Cellular based treatment modalities for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary malignancy of the liver and is unfortunately associated with an overall poor prognosis and high mortality. Early and intermediate stages of HCC allow for treatment with surgical resection, ablation and even liver transplantation, however disease progression warrants conventional systemic therapy. For years treatment options were limited to molecular-targeting medications, of which sorafenib remains the standard of care. The recent development and success of immune checkpoint inhibitors has proven to be a breakthrough in the treatment of HCC, but there is an urgent need for the development of further novel therapeutic treatments that prolong overall survival and minimize recurrence. Current investigation is focused on adoptive cell therapy including chimeric antigen receptor-T cells (CAR-T cells), T cell receptor (TCR) engineered T cells, dendritic cells, natural killer cells, and tumor infiltrating lymphocyte cells, which have shown remarkable success in the treatment of hematological and solid tumor malignancies. In this review we briefly introduce readers to the currently approved systemic treatment options and present clinical and experimental evidence of HCC immunotherapeutic treatments that will hopefully one day allow for revolutionary change in the treatment modalities used for unresectable HCC. We also provide an up-to-date compilation of ongoing clinical trials investigating CAR-T cells, TCR engineered T cells, cancer vaccines and oncolytic viruses, while discussing strategies that can help overcome commonly faced challenges when utilizing cellular based treatments.

Combination of molecularly targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors in the new era of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma treatment

Multikinase inhibitors (MKIs) have been the only first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) for more than a decade, until the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Moreover, the combination regimen of atezolizumab (anti-programmed cell death protein ligand 1 antibody) plus bevacizumab (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor monoclonal antibody) has recently been demonstrated to have superior efficacy when compared with sorafenib monotherapy. The remarkable efficacy has made this combination therapy the new standard treatment for advanced HCC. In addition to MKIs, many other molecularly targeted therapies are under investigation, some of which have shown promising results. Therefore, in the era of immuno-oncology, there is a significant rationale for testing the combinations of molecularly targeted therapies and ICIs. Indeed, numerous preclinical and clinical studies have shown the synergic antitumor efficacy of such combinations. In this review, we aim to summarize the current knowledge on the combination of molecularly targeted therapies and immune checkpoint therapies for HCC from both preclinical and clinical perspectives.

Selection of first-line systemic therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

The majority of clinical trials of first-line systemic treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) used placebo or sorafenib as comparators, and there are limited data providing a cross comparison of treatments in this setting, especially for newly-approved immune checkpoint inhibitor and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor combination treatments.

AIM

To systematically review and compare response rates, survival outcomes, and safety of first-line systemic therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Science Direct, the Cochrane Database, Excerpta Medica Database, and abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2020 annual congress. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials of systemic therapy enrolling adults with advanced/unresectable HCC. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized controlled trials. A network meta-analysis was used to synthesize data and perform direct and indirect comparisons between treatments. P value, a frequentist analog to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve, was used to rank treatments.

RESULTS

In total, 1398 articles were screened and 27 included. Treatments compared were atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, brivanib, donafenib, dovitinib, FOLFOX4, lenvatinib, linifanib, nintedanib, nivolumab, sorafenib, sunitinib, vandetanib, 11 sorafenib combination therapies, and three other combination therapies. For overall response rate, lenvatinib ranked 1/19, followed by atezolizumab plus bevacizumab and nivolumab. For progression-free survival (PFS), atezolizumab + bevacizumab was ranked 1/15, followed by lenvatinib. With the exception of atezolizumab + bevacizumab [hazard ratios (HR)PFS = 0.90; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64-1.25], the estimated HRs for PFS for all included treatments vs lenvatinib were > 1; however, the associated 95%CI passed through unity for bevacizumab plus erlotinib, linifanib, and FOLFOX4. For overall survival, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was ranked 1/25, followed by vandetanib 100 mg/d and donafinib, with lenvatinib ranked 6/25. Atezolizumab + bevacizumab was associated with a lower risk of death vs lenvatinib (HRos = 0.63; 95%CI: 0.44-0.89), while the HR for overall survival for most other treatments vs lenvatinib had associated 95%CIs that passed through unity. Vandetanib 300 mg/d and 100 mg/d were ranked 1/13 and 2/13, respectively, for the lowest incidence of treatment terminations due to adverse events, followed by sorafenib (5/13), lenvatinib (10/13), and atezolizumab + bevacizumab (13/13).

CONCLUSION

There is not one single first-line treatment for advanced HCC associated with superior outcomes across all outcome measurements. Therefore, first-line systemic treatment should be selected based on individualized treatment goals.

The Evolving Role of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treatment

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of most common cancers and the fourth leading cause of death worldwide. Commonly, HCC development occurs in a liver that is severely compromised by chronic injury or inflammation. Liver transplantation, hepatic resection, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), and targeted therapies based on tyrosine protein kinase inhibitors are the most common treatments. The latter group have been used as the primary choice for a decade. However, tumor microenvironment in HCC is strongly immunosuppressive; thus, new treatment approaches for HCC remain necessary. The great expression of immune checkpoint molecules, such as programmed death-1 (PD-1), cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), lymphocyte activating gene 3 protein (LAG-3), and mucin domain molecule 3 (TIM-3), on tumor and immune cells and the high levels of immunosuppressive cytokines induce T cell inhibition and represent one of the major mechanisms of HCC immune escape. Recently, immunotherapy based on the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), as single agents or in combination with kinase inhibitors, anti-angiogenic drugs, chemotherapeutic agents, and locoregional therapies, offers great promise in the treatment of HCC. This review summarizes the recent clinical studies, as well as ongoing and upcoming trials.

Safety of PD-1/PD-L1 Inhibitors Combined With Palliative Radiotherapy and Anti-Angiogenic Therapy in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background

Previous studies have explored cancer immunotherapy with radiotherapy or anti-angiogenic therapy, but no trials have reported a triple therapy approach. This study aimed to investigate safety and clinical outcome of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with palliative radiotherapy and targeted angiogenesis therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) of Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C.

Methods

Consecutive patients (n=16) treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with radiotherapy and anti-angiogenic therapy in a bi-institutional cohort between July 2017 and December 2020 were retrospectively included. Radiotherapy was conducted within 14 days of the first administration of immunotherapy. The primary endpoint was treatment-related adverse event (TRAE).

Results

The median follow-up was 383 days. Fifteen patients (93.8%) experienced at least 1 TRAE. The most common TRAEs of any grade were rash (25%), diarrhea (25%), aspartate aminotransferase increase (18.8%), alanine transaminase increase (18.8%), decreased appetite (18.8%), and fatigue (18.8%). Grade 3/4 TRAEs occurred in 4 patients (25%) and finally led to treatment interruption. No patient death was attributed to treatment. No specific events were responsible for the addition of radiotherapy. Six patients showed partial response, 7 showed stable disease, and 2 showed progressive disease. The objective response rate and disease control rate were 40.0% (95% CI 16.3%-67.7%) and 86.7% (95% CI 59.5%-98.3%), respectively. Moreover, the median progression-free survival was 140 days. Patients had a median overall survival of 637 days, and the estimated rates of survival at 6 and 12 months were 92.3% and 75.5%, respectively.

Conclusion

PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors combined with palliative radiotherapy and anti-angiogenic therapy appear to be safe, with no unexpected adverse events. Additional studies exploring the clinical benefit are warranted.

