Sequential therapies after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib first-line treatments in hepatocellular carcinoma patients.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this retrospective proof-of-concept study was to compare different second-line treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and progressive disease (PD) after first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 1381 patients had PD at first-line therapy. 917 patients received lenvatinib as first-line treatment, and 464 patients atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line. RESULTS: 49.6% of PD patients received a second-line therapy without any statistical difference in overall survival (OS) between lenvatinib (20.6months) and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line (15.7months; p = 0.12; hazard ratio [HR]= 0.80). After lenvatinib first-line, there wasn't any statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p = 0.27; sorafenib HR: 1; immunotherapy HR: 0.69; other therapies HR: 0.85). Patients who underwent trans-arterial chemo-embolization (TACE) had a significative longer OS than patients who received sorafenib (24.7 versus 15.8months, p < 0.01; HR=0.64). After atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line, there was a statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p < 0.01; sorafenib HR: 1; lenvatinib HR: 0.50; cabozantinib HR: 1.29; other therapies HR: 0.54). Patients who received lenvatinib (17.0months) and those who underwent TACE (15.9months) had a significative longer OS than patients treated with sorafenib (14.2months; respectively, p = 0.01; HR=0.45, and p < 0.05; HR=0.46). CONCLUSION: Approximately half of patients receiving first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab access second-line treatment. Our data suggest that in patients progressed to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is lenvatinib, while in patients progressed to lenvatinib, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is immunotherapy.

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a large real-life worldwide population.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib have not been compared in a randomised controlled trial. We conducted a retrospective multi-centre study to compare the clinical efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and atezolizumab with bevacizumab as a first-line treatment for patients with unresectable HCC in the real-world scenario. METHODS: Clinical features of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab patients were balanced through inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) methodology, which weights patients' characteristics and measured outcomes of each patient in both treatment arms. Overall survival (OS) was the primary end-point. RESULTS: The analysis included 1341 patients who received lenvatinib, and 864 patients who received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. After IPTW adjustment, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab did not show a survival advantage over lenvatinib HR 0.97 (p = 0.739). OS was prolonged by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab over lenvatinib in viral patients (HR: 0.76; p = 0.024). Conversely, OS was prolonged by lenvatinib in patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (HR: 1.88; p = 0.014). In the IPTW-adjusted population, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab provided better safety profile for most of the recorded adverse events. CONCLUSION: Our study did not identify any meaningful difference in OS between atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and lenvatinib. Although some hints are provided suggesting that patients with non-alcoholic steatohepatitis/non-alcoholic fatty liver disease might benefit more from lenvatinib therapy and patients with viral aetiology more from atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.

Clinical outcomes with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter real-world study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to compare response rates of lenvatinib and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, in first-line real-world setting. METHODS: Overall cohort included Western and Eastern hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patient populations from 46 centres in 4 countries (Italy, Germany, Japan, and Republic of Korea). RESULTS: 1312 patients were treated with lenvatinib, and 823 patients were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. Objective response rate (ORR) was 38.6% for patients receiving lenvatinib, and 27.3% for patients receiving atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (p < 0.01; odds ratio 0.60). For patients who achieved complete response (CR), overall survival (OS) was not reached in both arms, but the result from univariate Cox regression model showed 62% reduction of death risk for patients treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (p = 0.05). In all multivariate analyses, treatment arm was not found to be an independent factor conditioning OS. Comparing ORR achieved in the two arms, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of lenvatinib compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in all subgroups except for Eastern patients, Child-Pugh B patients, presence of portal vein thrombosis, α-feto-protein ≥ 400 ng/mL, presence of extrahepatic disease, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 2, and no previous locoregional procedures. CONCLUSION: Lenvatinib achieves higher ORR in all patient subgroups. Patients who achieve CR with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab can achieve OS so far never recorded in HCC patients. This study did not highlight any factors that could identify patient subgroups capable of obtaining CR.

COVID-19 in liver transplant recipients: incidence, hospitalization and outcome in an Italian prospective double-centre study.

