EASL-EORTC clinical practice guidelines : management of hepatocellular carcinoma

https://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/hep.29913

Diagnosis, Staging, and Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: 2018 Practice Guidance by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth most common cause of cancer-related death worldwide. Risk factors for HCC include chronic hepatitis B and hepatitis C, alcohol addiction, metabolic liver disease (particularly nonalcoholic fatty liver disease) and exposure to dietary toxins such as aflatoxins and aristolochic acid. All these risk factors are potentially preventable, highlighting the considerable potential of risk prevention for decreasing the global burden of HCC. HCC surveillance and early detection increase the chance of potentially curative treatment; however, HCC surveillance is substantially underutilized, even in countries with sufficient medical resources. Early-stage HCC can be treated curatively by local ablation, surgical resection or liver transplantation. Treatment selection depends on tumour characteristics, the severity of underlying liver dysfunction, age, other medical comorbidities, and available medical resources and local expertise. Catheter-based locoregional treatment is used in patients with intermediate-stage cancer. Kinase and immune checkpoint inhibitors have been shown to be effective treatment options in patients with advanced-stage HCC. Together, rational deployment of prevention, attainment of global goals for viral hepatitis eradication, and improvements in HCC surveillance and therapy hold promise for achieving a substantial reduction in the worldwide HCC burden within the next few decades.

/pdf/a-global-view-of-hepatocellular-carcinoma-trends-risk-26dq6hubb1.pdf

A global view of hepatocellular carcinoma: trends, risk, prevention and management.

The global burden of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is increasing and might soon surpass an annual incidence of 1 million cases Genomic studies have established the landscape of molecular alterations in HCC; however, the most common mutations are not actionable, and only ~25% of tumours harbour potentially targetable drivers Despite the fact that surveillance programmes lead to early diagnosis in 40–50% of patients, at a point when potentially curative treatments are applicable, almost half of all patients with HCC ultimately receive systemic therapies Sorafenib was the first systemic therapy approved for patients with advanced-stage HCC, after a landmark study revealed an improvement in median overall survival from 8 to 11 months New drugs — lenvatinib in the frontline and regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab in the second line — have also been demonstrated to improve clinical outcomes, although the median overall survival remains ~1 year; thus, therapeutic breakthroughs are still needed Immune-checkpoint inhibitors are now being incorporated into the HCC treatment armamentarium and combinations of molecularly targeted therapies with immunotherapies are emerging as tools to boost the immune response Research on biomarkers of a response or primary resistance to immunotherapies is also advancing Herein, we summarize the molecular targets and therapies for the management of HCC and discuss the advancements expected in the near future, including biomarker-driven treatments and immunotherapies

/pdf/molecular-therapies-and-precision-medicine-for-2x6pqv3elt.pdf

Molecular therapies and precision medicine for hepatocellular carcinoma

http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC6340716?pdf=render

Epidemiology and Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Summary Background Sorafenib is the recommended treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of sorafenib to that of selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) with yttrium-90 ( 90 Y) resin microspheres in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods SARAH was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial done at 25 centres specialising in liver diseases in France. Patients were eligible if they were aged at least 18 years with a life expectancy greater than 3 months, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, Child-Pugh liver function class A or B score of 7 or lower, and locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC] stage C), or new hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for surgical resection, liver transplantation, or thermal ablation after a previously cured hepatocellular carcinoma (cured by surgery or thermoablative therapy), or hepatocellular carcinoma with two unsuccessful rounds of transarterial chemoembolisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a permutated block method with block sizes two and four to receive continuous oral sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or SIRT with 90 Y-loaded resin microspheres 2–5 weeks after randomisation. Patients were stratified according to randomising centre, ECOG performance status, previous transarterial chemoembolisation, and presence of macroscopic vascular invasion. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of sorafenib or underwent at least one of the SIRT work-up exams. This study has been completed and the final results are reported here. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01482442. Findings Between Dec 5, 2011, and March 12, 2015, 467 patients were randomly assigned; after eight patients withdrew consent, 237 were assigned to SIRT and 222 to sorafenib. In the SIRT group, 53 (22%) of 237 patients did not receive SIRT; 26 (49%) of these 53 patients were treated with sorafenib. Median follow-up was 27·9 months (IQR 21·9–33·6) in the SIRT group and 28·1 months (20·0–35·3) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 8·0 months (95% CI 6·7–9·9) in the SIRT group versus 9·9 months (8·7–11·4) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% CI 0·94–1·41] for SIRT vs sorafenib; p=0·18). In the safety population, at least one serious adverse event was reported in 174 (77%) of 226 patients in the SIRT group and in 176 (82%) of 216 in the sorafenib group. The most frequent grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (20 [9%] vs 41 [19%]), liver dysfunction (25 [11%] vs 27 [13%]), increased laboratory liver values (20 [9%] vs 16 [7%]), haematological abnormalities (23 [10%] vs 30 [14%]), diarrhoea (three [1%] vs 30 [14%]), abdominal pain (six [3%] vs 14 [6%]), increased creatinine (four [2%] vs 12 [6%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (one [ vs 12 [6%]). 19 deaths in the SIRT group and 12 in the sorafenib group were deemed to be treatment related. Interpretation In patients with locally advanced or intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma after unsuccessful transarterial chemoembolisation, overall survival did not significantly differ between the two groups. Quality of life and tolerance might help when choosing between the two treatments. Funding Sirtex Medical Inc.

Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial

Alexandra Heurgue-Berlot

Papers

Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial