Pathophysiological-Based Nutritional Interventions in Cirrhotic Patients with Sarcopenic Obesity: A State-of-the-Art Narrative Review.

In recent decades, following the spread of obesity, metabolic dysfunction has come to represent the leading cause of liver disease. The classical clinical presentation of the cirrhotic patient has, therefore, greatly changed, with a dramatic increase in subjects who appear overweight or obese. Due to an obesogenic lifestyle (lack of physical activity and overall malnutrition, with an excess of caloric intake together with a deficit of proteins and micronutrients), these patients frequently develop a complex clinical condition defined as sarcopenic obesity (SO). The interplay between cirrhosis and SO lies in the sharing of multiple pathogenetic mechanisms, including malnutrition/malabsorption, chronic inflammation, hyperammonemia and insulin resistance. The presence of SO worsens the outcome of cirrhotic patients, affecting overall morbidity and mortality. International nutrition and liver diseases societies strongly agree on recommending the use of food as an integral part of the healing process in the comprehensive management of these patients, including a reduction in caloric intake, protein and micronutrient supplementation and sodium restriction. Based on the pathophysiological paths shared by cirrhosis and SO, this narrative review aims to highlight the nutritional interventions currently advocated by international guidelines, as well as to provide hints on the possible role of micronutrients and nutraceuticals in the treatment of this multifaceted clinical condition.

Machine Learning Predictive Model to Guide Treatment Allocation for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Surgery.

Importance: Clear indications on how to select retreatments for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are still lacking. Objective: To create a machine learning predictive model of survival after HCC recurrence to allocate patients to their best potential treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Real-life data were obtained from an Italian registry of hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2008 and December 2019 after a median (IQR) follow-up of 27 (12-51) months. External validation was made on data derived by another Italian cohort and a Japanese cohort. Patients who experienced a recurrent HCC after a first surgical approach were included. Patients were profiled, and factors predicting survival after recurrence under different treatments that acted also as treatment effect modifiers were assessed. The model was then fitted individually to identify the best potential treatment. Analysis took place between January and April 2021. Exposures: Patients were enrolled if treated by reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, chemoembolization, or sorafenib. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival after recurrence was the end point. Results: A total of 701 patients with recurrent HCC were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 71 [9] years; 151 [21.5%] female). Of those, 293 patients (41.8%) received reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, 188 (26.8%) received sorafenib, and 220 (31.4%) received chemoembolization. Treatment, age, cirrhosis, number, size, and lobar localization of the recurrent nodules, extrahepatic spread, and time to recurrence were all treatment effect modifiers and survival after recurrence predictors. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the predictive model was 78.5% (95% CI, 71.7%-85.3%) at 5 years after recurrence. According to the model, 611 patients (87.2%) would have benefited from reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, 37 (5.2%) from sorafenib, and 53 (7.6%) from chemoembolization in terms of potential survival after recurrence. Compared with patients for which the best potential treatment was reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, sorafenib and chemoembolization would be the best potential treatment for older patients (median [IQR] age, 78.5 [75.2-83.4] years, 77.02 [73.89-80.46] years, and 71.59 [64.76-76.06] years for sorafenib, chemoembolization, and reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, respectively), with a lower median (IQR) number of multiple recurrent nodules (1.00 [1.00-2.00] for sorafenib, 1.00 [1.00-2.00] for chemoembolization, and 2.00 [1.00-3.00] for reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation). Extrahepatic recurrence was observed in 43.2% (n = 16) for sorafenib as the best potential treatment vs 14.6% (n = 89) for reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation as the best potential treatment and 0% for chemoembolization as the best potential treatment. Those profiles were used to constitute a patient-tailored algorithm for the best potential treatment allocation. Conclusions and Relevance: The herein presented algorithm should help in allocating patients with recurrent HCC to the best potential treatment according to their specific characteristics in a treatment hierarchy fashion.

Pharmacodynamic Biomarkers Predictive of Survival Benefit with Lenvatinib in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From the Phase III REFLECT Study.

