Downstaging and Expanded Criteria Hepatocellular Carcinoma Liver Transplantation

Toxicity Profiles of Systemic Therapies for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The recent development of targeted therapy and immunotherapy has made neoadjuvant therapy an attractive option for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, surgeons are concerned that adverse effects of neoadjuvant therapy with these agents could lead to delayed or even cancelled surgeries.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the current evidence regarding toxicity profiles for tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) among patients with HCC.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from January 1990 and December 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Single-group, placebo-controlled, and dual-agent clinical trials comparing TKIs and ICIs in patients with HCC were eligible for inclusion.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guideline, 2 reviewers independently extracted data. A random-effects model was used.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with clinically significant liver-related adverse events. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who experienced clinically relevant (grade 3 or higher) adverse events and significant adverse events (ie, those that were life threatening, required hospitalization, or prolonged disability) as well as the risk ratio (RR) of these complications.

RESULTS

Overall, 30 studies with 12 921 patients were included. Patients had a mean (range) age of 62 (18-89) years; a mean (SD) 84% (3) were male; a mean (SD) 82% (16) had Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C HCC; and a mean (SD) 97% (6) had Childs A cirrhosis. Overall, 21% (95% CI, 16%-26%) of patients receiving TKIs had liver toxic effects compared with 28% (95% CI, 21%-35%) of patients receiving ICIs. Severe adverse events occurred in 46% (95% CI, 40%-51%) of patients receiving TKIs compared with 24% (95% CI, 13%-35%) of patients receiving ICIs. Compared with patients receiving sorafenib, other TKIs were associated with similar rates of liver toxic effects (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.92-1.24) but higher rates of severe adverse events (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.44). Comparing ICIs with sorafenib, there were similar rates of liver toxic effects (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.86-1.40) and severe adverse events (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.95-1.50).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, serious adverse events were lower with ICIs than with TKIs, while liver toxic effects were similar. Combination therapy with novel ICIs is an appealing option in trials of neoadjuvant therapy for patients with HCC, requiring evaluation in preoperative trials.

The Timing of Liver Transplantation Following Downstaging: Wait of Not to Wait?

PURPOSE

HCC is a complex disease that is diagnosed in advanced stage and on the background of cirrhosis. Locoregional therapies provide sufficient downstaging to enable patients suitable for radical procedures such liver transplantation. However, the interval between locoregional therapies and definitive therapy is still controversial. We performed a review of literature to evaluate the role of waiting period between locoregional therapies and liver transplantation or resection from the perspective of cure and recurrence rates.

METHODS

Thorough literature search was performed to evaluate the role of locoregional therapy and the interval to definitive therapies for the treatment of hepatocellular cancer.

RESULTS

Usually, small tumors with lower tumor burden, in other words, tumors within Milan criteria, can be transplanted with an acceptable overall and disease-free survival. However, treating patients with locally advanced tumors is currently a matter of extensive research. Currently, locoregional therapies are applied to downstage the patients. However, the duration of waiting is a crucial point that needs further research. There is a consensus that the waiting interval between down-staging and transplantation should be no less than 3 months. This is important for selection of favorable tumor biology as well as from the point of antitumor immune response.

CONCLUSION

Currently, there are no surrogate markers for surveillance of response to locoregional therapies as well as the antitumor immune response that develops as a result of down-staging.

Do We Need to Be Limited by Matching Milan Criteria for Survival in Living Donor Liver Transplantation?

PURPOSE

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the second leading cause of cancer deaths and the 7th most common cancer. It has two characteristic features: being advanced stage at diagnosis and association with liver cirrhosis. Liver transplantation (LT) offers the only curative option to treat both components of the disease. The Milan criteria have been extensively used for selecting patients with HCC for LT. However, using Milan criteria, we can only transplant 30% of the patients. The aim of the present review is to evaluate the role of LT in HCC beyond the Milan criteria.

METHODS

We evaluated the studies that have introduced extended criteria to select patients with HCC beyond the Milan criteria. We evaluated the outcomes in terms of disease-free survival rates and HCC recurrences.

RESULTS

There are patients with tumors that are beyond Milan criteria that could benefit from LT. Selection of these patients has paramount importance in the era of living donor liver transplantation. Current expanded criteria depend on either the bulk of the tumor or the additional surrogate markers of tumor biology such as alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) and des-gamma carboxyprothrombin (DCP).

CONCLUSION

There is no ideal marker or an extended criterion for selecting patients with HCC beyond the Milan criteria and it needs further research to find an effective biomarker that has prognostic significance to select patients with advanced tumors.