PARP-1 selectively impairs KRAS-driven phenotypic and molecular features in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) is the second most common primary liver cancer with limited therapeutic options. KRAS mutations are among the most abundant genetic alterations in iCCA associated with poor clinical outcome and treatment response. Recent findings indicate that Poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase1 (PARP-1) is implicated in KRAS-driven cancers, but its exact role in cholangiocarcinogenesis remains undefined. DESIGN: PARP-1 inhibition was performed in patient-derived and established iCCA cells using RNAi, CRISPR/Cas9 and pharmacological inhibition in KRAS-mutant, non-mutant cells. In addition, Parp-1 knockout mice were combined with iCCA induction by hydrodynamic tail vein injection to evaluate an impact on phenotypic and molecular features of Kras-driven and Kras-wildtype iCCA. Clinical implications were confirmed in authentic human iCCA. RESULTS: PARP-1 was significantly enhanced in KRAS-mutant human iCCA. PARP-1-based interventions preferentially impaired cell viability and tumourigenicity in human KRAS-mutant cell lines. Consistently, loss of Parp-1 provoked distinct phenotype in Kras/Tp53-induced versus Akt/Nicd-induced iCCA and abolished Kras-dependent cholangiocarcinogenesis. Transcriptome analyses confirmed preferential impairment of DNA damage response pathways and replicative stress response mediated by CHK1. Consistently, inhibition of CHK1 effectively reversed PARP-1 mediated effects. Finally, Parp-1 depletion induced molecular switch of KRAS-mutant iCCA recapitulating good prognostic human iCCA patients. CONCLUSION: Our findings identify the novel prognostic and therapeutic role of PARP-1 in iCCA patients with activation of oncogenic KRAS signalling.

N-cadherin: A diagnostic marker to help discriminate primary liver carcinomas from extrahepatic carcinomas.

Distinguishing primary liver cancer (PLC), namely hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), from liver metastases is of crucial clinical importance. Histopathology remains the gold standard, but differential diagnosis may be challenging. While absent in most epithelial, the expression of the adherens junction glycoprotein N-cadherin is commonly restricted to neural and mesenchymal cells, or carcinoma cells that undergo the phenomenon of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT). However, we recently established N- and E-cadherin expression as hallmarks of normal hepatocytes and cholangiocytes, which are also preserved in HCC and iCCA. Therefore, we hypothesized that E- and/or N-cadherin may distinguish between carcinoma derived from the liver vs carcinoma of other origins. We comprehensively evaluated E- and N-cadherin in 3359 different tumors in a multicenter study using immunohistochemistry and compared our results with previously published 882 cases of PLC, including 570 HCC and 312 iCCA. Most carcinomas showed strong positivity for E-cadherin. Strong N-cadherin positivity was present in HCC and iCCA. However, except for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (23.6% of cases) and thyroid cancer (29.2%), N-cadherin was only in some instances faintly expressed in adenocarcinomas of the gastrointestinal tract (0%-0.5%), lung (7.1%), pancreas (3.9%), gynecological organs (0%-7.4%), breast (2.2%) as well as in urothelial (9.4%) and squamous cell carcinoma (0%-5.6%). As expected, N-cadherin was detected in neuroendocrine tumors (25%-75%), malignant melanoma (46.2%) and malignant mesothelioma (41%). In conclusion, N-cadherin is a useful marker for the distinction of PLC vs liver metastases of extrahepatic carcinomas (P < .01).

