AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on Systemic Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the most common primary liver cancer, remains a deadly cancer, with an incidence that has tripled in the United States since 1980. In recent years, new systemic therapies for HCC have been approved and a critical assessment of the existing data is necessary to balance benefits and harms and inform the development of evidence-based guidelines.

METHODS

The American Gastroenterological Association formed a multidisciplinary group consisting of a Technical Review Panel and a Guideline Panel. The Technical Review Panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients and conducted an evidence review of systemic therapies in patients with advanced-stage HCC. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework was used to assess evidence. The Guideline Panel reviewed the evidence and used the Evidence-to-Decision Framework to develop recommendations.

RESULTS

The Panel reviewed the evidence, summarized in the Technical Review, for the following medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for HCC: first-line therapies: bevacizumab+atezolizumab, sorafenib, and lenvatinib; second-line therapies: cabozantinib, pembrolizumab, ramucirumab, and regorafenib; and other agents: bevacizumab, nivolumab, and nivolumab+ipilimumab.

CONCLUSIONS

The Panel agreed on 11 recommendations focused on systemic therapy for HCC in patients who are not eligible for locoregional therapy or resection, those with metastatic disease and preserved liver function, those with poor liver function, and those on systemic therapy as adjuvant therapy.

The Discursive Performance of Change Process in Systemic and Constructionist Therapies: A Systematic Meta-Synthesis Review of In-Session Therapy Discourse

Despite the emphasis of systemic and constructionist approaches on discourse and interaction, to date there has been no comprehensive overview of how change process is performed within in-session therapeutic dialogue. In this paper, we present a qualitative meta-synthesis of 35 articles reporting systemic and constructionist therapy process data from naturally occurring therapeutic dialogue. The studies were selected following the screening against eligibility criteria of a total sample of 2,977 studies identified through a systematic search of PsycINFO and MEDLINE databases. Thematic analysis of the 35 studies' findings identified four main themes depicting change process performance: (a) shifting to a relational perspective, (b) shifting to non-pathologizing therapeutic dialogue, (c) moving-forward dialogue, and (d) the dialogic interplay of power. Findings highlight the interactional and discursive matrix within which systemic and constructionist change process occurs. Findings illuminate the value of qualitative research studies sampling naturally occurring therapeutic discourse in bringing this matrix forth, particularly when utilizing discursive methodologies like conversation or discourse analysis.

Comparing Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Systemic Therapy for Social Anxiety Disorder: Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial (SOPHO-CBT/ST)

This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to pilot the newly developed manualized and monitored systemic therapy (ST) for social anxiety disorder (SAD), as compared to manualized and monitored cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT). We conducted a prospective multicenter, assessor-blind pilot RCT on 38 outpatients (ICD F40.1; Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID); Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, LSAS-SR >30). The primary outcome was level of social anxiety (LSAS-SR) at the end of treatment. A total of 252 persons were screened, and 38 patients were randomized and started therapy (CBT: 20 patients; ST: 18 patients; age: M = 36 years, SD = 14). Within-group, simple-effect intent-to-treat analyses (ITT) showed significant reduction in LSAS-SR (CBT:d = 1.04; ST:d = 1.67), while ITT mixed-design ANOVA demonstrated the advantage of ST (d = 0.81). Per-protocol analyses supported these results. Remission based on reliable change indices also demonstrated significant difference (LSAS-SR: 15% in CBT; 39% in ST;h: 0.550), supported by blind diagnosticians' ratings of those who completed therapy (SCID; 45% in CBT, 78% in ST,p = .083). No adverse events were reported. CBT and ST both reduced social anxiety, supporting patient improvement with the newly developed ST for SAD; this has yet to be verified in a subsequent confirmatory RCT.

The Experience in Personal Social Systems Questionnaire (EXIS.pers): Development and Psychometric Properties

This study presents the theoretical background, development, and psychometric properties of the German and English versions of the Experience in Personal Social Systems Questionnaire (EXIS.pers). It assesses how the members of a personal social system experience their situation within that system. It is designed as a research tool for interventions in which only one member of the system participates (e.g., Family Constellation Seminars). The EXIS.pers was created to measure change on the individual level relating to one's own important personal social system. In Study 1, we used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for latent variable identification of the original German EXIS.pers (n = 179). In Studies 2 and 3, we used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine the dimensionality of the German (n = 634) and English (n = 310) EXIS.pers. Internal consistencies and cross-cultural structural equivalence were assessed. EFA indicated that a four-factor model provided best fit for the German EXIS.pers. For both the German and English EXIS.pers, CFA provided the best fit for a five-factor bi-level model that included a general factor (Experience In Personal Social Systems) and four dimensions (Belonging, Autonomy, Accord, Confidence). Good internal consistencies, external associations, and cross-cultural structural equivalence were demonstrated. This study provides first evidence for the German and English EXIS.pers as an economical and reliable measure of an individual's experience within his or her personal social systems.

The efficacy of systemic therapy for childhood and adolescent externalizing disorders: a systematic review of 47 RCT

Systemic (family) therapy is a widely used psychotherapy approach. However, most systematic efficacy reviews have focused solely on "family-based treatment" rather than on the theoretic orientation "systemic therapy." We systematically review trials on the efficacy of systemic therapy for the treatment of childhood and adolescent externalizing disorders. All randomized (or matched) controlled trials (RCT) evaluating systemic/systems-oriented therapy in various forms (family, individual, group, multi-family group therapy) with child or adolescent index patients (0-17 years) suffering from mental disorders were identified by data base searches and cross-references. Inclusion criteria were as follows: index patient diagnosed with a DSM- or ICD-listed mental disorder, and trial published in any language up to the end of 2011. The RCTs were analyzed for their research methodology, interventions applied, and results (postintervention; follow-up). A total of 47 trials from the United States, Europe, and China, published in English, German, and Mandarin, were identified. A total of 42 of them showed systemic therapy to be efficacious for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorders, conduct disorders, and substance use disorders. Results were stable across follow-up periods of up to 14 years. There is a sound evidence base for the efficacy of systemic therapy for children and adolescents (and their families) diagnosed with externalizing disorders.