Response-Guided Therapy With Cefotaxime, Ceftriaxone, or Ciprofloxacin for Spontaneous Bacterial Peritonitis: A Randomized Trial: A Validation Study of 2021 AASLD Practice Guidance for SBP.

INTRODUCTION: For the treatment of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, and ciprofloxacin were used as first-line agents. However, considering the increasing rate of antibiotic resistance, it is unclear which of these drugs can be initially recommended. This study aimed to compare the current efficacy of the 3 antibiotics, namely cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, and ciprofloxacin, for the treatment of SBP in patients with cirrhosis with ascites, when guided by therapeutic responses. METHODS: This study was a multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial. The inclusion criteria were 16- to 75-year-old patients with liver cirrhosis with ascites, having polymorphonuclear cell count of >250/mm 3 . We performed a follow-up paracentesis at 48 hours to decide continuing or changing the assigned antibiotics and then assessed the resolution rates at 120 and 168 hours of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 261 patients with cirrhosis who developed SBP were enrolled. Most of the patients were diagnosed as those with SBP within 48 hours of admission. The resolution rates at 120 hours, which is the primary endpoint, were 67.8%, 77.0%, and 73.6% in the cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, and ciprofloxacin groups, respectively ( P = 0.388), by intension-to-treat analysis. The 1-month mortality was similar among the groups ( P = 0.770). The model for end-stage liver disease score and the SBP resolution were significant factors for survival. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of empirical antibiotics, such as cefotaxime, ceftriaxone, and ciprofloxacin, against SBP was not significantly different. In addition, these antibiotics administered based on response-guided therapy were still efficacious as initial treatment for SBP, especially in those with community-acquired infections.

Sorafenib versus nivolumab after lenvatinib treatment failure in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: An optimal sequential anti-hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) agent that can be used after failed lenvatinib treatment has not been established. Here, we compared the outcomes of sorafenib and nivolumab as second-line agents after failed lenvatinib treatment in patients with advanced HCC. METHODS: Patients with advanced HCC who had received sorafenib or nivolumab as second-line agents after failed lenvatinib treatment were recruited from two Korean tertiary institutions between November 2018 and June 2020. RESULTS: The median age of the 60 participants (52 treated with sorafenib and eight treated with nivolumab) at baseline was 56.8 years. The demographic, laboratory and tumor variables, as well as lenvatinib treatment duration, were similar between the two groups. The median durations of sorafenib and nivolumab treatment were 1.2 and 2.6 months, respectively ( P = 0.164). Twenty-four (40.0%) patients died during the follow-up period (median, 15.8 months). The median overall survival (OS) of the study population was 5.8 months. The median OS of patients treated with sorafenib was significantly longer than the median OS of patients treated with nivolumab (8.7 vs. 3.0 months; P = 0.046). Sorafenib treatment (vs. nivolumab) was independently associated with a lower risk of mortality (hazard ratio = 0.194; 95% confidence interval, 0.053-0.708; P = 0.013). Worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, larger maximal tumor size, lymph node metastases and higher total bilirubin levels were independently associated with increased mortality risk (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib-sorafenib sequential treatment resulted in significantly better survival did than lenvatinib-nivolumab sequential treatment in patients with advanced HCC. Larger studies are needed to validate our results.

Co-administration of ursodeoxycholic acid with rosuvastatin/ezetimibe in a non-alcoholic fatty liver disease model.

