Pre-transplant utilization of sorafenib is not associated with increased complications after liver transplantation

Downstaging Hepatocellular Carcinoma before Transplantation: Role of Immunotherapy Versus Locoregional Approaches

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) continues to be a leading cause of cancer-related death in the United States. With advances in locoregional therapy for unresectable HCC during the last 2 decades and the recent expansion of transplant criteria for HCC, as well as ongoing organ shortages, patients are spending more time on the waitlist, which has resulted in an increased usage of locoregional therapies. The plethora of molecularly targeted therapies and immune checkpoint inhibitors under investigation represent the new horizon of treatment of HCC not only in advanced stages but also potentially at every stage of diagnosis and management.

Transplant Oncology: An Emerging Discipline of Cancer Treatment

Transplant oncology is an emerging concept of cancer treatment with a promising prospective outcome. The applications of oncology, transplant medicine, and surgery are the core of transplant oncology to improve patients' survival and quality of life. The main concept of transplant oncology is to radically cure cancer by removing the diseased organ and replacing it with a healthy one, aiming to improve the survival outcomes and quality of life of cancer patients. Subsequently, it seeks to expand the treatment options and research for hepatobiliary malignancies, which have seen significantly improved survival outcomes after the implementation of liver transplantation (LT). In the case of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the transplant setting, where the liver is the most common site of metastasis of patients who are considered to have unresectable disease, initial studies have shown improved survival for LT treatment compared to palliative therapy interventions. The indications of LT for hepatobiliary malignancies have been slowly expanded over the years beyond Milan criteria in a stepwise manner. However, the outcome improvements and overall patient survival are limited to the specifics of the setting and systematic intervention options. This review aims to illustrate the representative concepts and history of transplant oncology as an emerging discipline for the management of hepatobiliary malignancies, in addition to other emerging concepts, such as the uses of immunotherapy in a peri-transplant setting as well as the use of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) for surveillance post-transplantation.

Conversion therapy in liver transplantation for hepatocellular carcinoma: What's new in the era of molecular and immune therapy?

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the sixth most common cancer globally, with limited therapies and unsatisfactory prognosis once in the advanced stages. With promising advances in locoregional and systematic treatments, fast development of targeted drugs, the success of immunotherapy, as well as the emergence of the therapeutic alliance, conversion therapy has recently become more well developed and an effective therapeutic strategy. This article aimed to review recent developments in conversion therapy in liver transplantation (LT) for HCC.

DATA SOURCES

We searched for relevant publications on PubMed before September 2022, using the terms "HCC", "liver transplantation", "downstaging", "bridging treatment" and "conversion therapy."

RESULTS

Conversion therapy was frequently represented as a combination of multiple treatment modalities to downstage HCC and make patients eligible for LT. Although combining various local and systematic treatments in conversion therapy is still controversial, growing evidence has suggested that multimodal combined treatment strategies downstage HCC in a shorter time, which ultimately increases the opportunities for LT. Moreover, the recent breakthrough of immunotherapy and targeted therapy for HCC also benefit patients with advanced-stage tumors.

CONCLUSIONS

In the era of targeted therapy and immunotherapy, applying the thinking of transplant oncology to benefit HCC patients receiving LT is a new topic that has shed light on advanced-stage patients. With the expansion of conversion therapy concepts, further investigation and research is required to realize the full potential of conversion treatment strategies, including accurately selecting candidates, determining the timing of surgery, improving the conversion rate, and guaranteeing the safety and long-term efficacy of treatment.

Neo-Adjuvant Use of Sorafenib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Awaiting Liver Transplantation

Data on efficacy and safety of sorafenib in a neoadjuvant setting for HCC awaiting liver transplantation (LT) are heterogeneous and scarce. We aimed to investigate the trajectory of patients treated with sorafenib while awaiting LT. All patients listed for HCC and treated with sorafenib were included in a monocentric observational study. A clinical and biological evaluation was performed every month. Radiological tumor response evaluation was realized every 3 months on the waiting list and every 6 months after LT. Among 327 patients listed for HCC, 62 (19%) were treated with Sorafenib. Sorafenib was initiated for HCC progression after loco-regional therapy (LRT) in 50% of cases and for impossibility of LRT in 50% of cases. The mean duration of treatment was 6 months. Thirty six patients (58%) dropped-out for tumor progression and 26 (42%) patients were transplanted. The 5-year overall and recurrent-free survival after LT was 77% and 48% respectively. Patients treated for impossibility of LRT had acceptable 5-year intention-to-treat overall and post-LT survivals. Conversely, patients treated for HCC progression presented high dropout rate and low intention-to-treat survival. Our results suggest that it is very questionable in terms of utility that patients treated for HCC progression should even be kept listed once the tumor progression has been observed.

