Evaluation of the "assessment for continuous treatment with hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy" scoring system in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

Predictive factors and prognostic models for Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in Hepatocellular carcinoma: a comprehensive review

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a prevalent and lethal cancer, often diagnosed at advanced stages where traditional treatments such as surgical resection, liver transplantation, and locoregional therapies provide limited benefits. Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) has emerged as a promising treatment modality for advanced HCC, enhancing anti-tumor efficacy through targeted drug delivery while minimizing systemic side effects. However, the heterogeneous nature of HCC leads to variable responses to HAIC, highlighting the necessity for reliable predictive indicators to tailor personalized treatment strategies. This review explores the factors influencing HAIC success, including patient demographics, tumor characteristics, biomarkers, genomic profiles, and advanced imaging techniques such as radiomics and deep learning models. Additionally, the synergistic potential of HAIC combined with immunotherapy and molecular targeted therapies is examined, demonstrating improved survival outcomes. Prognostic scoring systems and nomograms that integrate clinical, molecular, and imaging data are discussed as superior tools for individualized prognostication compared to traditional staging systems. Understanding these predictors is essential for optimizing HAIC efficacy and enhancing survival and quality of life for patients with advanced HCC. Future research directions include large-scale prospective studies, integration of multi-omics data, and advancements in artificial intelligence to refine predictive models and further personalize treatment approaches.

Cost-effectiveness and prognostic model of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma with high tumor burden and/or Vp4 tumor thrombus compared with sorafenib: a post-hoc analysis of the FOHAIC-1 trial

OBJECTIVES

The phase III FOHAIC-1 trial revealed that hepatic arterial infusion of chemotherapy (HAIC) improved overall survival compared to sorafenib in the high-risk hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study therefore set out to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and establish a prognostic clinico-radiological score of HAIC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 409 patients with high-risk HCC who received HAIC between 2014 and 2020 were included. A Markov model was applied in the cost-effectiveness analysis using data from the FOHAIC-1 trial. In prognosis analysis, a clinico-radiological score was developed using a Cox-regression model and subsequently confirmed in the internal validation and test cohorts. The area under the curve from receiver operator characteristic analysis was used to assess the performance of the clinico-radiological score.

RESULTS

HAIC resulted in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $10190.41/quality-adjusted life years compared to sorafenib, which was lower than the willingness-to-pay threshold. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis predicted a ≥99.9% probability that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was below the willingness-to-pay. The Cox analysis identified five factors, namely extrahepatic metastasis (m), arterial enhancing type (a), tumor number (nu), albumin-bilirubin index (a), and involved lobe (l), which together comprise the clinico-radiological score (HAIC-manual). Patients were classified into three groups based on the number of factors present, with cutoffs at 2 and 4 factors. The stratified median overall survival for these groups were 21.6, 10.0, and 5.9 months, respectively ( P <0.001). These findings were verified through internal validation and test cohorts with a significance level of P ≤0.01. The time-dependent area under the curve from receiver operator characteristic for the ability of the HAIC-manual to predict survival in 1, 2, and 3 years were 0.71, 0.76, and 0.78, which significantly outperformed existing staging systems.

CONCLUSION

HAIC is a promising and cost-effective strategy for patients with high-risk HCC. The clinico-radiological score may be a simple prognostic tool for predicting HAIC treatment.

Protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist II: Experience to date and future directions

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common type of primary liver cancer with high mortality. The realization of precision medicine in HCC relies upon efficient biomarkers. Protein induced by vitamin K absence or antagonist II (PIVKA-II) is an immature prothrombin with insufficient coagulation activity, overexpressing in HCC cells. Previous evidence confirmed the role of PIVKA-II in screening and diagnosing HCC. However, the increased PIVKA-II was observed not only in HCC, but also in non-HCC individuals such as vitamin K deficiency. The joint detection of PIVKA-II and other biomarkers could significantly improve diagnostic accuracy in HCC. Furthermore, PIVKA-II serves as a valuable prognostic predictor, transplantation eligibility, resectability, tumor recurrence, therapeutic efficacy, and malignant tumor behaviors. Additionally, PIVKA-II represents a potential target for agent development to establish new therapeutic strategies. Besides HCC, PIVKA-II also serves as a biomarker of vitamin K status. In this review, we assess the role of PIVKA-II in diagnosis, prediction, and treatment. Over the past decades, substantial progress has been achieved in the application of PIVKA-II. Exploration and innovation are required for further advances in the field of PIVKA-II investigation.

