Explore the vast range of titles available.

The principal aim of the present study was to develop and validate a nomogram predicting overall survival (OS) in patients with α-fetoprotein (AFP)-negative hepatocellular carcinoma (AFP-NHCC) who experience dynamic changes in AFP level after hepatectomy. A cohort of 870 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned into a training cohort (n=600) and a validation cohort (n=270) at a 7:3 ratio. The key variables contributing to the nomogram were determined through random survival forest analysis and multivariate Cox regression. The discriminative ability of the nomogram was evaluated using time-dependent receiver operating characteristic curves and the area under the curves. Furthermore, the nomogram was comprehensively assessed using the concordance index (C-index), calibration curves and clinical decision curve analysis (DCA). Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves analysis was employed to discern survival rates across diverse risk strata of patients. Ultimately, the nomogram incorporated critical factors including sex, tumor size, globulin levels, gamma-glutamyl transferase and fibrinogen levels. In the training and validation cohorts, the C-indexes were 0.72 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.685-0.755) and 0.664 (95% CI: 0.611-0.717], respectively, attesting to its predictive validity. The nomogram demonstrated excellent calibration and DCA further confirmed its clinical usefulness. Additionally, KM curve analysis unveiled statistically significant differences in OS among three distinct risk groups. In conclusion, the present study successfully formulated a nomogram predicting 3-, 5- and 8-year OS in patients with AFP-NHCC with dynamic changes in AFP level post-local resection. This model serves as a valuable tool for clinicians to promptly identify high-risk patients, thereby facilitating timely interventions and potentially enhancing patient survival outcomes.

We developed and evaluated a modified albumin-bilirubin grade and α-fetoprotein (mALF) score, a nutritional and oncological assessment tool for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) after surgical resection. Patients (n = 480) who underwent R0 resection between 2010 and 2020 were analyzed retrospectively. The mALF score assigned one point for a modified albumin-bilirubin (mALBI) grade 2b or 3 and one point for an α-fetoprotein (AFP) level ≥ 100 ng/mL. Patients were classified by mALF scores of 0 (mALBI grade 1/2a, AFP < 100 ng/mL), 1 (mALBI grade 2b/3 or AFP ≥ 100 ng/mL), or 2 (mALBI grade 2b/3, AFP ≥ 100 ng/mL) points. Liver reserve deteriorated and cancer progressed with increasing score. Postoperative complications (Clavien–Dindo classification ≥ 3) differed significantly among groups. The 5-year recurrence-free survival (RFS) rates were 34.8%, 11.2%, and 0.0% for 0, 1, and 2 points, respectively (1 or 2 versus 0 points, p < 0.001). The 5-year overall survival (OS) rates were 66.0%, 29.7%, and 17.8% for 0, 1, and 2 points, respectively (1 or 2 versus 0 points, p < 0.001). The mALF score was an independent prognostic predictor of RFS and OS. In HCC, the mALF score was effective for predicting postoperative complications and long-term survival.

Background Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common malignant tumors of the digestive system and has high morbidity and mortality rates. It is essential to search new biomarkers to improve the accuracy of early HCC diagnosis. Therefore, we evaluated the diagnostic value of prothrombin induced by vitamin K deficiency or antagonist- II (PIVKA-II) as a potential biomarker that complements α-fetoprotein (AFP) in HCC by detecting the serum PIVKA-II levels. Methods Serum PIVKA-II levels were compared in 168 HCC patients, 150 benign liver disease patients and 153 healthy controls to investigate the PIVKA-II potential to be a HCC biomarker. Receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the value of PIVKA-II in the diagnosis of HCC and its complementary role of AFP. The correlation between serum PIVKA-II levels and clinicopathological characteristics was analyzed to study the value of PIVKA-II in assessing HCC progression and prognosis. Finally, the ability of PIVKA-II in assessing the surgical treatment effects of HCC was studied by comparing the pre- and post-operative serum PIVKA-II levels in 89 HCC patients. Results Serum PIVKA-II levels in HCC patients were significantly higher than that in patients with benign liver disease and healthy controls. The PIVKA-II performance in the diagnosing HCC as an individual biomarker was remarkable. The combined detection of PIVKA-II and AFP improved the diagnostic efficiency of HCC. PIVKA-II retained significant diagnosis capabilities for AFP-negative HCC patients. Significant correlations were found between PIVKA-II expression levels and some clinicopathological characteristics, including tumor size, tumor stage, tumor metastasis, differentiation degree and complications. PIVKA-II expression obviously decreased after surgical resection. Conclusions PIVKA-II is a promising serum biomarker for the HCC diagnosis that can be used as a supplement for AFP. The combined diagnosis of the two markers greatly improved the diagnostic efficiency of HCC. The PIVKA-II levels in HCC patients were widely associated with clinicopathological characteristics representing tumor cell dissemination and/or poor prognosis. PIVKA-II can be used to evaluate the curative effects of HCC resection.

