Usefulness of the HKLC vs. the BCLC staging system in a European HCC cohort

Prognostic performance of Hong Kong Liver Cancer with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging systems in hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Accurate staging is necessary for predicting hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prognosis and guiding patient management. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system has limitations due to heterogeneity observed among patients in BCLC stages B and C. In contrast, the Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) staging system offers more aggressive treatment strategies.

AIM

To compare the prognostic performance of HKLC and BCLC staging systems in Egyptian patients with HCC.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study at the National Liver Institute, Menoufia University, Egypt, on 1015 HCC patients. Data was collected from patients' medical records over 10 years (from 2008 to 2018). The BCLC and HKLC stages were identified, and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to compare patients' overall survival rates within each staging system. Additionally, we evaluated the comparative prognostic performance of the two staging systems.

RESULTS

Hepatitis C was identified as the underlying etiology in 799 patients (78.7%), hepatitis B in 12 patients (1.2%), and non-viral causes in 204 patients (20.1%). The survival analysis demonstrated significant differences across the various stages within both the BCLC and HKLC systems. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves indicated a marginally superior performance of the HKLC system in predicting survival at 1, 2, and 3 years compared to the BCLC system. Furthermore, the HKLC staging provided a slightly enhanced prognostic capability, particularly for patients classified under BCLC stages B and C, suggesting a potential survival benefit.

CONCLUSION

HKLC classification had a slightly better prognostic performance than BCLC staging system and may offer a survival advantage for certain patients with HCC in BCLC stage B and C HCC cases.

The Role of Ablative Techniques in the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Indications and Outcomes

The management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains complex and will continue to rely on the multidisciplinary input of hepatologists, surgeons, radiologists, oncologists and radiotherapists. With the appropriate staging of patients and selection of suitable treatments, the outcomes for HCC are improving. Surgical treatments encompassing both liver resection and orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT) are the definitive curative-intent options. However, patient suitability, as well as organ availability, pose essential limitations. Consequently, non-surgical options, such as ablative techniques, play an increasingly important role, especially in small HCCs, where overall and disease-free survival can be comparable to surgical resection. Ablative techniques are globally recommended in recognised classification systems, showing increasingly promising results. Recent technical refinements, as well as the emerging use of robotic assistance, may expand the treatment paradigm to achieve improved oncological results. At present, in very early stage and early stage unresectable disease, percutaneous thermal ablation is considered the treatment of choice. Owing to their different features, various ablative techniques, including radiofrequency ablation, microwave ablation, cryotherapy ablation and irreversible electroporation, have been shown to confer different comparative advantages and applicability. We herein review the role of available ablative techniques in the current complex multidisciplinary management of HCC, with a main focus on the indications and outcomes, and discuss future perspectives.

Metabolic Reprogramming and Risk Stratification of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Studied by Using Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry-Based Metabolomics

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) displays a high degree of metabolic and phenotypic heterogeneity and has dismal prognosis in most patients. Here, a gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS)-based nontargeted metabolomics method was applied to analyze the metabolic profiling of 130 pairs of hepatocellular tumor tissues and matched adjacent noncancerous tissues from HCC patients. A total of 81 differential metabolites were identified by paired nonparametric test with false discovery rate correction to compare tumor tissues with adjacent noncancerous tissues. Results demonstrated that the metabolic reprogramming of HCC was mainly characterized by highly active glycolysis, enhanced fatty acid metabolism and inhibited tricarboxylic acid cycle, which satisfied the energy and biomass demands for tumor initiation and progression, meanwhile reducing apoptosis by counteracting oxidative stress. Risk stratification was performed based on the differential metabolites between tumor and adjacent noncancerous tissues by using nonnegative matrix factorization clustering. Three metabolic clusters displaying different characteristics were identified, and the cluster with higher levels of free fatty acids (FFAs) in tumors showed a worse prognosis. Finally, a metabolite classifier composed of six FFAs was further verified in a dependent sample set to have potential to define the patients with poor prognosis. Together, our results offered insights into the molecular pathological characteristics of HCC.

The Combination of Age, International Standardized Ratio, Albumin and γ-Glutamyl Transpeptidase (AIAG), Tumor Size and Alpha Fetoprotein (AFP) Stage as the Prognostic Model for Hepatitis B-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background

Advanced liver fibrosis can lead to cirrhosis, portal hypertension and liver failure. Besides, advanced liver fibrosis and cirrhosis are the major risk factors for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Almost all patients with HCC also have liver cirrhosis. This study aims to predict the survival rate of hepatitis B-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by age, international standardized ratio, albumin and γ-glutamyl transpeptidase (AIAG), an indicator measuring the degree of cirrhosis.

Methods

A total of 501 hepatitis B-related HCC patients experiencing radical surgery were analyzed, retrospectively. General data about demographics and labs were collected at the date of diagnosis to calculate AIAG [age, international standardized ratio (INR), albumin and gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT)]. The Kaplan–Meier curves and Cox analysis were used to evaluate overall survival (OS) and recurrence-free survival (RFS). The C-index was calculated in R software (version 4.0.3) to evaluate the accuracy of the prognostic model.

Results

During a median follow-up period of 30 months, 31.1% (156/501) of the patients died, and 34.3% (172/501) experienced the recurrence of HCC. Compared with patients with lower AIAG score, patients with higher AIAG score had higher Child-Pugh grade and were at higher Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage (both P<0.05). Multivariate analysis suggested that GGT, alpha fetoprotein (AFP), tumor size, BCLC stage and AIAG grade were independent predictors of OS and RFS. Furthermore, the combined use of tumor size, AFP and AIAG stage could predict survival significantly better (C-index=0.710, 95% CI: 0.669–0.751) than BCLC stage.