Liver transplant (LT) recipients are vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2-infection (COVID-19), due to immunosuppression and comorbidities. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on LT recipients compared to general population in the Campania region. In this prospective double-centre study, we enrolled all consecutive adult LT recipients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2-infection. Data were collected at diagnosis of COVID-19 and during follow-up and compared with the regional population. Thirty LT recipients (3.28%) developed SARS-CoV-2-infection (76.66% male, median age 62.61 years). Sixteen (53.33%) were symptomatic. Common symptoms were fever, cough, fatigue, and anosmia. Twenty-five (83.33%) were outpatients, 5 (16.66%) required hospitalization (6.66% admitted to Intensive Care Unit, 6.62% developed Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and 6.66% died). Immunosuppressors were in 3 (10%) patients. Incidence rate of COVID-19 was similar between LT patients and general population (3.28% vs 4.37%, p = 0.142) with higher rate of symptoms in LT patients (53.33% vs 15.87%, p < 0.000). At univariate analysis, hospitalization and case fatality rates were higher in LT patients compared to general population (16.66% vs 4.54%, p = 0.001; and 6.66% vs 1.76%, p = 0.041, respectively). At multivariable logistic regression analysis, LT patients with COVID-19 were more frequently symptomatic (OR 5.447 [95% CI 2.437-12.177], p < 0.000), whereas hospitalization and death for COVID-19 were not significatively associated with LT condition (p = 0.724 and p = 0.462, respectively) and were comparable with general population. LT is not a risk factor for acquiring COVID-19. Nonetheless, LT patients are more frequently symptomatic, although comparable to the general population for hospitalization rate and mortality.

Regorafenib Efficacy After Sorafenib in Patients With Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Liver Transplantation: A Retrospective Study.

Safety of regorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) has been recently demonstrated. We aimed to assess the survival benefit of regorafenib compared with best supportive care (BSC) in LT patients after sorafenib discontinuation. This observational multicenter retrospective study included LT patients with HCC recurrence who discontinued first-line sorafenib. Group 1 comprised regorafenib-treated patients, whereas the control group was selected among patients treated with BSC due to unavailability of second-line options at the time of sorafenib discontinuation and who were sorafenib-tolerant progressors (group 2). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) of group 1 compared with group 2. Secondary endpoints were safety and OS of sequential treatment with sorafenib + regorafenib/BSC. Among 132 LT patients who discontinued sorafenib included in the study, 81 were sorafenib tolerant: 36 received regorafenib (group 1) and 45 (group 2) received BSC. Overall, 24 (67%) patients died in group 1 and 40 (89%) in group 2: the median OS was significantly longer in group 1 than in group 2 (13.1 versus 5.5 months; P < 0.01). Regorafenib treatment was an independent predictor of reduced mortality (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16-0.89; P = 0.02). Median treatment duration with regorafenib was 7.0 (95% CI, 5.5-8.5) months; regorafenib dose was reduced in 22 (61%) patients for adverse events and discontinued for tumor progression in 93% (n = 28). The median OS calculated from sorafenib start was 28.8 months (95% CI, 17.6-40.1) in group 1 versus 15.3 months (95% CI, 8.8-21.7) in group 2 (P < 0.01). Regorafenib is an effective second-line treatment after sorafenib in patients with HCC recurrence after LT.

Real-Life Clinical Data of Lenvatinib versus Sorafenib for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Italy.

