Corrigendum: PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint therapy demonstrates favorable safety profile in patients with autoimmune and cholestatic liver disease.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1326078.].

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Background & Aims: We investigated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received ICI-based therapies in a previous systemic line. Methods: In this international, retrospective multicenter study, patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies (ICI-1, ICI-2) at 14 institutions were eligible. The main outcomes included best overall response and treatment-related adverse events. Results: Of 994 ICI-treated patients screened, a total of 58 patients (male, n = 41; 71%) with a mean age of 65.0±9.0 years were included. Median systemic treatment lines of ICI-1 and ICI-2 were 1 (range, 1-4) and 3 (range, 2-9), respectively. ICI-based therapies used at ICI-1 and ICI-2 included ICI alone (ICI-1, n = 26, 45%; ICI-2, n = 4, 7%), dual ICI regimens (n = 1, 2%; n = 12, 21%), or ICI combined with targeted therapies/anti-VEGF (n = 31, 53%; n = 42, 72%). Most patients discontinued ICI-1 due to progression (n = 52, 90%). Objective response rate was 22% at ICI-1 and 26% at ICI-2. Responses at ICI-2 were also seen in patients who had progressive disease as best overall response at ICI-1 (n = 11/21; 52%). Median time-to-progression at ICI-1 and ICI-2 was 5.4 (95% CI 3.0-7.7) months and 5.2 (95% CI 3.3-7.0) months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-4 at ICI-1 and ICI-2 were observed in 9 (16%) and 10 (17%) patients, respectively. Conclusions: ICI rechallenge was safe and resulted in a treatment benefit in a meaningful proportion of patients with HCC. These data provide a rationale for investigating ICI-based regimens in patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy in prospective trials. Impact and implications: Therapeutic sequencing after first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a challenge as no available second-line treatment options have been studied in immunotherapy-pretreated patients. Particularly, the role of ICI rechallenge in patients with HCC is unclear, as data from prospective trials are lacking. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ICI-based regimens in patients with HCC pretreated with immunotherapy in a retrospective, international, multicenter study. Our data provide the rationale for prospective trials investigating the role of ICI-based regimens in patients who have progressed on first-line immunotherapy.

PD-1/PD-L1 immune checkpoint therapy demonstrates favorable safety profile in patients with autoimmune and cholestatic liver disease.

Introduction: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionized the treatment of many malignancies in recent years. However, immune-related adverse events (irAE) are a frequent concern in clinical practice. The safety profile of ICI for the treatment of malignancies in patients diagnosed with autoimmune and cholestatic liver disease (AILD) remains unclear. Due to this uncertainty, these patients were excluded from ICI clinical trials and ICI are withheld from this patient group. In this retrospective multicenter study, we assessed the safety of ICI in patients with AILD. Methods: We contacted tertiary referral hospitals for the identification of AILD patients under ICI treatment in Europe via the European Reference Network on Hepatological Diseases (ERN RARE-LIVER). Fourteen centers contributed data on AILD patients with malignancies being treated with ICI, another three centers did not treat these patients with ICI due to fear of irAEs. Results: In this study, 22 AILD patients under ICI treatment could be identified. Among these patients, 12 had primary biliary cholangitis (PBC), five had primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC), four had autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), and one patient had an AIH-PSC variant syndrome. Eleven patients had hepatobiliary cancers and the other 11 patients presented with non-hepatic tumors. The applied ICIs were atezolizumab (n=7), durvalumab (n=5), pembrolizumab (n=4), nivolumab (n=4), spartalizumab (n=1), and in one case combined immunotherapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab. Among eight patients who presented with grade 1 or 2 irAEs, three demonstrated liver irAEs. Cases with grades ≥ 3 irAEs were not reported. No significant changes in liver tests were observed during the first year after the start of ICI. Discussion: This European multicenter study demonstrates that PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors appear to be safe in patients with AILD. Further studies on the safety of more potent dual immune checkpoint therapy are needed. We conclude that immunotherapy should not categorically be withheld from patients with AILD.