Characteristics and outcomes of immunotherapy-related liver injury in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma versus other advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Immune-related liver injury (irLI) is commonly observed in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to compare the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of irLI between patients receiving ICIs for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vs. other solid tumours. METHODS: Two separate cohorts were included: 375 patients with advanced/unresectable HCC, Child-Pugh A class treated with first-line atezolizumab+bevacizumab from the AB-real study, and a non-HCC cohort including 459 patients treated with first-line ICI therapy from the INVIDIa-2 multicentre study. IrLI was defined as a treatment-related increase of aminotransferase levels after exclusion of alternative aetiologies of liver injury. The incidence of irLI was adjusted for the duration of treatment exposure. RESULTS: In patients with HCC, the incidence of any grade irLI was 11.4% over a median treatment exposure of 4.4 months (95% CI 3.7-5.2) vs. 2.6% in the INVIDIa-2 cohort over a median treatment exposure of 12.4 months (95% CI 11.1-14.0). Exposure-adjusted-incidence of any grade irLI was 22.1 per 100-patient-years in patients with HCC and 2.1 per 100-patient-years in patients with other solid tumours (p <0.001), with median time-to-irLI of 1.4 and 4.7 months, respectively. Among patients who developed irLI, systemic corticosteroids were administered in 16.3% of patients with HCC and 75.0% of those without HCC (p <0.001), and irLI resolution was observed in 72.1% and 58.3%, respectively (p = 0.362). In patients with HCC, rates of hepatic decompensation and treatment discontinuation due to irLI were 7%. Grade 1-2 irLI was associated with improved overall survival only in patients with HCC (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher incidence and earlier onset, irLI in patients with HCC is characterised by higher rates of remission and lower requirement for corticosteroid therapy (vs. irLI in other solid tumours), low risk of hepatic decompensation and treatment discontinuation, not negatively affecting oncological outcomes. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Immune-related liver injury (irLI) is common in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but whether irLI is more frequent or it is associated with a worse clinical course in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), compared to other tumours, is not known. Herein, we compared characteristics and outcomes of irLI in two prospective cohorts including patients treated with ICIs for HCC or for other oncological indications. irLI is significantly more common and it occurs earlier in patients with HCC, also after adjustment for duration of treatment exposure. However, outcomes of patients with HCC who developed irLI are not negatively affected in terms of requirement for corticosteroid therapy, hepatic decompensation, treatment discontinuation and overall survival.

Molecular Markers of Response to Anti-PD1 Therapy in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Single-agent anti-PD1 checkpoint inhibitors convey outstanding clinical benefits in a small fraction (∼20%) of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) but the molecular mechanisms determining response are unknown. To fill this gap, we herein analyze the molecular and immune traits of aHCC in patients treated with anti-PD1. METHODS: Overall, 111 tumor samples from patients with aHCC were obtained from 13 centers before systemic therapies. We performed molecular analysis and immune deconvolution using whole-genome expression data (n = 83), mutational analysis (n = 72), and histologic evaluation with an endpoint of objective response. RESULTS: Among 83 patients with transcriptomic data, 28 were treated in frontline, whereas 55 patients were treated after tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) either in second or third line. Responders treated in frontline showed upregulated interferon-γ signaling and major histocompatibility complex II-related antigen presentation. We generated an 11-gene signature (IFNAP), capturing these molecular features, which predicts response and survival in patients treated with anti-PD1 in frontline. The signature was validated in a separate cohort of aHCC and >240 patients with other solid cancer types where it also predicted response and survival. Of note, the same signature was unable to predict response in archival tissue of patients treated with frontline TKIs, highlighting the need for fresh biopsies before immunotherapy. CONCLUSION: Interferon signaling and major histocompatibility complex-related genes are key molecular features of HCCs responding to anti-PD1. A novel 11-gene signature predicts response in frontline aHCC, but not in patients pretreated with TKIs. These results must be confirmed in prospective studies and highlights the need for biopsies before immunotherapy to identify biomarkers of response.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus lenvatinib plus placebo for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (LEAP-002): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapies have improved the management of hepatocellular carcinoma, but there is still a need to further enhance overall survival in first-line advanced stages. This study aimed to evaluate the addition of pembrolizumab to lenvatinib versus lenvatinib plus placebo in the first-line setting for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this global, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study (LEAP-002), patients aged 18 years or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, Child Pugh class A liver disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no previous systemic treatment were enrolled at 172 global sites. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a central interactive voice-response system (block size of 4) to receive lenvatinib (bodyweight <60 kg, 8 mg/day; bodyweight ≥60 kg, 12 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or lenvatinib plus placebo. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, macrovascular portal vein invasion or extrahepatic spread or both, α-fetoprotein concentration, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Dual primary endpoints were overall survival (superiority threshold at final overall survival analysis, one-sided p=0·019; final analysis to occur after 532 events) and progression-free survival (superiority threshold one-sided p=0·002; final analysis to occur after 571 events) in the intention-to-treat population. Results from the final analysis are reported. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03713593, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 17, 2019, and April 28, 2020, of 1309 patients assessed, 794 were randomly assigned to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n=395) or lenvatinib plus placebo (n=399). Median age was 66·0 years (IQR 57·0-72·0), 644 (81%) of 794 were male, 150 (19%) were female, 345 (43%) were Asian, 345 (43%) were White, 22 (3%) were multiple races, 21 (3%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 21 (3%) were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 13 (2%) were Black or African American, and 46 (6%) did not have available race data. Median follow up as of data cutoff for the final analysis (June 21, 2022) was 32·1 months (IQR 29·4-35·3). Median overall survival was 21·2 months (95% CI 19·0-23·6; 252 [64%] of 395 died) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 19·0 months (17·2-21·7; 282 [71%] of 399 died) with lenvatinib plus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·84; 95% CI 0·71-1·00; stratified log-rank p=0·023). As of data cutoff for the progression-free survival final analysis (April 5, 2021), median progression-free survival was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·4-8·4; 270 events occurred [42 deaths; 228 progressions]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 8·0 months (6·3-8·2; 301 events occurred [36 deaths; 265 progressions]) with lenvatinib plus placebo (HR 0·87; 95% CI 0·73-1·02; stratified log-rank p=0·047). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (69 [17%] of 395 patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group vs 68 [17%] of 395 patients) in the lenvatinib plus placebo group), increased aspartate aminotransferase (27 [7%] vs 17 [4%]), and diarrhoea (25 [6%] vs 15 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (1%) patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (due to gastrointestinal haemorrhage and hepatorenal syndrome [n=1 each] and hepatic encephalopathy [n=2]) and in three (1%) patients in the lenvatinib plus placebo group (due to gastrointestinal haemorrhage, hepatorenal syndrome, and cerebrovascular accident [n=1 each]). INTERPRETATION: In earlier studies, the addition of pembrolizumab to lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma has shown promising clinical activity; however, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab did not meet prespecified significance for improved overall survival and progression-free survival versus lenvatinib plus placebo. Our findings do not support a change in clinical practice. FUNDING: Eisai US, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck.

Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab showed encouraging antitumor activity and safety in a phase 1b trial involving patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In a global, open-label, phase 3 trial, patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who had not previously received systemic treatment were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or sorafenib until unacceptable toxic effects occurred or there was a loss of clinical benefit. The coprimary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, as assessed at an independent review facility according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1). RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 336 patients in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab group and 165 patients in the sorafenib group. At the time of the primary analysis (August 29, 2019), the hazard ratio for death with atezolizumab-bevacizumab as compared with sorafenib was 0.58 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.79; P<0.001). Overall survival at 12 months was 67.2% (95% CI, 61.3 to 73.1) with atezolizumab-bevacizumab and 54.6% (95% CI, 45.2 to 64.0) with sorafenib. Median progression-free survival was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.7 to 8.3) and 4.3 months (95% CI, 4.0 to 5.6) in the respective groups (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.76; P<0.001). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 56.5% of 329 patients who received at least one dose of atezolizumab-bevacizumab and in 55.1% of 156 patients who received at least one dose of sorafenib. Grade 3 or 4 hypertension occurred in 15.2% of patients in the atezolizumab-bevacizumab group; however, other high-grade toxic effects were infrequent. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab resulted in better overall and progression-free survival outcomes than sorafenib. (Funded by F. Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434379.).

Preliminary evidence of safety and tolerability of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh A and B cirrhosis: A real-world study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AtezoBev) is the standard of care for first-line treatment of unresectable HCC. No evidence exists as to its use in routine clinical practice in patients with impaired liver function. APPROACH AND RESULTS: In 216 patients with HCC who were consecutively treated with AtezoBev across 11 tertiary centers, we retrospectively evaluated treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) graded (G) according to Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v5.0, including in the analysis all patients treated according to label (n = 202, 94%). We also assessed overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response (ORR), and disease control rates (DCR) defined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1. Disease was mostly secondary to viral hepatitis, namely hepatitis C (n = 72; 36%) and hepatitis B infection (n = 35, 17%). Liver function was graded as Child-Pugh (CP)-A in 154 patients (76%) and CP-B in 48 (24%). Any grade trAEs were reported by 143 patients (71%), of which 53 (26%) were G3 and 3 (2%) G4. Compared with CP-A, patients with CP-B showed comparable rates of trAEs. Presence and grade of varices at pretreatment esophagogastroduodenoscopy did not correlate with bleeding events. After a median follow-up of 9.0 months (95% CI, 7.8-10.1), median OS was 14.9 months (95% CI, 13.6-16.3), whereas median PFS was 6.8 months (95% CI, 5.2-8.5). ORR and DCR were respectively 25% and 73%, with no difference across CP classes. CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms reproducible safety and efficacy of AtezoBev in routine practice. Patients with CP-B reported similar tolerability compared with CP-A, warranting prospective evaluation of AtezoBev in this treatment-deprived population.

Progression patterns and therapeutic sequencing following immune checkpoint inhibition for hepatocellular carcinoma: An international observational study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Different approaches are available after the progression of disease (PD) to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), including the continuation of ICI, treatment switching to tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and cessation of anticancer therapy. We sought to characterise the relationship between radiological patterns of progression and survival post-ICI, also appraising treatment strategies. METHODS: We screened 604 HCC patients treated with ICIs, including only those who experienced PD by data cut-off. We evaluated post-progression survival (PPS) according to the treatment strategy at PD and verified its relationship with radiological patterns of progression: intrahepatic growth (IHG), new intrahepatic lesion (NIH), extrahepatic growth (EHG), new extrahepatic lesion (NEH) and new vascular invasion (nVI). RESULTS: Of 604 patients, 364 (60.3%) experienced PD during observation. Median PPS was 5.3 months (95% CI: 4.4-6.9; 271 events). At the data cut-off, 165 patients (45%) received no post-progression anticancer therapy; 64 patients (17.6%) continued ICI beyond PD. IHG (HR 1.64 [95% CI: 1.21-2.22]; p = .0013) and nVI (HR 2.15 [95% CI: 1.38-3.35]; p = .0007) were associated with shorter PPS. Multivariate models adjusted for progression patterns, treatment line and albumin-bilirubin grade and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status at PD confirmed receipt of ICI beyond PD with (HR 0.17, 95% CI: 0.09-0.32; p < .0001) or without subsequent TKI (HR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.26-0.58; p < .0001) as predictors of prolonged PPS versus no anticancer therapy. CONCLUSIONS: ICI-TKI sequencing is a consolidated option in advanced HCC. nVI and IHG predict a poorer prognosis. Despite lack of recommendation, the continuation of ICI beyond progression in HCC is adopted clinically: future efforts should appraise which patients benefit from this approach.

Plain language summary of the HIMALAYA study: tremelimumab and durvalumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (liver cancer).

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary of results from a phase 3 clinical study called HIMALAYA. HIMALAYA looked at treatment with one dose of a medication called tremelimumab combined with multiple doses of a medication called durvalumab (the STRIDE regimen) or multiple doses of durvalumab alone. These treatments were compared with a medication called sorafenib in participants with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). HCC is a type of liver cancer that is difficult to treat because it is often diagnosed when it is unresectable, meaning it can no longer be removed with surgery. Sorafenib has been the main treatment for unresectable HCC since 2007. However, people who take sorafenib may experience side effects that can reduce their quality of life, so alternative medicines are being trialed. Tremelimumab and durvalumab are types of drugs called immunotherapies, and they both work in different ways to help the body's immune system fight cancer. WHAT WERE THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY?: Participants who took STRIDE lived longer than participants who took sorafenib, whilst participants who took durvalumab alone lived a similar length of time as participants who took sorafenib. Participants who took STRIDE or durvalumab had a lower relative risk of experiencing worsening in their quality of life than participants who took sorafenib. The side effects that participants who received STRIDE or durvalumab experienced were expected for these types of treatments and could mostly be managed. WHAT DO THE RESULTS OF THE STUDY MEAN?: Overall, STRIDE is more effective than sorafenib for people with unresectable HCC.

Significant liver fibrosis is a predictor of poor health-related quality of life in people living with HIV.

PURPOSE: Liver-related comorbidities can impair the health-related quality of life (HRQL) in people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PLWH). However, the role of hepatic steatosis and significant fibrosis in PLWH remains incompletely characterized. Therefore, the aim of this study was to explore the association of hepatic steatosis and significant fibrosis on the HRQL using the medical outcomes study HIV health survey (MOS-HIV) in PLWH. METHODS: A total of 222 PLWH were included in the final analysis of this cohort study. Metabolic comorbidities, socioeconomic factors, and HIV-related parameters were assessed. Hepatic steatosis and fibrosis were measured using vibration-controlled transient elastography (VCTE). The MOS-HIV survey, containing two summary scores (physical health summary (PHS) and mental health summary (MHS)) and ten domains, was used to assess the HRQL. Clinical predictors were identified using multivariable linear regression models. RESULTS: The majority of this cohort was male, and the median age was 52 years, with a high prevalence of hepatic steatosis (n = 81, 36.5%). Significant fibrosis was present in 7.7% (n = 17). The mean PHS and MHS scores were 52.7 ± 9.5 and 51.4 ± 10.5, respectively. The lowest scores were in the general health perception (GHP) and energy/fatigue (EF) domains. A high BMI and waist circumference were associated with a poor PHS score. Lower education, unemployment, arterial hypertension, and significant fibrosis remained independent predictors of an impaired HRQL. CONCLUSION: Metabolic comorbidities, significant fibrosis, and a lower socioeconomic status may negatively affect the HRQL in PLWH. Considering the negative impact of significant fibrosis on the outcome, counseling and preventive measures according to current guidelines are recommended in this subgroup of PLWH.

