Sequential therapies after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib first-line treatments in hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this retrospective proof-of-concept study was to compare different second-line treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and progressive disease (PD) after first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1381 patients had PD at first-line therapy. 917 patients received lenvatinib as first-line treatment, and 464 patients atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line. RESULTS: 49.6% of PD patients received a second-line therapy without any statistical difference in overall survival (OS) between lenvatinib (20.6months) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line (15.7months; p = 0.12; hazard ratio [HR]= 0.80). After lenvatinib first-line, there wasn't any statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p = 0.27; sorafenib HR: 1; immunotherapy HR: 0.69; other therapies HR: 0.85). Patients who underwent trans-arterial chemo-embolization (TACE) had a significative longer OS than patients who received sorafenib (24.7 versus 15.8months, p < 0.01; HR=0.64). After atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line, there was a statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p < 0.01; sorafenib HR: 1; lenvatinib HR: 0.50; cabozantinib HR: 1.29; other therapies HR: 0.54). Patients who received lenvatinib (17.0months) and those who underwent TACE (15.9months) had a significative longer OS than patients treated with sorafenib (14.2months; respectively, p = 0.01; HR=0.45, and p < 0.05; HR=0.46). CONCLUSION: Approximately half of patients receiving first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab access second-line treatment. Our data suggest that in patients progressed to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is lenvatinib, while in patients progressed to lenvatinib, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is immunotherapy.

Comparison of prognostic models in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients undergoing Sorafenib: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is the gold standard therapy for the advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). No scoring/staging is universally accepted to predict the survival of these patients. AIMS: To evaluate the accuracy of the available prognostic models for HCC to predict the survival of advanced HCC patients treated with Sorafenib included in the Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA.) multicenter cohort. METHODS: The performance of several prognostic scores was assessed through a Cox regression-model evaluating the C-index and the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC). RESULTS: Data of 1129 patients were analyzed. The mean age of patients was 61.6 years, and 80.8% were male. During a median follow-up period of 13 months, 789 patients died. The median period of Sorafenib administration was 4 months. All the prognostic scores were able to predict the overall survival (p<0.001) at univariate analysis, except the Albumin-Bilirubin score. The Italian Liver Cancer score (CLIP) yielded the highest accuracy (C-index 0.604, AIC 9898), followed by the ITA.LI.CA. prognostic score (C-index 0.599, AIC 9915). CONCLUSIONS: The CLIP score had the highest accuracy in predicting the overall survival of HCC patients treated with Sorafenib, although its performance remained poor. Further studies are needed to refine the current ability to predict the outcome of HCC patients undergoing 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.

Restaging Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Before Additional Treatment Decisions: A Multicenter Cohort Study.

Prognostic assessment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at the time of diagnosis remains controversial and becomes even more complex at the time of restaging when new variables need to be considered. The aim of the current study was to evaluate the prognostic utility of restaging patients before proceeding with additional therapies for HCC. Two independent Italian prospective databases were used to identify 1,196 (training cohort) and 648 (validation cohort) consecutive patients with HCC treated over the same study period (2008-2015) who had complete restaging before decisions about additional therapies. The performance of the Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA) prognostic score at restaging was compared with that of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer, Hong Kong Liver Cancer, and Cancer of the Liver Italian Program systems. A multivariable Cox survival analysis was performed to identify baseline, restaging, or dynamic variables that were able to improve the predictive performance of the prognostic systems. At restaging, 35.3% of patients maintained stable disease; most patients were either down-staged by treatment (27.2%) or had disease progression (37.5%). The ITA.LI.CA scoring system at restaging demonstrated the best prognostic performance in both the training and validation cohorts (c-index 0.707 and 0.722, respectively) among all systems examined. On multivariable analysis, several variables improved the prognostic ability of the ITA.LI.CA score at restaging, including progressive disease after the first treatment, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease at restaging, and choice of nonsurgical treatment as additional therapy. A new ITA.LI.CA restaging model was created that demonstrated high discriminative power in both the training and validation cohorts (c-index 0.753 and 0.745, respectively). CONCLUSION: Although the ITA.LI.CA score demonstrated the best prognostic performance at restaging, other variables should be considered to improve the prognostic assessment of patients at the time of deciding additional therapies for HCC.