PURPOSE: In REFLECT, lenvatinib demonstrated an effect on overall survival (OS) by confirmation of noninferiority to sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. This analysis assessed correlations between serum or tissue biomarkers and efficacy outcomes from REFLECT. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Serum biomarkers (VEGF, ANG2, FGF19, FGF21, and FGF23) were measured by ELISA. Gene expression in tumor tissues was measured by the nCounter PanCancer Pathways Panel. Pharmacodynamic changes in serum biomarker levels from baseline, and associations of clinical outcomes with baseline biomarker levels, were evaluated. RESULTS: Four hundred and seven patients were included in the serum analysis set (lenvatinib n = 279, sorafenib n = 128); 58 patients were included in the gene-expression analysis set (lenvatinib n = 34, sorafenib n = 24). Both treatments were associated with increases in VEGF; only lenvatinib was associated with increases in FGF19 and FGF23 at all time points. Lenvatinib-treated responders had greater increases in FGF19 and FGF23 versus nonresponders at cycle 4, day 1 (FGF19: 55.2% vs. 18.3%, P = 0.014; FGF23: 48.4% vs. 16.4%, P = 0.0022, respectively). Higher baseline VEGF, ANG2, and FGF21 correlated with shorter OS in both treatment groups. OS was longer for lenvatinib than sorafenib [median, 10.9 vs. 6.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.85; P-interaction = 0.0397] with higher baseline FGF21. In tumor tissue biomarker analysis, VEGF/FGF-enriched groups showed improved OS with lenvatinib versus the intermediate VEGF/FGF group (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16-0.91; P = 0.0253). CONCLUSIONS: Higher baseline levels of VEGF, FGF21, and ANG2 may be prognostic for shorter OS. Higher baseline FGF21 may be predictive for longer OS with lenvatinib compared with sorafenib, but this needs confirmation.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: An inverse probability of treatment weighting analysis.

PURPOSE: Data from common clinical practice were used to generate balanced cohorts of patients receiving either sorafenib or lenvatinib, for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, with the final aim to investigate their declared equivalence. METHODS: Clinical features of lenvatinib and sorafenib 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 was the primary endpoint and occurrence of adverse events was the secondary. RESULTS: The analysis included 385 patients who received lenvatinib, and 555 patients who received sorafenib. In the unadjusted cohort, lenvatinib did not show a survival advantage over sorafenib (HR: 0.85, 95% CI 0.70-1.02). After IPTW adjustment, lenvatinib still not returned a survival advantage over sorafenib (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.62-1.07) even in presence of balanced baseline characteristics. Lenvatinib provided longer survival than sorafenib in patients previously submitted to TACE (HR: 0.69), with PS of 0 (HR: 0.73) or without extrahepatic disease (HR: 0.69). CONCLUSION: Present results confirmed randomized controlled trial in the real-life setting, but also suggests that in earlier stages some benefit can be expected.

Comparison of Prognostic Scores in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated With Sorafenib.

INTRODUCTION: Prognostic classifications for patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) facilitate stratification in trials and inform clinical decision making. Recently, 3 different prognostic models (hepatoma arterial-embolization prognosis [HAP] score, sorafenib advanced HCC prognosis [SAP] score, and Prediction Of Survival in Advanced Sorafenib-treated HCC [PROSASH]-II) have been proposed specifically for patients treated with sorafenib. This study aimed to compare the prognostic performance of different scores. METHODS: We analyzed a large prospective database gathering data of 552 patients treated with sorafenib from 7 Italian centers. The performance of the HAP, SAP, and PROSASH-II models were compared with those of generic HCC prognostic models (including the Barcelona Clinic for Liver Cancer and Italian Liver Cancer staging systems, albumin-bilirubin grade, and Child-Pugh score) to verify whether they could provide additional information. RESULTS: The PROSASH-II model improved discrimination (C-index 0.62) compared with existing prognostic scores (C-index ≤0.59). Its stratification significantly discriminated patients, with a median overall survival of 21.5, 15.3, 9.3, and 6.0 months for risk group 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The HAP and SAP score were also validated but with a poorer performance compared with the PROSASH-II. DISCUSSION: Although suboptimal, PROSASH-II is the most effective prognostic classification model among other available scores in a large Italian population of patients treated with sorafenib.