Comparative Analysis of Lenvatinib and Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Multi-Center, Propensity Score Study

The comparative efficacy and safety between lenvatinib and hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is still unclear. This multicenter historical cohort study enrolled 244 patients who were treated with HAIC (n = 173) or lenvatinib (n = 71) between 2012 and 2020. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed, and 52 patients were selected per group. Clinical outcomes and safety were compared. Objective response rate (ORR) was not different between the two groups (26.0% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.736). Before PSM, the HAIC group had a higher proportion of Child-Pugh B and portal vein tumor, whereas the lenvatinib group had more patients with extrahepatic metastases, which was adjusted after PSM. There were no differences in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after PSM (HAIC vs. lenvatinib, median PFS, 3.6 vs. 4.0 months, p = 0.706; median OS 10.8 vs. 7.9 months, p = 0.106). Multivariate Cox-regression showed that alpha-fetoprotein ≤1000 ng/mL was only an associated factor for OS after PSM in all patients (hazard ratio = 0.421, p = 0.011). Subgroup analysis for patients with a high tumor burden beyond the REFLECT eligibility criteria revealed that the HAIC group (n = 29) had a significantly longer OS than did the lenvatinib group (n = 30) (10.0 vs. 5.4 months, p = 0.004). More patients in the HAIC group achieved better liver function than those in the lenvatinib group at the time of best responses. There was no difference in the incidence of grade 3 and 4 adverse events between the two groups. Therefore, lenvatinib is comparable to HAIC in terms of ORR and OS in unresectable HCC meeting REFLECT eligibility criteria.

The Early Decline of α-Fetoprotein and Des-γ-Carboxy Prothrombin Predicts the Response of Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients

Introduction

Molecular targeting drugs are recommended as second-line treatment for intrahepatic advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, in Asia, hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) is also considered as a second-line treatment because it improves the survival of responders. The aim of this study was to predict responders and non-responders to HAIC with low-dose cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (LFP) using tumor markers.

Objective and Methods

The data of 47 patients who received LFP for the first time in our hospital were analyzed retrospectively. We evaluated the association between treatment response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors and the changing ratio of the serum concentration of α-fetoprotein (AFP), Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction of AFP (AFP-L3), and des-γ-carboxy prothrombin (DCP) 2 weeks after LFP initiation.

Results

The number of patients showing a complete response (CR), a partial response (PR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) was 0 (0%), 20 (43%), 18 (38%), and 9 (19%), respectively. The AFP ratio showed significant positive correlations for PR vs. SD (p = 0.004) and PR vs. PD (p = 0.003). The DCP ratio correlated significantly for PR vs. SD (p = 0.02). The optimal cutoff values for responders were 0.79 for the AFP ratio and 0.53 for the DCP ratio. Prediction using both or either cutoff value showed 93% sensitivity, 53% specificity, a 94% negative predictive value, and a 57% positive predictive value.

Conclusion

Optimal cutoff values for AFP and DCP ratios enable prediction of nonresponders to HAIC with LFP. This simple and early assessment method allows the use of HAIC and molecular targeting drugs for HCC treatment.

Effect of body composition on survival benefit of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A comparison with sorafenib therapy

AIM

Sorafenib is used as a first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) has also gained acceptance, but only in Japan. We explored the role of body composition as a factor affecting the survival benefit of HAIC compared to sorafenib for the treatment of advanced HCC.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study using the clinical records of 133 patients with advanced HCC treated either with HAIC or sorafenib. Prior to treatment induction, skeletal muscle index and visceral fat area (VFA) were measured at the third lumbar vertebral and umbilical levels, respectively, using computed tomography. Muscle depletion and high-VFA (H-VFA) were defined using published cut-offs. We analyzed clinical parameters, including body composition as prognostic factors.

RESULTS

In the HAIC group, multivariate analysis identified a positive response to HAIC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.438; p = 0.022), and conversion from HAIC to sorafenib (HR, 0.374; p = 0.008) as favorable prognostic factors for survival. In contrast, tumor number < 7 (HR, 0.475; p = 0.008), absence of extra-hepatic spread (HR, 0.511; p = 0.015), absence of muscle depletion (HR, 0.555; p = 0.044), and H-VFA (HR, 0.483; p = 0.015) were studied in the sorafenib group.

CONCLUSIONS

Body composition was identified as a prognostic factor for patient survival after treatment with sorafenib, but not for HAIC, and may be used as a biomarker when selecting between HAIC or sorafenib treatment of patients with advanced HCC. Additionally, conversion to sorafenib in patients receiving HAIC could improve survival regardless of response status.