Conclusion

AIAG is significantly associated with survival of HCC patients, and provides additional prognostic information for patients with HCC. Our findings suggest that the combination of AIAG, tumor size and AFP stage has a better predictive value for the prognosis of patients with hepatitis B-related hepatocellular carcinoma. However, it is necessary for more external evidences to determine clinical utility.

Overview of Prognostic Systems for Hepatocellular Carcinoma and ITA.LI.CA External Validation of MESH and CNLC Classifications

Prognostic assessment in patients with HCC remains an extremely difficult clinical task due to the complexity of this cancer where tumour characteristics interact with degree of liver dysfunction, patient general health status, and a large span of available treatment options. Several prognostic systems have been proposed in the last three decades, both from the Asian and European/North American countries. Prognostic scores, such as the CLIP score and the recent MESH score, have been generated on a solid statistical basis from real life population data, while staging systems, such as the BCLC scheme and the recent CNLC classification, have been created by experts according to recent HCC prognostic evidences from the literature. A third category includes combined prognostic systems that can be used both as prognostic scores and staging systems. A recent example is the ITA.LI.CA prognostic system including either a prognostic score and a simplified staging system. This review focuses first on an overview of the main prognostic systems for HCC classified according to the above three categories, and, second, on a comprehensive description of the methodology required for a correct comparison between different systems in terms of prognostic performance. In this second section the main studies in the literature comparing different prognostic systems are described in detail. Lastly, a formal comparison between the last prognostic systems proposed for each of the above three categories is performed using a large Italian database including 6882 HCC patients in order to concretely apply the comparison rules previously described.

Comparison between hepatocellular carcinoma prognostic scores: A 10-year single-center experience and brief review of the current literature

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents the most common primitive liver malignancy. A relevant concern involves the lack of agreement on staging systems, prognostic scores, and treatment allocation algorithms.

AIM

To compare the survival rates among already developed prognostic scores.

METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 140 patients with HCC diagnosed between February 2006 and November 2017. Patients were categorized according to 15 prognostic scoring systems and estimated median survivals were compared with those available from the current medical literature.

RESULTS

The median overall survival of the cohort of patients was 35 (17; 67) mo, and it was statistically different in relation to treatment choice, ultrasound surveillance, and serum alpha-fetoprotein. The Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA) tumor staging system performed best in predicting survival according to stage allocation among all 15 evaluated prognostic scores. Using the ITA.LI.CA prognostic system, 28.6%, 40.7%, 22.1%, and 8.6% of patients fell within stages 0-1, 2-3, 4-5 and > 5 respectively. The median survival was 57.9 mo for stages 0-1, 43 mo for stages 2-3, 21.7 mo for stages 4-5, and 10.4 mo for stage > 5. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were respectively 95%, 65%, and 20%, for stages 0-1; 94.7%, 43.9% and 26.3% for stages 2-3; 71%, 25.8% and 16.1% for stages 4-5; and 50%, 16.7% and 8.3% for stage > 5. At the same time, although statistically significant in prognostic stratification, the most commonly used Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer system showed one of the most relevant differences in median survival, especially for stages A and C, when compared to the medical literature. In fact, 10.7%, 59.3%, 27.1%, 1.4%, and 0% of patients were stratified into stages 0, A, B, C, and D respectively. The median survival was > 81.1 mo for stage 0, 44.9 mo for stage A, 21.3 mo for stage B, and 3.1 mo for stage C. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were respectively 86.7%, 60%, and 46.7% for stage 0; 91.6%, 50.6%, and 20.5% for stage A; 73.7%, 23.7% and 13.2% for stage B; and 2%, 0% and 0% for stage C.

CONCLUSION

Survival analysis shows excellent prognostic ability of the ITA.LI.CA scoring system compared to other staging systems.

Argentinian clinical practice guideline for surveillance, diagnosis, staging and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

The A.A.E.E.H has developed this guideline for the best care of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) from Argentina. It was done from May 2018 to March 2020. Specific clinical research questions were systematically searched. The quality of evidence and level of recommendations were organized according to GRADE. HCC surveillance is strongly recommended with abdominal ultrasound (US) every six months in the population at risk for HCC (cirrhosis, hepatitis B or hepatitis C); it is suggested to add alpha-feto protein (AFP) levels in case of inexeperienced sonographers. Imaging diagnosis in patients at risk for HCC has high specificity and tumor biopsy is not mandatory. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer algorithm is strongly recommended for HCC staging and treatment-decision processes. Liver resection is strongly recommended for patients without portal hypertension and preserved liver function. Composite models are suggested for liver transplant selection criteria. Therapies for HCC with robust clinical evidence include transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and first to second line systemic treatment options (sorafenib, lenvatinib, regorafenib, cabozantinib and ramucirumab). Immunotherapy with nivolumab and pembrolizumab has failed to show statistical benefit but the novel combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab has recently shown survival benefit over sorafenib in frontline.

Hepatocellular carcinoma staging systems: Hong Kong liver cancer vs Barcelona clinic liver cancer in a Western population

BACKGROUND

Despite being the world's most widely used system for staging and therapeutic guidance in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment, the Barcelona clinic liver cancer (BCLC) system has limitations, especially regarding intermediate-grade (BCLC-B) tumors. The recently proposed Hong Kong liver cancer (HKLC) staging system appears useful but requires validation in Western populations.

