Regorafenib is a diphenylurea oral multikinase inhibitor, structurally comparable to sorafenib, which targets a variety of kinases implicated in angiogenic and tumor growth-promoting pathways. Regorafenib was the first agent to positively show significant survival advantage as a second-line therapy in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who had previously failed first-line treatment with sorafenib. Recent evidence has shown that its antitumor efficacy is due to a comprehensive spectrum of tumor neo-angiogenesis and proliferation inhibition and immunomodulatory effects on the tumor microenvironment, which plays a crucial role in tumor development. This review addresses the rationale and supporting evidence for regorafenib’s efficacy in HCC that led to regorafenib’s approval as a second-line therapy. In addition, we review proof from clinical practice studies that validate the RESORCE trial results. We discuss regorafenib’s potential role in the newly emerging therapeutic strategy based on combination with immune checkpoint blockade and its possible extensibility to patient categories not enrolled in the registrative study.

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.

Regorafenib was the first drug to demonstrate a survival benefit as a second-line agent after sorafenib failure in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recent studies have shown that its mechanism of action is not only limited to its very broad spectrum of inhibition of angiogenesis, tumor proliferation, spread, and metastasis, but also to its immunomodulatory properties that have favorable effects on the very intricate role that the tumor microenvironment plays in carcinogenesis and tumor growth. In this review, we discuss rationale and evidence supporting regorafenib efficacy in HCC and that led to its approval as a second-line treatment, after sorafenib failure. We also discuss the evidence from clinical practice studies that confirm the results previously achieved in clinical trials. Finally, we analyze the potential role of regorafenib in emerging combined treatment approach with immunotherapy strategies using immune checkpoint blockade and its potential extension to patient categories not included in the registrative study.

Background: After the advent of new treatment options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the identification of prognostic factors is crucial for the selection of the most appropriate therapy for each patient. Patients and methods: With the aim to fill this gap, we applied recursive partitioning analysis (RPA) to a cohort of 404 patients treated with lenvatinib. Results: The application of RPA resulted in a classification based on five variables that originated a new prognostic score, the lenvatinib prognostic index (LEP) index, identifying three groups: low risk [patients with prognostic nutritional index (PNI) >43.3 and previous trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE)]; medium risk [patients with PNI >43.3 but without previous TACE and patients with PNI <43.3, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 1 and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B (BCLC-B)]; high risk [patients with PNI <43.3 and ALBI grade 2 and patients with PNI <43.3, albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 1 and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C (BCLC-C)]. Median overall survival was 29.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 22.8-29.8 months] in low risk patients (n ¼ 128), 17.0 months (95% CI 15.0-24.0 months) in medium risk (n ¼ 162) and 8.9 months (95% CI 8.0-10.7 months) in high risk (n ¼ 114); low risk hazard ratio (HR) 1 (reference group), medium risk HR 1.95 (95% CI 1.38-2.74), high risk HR 4.84 (95% CI 3.16-7.43); P < 0.0001. The LEP index was validated in a cohort of 127 Italian patients treated with lenvatinib. While the same classification did not show a prognostic value in a cohort of 311 patients treated with sorafenib, we also show a possible predictive role in favor of lenvatinib in the low risk group. Conclusions: LEP index is a promising, easy-to-use tool that may be used to stratify patients undergoing systemic treatment of advanced HCC.

The American College of Radiology (ACR) released the Liver Imaging Report and Data System (LI-RADS) scheme, which categorizes hepatic nodules in risk classes from LR-1 to LR-5 (according to the degree of risk to be HCC) and LR-M (probable malignancy not specific for HCC). The aim of this study was to test whether HCC with different LR patterns on CEUS have different overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). We retrospectively enrolled 167 patients with the first definitive diagnosis of single HCC (by using CT/MRI or histological techniques if CT/MRI were inconclusive) for whom CEUS examination was available. The median size of HCC lesions was 2.2 cm (range 1.0–7.2 cm). According to CEUS LI-RADS classification, 28 patients were in LR-3, 48 in LR-4, 83 in LR-5, and 8 in LR-M. Patient liver function and nodule characteristics were not statistically different between CEUS LI-RADS classes. Using univariate analysis, CEUS LI-RADS class was not found to be a predictor of survival (p = 0.347). In conclusion, HCC showing the CEUS LI-RADS classes LR-3 and LR-4 have no better clinical outcome than typical HCC. Such data support the EASL policy, aimed at conclusive diagnostic investigations of indeterminate nodules up to obtaining histological proof to avoid leaving aggressive HCC not timely treated.

Background and aims In patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), macrovascular invasion (MaVI) limits treatment options and decreases survival. Detailed data on the relationship between MaVI extension and patients' characteristics, and its impact on patients' outcome are limited. We evaluated the prevalence and extension of MaVI in a large cohort of consecutive HCC patients, analysing its association with liver disease and tumour characteristics, as well as with treatments performed and patients' survival. Methods We analysed data of 4774 patients diagnosed with HCC recorded in the Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA) database (2008‐2018). Recursive partition analysis (RPA) was performed to evaluate interactions between MaVI, clinical variables and treatment, exploring the inter‐relationship determining overall survival. Results MaVI prevalence was 11.1%, and median survival of these patients was 6.0 months (95% CI, 5.1‐7.1). MaVI was associated with younger age at diagnosis, presence of symptoms, worse Performance Status (PS) and liver function, high alphafetoprotein levels and large HCCs. MaVI extension was associated with worse PS, ascites and greater impairment in liver function. RPA identified patients' categories with different treatment indications and survival, ranging from 2.4 months in those with PS > 1 and ascites, regardless of MaVI extension (receiving best supportive care in 90.3% of cases), to 14.1 months in patients with PS 0‐1, no ascites and Vp1‐Vp2 MaVI (treated with surgery in 19.1% of cases). Conclusions MaVI presence and extension, together with PS and ascites, significantly affect patients' survival and treatment selection. The decision tree based on these parameters may help assess patients' prognosis and inform therapeutic decisions.

No abstract

Liver cirrhosis is an established high-risk factor for HCC and the majority of patients diagnosed with HCC have cirrhosis. However, HCC also arises in non-cirrhotic livers in approximately 20 %of all cases. HCC in non-cirrhotic patients is often clinically silent and surveillance is usually not recommended. HCC is often diagnosed at an advanced stage in these patients. Current information about HCC in patients with non-cirrhotic liver is limited. Here we review the current knowledge on epidemiology, clinical features and imaging features of those patiens.