China has a high burden of hepatocellular carcinoma, and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection is the main causative factor. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma have a poor prognosis and a substantial unmet clinical need. The phase 2–3 ORIENT-32 study aimed to assess sintilimab (a PD-1 inhibitor) plus IBI305, a bevacizumab biosimilar, versus sorafenib as a first-line treatment for unresectable HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma. This randomised, open-label, phase 2–3 study was done at 50 clinical sites in China. Patients aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically diagnosed or clinically confirmed unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma, no previous systemic treatment, and a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1 were eligible for inclusion. In the phase 2 part of the study, patients received intravenous sintilimab (200 mg every 3 weeks) plus intravenous IBI305 (15 mg/kg every 3 weeks). In the phase 3 part, patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive either sintilimab plus IBI305 (sintilimab–bevacizumab biosimilar group) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily; sorafenib group), until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was done using permuted block randomisation, with a block size of six, via an interactive web response system, and stratified by macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic metastasis, baseline α-fetoprotein, and ECOG performance status. The primary endpoint of the phase 2 part of the study was safety, assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. The co-primary endpoints of the phase 3 part of the study were overall survival and independent radiological review committee (IRRC)-assessed progression-free survival according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03794440. The study is closed to new participants and follow-up is ongoing for long-term outcomes. Between Feb 11, 2019 and Jan 15, 2020, we enrolled 595 patients: 24 were enrolled directly into the phase 2 safety run-in and 571 were randomly assigned to sintilimab–bevacizumab biosimilar (n=380) or sorafenib (n=191). In the phase 2 part of the trial, 24 patients received at least one dose of the study drug, with an objective response rate of 25·0% (95% CI 9·8–46·7). Based on the preliminary safety and activity data of the phase 2 part, in which grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events occurred in seven (29%) of 24 patients, the randomised phase 3 part was started. At data cutoff (Aug 15, 2020), the median follow-up was 10·0 months (IQR 8·5–11·7) in the sintilimab–bevacizumab biosimilar group and 10·0 months (8·4–11·7) in the sorafenib group. Patients in the sintilimab–bevacizumab biosimilar group had a significantly longer IRRC-assessed median progression-free survival (4·6 months [95% CI 4·1–5·7]) than did patients in the sorafenib group (2·8 months [2·7–3·2]; stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·56, 95% CI 0·46–0·70; p<0·0001). In the first interim analysis of overall survival, sintilimab–bevacizumab biosimilar showed a significantly longer overall survival than did sorafenib (median not reached [95% CI not reached–not reached] vs 10·4 months [8·5–not reached]; HR 0·57, 95% CI 0·43–0·75; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events were hypertension (55 [14%] of 380 patients in the sintilimab–bevacizumab biosimilar group vs 11 [6%] of 185 patients in the sorafenib group) and palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia syndrome (none vs 22 [12%]). 123 (32%) patients in the sintilimab–bevacizumab biosimilar group and 36 (19%) patients in the sorafenib group had serious adverse events. Treatment-related adverse events that led to death occurred in six (2%) patients in the sintilimab–bevacizumab biosimilar group (one patient with abnormal liver function, one patient with both hepatic failure and gastrointestinal haemorrhage, one patient with interstitial lung disease, one patient with both hepatic faliure and hyperkalemia, one patient with upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage, and one patient with intestinal volvulus) and two (1%) patients in the sorafenib group (one patient with gastrointestinal haemorrhage and one patient with death of unknown cause). Sintilimab plus IBI305 showed a significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefit versus sorafenib in the first-line setting for Chinese patients with unresectable, HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma, with an acceptable safety profile. This combination regimen could provide a novel treatment option for such patients. Innovent Biologics. For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Dual blockade of PD-L1 and VEGF has enhanced anticancer immunity through multiple mechanisms and augmented antitumour activity in multiple malignancies. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) alone and combined with bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. GO30140 is an open-label, multicentre, multiarm, phase 1b study that enrolled patients at 26 academic centres and community oncology practices in seven countries worldwide. The study included five cohorts, and the two hepatocellular carcinoma cohorts, groups A and F, are described here. Inclusion criteria for these two groups included age 18 years and older; histologically, cytologically, or clinically (per American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases criteria) confirmed unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma that was not amenable to curative treatment; no previous systemic treatment; and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. In group A, all patients received atezolizumab (1200 mg) and bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) intravenously every 3 weeks. In group F, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous atezolizumab (1200 mg) plus intravenous bevacizumab (15 mg/kg) every 3 weeks or atezolizumab alone by interactive voice-web response system using permuted block randomisation (block size of two) and stratification factors of geographical region; macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; and baseline α-fetoprotein concentration. Primary endpoints were confirmed objective response rate in all patients who received the combination treatment for group A and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population in group F, both assessed by an independent review facility according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. In both groups, safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of any study treatment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02715531, and is closed to enrolment. In group A, 104 patients were enrolled between July 20, 2016, and July 31, 2018, and received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. With a median follow-up of 12·4 months (IQR 8·0–16·2), 37 (36%; 95% CI 26–46) of 104 patients had a confirmed objective response. The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events were hypertension (13 [13%]) and proteinuria (seven [7%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 25 (24%) patients and treatment-related deaths in three (3%) patients (abnormal hepatic function, hepatic cirrhosis, and pneumonitis). In group F, 119 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned (60 to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab; 59 to atezolizumab monotherapy) between May 18, 2018, and March 7, 2019. With a median follow-up of 6·6 months (IQR 5·5–8·5) for the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 6·7 months (4·2–8·2) for the atezolizumab monotherapy group, median progression-free survival was 5·6 months (95% CI 3·6–7·4) versus 3·4 months (1·9–5·2; hazard ratio 0·55; 80% CI 0·40–0·74; p=0·011). The most common grade 3–4 treatment-related adverse events in group F were hypertension (in three [5%] patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group; none in the atezolizumab monotherapy group) and proteinuria (in two [3%] patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group; none in the atezolizumab monotherapy group). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in seven (12%) patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and two (3%) patients in the atezolizumab monotherapy group. There were no treatment-related deaths. Our study shows longer progression-free survival with a combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab than with atezolizumab alone in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma not previously treated with systemic therapy. Therefore, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab might become a promising treatment option for these patients. This combination is being compared with standard-of-care sorafenib in a phase 3 trial. F Hoffmann-La Roche/Genentech.

