Explore the vast range of titles available.

SummaryBackground Conversion from sorafenib to regorafenib is primarily an evidence-based treatment strategy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of sequential therapy with sorafenib and regorafenib in patients with advanced HCC by analysis of outcomes in clinical practice with the aim to complement phase III findings. Methods The medical records of patients with advanced HCC receiving regorafenib were retrieved to collect data on sorafenib administration at seven Japanese institutions. Radiological responses and adverse events were evaluated using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0, respectively. Results Before March 2018, 44 patients were administered regorafenib for advanced HCC. The median sorafenib treatment duration was 8.4 months. The most common adverse events were similar to those reported by the RESORCE trial. The median overall survival (OS) was 17.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 11.4–22.9), and 17 of 37 patients (45.9%) discontinued regorafenib and received sequential systemic therapy after regorafenib. These patients had significantly longer OS than those who were treated by the best supportive care or sub-optimal therapy (not reached versus 8.7 months [95% CI 5.8–11.7]; P < 0.001). Conclusion The results based on Japanese clinical practices verified the tolerability of regorafenib in advanced HCC. Major regorafenib-associated adverse events were similar to those related to sorafenib. OS was significantly longer than expected, which might be associated with the sequential systemic therapies after regorafenib, mainly lenvatinib.

Background: The present study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib and verify the possibility of lenvatinib for the expanded indication from the REFLECT trial in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in real-world practice, primarily focusing on the population that was excluded in the REFLECT trial. Methods: We retrospectively collected data on patients with advanced HCC who were administered lenvatinib in 7 institutions in Japan. Results: Of 152 advanced HCC patients, 95 and 57 patients received lenvatinib in first-line and second- or later-line systemic therapies, respectively. The median progression-free survival in Child-Pugh class A patients was nearly equal between first- and second- or later-line therapies (5.2 months; 95% CI 3.7–6.9 for first line, 4.8 months; 95% CI 3.8–5.9 for second or later line, p = 0.933). According to the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, the objective response rate of 27 patients (18%) who showed a high burden of intrahepatic lesions (i.e., main portal vein and/or bile duct invasion or 50% or higher liver occupation) at baseline radiological assessment was 41% and similar with that of other population. The present study included 20 patients (13%) with Child-Pugh class B. These patients observed high frequency rates of liver function-related adverse events due to lenvatinib. The 8-week dose intensity of lenvatinib had a strong correlation with liver function according to both the Child-Pugh and albumin – bilirubin scores. Conclusion: Lenvatinib had potential benefits for patients with advanced HCC with second- or later-line therapies and a high burden of intrahepatic lesions. Dose modification should be paid increased attention among patients with poor liver function, such as Child-Pugh class B patients.

Background Hyperprogressive disease (HPD) is a phenomenon with greatly accelerated tumor growth and clinical deterioration rates compared to pre-therapy, in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI). The aim of this study is to clarify the reality of HPD in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who were treated with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atez/Bev) using tumor dynamics. Methods Medical records of consecutive patients with advanced HCC who were treated with Atez/Bev were retrospectively reviewed. HPD was defined as a more than two- or fourfold increase in tumor growth rate (TGR) or tumor growth kinetics rate (TGK R ) before and after treatment. Overall survival (OS) and baseline characteristics with or without HPD were analyzed. Results A total of 85 patients were included in the analysis. When HPD was defined as a twofold of TGR or TGK R , 8 patients (8/85, 9.4%) had HPD and 11 had PD without HPD. A total of 5 patients (5/85, 5.9%) were diagnosed with HPD and 14 with PD without HPD when HPD was defined as a fourfold of TGR or TGK R . No significant difference was observed in the baseline characteristics between HPD and non-HPD. Conclusion The prevalence of HPD in patients with advanced HCC treated with Atez/Bev was lower than those treated with nivolumab monotherapy. The HPD mechanism in ICI combined with antibodies targeting vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) remains to be elucidated.