AIM

To evaluate the agreement between BCLC and HKLC staging on the management of HCC in a Western population, estimating the overall patient survival.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of HCC patients treated at a university hospital in southern Brazil between 2011 and 2016. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected. HCC staging was carried out according to the HKLC and BCLC systems to assess treatment agreement. Overall survival was estimated based on the treatment proposed in each system.

RESULTS

A total of 519 HCC patients were assessed. Of these, 178 (34.3%) were HKLC-I; 95 (18.3%) HKLC-IIA; 47 (9.1%) HKLC-IIB; 29 (5.6%) HKLC-IIIA; 30 (5.8%) HKLC-IIIB; 75 (14.4%) HKLC-IV; and 65 (12.5%) HKLC-V. According to the BCLC, 25 (4.9%) were BCLC-0; 246 (47.4%) BCLC-A; 107 (20.6%) BCLC-B; 76 (14.6%) BCLC-C; and 65 (12.5%) BCLC-D. The general agreement between the two systems was 80.0% - BCLC-0 and HKLC-I (100%); BCLC-A and HKLC-I/HKLC-II (96.7%); BCLC-B and HKLC-III (46.7%); BCLC-C and HKLC-IV (98.7%); BCLC-D and HKLC-V (41.5%). When sub-classifying BCLC-A, HKLC-IIB, HKLC-IIIA and HKLC-IIIB stages according to the up-to-7 in/out criterion, 13.4, 66.0, 100 and 36.7%, respectively, of the cases were classified as up-to-7 out.

CONCLUSION

In a Western population, the general agreement between the two systems was 80.0%, although in BCLC-B cases the agreement was low, suggesting that some individuals could be candidates for the curative treatment recommended by the HKLC. The authors suggest that the BCLC system should be routinely employed, although for BCLC-B cases it should be associated with the HKLC system.

Radiomics score: a potential prognostic imaging feature for postoperative survival of solitary HCC patients

BACKGROUND

Radiomics is an emerging field in oncological research. In this study, we aimed at developing a radiomics score (rad-score) to estimate postoperative recurrence and survival in patients with solitary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

METHODS

A total of 319 solitary HCC patients (training cohort: n = 212; validation cohort: n = 107) were enrolled. Radiomics features were extracted from the artery phase of preoperatively acquired computed tomography (CT) in all patients. A rad-score was generated by using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (lasso) logistic model. Kaplan-Meier and Cox's hazard regression analyses were used to evaluate the prognostic significance of the rad-score. Final nomograms predicting recurrence and survival of solitary HCC patients were established based on the rad-score and clinicopathological factors. C-index and calibration statistics were used to assess the performance of nomograms.

RESULTS

Six potential radiomics features were selected out of 110 texture features to formulate the rad-score. Low rad-score positively correlated with aggressive tumor phenotypes, like larger tumor size and vascular invasion. Meanwhile, low rad-score was significantly associated with increased recurrence and reduced survival. In addition, multivariate analysis identified the rad-score as an independent prognostic factor (recurrence: Hazard ratio (HR): 2.472, 95% confident interval (CI): 1.339-4.564, p = 0.004;survival: HR: 1.558, 95%CI: 1.022-2.375, p = 0.039). Notably, the nomogram integrating rad-score had a better prognostic performance as compared with traditional staging systems. These results were further confirmed in the validation cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The preoperative CT image based rad-score was an independent prognostic factor for the postoperative outcome of solitary HCC patients. This score may be complementary to the current staging system and help to stratify individualized treatments for solitary HCC patients.

Can More Aggressive Treatment Improve Prognosis in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma? A Direct Comparison of the Hong Kong Liver Cancer and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Algorithms

Background/Aims

In addition to the globally endorsed Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system, other algorithms or staging systems have been developed, including the Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) staging system. This study aimed to validate the HKLC staging system relative to the BCLC staging system for predicting survival for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients in Korea.

Methods

From 2004 to 2013, 2,571 patients newly diagnosed with HCC were consecutively enrolled at three Korea University medical centers.

Results

Both staging systems differentiated survival well (p＜0.001). However, 1-year and 3-year survival were predicted better using the HKLC system than the BCLC system (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve: 0.869 vs 0.856 for 1 year, p=0.002; 0.841 vs 0.827 for 3 years, p=0.010). In hypothetical survival curves, the HKLC system exhibited better median overall survival than the BCLC system (33.1 months vs 19.2 months). In evaluations of prognosis according to either BCLC or HKLC treatment guidelines, risk of death was reduced in the group following only HKLC guidelines compared with the group following only BCLC guidelines (hazard ratio, 0.601; 95% confidence interval, 0.443 to 0.816; p=0.001).

Conclusions

Although both staging systems predicted and discriminated HCC prognoses well, the HKLC system showed more encouraging survival benefits than the BCLC system.

The Prognostic Ability of Major Hepatocellular Carcinoma Staging Systems Is Improved by Including a Treatment Variable

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

There has been significant debate regarding which hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) staging system is best able to predict survival. We hypothesized that the prognostic ability of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) and Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) systems would be improved with the addition of an explicit treatment variable.

METHODS

We performed an analysis of a prospectively enrolled cohort of 292 patients undergoing 532 treatment episodes for HCC from 2006 to 2014. BCLC, standard nine-stage HKLC (HKLC9), and modified five-stage HKLC (HKLC5) for each treatment episode were assessed. Overall survival and time to disease progression were calculated for the initial treatment, re-treatment, and overall treatment cohorts. We compared the performance of various prognostic models including staging system alone, treatment alone, and staging system plus treatment using the corrected Akaike information criterion and Harrell's C statistic.