BACKGROUND: Lenvatinib has been approved in Italy since October 2019 as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to date data on effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib are not available in our region. To fill this gap, we performed a multicentric analysis of the real-world treatment outcomes with the propensity score matching in a cohort of Italian patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with either sorafenib or lenvatinib. AIMS AND METHODS: To evaluate the effectiveness of sorafenib and lenvatinib as primary treatment of advanced HCC in clinical practice we performed a multicentric analysis of the treatment outcomes of 288 such patients recruited in 11 centers in Italy. A propensity score was used to mitigate confounding due to referral biases in the assessment of mortality and progression-free survival. RESULTS: Over a follow-up period of 11 months the Cox regression model showed 48% reduction of death risk for patients treated with lenvatinib (95% CI: 0.34-0.81; p = 0.0034), compared with those treated with sorafenib. The median PFS was 9.0 and 4.9 months for lenvatinib and sorafenib arm, respectively. Patients treated with lenvatinib showed a higher percentage of response rate (29.4% vs 2.8%; p < 0.00001) compared with patients treated with sorafenib. Sorafenib was shown to be correlated with more HFSR, diarrhea and fatigue, while lenvatinib with more hypertension and fatigue. CONCLUSION: Our study highlighted for the first time the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in an Italian cohort of patients.

Hepatitis C screening in the Emergency Department of a large hospital in southern Italy: results of a pilot study.

Around 71 million people worldwide are chronically infected with hepatitis C. HCV prevalence among individuals born in the United States between 1945 and 1965 is estimated to be about 3%. In Italy, about 2% of the population is chronically infected with HCV. Since chronic HCV infection is often asymptomatic, many patients require access to medical care only in an advanced phase of the disease. The best strategy for bringing out hidden chronic HCV infection remains uncertain. The aim of the study was to evaluate the feasibility of an FDA-approved rapid salivary, point-of-care (POC) assay for anti-HCV, performed in patients aged between 45 and 80 years old who were referred to the emergency department of a large hospital in southern Italy and were all unaware of their HCV serostatus. In all, 966 patients were interviewed during the study period. Among them, 220 patients were enrolled. Notably, 25/588 (4%) reported to be anti-HCV positive. Of these, 19 were already being treated with direct-acting antivirals (DAA). Among the enrolled patients, two (0.9%) tested anti-HCV positive and 218 (99.1%) were negative at screening. Both patients with a positive test were male, below the age of 54, with a previous history of intravenous drug abuse, a low level of education, and who had had at least one experience of unprotected sex. We scheduled a visit for treatment evaluation for every positive patient who was not on treatment. Neither of the two de novo patients and 3/6 (50%) patients who were aware of their anti-HCV positivity came to the follow-up visit. Our study shows that a screening strategy for HCV infection in ED is feasible and that about 1% of patients attending the ED and who are unaware of their conditions are anti-HCV positive. Moreover, a non-negligible proportion of subjects, though aware of their condition, was not linked to any hepatologic center.

Survival after locoregional treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma: a cohort study in real-world patients.

Evidence of relative effectiveness of local treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is scanty. We investigated, in a retrospective cohort study, whether surgical resection, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), percutaneous ethanol injection (PEI), and transarterial embolization with (TACE) or without (TAE) chemotherapy resulted in different survival in clinical practice. All patients first diagnosed with HCC and treated with any locoregional therapy from 1998 to 2002 in twelve Italian hospitals were eligible. Overall survival (OS) was the unique endpoint. Three main comparisons were planned: RFA versus PEI, surgical resection versus RFA/PEI (combined), TACE/TAE versus RFA/PEI (combined). Propensity score method was used to minimize bias related to non random treatment assignment. Overall 425 subjects were analyzed, with 385 (91%) deaths after a median followup of 7.7 years. OS did not significantly differ between RFA and PEI (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.79-1.57), between surgery and RFA/PEI (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.64-1.41) and between TACE/TAE and RFA/PEI (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.66-1.17). 5-year OS probabilities were 0.14 for RFA, 0.18 for PEI, 0.27 for surgery, and 0.15 for TACE/TAE. No locoregional treatment for HCC was found to be more effective than the comparator. Adequately powered randomized clinical trials are still needed to definitely assess relative effectiveness of locoregional HCC treatment.

Development and validation of a questionnaire evaluating the impact of hepatitis B immune globulin prophylaxis on the quality of life of liver transplant recipients.

