chemo-embolization (TACE) had a significative longer OS than patients who received sorafenib (24.7 versus 15.8months, p < 0.01; HR=0.64). After atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line, there was a statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p < 0.01; sorafenib HR: 1; lenvatinib HR: 0.50; cabozantinib HR: 1.29; other therapies HR: 0.54). Patients who received lenvatinib (17.0months) and those who underwent TACE (15.9months) had a significative longer OS than patients treated with sorafenib (14.2months; respectively, p = 0.01; HR=0.45, and p < 0.05; HR=0.46). CONCLUSION: Approximately half of patients receiving first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab access second-line treatment. Our data suggest that in patients progressed to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is lenvatinib, while in patients progressed to lenvatinib, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is immunotherapy.

Efficacy and safety of frontline systemic therapy for advanced HCC: A network meta-analysis of landmark phase III trials.

Background & Aims: Direct comparisons across first-line regimens for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma are not available. We performed a network metanalysis of phase III of trials to compare first-line systemic treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma in terms of overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, disease control rate, and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Methods: After performing a literature review from January 2008 to September 2022, we screened 6,329 studies and reviewed 3,009 studies, leading to identification of 15 phase III trials for analysis. We extracted odds ratios for objective response rate and disease control rate, relative risks for AEs, and hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs for OS and PFS, and used a frequentist network metanalysis, with fixed-effect multivariable meta-regression models to estimate the indirect pooled HRs, odds ratios, relative risks, and corresponding 95% CIs, considering sorafenib as reference. Results: Of 10,820 included patients, 10,444 received active treatment and 376 placebo. Sintilimab + IBI350, camrelizumab + rivoceranib, and atezolizumab + bevacizumab provided the greatest reduction in the risk of death compared with sorafenib, with HRs of 0.57 (95% CI 0.43-0.75), 0.62 (95% CI 0.49-0.79), and 0.66 (95% CI 0.52-0.84), respectively. Considering PFS, camrelizumab + rivoceranib and pembrolizumab + lenvatinib were associated with the greatest reduction in the risk of PFS events compared with sorafenib, with HRs of 0.52 (95% CI 0.41-0.65) and 0.52 (95% CI 0.35-0.77), respectively. Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) monotherapies carried the lowest risk for all-grade and grade ≥3 AEs. Conclusions: The combinations of ICI + anti-vascular endothelial growth factor, and double ICIs lead to the greatest OS benefit compared with sorafenib, whereas ICI + kinase inhibitor regimens are associated with greater PFS benefit at the cost of higher toxicity rates. Impact and Implications: In the last few years, many different therapies have been studied for patients with primary liver cancer that cannot be treated with surgery. In these cases, anticancer drugs (alone or in combination) are given with the intent to keep the cancer at bay and, ultimately, to prolong survival. Among all the therapies that have been investigated, the combination of immunotherapy (drugs that boost the immune system against the cancer) and anti-angiogenic agents (drugs that act on tumoural vessels) has appeared the best to improve survival. Similarly, the combination of two types of immunotherapies that activate the immune system at different levels has also shown positive results. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022366330.

Role of Etiology in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Lenvatinib: A Counterfactual Event-Based Mediation Analysis.

Background: Whether the etiology of underlying liver disease represents a prognostic factor in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with lenvatinib is still a matter of debate. This study investigates whether the viral etiology of HCC plays a prognostic role in overall survival (OS). Methods: Data derived from a multicenter series of 313 HCC patients treated with lenvatinib between 2019 and 2022 were analyzed. Actuarial survival estimates were computed using the Kaplan−Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. We performed an event-based counterfactual mediation analysis to estimate direct (chronic inflammation and immunosuppression), indirect (tobacco smoking, alcohol use, illicit drug abuse with injections), and the total effect of viral etiology on OS. Results were expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. Results: Median OS was 21 months (95% CI: 20−23) in the group with other etiologies and 15 months (14−16) in the group with viral etiology (p < 0.0001). The total effect of viral etiology was associated with OS (HR 2.76, 1.32−5.21), and it was mainly explained by the pure direct effect of viral etiology (HR 2.74, 1.15−4.45). By contrast, its total indirect effect was not associated with poorer survival (HR 1.05, 0.82−2.13). These results were confirmed when considering tobacco, alcohol consumption, or injection drug abuse as potential mediators. Median progression-free survival was 9 months (8−10) in patients with other etiologies and 6 months (5−7) in patients with viral etiology (p < 0.0001). No difference in terms of adverse event rate was observed between the two groups. Conclusions: Patients affected by HCC with nonviral etiology treated with lenvatinib exhibit longer survival than those with viral etiology. This finding may have relevance in the treatment decision-making process.