Background: Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA), statins, and ezetimibe (EZE) have demonstrated beneficial effects against non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). We investigated the efficacy of the combination of UDCA and the mix of rosuvastatin (RSV)/EZE in the treatment of NAFLD. Methods: NAFLD mouse models were developed by injecting thioacetamide, fasting, and high-carbohydrate refeeding, high-fat diet, and choline-deficient L-amino acid-defined high-fat diet (CDAHFD). Low-dose UDCA (L-UDCA; 15 mg/kg) or high-dose UDCA (H-UDCA; 30 mg/kg) was administered with RSV/EZE. We also employed an in vitro model of NAFLD developed using palmitic acid-treated Hepa1c1c7 cells. Results: Co-administration of RSV/EZE with UDCA significantly decreased the collagen accumulation, serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels, and mRNA levels of fibrosis-related markers than those observed in the vehicle group in thioacetamide-treated mice (all P < 0.01). In addition, in the group fasted and refed with a high-carbohydrate diet, UDCA/RSV/EZE treatment decreased the number of apoptotic cells and serum ALT levels compared with those observed in the vehicle group (all P < 0.05). Subsequently, H-UDCA/RSV/EZE treatment decreased the number of ballooned hepatocytes and stearoyl-CoA desaturase 1 (SCD-1) mRNA levels (P = 0.027) in the liver of high-fat diet-fed mice compared with those observed in the vehicle group. In the CDAHFD-fed mouse model, UDCA/RSV/EZE significantly attenuated collagen accumulation and fibrosis-related markers compared to those observed in the vehicle group (all P < 0.05). In addition, UDCA/RSV/EZE treatment significantly restored cell survival and decreased the protein levels of apoptosis-related markers compared to RSV/EZE treatment in palmitic acid-treated Hepa1c1c7 cells (all P < 0.05). Conclusion: Combination therapy involving UDCA and RSV/EZE may be a novel strategy for potent inhibition of NAFLD progression.

Predictive Performance of CAGE-B and SAGE-B Models in Asian Treatment-Naive Patients Who Started Entecavir for Chronic Hepatitis B.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Cirrhosis and age (CAGE-B) and stiffness and age (SAGE-B) models assess the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) development in white patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) undergoing sustained antiviral therapy (AVT). Herein, we checked the predictive performance of these models in Asian patients with CHB. METHODS: We reviewed 734 treatment-naive patients with CHB who started entecavir between 2006 and 2011 and were followed up for more than 5 years without HCC development during AVT. The predictive performance of CAGE-B and SAGE-B models was calculated using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs). RESULTS: Median liver stiffness assessed using transient elastography after 5 years of AVT was 6.8 kPa. Median CAGE-B and SAGE-B models after 5 years of AVT were 7.0 and 6.0, respectively. More than 5 years after AVT initiation, 66 patients (9.0%) developed HCC. The AUROCs of the CAGE-B and SAGE-B models were 0.764 and 0.785 after 7 years and 0.799 and 0.802 after 10 years of AVT, respectively. The cumulative incidence of HCC was significantly higher in the high-risk groups according to CAGE-B and SAGE-B risk stratification than in the medium- and low-risk groups (P < .05 in all cases). The SAGE-B model showed a higher likelihood ratio (χ2) (76.2 vs 71.4) and linear trend (χ2) (74.1 vs 58.6) than the CAGE-B model, whereas the CAGE-B model showed higher Akaike information criteria (64.3 vs 50.3). CONCLUSIONS: Both SAGE-B and CAGE-B showed acceptable performance in predicting HCC after 5 years of AVT in Asian patients with CHB.

Treatment efficacy by hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy vs. sorafenib after liver-directed concurrent chemoradiotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We compared the clinical efficacies of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) vs. sorafenib as sequential maintenance therapy following liver-directed concurrent chemoradiotherapy (LD-CCRT) for locally advanced-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Patients undergoing HAIC with 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin (HAIC-maintain group, n = 151) or sorafenib (Sorafenib-maintain group, n = 37) after LD-CCRT were consecutively enrolled. The study endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment response rates. RESULTS: The median OS among HAIC-maintain and Sorafenib-maintain groups were 15.9 and 24.3 months (p = 0.287), whereas the median PFS were 8.1 and 9.1 months (p = 0.651), respectively. During the planned treatments, the radiological objective response rate (54.3% vs. 64.9%; p = 0.246), and conversion rate to surgical resection or liver transplantation after successful down-staging (15.9% vs. 18.9%; p = 0.657) were comparable between the HAIC-maintain and Sorafenib-maintain groups. Similar results were found after the inverse probability of treatment weighting and propensity score-matching analyses. Regarding treatment-related adverse events, the HAIC-maintain group showed worse profiles in terms of leukopenia (all grades [p = 0.001] and grades 3 or 4 [p = 0.041]) and hypoalbuminemia (p = 0.001) than the Sorafenib-maintain group. CONCLUSIONS: The overall clinical efficacies between the sequential treatment of HAIC vs. sorafenib after LD-CCRT were comparable for locally advanced HCC.