RESULTS

The BCLC, HKLC5, and HKLC9 systems were significant predictors of survival and time to progression for all treatment cohorts (log rank test, p < 0.001). The addition of a treatment variable significantly improved (p < 0.01) the prognostic ability of the survival and time to progression models compared with those containing only the BCLC or HKLC stage across all treatment cohorts other than survival in re-treatment for BCLC (p = 0.094).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding a treatment variable to major HCC staging systems improves their ability to predict survival and time to progression in initial treatment, re-treatment, and overall.

Multicentric Assessment of the Hong Kong Liver Cancer Staging System in Chinese Patients Following Transarterial Chemoembolization

PURPOSE

We aimed to validate the performance of the hepatitis B-based Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) staging system compared with the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system in Chinese hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with conventional transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) as the initial treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards at all participating centers. This retrospective study included 715 patients with HCC who underwent TACE as the initial treatment between January 2008 and December 2016 at three Chinese institutions. All of the patients calculated HCC stage using 5-substage HKLC (HKLC-5), 9-substage HKLC (HKLC-9), and the BCLC system. Based on overall survival (OS), these three staging systems' performance on treatment outcome prediction were compared using C statistic, Akaike information criterion (AIC), area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), linear trend Chi-square, likelihood ratio Chi-square, and calibration plots, respectively.

RESULTS

The median OS was 10.1 months. Compared with the BCLC system, the HKLC system, especially HKLC-9, showed better performance on survival prediction (HKLC-9: C = 0.689, AIC = 6646.162; HKLC-5: C = 0.683, AIC = 6662.663; BCLC: C = 0.680, AIC = 6654.146), homogeneity (likelihood ratio Chi-square: HKLC-9 = 232.38, HKLC-5 = 215.87, and BCLC = 224.39, P < 0.001), and calibration (R²: HKLC-9 = 0.923, HKLC-5 = 0.916, and BCLC = 0.914). HKLC-9 outperformed on AUC at 6-, 12-, and 24-month survival prediction than HKLC-5 and BCLC. BCLC showed better performance on monotonicity (linear trend Chi-square: HKLC-9 = 121.641, HKLC-5 = 117.389, and BCLC = 125.752; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Combining survival prediction, discrimination, and calibration, the HKLC, especially HKLC-9 system, performed better for Chinese patients treated with TACE than the BCLC system.

External validation of the ITA.LI.CA prognostic system for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: A multicenter cohort study

Several staging systems for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) have been developed. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system is considered the best in predicting survival, although limitations have emerged. Recently, the Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA) prognostic system, integrating ITA.LI.CA tumor staging (stages 0, A, B1-3, C) with the Child-Turcotte-Pugh score, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and alpha-fetoprotein with a strong ability to predict survival, was proposed. The aim of our study was to provide an external validation of the ITA.LI.CA system in an independent real-life occidental cohort of HCCs. From September 2008 to April 2016, 1,508 patients with cirrhosis and incident HCC were consecutively enrolled in 27 Italian institutions. Clinical, tumor, and treatment-related variables were collected, and patients were stratified according to scores of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer system, ITA.LI.CA prognostic system, Hong Kong Liver Cancer system, Cancer of the Liver Italian Program, Japanese Integrated System, and model to estimate survival in ambulatory patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Harrell's C-index, Akaike information criterion, and likelihood-ratio test were used to compare the predictive ability of the different systems. A subgroup analysis for treatment category (curative versus palliative) was performed. Median follow-up was 44 months (interquartile range, 23-63 months), and median overall survival was 34 months (interquartile range, 13-82 months). Median age was 71 years, and patients were mainly male individuals and hepatitis C virus carriers. According to ITA.LI.CA tumor staging, 246 patients were in stage 0, 472 were in stage A, 657 were in stages B1/3, and 133 were in stage C. The ITA.LI.CA prognostic system showed the best discriminatory ability (C-index = 0.77) and monotonicity of gradients compared to other systems, and its superiority was also confirmed after stratification for treatment strategy.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study that independently validated the ITA.LI.CA prognostic system in a large cohort of Western patients with incident HCCs. The ITA.LI.CA system performed better than other multidimensional prognostic systems, even after stratification by curative or palliative treatment. This new system appears to be particularly useful for predicting individual HCC prognosis in clinical practice. (Hepatology 2018;67:2215-2225).

Patient Selection for Transarterial Chemoembolization in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Importance of Benefit/Risk Assessment

BACKGROUND

Liver cancer is the second most common cause of cancer-related death, with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounting for most primary liver cancers and most commonly arising from a history of advanced chronic liver disease. Among the available therapies, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the most widely utilized and is considered the first-line treatment recommended for patients staged as intermediate HCC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B). If applied correctly, TACE can produce survival benefits without adversely affecting hepatic functional reserve.

SUMMARY

The aim of this nonsystematic review is to evaluate the evidence supporting TACE, with a special interest in intermediate HCC, for which this treatment is recommended in first line. However, intermediate HCC represents a broad and heterogeneous group of patients, not all of whom will benefit from TACE. This review highlights the importance of appropriate patient selection for initial TACE and for retreatment. It also evaluates evidence for the treatment of patients who become refractory to TACE. Some patients may, in fact, benefit from early switch (i.e., after 1 or 2 TACE treatments) to systemic therapies rather than continuing retreatments with TACE in order to preserve liver function, thus allowing sequential first- and second-line drug therapies.

KEY MESSAGES

Careful assessment of an individual patient's benefit/risk ratio is recommended before any TACE session is considered to ensure optimal long-term outcomes in intermediate HCC.

