Congenital myasthenic syndromes in adults: clinical features, diagnosis and long-term prognosis.

Congenital myasthenic syndromes (CMS) are clinically and genetically heterogeneous diseases caused by mutations affecting neuromuscular transmission. Even if the first symptoms mainly occur during childhood, adult neurologists must confront this challenging diagnosis and manage these patients throughout their adulthood. However, long-term follow-up data from large cohorts of CMS patients are lacking and the long-term prognosis of these patients is largely unknown. We report the clinical features, diagnostic difficulties, and long-term prognosis of a French nationwide cohort of 235 adult patients with genetically confirmed CMS followed in 23 specialized neuromuscular centres. Data were retrospectively analysed. Of the 235 patients, 123 were female (52.3%). The diagnosis was made in adulthood in 139 patients, 110 of whom presented their first symptoms before the age of 18. Mean follow-up time between first symptoms and last visit was 34 years (SD = 15.1). Pathogenic variants were found in 19 disease-related genes. CHRNE-low expressor variants were the most common (23.8%), followed by variants in DOK7 (18.7%) and RAPSN (14%). Genotypes were clustered into four groups according to the initial presentation: ocular group (CHRNE-LE, CHRND, FCCMS), distal group (SCCMS), limb-girdle group (RAPSN, COLQ, DOK7, GMPPB, GFPT1), and a variable-phenotype group (MUSK, AGRN). The phenotypical features of CMS did not change throughout life. Only four genotypes had a proportion of patients requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission that exceeded 20%: RAPSN (54.8%), MUSK (50%), DOK7 (38.6%) and AGRN (25.0%). In RAPSN and MUSK patients most ICU admissions occurred before age 18 years and in DOK7 and AGRN patients at or after 18 years of age. Different patterns of disease course (stability, improvement and progressive worsening) may succeed one another in the same patient throughout life, particularly in AGRN, DOK7 and COLQ. At the last visit, 55% of SCCMS and 36.3% of DOK7 patients required ventilation; 36.3% of DOK7 patients, 25% of GMPPB patients and 20% of GFPT1 patients were wheelchair-bound; most of the patients who were both wheelchair-bound and ventilated were DOK7 patients. Six patients died in this cohort. The positive impact of therapy was striking, even in severely affected patients. In conclusion, even if motor and/or respiratory deterioration could occur in patients with initially moderate disease, particularly in DOK7, SCCMS and GFPT1 patients, the long-term prognosis for most CMS patients was favourable, with neither ventilation nor wheelchair needed at last visit. CHRNE patients did not worsen during adulthood and RAPSN patients, often severely affected in early childhood, subsequently improved.

Long-term oncological results of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas (iCCA) remains insufficiently studied. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study including patients with histologically proven iCCA within Milan criteria treated by percutaneous RFA from 2000 to 2022. The primary outcome was overall survival in treatment-naive patients and secondary outcomes included ablation completeness, adverse events, local and distant recurrence. A total of 494 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on cirrhosis treated by RFA were included as a comparison group. Oncological events were analysed using Kaplan-Meier, log-rank and univariate/multivariate Cox models. RESULTS: The main population included 71 patients, mostly cirrhotic (80%) with solitary tumours (66%) of a median size of 24 mm. Local recurrence was 45% at 5 years, lower in multibipolar versus monopolar RFA (22% vs. 55%, p = .007). In treatment-naive patients (n = 45), median overall and recurrence-free survivals were 26 and 11 months, respectively. Tumour size (p = .01) and Child-Pugh B (p = .001) were associated with death. The rate of distant recurrence was 59% at 5 years significantly lower for single tumours of less than 2 (p = .002) or 3 cm (p = .02). In cirrhotic patients naïve of previous treatment (n = 40), overall survival was shorter than in HCC (26 vs 68 months, p < .0001), with more local recurrences (p < .0001). Among distant recurrences, 50% were extrahepatic metastases compared to 12% in HCC (p < .001). CONCLUSION: Multibipolar RFA provides better results in terms of tumour recurrence than monopolar RFA and could be used to treat small iCCA (<3 cm). Adjuvant chemotherapy should be discussed due to the frequent extra-hepatic metastasis at recurrence.

Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (COSMIC-312): final results of a randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the COSMIC-312 trial was to evaluate cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib in patients with previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. In the initial analysis, cabozantinib plus atezolizumab significantly prolonged progression-free survival versus sorafenib. Here, we report the pre-planned final overall survival analysis and updated safety and efficacy results following longer follow-up. METHODS: COSMIC-312 was an open-label, randomised, phase 3 study done across 178 centres in 32 countries. Patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma were eligible. Patients must have had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 (RECIST 1.1), and adequate marrow and organ function, including Child-Pugh class A liver function; those with fibrolamellar carcinoma, sarcomatoid hepatocellular carcinoma, or combined hepatocellular cholangiocarcinoma were ineligible. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1:1) using a web-based interactive response system to a combination of oral cabozantinib 40 mg once daily plus intravenous atezolizumab 1200 mg every 3 weeks, oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily, or oral single-agent cabozantinib 60 mg once daily. Randomisation was stratified by disease aetiology, geographical region, and presence of extrahepatic disease or macrovascular invasion. Dual primary endpoints were for cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib: progression-free survival per RECIST 1.1, as assessed by a blinded independent radiology committee, in the first 372 randomly assigned patients (previously reported) and overall survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib plus atezolizumab or sorafenib. The secondary endpoint was progression-free survival in all patients randomly assigned to cabozantinib versus sorafenib. Outcomes in all randomly assigned patients, including final overall survival, are presented. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03755791. FINDINGS: Between Dec 7, 2018, and Aug 27, 2020, 432 patients were randomly assigned to combination treatment, 217 to sorafenib, and 188 to single-agent cabozantinib, and included in all efficacy analyses. 704 (84%) patients were male and 133 (16%) were female. 824 of these patients received at least one dose of study treatment and were included in the safety population. Median follow-up was 22·1 months (IQR 19·3-24·8). Median overall survival was 16·5 months (96% CI 14·5-18·7) for the combination treatment group and 15·5 months (12·2-20·0) for the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·98 [0·78-1·24]; stratified log-rank p=0·87). Median progression-free survival was 6·9 months (99% CI 5·7-8·2) for the combination treatment group, 4·3 months (2·9-6·1) for the sorafenib group, and 5·8 months (99% CI 5·4-8·2) for the single-agent cabozantinib group (HR 0·74 [0·56-0·97] for combination treatment vs sorafenib; HR 0·78 [99% CI 0·56-1·09], p=0·05, for single-agent cabozantinib vs sorafenib). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 281 (66%) of 429 patients in the combination treatment group, 100 (48%) of 207 patients in the sorafenib group, and 108 (57%) of 188 patients in the single-agent cabozantinib group; the most common were hypertension (37 [9%] vs 17 [8%] vs 23 [12%]), palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (36 [8%] vs 18 [9%] vs 16 [9%]), aspartate aminotransferase increased (42 [10%] vs eight [4%] vs 17 [9%]), and alanine aminotransferase increased (40 [9%] vs six [3%] vs 13 [7%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 223 (52%) patients in the combination treatment group, 84 (41%) patients in the sorafenib group, and 87 (46%) patients in the single agent cabozantinib group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in six (1%) patients in the combination treatment group (encephalopathy, hepatic failure, drug-induced liver injury, oesophageal varices haemorrhage, multiple organ dysfunction syndrome, and tumour lysis syndrome), one (<1%) in the sorafenib group (general physical health deterioration), and four (2%) in the single-agent cabozantinib group (asthenia, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, sepsis, and gastric perforation). INTERPRETATION: First-line cabozantinib plus atezolizumab did not improve overall survival versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. The progression-free survival benefit of the combination versus sorafenib was maintained, with no new safety signals. FUNDING: Exelixis and Ipsen.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus lenvatinib plus placebo for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (LEAP-002): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapies have improved the management of hepatocellular carcinoma, but there is still a need to further enhance overall survival in first-line advanced stages. This study aimed to evaluate the addition of pembrolizumab to lenvatinib versus lenvatinib plus placebo in the first-line setting for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this global, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study (LEAP-002), patients aged 18 years or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, Child Pugh class A liver disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no previous systemic treatment were enrolled at 172 global sites. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a central interactive voice-response system (block size of 4) to receive lenvatinib (bodyweight <60 kg, 8 mg/day; bodyweight ≥60 kg, 12 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or lenvatinib plus placebo. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, macrovascular portal vein invasion or extrahepatic spread or both, α-fetoprotein concentration, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Dual primary endpoints were overall survival (superiority threshold at final overall survival analysis, one-sided p=0·019; final analysis to occur after 532 events) and progression-free survival (superiority threshold one-sided p=0·002; final analysis to occur after 571 events) in the intention-to-treat population. Results from the final analysis are reported. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03713593, and is active but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Jan 17, 2019, and April 28, 2020, of 1309 patients assessed, 794 were randomly assigned to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n=395) or lenvatinib plus placebo (n=399). Median age was 66·0 years (IQR 57·0-72·0), 644 (81%) of 794 were male, 150 (19%) were female, 345 (43%) were Asian, 345 (43%) were White, 22 (3%) were multiple races, 21 (3%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 21 (3%) were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 13 (2%) were Black or African American, and 46 (6%) did not have available race data. Median follow up as of data cutoff for the final analysis (June 21, 2022) was 32·1 months (IQR 29·4-35·3). Median overall survival was 21·2 months (95% CI 19·0-23·6; 252 [64%] of 395 died) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 19·0 months (17·2-21·7; 282 [71%] of 399 died) with lenvatinib plus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·84; 95% CI 0·71-1·00; stratified log-rank p=0·023). As of data cutoff for the progression-free survival final analysis (April 5, 2021), median progression-free survival was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·4-8·4; 270 events occurred [42 deaths; 228 progressions]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 8·0 months (6·3-8·2; 301 events occurred [36 deaths; 265 progressions]) with lenvatinib plus placebo (HR 0·87; 95% CI 0·73-1·02; stratified log-rank p=0·047). The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were hypertension (69 [17%] of 395 patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group vs 68 [17%] of 395 patients) in the lenvatinib plus placebo group), increased aspartate aminotransferase (27 [7%] vs 17 [4%]), and diarrhoea (25 [6%] vs 15 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (1%) patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (due to gastrointestinal haemorrhage and hepatorenal syndrome [n=1 each] and hepatic encephalopathy [n=2]) and in three (1%) patients in the lenvatinib plus placebo group (due to gastrointestinal haemorrhage, hepatorenal syndrome, and cerebrovascular accident [n=1 each]). INTERPRETATION: In earlier studies, the addition of pembrolizumab to lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma has shown promising clinical activity; however, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab did not meet prespecified significance for improved overall survival and progression-free survival versus lenvatinib plus placebo. Our findings do not support a change in clinical practice. FUNDING: Eisai US, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck.

