Disease Etiology Impact on Outcomes of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab: A Real-World, Multicenter Study.

Introduction: The impact of etiology on response to immunotherapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is being debated, with contrasting findings between early and recent post hoc analyses of IMbrave-150 and metanalyses of clinical trials of PD-1/PD-L1 blockers. As a results, it is not clear whether the first-line systemic treatment atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B) is equally effective in viral and nonviral patients. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 885 HCC patients treated with the first-line A + B from multiple centers from Eastern and Western countries, 53.9% having viral and 46.1% nonviral etiology. Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics were analyzed with uni- and multivariate models to explore potential differences on overall survival (OS), time-to-progression (TTP), disease control rates (DCRs) based on etiology and to identify putative prognostic factors in etiology subgroups. Treatment toxicities and access to the second-line treatments and outcomes were also reported and compared between etiologies. Results: Overall, no statistically significant differences were found in median OS (mOS: viral 15.9 months; nonviral 16.3 months), TTP (mTTP: viral 8.3 months; nonviral 7.2 months), and DCRs (viral 78.1%; nonviral 80.8%) based on etiology. Prognostic factors of survival and progression were mainly shared between viral and nonviral etiologies, including alpha-fetoprotein, aspartate transaminase, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and ALBI score. Exploratory analyses highlighted a possible stronger association of immunological factors, i.e., NLR and eosinophil count, to treatment outcomes in viral patients. The toxicity profile, the access to and type of the second-line treatments and their outcome in terms of OS almost overlap in the two etiology subgroups. Conclusion: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab efficacy does not vary according to underlying etiology of HCC in a multicenter, real-world population, matching recent post hoc findings from the IMbrave-150 trial. Preliminary analyses suggest that some prognostic factors differ between viral and nonviral patients, potentially due to biological and immunological differences. Prospective and comparative trials stratifying by etiology are warranted to validate these findings and guide clinical practice.

Palliative care in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Results from a survey among hepatologists and palliative care physicians.

BACKGROUND: Delays and limitations of palliative care in patients with liver transplantation-ineligible end-stage hepatocellular carcinoma according to Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system may be explained by different perceptions between hepatologists and palliative care physicians in the absence of shared guidelines. AIM: To assess physicians' attitudes toward palliative care in end-stage hepatocellular carcinoma and to understand what the obstacles are to more effective management and co-shared between palliative care physicians and hepatologists. DESIGN: Members of the Italian Association for the Study of Liver Disease and the Italian Society of Palliative Care were invited to a web-based survey to investigate practical management attitude for patients with liver transplant-ineligible end-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. PARTICIPANTS: Physician members of the of the two associations, representing several hospitals and services in the country. RESULTS: Ninety-seven hepatologists and 70 palliative care physicians completed the survey: >80% regularly follow 1-19 patients; 58% of hepatologists collaborate with palliative care physicians in the management of patients, 55% of palliative care physicians take care of patients without the aid of hepatologists. Management of cirrhosis differed significantly between the two groups in terms of prescription of albumin, esophagogastroduodenoscopy, anti-viral treatment, anticoagulation, indication to paracentesis and management of encephalopathy. Full-dose acetaminophen is widely used among hepatologists, while opioids are commonly used by both categories, at full dosage, regardless of liver function. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights significant differences in the approach to patients with liver transplantation-ineligible end-stage hepatocellular carcinoma, reinforcing the need for shared guidelines and further studies on palliative care in the setting.

What is the benefit of prophylaxis to prevent HBV reactivation in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients? Meta-analysis and decision curve analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with overt or occult hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection receiving immunosuppressive treatments have a wide risk of HBV reactivation (HBVr). We performed meta-analysis with decision curve analyses (DCA) to estimate the risk of HBVr in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients naïve to nucleos(t)ide analogues (NAs) receiving immunosuppressive treatments. APPROACH AND RESULTS: Studies were identified through literature search until October 2022. Pooled estimates were obtained using random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed according to underlying disease and immunosuppressive treatments. DCA was used to identify the threshold probability associated with the net benefit of antiviral prophylaxis in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients. We selected 68 studies (40 retrospective and 28 prospective), including 8034 patients with HBsAg negative anti-HBc positive. HBVr was 4% (95% CI 3%-6%) in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients, with a significantly high heterogeneity (I2 69%; p < .01). The number-needed-to-treat (NNT) by DCA ranged from 8 to 24 for chemotherapy plus rituximab, from 12 to 24 for targeted therapies in cancer patients and from 13 to 39 for immune-mediated diseases. Net benefit was small for monoclonal antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Our DCA in HBsAg-negative anti-HBc-positive patients provided evidence that NA prophylaxis is strongly recommended in patients treated with chemotherapy combined with rituximab and could be appropriate in patients with cancer treated with targeted therapies and in patients with immune-mediated diseases. Finally, in patients with cancer treated with monoclonal antibodies or with chemotherapy without rituximab, the net benefit is even lower.