Lenvatinib is independently associated with the reduced risk of progressive disease when compared with sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Recently, lenvatinib demonstrated non-inferiority to sorafenib in terms of overall survival (OS) in a randomized phase III study that was conducted at 154 sites in 20 countries. Here, we investigated treatment outcomes and safety of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib and identified independent predictors of poor outcomes, including shorter progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in Korean patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: Patients with advanced HCC treated with lenvatinib or sorafenib at Yonsei Liver Center, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine between October 2018 to October 2019 were considered eligible. Response evaluation was performed according to the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. RESULTS: The lenvatinib arm had a significantly lower proportion of patients who received prior anti-HCC treatments (47.7% vs 78.7%; P < 0.001) than those in the sorafenib arm. Univariate analysis showed that ECOG 1 (vs 0), serum albumin, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), previous anti-HCC treatments, and lenvatinib (vs sorafenib) were significant predictors of progressive disease (all P < 0.05). In the subsequent multivariate analysis, ECOG 1 (vs 0) (hazard ratio [HR] = 4.721, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.371-16.259; P = 0.014), higher AFP level (HR = 1.000, 95% CI 1.000-1.000; P = 0.015), and lenvatinib treatment (vs sorafenib) (HR = 0.461, 95% CI 0.264-0.804; P = 0.006) independently predicted a higher probability of progressive disease. CONCLUSIONS: Patients treated with lenvatinib demonstrated significantly longer PFS than those treated with sorafenib. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in mortality rates between the two groups, which indicated that lenvatinib is non-inferior to sorafenib in terms of OS.

Efficacy and Safety of Liver-Directed Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy and Sequential Sorafenib for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Prospective Phase 2 Trial.

PURPOSE: Although sorafenib as a standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prolongs overall survival (OS), its efficacy is limited owing to its unsatisfactory objective response and marginal survival benefit. To counter these limitations, we designed a single-arm, phase II trial with liver-directed concurrent chemoradiotherapy (LD-CCRT) and sequential sorafenib treatment in patients with advanced HCC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We enrolled advanced HCC patients diagnosed between 2014 and 2017 who were ineligible for curative treatment. During the first and last 5 days of 5-week radiation therapy, concurrent hepatic arterial infusion with 5-fluorouracil (500 mg/d) and leucovorin (50 mg/d) through an implanted port was administered 4 weeks after initiation of LD-CCRT and sequential sorafenib treatment (400 mg, twice daily). The primary endpoint was OS. This trial has been registered at clinicaltrials.gov. RESULTS: Among the enrolled patients (n = 47), objective response rates 4 weeks after LD-CCRT and during/up to sorafenib maintenance were 44.7% and 53.2%, respectively. Overall, 9 patients (19.1%) underwent curative resection or transplantation after down staging. The median radiation dose was 60 Gy. The median OS was 24.6 months for the entire cohort and 13.0 months for the subgroup with tumor invasion into the main portal trunk or its first branch, whereas the median progression-free survival for the cohort and subgroup was 6.8 and 5.6 months, respectively. The most frequent treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea (36.2%) and hand-foot skin reaction (34%), which were manageable with conservative treatment. CONCLUSIONS: LD-CCRT and sequential sorafenib treatment provided favorable OS and progression-free survival with good tolerability. Tumor reduction using an initial LD-CCRT enabled down staging, subsequent curative treatment, and long-term survival in about 20% of the patients with advanced HCC. However, further randomized trials are required to confirm these results.