Advances in drug development for hepatocellular carcinoma: clinical trials and potential therapeutic targets

Although hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the deadliest health burdens worldwide, few drugs are available for its clinical treatment. However, in recent years, major breakthroughs have been made in the development of new drugs due to intensive fundamental research and numerous clinical trials in HCC. Traditional systemic therapy schemes and emerging immunotherapy strategies have both advanced. Between 2017 and 2020, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a variety of drugs for the treatment of HCC, including multikinase inhibitors (regorafenib, lenvatinib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab), immune checkpoint inhibitors (nivolumab and pembrolizumab), and bevacizumab combined with atezolizumab. Currently, there are more than 1000 ongoing clinical trials involving HCC, which represents a vibrant atmosphere in the HCC drug research and development field. Additionally, traditional Chinese medicine approaches are being gradually optimized. This review summarizes FDA-approved agents for HCC, elucidates promising agents evaluated in clinical phase I/II/III trials and identifies emerging targets for HCC treatment. In addition, we introduce the development of HCC drugs in China. Finally, we discuss potential problems in HCC drug therapy and possible future solutions and indicate future directions for the development of drugs for HCC treatment.

Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Overview of the Changing Landscape of Treatment Options

The last three years have seen remarkable progress in comprehending predisposing factors and upgrading our treatment arsenal concerning hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Until recently, there were no means to withstand the progression of viral hepatitis-associated liver cirrhosis to HCC. A deeper understanding of the molecular mechanism of the disease, the use of biomarkers, and the follow-up, allowed us to realize that conventional chemotherapy failing to increase survival in patients with advanced HCC tends to be exiled from clinical practice. Multi-kinase inhibitors (TKIs) such as sorafenib, lenvatinib targeting mainly the vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1–3 VEGFRs 1–3 provided until recently the standard of care for these patients, as first- or second-line treatment. Since May 2020, the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab combination (immunotherapy plus anti-VEGF) has become the new reference standard in first-line HCC treatment. Additionally, anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (anti-PD-1) immunotherapy can be used as a second-line treatment following first-line treatment’s failure. Phase III clinical trials have recently suggested the efficacy of novel anti-angiogenic factors such as cabozantinib and ramucirumab as a second-line treatment option. With considerations about toxicity arising, clinical trials are investigating combinations of the aforementioned targeted therapies with immunotherapy as first-line treatment. This paper aims to perform a systematic review describing the evolving treatment options for HCC over the last decades, ranging from neoadjuvant treatment to systemic therapy of advanced-stage HCC. With the landscape of HCC treatment shifting towards novel agents the forming of a new therapeutic algorithm for HCC seems to be imperative.

Cabozantinib: An evolving therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is rising in incidence and remains a leading cause of cancer-related death. After a decade of disappointing trials following the approval of sorafenib for patients with advanced HCC, a number of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and monoclonal antibodies targeting angiogenesis and immune checkpoints have recently been approved. The phase 3 CELESTIAL trial demonstrated improved progression-free and overall survival with the TKI cabozantinib compared to placebo, supporting it as a treatment option for patients with advanced HCC previously treated with sorafenib. Cabozantinib blocks multiple key pathways of HCC pathogenesis, including VEGFR, MET, and the TAM (TYRO3, AXL, MER) family of receptor kinases, and promotes an immune-permissive tumor microenvironment. Here, we review the mechanisms of action of cabozantinib, including effects on tumor growth and its immunomodulatory properties, providing pre-clinical rationale for combination strategies with checkpoint inhibitors. We discuss the design and outcomes of CELESTIAL including improved survival across subgroups defined by age, disease etiology, baseline AFP level, prior therapies (including duration of prior sorafenib), and tumor burden. Cabozantinib had a manageable safety profile with dose modification. Studies combining cabozantinib with atezolizumab (COSMIC-312) and durvalumab (CAMILLA) in the first and second-line settings are ongoing, as well as a neoadjuvant study of cabozantinib with nivolumab. Future investigations are warranted to define the use of cabozantinib in patients with Child-Pugh B liver function and identify markers predictive of clinical benefit. The role of cabozantinib in HCC continues to evolve with an anticipated role in immunotherapy combinations.

Randomised Phase 1b/2 trial of tepotinib vs sorafenib in Asian patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with MET overexpression

Background

This open-label, Phase 1b/2 study evaluated the highly selective MET inhibitor tepotinib in systemic anticancer treatment (SACT)-naive Asian patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) with MET overexpression.

Methods

In Phase 2b, tepotinib was orally administered once daily (300, 500 or 1,000 mg) to Asian adults with aHCC. The primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and adverse events (AEs). Phase 2 randomised SACT-naive Asian adults with aHCC with MET overexpression to tepotinib (recommended Phase 2 dose [RP2D]) or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The primary endpoint was independently assessed time to progression (TTP).

Results

In Phase 1b (n = 27), no DLTs occurred; the RP2D was 500 mg. In Phase 2 (n = 90, 45 patients per arm), the primary endpoint was met: independently assessed TTP was significantly longer with tepotinib versus sorafenib (median 2.9 versus 1.4 months, HR = 0.42, 90% confidence interval: 0.26–0.70, P = 0.0043). Progression-free survival and objective response also favoured tepotinib. Treatment-related Grade ≥3 AE rates were 28.9% with tepotinib and 45.5% with sorafenib.

Conclusions

Tepotinib improved TTP versus sorafenib and was generally well tolerated in SACT-naive Asian patients with aHCC with MET overexpression.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01988493.

Diagnosis and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Update of the consensus document of the AEEH, AEC, SEOM, SERAM, SERVEI, and SETH

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary liver neoplasm and one of the most common causes of death in patients with cirrhosis of the liver. In parallel, with recognition of the clinical relevance of this cancer, major new developments have recently appeared in its diagnosis, prognostic assessment and in particular, in its treatment. Therefore, the Spanish Association for the Study of the Liver (AEEH) has driven the need to update the clinical practice guidelines, once again inviting all the societies involved in the diagnosis and treatment of this disease to participate in the drafting and approval of the document: Spanish Society for Liver Transplantation (SETH), Spanish Society of Diagnostic Radiology (SERAM), Spanish Society of Vascular and Interventional Radiology (SERVEI), Spanish Association of Surgeons (AEC) and Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM). The clinical practice guidelines published in 2016 and accepted as National Health System Clinical Practice Guidelines were taken as the reference documents, incorporating the most important recent advances. The scientific evidence and the strength of the recommendation is based on the GRADE system.

Advances in systemic therapy for the first-line treatment of unresectable HCC

Introduction: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common and deadliest cancers worldwide. In recent years, several drugs have been approved in first- and second-line setting. Currently, several phase-III trials are ongoing with combinations of checkpoint inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) and anti-angiogenic antibodies, which will most likely increase therapeutic options in frontline therapy in the near future.Areas covered: This review summarizes the standard of care in first-line systemic therapy for patients with advanced HCC and provides an outlook on the most promising combinations currently tested in prospective trials.Expert opinion: The recent approval of novel substances has substantially changed the field of palliative treatment strategies in patients with advanced HCC. Immuno-oncology (IO)-based combination therapies will become the next standard of care in frontline HCC. The potent anti-tumor efficacy and good tolerability of these therapies will increase the use of upfront systemic therapy in patients with intermediate stage HCC.

Camrelizumab Combined with FOLFOX4 Regimen as First-Line Therapy for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinomas: A Sub-Cohort of a Multicenter Phase Ib/II Study

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy can synergistically increase efficacy in a variety of malignancies. We conducted this phase Ib/II study to assess the safety and efficacy of anti-PD-1 antibody camrelizumab in combination with FOLFOX4 for treatment-naive advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC).