How do (false) positively screened patients experience a screening programme for liver cirrhosis or fibrosis in Germany? A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore psychosocial consequences of (false) positive liver screening results and to identify influencing factors for perceived strain within a multistage screening programme for liver cirrhosis and fibrosis in Germany. METHODS: Between June 2018 and May 2019, all positively screened patients were asked to participate in the study (n = 158). N = 11 telephone interviews and n = 4 follow-up interviews were conducted. Semi-structured telephone interviews were carried out. The analysis followed a structuring content analysis approach. Thereby, categories were first defined deductively. Second, the categories were revised inductively based on the data. RESULTS: The main themes found regarding the consequences of the screening were categorised in emotional reactions and behavioural reactions. Few respondents described negative emotional consequences related to screening. Those seem to be mostly driven by suboptimal patient-provider communication and might be worsened when transparent information transfer fails to happen. As a result, patients sought information and support in their social environment. All patients reported positive attitudes towards liver screening. CONCLUSION: To reduce the potential occurrence of psychosocial consequences during the screening process, medical screening should be performed in the context of transparent information. Regular health communication on the side of health professionals and increasing patients' health literacy might contribute to avoiding negative emotions in line with screening. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study recognises the wide-ranging patients' perspectives regarding the consequences of liver screening which should be taken into consideration when implementing a new screening programme to ensure a patient-centred approach.

Comparison of Inflammatory Cytokine Levels in Hepatic and Jugular Veins of Patients with Cirrhosis.

Background: Systemic inflammation with elevated inflammatory cytokines is a hallmark in patients with cirrhosis and the main driver of decompensation. There is insufficient data on whether inflammatory cytokine levels differ between hepatic and jugular veins, which may have implications for further immunological studies. Methods: Blood from the hepatic and jugular veins of 40 patients with cirrhosis was collected during hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) measurements. Serum levels of 13 inflammatory cytokines (IL-1ß, Int-α2, Int-γ, TNF-α, MCP-1, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12p70, IL-17A, IL-18, IL-23, and IL-33) were quantified by cytometric bead array. Results: Cytokine levels of IFN-α2, IFN-γ, TNF-α, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-17A, IL-18, IL-23, and IL-33 were significantly elevated in patients with decompensated cirrhosis compared to patients with compensated cirrhosis. When comparing patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH, HVPG ≥ 10 mmHg) to patients without CSPH, there were significantly enhanced serum levels of IL-6 and IL-18 in the former group. There was no significant difference between cytokine serum levels between blood obtained from the jugular versus hepatic veins. Even in subgroup analyses stratified for an early cirrhosis stage (Child-Pugh (CP) A) or more decompensated stages (CP B/C), cytokine levels were similar. Conclusion: Cytokine levels increase with decompensation and increasing portal hypertension in patients with cirrhosis. There is no relevant difference in cytokine levels between hepatic and jugular blood in patients with cirrhosis.

Liver Cell Type-Specific Targeting by Nanoformulations for Therapeutic Applications.