A survey on transarterial chemoembolization refractoriness and a real-world treatment pattern for hepatocellular carcinoma in Korea.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is a standard treatment for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but there is much controversy about TACE refractoriness. The aim of this study was to identify trends in the actual clinical application of TACE and recognition of TACE refractoriness by Korean experts. METHODS: In total, 17 questionnaires on TACE refractoriness were administered to 161 clinicians via an online survey. Multiple answers were allowed for some questions. RESULTS: Most clinicians agreed that there is a need for standardization of TACE application through specific scoring systems (n=124, 77.0%). TACE refractoriness was predominantly expected by participants when recurrences were detected within 1 month (n=70, 43.5%), there were 4 to 6 tumors (n=77, 47.8%), the maximal tumor size was 3-5 cm (n=49, 30.4%), and when there was insufficient tumor necrosis despite TACE being repeated more than three times (n=78, 48.4%). Overall, sorafenib therapy (n=137) and radiotherapy (n=114) were preferred when repeated TACE was considered ineffective. CONCLUSION: Treatment of HCC is often based on the clinical judgment of clinicians because of the heterogeneity among individuals. Experts need to continue discussions on the standardization and sub-classification of HCC treatment guidelines in Korea.

Transarterial Chemoembolization in Treatment-Naïve and Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Propensity-Matched Outcome Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) improves the survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, TACE treatment outcomes of patients with treatment-naïve HCC (TN-HCC) and those with recurrent HCC after curative resection (R-HCC) have not yet been compared. METHODS: We recruited 448 patients with TN-HCC, and 275 patients with R-HCC treated with TACE as first-line anti-cancer treatment. RESULTS: At first TACE, patients with TN-HCC showed a significantly lower proportion of male gender (74.9% vs. 84.3%), higher proportion of liver cirrhosis (61.9% vs. 49.3%), higher aspartate aminotransferase (median 48 vs. 31 IU/L), alanine aminotransferase (median 38 vs. 26 IU/L), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) (median 96.6 vs. 7.7 ng/mL), and total bilirubin (mean 1.0 vs. 0.8 mg/dL) levels, longer prothrombin time (median 1.05 vs. 1.01 international normalized ratio), higher tumor number (mean 2.1 vs. 1.7), larger tumor size (median 3.1 vs. 1.6 cm), and lower proportion of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage 0-A (55.6% vs. 71.9%) than patients with R-HCC (all P < 0.05). Multivariate analysis showed that TACE for TN-HCC (vs. R-HCC) was an independent predictor of mortality (hazard ratio, 1.328; P = 0.024) with AFP level and tumor number (all P < 0.05). However, treatment outcomes between TN-HCC and R-HCC became statistically similar after propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis using liver cirrhosis, tumor size, and multiple tumors (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the similar TACE treatment outcomes observed with the PSM analysis, the current TACE treatment guideline for patients with TN-HCC might similarly be applied for patients with R-HCC.

Reproducibility of European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors in patients treated with sorafenib.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria and the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors are used for assessing the treatment outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma. We investigated the inter- and intra-observer reproducibility of the European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib. METHODS: A total of 99 patients with treatment-naive advanced hepatocellular carcinoma receiving sorafenib were included. The κ-values for the inter- and intra-observer agreement of the treatment response were calculated. RESULTS: Inter-observer agreement for baseline tumour number was excellent, as reflected by the high κ-value. The κ-statistics showed "excellent" concordance between the 2 sets of measurements by observer A regarding the overall responses using the European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria (κ = .948, agreement rate = 84.8%) and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (κ = .944, agreement rate = 83.8%; all P < .001). In addition, high κ-values indicated concordance between the first sets of measurements by observers A and B (κ = .991 by the European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria and .988 by modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, all P < .001). When agreements in radiological overall responses between the 2 sets of measurements by observer B and between the second sets of measurements by observers A and B were calculated, similar results regarding high κ-values (>.8) were obtained. CONCLUSIONS: The reproducibility of the European Association for the Study of the Liver criteria and modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors in assessing treatment outcomes was high in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

Prognostic factors of sorafenib therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma patients with failure of transarterial chemoembolization.