Lenvatinib Versus Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatic Cell Carcinoma: A Double Center Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: We conducted a retrospective analysis in our center (Umberto I Polyclinic) in collaboration with Campus Biomedico Polyclinic to assess the results of the REFLECT study, which was the first study that demonstrated the non-inferiority of Lenvatinib to Sorafenib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We identified 21 patients affected by advanced hepatocellular carcinoma during the last 3 years who were treated in our centers. They were subdivided according to the treatment administered (Lenvatinib or Sorafenib). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated, and subgroups were compared using the log-rank test. Specific predictive and prognostic factors were identified. The safety profile of the two drugs and the collateral effects were evaluated. RESULTS: The OS in patients in the Lenvatinib arm was 19 (months and 12.5 months in the Sorafenib arm. PFS in patients in the Lenvatinib arm was 6 months and 2.5 months in the Sorafenib arm. OS and PFS in patients treated with Lenvatinib were higher in any subcategory analyzed whereas no positive predictors of response to Sorafenib were found. Based on data from literature, the albumin bilirubin index (ALBI) grade was found to be a key prognostic factor. Patients treated with Sorafenib had more adverse events than those treated with Lenvatinib (100% versus 81.8%, respectively). Patients treated with Sorafenib had more frequently hand-foot syndromes, diarrhea, and nausea whereas patients treated with Lenvatinib commonly had hypertension, proteinuria, and weight loss. CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib was found to be better than Sorafenib in terms of both survival and toxicity, in advanced hepatic cell carcinoma patients.

Clinical outcomes with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter real-world study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare response rates of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, in first-line real-world setting. METHODS: Overall cohort included Western and Eastern hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patient populations from 46 centres in 4 countries (Italy, Germany, Japan, and Republic of Korea). RESULTS: 1312 patients were treated with lenvatinib, and 823 patients were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Objective response rate (ORR) was 38.6% for patients receiving lenvatinib, and 27.3% for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (p < 0.01; odds ratio 0.60). For patients who achieved complete response (CR), overall survival (OS) was not reached in both arms, but the result from univariate Cox regression model showed 62% reduction of death risk for patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (p = 0.05). In all multivariate analyses, treatment arm was not found to be an independent factor conditioning OS. Comparing ORR achieved in the two arms, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in all subgroups except for Eastern patients, Child-Pugh B patients, presence of portal vein thrombosis, α-feto-protein ≥ 400 ng/mL, presence of extrahepatic disease, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 2, and no previous locoregional procedures. CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib achieves higher ORR in all patient subgroups. Patients who achieve CR with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab can achieve OS so far never recorded in HCC patients. This study did not highlight any factors that could identify patient subgroups capable of obtaining CR.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a large real-life worldwide population.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib have not been compared in a randomised controlled trial. We conducted a retrospective multi-centre study to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and atezolizumab with bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC in the real-world scenario. METHODS: Clinical features of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab patients were balanced through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology, which weights patients' characteristics and measured outcomes of each patient in both treatment arms. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end-point. RESULTS: The analysis included 1341 patients who received lenvatinib, and 864 patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. After IPTW adjustment, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab did not show a survival advantage over lenvatinib HR 0.97 (p = 0.739). OS was prolonged by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab over lenvatinib in viral patients (HR: 0.76; p = 0.024). Conversely, OS was prolonged by lenvatinib in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (HR: 1.88; p = 0.014). In the IPTW-adjusted population, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab provided better safety profile for most of the recorded adverse events. CONCLUSION: Our study did not identify any meaningful difference in OS between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib. Although some hints are provided suggesting that patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease might benefit more from lenvatinib therapy and patients with viral aetiology more from atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

