Recommended 10-Year Follow-Up Strategy for Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Radiofrequency Ablation: A Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: An optimal follow-up schedule for small (≤3-cm) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) remains unclear in clinical guidelines. We aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of follow-up strategies in patients with small HCC after RFA. METHODS: In total, 11,243 patients were collected from global institutions to calculate recurrence rates. Subsequently, a Markov model covering a 10-year period was developed to compare 25 surveillance strategies involving different surveillance techniques (computed tomography [CT], magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasonography [US], and α-fetoprotein [AFP]) and intervals (3 or 6 months). The study endpoint was incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which represented additional cost per incremental quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by varying the values of input parameters to observe the ICER. RESULTS: In a base case analysis, the dominant strategy was CT every 3 months during an initial 2 years, followed by semiannual CT, and then switch to biannual the combination of US screening and AFP testing after 5 years (m3_CT-m6_CT-m6_USAFP), with an ICER of $68,570.92 compared with the "not followed" strategy. One-way sensitivity analysis showed the ICER consistently remained below the willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000.00. In a probabilistic sensitivity analysis, m3_CT-m6_CT-m6_USAFP was the most cost-effective approach in 95.6% of simulated scenarios at a willingness-to-pay threshold. DISCUSSION: For small HCC after RFA, the recommended follow-up strategy is CT, with scans scheduled every 3 months for the first 2 years, every 6 months thereafter, and transition to biannual the combination of US screening and AFP testing after 5 years.

Hepatic arterial infusion therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after systemic treatment failure: Multicenter, real-world study.

AIM: The study was conducted to evaluate the feasibility and safety profile of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy with oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin (HAIC-FOLFOX) as an alternative therapeutic choice for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that is refractory to systemic treatment including immune checkpoint blockades or molecular targeting agents. METHODS: Two hundred and forty five consecutive patients with advanced HCC who received HAIC-FOLFOX treatment after systemic treatment failure were retrospectively reviewed in six institutions and their survival, tumor response, and tolerance were assessed. RESULTS: The median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival of the 209 included participants were 10.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.1-12.9) and 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1-6.9), respectively. According to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 criteria, the objective response rate was 21.1%, and the disease control rate was 64.6%. Multivariate analysis of risk factors of OS were albumin-bilirubin grade (2 and 3 vs. 1, hazard ratio [HR] 1.57; 95% CI, 1.05-2.34; p = 0.028), tumor number (>3 vs. 1-3, HR 2.18; 95% CI, 1.10-4.34; p = 0.026), extrahepatic spread (present vs. absent, HR 1.61, 95% CI, 1.06-2.45; p = 0.027), synchronous systemic treatment (present vs. absent, HR 0.55, 95% CI, 0.37-0.83; p = 0.004) and treatment response (responder vs. nonresponder, HR 0.30, 95% CI, 0.17-0.53; p < 0.001). Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 59 (28.2%) HCC patients. All AEs were manageable, and deaths related to hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy treatment were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the effectiveness and safety of HAIC-FOLFOX treatment for patients with advanced HCC who have failed systemic treatment.

Additional Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy to Sorafenib Was Cost-Effective for Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Major Portal Vein Tumor Thrombosis.

Purpose: The combination of sorafenib and hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (SoHAIC) has shown to enhance overall survival rates in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and major portal vein tumor thrombosis (HCC-Vp3-4) compared to sorafenib alone. Our objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of SoHAIC versus sorafenib for the treatment of HCC-Vp3-4, taking into account the viewpoint of Chinese healthcare payers. Methods: This pharmacoeconomic study employed a Markov model to assess the cost-effectiveness of treating HCC-Vp3-4 with SoHAIC in comparison to sorafenib. The patient characteristics were drawn from individuals from the trial conducted between June 2017 and November 2019, with cost and health value data sourced from published literature. The primary outcome measure in this research was the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), which indicates the additional cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold per QALY was set at $30,492.00. Furthermore, 1-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were carried out to validate the consistency of the results. Results: In the baseline scenario, sorafenib resulted in 0.42 QALY at a cost of $10,507.89, while SoHAIC generated 1.66 QALY at a cost of $32,971.56. When comparing SoHAIC to sorafenib, the ICER was $18,237.20 per QALY, which was below the WTP threshold per QALY. Furthermore, the 1-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the ICER remained within the WTP threshold despite fluctuations in variables. In the probabilistic sensitivity analysis, SoHAIC had a 98.8% probability of being cost-effective at the WTP threshold, considering a wide range of parameters. Conclusion: In this cost-effectiveness evaluation, SoHAIC demonstrated cost-effectiveness over sorafenib for HCC with major portal vein tumor thrombosis, as observed from the perspective of a Chinese payer.

Arterial chemotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma in China: consensus recommendations.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common malignancies and the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths globally. Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) treatment is widely accepted as one of the alternative therapeutic modalities for HCC owing to its local control effect and low systemic toxicity. Nevertheless, although accumulating high-quality evidence has displayed the superior survival advantages of HAIC of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (HAIC-FOLFOX) compared with standard first-line treatment in different scenarios, the lack of standardization for HAIC procedure and remained controversy limited the proper and safe performance of HAIC treatment in HCC. Therefore, an expert consensus conference was held on March 2023 in Guangzhou, China to review current practices regarding HAIC treatment in patients with HCC and develop widely accepted statements and recommendations. In this article, the latest evidence of HAIC was systematically summarized and the final 22 expert recommendations were proposed, which incorporate the assessment of candidates for HAIC treatment, procedural technique details, therapeutic outcomes, the HAIC-related complications and corresponding treatments, and therapeutic scheme management.

Immunotherapy in older patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common types of cancer globally and is currently the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Recently, immunotherapy using immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been shown with encouraging anticancer activity and safety in clinical trials. To reverse the phenomenon of tumours evading immune response, ICIs can be used to stimulate the natural antitumour potential of cancer cells by blocking the relevant checkpoints to activate T cells. However, the components and functions of the immune system may undergo a series of changes with ageing, known as 'immunosenescence,' potentially affecting the antitumour effect and safety of immunotherapy. In the current phase III clinical trials of ICIs including nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, the proportion of patients with HCC older than 65 years in CheckMate 459, KEYNOTE-240 and IMbrave150 is 51%, 58% and 50%, respectively, which is less than 70%-73% of epidemiological investigation. Therefore, the elderly population recruited in clinical trials may not accurately represent the real-world elderly patients with HCC, which affects the extrapolation of the efficacy and safety profile obtained in clinical trials to the elderly population in the real world. This review provides the latest advances in ICIs immuno-treatment available for HCC and relevant information about their therapeutic effects and safety on elderly patients. We discuss the benefits of ICIs for older HCC patients, and relevant recommendations about conducting further clinical trials are proposed for more complete answers to this clinical issue.