BACKGROUND: There is no approved therapy for patients with failed transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to investigate the efficacy and prognostic factors in patients with TACE failure who received sorafenib rescue therapy. METHODS: We investigated 54 patients who met the criteria of TACE failure as defined by the international guidelines of Europe and Japan. Sorafenib was used as a rescue therapy. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier methods, and multivariate analysis was performed to find prognostic factors. RESULTS: The patients were followed for a median 5.5 months, and the median duration of sorafenib administration was 3.3 months. The presence of main (or lobar) portal vein invasion (PVI) (3.7 versus 8.4 months, p = 0.004), dose reduction of sorafenib (4.0 versus 8.8 months, p = 0.002) and Child-Pugh class B (5.3 versus 8.9 months, p = 0.004) were associated with shorter OS compared to the presence of segmental PVI (or absence of macroscopic vascular invasion, MVI), full dosage of sorafenib and Child-Pugh class A, respectively. The presence of main (or lobar) PVI was associated with poorer PFS compared to the presence of segmental PVI (or absence of MVI) (2.1 versus 3.8 months p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib is a potential rescue therapy in patients with TACE failure. However, the clinical benefits need to be further evaluated for patients with main (or lobar) PVI or those treated with reduced doses of sorafenib.

A comparative study between sorafenib and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein tumor thrombosis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) and sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT). METHODS: A total of 110 patients were observed between February 2008 and May 2013 in seven Korean centers. Fifty patients were treated with HAIC, and 60 patients were treated with sorafenib. RESULTS: The disease control rate in the HAIC was significantly higher than that in the sorafenib group (p < 0.001), although there was no significant difference in the objective response rate (p = 0.214). The median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in the HAIC group than in the sorafenib group (7.1 vs. 5.5 months, p = 0.011). The median time to-progression (TTP) was also significantly longer in the HAIC group than in the sorafenib group (3.3 vs. 2.1 months, p = 0.034). In the multivariate analysis, tumor diameter (≥ 10 cm) and the absence of combined loco-regional treatment were significant prognostic factors influencing OS (p = 0.002 and p = 0.010, respectively) and TTP (p = 0.017 and p = 0.006, respectively). The treatment modality tended to be a significant prognostic factor for survival (p = 0.052), but not for tumor progression (p = 0.121). CONCLUSIONS: HAIC is comparable with sorafenib in terms of OS and TTP in advanced HCC patients with PVTT. HAIC shows more favorable treatment responses compared with sorafenib. Therefore, HAIC might be an alternative treatment modality to sorafenib in advanced HCC patients with PVTT.