Real-World Data for Lenvatinib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (ELEVATOR): A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

Background: Lenvatinib is approved as first-line treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The efficacy of lenvatinib in Caucasian real-world patients is insufficiently defined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of lenvatinib in a multi-center cohort (ELEVATOR) from Germany and Austria. Methods: A retrospective data analysis of 205 patients treated with first-line systemic lenvatinib at 14 different sites was conducted. Overall survival, progression free survival, overall response rate and adverse event rates were assessed and analyzed. Results: Patients receiving lenvatinib in the real-world setting reached a median overall survival of 12.8 months, which was comparable to the results reported from the REFLECT study. Median overall survival (mOS) and progression free survival (mPFS) was superior in those patients who met the inclusion criteria of the REFLECT study compared to patients who failed to meet the inclusion criteria (mOS 15.6 vs 10.2 months, HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.81, p=0.002; mPFS 8.1 vs 4.8 months HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46-0.91, p=0.0015). For patients with an impaired liver function according to the Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade, or reduced ECOG performance status ≥2, survival was significantly shorter compared to patients with sustained liver function (ALBI grade 1) and good performance status (ECOG performance status 0), respectively (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.07-2.66, p=0.023; HR 2.25, 95% CI 1.19-4.23, p=0.012). Additionally, macrovascular invasion (HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.02-2.37, p=0.041) and an AFP ≥200 ng/mL (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.03-2.34, p=0.034) were confirmed as independent negative prognostic factors in our cohort of patients with advanced HCC. Conclusion: Overall, our data confirm the efficacy of lenvatinib as first-line treatment and did not reveal new or unexpected side effects in a large retrospective Caucasian real-world cohort, supporting the use of lenvatinib as meaningful alternative for patients that cannot be treated with IO-based combinations in first-line HCC.

Equal Efficacy and Safety Profile in Elderly Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Palliative Treatment.

Palliative treatment of elderly patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is often challenging due to comorbidities or frailty, and data about the outcome and overall survival (OS) in these patients are limited. This was a retrospective single centre study. Patients were grouped according to their age as young (<60 years; YP), intermediate (60-70 years; IP) or elderly (>70 years; EP). Administration of chemotherapy or transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) was defined as palliative treatment. Therapy-related adverse events (AE) were assessed via CTCAE 5.0. Out of 656 patients analyzed, n = 359 received palliative treatment: YP: n = 90; IP: n = 127 and EP: n = 142. The median OS (months) in patients receiving TACE (n = 254) was 17 vs. 18 vs. 20 months for YP, IP, and EP, respectively (p = 0.44) and 15 vs. 16 vs. 17 months (p = 0.56), respectively, in patients receiving chemotherapy (n = 105). AEs differed non-significantly between the subgroups. Multivariate analysis revealed impaired liver function and advanced tumor stage as significant factors for impaired OS. In this study, the mOS and rate of AEs were equal between elderly and younger HCC patients receiving palliative treatment. Therefore, we propose regular palliative treatment stratification in spite of the high age of patients.

Prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with immunotherapy - development and validation of the CRAFITY score.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Immunotherapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab represents the new standard of care in systemic front-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, biomarkers that predict treatment success and survival remain an unmet need. METHODS: Patients with HCC put on PD-(L)1-based immunotherapy were included in a training set (n = 190; 6 European centers) and a validation set (n = 102; 8 European centers). We investigated the prognostic value of baseline variables on overall survival using a Cox model in the training set and developed the easily applicable CRAFITY (CRP and AFP in ImmunoTherapY) score. The score was validated in the independent, external cohort, and evaluated in a cohort of patients treated with sorafenib (n = 204). RESULTS: Baseline serum alpha-fetoprotein ≥100 ng/ml (hazard ratio [HR] 1.7; p = 0.007) and C-reactive protein ≥1 mg/dl (HR, 1.7; p = 0.007) were identified as independent prognostic factors in multivariable analysis and were used to develop the CRAFITY score. Patients who fulfilled no criterion (0 points; CRAFITY-low) had the longest median overall survival (27.6 (95% CI 19.5-35.8) months), followed by those fulfilling 1 criterion (1 point; CRAFITY-intermediate; 11.3 (95% CI 8.0-14.6) months), and patients meeting both criteria (2 points; CRAFITY-high; 6.4 (95% CI 4.8-8.1) months; p <0.001). Additionally, best radiological response (complete response/partial response/stable disease/progressive disease) was significantly better in patients with lower CRAFITY score (CRAFITY-low: 9%/20%/52%/20% vs. CRAFITY-intermediate: 3%/25%/36%/36% vs. CRAFITY-high: 2%/15%/22%/61%; p = 0.003). These results were confirmed in the independent validation set and in different subgroups, including Child-Pugh A and B, performance status 0 and ≥1, and first-line and later lines. In the sorafenib cohort, CRAFITY was associated with survival, but not radiological response. CONCLUSIONS: The CRAFITY score is associated with survival and radiological response in patients receiving PD-(L)1 immunotherapy. The score may help with patient counseling but requires prospective validation. LAY SUMMARY: The immunotherapy-based regimen of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab represents the new standard of care in systemic first-line therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Biomarkers to predict treatment outcome are an unmet need in patients undergoing immunotherapy for HCC. We developed and externally validated a score that predicts outcome in patients with HCC undergoing immunotherapy with immune checkpoint blockers.

