Risk of Treatment Failure and Death after Ablation in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients-A Multiparametric Prediction.

BACKGROUND: Ablation is a first-line treatment for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC)-0/A hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, there are scarce data about patients' outcomes after recurrence. The present study evaluates the impact of patient and tumor characteristics at baseline and at recurrence on the Clinical Decision-Making process. METHODS: We evaluated BCLC-0/A patients treated with percutaneous ablation from January 2010 to November 2018. Clinical and radiological data such as age, tumor location at ablation, pattern of recurrence/progression, and comorbidities during follow-up were registered. Tumor location was divided into 'suboptimal' vs. 'optimal' locations for ablation. The Clinical Decision-Making was based on tumor burden, liver dysfunction, or comorbidities. The statistical analysis included the time-to-recurrence/progression, censoring at time of death, date of last follow-up or liver transplantation, and time-to-event was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression models to evaluate the risk of an event of death and change of treatment strategy. RESULTS: A total of 225 patients [39.1% BCLC-0 and 60.9% BCLC-A] were included, 190 had unifocal HCC and 82.6% were ≤3 cm. The complete response rate and median overall survival were 96% and 60.7 months. The HCC nodules number (Hazard Ratio-HR 3.1), Child-Pugh (HR 2.4), and Albumin-Bilirubin score (HR 3.2) were associated with increased risk of death during follow-up. HCC in 'suboptimal location' presented a shorter time to recurrence. When comorbidities prevented further loco-regional or systemic treatment, the risk of death was significantly increased (HR 2.0, p = 0.0369) in comparison to those who received treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These results expose the impact of non-liver comorbidities when considering treatment for recurrence after ablation in the real-world setting and in research trials. Ultimately, we identified an orphan population for which effective interventions are needed.

Outcome of patients with HCC and liver dysfunction under immunotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Immunotherapy-based regimes have changed the management of HCC. However, evidence of efficacy in patients with impaired liver function is unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis assesses survival of HCC patients and liver dysfunction treated with immunotherapy-based regimens. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of original articles or abstracts reporting survival of HCC patients treated with immunotherapy according to liver function between 2017 and 2022. Overal survival (OS) according to restricted mean survival time (RMST) and median OS, and hazard ratio (HR) of Child-Pugh B or B/C versus Child-Pugh A were assessed while considering the line of treatment. RESULTS: Of the 2218 articles considered, 15 articles recruiting 2311 patients were included. Of these, 639 (27.7%) were Child-Pugh B and 34 (1.5%) C. RMST was 8.36 (95% CI, 6.15-10.57; I2 =93%) months, estimated from 8 studies. The HR was reported in 8 studies for survival between Child-Pugh B versus Child-Pugh A and metanalysis disclosed a 1.65 HR (95% CI,1.45-1.84; I2 =0% heterogeneity; p = 0.45). Treatment line data were available for 47% of the patients and 3 studies included patients treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab in the first line. CONCLUSIONS: The high heterogeneity across studies reflects the incapacity of the current evidence to support the indication of immunotherapy in HCC patients with relevant liver dysfunction. It is mandatory to report complementary information to Child-Pugh classification such as prior liver decompensation, use of concomitant medication to control ascites, or signs of clinically significant portal hypertension to allow better patient stratification in future studies.