Pembrolizumab as Second-Line Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Longer Term Follow-Up from the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-240 Trial.

Introduction: KEYNOTE-240 showed a favorable benefit/risk profile for pembrolizumab versus placebo in patients with sorafenib-treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, prespecified statistical significance criteria for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) superiority were not met at the final analysis. Outcomes based on an additional 18 months of follow-up are reported. Methods: Adults with sorafenib-treated advanced HCC were randomized 2:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or placebo. Dual primary endpoints were OS and PFS assessed per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR). Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), assessed per RECIST v1.1 by BICR, and safety. Results: 413 patients were randomized (pembrolizumab, n = 278; placebo, n = 135). As of July 13, 2020, median (range) time from randomization to data cutoff was 39.6 (31.7-48.8) months for pembrolizumab and 39.8 (31.7-47.8) months for placebo. Estimated OS rates (95% CI) were 17.7% (13.4-22.5%) for pembrolizumab and 11.7% (6.8-17.9%) for placebo at 36 months. The estimated PFS rate (95% CI) for pembrolizumab was 8.9% (5.3-13.6%) and 0% for placebo at 36 months. ORR (95% CI) was 18.3% (14.0-23.4%) for pembrolizumab and 4.4% (1.6-9.4%) for placebo. Immune-mediated hepatitis events did not increase with follow-up. No viral hepatitis flare events were reported. Conclusion: With extended follow-up, pembrolizumab continued to maintain improvement in OS and PFS and was associated with a consistent adverse event profile compared with placebo in patients with sorafenib-treated advanced HCC. Although KEYNOTE-240 did not meet prespecified statistical significance criteria at the final analysis, these results together with the antitumor activity of second-line pembrolizumab observed in KEYNOTE-224 and the statistically significant and clinically meaningful OS and PFS benefits of second-line pembrolizumab in patients from Asia observed in KEYNOTE-394 reinforce the clinical activity of pembrolizumab in previously treated patients with advanced HCC.