Clinical outcomes and prognostic factors of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib as first-line therapy: a Korean multicenter study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Sorafenib is recommended as a standard treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The efficacy and safety of sorafenib as a first-line therapy in Korean patients with advanced HCC were investigated. METHODS: From 2007 to 2012, 86 patients with advanced HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C) treated with sorafenib as a first-line therapy were enrolled from five tertiary hospitals. Predictors of overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were analyzed. RESULTS: The median age was 59.5 years, and 71 (82.6%) were males; 57 (66.3%) patients were in Child-Pugh class A. The median OS and PFS were 5.0 (range 4.0-5.9) and 3.2 (range 2.6-3.7) months, respectively. Regarding OS, Child-Pugh class A (6.0 vs 2.8 months), tumor diameter < 5 cm (6.0 vs 4.3 months), baseline α-fetoprotein < 200 ng/mL (5.8 vs 4.1 months), and the advent of hand-foot-skin reaction of ≥ grade 2 (5.9 vs 4.0 months) were independent favorable predictors (all P < 0.05). Similarly, regarding PFS, Child-Pugh class A (4.3 vs 2.1 months), tumor diameter < 5 cm (3.9 vs 2.8 months), baseline α-fetoprotein < 200 ng/mL (5.6 vs 2.8 months), and the advent of hand-foot-skin reaction of ≥ grade 2 (4.5 vs 2.6 months) were independent favorable predictors (all P < 0.05). All toxicities during sorafenib treatment were manageable. CONCLUSIONS: Because the efficacy of sorafenib seems marginal in Korean patients with treatment-naïve HCC, how to select candidates with favorable outcomes should be further investigated.

Efficacy of sorafenib monotherapy versus sorafenib-based loco-regional treatments in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Although sorafenib is accepted as the standard of care in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), its therapeutic benefit is marginal. Here, we aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of sorafenib monotherapy (S-M) and sorafenib-based loco-regional treatments (S-LRTs) in advanced HCC. METHODS: From 2007 to 2012, 290 patients with advanced HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C) with S-M (n = 226) or S-LRTs (n = 64) were reviewed retrospectively. Survival outcomes and treatment-related toxicities between two groups were analyzed. RESULTS: Variables related to tumor burden and liver function were similar between the groups (all P > 0.05). Within the entire population, the S-LRTs group had both longer median overall survival (OS) (8.5 vs 5.5 months, P = 0.001) and progression-free survival (PFS) (5.3 vs 3.0 months, P = 0.002) than the S-M group. Furthermore, the S-LRTs group had longer Os than the S-M group in a subgroup with neither extrahepatic spread (EHS) nor regional nodal involvement (RNI) (18.0 vs 7.8 months, P = 0.019) and in a subgroup with EHS and/or RNI (8.3 vs 4.8 months, P = 0.028). In addition, the S-LRTs group had longer PFS than the S-M group in the subgroup with neither EHS nor RNI (9.6 vs 3.2 months, P = 0.027). TREATMENT: Related toxicity was similar between two groups. CONCLUSION: Combined use of sorafenib and LRTs may provide better treatment outcomes without significantly increasing treatment-related toxicities, even in patients with EHS and/or RNI. Therefore, addition of active LRTs might be considered, if feasible.

Applicability of BCLC stage for prognostic stratification in comparison with other staging systems: single centre experience from long-term clinical outcomes of 1717 treatment-naïve patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The most informative staging system regarding survival outcomes for treatment-naïve hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains debated. We evaluated prognostic values of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage compared with other staging systems, and identified discrepancies between treatment options chosen in Korean clinical practice and BCLC guidelines. METHODS: Between 2003 and 2008, 1717 prospectively enrolled patients with treatment-naïve HCC were analysed. Prognostic ability of each staging system was assessed using time-dependent receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves. RESULTS: The most common aetiology was hepatitis B virus (1238, 72.1%); 167 (9.8%) patients were classified as BCLC stage 0, 526 (30.6%) as A, 333 (19.4%) as B, 608 (35.4%) as C and 83 (4.8%) as D. Median overall survival was 22.5 months, and 1-, 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5-year survival rates were 62.6, 48.3, 39.9, 34.7, and 29.3% respectively. Of six staging systems, BCLC had the highest area under ROC (AUROC; 0.821) for overall survival, followed by JIS (0.809), Tokyo score (0.771), CLIP (0.746), CUPI (0.701) and GRETCH (0.685) system. In both subgroups stratified according to treatment strategy (curative vs. palliative), BCLC also showed the best AUROCs (curative, 0.708/palliative, 0.807) for overall survival. Regarding discrepancies between treatment options chosen in our cohort and BCLC guidelines, more than half with very early/early-stage HCC underwent transarterial chemoembolization, rather than resection or local ablative therapy; most of those with advanced-stage HCC received intra-arterial chemotherapy-based treatments rather than sorafenib. CONCLUSION: BCLC was the best long-term prognostic model for treatment-naïve HCC in a large-scale Korean cohort. However, treatment modalities did not exactly match BCLC paradigm.