Liver cancer risk after HCV cure in patients with advanced liver disease without non-characterized nodules.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Recognition of non-characterized liver nodules (NCLN) prior to direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) is associated with increased hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) risk in patients with HCV. The risk of HCC has not been defined in F3/F4 patients in whom NCLN have been ruled-out before starting DAAs and at sustained virological response (SVR). This study aimed to estimate HCC incidence in this population. METHODS: We performed a prospective study including HCV-infected patients with F3/F4 fibrosis, without a history of HCC, and who achieved SVR after DAAs. Patients were only included if they had undergone ultrasound imaging that excluded the presence of HCC/NCLN within 30 days after SVR. All patients were evaluated every 6 months until developing primary liver cancer, death or withdrawal of informed consent. HCC incidence was expressed per 100 patient-years (/100PY). Adherence to screening program was calculated every 6 months for the first 48 months. RESULTS: A total of 185 patients (63/122, F3/F4) were included. Among those with cirrhosis, 92% were Child-Pugh A and 42.7% had clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH). Albumin-bilirubin score was 1 in 84.9% and 2 in 15.1% of patients, respectively. The median clinical and radiologic follow-up was 52.4 months and 48 months, respectively. Ten patients developed HCC: HCC incidence was 1.46/100PY (95% CI 0.79-2.71) in the whole cohort, 2.24/100PY (95% CI 1.21-4.17) in F4 only and 3.63/100PY (95% CI 1.95-6.74) in patients with CSPH. No HCC was registered in patients with F3. Median time between SVR and HCC occurrence was 28.1 months; 12 non-primary liver cancers were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with cirrhosis without NCLN at SVR remain at risk of HCC development. The absence of HCC in patients with F3 reinforces their marginal cancer risk, but prospective studies are needed to exclude them from screening programs. LAY SUMMARY: Patients with HCV-related cirrhosis, without non-characterized liver nodules at sustained virologic response, remain at risk of hepatocellular carcinoma despite viral cure. However, the cancer risk after successful direct-acting antiviral treatment is marginal in patients with F3 fibrosis without non-characterized liver nodules. If confirmed in larger prospective studies, current screening recommendations may need to be revisited in this group of patients.

Current pharmacological treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

The landscape of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has changed since the incorporation of sorafenib in 2007 as the first pharmacological treatment for HCC. The combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is currently the first-line treatment for HCC patients, and there are several second-line options approved for patients who had received sorafenib as the first-line treatment. The advantage of having multiple options of pharmacological treatment for HCC patients is associated to the need to redefine the clinical decision-making approach and considering new endpoints for the clinical trials design. The aim of this review was to share the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer approach and to summarize the ongoing clinical trials, which are testing pharmacological treatments.

Early diarrhoea under sorafenib as a marker to consider the early migration to second-line drugs.

BACKGROUND: Despite atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A + B) is currently the first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, some patients will not be adequate for this combination. In the setting of sorafenib some adverse events have been proposed as prognostic factors. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the early diarrhoea development as prognostic factor in 344 HCC patients. METHODS: The development of early diarrhoea in sorafenib treatment defined as patients who developed diarrhoea and needed dose modification within the first 60 days of treatment (e-diarrhoea) and 3-grouping variables were analysed: Patients with e-diarrhoea, patients who developed diarrhoea after the first 60 days of treatment (L-diarrhoea) and patients that never developed diarrhoea (never diarrhoea). RESULTS: The median overall survival in sorafenib treated patients was significantly different across groups (6.8 months for e-diarrhoea, 26.7 months for L-diarrhoea and 13.3 months for never-diarrhoea). The emergence of e-diarrhoea was associated with poor outcomes (hazard ratio [HR] 1.84 [95%CI 1.15-2.95]), while there was no increased/decreased risk of dismal evolution in patients with L-diarrhoea (HR 0.66 [95%CI 0.42-1.03]). CONCLUSION: The emergence of e-diarrhoea in HCC patients treated with sorafenib is an early predictor of dismal evolution under this therapy. Thus, prompt identification of these non-responders may be useful for an early switch to second-line therapies.