METHODS

This open-label, multicenter phase Ib/II study (NCT03092895) enrolled patients with aHCC and without prior systemic treatment for treatment with camrelizumab (3 mg/kg) and FOLFOX4 every two weeks. First, six patients were enrolled, followed by an additional 28 patients after dose-limiting toxicity cases were determined to be <33% of patients. The primary endpoint was tolerability and safety of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 34 aHCC patients were enrolled and received study treatment. No dose-limiting toxicity were observed in the first six patients enrolled. Twenty-nine (85.3%) of the total 34 patients had grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs), with the most common ones being decreased neutrophil count (55.9%) and decreased white blood cell count (38.2%). No TRAEs-related deaths occurred. The objective response and disease control rate were 29.4% (95% CI, 15.1-47.5) and 79.4% (95% CI, 62.1-91.3), respectively. The median duration of response, progression-free survival, and overall survival was 6.9 months (range, 3.3-11.5), 7.4 months (95% CI, 3.9-9.2), and 11.7 months (95% CI, 8.2-22.0), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Camrelizumab combined with FOLFOX4 for first-line treatment of patients with aHCC showed good safety and tolerability, with promising preliminary antitumor activity.

Hepatobiliary Cancers, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

The NCCN Guidelines for Hepatobiliary Cancers focus on the screening, diagnosis, staging, treatment, and management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), gallbladder cancer, and cancer of the bile ducts (intrahepatic and extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma). Due to the multiple modalities that can be used to treat the disease and the complications that can arise from comorbid liver dysfunction, a multidisciplinary evaluation is essential for determining an optimal treatment strategy. A multidisciplinary team should include hepatologists, diagnostic radiologists, interventional radiologists, surgeons, medical oncologists, and pathologists with hepatobiliary cancer expertise. In addition to surgery, transplant, and intra-arterial therapies, there have been great advances in the systemic treatment of HCC. Until recently, sorafenib was the only systemic therapy option for patients with advanced HCC. In 2020, the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab became the first regimen to show superior survival to sorafenib, gaining it FDA approval as a new frontline standard regimen for unresectable or metastatic HCC. This article discusses the NCCN Guidelines recommendations for HCC.

Combination Immunotherapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Where Are We Currently?

The past decade has seen a rise in the availability of breakthrough therapeutic strategies for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A tumor microenvironment in HCC is regulated by various immunotolerance mechanisms; therefore, therapeutic strategies aiming at disrupting tumor immune tolerance are becoming attractive curative options in HCC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have demonstrated impressive effectiveness in HCC, including in sorafenib-unresponsive patients. Synergistic approaches with checkpoint inhibitors (anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4) and antiangiogenic drugs are burgeoning as first-line treatment therapeutic modalities in HCC.

Immunotherapy Updates in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Simple Summary

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) carries a grim prognosis, which has historically been compounded by a lack of available systemic therapies. Sorafenib monotherapy was the standard of care for front-line treatment of advanced HCC for many years, despite both poor tolerability and lack of durable responses. In the past few years, there have been several clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors for advanced HCC. Use of immune checkpoint inhibitors alone, and in combination with targeted therapies, has led to improved outcomes in both treatment-naïve and subsequent line treatment of advanced HCC. Here we review the role of immunotherapy in the treatment of HCC, describe the mechanistic basis for combination with targeted therapy, and summarize the recent published data as well as ongoing clinical trials for the use of immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced HCC.

Abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the second most common cause of cancer death worldwide. HCC tumor development and treatment resistance are impacted by changes in the microenvironment of the hepatic immune system. Immunotherapy has the potential to improve response rates by overcoming immune tolerance mechanisms and strengthening anti-tumor activity in the tumor microenvironment. In this review, we characterize the impact of immunotherapy on outcomes of advanced HCC, as well as the active clinical trials evaluating novel combination immunotherapy strategies. In particular, we discuss the efficacy of atezolizumab and bevacizumab as demonstrated in the IMbrave150 study, which created a new standard of care for the front-line treatment of advanced HCC. However, there are multiple ongoing trials that may present additional front-line treatment options depending on their efficacy/toxicity results. Furthermore, the preliminary data on the application of chimeric antigen receptor (CAR-T) cell therapy for treatment of HCC suggests this may be a promising option for the future of advanced HCC treatment.

Natural Killer Cells and Regulatory T Cells Cross Talk in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Exploring Therapeutic Options for the Next Decade

Despite major advances in immunotherapy, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a challenging target. Natural Killer (NK) cells are crucial components of the anti-HCC immune response, which can be manipulated for immunotherapeutic benefit as primary targets, modulators of the tumour microenvironment and in synchronising with tumour antigen specific effector CD8 cells for tumour clearance. Regulatory T cells shape the anti-tumour response from effector T cells via multiple suppressive mechanisms. Future research is needed to address the development of novel NK cell-targeted immunotherapy and on restraining Treg frequency and function in HCC. We have now entered a new era of anti-cancer treatment using checkpoint inhibitor (CPI)-based strategies. Combining GMP-NK cell immunotherapy to enhance the frequency of NK cells with CPI targeting both NK and CD8 T cells to release co-inhibitory receptors and enhance the cells anti-tumour immunity of HCC would be an attractive therapeutic option in the treatment of HCC. These therapeutic approaches should now be complemented by the application of genomic, proteomic and metabolomic approaches to understanding the microenvironment of HCC which, together with deep immune profiling of peripheral blood and HCC tissue before and during treatment, will provide the much-needed personalised medicine approach required to improve clinical outcomes for patients with HCC.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Associated Hepatotoxicity in Primary Liver Cancer Versus Other Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Overall risks of hepatotoxicity with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have yet to be compared in primary liver cancers to other solid tumors.

METHODS

We reviewed data from the PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases, and assessed the risk of hepatotoxicity associated with ICIs.

RESULTS

A total of 117 trials were eligible for the meta-analysis, including 7 trials with primary liver cancers. The most common hepatotoxicity was ALT elevation (incidence of all grade 5.29%, 95% CI 4.52-6.20) and AST elevation (incidence of all grade 5.88%, 95% CI 4.96-6.97). The incidence of all grade ALT and AST elevation was 6.01% and 6.84% for anti-PD-1 (95% CI 5.04-7.18/5.69-8.25) and 3.60% and 3.72% for anti-PD-L1 (95% CI 2.72-4.76/2.82-4.94; p< 0.001/p<0.001). The incidence of ≥ grade 3 ALT and AST elevation was 1.54% and 1.48% for anti-PD-1 (95% CI 1.19-1.58/1.07-2.04) and 1.03% and 1.08% for anti-PD-L1 (95% CI 0.71-1.51/0.80-1.45; p= 0.002/p<0.001). The incidence of all grade ALT and AST elevation was 13.3% and 14.2% in primary liver cancers (95% CI 11.1-16.0 and 9.93-20.36) vs. 4.92% and 5.38% in other solid tumors (95% CI 4.21-5.76 and 4.52-5.76 in other solid tumors; p <0.001/p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our study indicates that anti-PD-1 is associated with a higher risk of all- and high-grade hepatotoxicity compared to anti-PD-L1, and primary liver cancers are associated with a higher risk of all- and high-grade hepatotoxicity compared to other solid tumors.

The Use of Cabozantinib in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Hong Kong-A Territory-Wide Cohort Study

(1) Background: Cabozantinib is approved in sorafenib-exposed advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). We evaluated the real-life pattern of use, efficacy, and tolerability of cabozantinib in aHCC. (2) Methods: This territory-wide study included consecutive aHCC patients who received cabozantinib between February 2018 and September 2020 in Hong Kong. The objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AE) were assessed. (3) Results: Overall, 42 patients were included. Approximately 83.3% had Child-Pugh A cirrhosis. About 64.3% received cabozantinib as a single agent, and the remaining 35.7% received cabozantinib as an add-on to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). For single-agent patients, the median follow-up was 6.7 months. The ORR was 3.7%, DCR was 44.4%, and the median OS was 8.28 months. About 74.1% of patients experienced any AEs with 7.4% having grade ≥3 AEs. Among patients who received prior ICIs (n = 16), the ORR was 6.3%, and the median OS was 8.28 months. An exploratory analysis of patients who received cabozantinib as an add-on to ICIs showed an ORR of 6.7% and a median OS of 15.1 months, with 73.3% having any AE and 13.3% having grade ≥3 AEs. (4) Conclusions: Cabozantinib had good anti-tumor activity, survival benefits, and acceptable tolerability in real-life aHCC patients.

