Efficacy of 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate versus 4 L polyethylene glycol in split-dose for colonoscopy cleansing in out and inpatient: A multicentre, randomized trial (OVER 2019).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Adequate bowel cleansing is essential for colonoscopy quality. A novel 1 L polyethylene glycol plus ascorbate (1 L PEG+ASC) solution has been recently introduced. Nevertheless, the efficacy of 1 L PEG+ASC as compared to that of high-volume bowel preparation in both inpatients and outpatients is still unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This single-blinded, non-inferiority study randomized patients undergoing colonoscopy to receive split-dose 1 L PEG+ASC or 4 L PEG. The primary endpoint was the overall cleansing success. Secondary endpoints were excellent cleansing and high-quality cleansing of the right colon, as well as lesions detection rate, patient compliance, tolerability and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 478 patients were randomized to 1 L PEG+ASC (N = 236) or 4 L PEG (N = 242). The 1 L PEG+ASC showed higher cleansing success rate (91.8% vs 83.6%; P=0.01) and a high-quality cleansing of the right colon (52.3% and 38.5%; P=0.004) compared to 4 L PEG. Moreover, 1 L PEG+ASC achieved a higher cleansing success in out-patients (96.3%% vs 88.6%; P=0.018), and a similar success rate in the in-patients (84.7% vs 76.7%; P=0.18). Adenoma detection rate, tolerability and incidence of adverse events were comparable between preparations. CONCLUSIONS: The 1 L PEG+ASC showed higher efficacy in achieving adequate colon cleansing compared with 4 L PEG, particularly in the right colon. No differences in the tolerability and safety were detected.

The Role of Endoscopy in the Palliation of Pancreatico-Biliary Cancers: Biliary Drainage, Management of Gastrointestinal Obstruction, and Role in Relief of Oncologic Pain.

Therapeutic endoscopy permits many and various treatments for cancer palliation in patients with bilio-pancreatic cancers, enabling different options, supporting patients during their route to oncologic treatments, and trying to improve their quality of life. Therefore, both endoscopic and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS)-guided techniques are performed in this scenario. We performed a literature review focusing on the role of endoscopy in the palliation of those advanced pancreatic and biliary cancers developing malignant biliary obstruction (MBO), gastric outlet obstruction (GOO), and pain unresponsive to medical therapies. Therefore, we explored and focused on the clinical outcomes of endoscopic procedures in this scenario. In fact, the endoscopic treatment is based on achieving biliary drainage in the case of MBO through endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or EUS-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD), while GOO is endoscopically treated through the deployment of an enteral stent or the creation of EUS-guided gastro-entero-anastomosis (EUS-GEA). Furthermore, untreatable chronic abdominal pain is a major issue in patients unresponsive to high doses of painkillers, so EUS-guided celiac plexus neurolysis (CPN) or celiac ganglia neurolysis (CGN) helps to reduce dosage and have better pain control. Therefore, therapeutic endoscopy in the palliative setting is an effective and safe approach for managing most of the clinical manifestations of advanced biliopancreatic tumors.

Role of Etiology in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients Treated with Lenvatinib: A Counterfactual Event-Based Mediation Analysis.

Background: Whether the etiology of underlying liver disease represents a prognostic factor in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with lenvatinib is still a matter of debate. This study investigates whether the viral etiology of HCC plays a prognostic role in overall survival (OS). Methods: Data derived from a multicenter series of 313 HCC patients treated with lenvatinib between 2019 and 2022 were analyzed. Actuarial survival estimates were computed using the Kaplan−Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. We performed an event-based counterfactual mediation analysis to estimate direct (chronic inflammation and immunosuppression), indirect (tobacco smoking, alcohol use, illicit drug abuse with injections), and the total effect of viral etiology on OS. Results were expressed as hazard ratio (HR) and 95% CI. Results: Median OS was 21 months (95% CI: 20−23) in the group with other etiologies and 15 months (14−16) in the group with viral etiology (p < 0.0001). The total effect of viral etiology was associated with OS (HR 2.76, 1.32−5.21), and it was mainly explained by the pure direct effect of viral etiology (HR 2.74, 1.15−4.45). By contrast, its total indirect effect was not associated with poorer survival (HR 1.05, 0.82−2.13). These results were confirmed when considering tobacco, alcohol consumption, or injection drug abuse as potential mediators. Median progression-free survival was 9 months (8−10) in patients with other etiologies and 6 months (5−7) in patients with viral etiology (p < 0.0001). No difference in terms of adverse event rate was observed between the two groups. Conclusions: Patients affected by HCC with nonviral etiology treated with lenvatinib exhibit longer survival than those with viral etiology. This finding may have relevance in the treatment decision-making process.

The Evolving Scenario in the Assessment of Radiological Response for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Era of Immunotherapy: Strengths and Weaknesses of Surrogate Endpoints.

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.

Direct-acting antiviral agents and risk of Hepatocellular carcinoma: Critical appraisal of the evidence.

Direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) revolutionized the treatment of chronic HCV-related disease achieving high rates of sustained virological response (SVR), even in advanced cirrhosis, with modest contraindications and a low rate of adverse events. However, the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) persists due to the underlying chronic liver disease, both in patients with and without history of HCC. Although some initial studies reported a presumptive high risk of HCC development after DAA therapy, more recent observational studies denied this hypothesis. The residual risk for HCC occurrence after HCV eradication seems being progressively reduced with time after SVR. Data on recurrence of HCC after DAA exposure in patients with previously treated carcinoma initially reported conflicting results too, this being also due to methodological issues in analysis of retrospective multicenter studies. Anyway, current evidence support the use of DAAs in HCV-HCC treated patients, without any higher risk of tumor recurrence linked to antiviral therapy. Less effort has been made to evaluate the efficacy of DAA therapy in patients with untreated active HCC and it has been questioned whether a lower rate of SVR would be obtained among patients with active HCC. Studies conducted in this perspective concluded that HCC status does not influence the likelihood to obtain SVR with DAAs, making DAAs appropriate in HCC-active patients. As far as survival is concerned, recent studies conducted in cirrhotic HCV-related early-stage HCC found that DAAs improved overall survival, a benefit probably due to the reduction of hepatic decompensation.

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.