Lenvatinib as first-line therapy for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation: Is the current evidence applicable to these patients?

Efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in patients with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma after liver transplantation

INTRODUCTION

Lenvatinib is approved for the treatment of patients with metastatic or recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, clinical outcomes of lenvatinib therapy in patients with post-liver transplantation (LT) HCC recurrence remain unclear. We investigated the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in patients with post-LT HCC recurrence.

METHODS

This multinational, multicenter, retrospective study included 45 patients with recurrent HCC after LT who received lenvatinib at six institutions in three countries (Korea, Italy, and Hong Kong) from June 2017 to October 2021.

RESULTS

At the time of lenvatinib initiation, 95.6% (n = 43) of patients had Child-Pugh A status, and 35 (77.8%) and 10 (22.2%) participants were classified as having albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grades 1 and 2, respectively. The objective response rate was 20.0%. With a median follow-up duration of 12.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11.2-14.7), the median progression-free survival and overall survival (OS) were 7.6 (95% CI: 5.3-9.8) months, and 14.5 (95% CI: 0.8-28.2) months, respectively. Patients with ALBI grade 1 showed significantly better OS (52.3 months, [95% CI: not assessable]) than patients with ALBI grade 2 (11.1 months [95% CI: 0.0-30.4 months], p = 0.003). The most common adverse events were hypertension (n = 25, 55.6%), fatigue (n = 17, 37.8%), and anorexia (n = 14, 31.1%).

CONCLUSION

Lenvatinib showed consistent efficacy and toxicity profiles in patients with post-LT HCC recurrence that were comparable to those reported from previous studies among non-LT HCC patients. The baseline ALBI grade correlated with better OS in post-LT lenvatinib-treated patients.

Combining local regional therapy and systemic therapy: Expected changes in the treatment landscape of recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma

Improvements in early screening, new diagnostic techniques, and surgical treatment have led to continuous downward trends in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) morbidity and mortality rates. However, high recurrence and refractory cancer after hepatectomy remain important factors affecting the long-term prognosis of HCC. The clinical characteristics and prognosis of recurrent HCC are heterogeneous, and guidelines on treatment strategies for recurrent HCC are lacking. Therapies such as surgical resection, radiofrequency ablation, and transhepatic arterial chemoembolization are effective for tumors confined to the liver, and targeted therapy is a very important treatment for unresectable recurrent HCC with systemic metastasis. With the deepening of the understanding of the immune microenvironment of HCC, blocking immune checkpoints to enhance the antitumor immune response has become a new direction for the treatment of HCC. In addition, improvements in the tumor immune microenvironment caused by local treatment may provide an opportunity to improve the therapeutic effect of HCC treatment. Ongoing and future clinical trial data of combined therapy may develop the new treatment scheme for recurrent HCC. This paper reviews the pattern of recurrent HCC and the characteristics of the immune microenvironment, demonstrates the basis for combining local treatment and systemic treatment, and reports current evidence to better understand current progress and future approaches in the treatment of recurrent HCC.

Frontline therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: an update

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fastest increasing cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States and is projected to be the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States by 2030. Main risk factors include alcoholic cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). More than half of the patients have advanced-stage disease at presentation. Currently approved frontline systemic therapy options include sorafenib, lenvatinib, and atezolizumab/bevacizumab. Over the past decade, there has been a significant improvement in survival with a median overall survival of 19.2 months reported with first-line treatment with atezolizumab/bevacizumab. Based on positive results of randomized phase III HIMALAYA trial, durvalumab and tremelimumab combination could become another frontline option. Multiple frontline clinical trials with immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) or ICI combined with other novel agents are underway. In the frontline setting, identifying predictive biomarkers for ICI-based or tyrosine kinase (TKI)-based therapy is an unmet need. Subsequent treatment is poorly defined in patients with prior ICI-based therapy since all the available second-line and beyond therapy was studied after first-line sorafenib. Frontline systemic therapy is poorly defined in certain subgroups of HCC such as Child-Pugh B and post-transplant recurrent HCC. The landscape of frontline HCC treatment is rapidly changing, and this article reviews the most recent treatment approaches to frontline therapy for advanced HCC.

