Systemic therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma: A revolution?

The evolution in systemic therapies in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) signifies a strategy of high-cost, high-gain innovation that originated with sorafenib, despite its limited impact on tumor response. This strategic approach paved the way for the emergence of a second wave of the short-lived competitive advantage, exemplified by the incorporation of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and tremelimumab plus durvalumab. In the context of safety concerns within the liver cancer domain, the IMBRAVE150 and HIMALAYA trials boldly incorporated bevacizumab and tremelimumab, respectively, demonstrating the continuation of the high-risk, high-reward innovation paradigm. This review delves into the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats analysis of systemic therapies in the field of HCC.

Current pharmacological treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

The landscape of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has changed since the incorporation of sorafenib in 2007 as the first pharmacological treatment for HCC. The combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is currently the first-line treatment for HCC patients, and there are several second-line options approved for patients who had received sorafenib as the first-line treatment. The advantage of having multiple options of pharmacological treatment for HCC patients is associated to the need to redefine the clinical decision-making approach and considering new endpoints for the clinical trials design. The aim of this review was to share the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer approach and to summarize the ongoing clinical trials, which are testing pharmacological treatments.

Early diarrhoea under sorafenib as a marker to consider the early migration to second-line drugs.

BACKGROUND: Despite atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A + B) is currently the first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, some patients will not be adequate for this combination. In the setting of sorafenib some adverse events have been proposed as prognostic factors. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the early diarrhoea development as prognostic factor in 344 HCC patients. METHODS: The development of early diarrhoea in sorafenib treatment defined as patients who developed diarrhoea and needed dose modification within the first 60 days of treatment (e-diarrhoea) and 3-grouping variables were analysed: Patients with e-diarrhoea, patients who developed diarrhoea after the first 60 days of treatment (L-diarrhoea) and patients that never developed diarrhoea (never diarrhoea). RESULTS: The median overall survival in sorafenib treated patients was significantly different across groups (6.8 months for e-diarrhoea, 26.7 months for L-diarrhoea and 13.3 months for never-diarrhoea). The emergence of e-diarrhoea was associated with poor outcomes (hazard ratio [HR] 1.84 [95%CI 1.15-2.95]), while there was no increased/decreased risk of dismal evolution in patients with L-diarrhoea (HR 0.66 [95%CI 0.42-1.03]). CONCLUSION: The emergence of e-diarrhoea in HCC patients treated with sorafenib is an early predictor of dismal evolution under this therapy. Thus, prompt identification of these non-responders may be useful for an early switch to second-line therapies.

Pancreatic Insufficiency in Patients Under Sorafenib Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

GOALS: To describe the occurrence of malabsorption (MA) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients under sorafenib, the potential relationship with pancreatic insufficiency (PI), and the role of pancreatic enzymes supplementation. BACKGROUND: With the increasing options of second-line systemic therapies for HCC, the recognition of drug intolerance using practical tools is crucial. It has been proposed that a MA syndrome could be due to sorafenib-induced pancreatic dysfunction. STUDY: All sorafenib-treated patients with suspicion of MA (defined as decreased stool consistency lasting >4 wk or presenting ≥10% body weight loss without HCC progression) were prospectively evaluated by serum markers, endoscopy, and imaging techniques. RESULTS: We evaluated 81 sorafenib-treated patients and 21 developed MA suspicion (85.7% male, 81.5% Child-Pugh A, 52.4% BCLC-B, and 47.6% BCLC-C) within a median 5.9 months after starting sorafenib. The median treatment duration, follow-up, and overall survival after MA suspicion were 5.9, 20.3, and 20.3 months, respectively. Nine of them (42.9%) presented hyperparathyroidism secondary to vitamin D deficiency and 8 with PI. A gradual decrease in pancreatic volume of up to 19% was observed among patients with PI. Six of the 8 patients with PI received pancreatic enzymes, with complete recovery from MA symptoms and stabilization of pancreatic volume. CONCLUSIONS: We validated the association between MA and PI in 10% of sorafenib-treated patients. Pancreatic enzymes supplementation successfully led to symptomatic recovery. Awareness of this adverse event can help in the management of sorafenib irrespective of cancer type and likely, of other tyrosine kinase inhibitors for HCC patients.