Purpose Ramucirumab was shown to be effective as a second-line treatment after sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with alpha-fetoprotein levels > 400 ng/mL in a worldwide phase 3 trial. Ramucirumab is used in patients pretreated with various systemic therapies in clinical practice. We retrospectively examined the treatment outcomes of ramucirumab administered to advanced HCC patients after diverse systemic therapies. Methods Data were collected from patients with advanced HCC who received ramucirumab at three institutions in Japan. Radiological assessments were determined according to both Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1 and modified RECIST and the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 was used to assess adverse events. Results A total of 37 patients treated with ramucirumab between June 2019 and March 2021 were included in the study. Ramucirumab was administered as second, third, fourth, and fifth-line treatment in 13 (35.1%), 14 (37.8%), eight (21.6%), and two (5.4%) patients, respectively. Most patients (29.7%) who received ramucirumab as a second-line therapy were pretreated with lenvatinib. We found grade 3 or higher adverse events only in seven patients and no significant changes in the albumin-bilirubin score during ramucirumab treatment in the present cohort. The median progression-free survival of patients treated with ramucirumab was 2.7 months (95% confidence interval, 1.6–7.3). Conclusion Although ramucirumab is used for various lines of treatment other than second-line immediately after sorafenib, its safety and effectiveness were not significantly different from the findings of the REACH-2 trial.

Introduction: Macrovascular invasion (MVI) is a strong prognostic factor for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The current criteria for radiological assessment are unclear in evaluating the impact of MVI on systemic therapy. In this study, we standardized the assessment of MVI and validated its clinical relevance. Methods: Clinical data were collected from patients with advanced HCC and MVI who received first-line systemic therapy at four medical centers in Japan. First, we used MVI progressive disease (MVI-PD) to track MVI progression and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 progressive disease (RECIST v1.1-PD) to evaluate tumor enlargement other than MVI and the appearance of new lesions. Next, we assessed the prognostic value of MVI-PD and RECIST v1.1-PD. Results: Of the 207 advanced HCC patients with MVI, 189 received appropriate imaging evaluation. Forty (21.2%) patients had MVI-PD and RECIST v1.1-PD, 51 (27.0%) had prior MVI-PD, and 61 (32.3%) had prior RECIST v1.1-PD. In a landmark analysis, the prognosis of 163 patients who survived more than 3 months was analyzed based on the assessment of imaging response during the first 3 months. The median overall survival (OS) was 5.4 months in those who had MVI-PD and RECIST v1.1-PD, 7.4 months in those who had RECIST v1.1-PD only, 7.2 months in those who had MVI-PD only, and 19.7 months in patients who had neither (p < 0.001). The correlation coefficients between progression-free survival and OS in patients with appropriate imaging assessments were similar for MVI-PD (0.515) and RECIST v1.1-PD (0.498). Conclusion: Our findings demonstrate the link between MVI progression and poor OS in systemic therapy for advanced HCC, emphasizing the importance of an accurate method for assessing MVI progression.

Background: There is no standard posttreatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in whom lenvatinib therapy has failed. This study aimed to investigate rates of migration to posttreatment after lenvatinib and to explore candidates for second-line agents in the patients with failed lenvatinib therapy. Methods: We retrospectively collected data on patients with advanced HCC who received lenvatinib as the first-line agent in 7 institutions. Results: Overall survival and progression-free survival (PFS) of 178 patients who received lenvatinib as the first-line agent were 13.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.5–15.2) and 6.7 months (95% CI, 5.6–7.8), respectively. Sixty-nine of 151 patients (45.7%) who discontinued lenvatinib moved on to posttreatment. The migration rates from lenvatinib to the second-line agent and from the second-line agent to the third-line agent were 41.7 and 44.4%, respectively. Based on multivariate analysis, response to lenvatinib (complete or partial response according to modified RECIST) and discontinuation of lenvatinib due to radiological progression, as well as male were associated with a significantly higher probability of migration to posttreatment after lenvatinib. On the other hand, alpha-fetoprotein levels of 400 ng/mL or higher was correlated with a significantly lower probability of migration to posttreatment after lenvatinib. Of 63 patients who received second-line systemic therapy, 53 (84.2%) were administered sorafenib. PFS, objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) for sorafenib treatment were 1.8 months (95% CI, 0.6–3.0), 1.8%, and 20.8%, respectively. According to the Cox regression hazard model, Child-Pugh class B significantly contributed to shorter PFS. PFS, ORR, and DCR of 22 patients who received regorafenib after lenvatinib in any lines were 3.2 months (range, 1.5–4.9 months), 13.6%, and 36.3%, respectively. Similarly, PFS, ORR, and DCR of 17 patients who received regorafenib after lenvatinib in the third-line (after sorafenib) were 3.8 months (range, 1.1–6.5 months), 17.6%, and 41.2%, respectively. Conclusion: Sorafenib may not be a candidate for use as a posttreatment agent after lenvatinib, according to the results of the present study. Regorafenib has the potential to become an appropriate posttreatment agent after lenvatinib.

