Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is the recommended treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of sorafenib to that of selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) with yttrium-90 (90Y) resin microspheres in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: SARAH was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial done at 25 centres specialising in liver diseases in France. Patients were eligible if they were aged at least 18 years with a life expectancy greater than 3 months, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, Child-Pugh liver function class A or B score of 7 or lower, and locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC] stage C), or new hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for surgical resection, liver transplantation, or thermal ablation after a previously cured hepatocellular carcinoma (cured by surgery or thermoablative therapy), or hepatocellular carcinoma with two unsuccessful rounds of transarterial chemoembolisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a permutated block method with block sizes two and four to receive continuous oral sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or SIRT with 90Y-loaded resin microspheres 2-5 weeks after randomisation. Patients were stratified according to randomising centre, ECOG performance status, previous transarterial chemoembolisation, and presence of macroscopic vascular invasion. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of sorafenib or underwent at least one of the SIRT work-up exams. This study has been completed and the final results are reported here. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01482442. FINDINGS: Between Dec 5, 2011, and March 12, 2015, 467 patients were randomly assigned; after eight patients withdrew consent, 237 were assigned to SIRT and 222 to sorafenib. In the SIRT group, 53 (22%) of 237 patients did not receive SIRT; 26 (49%) of these 53 patients were treated with sorafenib. Median follow-up was 27·9 months (IQR 21·9-33·6) in the SIRT group and 28·1 months (20·0-35·3) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 8·0 months (95% CI 6·7-9·9) in the SIRT group versus 9·9 months (8·7-11·4) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% CI 0·94-1·41] for SIRT vs sorafenib; p=0·18). In the safety population, at least one serious adverse event was reported in 174 (77%) of 226 patients in the SIRT group and in 176 (82%) of 216 in the sorafenib group. The most frequent grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (20 [9%] vs 41 [19%]), liver dysfunction (25 [11%] vs 27 [13%]), increased laboratory liver values (20 [9%] vs 16 [7%]), haematological abnormalities (23 [10%] vs 30 [14%]), diarrhoea (three [1%] vs 30 [14%]), abdominal pain (six [3%] vs 14 [6%]), increased creatinine (four [2%] vs 12 [6%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (one [<1%] vs 12 [6%]). 19 deaths in the SIRT group and 12 in the sorafenib group were deemed to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: In patients with locally advanced or intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma after unsuccessful transarterial chemoembolisation, overall survival did not significantly differ between the two groups. Quality of life and tolerance might help when choosing between the two treatments. FUNDING: Sirtex Medical Inc.

Correlation of tumor response on computed tomography with pathological necrosis in hepatocellular carcinoma treated by chemoembolization before liver transplantation.

The purpose of this article was to compare the results of Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST), and European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) criteria for the evaluation of tumor necrosis in patients treated with transarterial chemoembolization before liver transplantation (LT) for hepatocellular carcinoma. Response to treatment was evaluated on computed tomography scan by 2 independent readers based on RECIST, mRECIST, and EASL criteria, and compared with tumor necrosis assessed by explant pathology. Necrosis was defined as major when >90%. Factors associated with major necrosis were tested by multivariate analysis. Fifty-eight patients (53 males; mean age, 54 years; range, 31-64 years) were included with 88 nodules. Fifty-one (58%) nodules were shown to have major necrosis. Among them readers 1 and 2 identified a complete response (CR) according to RECIST, mRECIST, and EASL criteria in 2 (4%), 47 (92%), and 47 (92%), and 1 (2%), 45 (88%), and 45 (88%) nodules, respectively. However, 12-14 of 59 nodules classified as CR on mRECIST or EASL criteria were found to have intermediate or minor necrosis (overestimation in 20%-24% of the patients). Combining the classification of CR by mRECIST and EASL criteria and complete lipiodol deposition reduced the overestimation to 11%. Among 59 nodules classified with a CR according to mRECIST or EASL, those with complete lipiodol deposition (n = 36, 61%) had a higher rate of necrosis than those with incomplete lipiodol deposition (n = 23, 39%): 95% versus 68% and 95% versus 63% for reader 1 and 2, respectively. In conclusion, CR based on mRECIST/EASL combined with complete lipiodol deposition was better for identification of major tumor necrosis. Even in the presence of CR according to mRECIST/EASL, incomplete lipiodol deposition should be considered indicative of substantial viable tumor remnant. Liver Transplantation 22 1491-1500 2016 AASLD.