Prognostic profile of patients with non-viral hepatocellular carcinoma: A comparative study with hepatitis C virus-related hepatocellular carcinoma using data mining analysis

Various factors are associated with the prognosis of patients with non-viral hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The present study aimed to investigate the prognosis of patients with non-viral HCC compared with that of patients with hepatitis C virus-related (HCV)-HCC and the features associated with prognosis of patients with non-viral HCC using data mining analyses. Patients with non-viral HCC (n=182, age 70.4±8.9 years) and HCV-HCC (n=612, age 70±8.4 years) were enrolled and the overall survival was compared between the non-viral HCC and HCV-HCC groups. The present study performed random forest and decision tree analyses to identify features that distinguish prognosis between the non-viral HCC and HCV-HCC groups. The median survival of the non-viral HCC group was significantly shorter than the HCV-HCC group (1,553 vs. 2,304 days, P<0.01). In the multivariate analysis, the non-viral HCC group was an independent risk factor for survival (HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.08-1.87, P=0.013). In the random forest analysis, the high-ranking distinguishable factors were 'number of tumors' and 'HCC stage' in the non-viral HCC group and 'albumin' and 'total bilirubin' in the HCV-HCC group. The decision tree analysis revealed that, in patients with HCC stage >I, the survival period in the non-viral HCC group was significantly shorter than the HCV-HCC group (HR 1.39, 95% CI 1.07-1.81, P=0.0132). The prognosis of patients with non-viral HCC was poorer than patients with HCV-HCC. In addition, data mining analysis revealed that tumor-related variables had the highest importance for survival in patients with non-viral HCC.

Patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer Stages B and C Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Time for a Subclassification

BACKGROUND

The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) intermediate and advanced stages (BCLC B and C) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) both include heterogeneous populations. Patients classified as BCLC stage B present with different tumour burdens, and the recommended treatment is transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). A similar heterogeneity of tumour burden and liver function can be found among patients classified as BCLC stage C, which includes diverse clinical features (performance status [PS] 1-2), macrovascular invasion (MVI) including portal vein tumour (PVT) thrombosis, and/or extra-hepatic spread. Nonetheless, the anti-tumoural treatment formally recommended by Western guidelines is systemic therapy with sorafenib.

SUMMARY

Several proposals of subclassification for both these stages have been suggested in recent years, differentiating the more appropriate treatments for each substage. In particular, for BCLC stage C patients with PVT, therapeutic indications, clinical outcomes, and response to locoregional therapy are notably different in the presence of subsegmental, segmental or main PVT. Accordingly, liver resection and transarterial therapies, such as TACE or transarterial embolization (TAE) and 90Y-radioembolization (TARE), can be performed in locally advanced HCC with intrahepatic MVI according to its extent. In fact, surgery and TACE/TAE/TARE have no contraindications in the presence of PVT limited to the subsegmental or segmental branches in Child-Pugh class A patients, whereas only TARE should be utilized when there is lobar branch involvement. The presence of PS 1 should not be sufficient to allocate patients to the advanced stage since this would preclude any potential treatment for HCC. Patients should be properly classified as BCLC C only in cases of main portal trunk PVT, and treated according to the guidelines, provided that they belong to Child-Pugh class A.

KEY MESSAGES

Subclassifications of BCLC B and C stages are urgently needed and require validation in order to guide clinicians towards the most effective treatment option.

Treatment strategies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Sorafenib vs hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy

Sorafenib is used worldwide as a first-line standard systemic agent for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on the basis of the results of two large-scale Phase III trials. Conversely, hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) is one of the most recommended treatments in Japan. Although there have been no randomized controlled trials comparing sorafenib with HAIC, several retrospective analyses have shown no significant differences in survival between the two therapies. Outcomes are favorable for HCC patients exhibiting macroscopic vascular invasion when treated with HAIC rather than sorafenib, whereas in HCC patients exhibiting extrahepatic spread or resistance to transcatheter arterial chemoembolization, good outcomes are achieved by treatment with sorafenib rather than HAIC. Additionally, sorafenib is generally used to treat patients with Child-Pugh A, while HAIC is indicated for those with either Child-Pugh A or B. Based on these findings, we reviewed treatment strategies for advanced HCC. We propose that sorafenib might be used as a first-line treatment for advanced HCC patients without macroscopic vascular invasion or Child-Pugh A, while HAIC is recommended for those with macroscopic vascular invasion or Child-Pugh A or B. Additional research is required to determine the best second-line treatment for HAIC non-responders with Child-Pugh B through future clinical trials.