Hepatocytes exert pivotal roles in metabolism, protein synthesis and detoxification. Non-parenchymal liver cells (NPCs), largely comprising macrophages, dendritic cells, hepatic stellate cells and liver sinusoidal cells (LSECs), serve to induce immunological tolerance. Therefore, the liver is an important target for therapeutic approaches, in case of both (inflammatory) metabolic diseases and immunological disorders. This review aims to summarize current preclinical nanodrug-based approaches for the treatment of liver disorders. So far, nano-vaccines that aim to induce hepatitis virus-specific immune responses and nanoformulated adjuvants to overcome the default tolerogenic state of liver NPCs for the treatment of chronic hepatitis have been tested. Moreover, liver cancer may be treated using nanodrugs which specifically target and kill tumor cells. Alternatively, nanodrugs may target and reprogram or deplete immunosuppressive cells of the tumor microenvironment, such as tumor-associated macrophages. Here, combination therapies have been demonstrated to yield synergistic effects. In the case of autoimmune hepatitis and other inflammatory liver diseases, anti-inflammatory agents can be encapsulated into nanoparticles to dampen inflammatory processes specifically in the liver. Finally, the tolerance-promoting activity especially of LSECs has been exploited to induce antigen-specific tolerance for the treatment of allergic and autoimmune diseases.

Validation of the CLIF-C OF Score and CLIF-C ACLF Score to Predict Transplant-Free Survival in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis and Concomitant Need for Intensive Care Unit Treatment.

Both the Chronic Liver Failure Consortium (CLIF-C) organ failure score (OFs) and the CLIF-C acute-on-chronic-liver failure (ACLF) score (ACLFs) were developed for risk stratification and to predict mortality in patients with liver cirrhosis and ACLF. However, studies validating the predictive ability of both scores in patients with liver cirrhosis and concomitant need for intensive care unit (ICU) treatment are scarce. The aim of the present study is to validate the predictive ability of the CLIF-C OFs and CLIF-C ACLFs regarding the rationale of ongoing ICU treatment and to investigate their predictive ability regarding 28-days (short-), 90-days (medium-), and 365-days (long-term) mortality in patients with liver cirrhosis treated in an ICU. Patients with liver cirrhosis and acute decompensation (AD) or ACLF and concomitant need for ICU treatment were retrospectively analyzed. Predictive factors for mortality, defined as transplant-free survival, were identified using multivariable regression analyses and the predictive ability of CLIF-C OFs, CLIF-C ACLFs, MELD score, and AD score (ADs) was assessed by determining the AUROC. Of 136 included patients, 19 patients presented with AD and 117 patients with ACLF at ICU admission. In multivariable regression analyses, CLIF-C OFs as well as CLIF-C ACLFs were independently associated with higher short-, medium-, and long-term mortality after adjusting for confounding variables. The predictive ability of the CLIF-C OFs in the total cohort in short-term was 0.687 (95% CI 0.599-0.774). In the subgroup of patients with ACLF, the respective AUROCs were 0.652 (95% CI 0.554-0.750) and 0.717 (95% CI 0.626-0.809) for the CLIF-C OFs and for the CLIF-C ACLFs, respectively. ADs performed well in the subgroup of patients without ACLF at ICU admission with an AUROC of 0.792 (95% CI 0.560-1.000). In the long-term, the AUROCs were 0.689 (95% Cl 0.581-0.796) and 0.675 (95% Cl 0.550-0.800) for CLIF-C OFs and CLIF-C ACLFs, respectively. The predictive ability of CLIF-C OFs and CLIF-C ACLFs was relatively low to predict short- and long-term mortality in patients with ACLF with concomitant need for ICU treatment. However, the CLIF-C ACLFs may have special merit in judging futility of further ICU treatment.

Structured Early detection of Asymptomatic Liver Cirrhosis: Results of the population-based liver screening program SEAL.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Detection of patients with early cirrhosis is of importance to prevent the occurrence of complications and improve prognosis. The SEAL program aimed at evaluating the usefulness of a structured screening procedure to detect cirrhosis as early as possible. METHODS: SEAL was a prospective cohort study with a control cohort from routine care data. Individuals participating in the general German health check-up after the age of 35 ("Check-up 35") at their primary care physicians were offered a questionnaire, liver function tests (aspartate and alanine aminotransferase [AST and ALT]), and follow-up. If AST/ALT levels were elevated, the AST-to-platelet ratio index (APRI) score was calculated, and patients with a score >0.5 were referred to a liver expert in secondary and/or tertiary care. RESULTS: A total of 11,859 participants were enrolled and available for final analysis. The control group comprised 349,570 participants of the regular Check-up 35. SEAL detected 488 individuals with elevated APRI scores (4.12%) and 45 incident cases of advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis. The standardized incidence of advanced fibrosis/cirrhosis in the screening program was slightly higher than in controls (3.83‰ vs. 3.36‰). The comparison of the chance of fibrosis/cirrhosis diagnosis in SEAL vs. in standard care was inconclusive (marginal odds ratio 1.141, one-sided 95% CI 0.801, +Inf). Of note, when patients with decompensated cirrhosis at initial diagnosis were excluded from both cohorts in a post hoc analysis, SEAL was associated with a 59% higher chance of early cirrhosis detection on average than routine care (marginal odds ratio 1.590, one-sided 95% CI 1.080, +Inf; SEAL 3.51‰, controls: 2.21‰). CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a structured screening program may increase the early detection rate of cirrhosis in the general population. In this context, the SEAL pathway represents a feasible and potentially cost-effective screening program. REGISTRATION: DRKS00013460 LAY SUMMARY: Detection of patients with early liver cirrhosis is of importance to prevent the occurrence of complications and improve prognosis. This study demonstrates that the implementation of a structured screening program using easily obtainable measures of liver function may increase the early detection rate of cirrhosis in the general population. In this context, the 'SEAL' pathway represents a feasible and potentially cost-effective screening program.