The Current Landscape of Clinical Trials for Systemic Treatment of HCC

Simple Summary

Liver cancer is a life-threatening disease. Apart from surgery and catheter-guided therapies, drugs are a central pillar for its treatment. Clinical trials are research studies that are designed to evaluate the treatment effect of a given drug. Therefore, they are the driving force behind innovation and medical progress. One such innovation in the past years has been immunotherapy, which has become increasingly important for treating cancer. Recently, the first such therapy has been approved for the treatment of liver cancer. Current clinical trials are exploring the benefit of immunotherapy and other therapies for this disease. This article gives an overview of such trials paying attention to the different underlying treatment strategies and the varying clinical settings, depending on the stage of the disease.

Abstract

The clinical development of systemic treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has gained significant momentum in recent years. After the unexpected failure of the phase 3 trials testing the PD1-inhibitors nivolumab and pembrolizumab as monotherapy in advanced HCC, a multitude of trials employing different agents in various combinations and at different disease stages have been initiated. The first positive results reported for the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab, as the first line treatment of advanced HCC, will bring lasting change to the management of HCC and has increased the odds of success for alternative combination therapies. This review article seeks to provide clarity on the complex and evolving landscape of clinical trials on systemic treatments of HCC. It covers current trials which test various systemic treatments (i) in the first and second line in advanced HCC, (ii) in intermediate HCC, (iii) as adjuvant as well as (iv) neoadjuvant strategies, and (v) including immune interventions other than immune checkpoint inhibition.

Recent Advances and Future Prospects in Immune Checkpoint (ICI)-Based Combination Therapy for Advanced HCC

Advanced, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma has a dismal outcome. Multiple immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting the programmed-cell death 1 pathway (PD-1/L1) have been approved for the treatment of advanced HCC. However, outcomes remain undesirable and unpredictable on a patient-to-patient basis. The combination of anti-PD-1/L1 with alternative agents, chiefly cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) ICIs or agents targeting other oncogenic pathways such as the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway and the c-MET pathway, has, in addition to the benefit of directly targeting alterative oncogenic pathways, in vitro evidence of synergism through altering the genomic and function signatures of T cells and expression of immune checkpoints. Several trials have been completed or are underway evaluating such combinations. Finally, studies utilizing transcriptomics and organoids are underway to establish biomarkers to predict ICI response. This review aims to discuss the biological rationale and clinical advances in ICI-based combinations in HCCs, as well as the progress and prospects of the search for the aforementioned biomarkers in ICI treatment of HCC.

A Comparison of Lenvatinib versus Sorafenib in the First-Line Treatment of Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Selection Criteria to Guide Physician's Choice in a New Therapeutic Scenario

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common malignancy across the world. Alongside improvement in local approaches for early stages, the prognosis of patients with advanced disease remains poor. The tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib was the first drug approved for advanced HCC. During the past decade, this has been extensively explored in real-life settings, such as Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 2, Child-Pugh B liver function, chronic kidney disease, HIV infection, transplant recipients and the elderly. After 10 years, the multikinase inhibitor lenvatinib was approved in first-line setting. The Phase III REFLECT trial established the non-inferiority of lenvatinib compared with sorafenib in terms of overall survival, meanwhile exploratory analysis suggests a potential benefit over sorafenib for patients with HBV chronic infection and positive alpha-fetoprotein value. Experience with lenvatinib for patients not matching the REFLECT trial criteria remains promising but still retrospective. Indeed, the treatment sequence after lenvatinib still remains a crucial issue, considering that standard second-line options were tested only in patients who progressed to sorafenib. Overall, the choice between lenvatinib and sorafenib should take into account key selection criteria from randomized trials, evidence to date in special clinical situations, the physician's experience and patient's preference. Fast approval of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for advanced HCC brought an additional element in this scenario. Undoubtedly, lenvatinib and sorafenib remain available options for patients who are not suitable or those progressed to combination immunotherapy. It is conceivable that new systemic options will contribute to design a new treatment algorithm for HCC in the near future. Meanwhile, prospective studies and biomarker analysis are needed to help physicians in the choice between lenvatinib and sorafenib.

NAFLD-Associated HCC: Progress and Opportunities

Due to an increase in the obesity-associated metabolic syndrome of epidemic proportions, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is becoming a leading cause of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in western countries. This presents added challenges, as NAFLD-associated HCC tends to present at an advanced stage in older patients with co-morbidities. Their prognosis is generally poor with the benefits of standard therapies less certain. The pathogenesis of NAFLD-associated HCC is multifactorial and not well understood, although the risk of HCC developing undoubtedly increases as NAFLD progresses to steatohepatitis and cirrhosis. Recent advances in our understanding of the drivers of NAFLD and HCC will hopefully lead to the development of clinically relevant biomarkers, tools and strategies to aid the identification of high-risk patients, inform preventive measures, and introduction of better tolerated targeted therapies. Lifestyle modification and chemoprevention with drugs such as anti-platelets, statins and anti-diabetics are being evaluated for HCC prevention. The landmark IMBrave150 study introducing the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab has recently transformed the landscape of systemic therapies in HCC, with follow-up analyses and real-world data for patients with NAFLD-associated HCC eagerly anticipated. While responses may vary in ways not yet appreciated, the rate of discovery and progress suggests imminent change and opportunities.

Atezolizumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: good things come to those who wait

Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients present poor prognosis. However, recent years have seen the advent of several novel treatments in this setting, where the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors has been investigated. Among these, the PD-L1 inhibitor atezolizumab in combination with bevacizumab has reported unprecedented results in treatment-naive patients with unresectable disease, with the recently published IMbrave150 Phase III trial showing the superiority of the combination over sorafenib monotherapy, and after having attended more than a decade of 'stagnation', the HCC medical community has a new standard of care. Herein, we examine the development and the impact of atezolizumab in advanced HCC, summarizing the mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics and recent evidence from Phase I to III clinical trials.

Comparison of HBV reactivation between patients with high HBV-DNA and low HBV-DNA loads undergoing PD-1 inhibitor and concurrent antiviral prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1) inhibitor is recommended to treat advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the safety of PD-1 inhibitor in patients with high HBV-DNA load is unknown because of the potential risk of hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation. This study was to compare the HBV reactivation between patients with low HBV-DNA loads and high HBV-DNA loads undergoing antiviral prophylaxis and PD-1 inhibitor.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study including consecutive hepatitis B surface antigen-positive HCC patients who received PD-1 inhibitor and concurrent antiviral prophylaxis for prevention of clinical hepatitis. Patients were divided into low HBV-DNA group (low group, ≤ 500 IU/ml) and high HBV-DNA group (high group, > 500 IU/ml) according to the baseline HBV-DNA level. The incidences of HBV reactivation, HBV-associated hepatitis, and PD-1 inhibitor disruption were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Two hundred two eligible patients were included: 94 in the low group and 108 in the high group. Seven patients (5 in the low group and 2 in the high group) developed HBV reactivation, and all recovered from HBV reactivation and HBV-associated hepatitis. The incidence of HBV reactivation in the two groups was low (5.3% vs 1.9%, P = 0.34). There was also no difference in the incidence of HBV-associated hepatitis (P = 0.56), or PD-1 inhibitor disruption (P = 0.82). The multivariable analysis showed PD-1 inhibitor with hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy was the only significant risk factor for HBV reactivation (P = 0.04) and hepatitis (P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

With concurrent antiviral prophylaxis, HBV-DNA load higher than 500 IU/ml should not be a contraindication for PD-1 inhibitor.

