Risk of Recurrence of Hepatocarcinoma after Liver Transplantation: Performance of Recurrence Predictive Models in a Cohort of Transplant Patients.

Liver transplantation (LT) is a curative treatment for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) unsuitable for surgical resection. However, tumor recurrence (TR) rates range from 8% to 20% despite strict selection criteria. The validation of new prognostic tools, such as pre-MORAL or RETREAT risks, is necessary to improve recurrence prediction. A retrospective study was conducted at Marqués de Valdecilla University Hospital in Cantabria, Spain, between 2010 and 2019 to determine the rate of TR in LT patients and identify associated factors. Patients with liver-kidney transplantation, re-transplantation, HIV infection, survival less than 90 days, or incidental HCC were excluded. Data on demographic, liver disease-related, LT, and tumor-related variables, as well as follow-up records, including TR and death, were collected. TR was analyzed using the Log-Rank test, and a multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed. The study was approved by the IRB of Cantabria. TR occurred in 13.6% of LT patients (95% CI = 7.3-23.9), primarily as extrahepatic recurrence (67%) within the first 5 years (75%). Increased TR was significantly associated with higher Body Mass Index (BMI) (HR = 1.3 [95% CI = 1.1-1.5]), vascular micro-invasion (HR = 8.8 [1.6-48.0]), and medium (HR = 20.4 [3.0-140.4]) and high pre-MORAL risk (HR = 30.2 [1.6-568.6]). TR also showed a significant correlation with increased mortality. Conclusions: LT for HCC results in a 13.6% rate of tumor recurrence. Factors such as BMI, vascular micro-invasion, and medium/high pre-MORAL risk are strongly associated with TR following LT.

Outcome of liver cancer patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection: An International, Multicentre, Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Information about the impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in patients with liver cancer is lacking. This study characterizes the outcomes and mortality risk in this population. METHODS: Multicentre retrospective, cross-sectional, international study of liver cancer patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection registered between February and December 2020. Clinical data at SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis and outcomes were registered. RESULTS: Two hundred fifty patients from 38 centres were included, 218 with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and 32 with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA). The median age was 66.5 and 64.5 years, and 84.9% and 21.9% had cirrhosis in the HCC and iCCA cohorts respectively. Patients had advanced cancer stage at SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis in 39.0% of the HCC and 71.9% of the iCCA patients. After a median follow-up of 7.20 (IQR: 1.84-11.24) months, 100 (40%) patients have died, 48% of the deaths were SARS-CoV-2-related. Forty (18.4%) HCC patients died within 30-days. The death rate increase was significantly different according to the BCLC stage (6.10% [95% CI 2.24-12.74], 11.76% [95% CI 4.73-22.30], 20.69% [95% CI 11.35-31.96] and 34.52% [95% CI 17.03-52.78] for BCLC 0/A, B, C and D, respectively; p = .0017). The hazard ratio was 1.45 (95% CI 0.49-4.31; p = .5032) in BCLC-B versus 0/A, and 3.13 (95% CI 1.29-7.62; p = .0118) in BCLC-C versus 0/A in the competing risk Cox regression model. Nineteen out of 32 iCCA (59.4%) died, and 12 deaths were related to SARS-CoV-2 infection. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest cohort of liver cancer patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. It characterizes the 30-day mortality risk of SARS-CoV-2 infected patients with HCC during this period.

Management of haemostatic alterations and associated disorders in cirrhosis in Spain: A national survey.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge of haematological abnormalities in cirrhosis has greatly improved in recent years. AIMS: To evaluate how Spanish Digestive Disease specialists manage haemostatic alterations and associated disorders in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: All members of the Spanish Association for the Study of the Liver and Spanish Society of Digestive Pathology were invited to fill in a web-based questionnaire. RESULTS: 135 professionals, 93 hepatologists and 42 non-hepatologists responded to the survey. The concept of rebalanced haemostasis was known by 74.8% of them. Most specialists corrected the INR and thrombocytopenia before invasive procedures with moderate risk of bleeding or major surgery and in severe gastrointestinal bleeding. The threshold of platelets and, especially, INR used to administer blood products varied greatly. Pharmacological prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism prevailed, but it was highly dependent on the INR and platelet figures. Most participants initiated anticoagulation regardless of the degree of portal vein thrombosis, even in patients ineligible for transplantation. In potential candidates, only 56% maintained it indefinitely or until liver transplantation. No major differences between hepatologists and non-hepatologists were found. CONCLUSIONS: A significant variability and certain deviation from current guidelines was observed among Spanish Digestive Disease specialists regarding management of haemostatic alterations and associated disorders in cirrhosis.

Impact of an acute hemodynamic response-guided protocol for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding.

AIM: To evaluate the long-term outcome of an acute hemodynamic response-guided protocol in which acute responders to intravenous propranolol received traditional nonselective beta-blockers (NSBBs) and acute nonresponders received carvedilol. METHODS: Retrospective review of a protocol for primary prophylaxis of variceal bleeding guided by the acute hemodynamic response to intravenous propranolol. Fifty-two acute responders treated with traditional NSBB (i.e. propranolol or nadolol) were compared with 24 acute nonresponders receiving carvedilol. A second hemodynamic study was performed in 27 and 13 patients, respectively. The primary endpoint was development of first or further decompensation. Secondary endpoints included death from any cause, association between acute and chronic hemodynamic response, and baseline clinical and laboratory variables related to the acute hemodynamic response. RESULTS: Acute responders and acute nonresponders presented similar 1, 2, and 3-year probabilities of first decompensation (NSBB: 0%, 13.7%, 26.1% vs carvedilol: 0%, 20%, 20%, P = 0.968) or further decompensation (21.2%, 26.1%, 40.9% vs 21.2%, 50.0%, 50.0%, P = 0.525). A previous episode of hepatic encephalopathy was the only independent predictor of decompensation [hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 8.03 (2.76-23.37)]. Mortality rates were similar in acute responders and acute nonresponders with compensated (P = 0.428) or decompensated cirrhosis (P = 0.429). No clinical, laboratory, endoscopic or hemodynamic parameter predicted the acute hemodynamic response. In patients receiving traditional NSBB, the acute and chronic changes of hepatic venous pressure gradient were correlated (r = 0.59, P = 0.001). Up to 69.2% of acute nonresponders gained chronic response with carvedilol. CONCLUSION: Early identification and treatment with carvedilol of acute nonresponders to intravenous propranolol improves the clinical outcome of this high-risk group of patients, probably due to its greater effects for reducing portal pressure.

Lack of arterial hypervascularity at contrast-enhanced ultrasound should not define the priority for diagnostic work-up of nodules <2 cm.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Current guidelines recommend diagnostic work-up for nodules >1cm detected during screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This implies that patients with benign conditions may undergo unnecessary evaluation and those with small nodules may be intervened too early, leading to overdiagnosis. Since increased arterial vascularization is the hallmark of malignancy, its detection by contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) could become the signal to proceed with diagnosis confirmation. The aim was to assess if HCCs <2 cm without arterial hyperenhancement by baseline CEUS have a benign evolutionary profile, suggesting that diagnosis and invasive treatment could be delayed until detection of an overt malignant profile, associated with increased vascularization. METHODS: We prospectively included 168 cirrhotic patients with a newly detected solitary nodule of 5-20mm by screening ultrasonography. MRI, CEUS and fine needle biopsy (FNB) were performed and if no confident diagnosis was obtained, patients were closely followed to rule out HCC. Final diagnosis was: HCC (n = 119), cholangiocarcinoma (n = 3), neuroendocrine tumour (n = 1) and benign lesions (n = 45). RESULTS: CEUS did not detect contrast hyperenhancement in the arterial phase in 55 cases (34%). Eighteen out of these 55 nodules were diagnosed as HCC. Non-CEUS hyperenhanced HCCs were more frequently well-differentiated than CEUS-hyperenhanced HCCs (p < 0.004). Fourteen patients were treated with ablation and 4 with resection. Ten (55.6%) patients experienced tumour recurrence after treatment, mostly distant, confirming their overt malignant profile. CONCLUSIONS: Absence of contrast hyperenhancement on CEUS during the arterial phase in nodules <2 cm in a cirrhotic liver does not predict a less malignant profile. Accordingly, priority for diagnostic work-up and treatment should not differ according to contrast profiles on CEUS.