Sorafenib versus cytotoxic chemotherapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective, single-institution study.

BACKGROUND: Prior to the 2008 advent of sorafenib, traditional cytotoxic agents were the therapeutic mainstay for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We thus undertook a clinical study of sorafinib and conventional cytotoxic therapy for HCC, comparing efficacy and safety. METHODS: From January, 2002 to December, 2009, 173 patients with unresectable HCC were reviewed retrospectively. Among them, 44 (25.4%) had been treated with sorafenib, and the remainder had received cytotoxic therapy (CTX). We evaluated objective response rate (ORR), progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity profiles. RESULTS: Median OS of sorafinib was 23.0 weeks (95% CI, 8.1-37.9) vs 43.6 weeks (95% CI, 34.0-53.2) for CTX. Likewise, median PFS was 11.1 weeks (95% CI, 6.5-15.8) vs 12.4 weeks (95% CI, 8.1-16.7) for sorafenib and CTX, respectively. Neither parameter differed significantly (OS, p = 0.105; PFS, p = 0.496). ORR and disease control rate for sorafenib were 2.3% and 52.3% vs 6.2% and 43.4% for CTX. CTX-treated patients experienced more Grade 3/4 neutropenia (19.7% vs 0% for sorafenib), while sorafenib therapy was more often linked to dermatologic toxicities (all grades), such as hand-foot skin reaction, rash, and pruritus. CONCLUSION: Although sorafenib has become the treatment of choice for advanced HCC, there are still unsettled issues regarding the optimal use of sorafenib. Our analysis indicates that conventional CTX can be another option of treatment for advanced HCC. To improve clinical outcomes, further prospective investigations which define the role of CTX are needed.

Adjuvant hepatic arterial infusional chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin after curative resection of hepatocellular carcinoma.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether adjuvant hepatic arterial infusional chemotherapy (HAIC) with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and cisplatin reduces the recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after curative resection. METHODS: Between January 2006 and December 2008, 31 HCC patients received four cycles of adjuvant HAIC with 5-FU and cisplatin via port system after curative resection. During the same period, 62 patients, who did not take any adjuvant therapy, were selected as controls. RESULTS: Tumor characteristics, such as distribution of TNM stage, pathologic differentiation, portal vein invasion, or microscopic invasion did not differ between control and adjuvant groups. During follow-up, recurrence developed in 11 adjuvant (35.5%) and 24 control patients (38.7%; p = 0.823). Tumor progression after recurrence was the cause of death in 2 adjuvant (28.6%) and 7 control patients (38.8%; p = 0.912). The 2-year recurrence rate was 9.1% in the adjuvant group and 4.2% in the control group, with the median recurrence-free survival time being 10.5 and 7.5 months, respectively (p = 0.324). The 3-year cumulative survival rate was 73.3% in the adjuvant group and 68.3% in the control group (p = 0.355). CONCLUSION: Adjuvant HAIC with 5-FU and cisplatin did not offer any beneficial effect on the recurrence after curative resection of HCC.