Cost-effectiveness of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs Sorafenib for Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma

IMPORTANCE

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as a first-line therapy for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma has been shown to improve overall and progression-free survival compared with standard sorafenib treatment. However, because of the high cost of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, assessment of its value by considering both efficacy and cost is needed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib for patients with unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This economic evaluation was performed from June through September 2020, with a 6-year investment time period. Hypothetical patients were male and female adults 18 years or older who had a diagnosis of locally advanced metastatic or unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma confirmed by histologic or clinical features.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Health care costs (adjusted to 2020 US dollars), life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs sorafenib were examined using a partitioned survival model. One-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were used to examine model uncertainty. The model was also used to estimate price reductions of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab that would achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness.

RESULTS

In the base case analysis of a hypothetical sample of 424 patients, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with an increase of 0.623 life-years (1.840 vs 1.218 life-years) and 0.484 QALYs (1.412 vs 0.928 QALYs) and with an incremental cost of $156 210 per patient compared with sorafenib. The ICER was $322 500 per QALY (5th to 95th percentile, $149 364-$683 744 per QALY), with 0.6% and 5.1% chance of being cost-effective at willingness-to-pay thresholds of $100 000 and $150 000 per QALY, respectively. The ICER never decreased below $150 000 per QALY in the 1-way sensitivity analyses. To achieve more favorable cost-effectiveness under the thresholds of $150 000 to $100 000 per QALY, the prices of atezolizumab and bevacizumab would need to be reduced by 37% to 47%.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this economic evaluation, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with clinical benefit but was not cost-effective compared with sorafenib for first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma from a US payer perspective. A substantial reduction in price for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab would be needed to achieve favorable cost-effectiveness for this new therapy.

Stereotactic radiotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: Expanding the multidisciplinary armamentarium

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common malignancy worldwide and the third most common cause of cancer-related death. Long-term prognosis remains poor with treatment options frequently limited by advanced tumor stage, tumor location, or underlying liver dysfunction. Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) utilizes technological advances to deliver highly precise, tumoricidal doses of radiation. There is an emerging body of literature on SABR in HCC demonstrating high rates of local control in the order of 80-90% at 3 years. SABR is associated with a low risk of radiation-induced liver disease or decompensation in appropriately selected HCC patients with compensated liver function and is now being incorporated into guidelines as an additional treatment option. This review outlines the emerging role of SABR in the multidisciplinary management of HCC and summarizes the current evidence for its use as an alternative ablative option for early-stage disease, as a bridge to transplant, and as palliation for advanced-stage disease. We outline specific considerations regarding patient selection, toxicities, and response assessment. Finally, we compare current international guidelines and recommendations for the use of SABR and summarize ongoing studies.

Morphology of tumor and nontumor tissue in liver resection specimens for hepatocellular carcinoma following nivolumab therapy

Nivolumab is an immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) approved for treatment of many cancers, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Liver injury is a known complication in patients treated with nivolumab for nonliver tumors. To date, the morphologic changes to tumor and nontumor liver have not been well-characterized in HCC patients. We identified 20 patients who underwent partial hepatectomy or liver transplantation after receiving nivolumab for HCC. Demographics, laboratory values, and imaging results were obtained from medical records. All available slides from resection specimens were evaluated for tumor necrosis, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), and features of liver injury. Patients in the study included 16 males and 4 females with median age of 56 years. The underlying liver disease was HBV in 10, HCV in 6, and unknown/other in 4. Twelve patients were treated with nivolumab in the neoadjuvant setting, whereas eight were treated with nivolumab, usually along with other therapies, before undergoing liver transplantation. On review of resection specimens, three patients (all from the neoadjuvant group) demonstrated marked treatment response attributable to nivolumab. TILs were present in 17/20 cases. One case that showed treatment response in the neoadjuvant group demonstrated non-necrotizing granulomas and prominent bile duct intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) in the nontumor liver. One case from the transplant group showed bile duct damage and prominent ductular reaction after long-term nivolumab therapy (32 doses). Our findings indicate that nivolumab is effective in a subset of patients, including in the neoadjuvant setting. Granulomas and bile duct IELs are rare findings in cases treated with nivolumab but, when seen, may indicate potential response to therapy. Bile duct damage and ductular reaction may be manifestations of long-term nivolumab therapy. Future prospective and longitudinal studies with pretreatment tumor biopsies may help identify patients apt to respond to ICI therapy and further characterize patterns of ICI-related liver injury.

Clinical Outcomes with Multikinase Inhibitors after Progression on First-Line Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multinational Multicenter Retrospective Study

INTRODUCTION

Atezolizumab-bevacizumab is the new standard of care for first-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the optimal sequence of therapy after disease progression on atezolizumab-bevacizumab is unclear.

METHODS

This multinational, multicenter, and retrospective study assessed clinical outcomes of patients with advanced HCC who received subsequent systemic therapy after progression on atezolizumab-bevacizumab between July 2016 and April 2019.

RESULTS

Among 71 patients treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab, a total of 49 patients who received subsequent systemic therapy were included in this analysis; the median age was 60 years (range, 37-80) and 73.5% were male. All patients were classified as Child-Pugh A and Barcelona-Clinic Liver Cancer stage C. Multikinase inhibitors (MKIs), including sorafenib (n = 29), lenvatinib (n = 19), and cabozantinib (n = 1), were used as second-line therapy for all patients. The objective response rate and disease control rate were 6.1 and 63.3%, respectively, in all patients. With a median follow-up duration of 11.0 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.8-4.9) and 14.7 months (95% CI 8.1-21.2) in all patients. Median PFS with lenvatinib was significantly longer than that with sorafenib (6.1 vs. 2.5 months; p = 0.004), although there was no significant difference in median OS (16.6 vs. 11.2 months; p = 0.347). Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade and grade 3 occurred in 42 (85.7) and 8 (16.3%) of patients. Common TRAEs included hand-foot syndrome (n = 26, 53.1%), fatigue (n = 14, 28.6%), hypertension (n = 14, 28.6%), and diarrhea (n = 12, 24.5%).

CONCLUSION

Second-line treatment with MKIs, mostly sorafenib and lenvatinib, showed comparable efficacy and manageable toxicities in patients with advanced HCC after disease progression on atezolizumab-bevacizumab.

Lessons From Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Trials in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The implementation of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) into the clinical management of different malignancies has largely changed our understanding of cancer treatment. After having proven efficacy in different tumor entities such as malignant melanoma and lung cancer, ICI were intensively tested in the setting of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Here they could achieve higher and more durable response rates compared to tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKI), that were sole standard of care for the last decade. Most recently, ICI treatment was approved in a first line setting of HCC, for cases not suitable for curative strategies. However, only a subset of patients benefits from ICI therapy, while others experience rapid tumor progression, worsening of liver function and poor prognosis. Efforts are being made to find immune characteristics that predict tumor responsiveness to ICI, but no reliable biomarker could be identified so far. Nevertheless, data convincingly demonstrate that combination therapies (such as dual inhibition of PD-L1 and VEGF) are more effective than the application of single agents. In this review, we will briefly recapitulate the current algorithms for systemic treatment, discuss available results from checkpoint inhibitor trials and give an outlook on future directions of immunotherapy in HCC.