Activated Lymphocytes and Increased Risk of Dermatologic Adverse Events during Sorafenib Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib who develop early dermatologic adverse events (eDAEs) have a better prognosis. This may be linked to immune mechanisms, and thus, it is relevant to assess the association between peripheral immunity and the probability of developing eDAEs. Peripheral blood mononuclear cells of 52 HCC patients treated with sorafenib were analyzed at baseline and throughout the first eight weeks of therapy. T, B, Natural Killer cells, and their immune checkpoints expression data were characterized by flow cytometry. Cytokine release and immune-suppression assays were carried out ex vivo. Cox baseline and time-dependent regression models were applied to evaluate the probability of increased risk of eDAEs. DNAM-1, PD-1, CD69, and LAG-3 in T cells, plus CD16 and LAG-3 in NK cells, are significantly associated with the probability of developing eDAEs. While NK DNAM-1+ cells express activation markers, T DNAM-1+ cells induce immune suppression and show immune exhaustion. This is the first study to report an association between immune checkpoints expression in circulating immune cells and the increased incidence of eDAEs. Our results support the hypothesis for an off-target role of sorafenib in immune modulation. We also describe a novel association between DNAM-1 and immune exhaustion in T cells.

Pancreatic Insufficiency in Patients Under Sorafenib Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

GOALS: To describe the occurrence of malabsorption (MA) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients under sorafenib, the potential relationship with pancreatic insufficiency (PI), and the role of pancreatic enzymes supplementation. BACKGROUND: With the increasing options of second-line systemic therapies for HCC, the recognition of drug intolerance using practical tools is crucial. It has been proposed that a MA syndrome could be due to sorafenib-induced pancreatic dysfunction. STUDY: All sorafenib-treated patients with suspicion of MA (defined as decreased stool consistency lasting >4 wk or presenting ≥10% body weight loss without HCC progression) were prospectively evaluated by serum markers, endoscopy, and imaging techniques. RESULTS: We evaluated 81 sorafenib-treated patients and 21 developed MA suspicion (85.7% male, 81.5% Child-Pugh A, 52.4% BCLC-B, and 47.6% BCLC-C) within a median 5.9 months after starting sorafenib. The median treatment duration, follow-up, and overall survival after MA suspicion were 5.9, 20.3, and 20.3 months, respectively. Nine of them (42.9%) presented hyperparathyroidism secondary to vitamin D deficiency and 8 with PI. A gradual decrease in pancreatic volume of up to 19% was observed among patients with PI. Six of the 8 patients with PI received pancreatic enzymes, with complete recovery from MA symptoms and stabilization of pancreatic volume. CONCLUSIONS: We validated the association between MA and PI in 10% of sorafenib-treated patients. Pancreatic enzymes supplementation successfully led to symptomatic recovery. Awareness of this adverse event can help in the management of sorafenib irrespective of cancer type and likely, of other tyrosine kinase inhibitors for HCC patients.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenetics of sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Implications for combination trials.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sorafenib and lenvatinib are the first-line treatments approved in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but information is lacking about the relationships between their pharmacokinetics, patients pharmacogenetic profiles, adverse events (AE) and overall survival. We aimed to elucidate these relationships of tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors, such as sorafenib, in order to improve the design of trials testing it in combination with checkpoint inhibitors. METHODS: We assessed the pharmacokinetics of sorafenib and its N-oxide metabolite at day-0, day-7, day-30, day-60, day-90, day-120, day-150 and day-180 and nine single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in five genes related to sorafenib metabolism/transport to identify the best point for starting the combination between tyrosine kinases and checkpoint inhibitors. RESULTS: We prospectively included 49 patients (96% cirrhotic, 37% hepatitis-C, 82% Child-Pugh-A and 59% BCLC-C). Pharmacokinetic values peaked at day-7 and progressively declined until day-60. In the 16 patients without further dose modifications after day-60, pharmacokinetic values remained stable through day-180 (sorafenib P = .90; N-oxide P = .93). Pharmacokinetic values were higher in patients with early dermatological adverse events and lower in patients with early diarrhoea. Sorafenib and N-oxide pharmacokinetic values varied linearly with different alleles of MRP2*3972. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib's pharmacokinetics is heterogeneous across HCC patients. This heterogeneity affects adverse events development and must be taken into account in setting the dose and timing of its combination with checkpoint inhibitors.