To date, there is still a lack of instruments for specifically assessing the impact of anti-hepatitis B virus prophylaxis after liver transplantation (LT) on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and treatment satisfaction. Focusing on the use of hepatitis B immune globulin (HBIG), we developed and validated the Immunoglobulin Therapy After Liver Transplantation Questionnaire (ITaLi-Q), which includes 41 items and covers 5 domains (side effects, positive and negative feelings, impact on the flexibility of daily activities, support, and satisfaction). The questionnaire was tested by 177 consecutive LT patients [71.8% were male, 38.4% were more than 60 years old, 58.8% were on intramuscular (IM) HBIG, and 41.2% were on intravenous (IV) HBIG]. A factor analysis confirmed the hypothesized structure, and a multitrait, multi-item analysis showed favorable psychometric characteristics for ITaLi-Q: item-scale correlations > 0.40 for all items but 1, high scaling success rates (>90% for all scales but 1), excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's α ≥ 0.8 for all scales), and good reproducibility (test-retest coefficient > 0.70 for all scales but 2). ITaLi-Q was able to discriminate between subgroups of patients according to their clinical and sociodemographic characteristics. In comparison with patients on IV HBIG, patients on IM HBIG reported significantly better HRQOL scores on the Flexibility (81.5 ± 21.4 versus 73.1 ± 24.2, P = 0.01) and Negative Feelings scales (90.1 ± 17.3 versus 85.4 ± 20.7, P = 0.04), but they reported worse HRQOL scores on the Side Effects scale (81.8 ± 22.8 versus 95.6 ± 7.4, P < 0.001). No differences were found between the route of HBIG administration and the Satisfaction, Positive Feelings, Impact, and Support scales. In conclusion, ITaLi-Q showed adequate psychometric characteristics and revealed that the route of HBIG administration has a significant impact on specific HRQOL domains beyond a patient's satisfaction.

Laser ablation for small hepatocellular carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common malignancies worldwide and is increasingly detected at small size (<5 cm) owing to surveillance programmes in high-risk patients. For these cases, curative therapies such as resection, liver transplantation, or percutaneous ablation have been proposed. When surgical options are precluded, image-guided tumor ablation is recommended as the most appropriate therapeutic choice in terms of tumor local control, safety, and improvement in survival. Laser ablation (LA) represents one of currently available loco-ablative techniques: light is delivered via flexible quartz fibers of diameter from 300 to 600 µm inserted into tumor lesion through either fine needles (21g Chiba needles) or large-bore catheters. The thermal destruction of tissue is achieved through conversion of absorbed light (usually infrared) into heat. A range of different imaging modalities have been used to guide percutaneous laser ablation, but ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging are most widely employed, according to local experience and resource availability. Available clinical data suggest that LA is highly effective in terms of tumoricidal capability with an excellent safety profile; the best results in terms of long-term survival are obtained in early HCC so that LA can be proposed not only in unresectable cases but, not differently from radiofrequency ablation, also as the first-line treatment.

The impact of previous or concomitant IFN therapy on deferiprone-induced agranulocytosis and neutropenia: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Although IFN therapy is known to cause neutropenia, data on the risk of deferiprone (DFP)-induced haematological complications in patients receiving IFN are lacking. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective single-centre study to assess the association between exposure to IFN for hepatitis C virus treatment and haematological side effects of DFP therapy in patients with thalassemia major and intermedia using a large database spanning 2001 ­ 2008. During observation time, a total of 66 patients, including 63 affected by thalassemia major and 3 by thalassemia intermedia, were treated with chelation DFP-based regimens. A subset of 25 patients was treated at least for 3 months also with IFN (6 were cotreated and 19 were pretreated). RESULTS: Overall, the incidence of neutropenia and agranulocytosis was 9.83 and 1.14/100 patient/year, respectively. Receipt of IFN was significantly associated with increased risk of haematological complications of DFP therapy: among patients receiving IFN, 48 and 12% experienced at least one episode of neutropenia and agranulocytosis, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that IFN therapy may increase the risk of complications of DFP-based iron chelation therapy in patients with thalassemia. Further research is needed to assess whether the association observed in this retrospective single-centre observational study is due to IFN or other factors.