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.

Systemic therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma: the present and the future.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is diagnosed in more than half of all cases at unresectable stage when no potentially curative treatments are feasible. Since 2008, sorafenib had represented the only effective first line systemic therapy over the last decade until the approval of lenvatinib, who showed to be non-inferior to sorafenib. Recently, for the first time, a combination of immunotherapy and antiangiogenic drug, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, was associated with a significantly longer overall survival and progression free survival compared to sorafenib, becoming the new best performing first-line approach for unresectable HCC. After several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have attempted to find an effective second-line therapy, regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab, nivolumab and pembrolizumab represent approved treatments for patients who failed first-line treatment. However, inclusion criteria of second-line RCTs are quite heterogeneous and no direct comparisons exist among these agents. Exciting opportunities have been found either in the combination or in the sequencing of these agents, but the optimal therapeutic strategy for these patients remains elusive. Moreover, the coexistence of cirrhosis and the competing risk of liver decompensation increase the complexity of the assessment of the net health benefit of the available therapeutic approaches. The aim of this review is to summarize the evidence on systemic treatments for unresectable HCC and to explore the future perspectives on this topic.

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.

Sicily Network for Liver Cancer: A Multidisciplinary Network Model for the Management of Primary Liver Tumors.

Background: The management of primary liver tumors requires the involvement of multiple specialist skills and the best possible treatment in terms of cost, risk, and benefit that could be provided by hepatobiliary or transplant surgeon, interventional radiologist, hepatologist, radiotherapist, or oncologist is needed to be chosen for each patient. This is particularly relevant for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), that is the most common primary liver tumor, and it occurs in more than 90% of cases in the setting of cirrhosis. Methods: To address the increasing complexity of cancer care, multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs) have evolved to offer patients appropriate and tailored cancer treatments. In Sicily (Italy), MDTBs have been organized in a Regional Network, the Sicily Network for Liver Cancer, that answers to the need for an equal and fair access to cancer care, to improve the diagnostic and therapeutic appropriateness, to ease patients care, to improve the efficacy of cancer treatments, and finally to optimize the risk-cost-benefit ratio of therapies and follow-up. Results: It has been shown that multidisciplinary management is associated with significantly improved survival in patients with liver cancer. In this study, we present the aims, the organization, and the current and future activities of the Sicily Network for Liver Cancer, an integrated health care multidisciplinary network for the management of patients with primary liver tumors in Sicily. Conclusions: The coexistence of two diseases (HCC and cirrhosis) requires the expertise of many physicians to provide optimal care to patients with HCC. Treatment decisions should be discussed in multidisciplinary meetings, as no single treatment strategy can be applied to all patients, and treatment must be individualized to improve overall survival of patients with liver tumors.

Utility of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio to identify long-term survivors among HCC patients treated with sorafenib.

Sorafenib is the first multikinase inhibitor demonstrating a survival benefit for patients suffering from advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, 1 issue remains open: what is the factor able to predict which patients will be long survivors?In the present study, we harnessed the potential of conditional survival, aiming at estimating the probability that a patient receiving sorafenib survives for more than 3 years.The present multicentric study was conducted on a cohort of 438 HCC patients. The primary end point was conditional overall survival. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to calculate conditional overall survival probabilities at 3 years.The 3-year conditional survival of patients without disease progression highlights that NLR and ECOG are the factors that most accurately predict the probability of long survival. The 3-year conditional survival of patients with disease progression showed a medium effect size for HCV status, alpha-fetoprotein and NLR at all time-points. Macro-vascular portal vein invasion, extra hepatic disease, and BCLC we have a large effect size at 6 months and a medium effect size at 12 and 24 months.Our findings support the use of baseline NLR for the identification of patients with a higher probability of long-survival. NLR should be used as a stratification factor in the forthcoming clinical trials on the drugs for the advanced HCC now in pipeline.

