Background&Aims. Sorafenib is associated with multiple adverse events (AEs), potentially causing its permanent interruption. The impact of the physicians experience on the management of these AEs and the relative implications on clinical outcomes are unknown. We verified if the AEs management changed over time and if these modifications impacted on treatment duration and overall survival (OS). Methods. We analysed the prospectively collected data of 338 consecutive patients who started sorafenib between January 2008 and December 2017 in three tertiary care centres in Italy. Patients were divided according to the starting date: Group A (2008-2012; n=154), and Group B (2013-2017, n=184). Baseline and follow up data were compared. In the OS analysis, patients who received second-line treatments were censored when starting the new therapy. Results. Baseline characteristics, AEs, and radiological response were consistent across groups. Patients in Group B received a lower median daily dose (425 vs 568 mg/day, p<0.001) due to more frequent dose modifications. However, treatment duration was longer (5.8 vs 4.1 months, p=0.021) with a trend toward a higher cumulative dose in Group B. Notably, the OS was also higher (12.0 vs 11.0 months, p=0.003) with a sharp increase in the 2-year survival rate (28.1 vs 18.4%, p=0.003) in Group B. The multivariate time-dependent Cox regression confirmed later period of treatment as an independent predictor of survival (HR 0.728, 95%CI 0.581-0.937, p=0.013). Unconsidered confounders were unlikely to affect these results at the sensitivity analysis. Conclusions: experience in the management of sorafenib-related AEs prolongs treatment duration and survival. This factor should be considered in the design of future randomised clinical trials including a sorafenib treatment arm, as an underestimate of sample size may derive.

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.

Combined hepatocellular and cholangiocarcinoma (HCC-CC) is a rare primary liver cancer. It is constituted by neoplastic cells of both hepatocellular and cholangiocellular derivation. Different histology types of HCC-CC have been reported, hinting at heterogeneous carcinogenic pathways leading to the development of this cancer. Due to its rarity and complexity, mixed HCC-CC is a scantly investigated condition with unmet needs and unsatisfactory outcomes. Surgery remains the preferred treatment in resectable patients. The risk of recurrence, however, is high, especially in comparison with other primary liver cancers such as hepatocellular carcinoma. In unresectable or recurring patients, the therapeutic options are challenging due to the dual nature of the neoplastic cells. Consequently, the odds of survival of patients with HCC-CC remains poor. We analysed the literature systematically about the treatment of mixed HCC-CC, reviewing the main therapeutic options and their outcomes and analysing the most interesting developments in this topic with a focus on new potential therapeutic avenues.

INTRODUCTION: Prognostic classifications for patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) facilitate stratification in trials and inform clinical decision making. Recently, 3 different prognostic models (hepatoma arterial-embolization prognosis [HAP] score, sorafenib advanced HCC prognosis [SAP] score, and Prediction Of Survival in Advanced Sorafenib-treated HCC [PROSASH]-II) have been proposed specifically for patients treated with sorafenib. This study aimed to compare the prognostic performance of different scores. METHODS: We analyzed a large prospective database gathering data of 552 patients treated with sorafenib from 7 Italian centers. The performance of the HAP, SAP, and PROSASH–II models were compared with those of generic HCC prognostic models (including the Barcelona Clinic for Liver Cancer and Italian Liver Cancer staging systems, albumin–bilirubin grade, and Child-Pugh score) to verify whether they could provide additional information. RESULTS: The PROSASH-II model improved discrimination (C-index 0.62) compared with existing prognostic scores (C-index ≤0.59). Its stratification significantly discriminated patients, with a median overall survival of 21.5, 15.3, 9.3, and 6.0 months for risk group 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. The HAP and SAP score were also validated but with a poorer performance compared with the PROSASH-II. DISCUSSION: Although suboptimal, PROSASH-II is the most effective prognostic classification model among other available scores in a large Italian population of patients treated with sorafenib.

No abstract

Purpose: After 10 years of clinical practice and research studies, there are still no validated prognostic or predictive factors of response to sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). On the basis of the results of our two retrospective studies, we designed the multicenter INNOVATE study with the aim to validate the role of nitric oxide synthase 3 (NOS3) and ANGPT2 polymorphisms in patients with HCC treated with sorafenib [NCT02786342].Patients and Methods: This prospective multicenter study was conducted at 10 centers in Italy. All eligible patients received a continuous oral treatment with 400 mg of sorafenib twice daily. Genotyping analysis was performed for NOS3 (rs2070744) and ANGPT2 SNPs (rs55633437). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), whereas secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and diseasecontrol rate.Results: A total of 165 patients were enrolled between March 2016 and June 2018. NOS3 rs2070744 CC/CT genotypes were significantly associated with a higher median PFS (5.9 months vs. 2.4 months; HR ¼ 0.43; P ¼ 0.0007) and OS (15.7 months vs. 8.6 months; HR ¼ 0.38; P < 0.0001) compared with TT genotype. There was no statistically significant association between ANGPT2 rs55633437 TT/GT genotypes and PFS (2.4 months vs. 5.7 months; HR ¼ 1.93; P ¼ 0.0833) and OS (15.1 months vs. 13.0 months; HR ¼ 2.68; P ¼ 0.55) when compared with the other genotype. Following adjustment for clinical covariates, multivariate analysis confirmed NOS3 as an independent prognostic factor for PFS (HR ¼ 0.50; P ¼ 0.0128) and OS (HR ¼ 0.29; P ¼ 0.0041).Conclusions: The INNOVATE study met the primary endpoint, confirming that patients with advanced HCC with NOS3 rs2070744 CC/CT genotypes had a better prognosis with respect to TT genotype patients.

No abstract

Case–control observational studies suggested that aspirin might prevent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in high-risk patients, even if randomized clinical trials are lacking. Information regarding aspirin in subjects who already developed HCC, especially in its advanced stage, are scarce. While aspirin might be a low-cost option to improve the prognosis, multiple confounders and safety concerns are to be considered. In our retrospective analyses of a prospective dataset (n = 699), after assessing the factors associated with aspirin prescription, we applied an inverse probability treatment weight analysis to address the prescription bias. Analyses of post-sorafenib survival were also performed to reduce the influence of subsequent medications. Among the study population, 133 (19%) patients were receiving aspirin at the time of sorafenib prescription. Aspirin users had a higher platelet count and a lower prevalence of esophageal varices, macrovascular invasion, and Child–Pugh B status. The benefit of aspirin was confirmed in terms of overall survival (HR 0.702, 95% CI 0.543–0.908), progression-free survival, disease control rate (58.6 vs. 49.5%, p < 0.001), and post-sorafenib survival even after weighting. Minor bleeding events were more frequent in the aspirin group. Aspirin use was associated with better outcomes, even after the correction for confounders. While safety concerns arguably remain a problem, prospective trials for patients at low risk of bleeding are warranted.