Hepatocellular carcinoma downstaging for liver transplantation in the era of systemic combined therapy with anti-VEGF/TKI and immunotherapy

Hepatocellular carcinoma remains a global health challenge affecting close to 1 million cases yearly. Liver transplantation provides the best long-term outcomes for those meeting strict criteria. Efforts have been made to expand these criteria, whereas others have attempted downstaging approaches. Although locoregional approaches to downstaging are appealing and have demonstrated efficacy, limitations and challenges exists including poor imaging modality to assess response and appropriate endpoints along the process. Recent advances in systemic treatments including immune checkpoint inhibitors alone or in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors have prompted the discussion regarding their role for downstaging disease prior to transplantation. Here, we provide a review of prior locoregional approaches for downstaging, new systemic agents and their role for downstaging, and finally, key and critical considerations of the assessment, endpoints, and optimal designs in clinical trials to address this key question.

Expanding TACTICS trial into a different setting in hepatocellular carcinoma

Systemic treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is recommended for patients with advanced stage and for those who progressed on locoregional modalities. The first agent approved for advanced HCC was sorafenib, and it remains one of the cornerstones of systemic treatment. In the past years, immunotherapy has shown promising results and has been incorporated into the treatment armamentarium. The rates of recurrence and progression after locoregional therapies are significant, what highlights the need to explore systemic agents for preventing or delaying these negative outcomes. Recently, sorafenib was shown to benefit patients with unresectable HCC under transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) by delaying tumor progression and prolonging time to vascular invasion and extrahepatic spread. Although this result was reported in patients with intermediate stage, it provides background to test the strategy of combining systemic treatment plus TACE as a bridge therapy to HCC patients awaiting liver transplantation, for which the risk of dropout due to tumor progression impairs the possibility of cure.

Role of Locoregional Therapies in Patients With Hepatocellular Cancer Awaiting Liver Transplantation

Hepatocellular cancer (HCC) is the fifth most common cancer in the world and the third most common cause of cancer-related deaths. The United Network for Organ Sharing has its own staging criteria for organ allocation, which is a modification of tumor-node-metastasis staging of American Joint Committee on Cancer. For the purpose of clarity, United Network for Organ Sharing staging will be described as uT1, uT2 (Milan criteria), and uT3 (eligible for downstaging) in this review. For those with unresectable HCC or those with advanced liver disease and HCC but within the Milan criteria, liver transplantation is the treatment of choice. Because of prolonged waiting period on the liver transplant list in many parts of the world for deceased donor liver transplantation, there is a serious risk of dropout from the liver transplant list because of tumor progression. For those patients, locoregional therapies might need to be considered, and moreover, there is circumstantial evidence to suggest that tumor progression after locoregional therapies might be a surrogate marker of unfavorable tumor biology. There is no consensus on the role or type of locoregional therapies in the management of patients with uT1 and uT2 eligible for liver transplant and of those with lesions larger than uT2 but eligible for downstaging protocol (uT3 lesions). In this review, we examine the role of locoregional therapies in these patients stratified by staging and propose treatment options based on the current evidence of tumor progression rates while awaiting liver transplantation and tumor recurrence rates after liver transplantation.

Downstaging to Liver Transplant: Success Involves Choosing the Right Patient

Hepatocellular carcinoma is a rising indication for liver transplantation in the United States. Downstaging, defined as the reduction of tumor burden using local-regional therapy into Milan criteria, opens an avenue to access cure through transplant for patients who traditionally would not qualify. Approaching the selection of downstaging candidates through an assessment of hepatic function, staying within a modest expansion of tumor burden, and incorporation of serologic/imaging markers for tumor biology provide the best chance for successful downstaging. Following well-defined downstaging protocols with built-in failure criteria ensures excellent post-transplant outcomes.

Outcomes of Liver Transplantation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Beyond the University of California San Francisco Criteria: A Single-center Experience

BACKGROUND

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common primary malignant liver tumor. Currently, liver transplantation may be the optimal treatment for HCC in cirrhotic patients. Patient selection is currently based on tumor size. We developed a program to offer liver transplantation to selected patients with HCC outside of traditional criteria.