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors and Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Sorafenib was the first tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) that showed success in extending survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In recent years, additional TKIs have been shown to improve survival and expanded the armamentarium for treating this malignancy. The current landscape includes other classes of drugs, such as immune checkpoint inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies. The challenge is now placed on how to best select, combine, and sequence drugs with the goal of improving efficacy and minimizing toxicities to deliver better outcomes for HCC patients.

Insights into the success and failure of systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Systemic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been boosted by the incorporation of new agents after many negative phase III trials in the decade since the approval of sorafenib. Sorafenib introduced the concept that targeting specific hallmarks of hepatocarcinogenesis could modify the dismal prognosis of this disease, with the drug remaining a cornerstone in the upfront therapy for advanced HCC. The design of clinical trials in this malignancy is complicated by important obstacles related to patient selection, prognostic assessment and the need for endpoints that correlate with improvement in survival outcomes. In addition, the currently used criteria to determine treatment response or progression might prevent physicians from making appropriate clinical judgements and interpreting evidence arising from trials. In this Review, we discuss the advances in systemic therapy for HCC and critically review trial designs in HCC. Although novel therapies, such as new targeted agents and immunotherapies, are being rapidly incorporated, it is paramount to design future clinical trials based on the lessons learned from past failures and successes.

Preliminary experience on safety of regorafenib after sorafenib failure in recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation.

Regorafenib is one option for second-line treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), improving overall survival (OS) of sorafenib-tolerant patients who develop progression. We aim to evaluate the safety and outcomes of regorafenib as second-line treatment for HCC recurrence after liver transplantation (LT). This is a retrospective, multicenter, international study including regorafenib-treated LT patients (2015-2018), with analysis of baseline characteristics and evolutionary events during sorafenib/regorafenib treatment. Twenty-eight LT patients (57 years, 7% cirrhotics, 54% performance status 1) were included. Median time from LT to regorafenib initiation was 3.9 (1.1-18.5) years; median time on sorafenib was 11.3 (0.7-76.4) months and 14 (1-591) days from sorafenib discontinuation to regorafenib. During regorafenib (6.3 months), all patients had at least one adverse event (AE), the most common grade 3/4 AEs were fatigue (n = 7) and dermatological reaction (n = 5). While no liver rejection was observed, plasma levels of immunosuppressive drugs increased in five. Twenty-four patients developed progression (38% extrahepatic growth, 33% new extrahepatic lesions/vascular invasion). Median OS from regorafenib initiation was 12.9 (95% CI, 6.7-19.1) and 38.4 months (95% CI, 18.5-58.4) for the sorafenib initiation. This is the first study showing safety of regorafenib after LT, thus providing the rational of considering regorafenib in the clinical decision-making in sorafenib-tolerant patients with HCC recurrence after LT.

Systemic therapy for intermediate and advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Sorafenib and beyond.

The hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment landscape changed a decade ago, with sorafenib demonstrating survival benefit in the first-line setting and becoming the first systemic therapy to be approved for HCC. More recently, regorafenib and nivolumab have received approval in the second-line setting after sorafenib, with further positive phase 3 studies emerging in the first line (lenvatinib non-inferior to sorafenib) and second line versus placebo (cabozantinib and ramucirumab). A key recommendation in the management of patients receiving sorafenib is to promote close communication between the patient and the physician so that adverse events (AEs) are detected early and severe AEs can be prevented. Sorafenib-related AEs have been identified as clinical biomarkers for sorafenib efficacy. Healthcare professionals have become more efficient in managing AEs, identifying patients who are likely to benefit from treatment, and assessing response to treatment, resulting in a trend towards increased overall survival in the sorafenib arms of clinical studies. The rapidly changing treatment landscape due to the emergence of new treatment options (sorafenib and lenvatinib equally effective in first line; regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab showing OS benefit in second line with nivolumab approved by the FDA based on response rate) underscores the importance of re-assessing the role of the first approved systemic agent in HCC, sorafenib.

Complete response under sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Relationship with dermatologic adverse events.