The role of PNI to predict survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with Sorafenib.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The present study aims to investigate the role of the prognostic nutritional index (PNI) on survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib. METHODS: This multicentric study included a training cohort of 194 HCC patients and three external validation cohorts of 129, 76 and 265 HCC patients treated with Sorafenib, respectively. The PNI was calculated as follows: 10 × serum albumin (g/dL) + 0.005 × total lymphocyte count (per mm3). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to investigate the association between the covariates and the overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A PNI cut-off value of 31.3 was established using the ROC analysis. In the training cohort, the median OS was 14.8 months (95% CI 12-76.3) and 6.8 months (95% CI 2.7-24.6) for patients with a high (>31.3) and low (<31.3) PNI, respectively. At both the univariate and the multivariate analysis, low PNI value (p = 0.0004), a 1-unit increase of aspartate aminotransferase (p = 0.0001), and age > 70 years (p< 0.0038) were independent prognostic factors for OS. By performing the same multivariate analysis of the training cohort, the PNI <31.3 versus >31.3 was found to be an independent prognostic factor for predicting OS in all the three validation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: PNI represents a prognostic tool in advanced HCC treated with first-line Sorafenib. It is readily available and low-cost, and it could be implemented in clinical practice in patients with HCC.

Outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib: a meta-analysis of Phase III trials.

Aim: To benchmark overall survival (OS) and time to radiological progression (TTP) of patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma using individual participant survival data, and to meta-analyze prognostic factors for OS and TTP. Methods: RCTs were identified through literature search until December 2018. Individual participant survival was reconstructed with an algorithm from published Kaplan-Meier curves. Results: Ten RCTs were included. Median OS was 10.0 months (95% CI: 9.6-10.5), and median TTP was 4.1 months (95% CI: 3.8-4.3). Multivariable analyses showed HCV positivity, absence of macrovascular invasion and extra-hepatic disease as predictors of longer OS. Conclusion: We provided a benchmark for future studies on sorafenib. The present results can be used in the decision making for the early shift to second-line strategy.

Ten years of sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma: Are there any predictive and/or prognostic markers?

Sorafenib has been considered the standard of care for patients with advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) since 2007 and numerous studies have investigated the role of markers involved in the angiogenesis process at both the expression and genetic level and clinical aspect. What results have ten years of research produced? Several clinical and biological markers are associated with prognosis. The most interesting clinical parameters are adverse events, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage, and macroscopic vascular invasion, while several single nucleotide polymorphisms and plasma angiopoietin-2 levels represent the most promising biological biomarkers. A recent pooled analysis of two phase III randomized trials showed that the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, etiology and extra-hepatic spread are predictive factors of response to sorafenib, but did not identify any predictive biological markers. After 10 years of research into sorafenib there are still no validated prognostic or predictive factors of response to the drug in HCC. The aim of the present review was to summarize 10 years of research into sorafenib, looking in particular at the potential of associated clinical and biological markers to predict its efficacy in patients with advanced HCC.

Clinical outcomes with long-term sorafenib treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter real-life study.

AIM: This multicenter field-practice study evaluates outcomes of long-term sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. METHODS: Consecutive HCC patients on sorafenib were enrolled. We evaluated those receiving sorafenib for ≥12 months. RESULTS: Out of 800 patients on sorafenib, 81 (10%) received long-term treatment. Median duration of treatment was 22.7 months (range: 12.3-92.6). Only 21 (26%) reported grade 3/4 adverse events. Complete response was reported in 11 patients (14%). Median overall survival was 34.8 months (95% CI: 29.9-44.3). Only baseline Child-Pugh class was associated with survival. CONCLUSION: Sorafenib could result in long-term control of HCC in a relevant proportion of patients. Given the availability of regorafenib in the second-line setting, an earlier introduction of systemic therapy may be considered according to clinical indications.

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.

