Early diarrhoea under sorafenib as a marker to consider the early migration to second-line drugs.

BACKGROUND: Despite atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A + B) is currently the first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, some patients will not be adequate for this combination. In the setting of sorafenib some adverse events have been proposed as prognostic factors. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the early diarrhoea development as prognostic factor in 344 HCC patients. METHODS: The development of early diarrhoea in sorafenib treatment defined as patients who developed diarrhoea and needed dose modification within the first 60 days of treatment (e-diarrhoea) and 3-grouping variables were analysed: Patients with e-diarrhoea, patients who developed diarrhoea after the first 60 days of treatment (L-diarrhoea) and patients that never developed diarrhoea (never diarrhoea). RESULTS: The median overall survival in sorafenib treated patients was significantly different across groups (6.8 months for e-diarrhoea, 26.7 months for L-diarrhoea and 13.3 months for never-diarrhoea). The emergence of e-diarrhoea was associated with poor outcomes (hazard ratio [HR] 1.84 [95%CI 1.15-2.95]), while there was no increased/decreased risk of dismal evolution in patients with L-diarrhoea (HR 0.66 [95%CI 0.42-1.03]). CONCLUSION: The emergence of e-diarrhoea in HCC patients treated with sorafenib is an early predictor of dismal evolution under this therapy. Thus, prompt identification of these non-responders may be useful for an early switch to second-line therapies.

Pancreatic Insufficiency in Patients Under Sorafenib Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

GOALS: To describe the occurrence of malabsorption (MA) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients under sorafenib, the potential relationship with pancreatic insufficiency (PI), and the role of pancreatic enzymes supplementation. BACKGROUND: With the increasing options of second-line systemic therapies for HCC, the recognition of drug intolerance using practical tools is crucial. It has been proposed that a MA syndrome could be due to sorafenib-induced pancreatic dysfunction. STUDY: All sorafenib-treated patients with suspicion of MA (defined as decreased stool consistency lasting >4 wk or presenting ≥10% body weight loss without HCC progression) were prospectively evaluated by serum markers, endoscopy, and imaging techniques. RESULTS: We evaluated 81 sorafenib-treated patients and 21 developed MA suspicion (85.7% male, 81.5% Child-Pugh A, 52.4% BCLC-B, and 47.6% BCLC-C) within a median 5.9 months after starting sorafenib. The median treatment duration, follow-up, and overall survival after MA suspicion were 5.9, 20.3, and 20.3 months, respectively. Nine of them (42.9%) presented hyperparathyroidism secondary to vitamin D deficiency and 8 with PI. A gradual decrease in pancreatic volume of up to 19% was observed among patients with PI. Six of the 8 patients with PI received pancreatic enzymes, with complete recovery from MA symptoms and stabilization of pancreatic volume. CONCLUSIONS: We validated the association between MA and PI in 10% of sorafenib-treated patients. Pancreatic enzymes supplementation successfully led to symptomatic recovery. Awareness of this adverse event can help in the management of sorafenib irrespective of cancer type and likely, of other tyrosine kinase inhibitors for HCC patients.

Complete response under sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Relationship with dermatologic adverse events.

The clinical benefit of sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been undervalued due to the absence of complete responses, even though patients who develop early dermatologic reactions have shown to have a positive outcome. In addition, sorafenib is described as an antiangiogenic drug, but it also acts on immunological cells. Thus, the goal of this study was to assess the complete response rate in a retrospective cohort of HCC patients treated with sorafenib and to describe the profile of the patients who achieve complete response for identifying factors related to this event and their connection with the immunological profile of sorafenib. Ten Spanish centers submitted cases of complete response under sorafenib. The baseline characteristics, development of early dermatologic reactions, and cause of treatment discontinuation were annotated. Radiological images taken before starting sorafenib, at first control, after starting sorafenib, at the time of complete response, and at least 1 month after treatment were centrally reviewed. Of the 1119 patients studied, 20 had been classified as complete responders by the centers, but eight of these patients were excluded after central review. Ten patients had complete disappearance of all tumor sites, and two had just a small residual fibrotic scar. Thus, 12 patients were classified as complete responders (58% HCV, median age 59.7 years, 83.4% Child-Pugh class A, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 91.7%, and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C 83.3%). The median overall survival and treatment duration were 85.8 and 40.1 months, respectively. All but one patient developed early dermatologic reactions, and seven patients discontinued sorafenib after achieving complete response due to adverse events, patient decision, or liver decompensation. Conclusion: Complete response affects 1% of patients with HCC who are treated with sorafenib. The association of complete response with early dermatologic reactions supports the role of a specific immune/inflammatory patient profile in the improved response to sorafenib. (Hepatology 2018;67:612-622).

Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents the most frequent primary liver cancer. This disease usually arises as a result of a chronic liver disease, but may appear without any underlying disease. In most units, the staging and treatment decision in patients with HCC follows the Barcelona Clínic Liver Cancer (BCLC) strategy. Following this approach, patients diagnosed with HCC are classified according to tumour burden, liver function and ECOG-Performance Status (PS). This stratifies patients according to prognosis and links each stage with the evidence-based treatment approach to be first considered. Patients correspond to BCLC stage 0 (very early) when the tumour burden accounts for just one nodule and it measures 2 cm or less. BCLC stage A includes patients with just one nodule or 3 nodules under 3 cm. Both stages 0 and A gather patients with preserved liver function according to Child-Pugh score, being Child-Pugh A. Patients in BCLC B stage (intermediate stage) are patients with multinodular liver cancer confined to the liver, without extrahepatic disease, ECOG-PS 0 and preserved liver function (Child-Pugh A or B). Patients with portal venous invasion, extrahepatic disease or cancer-related symptoms measured by PS (1-2) and still with preserved liver function correspond to BCLC C (advanced) stage. Finally, patients classified in BCLC stage D are those with a severe alteration of liver function (Child-Pugh C) or severe cancer-related symptoms with PS above 2. In very early and early stages (BCLC 0 and A), treatment options include surgical treatment, ablation and liver transplantation. Intermediate stage (BCLC B) patients should be considered for transarterial chemoembolization. At advanced stage (BCLC C), the recommended treatment is sorafenib. Finally, at the end stage (BCLC D), symptomatic treatment is the suggested option. The treatment stage migration concept refers to patients who at first glance would be treated with the option that corresponds to their BCLC stage but, because of any coexisting comorbidity, technical issue or even treatment failure/progression but still within the original stage cannot be treated by the initial suggested treatment. These patients then move to the treatment that would correspond to the next stage/s.