BCLC strategy for prognosis prediction and treatment recommendation: The 2022 update.

There have been major advances in the armamentarium for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since the last official update of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer prognosis and treatment strategy published in 2018. Whilst there have been advances in all areas, we will focus on those that have led to a change in strategy and we will discuss why, despite being encouraging, data for select interventions are still too immature for them to be incorporated into an evidence-based model for clinicians and researchers. Finally, we describe the critical insight and expert knowledge that are required to make clinical decisions for individual patients, considering all of the parameters that must be considered to deliver personalised clinical management.

Updated efficacy and safety data from IMbrave150: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs. sorafenib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: IMbrave150 demonstrated that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab led to significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma at the primary analysis (after a median 8.6 months of follow-up). We present updated data after 12 months of additional follow-up. METHODS: Patients with systemic treatment-naive, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma were randomized 2:1 to receive 1,200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenously every 3 weeks or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice daily in this open-label, phase III study. Co-primary endpoints were OS and PFS by independently assessed RECIST 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary efficacy endpoints included objective response rates and exploratory subgroup efficacy analyses. This is a post hoc updated analysis of efficacy and safety. RESULTS: From March 15, 2018, to January 30, 2019, 501 patients (intention-to-treat population) were randomly allocated to receive atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n = 336) or sorafenib (n = 165). On August 31, 2020, after a median 15.6 (range, 0-28.6) months of follow-up, the median OS was 19.2 months (95% CI 17.0-23.7) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and 13.4 months (95% CI 11.4-16.9) with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66; 95% CI 0.52-0.85; descriptive p <0.001). The median PFS was 6.9 (95% CI 5.7-8.6) and 4.3 (95% CI 4.0-5.6) months in the respective treatment groups (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.81; descriptive p < 0.001). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 143 (43%) of 329 and 72 (46%) of 156 safety-evaluable patients in the respective groups, and treatment-related grade 5 events occurred in 6 (2%) and 1 (<1%) patients. CONCLUSION: After longer follow-up, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab maintained clinically meaningful survival benefits over sorafenib and had a safety profile consistent with the primary analysis. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT03434379. LAY SUMMARY: The primary analysis of IMbrave150 showed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab had significantly greater benefits than sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but survival data were not yet mature. At this updated analysis done 12 months later, median overall survival was 5.8 months longer with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab than sorafenib, and the severity profile of treatment-related side effects remained similar. These updated results confirm atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as the first-line standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Ramucirumab for Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Elevated Alpha Fetoprotein Following Non-Sorafenib Systemic Therapy: An Expansion Cohort of REACH-2.