Understanding patients' experience of cancer treatment is important. We aimed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the IMbrave150 trial, which has already shown significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefits with this combination therapy. We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial in 111 hospitals and cancer centres across 17 countries or regions. We included patients aged 18 years or older with systemic, treatment-naive, histologically, cytologically, or clinically confirmed unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, with disease that was not amenable to curative surgical or locoregional therapies, or progressive disease after surgical or locoregional therapies. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1; using permuted block randomisation [blocks of six], stratified by geographical region; macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; baseline alpha-fetoprotein concentration; and ECOG performance status) to receive 1200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenously once every 3 weeks or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice a day, until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The independent review facility for tumour assessment was masked to the treatment allocation. Previously reported coprimary endpoints were overall survival and independently assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Prespecified secondary and exploratory analyses descriptively evaluated treatment effects on patient-reported quality of life, functioning, and disease symptoms per the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality-of-life questionnaire for cancer (QLQ-C30) and quality-of-life questionnaire for hepatocellular carcinoma (QLQ-HCC18). Time to confirmed deterioration of PROs was analysed in the intention-to-treat population; all other analyses were done in the PRO-evaluable population (patients who had a baseline PRO assessment and at least one assessment after baseline). The trial is ongoing; enrolment is closed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03434379. Between March 15, 2018, and Jan 30, 2019, 725 patients were screened and 501 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n=336) or sorafenib (n=165). 309 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 145 patients in the sorafenib group were included in the PRO-evaluable population. At data cutoff (Aug 29, 2019) the median follow-up was 8·6 months (IQR 6·2–10·8). EORTC QLQ-C30 completion rates were 90% or greater for 23 of 24 treatment cycles in both groups (range 88–100% in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 80–100% in the sorafenib group). EORTC QLQ-HCC18 completion rates were 90% or greater for 20 of 24 cycles in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group (range 88–100%) and 21 of 24 cycles in the sorafenib group (range 89–100%). Compared with sorafenib, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab reduced the risk of deterioration on all EORTC QLQ-C30 generic cancer symptom scales that were prespecified for analysis (appetite loss [hazard ratio (HR) 0·57, 95% CI 0·40–0·81], diarrhoea [0·23, 0·16–0·34], fatigue [0·61, 0·46–0·81], pain [0·46, 0·34–0·62]), and two of three EORTC QLQ-HCC18 disease-specific symptom scales that were prespecified for analysis (fatigue [0·60, 0·45–0·80] and pain [0·65, 0·46–0·92], but not jaundice [0·76, 0·55–1·07]). At day 1 of treatment cycle five (after which attrition in the sorafenib group was more than 50%), the mean EORTC QLQ-C30 score changes from baseline in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib groups were: –3·29 (SD 17·56) versus –5·83 (20·63) for quality of life, –4·02 (19·42) versus –9·76 (21·33) for role functioning, and –3·77 (12·82) versus –7·60 (15·54) for physical functioning. Prespecified analyses of PRO data showed clinically meaningful benefits in terms of patient-reported quality of life, functioning, and disease symptoms with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sorafenib, strengthening the combination therapy's positive benefit–risk profile versus that of sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. F Hoffmann–La Roche and Genentech.

Systemic therapies have improved the management of hepatocellular carcinoma, but there is still a need to further enhance overall survival in first-line advanced stages. This study aimed to evaluate the addition of pembrolizumab to lenvatinib versus lenvatinib plus placebo in the first-line setting for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. In this global, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study (LEAP-002), patients aged 18 years or older with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, Child Pugh class A liver disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and no previous systemic treatment were enrolled at 172 global sites. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a central interactive voice-response system (block size of 4) to receive lenvatinib (bodyweight <60 kg, 8 mg/day; bodyweight ≥60 kg, 12 mg/day) plus pembrolizumab (200 mg every 3 weeks) or lenvatinib plus placebo. Randomisation was stratified by geographical region, macrovascular portal vein invasion or extrahepatic spread or both, α-fetoprotein concentration, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status. Dual primary endpoints were overall survival (superiority threshold at final overall survival analysis, one-sided p=0·019; final analysis to occur after 532 events) and progression-free survival (superiority threshold one-sided p=0·002; final analysis to occur after 571 events) in the intention-to-treat population. Results from the final analysis are reported. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03713593, and is active but not recruiting. Between Jan 17, 2019, and April 28, 2020, of 1309 patients assessed, 794 were randomly assigned to lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab (n=395) or lenvatinib plus placebo (n=399). Median age was 66·0 years (IQR 57·0–72·0), 644 (81%) of 794 were male, 150 (19%) were female, 345 (43%) were Asian, 345 (43%) were White, 22 (3%) were multiple races, 21 (3%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 21 (3%) were Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 13 (2%) were Black or African American, and 46 (6%) did not have available race data. Median follow up as of data cutoff for the final analysis (June 21, 2022) was 32·1 months (IQR 29·4–35·3). Median overall survival was 21·2 months (95% CI 19·0–23·6; 252 [64%] of 395 died) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 19·0 months (17·2–21·7; 282 [71%] of 399 died) with lenvatinib plus placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·84; 95% CI 0·71–1·00; stratified log-rank p=0·023). As of data cutoff for the progression-free survival final analysis (April 5, 2021), median progression-free survival was 8·2 months (95% CI 6·4–8·4; 270 events occurred [42 deaths; 228 progressions]) with lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus 8·0 months (6·3–8·2; 301 events occurred [36 deaths; 265 progressions]) with lenvatinib plus placebo (HR 0·87; 95% CI 0·73–1·02; stratified log-rank p=0·047). The most common treatment-related grade 3–4 adverse events were hypertension (69 [17%] of 395 patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group vs 68 [17%] of 395 patients) in the lenvatinib plus placebo group), increased aspartate aminotransferase (27 [7%] vs 17 [4%]), and diarrhoea (25 [6%] vs 15 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in four (1%) patients in the lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab group (due to gastrointestinal haemorrhage and hepatorenal syndrome [n=1 each] and hepatic encephalopathy [n=2]) and in three (1%) patients in the lenvatinib plus placebo group (due to gastrointestinal haemorrhage, hepatorenal syndrome, and cerebrovascular accident [n=1 each]). In earlier studies, the addition of pembrolizumab to lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma has shown promising clinical activity; however, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab did not meet prespecified significance for improved overall survival and progression-free survival versus lenvatinib plus placebo. Our findings do not support a change in clinical practice. Eisai US, and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most prevalent and lethal causes of cancer-related death worldwide. The treatment of HCC remains challenging and is largely predicated on early diagnosis. Surveillance of high-risk groups using abdominal ultrasonography, with or without serum analysis of α-fetoprotein (AFP), can permit detection of early, potentially curable tumours, but is limited by its insensitivity. Reviewed here are two current approaches that aim to address this limitation. The first is to use old re-emerged empirically derived biomarkers such as AFP, now applied within statistical models. The second is to use circulating nucleic acid biomarkers, which include cell-free DNA (for example, circulating tumour DNA, cell-free mitochondrial DNA and cell-free viral DNA) and cell-free RNA, applying modern molecular biology-based technologies and machine learning techniques closely allied to the underlying biology of cancer. Taken together, these approaches are likely to be complementary. Both hold considerable promise for achieving earlier diagnosis as well as offering additional functionalities including improved monitoring of therapy and prediction of response thereto.Surveillance of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), one of the most lethal solid cancers globally, is insensitive for the detection of early-stage tumours. In this Review, the authors discuss HCC biomarkers that can improve early diagnosis, therapy monitoring and prediction of therapy response.

IntroductionBiomarker combinations such as the GALAD, GAAD and HES scores have been proposed to aid detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a common, debilitating primary liver cancer. A method is required to assess and compare the accuracy of the various combinations that are available.MethodsPredictive models were developed using logistic regression based on data from several large previously published datasets; for all 31 possible combinations of five biomarkers – alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), Lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive AFP (AFP-L3), des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin (DCP), age and sex – area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity and specificity scores were generated to estimate HCC diagnostic performance.ResultsDCP was the most important single biomarker for predicting HCC (AUC=0.89). AFP was the second most important biomarker; combining DCP and AFP produced an AUC of 0.94. Addition of the third most important biomarker significantly improved AUC, as did addition of the fourth but there was no significant difference in AUC between the 4-biomarker and full 5-biomarker models.ConclusionsOur work suggests that biomarker combinations can be flexible to accommodate individual patient and healthcare provider needs. There is no statistical difference between the 4- and 5-biomarker models, indicating that the GALAD score is simply one of a family of models, all with similar performance characteristics. Our automated calculator easily assesses the AUC of all possible biomarker combinations and can be applied to biomarkers in other disease areas.