Hepatocellular carcinoma: Intratumoral EpCAM-positive cancer stem cell heterogeneity identifies high-risk tumor subtype.

BACKGROUND: The translational interest in the intratumoral heterogeneity of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been increasing. The dismal prognosis of this pathology is linked to the features of the HCC harbouring cancer stem cells (CSC), represented by EpCAM-expression. However, the extent of the impact of intratumoral distribution of CSC-features, both on the recurrence after curative resection and on clinical outcome, remains unknown. To address this, we investigated the spatial heterogeneity of CSC-features with the aim of identifying the unique HCC patient subgroups amenable to adjuvant treatment. METHODS: We designed a tissue microarray (TMA) from patients who had received liver resection between 2011 and 2017. Tumor specimens were sampled at multiple locations (n = 3-8). EpCAM-positivity was assessed for intensity and proportion by applying a score dividing three groups: (i) negative (E-/-); (ii) heterogeneous (E-/+); and (iii) homogeneous (E+/+). The groups were further analysed with regard to time-to-recurrence (TTR) and recurrence-free-survival (RFS). RESULTS: We included 314 tumor spots from 69 patients (76.8% male, median age 66, liver cirrhosis/fibrosis 75.8%). The risk factors were alcohol abuse (26.2%), NASH (13.1%), HBV (15.5%), HCV (17.9%) and others (27.4%), representative of a typical Western cohort. E+/+ patients experienced significantly shorter TTR and RFS compared to E+/- and E-/- patients (TTR 5 vs. 19 months, p = 0.022; RFS 5 vs. 14 vs. 21 months, p = 0.016). Only homogeneous EpCAM-positivity correlated with higher AFP levels (> 400 ng/ml, p = 0.031). CONCLUSIONS: Spatial heterogeneity of EpCAM-expression was markedly present in the cohort. Of note, only homogeneous EpCAM-expression correlated significantly with early recurrence, whereas heterogeneous EpCAM-expression was associated with clinical endpoints comparable to EpCAM-negativity. We identified a unique HCC subtype associated with a high risk of tumor recurrence.

Transarterial chemoembolization versus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and extrahepatic disease.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is the recommended treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is performed in individual cases with limited extrahepatic spread. The aim of this study was to compare the outcome of patients with HCC and extrahepatic disease (EHD) treated with sorafenib and TACE. METHODS: A total of 172 patients with HCC and EHD treated with sorafenib (n = 98) or TACE (n = 74) at three German referral centers (Hannover, Mainz and Hamburg) were included in this study. In order to reduce selection bias, patients were matched for significant demographic differences using a propensity score analysis. RESULTS: Patients with liver cirrhosis, higher extrahepatic tumor burden and/or infiltration of adjacent organs/structures were significantly more often treated with sorafenib. Median overall survival (OS) was similar for sorafenib- and TACE-treated patients (7 versus 8 months, p = 0.312). In a propensity score analysis matched for demographic differences, median OS remained similar with 4 versus 8 months for sorafenib versus TACE (p = 0.613). CONCLUSION: Treatment with TACE is not inferior to treatment with sorafenib in patients with limited EHD of HCC. TACE represents an effective therapeutic option in selected patients with EHD.