Multicenter prospective study of angiogenesis polymorphism validation in HCC patients treated with sorafenib. An INNOVATE study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Although sorafenib is the upfront standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), molecular predictors of efficacy have not been identified yet. In the ALICE-1 study, rs2010963 of VEGF-A and VEGF-C proved to be independent predictive factors for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in multivariate analysis. The ALICE-1 study results were confirmed in the ALICE-2 study, in which VEGF and VEGFR SNPs were analyzed. In the ePHAS study we analyzed the SNPs of eNOS. In univariate analysis, patients homozygous for an eNOS haplotype (HT1: T-4b at eNOS-786/eNOS VNTR) had significantly shorter median PFS and OS than those with other haplotypes. These data were confirmed in the validation set. METHODS: This nonpharmacological, interventional, prospective multicenter study aims to determine whether eNOS, HIF-1, VEGF, Ang2 and VEGFR polymorphisms play a role in predicting the objective response rate, PFS, and OS of advanced HCC patients treated with sorafenib. The study will involve 160 advanced HCC patients with Child-Pugh class A disease. The primary aim is to validate the prognostic or predictive roles of eNOS, Ang2, HIF-1, VEGF and VEGFR polymorphisms in relation to the clinical outcome (PFS) of HCC patients treated with sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our data may suggest that polymorphism analysis of the VEGF, VEGFR-2, HIF and eNOS genes can identify HCC patients who are more likely to benefit from sorafenib.

Metronomic capecitabine as second-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma after sorafenib discontinuation.

PURPOSE: Metronomic capecitabine (MC) is a well-tolerated systemic treatment showing promising results in one retrospective study, as second-line therapy after sorafenib failure, in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: 117 patients undergoing MC were compared to 112 patients, eligible for this treatment, but undergoing best supportive care (BSC) after sorafenib discontinuation for toxicity or HCC progression. The two groups were compared for demographic and clinical features. A multivariate regression analysis was conducted to detect independent prognostic factors. To balance confounding factors between the two groups, a propensity score model based on independent prognosticators (performance status, neoplastic thrombosis, causes of sorafenib discontinuation and pre-sorafenib treatment) was performed. RESULTS: Patients undergoing MC showed better performance status, lower tumor burden, lower prevalence of portal vein thrombosis, and better cancer stage. Median (95% CI) post-sorafenib survival (PSS) was longer in MC than in BSC patients [9.5 (7.5-11.6) vs 5.0 (4.2-5.7) months (p < 0.001)]. Neoplastic thrombosis, cause of sorafenib discontinuation, pre-sorafenib treatment and MC were independent prognosticators. The benefit of capecitabine was confirmed in patients after matching with propensity score [PSS: 9.9 (6.8-12.9) vs. 5.8 (4.8-6.8) months, (p = 0.001)]. MC lowered the mortality risk by about 40%. MC achieved better results in patients who stopped sorafenib for adverse events than in those who progressed during it [PSS: 17.3 (10.5-24.1) vs. 7.8 (5.2-10.1) months, (p = 0.035)]. Treatment toxicity was low and easily manageable with dose modulation. CONCLUSIONS: MC may be an efficient and safe second-line systemic therapy for HCC patients who discontinued sorafenib for toxicity or tumor progression.

Metformin and insulin impact on clinical outcome in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma receiving sorafenib: Validation study and biological rationale.

PURPOSE: In 2015, we published a study on a small series of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated chronically with metformin for type II diabetes mellitus (DM2) who showed a poorer response to sorafenib. The aim of the present study was to validate the prognostic significance of metformin in HCC patients treated with sorafenib, providing a biological rationale for the mechanism of resistance to sorafenib in patients on chronic metformin therapy, and to clarify the role of sirtuin-3 (SIRT-3), a protein involved in metabolic diseases and acknowledged as a tumour suppressor in HCC, in this resistance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analysed 279 patients consecutively treated with sorafenib for the clinical analysis. Of the 86 (30%) patients with DM2, 52 (19%) were on chronic treatment with metformin and 34 (12%) with insulin. We included 43 patients with HCC for the biological study: 19 (44.1%) were diabetic and 14 (73.7%) of these received metformin for DM2. SIRT-3 expression was investigated by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples. RESULTS: In HCC patients undergoing chronic treatment with metformin, the use of sorafenib was associated with poor progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (1.9 and 6.6 months, respectively) compared to 3.7 months and 10.8 months, respectively, for patients without DM2 and 8.4 months and 16.6 months, respectively, for patients on insulin (P < .0001). We also observed that SIRT-3 protein expression was significantly higher in patients treated with metformin than in those not taking this medication (65% versus 25%, respectively) (P = .013). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings could be attributed to increased tumour aggressiveness and resistance to sorafenib caused by chronic treatment with metformin.