Prognostic Role of Blood Eosinophil Count in Patients with Sorafenib-Treated Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Inflammation is a long-established hallmark of liver fibrosis and carcinogenesis. Eosinophils are emerging as crucial components of the inflammatory process influencing cancer development. The role of blood eosinophils in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving systemic treatment is an unexplored field. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyse the prognostic role of the baseline eosinophil count in patients with sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A training cohort of 92 patients with advanced- or intermediate-stage sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma and two validation cohorts of 65 and 180 patients were analysed. Overall survival and progression-free survival in relation to baseline eosinophil counts were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed. RESULTS: A negative prognostic impact of low baseline eosinophil counts (< 50*109/L) was demonstrated in all cohorts (training cohort: hazard ratio = 50.1, 95% confidence interval 11.6-216.5, p < 0.0001 for low vs high eosinophil counts; first validation cohort: hazard ratio = 4.55, 95% confidence interval 1.24-16.65, p = 0.022; second validation cohort: hazard ratio = 3.21, 95% confidence interval 1.83-5.64, p < 0.0001). Moreover, low eosinophil counts had a negative prognostic role in patients progressing on or intolerant to sorafenib who received second-line regorafenib, but not capecitabine or best supportive care. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis identified baseline blood eosinophil counts as a new prognostic factor in patients with sorafenib-treated hepatocellular carcinoma. Concerning second-line therapies, eosinophil counts were associated with survival outcomes only in regorafenib-treated patients, suggesting a possible predictive role in this setting.

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.

Urine protein:creatinine ratio vs 24-hour urine protein for proteinuria management: analysis from the phase 3 REFLECT study of lenvatinib vs sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Proteinuria monitoring is required in patients receiving lenvatinib, however, current methodology involves burdensome overnight urine collection. METHODS: To determine whether the simpler urine protein:creatinine ratio (UPCR) calculated from spot urine samples could be accurately used for proteinuria monitoring in patients receiving lenvatinib, we evaluated the correlation between UPCR and 24-hour urine protein results from the phase 3 REFLECT study. Paired data (323 tests, 154 patients) were analysed. RESULTS: Regression analysis showed a statistically significant correlation between UPCR and 24-hour urine protein (R2: 0.75; P < 2 × 10-16). A UPCR cut-off value of 2.4 had 96.9% sensitivity, 82.5% specificity for delineating between grade 2 and 3 proteinuria. Using this UPCR cut-off value to determine the need for further testing could reduce the need for 24-hour urine collection in ~74% of patients. CONCLUSION: Incorporation of UPCR into the current algorithm for proteinuria management can enable optimisation of lenvatinib treatment, while minimising patient inconvenience. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01761266.

Inter-operator variability and source of errors in tumour response assessment for hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the inter-operator concordance and the potential sources of discordance in defining response to sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: All patients who received sorafenib between September 2008 and February 2015 were scrutinised for this retrospective study. Images were evaluated separately by three radiologists with different expertise in liver imaging (operator 1, >10 years; operator 2, 5 years; operator 3, no specific training in liver imaging), according to: response evaluation radiological criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) 1.1, modified RECIST (mRECIST) and response evaluation criteria in cancer of the liver (RECICL). RESULTS: The overall response concordance between the more expert operators was good, irrespective of the criteria (RECIST 1.1, ĸ = 0.840; mRECIST, ĸ = 0.871; RECICL, ĸ = 0.819). Concordance between the less expert operator and the other colleagues was lower. The most evident discordance was in target lesion response assessment, with expert operators disagreeing mostly on lesion selection and less expert operators on lesion measurement. As a clinical correlate, overall survival was more tightly related with "progressive disease" as assessed by the expert compared to the same assessment performed by operator 3. CONCLUSIONS: Decision on whether a patient is a responder or progressor under sorafenib may vary among different operators, especially in case of a non-specifically trained radiologist. Regardless of the adopted criteria, patients should be evaluated by experienced radiologists to minimise variability in this critical instance. KEY POINTS: • Inter-operator variability in the assessment of response to sorafenib is poorly known. • The concordance between operators with expertise in liver imaging was good. • Target lesions selection was the main source of discordance between expert operators. • Concordance with non-specifically trained operator was lower, independently from the response criteria. • The non-specifically trained operator was mainly discordant in measurements of target lesions.

Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: In a phase 2 trial, lenvatinib, an inhibitor of VEGF receptors 1-3, FGF receptors 1-4, PDGF receptor α, RET, and KIT, showed activity in hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to compare overall survival in patients treated with lenvatinib versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: This was an open-label, phase 3, multicentre, non-inferiority trial that recruited patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, who had not received treatment for advanced disease, at 154 sites in 20 countries throughout the Asia-Pacific, European, and North American regions. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice-web response system-with region; macroscopic portal vein invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status; and bodyweight as stratification factors-to receive oral lenvatinib (12 mg/day for bodyweight ≥60 kg or 8 mg/day for bodyweight <60 kg) or sorafenib 400 mg twice-daily in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured from the date of randomisation until the date of death from any cause. The efficacy analysis followed the intention-to-treat principle, and only patients who received treatment were included in the safety analysis. The non-inferiority margin was set at 1·08. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01761266. FINDINGS: Between March 1, 2013 and July 30, 2015, 1492 patients were recruited. 954 eligible patients were randomly assigned to lenvatinib (n=478) or sorafenib (n=476). Median survival time for lenvatinib of 13·6 months (95% CI 12·1-14·9) was non-inferior to sorafenib (12·3 months, 10·4-13·9; hazard ratio 0·92, 95% CI 0·79-1·06), meeting criteria for non-inferiority. The most common any-grade adverse events were hypertension (201 [42%]), diarrhoea (184 [39%]), decreased appetite (162 [34%]), and decreased weight (147 [31%]) for lenvatinib, and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (249 [52%]), diarrhoea (220 [46%]), hypertension (144 [30%]), and decreased appetite (127 [27%]) for sorafenib. INTERPRETATION: Lenvatinib was non-inferior to sorafenib in overall survival in untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The safety and tolerability profiles of lenvatinib were consistent with those previously observed. FUNDING: Eisai Inc.

Curative therapies are superior to standard of care (transarterial chemoembolization) for intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer intermediate stage (BCLC-B) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) includes extremely heterogeneous patients in terms of tumour burden and liver function. Transarterial-chemoembolization (TACE) is the first-line treatment for these patients although it may be risky/useless for someone, while others could undergo curative treatments. This study assesses the treatment type performed in a large cohort of BCLC-B patients and its outcome. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 485 consecutive BCLC-B patients from the ITA.LI.CA database diagnosed with naïve HCC after 1999. Patients were stratified by treatment. RESULTS: 29 patients (6%) were lost to follow-up before receiving treatment. Treatment distribution was: TACE (233, 51.1%), curative treatments (145 patients, 31.8%), sorafenib (18, 3.9%), other (39, 8.5%), best supportive care (BSC) (21, 4.6%). Median survival (95% CI) was 45 months (37.4-52.7) for curative treatments, 30 (24.7-35.3) for TACE, 14 (10.5-17.5) for sorafenib, 14 (5.2-22.7) for other treatments and 10 (6.0-14.2) for BSC (P<.0001). Independent prognosticators were gender and treatment. Curative treatments reduced mortality (HR 0.197, 95%CI: 0.098-0.395) more than TACE (HR 0.408, 95%CI: 0.211-0.789) (P<.0001) as compared with BSC. Propensity score matching confirmed the superiority of curative therapies over TACE. CONCLUSIONS: In everyday practice TACE represents the first-line therapy in an half of patients with naïve BCLC-B HCC since treatment choice is driven not only by liver function and nodule characteristics, but also by contraindications to procedures, comorbidities, age and patient opinion. The treatment type is an independent prognostic factor in BCLC-B patients and curative options offer the best outcome.

Utility-based criteria for selecting patients with hepatocellular carcinoma for liver transplantation: A multicenter cohort study using the alpha-fetoprotein model as a survival predictor.

The lifetime utility of liver transplantation (LT) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is still controversial. The aim of this study was to ascertain when LT is cost-effective for HCC patients, with a view to proposing new transplant selection criteria. The study involved a real cohort of potentially transplantable Italian HCC patients (n = 2419 selected from the Italian Liver Cancer group database) who received nontransplant therapies. A non-LT survival analysis was conducted, the direct costs of therapies were calculated, and a Markov model was used to compute the cost utility of LT over non-LT therapies in Italian and US cost scenarios. Post-LT survival was calculated using the alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) model on the basis of AFP values and radiological size and number of nodules. The primary endpoint was the net health benefit (NHB), defined as LT survival benefit in quality-adjusted life years minus incremental costs (US $)/willingness to pay. The calculated median cost of non-LT therapies per patient was US $53,042 in Italy and US $62,827 in the United States. On Monte Carlo simulation, the NHB of LT was always positive for AFP model values ≤ 3 and always negative for values > 7 in both countries. A multivariate model showed that nontumor variables (patient's age, Child-Turcotte-Pugh [CTP] class, and alternative therapies) had the potential to shift the AFP model threshold of LT cost-ineffectiveness from 3 to 7. LT proved always cost-effective for HCC patients with AFP model values ≤ 3, whereas the cost-ineffectiveness threshold ranged between 3 and 7 using nontumor variables.