Does transient arterial-phase respiratory-motion-related artifact impact on diagnostic performance? An intra-patient comparison of extracellular gadolinium versus gadoxetic acid.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency of transient arterial-phase respiratory-motion-related artifacts in liver MRI after extracellular gadolinium and gadoxetic acid injection, and to determine the impact of these artifacts on the detection of focal areas of enhancement on arterial-phase images. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Intra-patient comparison of 82 cirrhotic patients who prospectively underwent liver MR with extracellular gadolinium and with gadoxetic acid within 1 month. Two readers independently assessed the quality of dynamic T1-weighted MR images (pre-contrast, arterial, and portal-venous phases), rating respiratory-motion-related artifacts on four-point scale (0 [none]-3 [non-diagnostic]). We dichotomized these assessments, which were compared using McNemar's test, defining transient arterial-phase respiratory-motion-related artifacts as a study with a pre-contrast score < 2 and arterial-phase score ≥ 2. Readers also recorded whether at least one focal area of enhancement ≥ 10 mm on arterial phase was present. RESULTS: The quality of arterial-phase images was worse when obtained after gadoxetic acid than after extracellular gadolinium (p < 0.01), and transient arterial-phase respiratory-motion-related artifacts were more common after gadoxetic acid than after extracellular gadolinium (p < 0.02). At least one area of arterial-phase enhancement ≥ 10 mm was detected more often after extracellular gadolinium than after gadoxetic acid. We observed significant differences on the comparison of the distributions of the presence of arterial-phase artifacts against the presence of arterial-phase enhancement ≥ 10 mm between the two contrast agents (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In cirrhotic patients, transient arterial-phase respiratory-motion-related artifacts are more common after gadoxetic acid than after extracellular gadolinium. Worse detection of arterial-phase enhancement on gadoxetic acid is only partly due to these artifacts. KEY POINTS: • In a patient-by-patient analysis, the quality of arterial-phase liver MR images was significantly worse with gadoxetic acid than with extracellular gadolinium. • The frequency of transient arterial-phase artifacts was significantly higher after gadoxetic acid injection than after extracellular gadolinium injection. • Differences in the detection of areas of arterial-phase enhancement between MRI studies done with extracellular gadolinium and those done with gadoxetic acid might not be related only to image quality.

Performance of gadoxetic acid MRI and diffusion-weighted imaging for the diagnosis of early recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy and predictive value of gadoxetic acid liver MRI (Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI) alone or in combination with diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) as a second-line tool for detecting early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence in cirrhotic patients with previous HCC treated with resection or ablation. METHODS: Between 2014 and 2017, we prospectively included 34 cirrhotic patients with complete response to resection and/or ablation of early HCC in whom a new focal lesion enhancing in the arterial phase without washout was detected during follow-up with EC-MRI. After signing the informed consent, all patients underwent DWI and Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI; two readers analyzed signal intensities on each phase of dynamic study and on DWI. The final diagnosis was established by histology or follow-up EC-MRI. We used cross-tabulation to calculate indices of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: We evaluated 34 patients (7 women; 73.5% with hepatitis C virus) with a total of 53 new arterial-phase-enhancing foci (median size, 10 [IQR 9-14] mm). The final diagnosis, reached by histopathology in 15 (35.7%) lesions and EC-MR follow-up in 27 (64.3%), was HCC in 42 (79.2%) and benign conditions in 11 (21.8%). Hepatobiliary-phase hypointensity on Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI plus hyperintensity on DWI yielded 54.8% sensitivity, 90.9% specificity, 95.8% positive predictive value, and 34.5% negative predictive value for diagnosing HCC recurrence. CONCLUSION: Among potential indices, combining hypointensity on hepatobiliary-phase Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI and hyperintensity on DWI has the highest specificity and positive predictive value to optimally detect HCC recurrence prior to confident diagnosis by conventional imaging criteria on EC-MRI in cirrhotic liver. KEY POINTS: • In patients at risk of HCC recurrence, the use of gadoxetic acid liver MRI and DWI may improve the differentiation of unspecific new arterial-enhancing foci from early hypervascular HCC recurrence in patients with non-conclusive findings on extracellular liver MRI. • Combined findings on hepatobiliary-phase gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MRI and DWI had high specificity (90.9%) and positive predictive value (95.8%) for detecting early hypervascular HCC recurrence, but limited sensitivity. • Combining hepatobiliary-phase hypointensity on gadoxetic acid MRI and hyperintensity on diffusion-weighted imaging allows early diagnosis of hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma and may help select patients for salvage therapy.

