Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Pick the Winner-Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Versus Immuno-oncology Agent-Based Combinations.

The treatment landscape for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma has changed dramatically over the past 4 years. We now have numerous options for patients in frontline, second-line, and beyond. The most significant impact has been the introduction of immunotherapy into our treatment paradigms. We now have regimens that induce consistent double-digit objective response rates and markedly improve overall survival (OS) with favorable side effect profiles. The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has demonstrated that the combination of targeting programmed death-ligand 1 and the vascular endothelial growth factor axis can improve outcomes versus sorafenib in the IMBrave150 study. Results from the COSMIC-312 study evaluating the multikinase vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, hepatocyte growth factor receptor, and AXL tyrosine kinase receptor inhibitor cabozantinib in combination with atezolizumab improved progression-free survival versus sorafenib, but at this time, there is no improvement in OS and response rates were lower than expected. Additional data with similar combinations are awaited on the basis of encouraging early-phase data. In addition, the combination of cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 and programmed cell death-1/programmed death-ligand 1 targeting is yielding similar promising early results, and the phase III HIMALAYA study met its primary end points of improving OS versus sorafenib for durvalumab plus tremelimumab and demonstrated noninferiority for single-agent durvalumab as well. However, this combination did not improve progression-free survival and objective response rates with this combination did not seem significantly different from that with single-agent durvalumab. Although there are still knowledge gaps in this rapidly changing landscape, we will address some of the important questions relevant to making therapeutic decisions in the management of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the modern era on the basis of our current knowledge of the safety and efficacy of these evolving regimens. The goal is to provide clinicians with the knowledge needed to optimize outcomes for their patients.

Making National Cancer Institute-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center Knowledge Accessible to Community Oncologists via an Online Tumor Board: Longitudinal Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Expert knowledge is often shared among multidisciplinary academic teams at tumor boards (TBs) across the country, but these conversations exist in silos and do not reach the wider oncology community. OBJECTIVE: Using an oncologist-only question and answer (Q&A) website, we sought to document expert insights from TBs at National Cancer Institute-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (NCI-CCCs) to provide educational benefits to the oncology community. METHODS: We designed a process with the NCI-CCCs to document and share discussions from the TBs focused on areas of practice variation on theMednet, an interactive Q&A website of over 13,000 US oncologists. The faculty translated the TB discussions into concise, non-case-based Q&As on theMednet. Answers were peer reviewed and disseminated in email newsletters to registered oncologists. Reach and engagement were measured. Following each Q&A, a survey question asked how the TB Q&As impacted the readers' practice. RESULTS: A total of 23 breast, thoracic, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary programs from 16 NCI-CCC sites participated. Between December 2016 and July 2021, the faculty highlighted 368 questions from their TBs. Q&As were viewed 147,661 times by 7381 oncologists at 3515 institutions from all 50 states. A total of 277 (75%) Q&As were viewed every month. Of the 1063 responses to a survey question on how the Q&A affected clinicians' practices, 646 (61%) reported that it confirmed their current practice, 163 (20%) indicated that a Q&A would change their future practice, and 214 (15%) reported learning something new. CONCLUSIONS: Through an online Q&A platform, academics at the NCI-CCCs share knowledge outside the walls of academia with oncologists across the United States. Access to up-to-date expert knowledge can reassure clinicians' practices, significantly impact patient care in community practices, and be a source of new knowledge and education.