Predictive and Prognostic Potential of Liver Function Assessment in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Literature Review.

Introduction: We conducted a systematic literature review to assess the utility of liver function assessments for predicting disease prognosis and response to systemic anticancer therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). Methods: This was a PRISMA-standard review and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021244588). MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched (March 24, 2021) to identify publications reporting the efficacy and/or safety of systemic anticancer therapy (vs. any/no comparator) in liver-function-defined subgroups in phase 2 or 3 aHCC trials. Screening was completed by a single reviewer, with uncertainties resolved by a second reviewer and/or the authors. English-language full-text articles and congress abstracts were eligible for inclusion. Included publications were described and assessed for risk of bias using the GRADE methodology. Results: Twenty (of 2,579) screened publications were eligible; seven categorized liver function using the albumin-bilirubin system, nine using the Child-Pugh system, four using both. GRADE assessment classified ten, nine, and one publication(s) as reporting moderate-quality, low-quality, and very-low-quality evidence, respectively. Analyses of cross-trial trends of within-exposure arm analyses (active and control) reported a positive relationship between baseline liver function and overall survival and progression-free survival, supporting liver function as a prognostic marker in aHCC. There were also signals for a modest relationship between more preserved baseline liver function and extent of systemic treatment benefit, and with more preserved liver function and lower incidence of safety events. Conclusion: This review supports liver function as a prognostic variable in aHCC and highlights the value of a priori stratification of patients by baseline liver function in aHCC trials. The predictive value of liver function warrants further study. Findings were limited by the quality of available data.

Prognostic factors and survival prediction in hepatocellular carcinoma: development and validation of a novel nomogram based on the SEER database.

Background: Current staging systems for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) still have limitations in clinical practice. Our study aimed to explore the prognostic factors and develop a new nomogram to predict the cancer-specific survival (CSS) for patients with HCC. Methods: A total of 6,166 HCC patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database. Patients were randomly grouped into the training cohort (70%) and validation cohort (30%). Multivariate Cox analysis was used to identify prognostics factors for CSS of patients, then we incorporated these variables and presented a new nomogram to predict 2- and 5-year CSS. The performance of the nomogram was assessed with respect to its calibration, concordance index (C-index), area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC), and decision curve analysis (DCA). Results: Multivariate Cox analysis revealed that American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) stage, race, grade, surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, tumor size, bone metastasis (BM), and alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) were independently associated with CSS. The prediction nomogram which contained these predictors showed good performance, with a C-index of 0.802 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.792-0.812] in the training cohort and 0.801 (95% CI, 0.787-0.815) in the validation cohort. The calibration curves demonstrated good agreement between the actual observation and the nomogram prediction. Furthermore, the nomogram showed improved discriminative capacity (AUC, 0.873 and 0.875 for 2- and 5-year CSS in validation set) compared to the 7th tumor-node-metastasis (TNM) staging system (AUC, 0.735 and 0.717). The DCA also indicated good application of the nomogram. Conclusions: This study presents a novel nomogram that incorporates the important prognostic factors of HCC, which can be conveniently used to accurately predict the 2- and 5-year CSS of patients with HCC, thus assisting individualized clinical decision making.

Beyond atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: overall efficacy and safety of tyrosine kinase inhibitors in a real-world setting.