The clinical benefit of sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been undervalued due to the absence of complete responses, even though patients who develop early dermatologic reactions have shown to have a positive outcome. In addition, sorafenib is described as an antiangiogenic drug, but it also acts on immunological cells. Thus, the goal of this study was to assess the complete response rate in a retrospective cohort of HCC patients treated with sorafenib and to describe the profile of the patients who achieve complete response for identifying factors related to this event and their connection with the immunological profile of sorafenib. Ten Spanish centers submitted cases of complete response under sorafenib. The baseline characteristics, development of early dermatologic reactions, and cause of treatment discontinuation were annotated. Radiological images taken before starting sorafenib, at first control, after starting sorafenib, at the time of complete response, and at least 1 month after treatment were centrally reviewed. Of the 1119 patients studied, 20 had been classified as complete responders by the centers, but eight of these patients were excluded after central review. Ten patients had complete disappearance of all tumor sites, and two had just a small residual fibrotic scar. Thus, 12 patients were classified as complete responders (58% HCV, median age 59.7 years, 83.4% Child-Pugh class A, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 91.7%, and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C 83.3%). The median overall survival and treatment duration were 85.8 and 40.1 months, respectively. All but one patient developed early dermatologic reactions, and seven patients discontinued sorafenib after achieving complete response due to adverse events, patient decision, or liver decompensation. Conclusion: Complete response affects 1% of patients with HCC who are treated with sorafenib. The association of complete response with early dermatologic reactions supports the role of a specific immune/inflammatory patient profile in the improved response to sorafenib. (Hepatology 2018;67:612-622).

Systemic treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: the search of new agents to join sorafenib in the effective therapeutic armamentarium.

INTRODUCTION: Hepatocelullar carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Despite the implementation of screening programs for high-risk individuals, a significant proportion of patients present with advanced disease at the moment of diagnosis. AREAS COVERED: In this review we will focus in the current treatment of advanced HCC, the research that has been done in the past few years, the achievements and failures in this setting and future perspectives. EXPERT OPINION: Sorafenib was the first drug that has shown to increase survival in patients with advanced hepatocelullar carcinoma with an adequate safety profile. Recently, regorafenib was reported to improve survival in a second line randomised placebo controlled phase 3 clinical trial, which represents a major breakthrough in this field after many disappointing results coming from several clinical trials. However, still there is an unmet need for an effective and tolerable treatment for patients who progressed and/or have intolerance to sorafenib. The ultimate goal of the research is to provide drugs that improve survival with acceptable adverse events. Understanding of mechanisms of hepatocarcinogesis, individualizing therapy according to the profile of the population and finding reliable surrogate end-points for survival for early phase trials with new agents should improve the likelihood of achieving these objectives.

Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents the most frequent primary liver cancer. This disease usually arises as a result of a chronic liver disease, but may appear without any underlying disease. In most units, the staging and treatment decision in patients with HCC follows the Barcelona Clínic Liver Cancer (BCLC) strategy. Following this approach, patients diagnosed with HCC are classified according to tumour burden, liver function and ECOG-Performance Status (PS). This stratifies patients according to prognosis and links each stage with the evidence-based treatment approach to be first considered. Patients correspond to BCLC stage 0 (very early) when the tumour burden accounts for just one nodule and it measures 2 cm or less. BCLC stage A includes patients with just one nodule or 3 nodules under 3 cm. Both stages 0 and A gather patients with preserved liver function according to Child-Pugh score, being Child-Pugh A. Patients in BCLC B stage (intermediate stage) are patients with multinodular liver cancer confined to the liver, without extrahepatic disease, ECOG-PS 0 and preserved liver function (Child-Pugh A or B). Patients with portal venous invasion, extrahepatic disease or cancer-related symptoms measured by PS (1-2) and still with preserved liver function correspond to BCLC C (advanced) stage. Finally, patients classified in BCLC stage D are those with a severe alteration of liver function (Child-Pugh C) or severe cancer-related symptoms with PS above 2. In very early and early stages (BCLC 0 and A), treatment options include surgical treatment, ablation and liver transplantation. Intermediate stage (BCLC B) patients should be considered for transarterial chemoembolization. At advanced stage (BCLC C), the recommended treatment is sorafenib. Finally, at the end stage (BCLC D), symptomatic treatment is the suggested option. The treatment stage migration concept refers to patients who at first glance would be treated with the option that corresponds to their BCLC stage but, because of any coexisting comorbidity, technical issue or even treatment failure/progression but still within the original stage cannot be treated by the initial suggested treatment. These patients then move to the treatment that would correspond to the next stage/s.

Systemic Treatment: Expecting Further Success.