The Role of Cabozantinib as a Therapeutic Option for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Current Landscape and Future Challenges

The systemic treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has significantly changed over the last years, with the introduction of two new standard-of-care first-line treatments (lenvatinib and the combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab) and the success of several new agents in second line. In particular, after the approval of regorafenib, ramucirumab and cabozantinib, the landscape of second-line treatment has become notably complex, providing a serious challenge in clinical practice. In this review, we focus on cabozantinib, a multikinase inhibitor which was proven effective in improving overall and progression-free survival of patients previously treated with sorafenib in the randomized Phase III CELESTIAL trial. CELESTIAL is the only phase III study to have included patients in the third-line setting and cabozantinib efficacy was confirmed in several post hoc analyses, irrespective of alpha-fetoprotein levels, albumin-bilirubin score, age, and duration of previous sorafenib treatment. The safety profile of cabozantinib in the CELESTIAL trial was comparable with other multikinase inhibitors used for HCC and the most frequent grade ≥3 adverse events were diarrhea, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, fatigue, hypertension, and aspartate aminotransferase increase. Tolerability did not differ between younger and older patients and quality of life was significantly improved compared to placebo during the treatment. In this review, we also make a particular mention to the use of cabozantinib in populations which are normally excluded from clinical trials, such as older patients and Child-Pugh B patients. Finally, we present the new treatment strategies in which cabozantinib is being tested, most notably the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab in the first-line setting in the phase III COSMIC-312 trial and the use of cabozantinib after progression on immune-checkpoint inhibitors.

Immunmodulatory Treatment Strategies of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From Checkpoint Inhibitors Now to an Integrated Approach in the Future

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) still represents a human tumor entity with very limited therapeutic options, especially for advanced stages. Here, immune checkpoint modulating drugs alone or in combination with local ablative techniques could open a new and attractive therapeutic "door" to improve outcome and response rate for patients with HCC.

METHODS

Published data on HCC experimental to pre-(clinical) treatment strategies from standard of care to novel immunomodulatory concepts were summarized and discussed in detail.

RESULTS

Overall, our knowledge of the role of immune checkpoints in HCC is dramatically increased in the last years. Experimental and pre-clinical findings could be translated to phase 1 and 2 clinical trials and became standard of care. Local ablative techniques of HCC could improve the effectivity of immune checkpoint inhibitors in situ.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates the importance of immunomodulatory treatment strategies of HCC, whereby the "best treatment code" of immune checkpoint drugs, combination with ablative techniques and of timing must be evaluated in coming clinical trials.

Lenvatinib, toripalimab, plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy versus lenvatinib alone for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Background

Lenvatinib is the first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but prognosis is still unsatisfactory. Recently, hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), and immune checkpoint inhibitors showed promising results for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Considering different anti-malignancy mechanisms, combining these three treatments may improve outcomes. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib, toripalimab, plus HAIC versus lenvatinib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Methods

This was a retrospective study including patients treated with lenvatinib [8 mg (⩽60 kg) or 12 mg (>60 kg) once daily] or lenvatinib, toripalimab plus HAIC [LeToHAIC group, lenvatinib 0-1 week prior to initial HAIC, 240 mg toripalimab 0-1 day prior to every HAIC cycle, and HAIC with FOLFOX regimen (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², leucovorin 400 mg/m², 5-fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m² on day 1, and 5-fluorouracil infusion 2400 mg/m² for 46 h, every 3 weeks)]. Progression-free survival, overall survival, objective response rate, and treatment-related adverse events were compared.

Results

From February 2019 to August 2019, 157 patients were included in this study: 71 in the LeToHAIC group and 86 in the lenvatinib group. The LeToHAIC group showed longer progression-free survival (11.1 versus 5.1 months, p < 0.001), longer overall survival (not reached versus 11 months, p < 0.001), and a higher objective response rate (RECIST: 59.2% versus 9.3%, p < 0.001; modified RECIST: 67.6% versus 16.3%, p < 0.001) than the lenvatinib group. In addition, 14.1% and 21.1% of patients in the LeToHAIC group achieved complete response of all lesions and complete response of the intrahepatic target lesions per modified RECIST criteria, respectively. Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events that were more frequent in the LeToHAIC group than in the lenvatinib group included neutropenia (8.5% versus 1.2%), thrombocytopenia (5.6% versus 0), and nausea (5.6% versus 0).

Conclusions

Lenvatinib, toripalimab, plus HAIC had acceptable toxic effects and might improve survival compared with lenvatinib alone in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

NASH limits anti-tumour surveillance in immunotherapy-treated HCC

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) can have viral or non-viral causes^1–5. Non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is an important driver of HCC. Immunotherapy has been approved for treating HCC, but biomarker-based stratification of patients for optimal response to therapy is an unmet need^6,7. Here we report the progressive accumulation of exhausted, unconventionally activated CD8⁺PD1⁺ T cells in NASH-affected livers. In preclinical models of NASH-induced HCC, therapeutic immunotherapy targeted at programmed death-1 (PD1) expanded activated CD8⁺PD1⁺ T cells within tumours but did not lead to tumour regression, which indicates that tumour immune surveillance was impaired. When given prophylactically, anti-PD1 treatment led to an increase in the incidence of NASH–HCC and in the number and size of tumour nodules, which correlated with increased hepatic CD8⁺PD1⁺CXCR6⁺, TOX⁺, and TNF⁺ T cells. The increase in HCC triggered by anti-PD1 treatment was prevented by depletion of CD8⁺ T cells or TNF neutralization, suggesting that CD8⁺ T cells help to induce NASH–HCC, rather than invigorating or executing immune surveillance. We found similar phenotypic and functional profiles in hepatic CD8⁺PD1⁺ T cells from humans with NAFLD or NASH. A meta-analysis of three randomized phase III clinical trials that tested inhibitors of PDL1 (programmed death-ligand 1) or PD1 in more than 1,600 patients with advanced HCC revealed that immune therapy did not improve survival in patients with non-viral HCC. In two additional cohorts, patients with NASH-driven HCC who received anti-PD1 or anti-PDL1 treatment showed reduced overall survival compared to patients with other aetiologies. Collectively, these data show that non-viral HCC, and particularly NASH–HCC, might be less responsive to immunotherapy, probably owing to NASH-related aberrant T cell activation causing tissue damage that leads to impaired immune surveillance. Our data provide a rationale for stratification of patients with HCC according to underlying aetiology in studies of immunotherapy as a primary or adjuvant treatment.

In hepatocellular carcinoma driven by non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, aberrant T cell activation and impaired immune surveillance seem to make hepatocellular carcinoma less responsive to anti-PD1 or anti-PDL1 immunotherapy.

The Efficacy and Safety of Programmed Death-1 and Programmed Death Ligand 1 Inhibitors for the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is often diagnosed at an advanced stage where only systemic treatment can be offered. The emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) provides hope for the treatment of HCC. In this study, we performed a meta-analysis to provide evidence for the efficacy and safety of ICIs in the treatment of HCC.

METHODS

The following databases and websites were searched: Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library and ClinicalTrials.gov. The primary endpoints were response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Finally, twelve studies were included in this meta-analysis. When the corresponding outcome indicators and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled directly, the overall RR, DCR, PFS and OS were 0.17 (0.15-0.19, I2 = 56.2%, P=0.009), 0.58 (0.55-0.61, I2 = 75.9%, P<0.001), 3.27 months (2.99-3.55, I2 = 73.0%, P=0.001), 11.73 months (10.79-12.67, I2 = 90.3%, P<0.001). Compared to the control group, treatment with ICIs significantly improved RR, PFS and OS, the OR and HRs were 3.11 (2.17-4.44, P<0.001), 0.852 (0.745-0.974, P=0.019) and 0.790 (0.685-0.911, P=0.001), respectively. However, no significant improvement in DCR was found in ICIs treatment in this meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

HCC patients would benefit from ICIs treatment, however, more studies are needed in the future to provide more useful evidence for the treatment of HCC by programmed death-1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors.

