Comparison Between Portal Vein Perfusion Chemotherapy and Neoadjuvant Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy for Resectable Intermediate to Advanced Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with intermediate to advanced stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC; Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC] stage B/C) have few choices of curable treatments and thus suffer from dismal outcomes. Although surgical resection could prolong survival in certain selected patients with BCLC stage B/C HCC, the frequent postoperative recurrence and poor survival of these patients need to be improved by combining other therapies perioperatively. OBJECTIVE: This study was conducted to investigate the survival associations of adjuvant portal vein perfusion chemotherapy (PVC) and neoadjuvant hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) in patients with resectable BCLC stage B/C HCC. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in consecutive patients who underwent R0 resection for intermediate to advanced stage HCC, combined with either PVC or HAIC perioperatively between January 2017 and December 2018. Patients treated with PVC or HAIC were analyzed according to intention-to-treat (ITT) and per protocol (PP) principles, respectively. The chemotherapy regimen of adjuvant PVC and neoadjuvant HAIC included 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin. Survival analysis and Cox regression for overall survival (OS) and event-free survival (EFS) were used to compare the outcomes. RESULTS: Among all 64 patients enrolled in this study, 28 received perioperative PVC and 36 received HAIC for ITT analysis. Age (median 44.00 vs. 46.50 years; p = 0.364), sex (male: 25/28 vs. 35/36; p = 0.435), and tumor size (median 9.55 vs. 8.10 cm; p = 0.178) were comparable between the two groups. In the ITT analysis, the median OS was significantly longer in patients in the HAIC group compared with the PVC group (median OS not reached vs. 19.47 months; p = 0.004); in the PP analysis, patients who received neoadjuvant HAIC followed by hepatectomy presented with much better EFS than patients in the PVC group (modified EFS 16.90 vs. 3.17 months; p = 0.022); and in the multivariate analysis, neoadjuvant HAIC presented as a significant predictor for enhanced EFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.296; p = 0.007) and OS (HR 0.095; p = 0.007) for BCLC stage B/C HCC patients who received hepatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with adjuvant PVC, neoadjuvant HAIC treatment was associated with better survival and fewer recurrences in HCC patients who received R0 resection at the intermediate to advanced stage. These results need to be further validated prospectively.

Radiofrequency ablation versus laparoscopic hepatectomy for hepatocellular carcinoma: A real world single center study.

BACKGROUND: Both radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and laparoscopic hepatectomy (LH) are minimally invasive approach for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at early stage. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of RFA and LH for treating HCC with a large cohort. METHODS: From March 2014 to July 2016, 477 patients who underwent RFA (n = 314) or LH (n = 163) for HCC tumors meeting the criteria were included. Overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS) were compared. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance for the factors that may affect the choice of treatment. RESULTS: Collectively, the 1-, 2- and 3-year OS rates were significantly greater after LH than RFA, as well the corresponding RFS rates, before and after PSM by 2:1. However, the RFA group had fewer major complications (P=0.004), shorter postoperative stays (P=0.023) and lower hospital charges (P<0.001) than the LH group. In the subgroup analysis, RFA demonstrated comparable RFS in treating less than 3 cm tumor (P=0.22) located in noncentral bisection (SII, SIII, SVI, SVII) and tumor between 3 cm and 5 cm (P=0.07) located in central bisections (SIV, SV, SVIII). The female, HBV infection, and RFA are factors of worse OS, and the latter two factors also indicated higher RFS. CONCLUSIONS: Though, LH possessed superior intrahepatic control rate than RFA in most condition of tumor smaller than 5 cm, the RFA could be an optimal approach achieved comparable outcomes in patients with centrally located HCC, with fewer major complications, shorter postoperative stays and lower hospital charges.

Preventive effect of celecoxib in sorafenib-related hand-foot syndrome in hepatocellular carcinoma patients, a single-center, open-label, randomized, controlled clinical phase III trial.

Skin toxicity, especially hand-foot syndrome (HFS), is one of the most common sorafenib-induced adverse events (AEs) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, leading to treatment interruption and failure. Mucocutaneous inflammation may cause HFS; therefore, we investigated whether celecoxib can alleviate HFS, improve patients' quality of life and increase survival when administered in conjunction with active therapy. Our randomized, open-label study prospectively enrolled 116 advanced HCC patients receiving sorafenib as targeted therapy from July 2015 to July 2016. All patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computer-generated sequence to receive sorafenib with or without celecoxib. Sorafenib-related AEs were recorded, Survival was compared between the two groups. Compared to the Sorafenib group, the SoraCele group had lower incidence rates of ≥ grade 2 and grade 3 HFS (63.8% vs 29.3%, P < 0.001; 19.0% vs 3.4%, P = 0.008, respectively), hair loss, rash and abdominal pain. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed a lower risk of ≥ grade 2 HFS (HR, 0.384; P = 0.002) and a lower dose reduction/interruption rate (46.6% to 15.5%, P < 0.001) in the SoraCele group. Cox proportional hazards regression analysis demonstrated that celecoxib was the only independent predictive factor of developing ≥ grade 2 HFS (HR, 0.414; P = 0.004). Longer progression-free survival (PFS) was also observed in the SoraCele group (P = 0.039), although overall survival was not prolonged (P = 0.305). These results suggest that sorafenib + Celecoxib administration alleviated sorafenib-related skin toxicity. Longer PFS was achieved in clinical practice, although overall survival was not prolonged (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02961998).