How I Treat Localized Soft Tissue Sarcomas: Update on Diagnosis, Risk Stratification, and Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Adult-type soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) are rare tumors representing about 1% of all adult malignant tumors. Their extreme histological heterogeneity places them among the most challenging fields of diagnostic pathology. The variability of clinical and prognostic presentation between the various histotypes reflects the different management that should be followed on a case-by-case basis. These features make STSs the case in point of how important it is a centralized and multidisciplinary approach. SUMMARY: Surgery represents the mainstay in the treatment of localized STSs. Recently, more and more studies are making efforts to understand what the contribution of chemotherapy and radiotherapy with neoadjuvant and adjuvant intent may be both in unselected and selected histological subgroups. In fact, despite the improvement in overall survival seen in the past few years thanks to the adoption of a more radical surgical approach, mortality remains relatively high and the 5-year overall survival is around 65%. KEY MESSAGES: In this review, we comment upon the treatment of localized STSs of the extremity, trunk wall, and retroperitoneum and how surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy can be integrated with each other and individually tailored. Nomograms can assist clinicians in this complex therapeutic decision-making process, through the identification of patients at higher risk of death or disease relapse.

Impact of adjuvant imatinib on bone and muscle density in patients with resected gastrointestinal stromal tumors.

Adjuvant treatment with Imatinib is the standard of care for high-risk resected GISTs. Imatinib is known to have an impact on bone mineral density in patients affected by chronic myeloid leukemia, however this effect has never been investigated in GISTs. We retrospectively evaluated, on CT scans, the effect of adjuvant Imatinib (400 mg/die) on bone mineral density and muscle composition in 14 patients with surgically resected GISTs and in a control group of 8 patients who did not received any treatment. The effect of bone and muscle composition on Imatinib-tolerance was assessed as well. Overall patients receiving Imatinib experienced an increase in bone mineral density during treatment (p = 0.021); with higher increase in patients with basal values < 120 mg/cm3 (p = 0.002). No changes were observed in the control group (p = 0.918). Skeletal muscle index and lean body mass did not change over time during Imatinib therapy; however, patients with lower lean body mass and lower body mass index experienced more grade 3 treatment related toxicities (p = 0.024 and p = 0.014 respectively). We also found a non-significant trend between basal BMD and grade 3 toxicities (p = 0.060).

Sarcopenia in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Pathogenesis and Management.

BACKGROUND: Sarcopenia is almost constantly observed in patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). SUMMARY: Chronic liver disease represents a unique pathophysiological scenario in which sarcopenia develops and all factors involved in the pathogenesis should be taken into account for an appropriate management of the disease. No properly designed intervention studies on this topic are available and, thus, no effective strategies have been developed for clinical practice. Apart from any targeted intervention, treatment, and optimization of liver disease is crucial. KEY MESSAGES: In patients with cirrhosis and HCC, nutritional support to maintain and restore nutrition status, a targeted use of branched-chain amino acids and a guided physical exercise, should all be an integral part of the multidimensional assessment and tailored interventions.

Adjuvant Imatinib in Patients with GIST Harboring Exon 9 KIT Mutations: Results from a Multi-institutional European Retrospective Study.

PURPOSE: The effect of high-dose imatinib (800 mg/day) on survival in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected KIT exon 9-mutated gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) is not established. Here, the association of dose and other clinicopathologic variables with survival was evaluated in a large multi-institutional European cohort. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Data from 185 patients were retrospectively collected in 23 European GIST reference centers. Propensity score matching (PSM) and inverse-probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) were used to account for confounders. Univariate and multivariate unweighted and weighted Cox proportional hazard regression models were estimated for relapse-free survival (RFS), modified-RFS (mRFS) and imatinib failure-free survival (IFFS). Univariate Cox models were estimated for overall survival. RESULTS: Of the 185 patients, 131 (70.8%) received a starting dose of 400 mg/d and the remaining 54 (29.2%) a dose of 800 mg/d. Baseline characteristics were partially unbalanced, suggesting a potential selection bias. PSM and IPTW analyses showed no advantage of imatinib 800 mg/d. In the weighted multivariate Cox models, high-dose imatinib was not associated with the survival outcomes [RFS: hazard ratio (HR), 1.24; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79-1.94; mRFS: HR, 1.69; 95% CI, 0.92-3.10; IFFS: HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 0.79-2.28]. The variables consistently associated with worse survival outcomes were high mitotic index and nongastric tumor location. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective series of patients with KIT exon 9-mutated GIST treated with adjuvant imatinib, a daily dose of 800 mg versus 400 mg did not show better results in terms of survival outcomes. Prospective evaluation of the more appropriate adjuvant treatment in this setting is warranted.

Immunotherapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

OPINION STATEMENT: Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been traditionally deprived from highly effective systemic therapy options in the past decades. The multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib, approved in 2008, remained the only treatment option for advanced HCC for over a decade. A number of molecularly targeted therapies such as lenvatinib, regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab have significantly widened treatment options in patients with advanced HCC. However, emergence of resistance and long-term toxicity from treatment are barriers to long-term survivorship. Immunotherapy is at the focus of intense research efforts in HCC. Whilst targeting of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and cytotoxic T lymphocyte 4 (CTLA-4) is associated with radiologically measurable disease-modulating effects in HCC, monotherapies fell short of demonstrating evidence of significant survival extension in advanced disease. Atezolizumab and bevacizumab were the first immunotherapy regimen to demonstrate clear superiority in improving the survival of patients with unresectable HCC compared to sorafenib, paving the way for immunotherapy combinations. As the treatment landscape of HCC rapidly evolves, with immunotherapy integrating within early- and intermediate-stage disease treatment algorithms, lack of level 1 evidence on sequencing of therapeutic strategies and lack of head-to-head comparisons across immunotherapy combinations will affect prescribing of immunotherapy in routine practice. In the absence of predictive biomarkers, choice of immunotherapy over kinase inhibitors will continue to remain an empirical exercise, guided by balancing anti-tumour efficacy with toxicity considerations in the individual patient.

Adverse events as potential predictive factors of activity in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with lenvatinib.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Lenvatinib is a standard of care option in first-line therapy of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In the present study, we aim to identify, in patients with HCC treated with lenvatinib, a possible association between occurrence and grading of adverse events (AEs) and outcome. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 606 Japanese and Italian patients treated with lenvatinib in first-line setting and investigated the possible correlation between the onset of AEs, toxicity grade (G) and outcome measures such as overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: The appearance of arterial hypertension G ≥ 2 independently predicted prolonged OS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46-0.93, P = .0188], whereas decreased appetite G ≥ 2 independently predicted decreased OS (HR 1.70, 95% CI 1.25-2.32, P = .0007) by multivariate analysis. Appearance of hand-foot skin reaction independently predicted prolonged PFS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.93, P = .0149), whereas decreased appetite G ≥ 2 predicted decreased PFS (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.04-1.77, P = .0277). CONCLUSIONS: Our main findings are that the occurrence of arterial hypertension G ≥ 2 is a predictor of longer survival, whereas decreased appetite G ≥ 2 predicts for a poor prognosis. A careful management of AEs under lenvatinib treatment for HCC is required, to improve patients' quality of life, minimize the need for treatment discontinuation and achieve optimal outcome.

Real-Life Clinical Data of Lenvatinib versus Sorafenib for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib has been approved in Italy since October 2019 as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to date data on effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib are not available in our region. To fill this gap, we performed a multicentric analysis of the real-world treatment outcomes with the propensity score matching in a cohort of Italian patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with either sorafenib or lenvatinib. AIMS AND METHODS: To evaluate the effectiveness of sorafenib and lenvatinib as primary treatment of advanced HCC in clinical practice we performed a multicentric analysis of the treatment outcomes of 288 such patients recruited in 11 centers in Italy. A propensity score was used to mitigate confounding due to referral biases in the assessment of mortality and progression-free survival. RESULTS: Over a follow-up period of 11 months the Cox regression model showed 48% reduction of death risk for patients treated with lenvatinib (95% CI: 0.34-0.81; p = 0.0034), compared with those treated with sorafenib. The median PFS was 9.0 and 4.9 months for lenvatinib and sorafenib arm, respectively. Patients treated with lenvatinib showed a higher percentage of response rate (29.4% vs 2.8%; p < 0.00001) compared with patients treated with sorafenib. Sorafenib was shown to be correlated with more HFSR, diarrhea and fatigue, while lenvatinib with more hypertension and fatigue. CONCLUSION: Our study highlighted for the first time the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in an Italian cohort of patients.

