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.

Comparative Analysis of Subclassification Systems in Patients with Intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma (Barcelona Clinic Liver Classification B) Receiving Systemic Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (BCLC B HCC) occurs in a heterogeneous group of patients and can be addressed with a wide spectrum of treatments. Consequently, survival significantly varies among patients. In recent years, several subclassification systems have been proposed to stratify patients' prognosis. We analyzed and compared these systems (Bolondi, Yamakado, Kinki, Wang, Lee, and Kim criteria) in patients undergoing systemic therapy. METHODS: We considered 171 patients with BCLC B HCC treated with sorafenib as first-line systemic therapy in six Italian centers from 2010 to 2021 and retrospectively applied the criteria of six different subclassification systems. RESULTS: Except for the Yamakado criteria, all the subclassification systems showed a statistically significant correlation to overall survival (OS). In the postestimation analysis, the Bolondi criteria (OS of subgroups 22.5, 11.9, and 6.6 mo, respectively; C-index 0.586; AIC 1338; BIC 1344) and the Wang criteria (OS of subgroups 20.6, 11.9, and 7.0, respectively; C-index 0.607; AIC 1337; BIC 1344) presented the best accuracy. Further analyses of these two subclassification systems implemented with the prognostic factor of alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) > 400 ng/mL have shown an increase in accuracy for both systems (C-index 0.599 and 0.624, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Intermediate-stage subclassification systems maintain their predictive value also in the setting of systemic therapy. The Bolondi and Wang criteria showed the highest accuracy. AFP > 400 ng/mL enhances the performance of these systems.

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.

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.

Final Results from the First European Real-World Experience on Lusutrombopag Treatment in Cirrhotic Patients with Severe Thrombocytopenia: Insights from the REAl-World Lusutrombopag Treatment in ITalY Study.

Background and aims: Management of severe thrombocytopenia poses significant challenges in patients with chronic liver disease. Here, we aimed to evaluate the first real-world European post-marketing cohort of cirrhotic patients treated with lusutrombopag, a thrombopoietin receptor agonist, verifying the efficacy and safety of the drug. Methods: In the REAl-world Lusutrombopag treatment in ITalY (REALITY) study, we collected data from consecutive cirrhotic patients treated with lusutrombopag in 19 Italian hepatology centers, mostly joined to the "Club Epatologi Ospedalieri" (CLEO). Primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were the ability of lusutrombopag to avoid platelet transfusions and to raise the platelet count to ≥50,000/µL, respectively. Treatment-associated adverse events were also collected. Results: A total of 66 patients and 73 cycles of treatment were included in the study, since 5 patients received multiple doses of lusutrombopag over time for different invasive procedures. Fourteen patients (19%) had a history of portal vein thrombosis (PVT). Lusutrombopag determined a significant increase in platelet count [from 37,000 (33,000-44,000/µL) to 58,000 (49,000-82,000), p < 0.001]. The primary endpoint was met in 84% of patients and the secondary endpoint in 74% of patients. Baseline platelet count was the only independent factor associated with response in multivariate logistic regression analysis (OR for any 1000 uL of 1.13, CI95% 1.04-1.26, p 0.01), with a good discrimination power (AUROC: 0.78). Notably, a baseline platelet count ≤ 29,000/µL was identified as the threshold for identifying patients unlikely to respond to the drug (sensitivity of 91%). Finally, de novo PVT was observed in four patients (5%), none of whom had undergone repeated treatment, and no other safety or hemorrhagic events were recorded in the entire population analyzed. Conclusions: In this first European real-world series, lusutrombopag demonstrated efficacy and safety consistent with the results of registrational studies. According to our results, patients with baseline platelet counts ≤29,000/µL are unlikely to respond to the drug.