Impact of metformin, statin, aspirin and insulin on the prognosis of uHCC patients receiving first line Lenvatinib or Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab.

Recently, in Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) setting, the use of metformin has been associated to a trend toward worse response rate, overall survival and progression free survival in patients who received immunotherapy. The study population included individuals from both Eastern and Western regions with a confirmed diagnosis of HCC and receiving first line treatment with Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or Lenvatinib. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed by Cox proportional. For the analysis, patients were stratified based on their use of concomitant medication or not. At the time of database lock, 319 deaths were observed: 209 in the Lenvatinib cohort, 110 in the Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab cohort. In the Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab arm, 50 (16.5%) patients were on chronic metformin use. At the univariate analysis for OS, patients who used metformin showed significantly shorter OS compared to patients who did not use metformin (HR 1.9, 95% CI 1.1-3.2). Multivariate analysis confirmed that patients in metformin group had significantly shorter OS compared to patients in no-metformin group (HR 1.9; 95% CI 1.1-3.1). At the univariate analysis for PFS, patients in metformin group had significantly shorter PFS compared to patients in no-metformin group (HR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0-2.6). Multivariate analysis confirmed that patients in metformin group had significantly shorter PFS compared to patients in no-metformin group (HR 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.7; p = 0.0147). No differences were reported in terms of ORR and DCR between patients in metformin group and those in no-metformin group. In the Lenvatinib cohort, 65 (15%) patients were recorded to chronically use metformin. No statistically significant differences in terms of both OS and PFS were found between patients in metformin group and patients in no-metformin group. This analysis unveils a negative prognostic role associated with metformin use specifically within the Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab group.

Hepatic decompensation is the major driver of mortality in patients with HCC treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab: The impact of successful antiviral treatment.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Unlike other malignancies, hepatic functional reserve competes with tumor progression in determining the risk of mortality from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the relative contribution of hepatic decompensation over tumor progression in influencing overall survival (OS) has not been assessed in combination immunotherapy recipients. APPROACH AND RESULTS: From the AB-real observational study (n = 898), we accrued 571 patients with advanced/unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, Child-Pugh A class treated with frontline atezolizumab + bevacizumab (AB). Hepatic decompensation and tumor progression during follow-up were studied in relationship to patients' OS using a time-dependent Cox model. Baseline characteristics were evaluated as predictors of decompensation in competing risks analysis. During a median follow-up of 11.0 months (95% CI: 5.1-19.7), 293 patients (51.3%) developed tumor progression without decompensation, and 94 (16.5%) developed decompensation. In multivariable time-dependent analysis, decompensation (HR: 19.04, 95% CI: 9.75-37.19), hepatocellular carcinoma progression (HR: 9.91, 95% CI: 5.85-16.78), albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 2/3 (HR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.69-2.77), and number of nodules >3(HR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.28-2.08) were independently associated with OS. Pretreatment ALBI grade 2/3 (subdistribution hazard ratio [sHR]: 3.35, 95% CI: 1.98-5.67) was independently associated with decompensation, whereas viral etiology was protective (sHR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.34-0.87). Among patients with viral etiology, effective antiviral treatment was significantly associated with a lower risk of decompensation (sHR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25-0.93). CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic decompensation identifies patients with the worst prognosis following AB and is more common in patients with baseline ALBI >1 and nonviral etiology. Effective antiviral treatment may protect from decompensation, highlighting the prognostic disadvantage of patients with nonviral etiologies and the importance of multidisciplinary management to maximize OS.

