In our cohort CE was significantly superior to MRE for detecting SB lesions, mainly superficial and proximal lesions. CE is useful for a appropriate patients' classification according to Montreal classification.
Complete response affects 1% of patients with HCC who are treated with sorafenib. The association of complete response with early dermatologic reactions supports the role of a specific immune/inflammatory patient profile in the improved response to sorafenib. (Hepatology 2017).
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents the most frequent primary liver cancer. This disease usually arises as a result of a chronic liver disease, but may appear without any underlying disease. In most units, the staging and treatment decision in patients with HCC follows the Barcelona Clínic Liver Cancer (BCLC) strategy. Following this approach, patients diagnosed with HCC are classified according to tumour burden, liver function and ECOG-Performance Status (PS). This stratifies patients according to prognosis and links each stage with the evidence-based treatment approach to be first considered. Patients correspond to BCLC stage 0 (very early) when the tumour burden accounts for just one nodule and it measures 2 cm or less. BCLC stage A includes patients with just one nodule or 3 nodules under 3 cm. Both stages 0 and A gather patients with preserved liver function according to Child-Pugh score, being Child-Pugh A. Patients in BCLC B stage (intermediate stage) are patients with multinodular liver cancer confined to the liver, without extrahepatic disease, ECOG-PS 0 and preserved liver function (Child-Pugh A or B). Patients with portal venous invasion, extrahepatic disease or cancer-related symptoms measured by PS (1-2) and still with preserved liver function correspond to BCLC C (advanced) stage. Finally, patients classified in BCLC stage D are those with a severe alteration of liver function (Child-Pugh C) or severe cancer-related symptoms with PS above 2. In very early and early stages (BCLC 0 and A), treatment options include surgical treatment, ablation and liver transplantation. Intermediate stage (BCLC B) patients should be considered for transarterial chemoembolization. At advanced stage (BCLC C), the recommended treatment is sorafenib. Finally, at the end stage (BCLC D), symptomatic treatment is the suggested option. The treatment stage migration concept refers to patients who at first glance would be treated with the option that corresponds to their BCLC stage but, because of any coexisting comorbidity, technical issue or even treatment failure/progression but still within the original stage cannot be treated by the initial suggested treatment. These patients then move to the treatment that would correspond to the next stage/s.
The management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has evolved considerably over the last decade. Surveillance of cirrhotic patients and refinements to imaging techniques have enabled a relevant proportion of patients to be diagnosed at an early stage, when effective therapies are feasible. Resection, transplantation and ablation are all options in patients with early stage HCC. Thus, there is some controversy regarding which is the best treatment approach in challenging scenarios. There have also been major developments in locoregional therapies, particularly in intraarterial approaches. Finally, the systemic treatment for HCC has changed dramatically following the demonstration of a survival benefit with sorafenib; there are currently several firstline (sorafenib and lenvatinib) and second-line (regorafenib, cabozantinib and ramucirumab) treatments that have shown a survival benefit. Expectations for immune checkpoint inhibitors are high, with the results of the ongoing phase III trials eagerly awaited. In this review we discuss some of the controversies in the management of HCC, focussing in particular on systemic therapy.
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; I 2 = 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.
The principal advancements in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are the use of new systemic treatments, such as lenvatinib in first‐line treatment and regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab in second‐line treatment, because of their benefits in terms of overall survival. In addition, nivolumab as a second‐line agent was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 based on improved radiological response data. Physicians and patients alike will greatly benefit from this expanded arsenal of treatments once all these new drugs for the treatment of HCC finally become available. Unfortunately, in our review of the available data, we found a conspicuous lack of approved systemic treatments for HCC in the distinct setting of after liver transplantation (LT). Careful evaluation of the clinical trials for approved systemic treatments of HCC is crucial when considering the best options for those with HCC recurrence after LT. Although several first‐line or second‐line treatments have been shown to be effective for HCC, each of these trials was composed of its own specific populations, and those with HCC recurrence after LT were excluded. We have also summarized from a critical and clinical point of view the issues involved in the management of patients who are candidates for systemic treatment in this era of multiple drugs for the same indication.
Safety of regorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation (LT) has been recently demonstrated. We aimed to assess the survival benefit of regorafenib compared with best supportive care (BSC) in LT patients after sorafenib discontinuation. This observational multicenter retrospective study included LT patients with HCC recurrence who discontinued first‐line sorafenib. Group 1 comprised regorafenib‐treated patients, whereas the control group was selected among patients treated with BSC due to unavailability of second‐line options at the time of sorafenib discontinuation and who were sorafenib‐tolerant progressors (group 2). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) of group 1 compared with group 2. Secondary endpoints were safety and OS of sequential treatment with sorafenib + regorafenib/BSC. Among 132 LT patients who discontinued sorafenib included in the study, 81 were sorafenib tolerant: 36 received regorafenib (group 1) and 45 (group 2) received BSC. Overall, 24 (67%) patients died in group 1 and 40 (89%) in group 2: the median OS was significantly longer in group 1 than in group 2 (13.1 versus 5.5 months; P < 0.01). Regorafenib treatment was an independent predictor of reduced mortality (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16‐0.89; P = 0.02). Median treatment duration with regorafenib was 7.0 (95% CI, 5.5‐8.5) months; regorafenib dose was reduced in 22 (61%) patients for adverse events and discontinued for tumor progression in 93% (n = 28). The median OS calculated from sorafenib start was 28.8 months (95% CI, 17.6‐40.1) in group 1 versus 15.3 months (95% CI, 8.8‐21.7) in group 2 (P < 0.01). Regorafenib is an effective second‐line treatment after sorafenib in patients with HCC recurrence after LT.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.