Curative therapies are superior to standard of care (transarterial chemoembolization) for intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer intermediate stage (BCLC-B) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) includes extremely heterogeneous patients in terms of tumour burden and liver function. Transarterial-chemoembolization (TACE) is the first-line treatment for these patients although it may be risky/useless for someone, while others could undergo curative treatments. This study assesses the treatment type performed in a large cohort of BCLC-B patients and its outcome. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 485 consecutive BCLC-B patients from the ITA.LI.CA database diagnosed with naïve HCC after 1999. Patients were stratified by treatment. RESULTS: 29 patients (6%) were lost to follow-up before receiving treatment. Treatment distribution was: TACE (233, 51.1%), curative treatments (145 patients, 31.8%), sorafenib (18, 3.9%), other (39, 8.5%), best supportive care (BSC) (21, 4.6%). Median survival (95% CI) was 45 months (37.4-52.7) for curative treatments, 30 (24.7-35.3) for TACE, 14 (10.5-17.5) for sorafenib, 14 (5.2-22.7) for other treatments and 10 (6.0-14.2) for BSC (P<.0001). Independent prognosticators were gender and treatment. Curative treatments reduced mortality (HR 0.197, 95%CI: 0.098-0.395) more than TACE (HR 0.408, 95%CI: 0.211-0.789) (P<.0001) as compared with BSC. Propensity score matching confirmed the superiority of curative therapies over TACE. CONCLUSIONS: In everyday practice TACE represents the first-line therapy in an half of patients with naïve BCLC-B HCC since treatment choice is driven not only by liver function and nodule characteristics, but also by contraindications to procedures, comorbidities, age and patient opinion. The treatment type is an independent prognostic factor in BCLC-B patients and curative options offer the best outcome.

Sorafenib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Randomized Controlled Trials to Clinical Practice.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is a challenging malignancy of global importance. It is the sixth most common solid malignancy and the third leading cause of cancer-related death, worldwide. Curative treatments at early stages include liver transplantation, resection and percutaneous ablation, while transarterial chemoembolization can improve survival in patients with intermediate tumor stage. Patients with mild, related symptoms and/or macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic spread are classified under the advanced stage. The standard of care in this group is sorafenib, an inhibitor of Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, whose effectiveness has been proven by 2 recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The aim of this brief review is to highlight the main concerns and pitfalls and to analyze the recent data of literature regarding the efficacy and the management of sorafenib therapy from RCTs to real practice.

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.

Survival of patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Data on survival and safety of sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplant are still equivocal. AIM: We performed a meta-analysis of published studies, with the aim of estimating the 1-year rates of survival, analysing the variability in survival rates and, finally, identifying the factors associated with a longer survival. METHODS: Data from 8 of the 17 selected studies were pooled, while the other 9 were excluded because survival rates were missing. All included studies were retrospective. RESULTS: Overall, the 1-year survival ranged from 18% to 90%. Tumour progression was the main cause of death. The second cause was bleeding, reported only in patients undergoing m-Tor inhibitor therapy. The pooled estimate of 1-year survival was 63%. There was a significant heterogeneity among studies (P < 0.0001). Among the 34 variables assessed by univariate meta-regression, 5 were associated with an increase in the 1-year survival rate: (1) male gender (P = 0.001); (2) Time to progression (P = 0.038); and adverse drug events, divided in (3) gastrointestinal (P = 0.038), (4) cardiovascular (P = 0.029), and (5) dermatological (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Additional data from multicentre prospective studies are required to clearly determine if sorafenib is a safe and acceptable treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma recurrence after liver transplant. Nevertheless, its association with m-Tor inhibitors should be discouraged.

Personalized cost-effectiveness of boceprevir-based triple therapy for untreated patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the cost-effectiveness of boceprevir-based triple therapy compared to peginterferon alpha and ribavirin dual therapy in untreated patients with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C; patients were discriminated according to the combination of baseline plus on-treatment predictors of boceprevir-based triple therapy. METHODS: Cost-effectiveness analysis performed according to data from the available published literature. The target population was composed of untreated Caucasian patients, aged 50 years, with genotype 1 chronic hepatitis C, and these were evaluated over a lifetime horizon by Markov model. The study was carried out from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service. Outcomes included discounted costs (in euro, at 2013 value), life-years gained, quality-adjusted life year, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The robustness of the results was evaluated by multivariable probabilistic sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: According to the baseline predictors of sustained virological response (genotype 1b, low viral load, fibrosis F0-F3, and body mass index) and the 1Log drop of HCV-RNA after the dual therapy lead-in period, boceprevir was cost-effective in different patient profiles. CONCLUSIONS: In untreated genotype 1b chronic hepatitis C patients, the cost-effectiveness of boceprevir-based triple therapy widely ranges according to different profiles of sustained virological response predictors, allowing optimization and personalization of triple therapy.

