Microwave ablation versus sorafenib for intermediate-Stage Hepatocellular carcinoma with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization refractoriness: a propensity score matching analysis

Clinical consensus statement: Establishing the roles of locoregional and systemic therapies for the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma in Canada

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) a leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide and approximately one-third of patients present with intermediate-stage disease. The treatment landscape of intermediate-stage HCC is rapidly evolving due to developments in local, locoregional and systemic therapies. Treatment recommendations focused on this heterogenous disease stage and that take into account the Canadian reality are lacking. To address this gap, a pan-Canadian group of experts in hepatology, transplant, surgery, radiation therapy, nuclear medicine, interventional radiology, and medical oncology came together to develop consensus recommendations on management of intermediate-stage HCC relevant to the Canadian context.

METHODS

A modified Delphi framework was used to develop consensus statements with strengths of recommendation and supporting levels of evidence graded using the AHA/ACC classification system. Tentative consensus statements were drafted based on a systematic search and expert input in a series of iterative feedback cycles and were then circulated via online survey to assess the level of agreement.

RESULTS & CONCLUSION

The pre-defined ratification threshold of 80 % agreement was reached for all statements in the areas of multidisciplinary treatment (n = 4), intra-arterial therapy (n = 14), biologics (n = 5), radiation therapy (n = 3), surgical resection and transplantation (n = 7), and percutaneous ablative therapy (n = 4). These generally reflected an expansion in treatment options due to developments in previously established or emergent techniques, introduction of new and more active therapies and increased therapeutic flexibility. These developments have allowed for greater treatment tailoring and personalization as well as a paradigm shift toward strategies with curative intent in a wider range of disease settings.

Transarterial chemoembolization failure/refractoriness: A scientific concept or pseudo-proposition

Multi-session transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is usually needed for the treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but it may not always have a positive influence on prognosis due to high heterogeneity of HCC. To avoid ineffective repeated TACE, the concept of TACE failure/refractoriness has been proposed by several organizations and is being addressed using tyrosine kinase inhibitors. The concept of TACE failure/refractoriness is controversial due to ambiguous definitions and low evidence-based data. To date, only a few studies have examined the rationality concerning the definition of TACE failure/refractoriness, although the concept has been introduced and applied in many TACE-related clinical trials. This review focuses on some of the issues related to different versions of TACE failure/refractoriness, the rationality of related definitions, and the feasibility of continuing TACE after so-called failure/refractoriness based on published evidence. A suggestion to re-define TAEC failure/refractoriness is also put forward.

Subsequent Treatment after Transarterial Chemoembolization Failure/Refractoriness: A Review Based on Published Evidence

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is widely applied for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Repeat TACE is often required in clinical practice because a satisfactory tumor response may not be achieved with a single session. However, repeated TACE procedures can impair liver function and increase treatment-related adverse events, all of which prompted the introduction of the concept of “TACE failure/refractoriness”. Mainly based on evidence from two retrospective studies conducted in Japan, sorafenib is recommended as the first choice for subsequent treatment after TACE failure/refractoriness. Several studies have investigated the outcomes of other subsequent treatments, including locoregional, other molecular targeted, anti-programmed death-1/anti-programed death ligand-1 therapies, and combination therapies after TACE failure/refractoriness. In this review, we summarize the up-to-date information about the outcomes of several subsequent treatment modalities after TACE failure/refractoriness.