Early dermatologic adverse events predict better outcome in HCC patients treated with sorafenib.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There are no clinical data/markers to predict improved survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib. Majority of sorafenib adverse events appear within the first 60 days of treatment and studies correlating them with outcome are needed. METHODS: We prospectively studied 147 hepatocellular carcinoma patients (97% cirrhotic, 82% Child-Pugh A, BCLC-B 77, BCLC-C 69) treated with sorafenib. Follow-up included monthly clinical and laboratory monitoring and tumor staging at week 4 and every 8 weeks. RESULTS: After a median follow up of 11.6 months (treatment duration 6.7 months), time to progression and overall survival were 5.1 and 12.7 months. All but one patient presented at least one adverse event (median time to appearance 56 days). Time dependent covariate analysis (HR [95% CI]) identified baseline performance status (2.86 [1.75 to 4.55], p<0.001), BCLC (1.69 [1.18 to 2.50], p = 0.005), and dermatologic adverse event requiring dose adjustment within the first 60 days (0.58 [0.36 to 0.92], p = 0.022) as independent predictors of better outcome. Other early adverse events did not have an impact in outcome. The predictive value of dermatologic adverse events for survival was confirmed by the landmark analysis (p = 0.0270). CONCLUSIONS: Development of dermatologic adverse events within 60 days of sorafenib initiation is associated with better survival. Therefore, this should not to be taken as a negative event and discourage treatment maintenance. Likewise, second line clinical trials should be designed and/or evaluated considering this information to avoid significant bias.

Phase I study investigating everolimus combined with sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sorafenib is the only therapy shown to improve overall survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Combination therapy targeting multiple signaling pathways may improve outcomes. This phase I study was designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of everolimus given with sorafenib 400mg twice daily in patients with advanced HCC of Child-Pugh class A liver function who were naive to systemic therapy. METHODS: Everolimus was initiated at 2.5mg once daily and increased per a Bayesian sequential dose-escalation scheme based on the dose-limiting toxicities experienced within the first 28 days of treatment. Adverse events were assessed continuously. Efficacy was evaluated using the best overall response rate per RECIST. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled; 25 were evaluable for MTD determination. One out of 12 patients treated with everolimus 2.5mg once daily and 6 out of 13 patients treated with everolimus 5.0mg once daily experienced a dose-limiting toxicity, most commonly thrombocytopenia (n=5). All patients experienced 1 adverse event, most commonly diarrhea (66.7%), hand-foot skin reaction (66.7%), and thrombocytopenia (50.0%). Best overall response was stable disease (62.5% and 42.9% in the 2.5-mg and 5.0-mg cohorts, respectively). Median time to progression and overall survival in the 2.5-mg cohort were 4.5 months and 7.4 months, respectively, and 1.8 months and 11.7 months, respectively, in the 5.0-mg cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced HCC, the everolimus MTD in combination with standard-dose sorafenib was 2.5mg once daily. The inability to achieve a biologically effective everolimus concentration at the MTD precluded phase II study of this combination.

Postprogression survival of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: rationale for second-line trial design.

