RESUMEN
Background: Asia has a high burden of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) due to the high rates of chronic hepatitis B infection and accounts for 70% of HCC cases globally. In the past 20 years, the systemic treatment landscape of advanced HCC has evolved substantially - from tyrosine kinase inhibitors to immune-oncology agents plus anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents. The appropriate sequence of therapies has become critical in optimizing patient outcomes given the increase in systemic therapeutic options. This article evaluates the evidence and provides expert recommendations for the use of systemic therapies after first-line treatment in patients with advanced HCC. Summary: Based on three virtual meetings held in early 2021, a team of 17 experts comprising oncologists, a hepatologist, and a hepatobiliary surgeon from Hong Kong, Singapore, and Taiwan reviewed available data about systemic treatments for HCC after first line and formulated 28 statements. These statements aimed to provide expert guidance on selecting first and subsequent lines of therapies as well as recommending therapies in special circumstances, such as poor liver function, posttransplantation, recent gastrointestinal bleeding, or autoimmune diseases. Data supporting the statements were drawn from clinical trials and real-world studies. The 28 statements were then evaluated anonymously using a 5-point Likert scale, and 24 reached consensus, predefined as achieving 75% agreement. Statements generated covered the selection of first-line systemic therapy, considerations and goals of second-line systemic therapies, treatment selection following first-line therapy, and treatment recommendations following first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitors, immune-oncology monotherapy, or immune-oncology combination therapy. The authors also shared expert opinion on the use of second-line systemic therapy in patients with liver dysfunction, liver transplantation, and recent gastrointestinal or autoimmune disease. Key Messages: These expert statements summarize the latest data and expert opinion on selecting systemic treatment following first-line therapy in patients with unresectable advanced or metastatic HCC.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There are no prospective data on stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) as a bridge to liver transplantation for HCC. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SBRT as bridging therapy, with comparison with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU). APPROACH AND RESULTS: Patients were prospectively enrolled for SBRT under a standardized protocol from July 2015 and compared with a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent TACE or HIFU from 2010. The primary endpoint was tumor control rate at 1 year after bridging therapy. Secondary endpoints included cumulative incidence of dropout, toxicity, and posttransplant survival. During the study period, 150 patients were evaluated (SBRT, n = 40; TACE, n = 59; HIFU, n = 51). The tumor control rate at 1 year was significantly higher after SBRT compared with TACE and HIFU (92.3%, 43.5%, and 33.3%, respectively; P = 0.02). With competing risk analysis, the cumulative incidence of dropout at 1 and 3 years after listing was lower after SBRT (15.1% and 23.3%) compared with TACE (28.9% and 45.8%; P = 0.034) and HIFU (33.3% and 45.1%; P = 0.032). Time-to-progression at 1 and 3 years was also superior after SBRT (10.8%, 18.5% in SBRT, 45%, 54.9% in TACE, and 47.6%, 62.8% in HIFU; P < 0.001). The periprocedural toxicity was similar, without any difference in perioperative complications and patient and recurrence-free survival rates after transplant. Pathological complete response was more frequent after SBRT compared with TACE and HIFU (48.1% vs. 25% vs. 17.9%, respectively; P = 0.037). In multivariable analysis, tumor size <3 cm, listing alpha-fetoprotein <200 ng/mL, Child A, and SBRT significantly reduced the risk of dropout. CONCLUSIONS: SBRT was safe, with a significantly higher tumor control rate, reduced the risk of waitlist dropout, and should be used as an alternative to conventional bridging therapies.