Metronomic capecitabine as second-line treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma after sorafenib failure.

BACKGROUND: No standard second-line treatments are available for hepatocellular carcinoma patients who fail sorafenib therapy. We assessed the safety and efficacy of metronomic capecitabine after first-line sorafenib failure. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving metronomic capecitabine between January 2012 and November 2014. The primary end-point was safety, secondary end-point was efficacy, including time-to-progression and overall survival. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients (80% Child-Pugh A, 80% Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C) received metronomic capecitabine (500 mg/bid). Median treatment duration was 3.2 months (range 0.6-31). Fourteen (53%) patients experienced at least one adverse event. The most frequent drug-related adverse events were bilirubin elevation (23%), fatigue (15%), anaemia (11%), lymphoedema (11%), and hand-foot syndrome (7.6%). Treatment was interrupted in 19 (73%) for disease progression, in 4 (15%) for liver deterioration, and in 1 (3.8%) for adverse event. Disease control was achieved in 6 (23%) patients. Median time-to-progression was 4 months (95% confidence interval 3.2-4.7). Median overall survival was 8 months (95% confidence interval 3.7-12.3). CONCLUSIONS: Metronomic capecitabine was well tolerated in hepatocellular carcinoma patients who had been treated with sorafenib. Preliminary data show potential anti-tumour activity with long-lasting disease control in a subgroup of patients that warrants further evaluation in a phase III study.

Evaluation of the impact of transient interruption of antiangiogenic treatment using ultrasound-based techniques in a murine model of hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Development of escape pathways from antiangiogenic treatments was reported to be associated with enhanced tumor aggressiveness and rebound effect was suggested after treatment stop. Aim of the study was to evaluate tumor response simulating different conditions of administration of antiangiogenic treatment (transient or definitive treatment stop) in a mouse model of hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: Subcutaneous tumors were created by inoculating 5 × 10(6) Huh7 cells into the right flank of 14 nude mice. When tumor size reached 5-10 mm, mice were divided in 3 groups: group 1 was treated with placebo, group 2 was treated with sorafenib (62 mg/kg via gavage) but temporarily suspended from day +5 to +9, whereas in group 3 sorafenib was definitively stopped at day +5. At day +13 all mice were sacrificed, collecting masses for Western-Blot analyses. Volume was calculated with B-mode ultrasonography at day 0, +5, +9, +11 and +13. VEGFR2-targeted contrast-enhanced ultrasound using BR55 (Bracco Imaging) was performed at day +5 and +13 and elastonosography (Esaote) at day +9 and +11 to assess tumor stiffness. RESULTS: Median growth percentage delta at day +13 versus day 0 was 197% (115-329) in group 1, 81% (48-144) in group 2 and 111% (27-167) in group 3. Median growth delta at day +13 with respect to day +5 was 79% (48-127), 37% (-14128) and 81% (15-87) in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. Quantification of targeted-CEUS at day +13 showed higher values in group 3 (509 Arbitrary Units AI, range 293-652) than group 1 (275 AI, range 191-494) and group 2 (181 AI, range 63-318) (p=0.033). Western-Blot analysis demonstrated higher VEGFR2 expression in group 3 with respect to group 1 and 2. CONCLUSIONS: A transient interruption of antiangiogenic treatment does not impede restoration of tumor response, while a definitive interruption tends to stimulate a rebound of angiogenesis to higher level than without treatment.

VEGF and VEGFR genotyping in the prediction of clinical outcome for HCC patients receiving sorafenib: the ALICE-1 study.