Management consensus guideline for hepatocellular carcinoma: 2016 updated by the Taiwan Liver Cancer Association and the Gastroenterological Society of Taiwan

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality in Taiwan. To help clinical physicians to manage patients with HCC, the Taiwan Liver Cancer Association and the Gastroenterological Society of Taiwan produced the management consensus guideline for HCC.

METHODS

The recommendations focus on nine important issues on management of HCC, including surveillance, diagnosis, staging, surgery, local ablation, transarterial chemoembolization/transarterial radioembolization/hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy, systemic therapy, radiotherapy, and prevention.

RESULTS

The consensus statements were discussed, debated and got consensus in each expert team. And then the statements were sent to all of the experts for further discussion and refinement. Finally, all of the experts were invited to vote for the statements, including the level of evidence and recommendation.

CONCLUSION

With the development of the management consensus guideline, HCC patients could benefit from the optimal therapeutic modality.

HKLC Triages More Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients to Curative Therapies Compared to BCLC and Is Associated with Better Survival

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) system proposes to triage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients to more aggressive treatment and may be associated with superior survival compared with the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) system. We aimed to identify the influence of adherence to HKLC or BCLC treatment recommendations on survival and time to progression.

METHODS

We examined a prospectively enrolled cohort of 292 patients undergoing 532 treatment episodes from a single clinical center.

RESULTS

The BCLC and HKLC systems accurately predicted overall survival and time to progression after each treatment episode (BCLC: p < 0.001; HKLC: p < 0.001). Adherence to treatment recommendations was higher for HKLC than for BCLC (55.6 vs. 47.9%, p = 0.01). Survival was superior with adherence to HKLC recommendations compared to non-adherence (45.3 vs. 27.1 months, p < 0.001). There was no difference in survival in BCLC with adherence compared to non-adherence (34.6 vs. 32.3 months, p = 0.96). The survival benefit was limited to early- and very early stage disease for both HKLC (p < 0.001) and BCLC (p = 0.007). More patients were triaged to curative therapies by HKLC than BCLC (p = 0.004). The use of transarterial chemoembolization instead of ablation or resection in early- and very early stage disease for technical reasons was the major cause for non-recommended treatment and was associated with worse survival (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

These data support the use of HKLC in early- and very early stage HCC. Efforts should be made to overcome technical reasons for not performing ablation in early- and very early stage disease.

State of the ablation nation: a review of ablative therapies for cure in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma

Primary liver cancer, mainly hepatocellular carcinoma, is one of the most common malignancies worldwide. Surgical management, either resection or transplantation, is considered definitive treatment, however, less than 20% of patients are ultimately candidates. Thermal ablation modalities such as radiofrequency ablation and microwave ablation have evolved such that these modalities have been applied with curative intent. Moreover, thermal ablation has demonstrated efficacy in treating early-stage tumors and can be offered as first-line treatment in patients with uncomplicated disease. Attributing to refinements in technology and techniques, recent studies evaluating stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy have shown promising results, while irreversible electroporation, an emerging modality, may further expand the role of ablative therapy in treating potentially resectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer outperforms Hong Kong Liver Cancer staging of hepatocellular carcinoma in multiethnic Asians: Real-world perspective

AIM

To compare the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) and Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) classification systems when applied to HCC patients from the largest tertiary-level centre in Singapore.

METHODS

One thousand two hundred and seventy hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients prospectively enrolled in a tertiary-level centre registry in Singapore since 1988 were studied. Patients were grouped into their respective BCLC and HKLC stages. Data such as demography, aetiology of HCC and type of treatment were collected. Survival data was based on census with the National Registry of Births and Deaths on 31^st October 2015. Statistical analyses were done using SPSS version 21 (Chicago, IL, United States). Survival analyses were done by the Kaplan-Meier method. Differences in survival rates were compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

The median age at presentation was 63 years (range 13-94); male 82.4%; Chinese 89.4%, Malay 7.1%, Indian, 2.8%. Hepatitis B was the predominant aetiology (75.0%; Hepatitis C 7.2%, Hepatitis B and C co-infection 3.8%, non-viral 14.0%). Both BCLC and HKLC staging systems showed good separation with overall log rank test confirming significant survival differences between stages in our cohort (P < 0.001). 206 out of the 240 patients (85.8%) assigned for curative treatment by the BCLC treatment algorithm received curative therapy for HCC [Stage 0 93.2% (68/73); Stage A 82.6% (138/167)]. In contrast, only 341/558 (61.1%) patients received curative treatment despite being assigned for curative treatment by the HKLC treatment algorithm [Stage I 72.7% (264/363); Stage II 40.2% (66/164); Stage Va 35.5% (11/31)]. Patients who were assigned to curative treatment by HKLC but did not receive curative treatment had significantly poorer ECOG (P < 0.001), higher Child-Pugh status (P < 0.001) and were older (median age 66 vs 61, P < 0.001) than those who received curative therapy. Median overall survival in patients assigned to curative treatment groups by BCLC and HKLC were 6.1 and 2.6 years respectively (P < 0.001). When only patients receiving curative treatment were analyzed, BCLC still predicted overall median survival better than HKLC (7.1 years vs 5.5 years, P = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

BCLC performs better than HKLC in our multiethnic Asian population in allocating patients to curative treatment in a real-life situation as well as in predicting survival.

Validation of the Hong Kong Liver Cancer Staging System in Determining Prognosis of the North American Patients Following Intra-arterial Therapy

BACKGROUND & AIMS

There is debate over the best way to stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We attempted to validate the prognostic and clinical utility of the recently developed Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) staging system, a hepatitis B-based model, and compared data with that from the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system in a North American population that underwent intra-arterial therapy (IAT).