Background: In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) progressing after atezolizumab and bevacizumab, the optimal therapeutic sequence is still unclear and no second-line agent has proven its efficacy. Objectives: The aim of this retrospective multicenter real-world cohort study was to provide an evaluation of the efficacy and safety of the use of second-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) in this population. Methods: All patients with advanced HCC, treated in first-line setting by atezolizumab-bevacizumab, and who received at least one dose of treatment with TKI were included in this study. All the data were retrospectively collected from medical records. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), overall global survival (OGS), and safety. A total of 82 patients were included in this study. Results: Patients were assigned to the regorafenib group (n = 29, 35.4%) or other TKI (sorafenib n = 41, lenvatinib n = 8, or cabozantinib n = 4) group (n = 53). PFS was not significantly different between the two groups [2.6 versus 2.8 months, HR 1.07 (95% CI: 0.61-1.86), p = 0.818]. Median PFS rates were 2.6, 4.4, and 2.8 months in sorafenib-, lenvatinib-, and cabozantinib group, respectively. OS was statistically different between the regorafenib group and other TKI group [15.8 versus 7.0 months, HR 0.40 (95% CI: 0.20-0.79), p = 0.023]. When adjusting on confounding factors, there was still a difference in OS favoring the regorafenib group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.35, p = 0.019). OGS of patients who received regorafenib was improved compared to other TKI [18.6 versus 15.0 months, HR 0.42 (95% CI: 0.22-0.84), p = 0.036]. Twenty percent of patients had grade 3 and none had grade 4 or 5 adverse events. In patients who experienced disease progression and fit for a third-line treatment, 80% and 50% received cabozantinib in regorafenib group and other TKI group, respectively. Conclusion: Efficacy of any TKI in the second-line setting was not affected by atezolizumab-bevacizumab treatment as first-line therapy. The safety profile in the second-line setting was consistent with the results shown in pivotal studies. PFS rates of patients were similar, regardless of TKI type. Regorafenib was associated with better OS and OGS rates compared to other TKI. These data need to be confirmed in prospective comparative studies.

Unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma at dawn of immunotherapy era: real-world data from the French prospective CHIEF cohort.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hepatocellular carcinoma epidemiological data are limited in France. The Epidemio Liver Immunotherapy Tecentriq outcome research (ELITor) retrospective study, based on real-world data from the Carcinome HépatocellulaIrE en France (CHIEF) French cohort of hepatocellular carcinoma patients, aimed to get insight into the treatment patterns, the sociodemographic, clinical, biological, and etiological characteristics, and the quality of life of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 1 September 2019 and 4 December 2020, 367 patients from the CHIEF cohort received at least one locoregional (52.8%) chemoembolization or radioembolization or systemic treatment (88.3%) and were selected for ELITor. Most patients had a Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) C (93.2%) hepatocellular carcinoma stage and were affected by cirrhosis (67.7%). Alcohol was confirmed as the main etiology both as a single etiology (29.1%) and in association with other risk factors (26.9%), mainly metabolic disorders (16.2%).Tyrosine-kinase inhibitors, mainly sorafenib, were the most administered systemic treatments in first line. Patients who received at least one combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab during the study period ( N  = 53) had a better performance status and less portal hypertension frequency than the overall population and more hepatitis B virus infection and fewer metabolic disorders as single etiology. Overall, the global health score before treatment (62.3 ±â€…21.9) was in line with that of reference cancer patients and worsened in 51.9% of the cases after first-line palliative-intent treatment. CONCLUSION: This study provided real-life data on advanced hepatocellular carcinoma characteristics and treatment patterns and described the first patients to receive the atezolizumab-bevacizumab combination before it became the new standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Case Report: Successful liver transplantation after achieving complete clinical remission of advanced HCC with Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab combination therapy.

Background: Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab combination therapy has recently emerged as the new standard of care for unresectable HCC. Significant tumor burden reduction can be observed under that treatment, raising the question of liver transplantation (LT). The safety of another immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI), nivolumab, is unclear in the pre-transplant setting. Method: We report the case of a 57-y old man, with initial unresectable multinodular HCC contraindicated to LT and locoregional therapies, who achieves complete tumor response after Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab, and subsequently underwent LT for liver failure. Results: Explant analysis revealed complete pathological response with no tumor remnant. The patient suffered from several post-operative complications but no HCC recurrence or biopsy-proven acute rejection occurred 10 months after LT. Conclusions: Atezolizumab/Bevacizumab therapy may enable complete pathological response of advanced HCC. Safety of prolonged treatment need to be assessed.

Regorafenib versus Cabozantinib as a Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Anchored Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Efficacy and Safety.