This study aimed to evaluate Japanese patient preferences regarding features of intermediate or advanced (Progressed) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatments: transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), and oral anti-cancer therapy. Patients with HCC, recruited from clinical sites and a patient panel in Japan, completed a cross-sectional web-based survey. Preferences were quantified using best-worst scaling, where patients identified the best and worst among 13 treatment features. Direct elicitation was used to identify preference for TACE, HAIC, or oral therapy, including the likelihood of trying each. Additional items asked for the willingness to try an oral medication that delays progression by six months but has an 8% or 21% risk of severe hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR). The sample (N=119; 29 early stage; 90 Progressed) most preferred \"oral medication\", \"artery branches plugged\", and \"prevents formation of new blood vessels\", and least preferred \"risk of liver damage\" and \"risk of catheter-related complications\". Overall, 51%, 40%, and 8% preferred oral therapy, TACE, and HAIC, respectively ( <0.05), and the mean likelihood of trying each were 59%, 52%, and 35%, respectively ( <0.001). Patients with sorafenib or TACE experience most preferred what they had received; however, both groups were equally willing to try the other treatment. Patients preferring oral therapy favored \"oral medication\" over \"artery branches plugged\", \"surgery is repeated as required when the cancer grows again\", and \"risk of liver damage\", compared to those preferring TACE ( <0.05). Sixty-eight percent would probably try therapy with an 8% risk of severe HFSR, compared to 50% with a 21% risk. Treatment type, mode of action, and risks may drive HCC patient preferences. Such features likely should be incorporated into physician-patient interactions regarding treatment decision-making.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate Japanese patient preferences regarding features of intermediate or advanced (Progressed) hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatments: transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), and oral anti-cancer therapy. Methods: Patients with HCC, recruited from clinical sites and a patient panel in Japan, completed a cross-sectional web-based survey. Preferences were quantified using best-worst scaling, where patients identified the best and worst among 13 treatment features. Direct elicitation was used to identify preference for TACE, HAIC, or oral therapy, including the likelihood of trying each. Additional items asked for the willingness to try an oral medication that delays progression by six months but has an 8% or 21% risk of severe hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR). Results: The sample (N=119; 29 early stage; 90 Progressed) most preferred \"oral medication\", \"artery branches plugged\", and \"prevents formation of new blood vessels\", and least preferred \"risk of liver damage\" and \"risk of catheter-related complications\". Overall, 51%, 40%, and 8% preferred oral therapy, TACE, and HAIC, respectively (p<0.05), and the mean likelihood of trying each were 59%, 52%, and 35%, respectively (p<0.001). Patients with sorafenib or TACE experience most preferred what they had received; however, both groups were equally willing to try the other treatment. Patients preferring oral therapy favored \"oral medication\" over \"artery branches plugged\", \"surgery is repeated as required when the cancer grows again\", and \"risk of liver damage\", compared to those preferring TACE (p<0.05). Sixty-eight percent would probably try therapy with an 8% risk of severe HFSR, compared to 50% with a 21% risk. Conclusion: Treatment type, mode of action, and risks may drive HCC patient preferences. Such features likely should be incorporated into physician-patient interactions regarding treatment decision-making. Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma, patient preference, best-worst scaling