METHODS

Retrospective review for patients transplanted with HCC between April 2008 and June 2017. Patients were grouped by tumor size according to Milan, University of California San Francisco (UCSF), and outside UCSF criteria. Patient demographics, laboratory values, and outcomes were compared. Patients radiographically outside Milan criteria were selected based on tumor control with locoregional therapy (LRT) and 9 months of stability from LRT. α-fetoprotein values were not exclusionary.

RESULTS

Two hundred twenty HCC patients were transplanted, 138 inside Milan, 23 inside UCSF, and 59 beyond UCSF criteria. Patient survival was equivalent at 1, 3, or 5 years despite pathologic tumor size. Waiting time to transplantation was not significantly different at an average of 344 days. In patients outside UCSF, tumor recurrence was equivalent to Milan and UCSF criteria recipients who waited >9 months from LRT. Although tumor recurrence was more likely in outside of UCSF patients (3% versus 9% versus 15%; P = 0.02), recurrence-free survival only trended toward significance among the groups (P = 0.053).

CONCLUSIONS

Selective patients outside of traditional size criteria can be effectively transplanted with equivalent survival to patients with smaller tumors, even when pathologic tumor burden is considered. Tumor stability over time can be used to help select patients for transplantation.

A prospective clinical trial on sorafenib treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma before liver transplantation

Background

Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma waiting for liver transplantation are commonly treated with locoregional treatments, such as TACE and ablation, to prevent tumor progression and dropout and to improve long-term outcome after transplantation. We wanted to prospectively assess feasibility of systemic antitumor treatment with sorafenib as neoadjuvant treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma while waiting for liver transplantation, evaluating tolerability, toxicity and posttransplant morbidity. We also wanted to evaluate perfusion CT parameters to assess tumor properties and response early after start of sorafenib treatment in patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma.

Methods

Twelve patients assigned for liver transplantation due to hepatocellular carcinoma, within the UCSF and who fulfilled other criteria, were included January 2012–August 2014. After baseline evaluation, sorafenib treatment was started. Treatment was evaluated by perfusion CT at 1, 4 and 12 weeks and thereafter every 8 weeks. Toxicity and quality of life was assessed at 1 and 4 weeks and every 4 weeks thereafter during treatment. Treatment was stopped when patients were prioritized on the transplantation waiting list or when intolerable side effects or tumor progress warranted other treatments. Posttransplant morbidity after 90 days was registered according to Clavien-Dindo.

Results

Baseline perfusion CT parameters in the tumors predicted the outcome according to RECIST/mRECIST at three months, but no change in CTp parameters was detected as a result of sorafenib. Sorafenib as neoadjuvant treatment was associated with intolerability and dose reductions. Therefore the prerequisites for evaluation of the sorafenib effect on both CT parameters and tumor response were impaired.

Conclusions

This study failed to show changes in CTp parameters during sorafenib treatment. Despite the curative treatment intention, tolerability of neoadjuvant sorafenib treatment before liver transplantation was inadequate in this study.

Trial registration

EudraCT number: 2010–024306-36 (date 2011-04-07).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5760-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

New Systemic Treatments in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The principal advancements in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are the use of new systemic treatments, such as lenvatinib in first-line treatment and regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab in second-line treatment, because of their benefits in terms of overall survival. In addition, nivolumab as a second-line agent was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 based on improved radiological response data. Physicians and patients alike will greatly benefit from this expanded arsenal of treatments once all these new drugs for the treatment of HCC finally become available. Unfortunately, in our review of the available data, we found a conspicuous lack of approved systemic treatments for HCC in the distinct setting of after liver transplantation (LT). Careful evaluation of the clinical trials for approved systemic treatments of HCC is crucial when considering the best options for those with HCC recurrence after LT. Although several first-line or second-line treatments have been shown to be effective for HCC, each of these trials was composed of its own specific populations, and those with HCC recurrence after LT were excluded. We have also summarized from a critical and clinical point of view the issues involved in the management of patients who are candidates for systemic treatment in this era of multiple drugs for the same indication.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Posttransplant Hepatic Artery and Biliary Complications in Patients Treated With Transarterial Chemoembolization Before Liver Transplantation

BACKGROUND

Hepatic artery complications are feared complications after liver transplantation and may compromise the biliary tract, graft, and patient survival. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare risk of hepatic artery and biliary complications after liver transplantation in patients who underwent neoadjuvant transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) versus no TACE.

