RESUMEN
Background: Atezolizumab + bevacizumab represent the current standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, direct comparison with other combination treatments including immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) + tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are lacking. Objectives: This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to indirectly compare the efficacy and the safety of first-line systemic therapies for unresectable advanced HCC. Method: A literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, and SCOPUS databases was conducted up to October 31, 2022. Phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing TKIs, including sorafenib and lenvatinib, or ICIs reporting overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were included. Individual survival data were extracted from OS and PFS curves to calculate restricted mean survival time. A Bayesian NMA was performed to compare treatments in terms of efficacy (15- and 30-month OS, 6-month PFS) and safety, represented by grade ≥3 (severe) adverse events (SAEs). The incremental safety-effectiveness ratio as measure of net health benefit was calculated as the difference in SAE probability divided by survival difference between the 2 most effective treatments. Results: Nine RCTs enrolling 6,600 patients were included. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed the highest probability (88%) of achieving the 30-month OS landmark. Lenvatinib showed a probability of 86% of achieving best PFS outcomes. ICI monotherapies ranked as most tolerable. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab showed the best net health benefit for OS, compared to durvalumab plus tremelimumab. When evaluating the net health benefit for PFS, at a willingness-to-risk threshold of 10% of SAEs for life-month gained, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was favoured in 78% of cases, while at threshold of 30% of SAEs for life-month gained, lenvatinib was favoured in 76% of cases. Conclusions: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab is the best treatment in terms of net benefit and therefore it should be recommended as standard of care. Compared to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, lenvatinib monotherapy had the best net benefit for PFS when physicians and patients are available to accept a higher risk of toxicity.
RESUMEN
Prevention of infections is crucial in solid organ transplant (SOT) candidates and recipients. These patients are exposed to an increased infectious risk due to previous organ insufficiency and to pharmacologic immunosuppression. Besides infectious-related morbidity and mortality, this vulnerable group of patients is also exposed to the risk of acute decompensation and organ rejection or failure in the pre- and post-transplant period, respectively, since antimicrobial treatments are less effective than in the immunocompetent patients. Vaccination represents a major preventive measure against specific infectious risks in this population but as responses to vaccines are reduced, especially in the early post-transplant period or after treatment for rejection, an optimal vaccination status should be obtained prior to transplantation whenever possible. This review reports the currently available data on the indications and protocols of vaccination in SOT adult candidates and recipients.
RESUMEN
Small molecule protein kinase inhibitors (PKIs) have become an effective strategy for cancer patients. However, hepatotoxicity is a major safety concern of these drugs, since the majority are reported to increase transaminases, and few of them (Idelalisib, Lapatinib, Pazopanib, Pexidartinib, Ponatinib, Regorafenib, Sunitinib) have a boxed label warning. The exact rate of PKI-induced hepatoxicity is not well defined due to the fact that the majority of data arise from pre-registration or registration trials on fairly selected patients, and the post-marketing data are often based only on the most severe described cases, whereas most real practice studies do not include drug-related hepatotoxicity as an end point. Although these side effects are usually reversible by dose adjustment or therapy suspension, or by switching to an alternative PKI, and fatality is uncommon, all patients undergoing PKIs should be carefully pre-evaluated and monitored. The management of this complication requires an individually tailored reappraisal of the risk/benefit ratio, especially in patients who are responding to therapy. This review reports the currently available data on the risk and management of hepatotoxicity of all the approved PKIs.
RESUMEN
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a challenging malignancy characterised by clinical and biological heterogeneity, independent of the stage. Despite the application of surveillance programs, a substantial proportion of patients are diagnosed at advanced stages when curative treatments are no longer available. The landscape of systemic therapies has been rapidly growing over the last decade, and the advent of immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has changed the paradigm of systemic treatments. The coexistence of the tumour with underlying cirrhosis exposes patients with HCC to competing events related to tumour progression and/or hepatic decompensation. Therefore, it is relevant to adopt proper clinical endpoints to assess the extent of treatment benefit. While overall survival (OS) is the most accepted endpoint for phase III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and drug approval, it is affected by many limitations. To overcome these limits, several clinical and radiological outcomes have been used. For instance, progression-free survival (PFS) is a useful endpoint to evaluate the benefit of sequential treatments, since it is not influenced by post-progression treatments, unlike OS. Moreover, radiological endpoints such as time to progression (TTP) and objective response rate (ORR) are frequently adopted. Nevertheless, the surrogacy between these endpoints and OS in the setting of unresectable HCC (uHCC) remains uncertain. Since most of the surrogate endpoints are radiology-based (e.g., PFS, TTP, ORR), the use of standardised tools is crucial for the evaluation of radiological response. The optimal way to assess the radiological response has been widely debated, and many criteria have been proposed over the years. Furthermore, none of the criteria have been validated for immunotherapy in advanced HCC. The coexistence of the underlying chronic liver disease and the access to several lines of treatments highlight the urgent need to capture early clinical benefit and the need for standardised radiological criteria to assess cancer response when using ICIs in mono- or combination therapies. Here, we review the most commonly used clinical and radiological endpoints for trial design, as well as their surrogacy with OS. We also review the criteria for radiological response to treatments for HCC, analysing the major issues and the potential future perspectives.