Transarterial chemoembolization and sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is considered as the standard therapy for patients with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. However, given the high heterogeneity of this population, no common strategy or protocol standardization has been defined yet. In the last few years TACE treatment has been combined with sorafenib systemic therapy, reporting overall positive results both in terms of safety and efficacy. This systematic review presents and critically discusses the evidence available on the use of TACE in combination (concomitant or sequential) with sorafenib, focusing also on clinical trials currently ongoing to better define an optimal therapeutic strategy for this group of patients.

Hepatocellular carcinoma enhancement on contrast-enhanced CT and MR imaging: response assessment after treatment with sorafenib: preliminary results.

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to compare response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) 1.1 and modified RECIST (mRECIST) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on sorafenib, and to describe HCC enhancement changes before and after sorafenib treatment. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Seventeen patients (12 men, 5 women; mean age 69 years; age range 58-79 years) were included. Tumour response was assessed according to RECIST and mRECIST. Two readers placed a region of interest (ROI) within each target lesion, on the portion showing enhancement during the arterial phase. The lesion attenuation values measured within the ROIs on computed tomography or the signal intensity measured on magnetic resonance imaging, during the unenhanced phase, hepatic arterial phase and venous phase were recorded. Changes in arterial and venous contrast enhancement before and after treatment were compared among the mRECIST groups using Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Agreement between mRECIST and RECIST was good (Cohen's k coefficient, 0.791). Patients with partial response had a greater decrease in arterial enhancement (-79.8%) than did patients with stable disease (SD) (-24.8%; p = 0.011) or progressive disease (PD) (-32.9%; p = 0.034). No statistically significant difference in arterial enhancement variation was found among patients with SD and PD. No statistically significant difference in venous enhancement was found among the mRECIST groups. CONCLUSIONS: mRECIST showed a more favourable response compared to RECIST 1.1 in patients with unresectable HCC receiving sorafenib.

Is the efficacy of sorafenib treatment in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma affected by age?

Cancer is a prevalent disease in the elderly population and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major health problem among all tumors. Curative treatments for early-stage include liver transplantation, resection and percutaneous ablation. Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and sorafenib, classified as non-curative treatments, can improve survival for patients with intermediate and advanced tumors, respectively. Even if the incidence of HCC progressively increases with advanced age in all populations, reaching a peak at 70 years, few reports concerning correct management of HCC in elderly patients exist. Moreover, data from large randomized controlled trials (RCT) poorly reflect the elderly population that is often quantitatively and qualitatively underrepresented, as a result of the presence of tight enrolment criteria. The aim of this brief review is to highlight the main concerns, pitfalls and warnings regarding the management of HCC in elderly patients, with particular focus on systemic therapy with sorafenib.

Cost-effectiveness of sorafenib treatment in field practice for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

UNLABELLED: The purpose was to assess the cost-effectiveness of sorafenib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients incorporating current prices and the results of the recent published field practice SOraFenib Italian Assessment (SOFIA) study. We created a Markov Decision Model to evaluate, in a hypothetical cohort of Caucasian male patients, aged 67 years with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) C HCC, or BCLC B HCC who were unfit or failed to respond to locoregional therapies, well compensated cirrhosis, and with performance status 0-1 according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), the cost-effectiveness of the following strategies: (1) full or dose-adjusted sorafenib for BCLC B and C patients together; (2) full or dose-adjusted sorafenib for BCLC B patients; (3) full or dose-adjusted sorafenib for BCLC C patients. Outcomes include quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). In the base-case analysis dose-adjusted sorafenib was the most effective of the evaluated strategies. For dose-adjusted sorafenib, QALY was 0.44 for BCLC B and C patients together, 0.44 for BCLC C patients, and 0.38 for BCLC B patients. The ICER of dose-adjusted sorafenib compared with BSC was €34,534 per QALY gained for BCLC B and C patients together, €27,916 per QALY gained for BCLC C patients, and €54,881 per QALY gained for BCLC B patients. Results were sensitive to BSC survival rate, and sorafenib treatment duration. CONCLUSION: In daily practice dose-adjusted, but not full-dose, sorafenib is a cost-effective treatment compared to BSC in intermediate and advanced HCC.