METHODS

Comprehensive searches were performed in Embase, MEDLINE OvidSP, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases to identify studies concerning hepatocellular cancer patients undergoing preliver transplantation TACE. Quality assessment of studies was done by the validated checklist of Downs and Black. Meta-analyses were performed to evaluate the incidence of all hepatic artery complications, hepatic artery thrombosis, and biliary tract complications, using binary random-effect models.

RESULTS

Fourteen retrospective studies, representing 1122 TACE patients, met the inclusion criteria. Postoperative hepatic artery complications consisted of hepatic artery thrombosis, stenosis, and (pseudo)-aneurysms. Preliver transplantation TACE was significantly associated with occurrence of posttransplant hepatic artery complications (odds ratio, 1.57; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-2.26; P = 0.02). No significant association between neoadjuvant TACE and hepatic artery thrombosis alone or biliary tract complications was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients treated with TACE before liver transplantation may be at increased risk for development of hepatic artery complications after liver transplantation.

Evolving role of Sorafenib in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common malignant diseases worldwide and comes third in cancer-related mortality. Although there is a broad spectrum of treatment options to choose from, only a few patients are eligible candidates to receive a curative therapy according to their stage of disease, and thus palliative treatment is implemented in the majority of the patients suffering from liver cancer. Sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, is the only currently approved agent for systemic therapy in patients with advanced stage HCC and early stage liver disease. It has been shown to improve the overall survival, but with various side effects, while its cost is not negligible. Sorafenib has been in the market for a decade and has set the stage for personalized targeted therapy. Its role during this time has ranged from monotherapy to neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment with surgical resection, liver transplantation and chemoembolization or even in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents. In this review our aim is to highlight in depth the current position of Sorafenib in the armamentarium against HCC and how that has evolved over time in its use either as a single agent or in combination with other therapies.

Using ultrasonography to monitor liver blood flow for liver transplant from donors supported on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used to support brain-dead donors for liver procurement. This study investigated the potential role of ultrasonographic monitoring of hepatic perfusion as an aid to improve the viability of liver transplants obtained from brain-dead donors who are supported on ECMO. A total of 40 brain-dead patients maintained on ECMO served as the study population. Hepatic blood flow was monitored using ultrasonography, and perioperative optimal perfusion was maintained by calibrating ECMO. Liver function tests were performed to assess the viability of the graft. The hepatic arterial blood flow was well maintained with no significant changes observed before and after ECMO (206 ± 32 versus 241 ± 45 mL/minute; P = 0.06). Similarly, the portal venous blood flow was also maintained throughout (451 ± 65 versus 482 ± 77 mL/minute; P = 0.09). No significant change in levels of total bilirubin, alanine transaminase, and lactic acid were reported during ECMO (P = 0.17, P = 0.08, and P = 0.09, respectively). Before the liver is procured, ultrasonographic monitoring of hepatic blood flow could be a valuable aid to improve the viability of a liver transplant by allowing for real-time calibration of ECMO perfusion in brain-dead liver donors. In our study, ultrasonographic monitoring helped prevent warm ischemic injury to the liver graft by avoiding both overperfusion and underperfusion of the liver.

Hepatocellular carcinoma in patients listed for liver transplantation: Current and future allocation policy and management strategies for the individual patient

Liver transplantation can provide definitive cure for patients with cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) when used appropriately. Advances in the management of HCC have allowed improved control of HCC while waiting for liver transplantation and new approaches to candidate selection particularly with regard to tumor burden and downstaging protocols. Additionally, there have been recent changes in allocation policy related to HCC in the U.S. that cap the HCC MELD exception at 34 points and implement a 6-month delay in a HCC MELD exception. This review examines the U.S. liver transplant allocation policy related to HCC, comprehensively details locoregional therapy options in HCC patients awaiting liver transplantation, and considers the impact of an increasing burden of HCC on future liver graft allocation policy.