The Systemic Inflammatory Response Identifies Patients with Adverse Clinical Outcome from Immunotherapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Systemic inflammation is a hallmark of cancer, and it has a pivotal role in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development and progression. We conducted a retrospective study including 362 patients receiving immune check-point inhibitors (ICIs) across three continents, evaluating the influence of neutrophiles to lymphocytes ratio (NLR), platelets to lymphocytes ratio (PLR), and prognostic nutritional index (PNI) on overall (OS), progression free survival (PFS), and radiologic responses. In our 362 patients treated with immunotherapy, median OS and PFS were 9 and 3.5 months, respectively. Amongst tested inflammatory biomarkers, patients with NLR ≥ 5 had shorter OS (7.7 vs. 17.6 months, p < 0.0001), PFS (2.1 vs. 3.8 months, p = 0.025), and lower objective response rate (ORR) (12% vs. 22%, p = 0.034); similarly, patients with PLR ≥ 300 reported shorter OS (6.4 vs. 16.5 months, p < 0.0001) and PFS (1.8 vs. 3.7 months, p = 0.0006). NLR emerged as independent prognostic factors for OS in univariate and multivariate analysis (HR 1.95, 95%CI 1.45-2.64, p < 0.001; HR 1.73, 95%CI 1.23-2.42, p = 0.002) and PLR remained an independent prognostic factor for both OS and PFS in multivariate analysis (HR 1.60, 95%CI 1.6-2.40, p = 0.020; HR 1.99, 95%CI 1.11-3.49, p = 0.021). Systemic inflammation measured by NLR and PLR is an independent negative prognostic factor in HCC patients undergoing ICI therapy. Further studies are required to understand the biological mechanisms underlying this association and to investigate the predictive significance of circulating inflammatory biomarkers in HCC patients treated with ICIs.

Current Treatment Options for HCC: From Pharmacokinetics to Efficacy and Adverse Events in Liver Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is among the world's most common cancers. For over ten years, the only medical treatment for it has been the multikinase inhibitor Sorafenib. Currently, however, other first or second-line therapeutic options have also shown efficacy against HCC, such as multikinase inhibitors (Regorafenib, Lenvatinib, and Cabozantinib), a monoclonal antibody against the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (Ramucirumab), and immune-checkpoint inhibitors (Nivolumab, Pembrolizumab, Ipilimumab). AIM: The aim of this paper is to review the metabolic pathways of drugs that have been tested for the treatment of HCC and the potential influence of liver failure over those pathways. METHODS: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s and European Medicines Agency (EMA)'s datasheets, results from clinical trials and observational studies have been reviewed. RESULTS: This review summarizes the current knowledge regarding targets, metabolic pathways, drug interactions, and adverse events of medical treatments for HCC in cirrhotic patients. CONCLUSION: The new scenario of systemic HCC therapy includes more active drugs with different metabolic pathways and different liver adverse events. Clinical and pharmacological studies providing more data on the safety of these molecules are urgently needed.

Recent Advances in Desmoid Tumor Therapy.

The desmoid tumor is a locally aggressive proliferative disease within the family of soft-tissue sarcomas. Despite its relatively good prognosis, the clinical management of desmoid tumors requires constant multidisciplinary evaluation due to its highly variable clinical behavior. Recently, active surveillance has being regarded as the appropriate strategy at diagnosis, as indolent persistence or spontaneous regressions are not uncommon. Here, we review the most recent advances in desmoid tumor therapy, including low-dose chemotherapy and treatment with tyrosine kinase inhibitors. We also explore the recent improvements in our knowledge of the molecular biology of this disease, which are leading to clinical trials with targeted agents.

The role of PNI to predict survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with Sorafenib.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The present study aims to investigate the role of the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) on survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib. METHODS: This multicentric study included a training cohort of 194 HCC patients and three external validation cohorts of 129, 76 and 265 HCC patients treated with Sorafenib, respectively. The PNI was calculated as follows: 10 × serum albumin (g/dL) + 0.005 × total lymphocyte count (per mm3). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the association between the covariates and the overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A PNI cut-off value of 31.3 was established using the ROC analysis. In the training cohort, the median OS was 14.8 months (95% CI 12-76.3) and 6.8 months (95% CI 2.7-24.6) for patients with a high (>31.3) and low (<31.3) PNI, respectively. At both the univariate and the multivariate analysis, low PNI value (p = 0.0004), a 1-unit increase of aspartate aminotransferase (p = 0.0001), and age > 70 years (p< 0.0038) were independent prognostic factors for OS. By performing the same multivariate analysis of the training cohort, the PNI <31.3 versus >31.3 was found to be an independent prognostic factor for predicting OS in all the three validation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: PNI represents a prognostic tool in advanced HCC treated with first-line Sorafenib. It is readily available and low-cost, and it could be implemented in clinical practice in patients with HCC.