UNLABELLED: Sorafenib improves overall survival (OS) of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the absence of objective response. Thus, time to tumor progression (TTP) is used to capture benefits of novel molecular agents, but proof of its surrogacy with survival is lacking. Furthermore, survival predictors upon progression are not established and there is a need to characterize postprogression survival (PPS) and assess with time-dependent covariates analysis if it is influenced by progression pattern, and not solely by simultaneous impairment of liver function and performance status. We prospectively followed HCC patients treated with sorafenib. Clinical and biochemical evaluation were done every 4 weeks. Radiologic assessment of progression was done at week 4 and then every 8 weeks using RECIST 1.1. The progression pattern was divided into: intrahepatic/extrahepatic increase in tumor size, new intrahepatic lesion, and new extrahepatic lesion (NEH). We included 147 patients (hepatitis C virus [HCV] 57.1%, performance status [PS] 0 83.6%, Child-Pugh A 82.3%, and BCLC-C 47.3%). The median OS was 12.7 months and its independent predictors (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) were: baseline BCLC 2.49 [1.66-3.73], PS 1.86 [1.12-3.10], registration during follow-up of Child-Pugh B or Child-Pugh C scores (2.36 [1.51-3.69] and 2.89 [1.62-5.15], respectively), definitive sorafenib interruption 2.48 [1.54-4.01], and TTP 3.39 [1.89-6.1]. The presence of NEH 2.42 [1.32-4.44] is also an independent predictor of OS and PPS in patients with radiologic progression. CONCLUSION: Tumor progression is a surrogate of survival but its impact varies according to progression pattern. Thus, PPS is influenced by progression pattern and this is key in prognostic prediction and second-line trial design and analysis.

Non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma ≤ 2 cm in cirrhosis. Diagnostic accuracy assessing fat, capsule and signal intensity at dynamic MRI.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: To prospectively assess the diagnostic accuracy of the incorporation of additional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters in those based on contrast enhancement pattern for the diagnosis of solitary nodules between 5 and 20mm, detected during surveillance in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: Between November 2003 and January 2010, we prospectively included 159 cirrhotic patients with a newly detected solitary nodule between 5 and 20mm in diameter by screening ultrasonography (US). Hepatic MRI and fine-needle biopsy were performed in all patients. RESULTS: Final diagnoses were hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (n=103), other malignant lesions (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma/metastases) (n=4), and benign lesions (n=52). The specific enhancement pattern (arterial enhancement followed by washout) yielded a sensitivity and specificity of 58.3% and 96.4%, respectively. Peritumoral capsule was present in 43 HCC and in 2 non-HCC lesions. Intralesional fat was detected in 24 nodules; 5 nodules were non-HCC. Finally, the presence of both capsule and fat was observed in 10 cases, all of them HCC (100% specificity), but all of them also displayed the specific enhancement pattern, thus adding no sensitivity or specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Conclusive non-invasive diagnosis of HCC in cirrhosis should be based only on the contrast enhancement pattern, while other characteristics at MRI do not increase the diagnostic accuracy.

Prospective validation of an immunohistochemical panel (glypican 3, heat shock protein 70 and glutamine synthetase) in liver biopsies for diagnosis of very early hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Conventional pathological analysis fails to achieve sufficient sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in small nodules. Immunohistochemical staining for glypican 3 (GPC3), heat shock protein 70 (HSP70) and glutamine synthetase (GS) has been suggested to allow a confident diagnosis but no prospective study has established the diagnostic accuracy of this approach. The aim of this study is to assess prospectively the diagnostic accuracy of a panel of markers (GPC3, HSP70, GS) for the diagnosis of HCC in patients with cirrhosis with a small (5-20 mm) nodule detected by ultrasound screening. METHODS: Sixty patients with cirrhosis with a single nodule 5-20 mm newly detected by ultrasound were included in the study. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound, magnetic resonance and fine needle biopsy of the nodule (gold standard) were performed; the biopsy was repeated in case of diagnostic failures. Three consecutive sections of the first biopsy sample with meaningful material were stained with antibodies against GPC3, HSP70 and GS. RESULTS: Forty patients were diagnosed with HCC. The sensitivity and specificity for HCC diagnosis were: GPC3 57.5% and 95%, HSP70 57.5% and 85%, GS 50% and 90%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the different combinations were: GPC3+HSP70 40% and 100%; GPC3+GS 35% and 100%; HSP70+GS 35% and 100%; GPC3+HSP70+GS 25% and 100%. When at least two of the markers were positive (regardless of which), the sensitivity and specificity were 60% and 100%, respectively. Conventional pathological analysis yielded three false negative results, but the addition of this panel only correctly classified one of these cases as HCC. CONCLUSION: These data within a prospective study establish the clinical usefulness of this panel of markers for the diagnosis of early HCC. However, the panel only slightly increases the diagnostic accuracy in an expert setting.