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

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

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.