Drug Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: First-Line and Beyond.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has high mortality. The option of systemic therapy has increased significantly over the past five years. Sorafenib was the first multikinase inhibitor, introduced in 2007, as a treatment option for HCC, and it was the only effective systemic treatment for more than ten years. It was not until 2017 that several breakthroughs were made in the development of systemic strategies. Lenvatinib, another multikinase inhibitor, stood out successfully after sorafenib, and has been applied to clinical use in the first-line setting. Other multikinase inhibitors such as regorafenib, ramucirumab and cabozantinib, were approved in quick succession as second-line therapies. Concurrently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have readily become established treatments for many solid tumors, including HCC. The most studied ICIs to date, target programmed cell death-1 (PD-1), its ligand PD-L1, and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4). These ICIs have demonstrated efficacy in treating advanced HCC. More recently, combination of bevacizumab and atezolizumab (ICI targeting PD-L1) was approved as the gold-standard first-line therapy. Combination of ICIs with nivolumab and ipilimumab was also approved in the second-line setting for those who failed sorafenib. At the moment, numerous clinical trials in advanced HCC are underway, which will bring continuous change to the management, and increase the survival, for patients with advanced HCC. Our review article: (1) summarizes United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) approved systemic therapies in advanced HCC, (2) reports the evidence of currently approved treatments, (3) discusses potential drugs/drug combinations being currently tested in phase III clinical trials, and (4) proposes possible future directions in drug development for advanced HCC.

Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: randomized controlled trial of transarterial ethanol ablation versus transcatheter arterial chemoembolization.

PURPOSE: To compare effectiveness of transarterial ethanol ablation (TEA) and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and determine whether TEA leads to better overall survival and tumor response than TACE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved preregistered randomized controlled trial (n = 200), informed consent was obtained. Primary outcome was overall survival; secondary outcomes were time to progression (TTP), progression-free survival (PFS), tumor response at computed tomography, and treatment-related toxicity. Eligible patients were randomized at a 1:1 ratio. Treatment included transcatheter delivery of ethiodized oil-ethanol mixture (2:1 ratio by volume up to 60 mL) for TEA and cisplatin-ethiodized oil emulsion (0.5 mg cisplatin per milliliter up to 30 mg), followed by 1-mm gelatin-sponge pellets, for TACE. Study was terminated after interim analysis (n = 98); 90 patients were available for analysis. Overall survival, TTP, and PFS were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier method; differences were compared with log-rank test. RESULTS: Study was terminated prematurely after interim analysis, which showed no difference in overall survival; this was unlikely to change with further patient accrual. Median overall survival in TEA and TACE was 24.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12.8, 32.7) and 20.1 months (95% CI: 9.3, 31.2), respectively (P = .358). Median TTP and PFS for intralesional progression were longer with TEA than TACE (TTP, 34.6 months [95% CI: 28.2, 41] vs 26.05 months [95% CI: 18.7, 33.3]; PFS, 14.8 months [95% CI: 10.2, 19.5] vs 9.3 months [95% CI: 7.1, 11.5]) (P = .028 and 0.029, respectively). Complete response rate on a tumor basis was persistently and significantly higher with TEA at 3 months (62 of 88 [70%] vs 39 of 76 [51%], P = .012), 6 months (64 of 88 [73%] vs 41 of 76 [54%], P = .012), and 12 months (66 of 88 [75%] vs 45 of 76 [59%], P = .031). CONCLUSION: Although there was no significant difference in overall survival, TEA demonstrated better complete tumor response, longer time to intralesional progression, and longer PFS.