Recall patterns and risk of primary liver cancer for subcentimeter ultrasound liver observations: a multicenter study

BACKGROUND: Patients with cirrhosis and subcentimeter lesions on liver ultrasound are recommended to undergo short-interval follow-up ultrasound because of the presumed low risk of primary liver cancer (PLC). AIMS: The aim of this study is to characterize recall patterns and risk of PLC in patients with subcentimeter liver lesions on ultrasound. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study among patients with cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B infection who had subcentimeter ultrasound lesions between January 2017 and December 2019. We excluded patients with a history of PLC or concomitant lesions ≥1 cm in diameter. We used Kaplan Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses to characterize time-to-PLC and factors associated with PLC, respectively. RESULTS: Of 746 eligible patients, most (66.0%) had a single observation, and the median diameter was 0.7 cm (interquartile range: 0.5-0.8 cm). Recall strategies varied, with only 27.8% of patients undergoing guideline-concordant ultrasound within 3-6 months. Over a median follow-up of 26 months, 42 patients developed PLC (39 HCC and 3 cholangiocarcinoma), yielding an incidence of 25.7 cases (95% CI, 6.2-47.0) per 1000 person-years, with 3.9% and 6.7% developing PLC at 2 and 3 years, respectively. Factors associated with time-to-PLC were baseline alpha-fetoprotein \u3e10 ng/mL (HR: 4.01, 95% CI, 1.85-8.71), platelet count ≤150 (HR: 4.90, 95% CI, 1.95-12.28), and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis (vs. Child-Pugh A: HR: 2.54, 95% CI, 1.27-5.08). CONCLUSIONS: Recall patterns for patients with subcentimeter liver lesions on ultrasound varied widely. The low risk of PLC in these patients supports short-interval ultrasound in 3-6 months, although diagnostic CT/MRI may be warranted for high-risk subgroups such as those with elevated alpha-fetoprotein levels

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We investigated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received ICI-based therapies in a previous systemic line. METHODS: In this international, retrospective multicenter study, patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies (ICI-1, ICI-2) at 14 institutions were eligible. The main outcomes included best overall response and treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS: Of 994 ICI-treated patients screened, a total of 58 patients (male, n = 41; 71%) with a mean age of 65.0±9.0 years were included. Median systemic treatment lines of ICI-1 and ICI-2 were 1 (range, 1-4) and 3 (range, 2-9), respectively. ICI-based therapies used at ICI-1 and ICI-2 included ICI alone (ICI-1, n = 26, 45%; ICI-2, n = 4, 7%), dual ICI regimens (n = 1, 2%; n = 12, 21%), or ICI combined with targeted therapies/anti-VEGF (n = 31, 53%; n = 42, 72%). Most patients discontinued ICI-1 due to progression (n = 52, 90%). Objective response rate was 22% at ICI-1 and 26% at ICI-2. Responses at ICI-2 were also seen in patients who had progressive disease as best overall response at ICI-1 (n = 11/21; 52%). Median time-to-progression at ICI-1 and ICI-2 was 5.4 (95% CI 3.0-7.7) months and 5.2 (95% CI 3.3-7.0) months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-4 at ICI-1 and ICI-2 were observed in 9 (16%) and 10 (17%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ICI rechallenge was safe and resulted in a treatment benefit in a meaningful proportion of patients with HCC. These data provide a rationale for investigating ICI-based regimens in patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy in prospective trials. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Therapeutic sequencing after first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a challenge as no available second-line treatment options have been studied in immunotherapy-pretreated patients. Particularly, the role of ICI rechallenge in patients with HCC is unclear, as data from prospective trials are lacking. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ICI-based regimens in patients with HCC pretreated with immunotherapy in a retrospective, international, multicenter study. Our data provide the rationale for prospective trials investigating the role of ICI-based regimens in patients who have progressed on first-line immunotherapy

Efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge in individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND & AIMS: We investigated the efficacy and safety of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) rechallenge in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received ICI-based therapies in a previous systemic line. METHODS: In this international, retrospective multicenter study, patients with HCC who received at least two lines of ICI-based therapies (ICI-1, ICI-2) at 14 institutions were eligible. The main outcomes included best overall response and treatment-related adverse events. RESULTS: Of 994 ICI-treated patients screened, a total of 58 patients (male, n = 41; 71%) with a mean age of 65.0±9.0 years were included. Median systemic treatment lines of ICI-1 and ICI-2 were 1 (range, 1-4) and 3 (range, 2-9), respectively. ICI-based therapies used at ICI-1 and ICI-2 included ICI alone (ICI-1, n = 26, 45%; ICI-2, n = 4, 7%), dual ICI regimens (n = 1, 2%; n = 12, 21%), or ICI combined with targeted therapies/anti-VEGF (n = 31, 53%; n = 42, 72%). Most patients discontinued ICI-1 due to progression (n = 52, 90%). Objective response rate was 22% at ICI-1 and 26% at ICI-2. Responses at ICI-2 were also seen in patients who had progressive disease as best overall response at ICI-1 (n = 11/21; 52%). Median time-to-progression at ICI-1 and ICI-2 was 5.4 (95% CI 3.0-7.7) months and 5.2 (95% CI 3.3-7.0) months, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3-4 at ICI-1 and ICI-2 were observed in 9 (16%) and 10 (17%) patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ICI rechallenge was safe and resulted in a treatment benefit in a meaningful proportion of patients with HCC. These data provide a rationale for investigating ICI-based regimens in patients who progressed on first-line immunotherapy in prospective trials. IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS: Therapeutic sequencing after first-line immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI)-based therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a challenge as no available second-line treatment options have been studied in immunotherapy-pretreated patients. Particularly, the role of ICI rechallenge in patients with HCC is unclear, as data from prospective trials are lacking. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ICI-based regimens in patients with HCC pretreated with immunotherapy in a retrospective, international, multicenter study. Our data provide the rationale for prospective trials investigating the role of ICI-based regimens in patients who have progressed on first-line immunotherapy

Recall patterns and risk of primary liver cancer for subcentimeter ultrasound liver observations: a multicenter study.

BackgroundPatients with cirrhosis and subcentimeter lesions on liver ultrasound are recommended to undergo short-interval follow-up ultrasound because of the presumed low risk of primary liver cancer (PLC).AimsThe aim of this study is to characterize recall patterns and risk of PLC in patients with subcentimeter liver lesions on ultrasound.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study among patients with cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B infection who had subcentimeter ultrasound lesions between January 2017 and December 2019. We excluded patients with a history of PLC or concomitant lesions ≥1 cm in diameter. We used Kaplan Meier and multivariable Cox regression analyses to characterize time-to-PLC and factors associated with PLC, respectively.ResultsOf 746 eligible patients, most (66.0%) had a single observation, and the median diameter was 0.7 cm (interquartile range: 0.5-0.8 cm). Recall strategies varied, with only 27.8% of patients undergoing guideline-concordant ultrasound within 3-6 months. Over a median follow-up of 26 months, 42 patients developed PLC (39 HCC and 3 cholangiocarcinoma), yielding an incidence of 25.7 cases (95% CI, 6.2-47.0) per 1000 person-years, with 3.9% and 6.7% developing PLC at 2 and 3 years, respectively. Factors associated with time-to-PLC were baseline alpha-fetoprotein >10 ng/mL (HR: 4.01, 95% CI, 1.85-8.71), platelet count ≤150 (HR: 4.90, 95% CI, 1.95-12.28), and Child-Pugh B cirrhosis (vs. Child-Pugh A: HR: 2.54, 95% CI, 1.27-5.08).ConclusionsRecall patterns for patients with subcentimeter liver lesions on ultrasound varied widely. The low risk of PLC in these patients supports short-interval ultrasound in 3-6 months, although diagnostic CT/MRI may be warranted for high-risk subgroups such as those with elevated alpha-fetoprotein levels

Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte and Platelet-to-Lymphocyte Ratios as Prognostic Biomarkers in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Atezolizumab plus Bevacizumab

Systemic inflammation is a key risk factor for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) progression and poor outcomes. Inflammatory markers such as the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and platelet-to-lymphocyte ratio (PLR) may have prognostic value in HCC treated with standard of care atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (Atezo-Bev). We conducted a multicenter, international retrospective cohort study of patients with unresectable HCC treated with Atezo-Bev to assess the association of NLR and PLR with overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rates. Patients with NLR ≥ 5 had a significantly shorter OS (9.38 vs. 16.79 months, p < 0.001) and PFS (4.90 vs. 7.58 months, p = 0.03) compared to patients with NLR < 5. NLR ≥ 5 was an independent prognosticator of worse OS (HR 2.01, 95% CI 1.22–3.56, p = 0.007) but not PFS. PLR ≥ 300 was also significantly associated with decreased OS (9.38 vs. 15.72 months, p = 0.007) and PFS (3.45 vs. 7.11 months, p = 0.04) compared to PLR < 300, but it was not an independent prognosticator of OS or PFS. NLR and PLR were not associated with objective response or disease control rates. NLR ≥ 5 independently prognosticated worse survival outcomes and is worthy of further study and validation