Prospective evaluation of gadoxetic acid magnetic resonance for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in newly detected nodules ≤2 cm in cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Most of the published studies about the diagnostic accuracy of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance (EOB-MR) for the non-invasive diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have had a retrospective design. Thus, we aimed to prospectively evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EOB-MR for the non-invasive diagnosis of HCC in nodules ≤2 cm detected by screening ultrasound (US) in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: Between July 2012 and October 2015, 62 consecutive asymptomatic Child-Pugh A-B cirrhotic patients with newly US-detected solitary nodules between 1 and 2 cm were prospectively included in the study. Hepatic extracellular contrast-enhanced MR (ECCE-MR) followed by EOB-MR were obtained in less than 1-month interval. Two independent radiologists blindly reviewed the EOB-MR studies, and the diagnosis of HCC was assigned when the lesion showed arterial enhancement followed by portal venous phase washout and/or hypointensity on the hepatobiliary phase (HBP). The final HCC diagnosis was made by ECCE-MR according to the accepted non-invasive criteria, or by biopsy in lesions with atypical vascular profile. RESULTS: Final diagnoses were as follows: HCC (n = 41), intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (n = 2), colorectal metastases (n = 1) and benign conditions (n = 18). The sensitivity and specificity of EOB-MR for HCC diagnosis were 56.1% (95% CI: 39.7-71.5) and 90.5% (95% CI: 69.6-98.8), respectively, while sensitivity of ECCE-MR was 63.4% (95% CI: 46.9-77.9). The low rate of hypointense HCCs in the HBP and suboptimal liver uptake of contrast agent justify the low sensitivity of EOB-MR for HCC diagnosis. CONCLUSION: EOB-MR does not surpass the diagnostic accuracy of ECCE-MR for non-invasive diagnosis of HCC in nodules ≤2 cm in cirrhotic patients.

Systematic review with meta-analysis: the critical role of dermatological events in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

BACKGROUND: The positive results of the REFLECT trial in terms of survival (sorafenib vs lenvatinib) offer a new first-line option for hepatocellular carcinoma. Additionally, the expected results of immunotherapy could change the first-line treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma or the clinical trial design in first and second-line. AIMS: To evaluate the impact of dermatologic adverse events under sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma patients as a clinical marker to predict prognosis and critically evaluate outcomes within trials. METHODS: A systematic search of original articles published until October 2018 was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE and a meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. RESULTS: A total of 393 studies were identified and 13 articles with 2035 patients (79.5% Child-Pugh-A, 73.2% BCLC-C) were selected for qualitative and quantitative analysis. The main type of dermatologic adverse events was hand-foot skin reaction (47.7%) but other dermatologic adverse events were reported in 31.7% of the cases. Presence of dermatologic adverse events was associated with a lower mortality when compared with those patients without them (pooled Hazard Ratio for the univariate analysis 0.45 (95% CI: 0.38-0.53) and there was no heterogeneity for the analysis (P = 0.511; I2  = 0.0%). Refuting this association would require the future report of 1370 negative studies. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis shows a clinically meaningful association between dermatologic adverse events and a higher probability of longer survival. These data support the use of dermatologic adverse events in the clinical decision-making when informing the prognosis and when systemic treatment is decided.

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.

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.