EASL position paper on clinical follow-up after HCV cure.

Following the advent of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs), hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection can be cured in almost all infected patients. This has led to a number of clinical questions regarding the optimal management of the millions of patients cured of HCV. This position statement provides specific guidance on the appropriate follow-up after a sustained virological response in patients without advanced fibrosis, those with compensated advanced chronic liver disease, and those with decompensated cirrhosis. Guidance on hepatocellular carcinoma risk assessment and the management of extrahepatic manifestations of HCV is also provided. Finally, guidance is provided on the monitoring and treatment of reinfection in at-risk patients. The recommendations are based on the best available evidence and are intended to help healthcare professionals involved in the management of patients after treatment for HCV.

Balancing Efficacy and Tolerability of First-Line Systemic Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Network Meta-Analysis.

Background: Atezolizumab + bevacizumab represent the current standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, direct comparison with other combination treatments including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) + tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are lacking. Objectives: This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to indirectly compare the efficacy and the safety of first-line systemic therapies for unresectable advanced HCC. Method: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and SCOPUS databases was conducted up to October 31, 2022. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing TKIs, including sorafenib and lenvatinib, or ICIs reporting overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were included. Individual survival data were extracted from OS and PFS curves to calculate restricted mean survival time. A Bayesian NMA was performed to compare treatments in terms of efficacy (15- and 30-month OS, 6-month PFS) and safety, represented by grade ≥3 (severe) adverse events (SAEs). The incremental safety-effectiveness ratio as measure of net health benefit was calculated as the difference in SAE probability divided by survival difference between the 2 most effective treatments. Results: Nine RCTs enrolling 6,600 patients were included. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed the highest probability (88%) of achieving the 30-month OS landmark. Lenvatinib showed a probability of 86% of achieving best PFS outcomes. ICI monotherapies ranked as most tolerable. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed the best net health benefit for OS, compared to durvalumab plus tremelimumab. When evaluating the net health benefit for PFS, at a willingness-to-risk threshold of 10% of SAEs for life-month gained, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was favoured in 78% of cases, while at threshold of 30% of SAEs for life-month gained, lenvatinib was favoured in 76% of cases. Conclusions: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is the best treatment in terms of net benefit and therefore it should be recommended as standard of care. Compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib monotherapy had the best net benefit for PFS when physicians and patients are available to accept a higher risk of toxicity.

Liver Resection vs Nonsurgical Treatments for Patients With Early Multinodular Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Importance: The 2022 Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer algorithm currently discourages liver resection (LR) for patients with multinodular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) presenting with 2 or 3 nodules that are each 3 cm or smaller. Objective: To compare the efficacy of liver resection (LR), percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (PRFA), and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with multinodular HCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study is a retrospective analysis conducted using data from the HE.RC.O.LE.S register (n = 5331) for LR patients and the ITA.LI.CA database (n = 7056) for PRFA and TACE patients. A matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) method was applied to balance data and potential confounding factors between the 3 groups. Included were patients from multiple centers from 2008 to 2020; data were analyzed from January to December 2023. Interventions: LR, PRFA, or TACE. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival rates at 1, 3, and 5 years were calculated. Cox MAIC-weighted multivariable analysis and competing risk analysis were used to assess outcomes. Results: A total of 720 patients with early multinodular HCC were included, 543 males (75.4%), 177 females (24.6%), and 350 individuals older than 70 years (48.6%). There were 296 patients in the LR group, 240 who underwent PRFA, and 184 who underwent TACE. After MAIC, LR exhibited 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates of 89.11%, 70.98%, and 56.44%, respectively. PRFA showed rates of 94.01%, 65.20%, and 39.93%, while TACE displayed rates of 90.88%, 48.95%, and 29.24%. Multivariable Cox survival analysis in the weighted population showed a survival benefit over alternative treatments (PRFA vs LR: hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.07-1.86; P = .01; TACE vs LR: HR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.29-2.68; P = .001). Competing risk analysis confirmed a lower risk of cancer-related death in LR compared with PRFA and TACE. Conclusions and Relevance: For patients with early multinodular HCC who are ineligible for transplant, LR should be prioritized as the primary therapeutic option, followed by PRFA and TACE when LR is not feasible. These findings provide valuable insights for clinical decision-making in this patient population.