From its approval in 2008, sorafenib is the recommended treatment option for advanced-stage patients and its safety and efficacy has been confirmed by several studies. However, its mechanism of action is not completely understood and many efforts have been dedicated to investigating possible treatment response predictors. Dermatological adverse events occurring within the first 2 months of treatment are predictors of longer survival, while the same role for hypertension and diarrhea still needs a prospective confirmation. This association is opposite to the strategy of starting at a low dose as it may imply suboptimal drug exposure. In case of radiological progression, the appearance of new extrahepatic metastasis or vascular invasion significantly worsens life expectancy if compared to other patterns of progression. To date no genetic or biologic marker is available to predict response, even if some encouraging results have been reported by the study of polymorphism of VEGF and its receptor. Currently, data are conflicting about the possible predictive role of α-fetoprotein. Due to failure or the progression of therapies for earlier evolutionary stages (BCLC B) some patients in such a clinical profile may be treated with sorafenib. Indeed, almost 50% of the sorafenib-treated patients belong to this class. Patients with severely decompensated liver disease (jaundice, ascites in need of intense diuretic therapy/paracentesis) may not benefit from treatment. The use of sorafenib in the waiting list for liver transplantation is controversial, while its use at an advanced age requires careful evaluation of existing comorbidities that may increase the risk of adverse events. Many strides have been made in the field of hepatocellular carcinoma systemic therapy, and many remain to be realized. Considering the disappointing results of the trials conducted on new agents, a more dynamic interpretation of events together with the development of new strategies is key to enriching new and hopefully more successful trials.

Systemic treatment.

In the last years the management of patients with liver cancer has been improved. The BCLC staging/treatment strategy identifies the optimal candidates for each treatment option and sorafenib is the only effective systemic treatment. Others (sunitinib, brivanib, linifanib, everolimus, ramucirumab) have failed in terms of safety/survival benefit. Some patients at intermediate/early stage, may be considered for systemic therapy when options of higher priority may have failed or not be feasible. The 800 mg/day is the recommended starting dose. Close follow-up and easy access for the patients so that they can report any adverse event and implement dose adjustments is the key point in the management of them. Development of early dermatologic adverse events has been correlated with better outcome and the pattern of radiologic progression characterizes better the prognosis/outcome of these patients. Treatment beyond progression may be considered if there is no option for a second line research trial.

Postprogression survival of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: rationale for second-line trial design.

UNLABELLED: Sorafenib improves overall survival (OS) of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the absence of objective response. Thus, time to tumor progression (TTP) is used to capture benefits of novel molecular agents, but proof of its surrogacy with survival is lacking. Furthermore, survival predictors upon progression are not established and there is a need to characterize postprogression survival (PPS) and assess with time-dependent covariates analysis if it is influenced by progression pattern, and not solely by simultaneous impairment of liver function and performance status. We prospectively followed HCC patients treated with sorafenib. Clinical and biochemical evaluation were done every 4 weeks. Radiologic assessment of progression was done at week 4 and then every 8 weeks using RECIST 1.1. The progression pattern was divided into: intrahepatic/extrahepatic increase in tumor size, new intrahepatic lesion, and new extrahepatic lesion (NEH). We included 147 patients (hepatitis C virus [HCV] 57.1%, performance status [PS] 0 83.6%, Child-Pugh A 82.3%, and BCLC-C 47.3%). The median OS was 12.7 months and its independent predictors (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) were: baseline BCLC 2.49 [1.66-3.73], PS 1.86 [1.12-3.10], registration during follow-up of Child-Pugh B or Child-Pugh C scores (2.36 [1.51-3.69] and 2.89 [1.62-5.15], respectively), definitive sorafenib interruption 2.48 [1.54-4.01], and TTP 3.39 [1.89-6.1]. The presence of NEH 2.42 [1.32-4.44] is also an independent predictor of OS and PPS in patients with radiologic progression. CONCLUSION: Tumor progression is a surrogate of survival but its impact varies according to progression pattern. Thus, PPS is influenced by progression pattern and this is key in prognostic prediction and second-line trial design and analysis.

[Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma]. / Tratamiento del carcinoma hepatocelular avanzado.

In the last few years, much progress has been made in the diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Due to these advances, HCC is no longer regarded as a disease with an extremely poor prognosis and has become the focus of some of the most active basic and clinical research in recent years. The most important advance is possibly the demonstration that sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor with antiproliferative and antiangiogenic properties, is an effective treatment, able to increase survival in patients with advanced-stage HCC. This increased survival has demonstrated that these drugs, which act selectively on the molecular pathways involved in tumoral progression, can be effective in the treatment of HCC and has opened the door to the evaluation of these molecular agents, alone or in combination, in HCC. The present article provides a review of the treatment of advanced-stage HCC, with special emphasis on the distinct agents that are currently under evaluation.