Is There Still a Place for Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for the Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma at the Time of Immunotherapies? A Focus on Lenvatinib

The systemic treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma is changing rapidly. Three main classes of treatment are now available. Historically, multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) (sorafenib and lenvatinib as first-line; regorafenib and cabozantinib as second-line) were the first to show an improvement in overall survival (OS). Anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) antibodies can be used in first-line (bevacizumab) or second-line (ramucirumab) combination therapy. More recently, immuno-oncology (IO) has profoundly changed therapeutic algorithms, and the combination of atezolizumab-bevacizumab is now the first-line standard of care. Therefore, the place of TKIs needs to be redefined. The objective of this review was to define the place of TKIs in the therapeutic algorithm at the time of IO treatment in first-line therapy, with a special focus on lenvatinib that exhibits one of the higher anti-tumoral activity among TKI in HCC. We will discuss the place of lenvatinib in first line (especially if there is a contra-indication to IO) but also after failure of atezolizumab and bevacizumab. New opportunities for lenvatinib will also be presented, including the use at an earlier stage of the disease and combination with IOs.

Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence after Liver Transplantation

Simple Summary

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is an increasingly important indication for liver transplantation (LT) worldwide. However, LT in the setting of liver cancer is burdened by the risk of tumor recurrence. The prognosis of patients with post-LT HCC recurrence is still very poor and several areas of uncertainty remain in the management of these patients. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive evaluation of available evidence regarding the management of HCC recurrence after LT, starting from the pre- and post-transplant stratification criteria and encompassing post-LT surveillance, preventive strategies and treatment. Much work has been done in the last several years but further effort is still needed in order to improve the outcome of these patients.

Abstract

Recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after liver transplantation (LT), occurring in 10–15% of cases, is a major concern. A lot of work has been done in order to refine the selection of LT candidates with HCC and to improve the outcome of patients with recurrence. Despite this, the prognosis of these patients remains poor, partly due to the several areas of uncertainty in their management. Even if surveillance for HCC recurrence is crucial for early detection, there is currently no evidence to support a specific and cost-effective post-LT surveillance strategy. Concerning preventive measures, consensus on the best immunosuppressive drugs has not been reached and not enough data to support adjuvant therapy are present. Several therapeutic approaches (surgical, locoregional and systemic treatments) are available in case of recurrence, but there are still few data in the post-LT setting. Moreover, the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors is controversial in transplant recipients considered the risk of rejection. In this paper, the available evidence on the management of HCC recurrence after LT is comprehensively reviewed, considering pre- and post-transplant risk stratification, post-transplant surveillance, preventive strategies and treatment options.

Efficacy and Safety of Lenvatinib in Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients with Liver Transplantation: A Case-Control Study

Simple Summary

Growing evidence has reported the role of sorafenib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients with liver transplantation (LT). However, the clinical impact of lenvatinib in this population is limited. Our study enrolled 10 HCC patients who received lenvatinib after LT in our institute. Partial response was 20% and disease control rate was 70%. The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.7 and 16.4 months, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were predominantly grade 1–2 in severity, and the majority of patients tolerated. Additionally, 25 HCC patients without LT who underwent lenvatinib treatment were identified as the control group; there was no significant difference in survival or AEs between these two groups. The significance of our study is that it is the first to investigate the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib among HCC patients with LT. It provides more information to physicians about the role of lenvatinib in this special population in clinical practice.

Abstract

Tumor recurrence is the most common cause of death in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients who received liver transplantation (LT). Recently, lenvatinib was approved for the systemic treatment of unresectable HCC patients; however, the role of lenvatinib in HCC patients after LT remains unclear. There were 56 patients with recurrent HCC after LT from 2008 to 2018 in our institute, and 10 patients who received lenvatinib were identified. Additionally, to understand the difference in the clinical impact of lenvatinib in the LT and non-LT settings, 25 HCC patients without LT who underwent lenvatinib treatment were identified from our HCC database and regarded as the control group. In the LT group, partial response was 20% and stable disease was 50%, resulting in a disease control rate of 70%; the median progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7, 3.6 and 16.4 months, respectively. Adverse events (AEs) were predominantly grade 1–2 in severity, and the majority of patients tolerated the side effects. There was no significant difference in PFS/OS, and we observed a similar pattern of AEs between these two groups. Our study confirms the comparable efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in HCC patients with LT and non-LT in clinical practice.