Introduction: The tyrosine kinase inhibitors regorafenib and cabozantinib remain the mainstay in second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). There is currently no clear evidence of superiority in efficacy or safety to guide choice between the two treatments. Methods: We conducted an anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparison using individual patient data from the RESORCE trial of regorafenib and published aggregate data from the CELESTIAL trial of cabozantinib. Second-line HCC patients with prior sorafenib exposure of ≥3 months were included in the analyses. Hazard ratios (HRs) and restricted mean survival time (RMST) were estimated to quantify differences in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Safety outcomes compared were rates of grade 3 or 4 adverse events (AEs), occurring in >10% of patients, and discontinuation or dose reduction due to treatment-related AEs. Results: After matching adjustment for differences in baseline patient characteristics, regorafenib showed a favorable OS (HR, 0.80; 95% CI: 0.54, 1.20) and ∼3-month-longer RMST over cabozantinib (RMST difference, 2.76 months; 95% CI: -1.03, 6.54), although not statistically significant. For PFS, there was no numerical difference in HR (HR, 1.00; 95% CI: 0.68, 1.49) and no clinically meaningful difference based on RMST analyses (RMST difference, -0.59 months; 95% CI: -1.83, 0.65). Regorafenib showed a significantly lower incidence of discontinuation (risk difference, -9.2%; 95% CI: -17.7%, -0.6%) and dose reductions (-15.2%; 95% CI: -29.0%, -1.5%) due to treatment-related AEs (any grade). Regorafenib was also associated with a lower incidence (not statistically significant) of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea (risk difference, -7.1%; 95% CI: -14.7%, 0.4%) and fatigue (-6.3%; 95% CI: -14.6%, 2.0%). Conclusion: This indirect treatment comparison suggests, relative to cabozantinib, that regorafenib could be associated with favorable OS (not statistically significant), lower rates of dose reductions and discontinuation due to treatment-related AEs, and lower rates of severe diarrhea and fatigue.

Hypersensitivity infusion-associated reactions induced by enzyme replacement therapy in a cohort of patients with late-onset Pompe disease: An experience from the French Pompe Registry.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pompe disease is a rare hereditary glycogen storage disorder due to lysosomal acid alpha-glucosidase deficiency. Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) is the only available treatment. Infusion-associated reactions (IAR) are challenging since there are no guidelines for ERT rechallenge after a drug hypersensitivity reaction (DHR) in Pompe disease. The objective of the present study was to describe IAR and their management in late-onset Pompe disease (LOPD) patients in France, and to discuss the various possibilities of ERT rechallenge. METHODS: An exhaustive screening of LOPD patients receiving ERT between 2006 and 2020 from the 31-participating hospital-based or reference centers was performed. The patients who had presented at least one hypersensitivity IAR (=DHR) episode were included. Demographic characteristics of the patients, IAR onset and timing, were retrospectively collected from the French Pompe Registry. RESULTS: Fifteen patients among 115 treated LOPD patients in France presented at least 1 IAR; 80.0% were women. Twenty-nine IAR were reported; 18 (62.1%) IAR were Grade I reactions, 10 (34.5%) IAR were Grade II, and 1 (3.4%) IAR was Grade III. IgE-mediated hypersensitivity was found in 2/15 patients (13.3%). The median [IQR] time from ERT introduction to the first IAR was 15.0 months [11.0-24.0]. ERT was safely and effectively re-introduced either with premedication alone, or in combination with either modified regimen or desensitization protocol, in all 9 rechallenged patients; including in patients with IgE-mediated hypersensitivity, in the patient with the Grade III reaction, as well as in patients with very high anti-GAA titer. DISCUSSION: Based on the results herein and previous reports, we discuss premedication and modified regimen for Grade I reactions, and desensitization in Grade II and III reactions. In conclusion, ERT-induced IAR can be safely and effectively managed with a modified regimen or desensitization protocol in LOPD patients.

Mortality in hepatitis C virus-cured vs. hepatitis C virus-uninfected people with HIV.