BACKGROUND: Ramucirumab is indicated for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and α-fetoprotein (AFP) ≥400 ng/mL following sorafenib. Here, we prospectively studied ramucirumab following non-sorafenib systemic therapies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This open-label, non-comparative cohort of REACH-2 enrolled patients with advanced HCC, Child-Pugh class-A liver disease, and AFP ≥400 ng/mL who had received 1-2 lines of therapy, excluding sorafenib or chemotherapy. Ramucirumab was administered 8 mg/kg intravenously Q2W. The primary endpoint was safety. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, progression-free survival, objective response rate (RECIST v1.1), time to progression, pharmacokinetics, and patient-reported outcomes. Final analysis occurred after all enrolled patients completed ≥3 treatment cycles or discontinued treatment. RESULTS: Between April 27, 2018, and March 29, 2021, 47 patients were treated at 21 investigative sites in Asia, Europe, and USA. The most frequently reported grade ≥3 adverse events, regardless of causality, were hypertension (11%), proteinuria (6%), hyponatremia (6%), and AST increased (6%). Two patients died from adverse events (myocardial infarction and upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage), deemed related to treatment. Median progression-free survival, time to progression, and overall survival were 1.7 months, 2.8 months, and 8.7 months, respectively. The objective response rate was 10.6% with a median duration response of 8.3 months. Median time to deterioration in FHSI-8 total score was 4.4 months. CONCLUSION: Ramucirumab demonstrated consistent and meaningful clinical activity with no new safety signals following non-sorafenib therapies in patients with advanced HCC and AFP ≥400 ng/mL. This represents one of the first sequencing studies for patients with advanced HCC not treated with sorafenib.

Low Accuracy of FIB-4 and NAFLD Fibrosis Scores for Screening for Liver Fibrosis in the Population.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) and the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score (NFS) are the 2 most popular noninvasive blood-based serum tests proposed for widespread fibrosis screening. We therefore aimed to describe the accuracy of FIB-4 and NFS to detect elevated liver stiffness as an indicator of hepatic fibrosis in low-prevalence populations. METHODS: This study included a total of 5129 patients with concomitant measurement of FIB-4, NFS, and liver stiffness measurement (LSM) by Fibroscan (Echosens, France) from 5 independent population-based cohorts from Spain, Hong Kong, Denmark, England, and France; 3979 participants from the general population and 1150 from at-risk cohorts due to alcohol, diabetes, or obesity. We correlated LSM with FIB-4 and NFS, and calculated pre- and post-test predictive values of FIB-4 and NFS to detect elevated LSM at 8 kPa and 12 kPa cutoffs. The mean age was 53 ± 12 years, the mean body mass index was 27 ± 5 kg/m2, and 2439 (57%) were women. One in 10 patients (552; 11%) had liver stiffness ≥8 kPa, but 239 of those (43%) had a normal FIB-4, and 171 (31%) had normal NFS. The proportion of false-negatives was higher in at-risk patients than the general population. FIB-4 was false-negative in 11% of diabetic subjects, compared with 2.5% false-negatives with NFS. Waist circumference outperformed FIB-4 and NFS for detecting LSM ≥8 kPa in the general population. Almost one-third (28%-29%) of elevated FIB-4/NFS were false-positive in both the general population and at-risk cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: FIB-4 and NFS are suboptimal for screening purposes due to a high risk of overdiagnosis and a non-negligible percentage of false-negatives, especially in patients with risk factors for chronic liver disease. Waist circumference emerged as a potential first step to identify patients at risk for liver fibrosis in the general population.

Impact of older age in patients receiving atezolizumab and bevacizumab for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Combination atezolizumab/bevacizumab is the gold standard for first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Our study investigated the efficacy and safety of combination therapy in older patients with HCC. METHODS: 191 consecutive patients from eight centres receiving atezolizumab and bevacizumab were included. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) defined by RECIST v1.1 were measured in older (age ≥ 65 years) and younger (age < 65 years) age patients. Treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were evaluated. RESULTS: The elderly (n = 116) had higher rates of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (19.8% vs. 2.7%; p < .001), presenting with smaller tumours (6.2 cm vs 7.9 cm, p = .02) with less portal vein thrombosis (31.9 vs. 54.7%, p = .002), with fewer patients presenting with BCLC-C stage disease (50.9 vs. 74.3%, p = .002). There was no significant difference in OS (median 14.9 vs. 15.1 months; HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.65-2.02 p = .63) and PFS (median 7.1 vs. 5.5 months; HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.54-1.92; p = .72) between older age and younger age. Older patients had similar ORR (27.6% vs. 20.0%; p = .27) and DCR (77.5% vs. 66.1%; p = .11) compared to younger patients. Atezolizumab-related (40.5% vs. 48.0%; p = .31) and bevacizumab-related (44.8% vs. 41.3%; p = .63) trAEs were comparable between groups. Rates of grade ≥3 trAEs and toxicity-related treatment discontinuation were similar between older and younger age patients. Patients 75 years and older had similar survival and safety outcomes compared to younger patients. CONCLUSIONS: Atezolizumab and bevacizumab therapy is associated with comparable efficacy and tolerability in older age patients with unresectable HCC.