Systemic Treatment: Expecting Further Success

From its approval in 2008, sorafenib is the recommended treatment option for advanced-stage patients and its safety and efficacy has been confirmed by several studies. However, its mechanism of action is not completely understood and many efforts have been dedicated to investigating possible treatment response predictors. Dermatological adverse events occurring within the first 2 months of treatment are predictors of longer survival, while the same role for hypertension and diarrhea still needs a prospective confirmation. This association is opposite to the strategy of starting at a low dose as it may imply suboptimal drug exposure. In case of radiological progression, the appearance of new extrahepatic metastasis or vascular invasion significantly worsens life expectancy if compared to other patterns of progression. To date no genetic or biologic marker is available to predict response, even if some encouraging results have been reported by the study of polymorphism of VEGF and its receptor. Currently, data are conflicting about the possible predictive role of α-fetoprotein. Due to failure or the progression of therapies for earlier evolutionary stages (BCLC B) some patients in such a clinical profile may be treated with sorafenib. Indeed, almost 50% of the sorafenib-treated patients belong to this class. Patients with severely decompensated liver disease (jaundice, ascites in need of intense diuretic therapy/paracentesis) may not benefit from treatment. The use of sorafenib in the waiting list for liver transplantation is controversial, while its use at an advanced age requires careful evaluation of existing comorbidities that may increase the risk of adverse events. Many strides have been made in the field of hepatocellular carcinoma systemic therapy, and many remain to be realized. Considering the disappointing results of the trials conducted on new agents, a more dynamic interpretation of events together with the development of new strategies is key to enriching new and hopefully more successful trials.

Impact of neo-adjuvant Sorafenib treatment on liver transplantation in HCC patients - a prospective, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial

Background

Liver Transplantation (LT) is treatment of choice for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) within MILAN Criteria. Tumour progression and subsequent dropout from waiting list have significant impact on the survival. Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) controls tumour growth in the treated HCC nodule, however, the risk of tumour development in the untreated liver is increased by simultaneous release of neo-angiogenic factors. Due to its anti-angiogenic effects, Sorafenib delays the progression of HCC. Aim of this study was to determine whether combination of TACE and Sorafenib improves tumour control in HCC patients on waiting list for LT.

Methods

Fifty patients were randomly assigned on a 1:1 ratio in double-blinded fashion at four centers in Germany and treated with TACE plus either Sorafenib (n = 24) or placebo (n = 26). The end of treatment was development of progressive disease according to mRECIST criteria or LT. The primary endpoint of the trial was the Time-to-Progression (TTP). Other efficacy endpoints were Tumour Response, Progression-free Survival (PFS), and Time-to-LT (TTLT).

Results

The median time of treatment was 125 days with Sorafenib and 171 days with the placebo. Fourteen patients (seven from each group) developed tumour progression during the course of the study period. The Hazard Ratio of TTP was 1.106 (95% CI: 0.387, 3.162). The results of the Objective Response Rate, Disease Control Rate, PFS, and TTLT were comparable in both groups. The incidence of AEs was comparable in the placebo group (n = 23, 92%) and in the Sorafenib group (n = 23, 96%). Twelve patients (50%) on Sorafenib and four patients (16%) on placebo experienced severe treatment-related AEs.

Conclusion

The TTP is similar after neo-adjuvant treatment with TACE and Sorafenib before LT compared to TACE and placebo. The Tumour Response, PFS, and TTLT were comparable. The safety profile of the Sorafenib group was similar to that of the placebo group.

Trial registration

ISRCTN24081794

Systemic therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma: current and promising

Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains challenging, particularly with the limited systemic therapy options. Sorafenib remains the only approved, targeted molecule for the treatment of advanced HCC. Although a survival benefit was demonstrated with sorafenib, it remains only true in the population of patients with Child-Turcotte-Pugh class A disease. Sorafenib also has distinct side effects that require close monitoring. Newer tyrosine kinase inhibitors and angiogenic inhibitors have been evaluated with disappointing results, particularly in phase III trials. Herein we review the pertinent trials for targeted therapy in HCC to date.

Peri-operative use of sorafenib in liver transplantation: A time-to-event meta-analysis

AIM: To evaluate whether the application of sorafenib during the peri-operative period of liver transplantation improves prognosis in liver cancer patients.

METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and MEDLINE for eligible articles. A total of 4 studies were found that fulfilled the previously agreed-upon standards. We then performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on the enrolled trials that met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS: Out of the 104 studies identified in the database, 82 were not clinical experiments, and 18 did not fit the inclusion standards. Among the remaining 4 articles, only 1 was related to the preoperative use of sorafenib, whereas the other 3 were related to its postoperative use. As the heterogeneity among the 4 studies was high, with an I² of 86%, a randomized effect model was applied to pool the data. The application of sorafenib before liver transplantation had a hazard ratio (HR) of 3.29 with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 0.33-32.56. The use of sorafenib after liver transplantation had an HR of 1.44 (95%CI: 0.27-7.71). The overall pooled HR was 1.68 (95%CI: 0.41-6.91).

CONCLUSION: The results showed that the use of sorafenib during the peri-operative period of liver transplantation did not improve patient survival significantly. In fact, sorafenib could even lead to a worse prognosis, as its use may increase the hazard of poor survival.

Evaluation and management of hepatocellular carcinoma

The burden of hepatocellular carcinoma is rising and anticipated to escalate and while the best chance for long term cure remains transplantation, however the shortage of available organs remains a limitation. Liver directed therapy can serve the role of bridge/downstaging to transplant or as palliative care. Despite an improved overall survival among patients with HCC, due to advancements in surgical techniques, liver directed and systemic therapy, the 5 year overall survival remains low at 18% high-lightening the need for novel therapies. Surveillance for HCC is key to detect disease at an early stage to increase the chances for a potentially curative option.

Efficacy and safety of combination therapy with everolimus and sorafenib for recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation

BACKGROUND

Recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after liver transplantation (LT) is still associated with a dismal outcome. Combination therapy with everolimus (EVL) and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor sorafenib (SORA) is based on the role of both b-Raf and mammalian target of rapamycin/protein kinase B pathways in the pathogenesis of HCC and is being investigated in clinical practice.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective analysis on LT recipients with unresectable HCC recurrence and undergoing combination therapy with EVL and SORA. Patients were included if they were switched to EVL+SORA at any time after surgery. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) after both LT and recurrence, and response to treatment based on the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Secondary analysis was safety of combination therapy with EVL and SORA in the population of patients who received ≥1 dose of the study drug.

RESULTS

Seven patients (100% male; median age 53 years [interquartile range (IQR) 9 years]) were considered for analysis. HCC recurrence was diagnosed at a median (IQR) interval since LT of 9 (126) months, and patients were administered EVL+SORA at a median interval since LT of 11 (126) months. Baseline immunosuppression was with tacrolimus (TAC) in 2 patients (28.6%), cyclosporine (CsA) in 2 (28.6%), and EVL monotherapy in 3 (42.8%). At a median (IQR) follow-up of 6.5 (14) months, 5 patients (71.4%) were alive, 4 of them (57.1%) with tumor progression according to the mRECIST criteria. Median (IQR) time to progression was 3.5 (12) months. Two patients died at a median (IQR) follow-up of 5 (1) months owing to tumor progression in 1 patient (14.3%) and sepsis in the other (14.3%). EVL monotherapy was achieved in 6 patients (85.7%), whereas 1patient (14.3%) could not withdraw from calcineurin inhibitor owing to acute rejection. Treatment complications were: hand-foot syndrome in 5 patients (71.4%), hypertension in 1 (14.3%), alopecia in 1 (14.3%), hypothyroidism in 1 (14.3%), diarrhea in 2 (28.6%), pruritus in 1 (14.3%), abdominal pain in 1 (14.3%), rash in 1 (14.3%), asthenia in 3 (42.8%), anorexia in 3 (42.8%), and hoarseness in 2 (28.6%). Adverse events led to temporary SORA discontinuation in 2 patients (28.6%) and to SORA dose reduction in 3 (42.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment of HCC recurrence after LT with a combination regimen of EVL+ SORA is challenging because of SORA-related complications. Longer follow-up periods and larger series are needed to better capture the impact of such combination treatment on tumor progression and patient survival.

Sorafenib use in the transplant setting

Liver transplantation (LT) is an established treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and sorafenib (SFN) is a validated treatment for patients harboring advanced tumors. It is still not clear whether the combination of the 2 treatments, with SFN used in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or recurrence setting, is useful and cost-effective. This article summarizes the present evidence in favor of and against the use of SFN in the setting of LT for HCC, and it also includes the problem of toxicity, particularly when mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors, which play a central role in regulating cellular growth and proliferation, are used as immunosuppressants. Overall, the data do not support the use of SFN in the pre- or post-LT setting as adjuvant therapy, and additional studies are needed to reach sound conclusions on the topic.