OBJECTIVE: It is unknown whether hepatitis C virus (HCV)-cured people with HIV (PWH) without cirrhosis reached the same mortality risk as HCV-uninfected PWH. We aimed to compare mortality in PWH cured of HCV by direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) to mortality in individuals with HIV monoinfection. DESIGN: Nationwide hospital cohort. METHODS: HIV-controlled participants without cirrhosis and HCV-cured by DAAs started between September 2013 and September 2020, were matched on age (±5 years), sex, HIV transmission group, AIDS status, and body mass index (BMI) (±1 kg/m 2 ) to up to 10 participants with a virally suppressed HIV monoinfection followed at the time of HCV cure ±6 months. Poisson regression models with robust variance estimates were used to compare mortality in both groups after adjusting for confounders. RESULTS: The analysis included 3961 HCV-cured PWH (G1) and 33 872 HCV-uninfected PWH (G2). Median follow-up was 3.7 years in G1 [interquartile range (IQR): 2.0-4.6], and 3.3 years (IQR: 1.7-4.4) in G2. Median age was 52.0 years (IQR: 47.0-56.0), and 29 116 (77.0%) were men. There were 150 deaths in G1 [adjusted incidence rate (aIR): 12.2/1000 person-years] and 509 (aIR: 6.3/1000 person-years) in G2, with an incidence rate ratio (IRR): 1.9 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.4-2.7]. The risk remained elevated 12 months post HCV cure (IRR: 2.4 [95% CI, 1.6-3.5]). Non-AIDS/non-liver-related malignancy was the most common cause of death in G1 (28 deaths). CONCLUSIONS: Despite HCV cure and HIV viral suppression, after controlling on factors related to mortality, DAA-cured PWH without cirrhosis remain at higher risk of all-cause mortality than people with HIV monoinfection. A better understanding of the determinants of mortality is needed in this population.

Tislelizumab in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (RATIONALE-208): A Multicenter, Non-Randomized, Open-Label, Phase 2 Trial.

Introduction: Tislelizumab (anti-programmed cell death protein 1 antibody) showed preliminary antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with advanced solid tumors, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab in patients with previously treated advanced HCC. Methods: The multiregional phase 2 study RATIONALE-208 examined single-agent tislelizumab (200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks) in patients with advanced HCC with Child-Pugh A, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C, and who had received one or more prior lines of systemic therapy. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), radiologically confirmed per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 by the Independent Review Committee. Safety was assessed in patients who received ≥1 dose of tislelizumab. Results: Between April 9, 2018, and February 27, 2019, 249 eligible patients were enrolled and treated. After a median study follow-up of 12.7 months, ORR was 13% (n = 32/249; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9-18), including five complete and 27 partial responses. The number of prior lines of therapy did not impact ORR (one prior line, 13% [95% CI, 8-20]; two or more prior lines, 13% [95% CI, 7-20]). Median duration of response was not reached. The disease control rate was 53%, and median overall survival was 13.2 months. Of the 249 total patients, grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 38 (15%) patients; the most common was liver transaminase elevations in 10 (4%) patients. Treatment-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 13 (5%) patients or dose delay in 46 (19%) patients. No deaths were attributed to the treatment per investigator assessment. Conclusion: Tislelizumab demonstrated durable objective responses, regardless of the number of prior lines of therapy, and acceptable tolerability in patients with previously treated advanced HCC.

TACE and conformal radiotherapy vs. TACE alone for hepatocellular carcinoma: A randomised controlled trial.

Background & Aims: Transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is recommended for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma devoid of macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic spread but not eligible for curative therapies. We compared the efficacy and safety of the combination of a single TACE and external conformal radiotherapy (CRT) vs. classical TACE. Methods: TACERTE was an open-labelled, randomised controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation rate to two or three TACE (arm A) or one TACE + CRT (arm B). Participants had a mean age of 70 years, and 86% were male. The aetiology was alcohol in 85%. The primary endpoint was liver progression-free survival (PFS) in the intention-to-treat population. The typical CRT schedule was 54 Gy in 18 sessions of 3 Gy. Results: Of the 120 participants randomised, 64 were in arm A and 56 in arm B; 100 participants underwent the planned schedule and defined the 'per-protocol' group. In intention-to-treat participants, the liver PFS at 12 and 18 months were 59% and 19% in arm A and 61% and 36% in arm B (hazard ratio [HR] 0.69; 95% CI 0.40-1.18; p = 0.17), respectively. In the per-protocol population, treated liver PFS tended to be better in arm B (HR 0.61; 95% CI 0.34-1.06; p = 0.081) than in arm A. Liver-related grade III-IV adverse events were more frequent in arm B than in arm A. Median overall survival reached 30 months (95% CI 23-35) in arm A and 22 months (95% CI 15.7-26.2) in arm B. Conclusions: Although TACE + CRT tended to improve local control, this first Western randomised controlled trial showed that the combined strategy failed to increase PFS or overall survival and led more frequently to liver-related adverse effects. Impact and implications: Hepatocellular carcinoma is frequently treated by arterial embolisation of the tumour and more recently by external radiotherapy. We tried to determine whether combination of the two treatments (irradiation after embolisation) might produce interesting results. Our results in this prospective randomised study were not able to demonstrate a beneficial effect of combining embolisation and irradiation in these patients. On the contrary, we observed more adverse effects with the combined treatment. Clinical Trials Registration: NCT01300143.