Adverse Events as Potential Predictive Factors of Activity in Patients with Advanced HCC Treated with Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab.

BACKGROUND: In the context of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with systemic therapy, the correlation between the appearance of adverse events (AEs) and reported efficacy outcomes is well-known and widely investigated. From other pathological settings, we are aware of the prognostic and predictive value of the occurrence of immune-related AEs in patients treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors. OBJECTIVE: This retrospective multicenter real-world study aims to investigate the potential prognostic value of AEs in patients with HCC treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in the first-line setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 823 patients from five countries (Italy, Germany, Portugal, Japan, and the Republic of Korea). RESULTS: Of the patients, 73.3% presented at least one AE during the study period. The most common AEs were proteinuria (29.6%), arterial hypertension (27.2%), and fatigue (26.0%). In all, 17.3% of the AEs were grade (G) 3. One death due to bleeding was reported. The multivariate analysis confirmed the appearance of decreased appetite G < 2 [versus G ≥ 2; hazard ratio (HR) 0.60; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13-0.90; p < 0.01] and immunotoxicity G < 2 (versus G ≥ 2; HR: 0.70; 95% CI 0.24-0.99; p = 0.04) as independent prognostic factors for overall survival, and the appearance of decreased appetite G < 2 (versus G ≥ 2; HR: 0.73; 95% CI 0.43-0.95; p = 0.01), diarrhea (yes versus no; HR: 0.57, 95% CI 0.38-0.85; p = 0.01), fatigue (yes versus no; HR: 0.82, 95% CI 0.65-0.95; p < 0.01), arterial hypertension G < 2 (versus G ≥ 2; HR: 0.68, 95% CI 0.52-0.87; p < 0.01), and proteinuria (yes versus no; HR: 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.98; p = 0.03) as independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: As demonstrated for other therapies, there is also a correlation between the occurrence of AEs and outcomes for patients with HCC for the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Prediction of cardiovascular risk in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving anti-angiogenic drugs: lessons from sorafenib.

Antiangiogenics are associated with an increased risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACE). The identification of at-risk subjects is relevant in the case of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), for which anti-angiogenic TKIs and bevacizumab are used in first and subsequent lines of therapy, to select alternative drugs for patients with excessive risk. We verified the ability to predict MACE in sorafenib-treated patients of the 2022 European Society of Cardiology (ESC-2022) score for anti-angiogenics and the recently proposed CARDIOSOR score. A retrospective analysis was conducted of prospectively collected data of the ARPES and ITA.LI.CA databases. All patients received sorafenib for unresectable HCC from 2008 to 2018. Baseline information to calculate the ESC-2022 and CARDIOSOR scores and registration of evolutive events (including MACE) were available for all patients. The predictive ability of both scores was verified using competing risk regressions and tests for goodness of fit. This study included 843 patients (median follow-up 11.3 months). Thirty-four (4.0%) patients presented a MACE. The four-tier ESC-2022 classification showed a progressive risk increase for every class (cumulative risk 1.7%, 2.7%, 4.3%, and 15.0% in the low, medium, high, and high-risk tiers, respectively). The dichotomous CARDIOSOR scale identified a high-risk group with a fourfold increased risk of MACE (sHR 4.66, p = 0.010; cumulative risk 3.8% and 16.4%). ESC-2022 showed a better goodness of fit compared to the CARDIOSOR score [C-index 0.671 (0.583-0.758) vs 0.562 (0.501-0.634), p = 0.021], but this gap was eliminated using the linear version of CARDIOSOR. Both the ESC-2022 and CARDIOSOR scores discriminated patients at increased risk for MACE. The use of these scores in clinical practice should be encouraged, since therapeutic measures can mitigate the cardiovascular risk.