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of data from 1009 patients with HCC who underwent IAT from 2000 through 2014. Most patients had hepatitis C or unresectable tumors; all patients underwent IAT, with or without resection, transplantation, and/or systemic chemotherapy. We calculated HCC stage for each patient using 5-stage HKLC (HKLC-5) and 9-stage HKLC (HKLC-9) system classifications, and the BCLC system. Survival information was collected up until the end of 2014 at which point living or unconfirmed patients were censored. We compared performance of the BCLC, HKLC-5, and HKLC-9 systems in predicting patient outcomes using Kaplan-Meier estimates, calibration plots, C statistic, Akaike information criterion, and the likelihood ratio test.

RESULTS

Median overall survival time, calculated from first IAT until date of death or censorship, for the entire cohort (all stages) was 9.8 months. The BCLC and HKLC staging systems predicted patient survival times with significance (P < .001). HKLC-5 and HKLC-9 each demonstrated good calibration. The HKLC-5 system outperformed the BCLC system in predicting patient survival times (HKLC C = 0.71, Akaike information criterion = 6242; BCLC C = 0.64, Akaike information criterion = 6320), reducing error in predicting survival time (HKLC reduced error by 14%, BCLC reduced error by 12%), and homogeneity (HKLC chi-square = 201, P < .001; BCLC chi-square = 119, P < .001) and monotonicity (HKLC linear trend chi-square = 193, P < .001; BCLC linear trend chi-square = 111, P < .001). Small proportions of patients with HCC of stages IV or V, according to the HKLC system, survived for 6 months and 4 months, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent IAT for unresectable HCC, we found the HKLC-5 staging system to have the best combination of performances in survival separation, calibration, and discrimination; it consistently outperformed the BCLC system in predicting survival times of patients. The HKLC system identified patients with HCC of stages IV and V who are unlikely to benefit from IAT.

Barcelona clinic liver cancer nomogram and others staging/scoring systems in a French hepatocellular carcinoma cohort

AIM

To compare the performances of the Barcelona clinic liver cancer (BCLC) nomogram and others systems (BCLC, HKLC, CLIP, NIACE) for survival prediction in a large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) French cohort.

METHODS

Data were collected retrospectively from 01/2007 to 12/2013 in five French centers. Newly diagnosed HCC patients were analyzed. The discriminatory ability, homogeneity ability, prognostic stratification ability Akaike information criterion (AIC) and C-index were compared among scoring systems.

RESULTS

The cohort included 1102 patients, mostly men, median age 68 [60-74] years with cirrhosis (81%), child-Pugh A (73%), alcohol-related (41%), HCV-related (27%). HCC were multinodular (59%) and vascular invasion was present in 41% of cases. At time of HCC diagnosis BCLC stages were A (17%), B (16%), C (60%) and D (7%). First line HCC treatment was curative in 23.5%, palliative in 59.5%, BSC in 17% of our population. Median OS was 10.8 mo [4.9-28.0]. Each system distinguished different survival prognosis groups (P < 0.0001). The nomogram had the highest discriminatory ability, the highest C-index value. NIACE score had the lowest AIC value. The nomogram distinguished sixteen different prognosis groups. By classifying unifocal large HCC into tumor burden 1, the nomogram was less powerful.

CONCLUSION

In this French cohort, the BCLC nomogram and the NIACE score provided the best prognostic information, but the NIACE could even help treatment strategies.

Validity of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer and Hong Kong Liver Cancer staging systems for hepatocellular carcinoma in Singapore

BACKGROUND

Staging is vital in guiding therapeutic approach in patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Our study's goal is to compare paradigms in the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) and Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) systems, and evaluate the use of both in a local context, comparing their prognostic ability and therapeutic efficacy in the management of HCC.

METHODS

Seven hundred and sixty-six patients diagnosed between 2010 and 2015 were identified and staged according to BCLC and HKLC. Both system's performances were compared using Akaike information criterion (AIC), bootstrap concordance-index (c-index), and through Kaplan-Meier survival curves of patients who came under HKLC stages 1, 2, and 3 and the individual BCLC stages. Independent prognostic factors of survival were identified using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

According to AIC and c-index, HKLC (AIC = 5,711, c-index = 0.74) has equivalent prognosticating value as BCLC (AIC = 5,764, c-index = 0.72). Through Kaplan-Meier curves, we determined that more aggressive treatments resulted in better outcomes. Particularly for patients under BCLC stage C, patients who followed the HKLC system's recommended treatments performed markedly better.

CONCLUSIONS

In our patient population, the HKLC system is comparable to the BCLC system in prognosticating patients, but is suggested to have better performance in guiding treatment.

The recommended treatment algorithms of the BCLC and HKLC staging systems: does following these always improve survival rates for HCC patients?

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Several staging systems have been proposed for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Among them, only the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) and Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) staging systems also recommend treatment modality. This study was designed to see whether BCLC and HKLC staging can guide treatment strategy, so analyzed whether patients survival is better for those who received recommended therapy by each staging system.

METHODS

A total of 3515 treatment-naïve, newly diagnosed HCC patients at a single centre were analyzed.

RESULTS

Five-year survival rates according to BCLC stages: 0 = 79.1%, A = 62.9%, B = 40.3%, C = 21.3% and D = 27.0%; 5-year survival rates according to HKLC stages: I = 72.3%, IIa = 54.9%, IIb = 50.6%, IIIa = 21.3%, IIIb = 10.2%, IVa = 16.7%, IVb = 7.2%, Va = 47.1% and Vb = 11.3%. The C-indices of the BCLC and HKLC staging systems were 0.708 and 0.732 respectively. Patient survival was better when patients received the recommended treatment in stages 0 or A; survival was worse if treatment began at stage B, C or D. For HKLC staging system, survival was better when patients received the recommended treatment in stages I, IIa, IIb, IIIa or Va but was worse when treatment began in stages IIIb, IVa, IVb or Vb.