Validation of a Simple Scoring System to Predict Sorafenib Effectiveness in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is recommended for the treatment of advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Nonetheless, it is expensive, effective in few patients, and may cause significant adverse effects. Therefore, accurate selection of patients is needed. In a previous study, we constructed a simple scoring system to predict patients' outcomes based on the occurrence of sorafenib adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: The present study aimed to validate this scoring system in a real-life cohort of HCC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical records of 279 outpatients treated with sorafenib in eight Italian centers were retrospectively analyzed. Adverse effects considered to calculate the score were skin toxicity, diarrhea, and arterial hypertension, occurring during the first month of therapy. For each adverse effect, 1 point was assigned if present; and 0 points if absent (resulting in a total score between 0 and 3). RESULTS: Median overall survival (OS) was 10.8 months and median time to progression (TTP) was 5.1 months. At multivariate analysis, performance status, α-fetoprotein (AFP), and Child-Pugh score were independently associated with TTP and OS. A progressive increase of OS and TTP was observed in patients with scores from 0 to 3 (p < 0.001). Six-, 12-, and 24-month survival probabilities were 55.1, 24.5, and 7.9% in score 0 patients, and 100, 80.9, and 46.2% in score 3 patients, respectively. Complete response was observed in one patient (0.4%), partial responses in 41 (15.2%), and stable disease in 117 (43.5%). The disease control rate in patients with scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 was 34.3, 51.6, 80.9, and 96.3%, respectively (p < 0.001). Complete or partial responses were not observed in score 0 patients. CONCLUSIONS: We have validated a useful scoring system to predict outcomes in sorafenib-treated HCC patients. This score is easy to calculate and suitable for implementation in daily clinical practice.

Immune inflammation indicators and implication for immune modulation strategies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients receiving sorafenib.

We evalueted a systemic immune-inflammation index (SII), neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) with the aim to explored their prognostic value in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib. 56 advanced HCC patients receiving sorafenib were available for our analysis. Lymphocyte, neutrophil and platelet were measured before beginning of treatment and after one month. Patient with SII ≥ 360 showed lower median PFS (2.6 vs. 3.9 months, P < 0.026) and OS (5.6 vs. 13.9 months, P = 0.027) with respect to patients with SII < 360.NLR ≥ 3 had a lower median PFS (2.6 vs. 3.3 months, P < 0.049) but not OS (5.6 vs. 13.9 months, P = 0.062) than those with NLR < 3. After adjusting for clinical covariates SII and NLR remained an independent prognostic factor for OS. The SII and NLR represent potential prognostic indicator in patients with advanced HCC treated with sorafenib.

eNOS polymorphisms and clinical outcome in advanced HCC patients receiving sorafenib: final results of the ePHAS study.

Sorafenib may reduce endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) activity by inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGF-R), leading to a decrease in nitric oxide production. In the Italian multicenter ePHAS (eNOS polymorphisms in HCC and sorafenib) study, we analyzed the role of eNOS polymorphisms in relation to clinical outcome in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receiving sorafenib. Our retrospective study included a training cohort of 41 HCC patients and a validation cohort of 87 HCC patients, all undergoing sorafenib treatment. Three eNOS polymorphisms (eNOS -786T>C, eNOS VNTR 27bp 4a/b and eNOS+894G>T) were analyzed by direct sequencing or Real Time PCR in relation to progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (log-rank test). In univariate analysis, training cohort patients homozygous for eNOS haplotype (HT1:T-4b at eNOS-786/eNOS VNTR) had a lower median PFS (2.6 vs. 5.8 months, P < 0.0001) and OS (3.2 vs.14.6 months, P = 0.024) than those with other haplotypes. In the validation set, patients homozygous for HT1 had a lower median PFS (2.0 vs. 6.7 months, P < 0.0001) and OS (6.4 vs.18.0 months, P < 0.0001) than those with other haplotypes. Multivariate analysis confirmed this haplotype as the only independent prognostic factor. Our results suggest that haplotype HT1 in the eNOS gene may be capable of identifying a subset of HCC patients who are resistant to sorafenib.

Effects of metformin on clinical outcome in diabetic patients with advanced HCC receiving sorafenib.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Several studies have reported an association between type 2 diabetes mellitus and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Data from several retrospective studies and meta-analyses have highlighted a reduction of about 50% in the risk of developing HCC in cirrhotic patients treated with metformin for diabetes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the different outcomes of patients who received or did not receive metformin during treatment with sorafenib. METHODS: We analyzed 93 patients consecutively treated with sorafenib. Forty-two (45.2%) patients were diabetic, of whom 31 were on metformin. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. RESULTS: The concomitant use of sorafenib and metformin was associated with a median PFS of 2.6 months (95% CI 1.9-3.3) compared to 5.0 months (95% CI 2.5-8.2) for patients receiving sorafenib alone (p = 0.029). The median OS of patients treated with the combination was 10.4 months (95% CI 3.9-14.4) compared to 15.1 months (95% CI 11.7-17.8) for those who were not given metformin (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings could be the result of increased tumor aggressiveness and resistance to sorafenib in metformin-treated patients.

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.