Characteristics and outcome of anti-hepatitis D virus positive patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Chronic hepatitis D virus (HDV) often leads to end-stage liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Comprehensive data pertaining to large populations with HDV and HCC are missing, therefore we sought to assess the characteristics, management, and outcome of these patients, comparing them to patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. METHODS: We analysed the Italian Liver Cancer database focusing on patients with positivity for HBV surface antigen and anti-HDV antibodies (HBV/HDV, n = 107) and patients with HBV infection alone (n = 588). Clinical and oncological characteristics, treatment, and survival were compared in the two groups. RESULTS: Patients with HBV/HDV had worse liver function [Model for End-stage Liver Disease score: 11 vs. 9, p < .0001; Child-Turcotte-Pugh score: 7 vs. 5, p < .0001] than patients with HBV. HCC was more frequently diagnosed during surveillance (72.9% vs. 52.4%, p = .0002), and the oncological stage was more frequently Milan-in (67.3% vs. 52.7%, p = .005) in patients with HBV/HDV. Liver transplantation was more frequently performed in HBV/HDV than in HBV patients (36.4% vs. 9.5%), while the opposite was observed for resection (8.4% vs. 20.1%, p < .0001), and in a competing risk analysis, HBV/HDV patients had a higher probability of receiving transplantation, independently of liver function and oncological stage. A trend towards longer survival was observed in patients with HBV/HDV (50.4 vs. 44.4 months, p = .106). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HBV/HDV, HCC is diagnosed more frequently during surveillance, resulting in a less advanced cancer stage in patients with more deranged liver function than HBV alone. Patients with HBV/HDV have a heightened benefit from liver transplantation, positively influencing survival.

Sorafenib and Metronomic Capecitabine in Child-Pugh B patients with advanced HCC: A real-life comparison with best supportive care.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The efficacy of systemic therapy for unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) has not been proven in patients with Child-Pugh (C-P) B cirrhosis. Nevertheless, in real-world these patients are treated both with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and with metronomic capecitabine (MC). This study aimed to compare sorafenib and MC outcomes versus best supportive care (BSC) in C-P B patients. METHOD: Between 2008 and 2020, among 774 C-P B patients with aHCC not amenable/responsive to locoregional treatments, 410 underwent sorafenib, 62 MC, and 302 BSC. The propensity score matching method was used to correct the baseline unbalanced prognostic factors. RESULTS: In the unmatched population, median OS was 9.7 months in patients treated with sorafenib, 8.0 with MC, and 3.9 months with BSC. In sorafenib vs. BSC-matched patients (135 couples), median OS was 7.3 (4.9-9.6) vs. 3.9 (2.6-5.2) months (p<0.001). ECOG-Performance Status, tumor size, macrovascular invasion, AFP, treatment-naive, and sorafenib were independent predictors of survival. In MC vs. BSC-matched patients (40 couples), median OS was 9.0 (0.2-17.8) vs.3.0 (2.2-3.8) months (p<0.001). Median OS did not differ (p = 0.283) in sorafenib vs. MC-matched patients (55 couples). CONCLUSION: C-P B patients with aHCC undergoing BSC have poor survival. Both Sorafenib and MC treatment improve their prognosis.

Navigating the landscape of liver cancer management: Study designs in clinical trials and clinical practice.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer death worldwide and its prognosis is highly heterogeneous, being related not only to tumour burden but also to the severity of underlying chronic liver disease. Moreover, advances in systemic therapies for HCC have increased the complexity of patient management. Randomised-controlled trials represent the gold standard for evidence generation across all areas of medicine and especially in the oncology field, as they allow for unbiased estimates of treatment effect without confounders. Observational studies have many problems that could reduce their internal and external validity. However, large prospective (well-conducted) observational real-world studies can detect rare adverse events or monitor the occurrence of long-term adverse events. How best to harness real world data, which refers to data generated from the routine care of patients, and real-world 'evidence', which is the evidence generated from real-world data, represents an open challenge. In this review article, we aim to provide an overview of the benefits and limitations of different study designs, particularly focusing on randomised-controlled trials and observational studies, to address important and not fully resolved questions in HCC research.