CONCLUSION

Both the BCLC and HKLC staging systems effectively stratified patient prognosis, but neither could direct therapy for a large proportion of patients; for some stages, recommended therapy was associated with worse prognosis.

Comparison of hepatocellular carcinoma in Eastern versus Western populations

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a heterogeneous disease that remains highly prevalent in many Asian countries and is the second most common cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Significant differences exist between Eastern and Western populations on many key aspects of HCC, contributing to the potential different treatment outcomes and challenges of clinical trial design and data interpretation. In this review, the authors compare HCC in Asia versus the West and highlight 1) differences in terms of epidemiology and trends and their correlation with etiology, 2) differences in genetics and how they relate to underlying etiology, 3) differences in treatment approaches based on existing guidelines and consensus statements, and 4) differences in clinical outcomes for Asian versus non-Asian patients with HCC in clinical trials and the implications for future clinical trial design. Cancer 2016;122:3430-3446. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Prognostic significance of pretreatment albumin/globulin ratio in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Pretreatment nutritional and immunological statuses play an indispensable role in predicting the outcome of patients with various types of malignancies. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the predictive value of albumin/globulin ratio (AGR) in overall survival (OS) and recurrence in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following radical hepatic carcinectomy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective study included a total of 172 patients with HCC with complete medical and follow-up information between 2002 and 2012. AGR was calculated according to the following formula: AGR = albumin/globulin. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed to determine the optimal cutoff value. The associations of AGR with clinicopathological characteristics and prognosis were assessed. Further multivariate analysis using Cox regression model and subgroup analysis was performed to evaluate the predictive value.

RESULTS

Receiver operating characteristic curve determined 37.65, 31.99, and 1.48 as the optimal cutoff values of albumin, globulin, and AGR in terms of 5-year OS or death, respectively. On the basis of the cutoff value of AGR, all the patients were divided, respectively, into low-AGR (n=105) and high-AGR (n=67) groups. AGR was found to be significantly correlated with age, cancer embolus, international normalized ratio, and postoperative outcome (P<0.05). Hepatitis B virus infection (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.125; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.285-3.153), tumor node metastasis stage (HR: 1.656; 95% CI: 1.234-2.223), serum albumin (HR: 0.546; 95% CI: 0.347-0.857), and AGR (HR: 0.402; 95% CI: 0.233-0.691) were independent predictors of OS via univariate and multivariate survival analyses. However, alpha-fetoprotein (HR: 1.708; 95% CI: 1.027-2.838), tumor node metastasis stage (HR: 1.464; 95% CI: 1.078-1.989), and AGR (HR: 0.493; 95% CI: 0.293-0.828) functioned as independent risk variables for predicting recurrence. Moreover, AGR showed superior prognostic value for OS and recurrence in the subgroups with normal level of albumin or survival time beyond 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment AGR might serve as an effective biomarker to evaluate the prognosis of patients with a diagnosis of HCC. Based on the results, AGR, characterized with easy accessibility, objectivity, and noninvasiveness, should be included in the routine assessment of HCC.

Usefulness of staging systems and prognostic scores for hepatocellular carcinoma treatments

Therapeutic management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is quite complex owing to the underlying cirrhosis and portal vein hypertension. Different scores or classification systems based on liver function and tumoral stages have been published in the recent years. If none of them is currently “universally” recognized, the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system has become the reference classification system in Western countries. Based on a robust treatment algorithm associated with stage stratification, it relies on a high level of evidence. However, BCLC stage B and C HCC include a broad spectrum of tumors but are only matched with a single therapeutic option. Some experts have thus suggested to extend the indications for surgery or for transarterial chemoembolization. In clinical practice, many patients are already treated beyond the scope of recommendations. Additional alternative prognostic scores that could be applied to any therapeutic modality have been recently proposed. They could represent complementary tools to the BCLC staging system and improve the stratification of HCC patients enrolled in clinical trials, as illustrated by the NIACE score. Prospective studies are needed to compare these scores and refine their role in the decision making process.

Assessment of the Hong Kong Liver Cancer Staging System in Europe

BACKGROUND & AIMS

European and American guidelines have endorsed the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of the recently developed Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) classification as a staging system for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Europe.

METHODS

We used a pooled set of 1693 HCC patients combining three prospective European cohorts. Discrimination ability between the nine substages and five stages of the HKLC classification system was assessed. To evaluate the predictive power of the HKLC and BCLC staging systems on overall survival, Nagelkerke pseudo R2, Bayesian Information Criterion and Harrell's concordance index were calculated. The number of patients who would benefit from a curative therapy was assessed for both staging systems.

RESULTS

The HKLC classification in nine substages shows suboptimal discrimination between the staging groups. The classification in five stages shows better discrimination between groups. However, the BCLC classification performs better than the HKLC classification in the ability to predict overall survival (OS). The HKLC treatment algorithm tags significantly more patients to curative therapy than the BCLC.

CONCLUSIONS

The BCLC staging system performs better for European patients than the HKLC staging system in predicting OS. Twice more patients are eligible for a curative therapy with the HKLC algorithm; whether this translates in survival benefit remains to be investigated.

Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: Assessment of eleven staging systems

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Multiple staging systems have been proposed for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However there is no consensus regarding which system provides the best prognostic accuracy. We aimed to investigate the performance of 11 currently used HCC staging systems.