Although new treatment modalities changed the global approach to hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), this disease still represents a medical challenge. Currently, the therapeutic stronghold is sorafenib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) directed against the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) family. Previous observations suggested that polymorphisms of VEGF and its receptor (VEGFR) genes may regulate angiogenesis and lymphangiogenesis and thus tumour growth control. The aim of our study was to evaluate the role of VEGF and VEGFR polymorphisms in determining the clinical outcome of HCC patients receiving sorafenib. From a multicentre experience 148 samples (tumour or blood samples) of HCC patients receiving sorafenib were tested for VEGF-A, VEGF-C and VEGFR-1,2,3 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Patients' progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analysed. At univariate analysis VEGF-A alleles C of rs25648, T of rs833061, C of rs699947, C of rs2010963, VEGF-C alleles T of rs4604006, G of rs664393, VEGFR-2 alleles C of rs2071559, C of rs2305948 were significant predictors of PFS and OS. At multivariate analysis rs2010963, rs4604006 and BCLC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer) stage resulted to be independent factors influencing PFS and OS. Once prospectively validated, the analysis of VEGF and VEGFR SNPs may represent a clinical tool to better identify HCC patients more likely to benefit from sorafenib. On the other hand, the availability of more accurate predictive factors could help avoiding unnecessary toxicities to potentially resistant patients who may be optimal candidates for different treatments interfering with other tumour molecular pathways.

Heterogeneity of patients with intermediate (BCLC B) Hepatocellular Carcinoma: proposal for a subclassification to facilitate treatment decisions.

The intermediate stage of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) comprises a highly heterogeneous patient population and therefore poses unique challenges for therapeutic management, different from the early and advanced stages. Patients classified as having intermediate HCC by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system present with varying tumor burden and liver function. Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is currently recommended as the standard of care in this setting, but there is considerable variation in the clinical benefit patients derive from this treatment.In April 2012, a panel of experts convened to discuss unresolved issues surrounding the application of current guidelines when managing patients with intermediate HCC. The meeting explored the applicability of a subclassification system for intermediate HCC patients to tailor therapeutic interventions based on the evidence available to date and expert opinion. The present report summarizes the proposal of the expert panel: four substages of intermediate HCC patients, B1 to B4.

Field-practice study of sorafenib therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective multicenter study in Italy.

UNLABELLED: A multicenter randomized controlled trial established sorafenib as a standard of care for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Because the study was prematurely interrupted due to survival benefits in the sorafenib arm, we conducted an observational study to adequately assess risks and benefits of this regimen in field practice. Starting in 2008, all clinically compensated patients with advanced HCC and those with an intermediate HCC who were unfit or failed to respond to ablative therapies were consecutively evaluated in six liver centers in Italy, for tolerability as well as radiologic and survival response to 800-mg/d sorafenib therapy. Treatment was down-dosed or interrupted according to drug label. Two hundred ninety-six patients (88% Child-Pugh A, 75% Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC]-C, and 25% BCLC-B) received sorafenib for 3.8 months (95% CI 3.3-4.4). Two hundred sixty-nine (91%) patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE), whereas 161 (54%) had to reduce dosing. Treatment was interrupted in 103 (44%) for disease progression, in 95 (40%) for an AE, and in 38 (16%) for liver deterioration. The median survival was 10.5 months in the overall cohort, 8.4 months in BCLC-C versus 20.6 months in BCLC-B patients (P < 0.0001), and 21.6 months in the 77 patients treated for >70% of the time with a half dose versus 9.6 months in the 219 patients treated for >70% of the time with a full dose. At month 2 of treatment, the overall radiologic response was 8%. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread of the tumor, radiologic response at month 2, and sorafenib dosing were independent predictors of shortened survival. CONCLUSION: Overall, safety, effectiveness, and generalizability of sorafenib therapy in HCC was validated in field practice. The effectiveness of half-dosed sorafenib may have implications for tailored therapy.

Caution in the use of boldo in herbal laxatives: a case of hepatotoxicity.

A case is reported in which a several-fold increase in transaminases and gamma-GT was detected in an elderly male patient with fatty liver. The patient was regularly taking a mixture of herbal products, used as a laxative, for a number of years, with no alteration of blood chemistry until 6 months before the present observation. However, the composition of the mixture had been modified by the manufacturer in the past 5 months, with addition of boldo leaf extracts. Transaminases promptly returned to normal after withdrawal of the laxative. It is concluded that boldo leaf extracts might be hepatotoxic, at least in elderly patients with fatty liver.