Safety and Efficacy of Lenvatinib in Very Old Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Data concerning the use of lenvatinib in very old patients (≥ 80 years) are limited, although the incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in this patient population is constantly increasing. OBJECTIVE: This analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in a large cohort of very old patients (≥ 80 years) with unresectable HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study was conducted on a cohort of 1325 patients from 46 centers in four Western and Eastern countries (Italy, Germany, Japan, and the Republic of Korea) who were undergoing first-line treatment with lenvatinib between July 2010 and February 2022. Patients were stratified according to age as very old (≥ 80 years) and not very old (< 80 years). RESULTS: The median overall survival (OS) was 15.7 months for patients < 80 years old and 18.4 months for patients ≥ 80 years old [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84-1.25, p = 0.8281]. Median progression free survival (PFS) was 6.3 months for patients < 80 years old and 6.5 months for patients ≥ 80 years old (HR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.91-1.25, p = 0.3954). No differences between the two study groups were found in terms of disease control rate (DCR; 80.8% versus 78.8%; p = 0.44) and response rate (RR; 38.2% versus 37.9%; p = 0.88). Patients < 80 years old experienced significantly more hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) grade ≥ 2 and decreased appetite grade ≥ 2. Conversely, patients ≥ 80 years old experienced significantly more fatigue grade ≥ 2. In the very old group, parameters associated with prognosis were AFP, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC), and Child-Pugh score. BCLC stage was the only independent predictor of overall survival (OS; HR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.11-2.29, p = 0.01115). CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the same efficacy and safety of lenvatinib between very old and not very old patients.

Characteristics and outcomes of immunotherapy-related liver injury in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma versus other advanced solid tumours.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Immune-related liver injury (irLI) is commonly observed in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to compare the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of irLI between patients receiving ICIs for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vs. other solid tumours. METHODS: Two separate cohorts were included: 375 patients with advanced/unresectable HCC, Child-Pugh A class treated with first-line atezolizumab+bevacizumab from the AB-real study, and a non-HCC cohort including 459 patients treated with first-line ICI therapy from the INVIDIa-2 multicentre study. IrLI was defined as a treatment-related increase of aminotransferase levels after exclusion of alternative aetiologies of liver injury. The incidence of irLI was adjusted for the duration of treatment exposure. RESULTS: In patients with HCC, the incidence of any grade irLI was 11.4% over a median treatment exposure of 4.4 months (95% CI 3.7-5.2) vs. 2.6% in the INVIDIa-2 cohort over a median treatment exposure of 12.4 months (95% CI 11.1-14.0). Exposure-adjusted-incidence of any grade irLI was 22.1 per 100-patient-years in patients with HCC and 2.1 per 100-patient-years in patients with other solid tumours (p <0.001), with median time-to-irLI of 1.4 and 4.7 months, respectively. Among patients who developed irLI, systemic corticosteroids were administered in 16.3% of patients with HCC and 75.0% of those without HCC (p <0.001), and irLI resolution was observed in 72.1% and 58.3%, respectively (p = 0.362). In patients with HCC, rates of hepatic decompensation and treatment discontinuation due to irLI were 7%. Grade 1-2 irLI was associated with improved overall survival only in patients with HCC (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher incidence and earlier onset, irLI in patients with HCC is characterised by higher rates of remission and lower requirement for corticosteroid therapy (vs. irLI in other solid tumours), low risk of hepatic decompensation and treatment discontinuation, not negatively affecting oncological outcomes. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Immune-related liver injury (irLI) is common in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but whether irLI is more frequent or it is associated with a worse clinical course in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), compared to other tumours, is not known. Herein, we compared characteristics and outcomes of irLI in two prospective cohorts including patients treated with ICIs for HCC or for other oncological indications. irLI is significantly more common and it occurs earlier in patients with HCC, also after adjustment for duration of treatment exposure. However, outcomes of patients with HCC who developed irLI are not negatively affected in terms of requirement for corticosteroid therapy, hepatic decompensation, treatment discontinuation and overall survival.

