Second-line treatment with nivolumab, cabozantinib, regorafenib, or best supportive care in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: analysis at a Hispanic-majority NCI-designated cancer center

Regorafenib plus programmed death‑1 inhibitors vs. regorafenib monotherapy in second‑line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A systematic review and meta‑analysis

The present study compared the efficacy and safety of regorafenib plus programmed death-1 inhibitors (R-P) with regorafenib monotherapy as second-line therapies for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A systematic search of relevant literature published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases until October 2023 was conducted. Two authors independently performed data extraction and screening using standardized protocols. Stata/MP 17.0 was used for the meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of R-P treatment on major outcome indicators, including overall survival, progression-free survival (PFS), tumor response and adverse reactions, in patients with advanced HCC. The results indicated that five cohort studies involving 444 patients with advanced HCC were included. The results revealed that R-P treatment improved overall survival [hazard ratio (HR), 0.61; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48-0.77; I2=0.0%; P=0.663] and PFS (HR, 0.51; 95% CI 0.41-0.63; I2=17.5%; P=0.303). Additionally, it increased the objective response rate (risk ratio, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.49-3.64; I2=0.0%; P=0.994) and disease control rate (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.20-1.63; I2=0.0%; P=0.892) compared with those of regorafenib. However, R-P treatment was associated with an increased incidence of adverse events, such as hypothyroidism, thrombocytopenia and rash, compared with that in regorafenib. In conclusion, R-P is superior to regorafenib monotherapy in terms of survival benefits and tumor response.

Systemic Treatment in Intermediate Stage (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer-B) Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents an entity of poor prognosis, especially in cases of delayed diagnosis. According to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system, patients in BCLC-A are the most suitable for potentially curative treatments (surgery or radiofrequency ablation), whereas those in BCLC-C should be treated only with systemic treatment, as locoregional interventions are ineffective due to the tumor's extensiveness. For patients in the BCLC-B stage, trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the reference treatment, but the role of systemic treatment has been constantly increasing. As this group of patients is extremely heterogeneous, a case-by-case therapeutic strategy instead of a one-fits-all treatment is certainly required to achieve adequate results against HCC. The decision of selecting among immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), TACE, or a combination of them depends on the patient's tumor load, the severity of liver dysfunction, the general performance status, and the presence of concomitant extrahepatic diseases. The objective of this review is to critically appraise the recent data regarding the systemic treatment of BCLC-B HCCs, aiming to emphasize its potential role in the management of these difficult-to-treat patients.

Anticancer Drugs Compared to No Anticancer Drugs in Patients with Advanced Hepatobiliary Cancer: A Mapping Review and Evidence Gap Map

Introduction

Despite being commonly recommended, the impact of anticancer drugs (ACDs) on patient-important outcomes beyond survival for advanced hepatobiliary cancers (HBCs) may not have been sufficiently assessed. We aim to identify and map the evidence regarding ACDs versus best supportive care (BSC) for advanced HBCs, considering patient-centered outcomes.

Methods

In this mapping review, we included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, and observational studies comparing ACDs (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, biological/targeted therapy) versus BSC for advanced HBCs. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, PROSPERO and clinicaltrials.gov for eligible studies. Two reviewers performed the screening and data extraction processes. We developed evidence maps for each type of cancer.

Results

We included 87 studies (60 for advanced liver cancer and 27 for gallbladder or bile duct cancers). Most of the evidence favored ACDs for survival outcomes, and BSC for toxicity. We identified several evidence gaps for non-survival outcomes, including quality of life or quality of end-of-life care.

Discussion

Patient-important outcomes beyond survival in advanced HBCs are insufficiently assessed by the available evidence. Future studies need to address these gaps to better inform decision-making processes.