METHODS

Between 2002 and 2013, a large prospective dataset of 3182 HCC patients were enrolled. The baseline characteristics and staging information were collected. Independent predictors of survival were identified. Homogeneity and corrected Akaike information criterion (AICc) were compared between each system.

RESULTS

The median follow-up duration was 17months. Independent predictors of adverse outcome were serum albumin <3.5g/dl, bilirubin ⩾1mg/dl, creatinine ⩾1mg/dl, alpha-fetoprotein ⩾20ng/ml, alkaline phosphatase ⩾200IU/L, presence of ascites, multiple tumor nodules, maximal tumor size >5cm, presence of vascular invasion, presence of extrahepatic metastasis, and poor performance status (all p<0.001). Significant differences in survival were found across all stages of the 11 systems except between Hong Kong Liver Cancer stage IV and V, Japan Integrated Staging score 4 and 5, and Tokyo score 5 through 8. The Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) score was associated with the highest homogeneity and lowest AICc value in the entire cohort. In subgroup analysis, the CLIP score was also superior in patients with hepatitis B- or hepatitis C-related HCC and in patients receiving curative or non-curative treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

The CLIP staging system is stable and consistently the best prognostic model in all patients and in patients with different viral etiology and treatment strategy.

Validation of models in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of Hong Kong Liver Cancer with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system in a Chinese cohort

OBJECTIVE

Accurate staging information is necessary to determine the prognosis of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to guide subsequent patient management. This study aims to investigate the prognostic performance of the Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) classification in a Chinese cohort of HCC patients.

METHODS

A total of 668 HCC patients between 2003 and 2012 were included. Performances of the HKLC and the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) system were compared using Akaike information criterion (AIC), concordance-index (c-index), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Independent prognostic factors of survival were identified using univariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Independent predictors of survival were Child-Pugh grade (P=0.009), lactate dehydrogenase (P<0.001) and albumin (P=0.001) levels, tumor location (P=0.032), tumor number (P<0.001), tumor size (P<0.001), and vascular invasion (P<0.001). Discriminatory ability was shown to be better for HKLC (AUC at 1, 3, and 5 years were 0.740, 0.695, and 0.615, respectively) than BCLC (AUC at 1, 3, and 5 years were 0.622, 0.569, and 0.548, respectively). On the basis of AIC and c-index, HKLC had a higher predictive power for survival (AIC=4709.480, c-index=0.805) than BCLC (AIC=4852.708, c-index=0.717).

CONCLUSION

In our selected patient population, whose main etiology was hepatitis B, the HKLC system was more suitable for predicting prognosis in a Chinese cohort of HCC patients than the BCLC classification.

Hong Kong Liver Cancer Staging System Is Associated With Better Performance for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Special Emphasis on Viral Etiology

Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) staging system was developed for prognostic and treatment evaluation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) but is not externally validated. We aimed to evaluate and compare HKLC system with Barcelona Clínic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system. The prognostic performance, discriminatory ability, and efficacy of treatment recommendations were compared between the BCLC and HKLC systems. Significant differences in survival were found across all stages of BCLC and across stages I to IV of HKLC systems (P < 0.01). HKLC system was associated with higher homogeneity in prognostic accuracy. The survival was similar between patients treated according to the HKLC or BCLC system (P = 0.07). However, more patients were treated according to HKLC recommendations than to BCLC recommendations (57% vs. 47%, P < 0.001). In a hypothetical cohort created by random sampling, patients treated according to the HKLC scheme had better survival compared with patients treated according to the BCLC system (P < 0.001).Subgroup analyses between hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related HCC were performed. More HCV-related HCC were at earlier BCLC or HKLC stages (both P < 0.001). The HKLC system was more informative with greater homogeneity in predicting survival in both HBV and HCV cohorts. However, HKLC treatment recommendations were associated with better long-term survival only in HBV-related HCC but not in HCV-related HCC (P < 0.001 and P = 0.79, respectively).In conclusion, we provided external validation of the HKLC system. Compared with the BCLC system, the HKLC system has better prognostic accuracy and therapeutic efficacy in the entire cohort and in HBV-related HCC but not in HCV-related HCC. Due to high heterogeneity among patients of various etiologies, staging and treatment strategies tailored to specific HCC etiology are required.

Impact of current staging systems on treatment strategy for HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide. HCC incidence has increased over the last few years, with more than half of HCC cases being reported in China, where hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is the main etiologic factor. The heterogeneity in HCC's worldwide distribution and the differences in its etiology in different locations may result in prognosis estimation and therapeutic decision making being more complicated for HCC patients. In the past decade, several clinical staging systems have been developed based on relevant prognostic factors. Among them, the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) and Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) staging systems are the only two classification systems that link prognostic classification to treatment indications. In this review, we mainly focus on the use of the BCLC and HKLC staging systems for guiding therapeutic decision making for HCC, the respective advantages and disadvantages of each classification system, and future perspectives for the improvement of the HKLC model.

Recommendations for the use of chemoembolization in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Usefulness of scoring system?

Several hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) staging systems have been established, and a variety of country-specific treatment strategies are also proposed. The barcelona - clinic liver cancer (BCLC) system is the most widely used in Europe. The Hong Kong liver Cancer is a new prognostic staging system; it might become the reference system in Asia. Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the most widely used treatment for HCC worldwide; but it showed a benefit only for intermediate stage HCC (BCLC B), and there is still no consensus concerning treatment methods and treatment strategies. In view of the highly diverse nature of HCC and practices, a scoring system designed to assist with decision making before the first TACE is performed or prior to repeating the procedure would be highly useful.