Comparison of Efficacy of Systemic Therapies in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Updated Systematic Review and Frequentist Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background

Several systemic agents have been approved for use in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). However, it is unclear which treatment is superior in either the first- or second-line settings due to the paucity of head-to-head comparative trials. Therefore, we have conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis for the indirect comparison of the systemic agents in the first line and second line settings.

Methods

Randomized clinical trials evaluating systemic agents in first and second line settings in aHCC from inception to April 2020 were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Databases and the annual ASCO and ESMO conferences from 2017 to 2020. Studies in English reporting clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) were included. The primary outcomes of interest were pooled hazard ratios (HR) of OS and pooled odds ratios (OR) of ORR in first line studies and pooled HR of PFS and OR of ORR for second line studies. Additionally, OS for second line agents were reported in the qualitative analysis.

Results

Overall, first line studies comprised 8335 patients (13 studies) and second line studies comprised 4612 patients (11 studies). In the first line setting, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab was associated with the highest OS benefit over sorafenib (HR 0.58, 95% CI, 0.42-0.80; P-score 0.993). Additionally, lenvatinib was associated with the greatest ORR benefit (OR 3.34, 95% CI, 2.17-5.14; P-score 0.080) in the first line setting. In the second line setting, cabozantinib was associated with the highest PFS benefit over placebo (HR 0.44, 95% CI, 0.29-0.66; P-score 0.854) as well as the highest ORR benefit (OR 9.40, 95% CI, 1.25-70.83, P-score, 0.266).

Conclusion

Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab appears to have superior efficacy among first line agents whereas cabozantinib appears to be superior in the second line setting. Further studies are warranted to determine whether the type of prior therapy received affects the efficacy of subsequent second line therapy.

Organ specific responses to first-line lenvatinib plus anti-PD-1 antibodies in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

We evaluated organ-specific response rates (OSRRs) to first-line lenvatinib plus anti-PD-1 antibodies in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

This retrospective analysis included Chinese patients with unresectable/advanced HCC who received first-line lenvatinib (8 mg/day) plus ≥3 infusions of anti-PD-1 antibodies between October 2018 and May 2020. Tumor and macrovascular tumor thrombi (MVTT) treatment responses were evaluated every 2 months using RECIST v1.1. The overall response rate (ORR)/OSRR was defined as the percentage of patients with a best overall response of complete or partial response (CR or PR).

RESULTS

In total, 60 patients were included in the analysis; 96.7% had measurable intrahepatic lesions, 55% had MVTT and 26.7% had extrahepatic disease. In all 60 patients, the ORR was 33.3%, median progression-free survival was 7.0 months (95% CI, 1.7-12.3) and median overall survival was not reached. The OSRR for MVTT (54.5%) was higher versus intrahepatic tumors (32.8%), extrahepatic lung metastases (37.5%) and lymph node metastases (33.3%). Among 33 patients with intrahepatic tumors and MVTT, 18 had differential responses in each site, including 13 with a better response in MVTT versus intrahepatic lesions. Among 18 patients whose MVTT achieved a radiographic CR or PR, six underwent surgical resection: 4/6 achieved a pathological CR in MVTT and 2/6 in the intrahepatic tumor.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line lenvatinib plus anti-PD-1 antibodies resulted in better tumor responses in MVTT versus intrahepatic lesions. Complete MVTT necrosis may allow downstaging and subsequent eligibility for surgical resection in a proportion of patients with advanced HCC.

Camrelizumab in combination with apatinib in second-line or above therapy for advanced primary liver cancer: cohort A report in a multicenter phase Ib/II trial

Background

Emerging clinical data suggest that an immune checkpoint inhibitor in combination with an antiangiogenic agent is a reasonable strategy for multiple malignancies. We assessed the combination of camrelizumab with apatinib in pretreated advanced primary liver cancer (PLC, cohort A) from a multicohort phase Ib/II trial.

Methods

Patients with PLC after prior systemic treatment(s) were administered camrelizumab (3 mg/kg, once every 2 weeks) plus apatinib (125, 250, 375, or 500 mg; once per day) in a 3+3 dose-escalation stage and subsequent expansion stage. The primary endpoints were tolerability and safety of study treatment.

Results

From April 2017 to July 2019, 28 patients (21 with hepatocellular carcinoma and 7 with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma) received camrelizumab plus apatinib. Two dose-limiting toxicities (both grade 3 diarrhea) were reported in the 500 mg cohort. Therefore, the 375 mg cohort was expanded. Of the 19 patients in the 375 mg cohort, dose reduction to 250 mg occurred in 8 patients within 2 months after treatment initiation. Of the 28 patients with PLC, 26 had grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events, with hypertension being the most common (9/28). One treatment-related death occurred. The objective response rate was 10.7% (95% CI 2.3% to 28.2%). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.7 months (95% CI 2.0 to 5.8) and 13.2 months (95% CI 8.9 to not reached), respectively.

Conclusion

The combination of camrelizumab with apatinib had a manageable toxicity and promising antitumor activity in patients with advanced PLC. Apatinib at a dose of 250 mg is recommended as a combination therapy for further studies of advanced PLC treatment.

Trial registration numbers

NCT03092895.

Emerging immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

INTRODUCTION

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major challenge in oncology. It ranks fourth in most common causes of cancer death worldwide. Despite advancements in cancer treatment, limited effective treatment options exist for advanced HCC. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have become an irreplaceable tool in the treatment of many metastatic cancers. Early phase trials have demonstrated superior efficacy and good safety profile of immune checkpoint inhibitors and its combination with other drugs in the treatment of advanced HCC.

AREAS COVERED

The scientific rationale and the current state-of-the-art of treatment in HCC involving immune checkpoint inhibitors, either as monotherapy or in combination with other drugs are reviewed and discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown clinically relevant benefits as monotherapy in advanced HCC. These agents have shown superior survival benefits, durable response and manageable safety profiles in advanced HCC. Recent triumph of combination strategy with immune checkpoint inhibitor and anti-VEGF agent will likely bring a paradigm shift in systemic treatment of advanced HCC. Further research are needed to identify predictive biomarkers for response and best treatment sequence prioritization. Financial cost remains a major impediment for the widespread use of these novel treatments.

Beyond First-Line Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Until recently, the treatment landscape for hepatocellular cancer (HCC) was dominated by tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) which offered an overall survival (OS) benefit when used both in the first-and second-line setting compared to best supportive care. However, the treatment landscape has changed with the introduction of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of HCC with significant improvement in OS and progression free survival reported with combination atezolizumab and bevacizumab compared to sorafenib in the first-line setting. Nonetheless, the response to ICIs is 20–30% and invariably patients will progress. What remains unclear is which therapeutics should be used following ICI exposure. Extrapolating from the evidence base in renal cell carcinoma, subsequent therapy with TKIs offers both a response and survival benefit and are recommended by European guidelines. However, there are a number of novel therapies emerging that target mechanisms of ICI resistance that hold promise both in combination with ICI or as subsequent therapy. This paper will discuss the evidence for ICIs in HCC, the position of second-line therapies following ICIs and research strategies moving forward.