Prognostic value of 18F-FDG PET for hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib (Nexavar) is an orally active multikinase inhibitor that is approved for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this study, we used (18) F-2-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose ((18) F-FDG) with positron emission tomography (PET) to predict the treatment outcome of sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 29 patients with HCC were included. Baseline (18) F-FDG PET scans were performed a median of 14 days before sorafenib treatment. Sorafenib was administered orally at a dose of 400 mg twice daily. For statistical analysis, the standardized uptake value (SUV) of the most hypermetabolic lesion was obtained and assigned as the SUVmax for each patient. RESULTS: Among 29 patients, one patient achieved partial remission and 14 patients showed stable disease. The overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS) were 5.1 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.0-12.0] and 3.8 months (95% CI: 1.4-6.2). The multivariate analysis of OS showed that four indices, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, α-fetoprotein (AFP) concentration, portal vein thrombosis and SUVmax were significant prognostic factors (P=0.030, P=0.024, P=0.020 and P=0.015 respectively). AFP concentration and SUVmax were independent prognostic factors for PFS, too (P=0.003 and P=0.026 respectively). When the patients were divided into two groups: low SUVmax (n=10; <5.00) and high SUVmax (n=19;≥ 5.00), the low SUV group showed significantly longer OS and PFS (P=0.023 and P=0.042 respectively). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that the degree of FDG uptake is an independent prognostic factor in patients with HCC who undergo sorafenib treatment.

A comparative study of high-dose hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy and transarterial chemoembolization using doxorubicin for intractable, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) has long been used as a palliative therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). High-dose hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) has showed favorable outcomes in patients with intractable, advanced HCC. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and safety of high-dose HAIC and conventional TACE using doxorubicin for advanced HCC. METHODS: The high-dose HAIC group comprised 36 patients who were enrolled prospectively from six institutions. The enrollment criteria were good liver function, main portal vein invasion (including vascular shunt), infiltrative type, bilobar involvement, and/or refractory to prior conventional treatment (TACE, radiofrequency ablation, or percutaneous ethanol injection), and documented progressive disease. Patients received 5-fluorouracil (500 mg/m(2) on days 1~3) and cisplatin (60 mg/m(2) on day 2 every 4 weeks) via an implantable port system. In the TACE group, 31 patients with characteristics similar to those in the high-dose HAIC group were recruited retrospectively from a single center. Patients underwent a transarterial infusion of doxorubicin every 4~8 weeks. RESULTS: Overall, 6 patients (8.9%) achieved a partial response and 20 patients (29.8%) had stable disease. The objective response rate (complete response+partial response) was significantly better in the high-dose HAIC group than in the TACE group (16.7% vs. 0%, P=0.030). Overall survival was longer in the high-dose HAIC group than in the TACE group (median survival, 193 vs. 119 days; P=0.026). There were no serious adverse effects in the high-dose HAIC group, while hepatic complications occurred more often in the TACE group. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose HAIC appears to improve the tumor response and survival outcome compared to conventional TACE using doxorubicin in patients with intractable, advanced HCC.

A randomized comparative study of high-dose and low-dose hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for intractable, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) has been reported to be effective in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, open-labeled, clinical trial, we randomly assigned 68 patients with advanced HCC to receive either low-dose [n = 32, 5-fluorouracil (FU), 170 mg/m(2) and cisplatin, 7 mg/m(2) on days 1-5] or high-dose HAIC (n = 36, 5-FU, 500 mg/m(2) on days 1-3 and cisplatin, 60 mg/m(2) on day 2) every 4 weeks via an implantable port system. RESULTS: A total of 207 cycles of HAIC was given to the 68 patients. Overall, 6 patients (8.8%) achieved a partial response and 21 patients (30.9%) had stable disease. The objective response rate (CR + PR) was significantly improved in the high-dose group compared to the low-dose group (16.7% vs. 0%, P = 0.024). The median time to disease progression and overall survival were slightly prolonged in the high-dose group compared to the low-dose group (median survival, 193 vs. 153 days; P = 0.108; median time to disease progression, 145 vs. 90 days; P = 0.095). Multivariate analysis showed that tumor response to treatment [P = 0.007, RR 2.27 (95% CI, 1.248-4.132)] was the only factor associated with overall survival. All adverse events were tolerable and successfully managed in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both HAIC regimens are safe and effective in patients with advanced HCC. High-dose HAIC achieves a better tumor response compared to low-dose HAIC.