Ipilimumab with atezolizumab-bevacizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: The PRODIGE 81-FFCD 2101-TRIPLET-HCC trial.

A substantial proportion of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma have to face up, sooner or later, to systemic therapy. The current standards as first line systemic therapies are either atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) plus bevacizumab (anti-VEGF), or durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) plus tremelimumab (anti-CTLA-4). However, the median overall survival remains below 20 months, and a minority of patients become long-term survivors. Of interest in immune-oncology strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma, the objective response seems to be the most reliable surrogate marker of better overall survival. TRIPLET-HCC (NCT05665348) is a multicentre, randomised, open-label phase II-III trial designed to evaluate efficacy and safety of the triple combination by the addition of ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) to atezolizumab/bevacizumab, versus the double atezolizumab/bevacizumab combination. The main inclusion criteria are histologically proven BCLC-B/C HCC without previous systemic therapy. The primary objective of the phase II is the objective response rate in the triple arm, and OS in the triple versus double arms in the phase III. Secondary endpoints common to the phases II and III are the comparisons of progression-free survival, objective response rates, tolerance and quality of life. In addition, genetic and epigenetic studies from tissue and circulating DNA/RNA will be conducted to assess their prognostic or predictive value.

Surgical resection versus transarterial chemoembolization followed by moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the gold standard treatment in intermediate hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but long-term disease control rates remain low. Herein, we compared results of TACE followed by hypofractionated radiotherapy (TACE-hRT) to surgical resection (SR) in early single or paucinodular intrahepatic HCC. METHODS: Between June 2004 and November 2016, data on 160 consecutive patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage A Child-Pugh A HCC treated with SR or TACE-hRT in our expert center were retrospectively reviewed. Time to progression (TTP), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Clinical outcomes were compared using the stabilized-weights inverse probability of treatment weighting propensity score. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients underwent SR and 62 were treated by TACE-hRT. Median total dose of RT was 54 Gy (interquartile range [IQR] 54-54) in 3­Gy fractions. Median OS follow-up was 93 months. TTP did not significantly differ between patients following SR and TACE-hRT, with 1­year rates of 68.2% and 82.6% (p = 0.17), respectively. In contrast, PFS and OS were lower in the TACE-hRT group (p = 0.015 and p = 0.006), with a median OS of 37 vs. 63 months for patients with surgery and TACE-hRT, respectively. In multivariate analysis, a significant negative impact on PFS and OS was seen for age at diagnosis, on TTP for alcohol-related liver disease, and on OS for total number of HCC nodules. Symptomatic grade ≥ 3 adverse events were presented by 42 (42.9%) SR and 19 (30.6%) TACE-hRT patients (p = 0.17). CONCLUSION: In patients presenting Child-Pugh A BCLC­A HCC with high risk for surgical complications, TACE-hRT can be an effective and safe treatment. However, surgical management remains the standard of care whenever possible.

Immunotherapy in hepatocellular carcinoma: How does underlying liver disease influence therapeutic strategy and outcomes?

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third leading cause of cancer death worldwide, with up to 90% of HCC cases occurring in the setting of underlying cirrhosis. Therapeutic landscape for advanced HCC has dramatically changed in recent years with the advent of immunotherapy, including several combinations. Data suggest that the surrounding liver milieu may influence tumour response. In addition, different aetiologies of HCC and their effects on the host liver may impact response to immunotherapy. However, to date, guidelines do not take into account this parameter to guide therapeutic selection, and phase III trials are likewise performed in patients irrespective of HCC aetiology. Moreover, most clinical trial data are collected in highly selected patients with preserved liver function (defined as Child-Pugh class A) and controlled portal hypertension, which does not accurately reflect routine clinical practice. In this review, we discuss the influence of liver disease aetiology on the response to immunotherapy in patients with advanced HCC. We also discuss the safety and efficacy of various immunotherapeutic agents in Child-Pugh B patients to determine if these treatments are beneficial in this vulnerable patient population.