Radioembolisation with yttrium‒90 microspheres versus sorafenib for treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is linked to poor prognosis. While sorafenib is the current recommended treatment for advanced HCC, radioembolisation (RE; also called selective internal radiation therapy or SIRT) with yttrium-90 microspheres has shown efficacy in cohort studies. However, there are no head-to-head trials comparing radiation therapy with yttrium-90 microspheres and sorafenib in advanced HCC. The SARAH trial has been designed to compare the efficacy and safety of sorafenib therapy and RE using yttrium-90 resin microspheres (SIR-Spheres™; Sirtex Medical Limited, North Sydney, Australia) in patients with advanced HCC. Quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness will also be compared between therapies. METHODS/DESIGN: SARAH is a prospective, randomised, controlled, open-label, multicentre trial comparing the efficacy of RE with sorafenib in the treatment of patients with advanced HCC. The trial aims to recruit adults with a life expectancy of >3 months, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ≤ 1, and: advanced HCC according to the Barcelona criteria (stage C) or recurrent HCC after surgical or thermoablative treatment who are not eligible for surgical resection, liver transplantation or thermal ablation; or two rounds of failed chemoembolisation. Patients will be randomised 1:1 to receive either RE or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. All patients will be monitored for between 12 and 48 months following start of treatment. The primary endpoint of the SARAH trial is overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints include: adverse events, progression-free survival at 6 months; tumour response rate; general or liver disease-specific QoL scores; and cost of each treatment strategy. Assuming an increase in median OS of 4 months with RE versus sorafenib therapy, randomising at least 400 patients (200 in each treatment arm) will be sufficient for 80% power and a bilateral alpha risk of 5%; therefore, 440 patients will be enrolled to allow for 10% loss of patients due to ineligibility. DISCUSSION: The SARAH trial is the first randomised head-to-head study to compare RE with sorafenib in advanced HCC, and will establish the potential role of RE in HCC treatment guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01482442, first received 28 November 2011.

Alternative Response Criteria (Choi, European association for the study of the liver, and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors [RECIST]) Versus RECIST 1.1 in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

INTRODUCTION: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), may underestimate activity and does not predict survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib. This study assessed the value of alternative radiological criteria to evaluate response in HCC patients treated with sorafenib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective blinded central analysis was performed of computed tomography (CT) scans from baseline and the first tumor evaluation in consecutive patients treated with sorafenib over a 2-year period in a single institution. Four different evaluation criteria were used: Choi, European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL), modified RECIST (mRECIST), and RECIST 1.1. RESULTS: Among 82 HCC patients, 64 with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B-C were evaluable with a median follow-up of 22 months. Median duration of sorafenib treatment was 5.7 months, and median overall survival was 12.8 months. At the time of the first CT scan, performed after a median of 2.1 months, Choi, EASL, mRECIST, and RECIST 1.1 identified 51%, 28%, 28%, and 3% objective responses, respectively. Responders by all criteria showed consistent overall survival >20 months. Among patients with stable disease according to RECIST 1.1, those identified as responders by Choi had significantly better overall survival than Choi nonresponders (22.4 vs. 10.6 months; hazard ratio: 0.43, 95% confidence interval: 0.15-0.86, p = .0097). CONCLUSION: Choi, EASL, and mRECIST criteria appear more appropriate than RECIST 1.1 to identify responders with long survival among advanced HCC patients benefiting from sorafenib.

How to assess liver fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C: serum markers or transient elastography vs. liver biopsy?

The assessment of liver fibrosis is a major issue in the management of patients with chronic hepatitis C. Liver biopsy has traditionally been considered the gold standard for the evaluation of tissue damage, including fibrosis. In addition, it detects associated lesions such as steatosis, steatohepatitis or iron overload, which provide useful information for patient management and prognosis. Liver biopsy is, however, an invasive procedure, with a risk of rare but potentially life-threatening complications and it is prone to sampling errors. These limitations have led to the development of non-invasive methods. Currently available tests rely on two different but complementary approaches: (i) a 'biological' approach based on the dosage of serum biomarkers of fibrosis; (ii) a 'physical' approach based on the measurement of liver stiffness, using transient elastography. Although significant progress has been made in the non-invasive diagnosis of fibrosis, it is increasingly clear that these methods will not completely replace liver biopsy. Instead, non-invasive methods and liver biopsy should be used in an integrated approach for more efficient and convenient management of patients with chronic hepatitis C. The aim of this review is to discuss the advantages and limitations of liver biopsy and non-invasive methods and the perspectives for their use in clinical practice.

[Managing comorbidities in hepatology: toward a more holistic medicine]. / Comment gérer les comorbidités en hépatologie? Vers une médecine plus globale.

Approximately 20% of patients infected with the hepatitis B or C virus (HBV and HCV) develop cirrhosis of the liver. It is essential, especially for preventive purposes, to test for related etiological factors, especially excess alcohol consumption, metabolic syndrome, and obesity. The frequency of these health problems and their hepatic tropism explain these frequent associations. In patients with chronic HBV and HCV, alcohol consumption and metabolic syndrome increase the risk of fibrosis; in those with HCV, they also reduce the likelihood of treatment response. In patients with alcoholic hepatitis, overweight increases cirrhotic risk. If cytolysis persists after the identified factor is controlled, another etiologic factor must be sought and treated. For patients with excess alcohol consumption and similarly those with metabolic syndrome, it is essential to differentiate between dependency, which is more difficult to treat, and other risk situations, for which the efficacy of a brief intervention by the physician has been demonstrated. In this more holistic approach, the physician treats a person with liver disease, rather than just a diseased liver.