Atezolizumab and bevacizumab for hepatocellular carcinoma: mechanism, pharmacokinetics and future treatment strategies

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a common cancer globally and a leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Although early-stage disease may be curable by resection, liver transplantation or ablation, many patients present with unresectable disease and have a poor prognosis. Combination treatment with atezolizumab (targeting PD-L1) and bevacizumab (targeting VEGF) in the recent IMbrave150 study was shown to be effective with an acceptable safety profile in patients with unresectable HCC. Herein, we discuss this novel combination in the context of the liver immune environment, summarize the mechanism and pharmacokinetics of atezolizumab and bevacizumab, and examine recent data on other immune checkpoint inhibitor combination strategies as well as future directions in the treatment of patients with advanced HCC.

Current and future perspective on targeted agents and immunotherapies in hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents the sixth most commonly diagnosed cancer and the fourth leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. HCC occurs predominantly in patients with underlying chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, and it presents a poor prognosis in advanced stage. Since its approval, for the following 10 years, sorafenib remained the only systemic agent with proven clinical efficacy for patients with advanced HCC. Recently, more drugs have been studied and several advances in first‑line and second‑line treatment options should yield significant improvements in survival. Lenvatinib, another tyrosine‑kinase inhibitor, was found to be non-inferior to sorafenib in terms of overall survival (OS), with significantly better progression-free survival and objective response rate (ORR). The tyrosinekinase inhibitors, regorafenib and cabozantinib, were shown to significantly improve survival in the second‑line setting after sorafenib failure. Ramucirumab, a VEGF inhibitor, can also improve survival in the second‑line setting among patients with AFP≥400 ng/dL. Moreover, good efficacy was seen in phase I/II trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors as monotherapy. Ongoing trials are evaluating combination immune checkpoint inhibitor and tyrosine‑kinase inhibitors or VEGF inhibitors for increasing overall survival in this patient population with advanced HCC.

Hepatocellular carcinoma: French Intergroup Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up (SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, AFEF, SIAD, SFR/FRI)

INTRODUCTION

This document is a summary of the French Intergroup guidelines regarding the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) published in March 2019.

METHOD

It is a collaborative work under the auspices of most of the French medical societies involved in the management of HCC. It is based on the previous guidelines published in 2017. Recommendations are graded in 3 categories according to the level of evidence of data found in the literature.

RESULTS

The diagnosis and staging of HCC is essentially based on clinical, biological and imaging features. A pathological analysis obtained by a biopsy of tumoral and non-tumoral liver is recommended. HCCs can be divided into 2 groups, taking into account not only the tumor stage, but also liver function. HCCs accessible to curative treatments are tumors that are in Milan criteria or with an AFP score ≤ 2, mainly treated by surgical resection, local ablation or liver transplantation. Intermediate and advanced HCCs with no liver insufficiency, accessible only to palliative treatments, benefit from TACE, SIRT or systemic therapy according to the presence or absence of macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic spread.

CONCLUSION

Such recommendations are in permanent optimization and each individual case must be discussed in a multidisciplinary expert board.

Pattern of progression in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with ramucirumab

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Radiological progression patterns to first-line sorafenib have been associated with post-progression and overall survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, but these associations remain unknown for therapies in second- and later-line settings. This post hoc analysis of REACH and REACH-2 examined outcomes by radiological progression patterns in the second-line setting of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with ramucirumab or placebo.

METHODS

Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, Child-Pugh A and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status 0 or 1 with prior sorafenib were randomized to receive ramucirumab 8mg/kg or placebo every 2 weeks. Among 625 patients with ≥1 progression pattern (new extrahepatic lesion [including new macrovascular invasion], new intrahepatic lesion, extrahepatic growth or intrahepatic growth), data were analysed by trial and for pooled individual patient data for REACH-2 and REACH (alpha-fetoprotein ≥400 ng/mL). Cox models evaluated prognostic implications of progression patterns on overall and post-progression survival.

RESULTS

Post-progression survival was worse among those with new extrahepatic lesions in REACH (HR 2.33, 95% CI 1.51-3.60), REACH-2 (HR 1.49, 95% CI 0.72-3.08) and the pooled population (HR 1.75, 95% CI 1.12-2.74) compared to other progression patterns. Overall survival was also significantly reduced in those with new extrahepatic lesions across studies. Ramucirumab provided an overall survival benefit across progression patterns, including patients with new extrahepatic lesions (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.39-0.80) in the pooled population.

CONCLUSIONS

The emergence of new extrahepatic lesions in the second-line setting is a poor prognostic factor for post-progression survival. The benefit of ramucirumab for overall survival was consistent across progression patterns.

First-Line Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab versus Sorafenib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

Simple Summary

There is a growing body of literature demonstrating high cancer drug costs relative to the benefits provided to patients treated on a large scale. We examined the cost-effectiveness of atezolizumab–bevacizumab for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, based on the results of the pivotal phase 3 trial IMbrave 150. Our model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. We found that atezolizumab–bevacizumab was cost-effective if we assumed all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of hepatocellular carcinoma. Otherwise, atezolizumab–bevacizumab was not cost-effective. We concluded that price reduction, duration of therapy capped to ≤12 months, or dosage of bevacizumab reduced to ≤10 mg/kg would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical benefits were modest. The long-term effectiveness of atezolizumab–bevacizumab is a critical factor of its cost-effectiveness. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

Abstract

Background: The IMbrave 150 trial revealed that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (atezo–bev) improves survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (1 year survival rate: 67.2% vs. 54.6%). We assessed the cost-effectiveness of atezo–bev vs. sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable HCC from the US payer perspective. Methods: Using data from the IMbrave 150, we developed a Markov model to compare the lifetime cost and efficacy of atezo–bev as first-line systemic therapy in HCC with those of sorafenib. The main outcomes were life-years, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), lifetime costs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Atezo–bev demonstrated a gain of 0.44 QALYs, with an additional cost of USD 79,074. The ICER of atezo–bev was USD 179,729 per QALY when compared with sorafenib. The model was most sensitive to the overall survival hazard ratio and body weight. If we assumed that all patients at the end of the IMbrave 150 trial were cured of HCC, atezo–bev was cost-effective (ICER USD 53,854 per QALY). However, if all patients followed the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results data, the ICER of atezo–bev was USD 385,857 per QALY. Reducing the price of atezo–bev by 20% and 29% would satisfy the USD 150,000/QALY and 100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. Moreover, capping the duration of therapy to ≤12 months or reducing the dosage of bev to ≤10 mg/kg would render atezo–bev cost-effective. Conclusions: The long-term effectiveness of atezo–bev is a critical but uncertain determinant of its cost-effectiveness. Price reduction would favorably influence cost-effectiveness, even if long-term clinical outcomes were modest. Further studies to optimize the duration and dosage of therapy are warranted.

The Role of IGF/IGF-1R Signaling in Hepatocellular Carcinomas: Stemness-Related Properties and Drug Resistance

Insulin-like Growth Factor (IGF)/IGF-1 Receptor (IGF-1R) signaling is known to regulate stem cell pluripotency and differentiation to trigger cell proliferation, organ development, and tissue regeneration during embryonic development. Unbalanced IGF/IGF-1R signaling can promote cancer cell proliferation and activate cancer reprogramming in tumor tissues, especially in the liver. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death, with a high incidence and mortality rate in Asia. Most patients with advanced HCC develop tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI)-refractoriness after receiving TKI treatment. Dysregulation of IGF/IGF-1R signaling in HCC may activate expression of cancer stemness that leads to TKI refractoriness and tumor recurrence. In this review, we summarize the evidence for dysregulated IGF/IGF-1R signaling especially in hepatitis B virus (HBV)-associated HCC. The regulation of cancer stemness expression and drug resistance will be highlighted. Current clinical treatments and potential therapies targeting IGF/IGF-1R signaling for the treatment of HCC will be discussed.