Current strategy for staging and treatment: the BCLC update and future prospects.

Staging and treatment indication are relevant topics in the management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and for optimal results, they have to take into account liver function, tumor stage, and physical status. For any staging system to be meaningful it has to link staging with treatment indication; this should be based on robust scientific data. Currently, the sole proposal that serves both aims is the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) approach. It takes into account the relevant parameters of all important dimensions and divides patients into very early/early, intermediate, advanced, and end-stage. Early-stage HCC patients should be considered for potentially curative options such as resection, ablation, and transplantation. Patients at intermediate stage benefit from chemoembolization, whereas patients at an advanced stage, or who cannot benefit from options of higher priority, have sorafenib as the standard treatment. Finally, patients at end-stage should merely receive palliative care.

Hepatocellular carcinoma: novel molecular approaches for diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy.

The genomic era is changing the understanding of cancer, although translation of the vast amount of data available into decision-making algorithms is far from reality. Molecular profiling of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common cause of death among cirrhotic patients and a fast-growing malignancy in Western countries, is enabling the advancement of novel approaches to disease diagnosis and management. Most HCCs arise on a cirrhotic liver, and predictably, an accurate genomic characterization will allow the identification of procarcinogenic signals amenable to selective targeting by chemopreventive strategies. Molecular diagnosis is currently feasible for small tumors, but it has not yet been formalized by scientific guidelines. Molecular treatment is a reality: Sorafenib confers unprecedented survival benefits in patients at advanced stages. Genomic information from tumor and nontumoral tissue will aid prognosis prediction and facilitate the identification of oncogene addiction loops, providing the opportunity for more personalized medicine.

[Treatment approach of hepatocellular carcinoma in Spain. Analysis of 705 patients from 62 centers]. / Tratamiento del carcinoma hepatocelular en España. Análisis de 705 casos en 62 centros.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the leading cause of death in patients with cirrhosis and its current situation in Spain is not well known. Therefore, a national registry was created to assess the characteristics of patients with de novo HCC. PATIENTS AND METHOD: Between 1/10/2008 and 31/1/2009, 62 centers reported the baseline demographic, clinical and tumor characteristics, the first choice of treatment and eligibility for transplantation (OLT) of HCC diagnosed during this time. RESULTS: There were 705 new cases of HCC, 78% men, mean age 65 years, 89% cirrhosis (58% Child-Pugh class A, 42% HCV, 30% alcohol). Only 334 cases (47%) were diagnosed by screening. The size of the main nodule and BCLC stage were significantly lower in the screening group than in the rest (p<0.001). The applicability of radical therapies (resection and percutaneous ablation) was significantly higher (47.5% versus 24.6%, p<0.001) as well as the evaluation for OLT (31% versus 12%, p<0.001). The screening did not differ according to gender (p=0.204) or age (<50 years, <65, <75, >75 years) (p=0.171). Chemoembolization was the most common treatment: initial tumors (46.4%), tumors >5 cm (15.7%), multifocal HCC (37.9%) and as a bridge to OLT (33%). CONCLUSION: The majority of HCC patients are diagnosed in Spain out of early detection programs, and this limits the chance for early diagnosis and effective therapy.

Medical treatments: in association or alone, their roles and their future perspectives: the Western experience.

Management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a complex issue, as it needs to take into account the liver disease, the cancer stage and the performance status of the patient. The treatment decision has to be based on robust scientific evidence and for this it is instrumental to have a proper staging system linked to the treatment indication. The BCLC proposal serves these two purposes and has been validated worldwide and endorsed by several scientific associations. The sole systemic therapy that has shown efficacy in improving the survival of HCC patients is sorafenib, an oral kinase inhibitor that blocks the Raf/MEK/ERK pathway and the receptor for VEGFR 2 and PDGFR-beta. Sorafenib has been recognized as the standard of care for patients who cannot benefit from treatments of higher priority and established efficacy, such as surgical resection, transplantation, ablation and transarterial chemoembolization. Sorafenib has changed the management of HCC, opening the path to combination therapies for patients at advanced stages and to evaluation as an adjuvant for those in earlier evolutionary stages.