α-FAtE: A new predictive score of response to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (AB) and lenvatinib can be alternatively used as first-line systemic treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, no direct comparison of the two regimens has been performed in randomized clinical trials, making the identification of baseline differential predictors of response of major relevance to tailor the best therapeutic option to each patient. Baseline clinical and laboratory characteristics of real-world AB-treated HCC patients were analyzed in uni- and multivariate analyses to find potential prognostic factors of overall survival (OS). Significant variables were incorporated in a composite score (α-FAtE) and it was tested for specificity and sensitivity in receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and in multivariate analysis for OS. The score was applied in uni- and multivariate analyses for OS of a comparable lenvatinib-treated HCC population. Finally, comparison between treatments was performed in patients with low and high α-FAtE scores and predictivity estimated by interaction analysis. Time-to-progression (TTP) was a secondary endpoint. OS of AB-treated HCC patients was statistically longer in those with α-fetoprotein <400 ng/mL (HR 0.62, p = .0407), alkaline phosphatase (ALP) <125 IU/L (HR 0.52, p = .0189) and eosinophil count ≥70/µL (HR 0.46, p = .0013). The α-FAtE score was generated by the sum of single points attributed to each variable among the above reported. In ROC curve analysis, superior sensitivity and specificity were achieved by the score compared to individual variables (AUC 0.794, p < .02). Patients with high score had longer OS (HR 0.44, p = .0009) and TTP (HR 0.34, p < .0001) compared to low score if treated with AB, but not with lenvatinib. Overall, AB was superior to lenvatinib in high score patients (HR 0.55, p = .0043) and inferior in low score ones (HR 1.75, p = .0227). At interaction test, low α-FAtE score resulted as negative predictive factor of response to AB (p = .0004). In conclusion, α-FAtE is a novel prognostic and predictive score of response to first-line AB for HCC patients that, if validated in prospective studies, could drive therapeutic choice between lenvatinib and AB.

Multidisciplinary Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in 2023: Italian practice Treatment Guidelines of the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF), Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic Surgery (AICEP), Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (AIGO), Italian Association of Radiology and Clinical Oncology (AIRO), Italian Society of Pathological Anatomy and Diagnostic Cytology (SIAPeC-IAP), Italian Society of Surgery (SIC), Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), Italian Organ Transplant Society (SITO), and Association of Patients with Hepatitis and Liver Disease (EpaC) - Part I - Surgical treatments.

Worldwide, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related death. The remarkable improvements in treating HCC achieved in the last years have increased the complexity of HCC management. Following the need to have updated guidelines on the multidisciplinary treatment management of HCC, the Italian Scientific Societies involved in the management of this cancer have promoted the drafting of a new dedicated document. This document was drawn up according to the GRADE methodology needed to produce guidelines based on evidence. Here is presented the first part of guidelines, focused on the multidisciplinary tumor board of experts and surgical treatments of HCC.

Multidisciplinary treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma in 2023: Italian practice Treatment Guidelines of the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver (AISF), Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Association of Hepato-Bilio-Pancreatic Surgery (AICEP), Italian Association of Hospital Gastroenterologists (AIGO), Italian Association of Radiology and Clinical Oncology (AIRO), Italian Society of Pathological Anatomy and Diagnostic Cytology (SIAPeC-IAP), Italian Society of Surgery (SIC), Italian Society of Gastroenterology (SIGE), Italian Society of Medical and Interventional Radiology (SIRM), Italian Organ Transplant Society (SITO), and Association of Patients with Hepatitis and Liver Disease (EpaC) - Part II - Non-surgical treatments.

Worldwide, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most common cause of cancer-related death. The remarkable improvements in treating HCC achieved in the last years have increased the complexity of its management. Following the need to have updated guidelines on the multidisciplinary treatment management of HCC, the Italian Scientific Societies involved in the management of this cancer have promoted the drafting of a new dedicated document. This document was drawn up according to the GRADE methodology needed to produce guidelines based on evidence. Here is presented the second part of guidelines, focused on the multidisciplinary tumor board of experts and non-surgical treatments of HCC.

Mechanisms of Resistance to Immunotherapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Systemic treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been revolutionized over the last few years following the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). Despite the promising survival extension seen with ICI combination regimens, responses are not universally seen and the optimal partner for programmed cell death 1 pathway inhibitors remains to be identified. Even fewer encouraging results have been demonstrated with ICI used for monotherapy. Several mechanisms of resistance have been described so far, involving characteristics of cancer cells (intrinsic mechanisms) and of the surrounding tumor microenvironment (extrinsic mechanisms). Factors related to therapy may also contribute to the development of resistance. Increasing research efforts are being dedicated to the discovery of novel approaches and targets to overcome resistance, some of which may be introduced into clinic in the future. Herein we describe a selection of resistance mechanisms that have been involved in impairing response to ICI and propose potential therapeutic approaches to overcome resistance.