Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Japan : JSH Consensus Statements and Recommendations 2021 Update

The Clinical Practice Manual for Hepatocellular Carcinoma was published based on evidence confirmed by the Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hepatocellular Carcinoma along with consensus opinion among a Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) expert panel on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Since the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines are based on original articles with extremely high levels of evidence, expert opinions on HCC management in clinical practice or consensus on newly developed treatments are not included. However, the practice manual incorporates the literature based on clinical data, expert opinion, and real-world clinical practice currently conducted in Japan to facilitate its use by clinicians. Alongside each revision of the JSH Guidelines, we issued an update to the manual, with the first edition of the manual published in 2007, the second edition in 2010, the third edition in 2015, and the fourth edition in 2020, which includes the 2017 edition of the JSH Guideline. This article is an excerpt from the fourth edition of the HCC Clinical Practice Manual focusing on pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of HCC. It is designed as a practical manual different from the latest version of the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines. This practice manual was written by an expert panel from the JSH, with emphasis on the consensus statements and recommendations for the management of HCC proposed by the JSH expert panel. In this article, we included newly developed clinical practices that are relatively common among Japanese experts in this field, although all of their statements are not associated with a high level of evidence, but these practices are likely to be incorporated into guidelines in the future. To write this article, coauthors from different institutions drafted the content and then critically reviewed each other’s work. The revised content was then critically reviewed by the Board of Directors and the Planning and Public Relations Committee of JSH before publication to confirm the consensus statements and recommendations. The consensus statements and recommendations presented in this report represent measures actually being conducted at the highest-level HCC treatment centers in Japan. We hope this article provides insight into the actual situation of HCC practice in Japan, thereby affecting the global practice pattern in the management of HCC

Sorafenib plus low-dose cisplatin and fluorouracil hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy versus sorafenib alone in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (SILIUS): a randomised, open label, phase 3 trial

Background Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy plus sorafenib in phase 2 trials has shown favourable tumour control and a manageable safety profile in patients with advanced, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. However, no randomised phase 3 trial has tested the combination of sorafenib with continuous arterial infusion chemotherapy. We aimed to compare continuous hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy plus sorafenib with sorafenib alone in patients with advanced, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial (SILIUS) at 31 sites in Japan. Eligible patients were aged 20 years or older, with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma not suitable for resection, local ablation, or transarterial chemoembolisation; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0–1; Child-Pugh score 7 or lower; and adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive web response system with a computer-generated sequence to receive 400 mg sorafenib orally twice daily or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice daily plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (cisplatin 20 mg/m 2 on days 1 and 8 and fluorouracil 330 mg/m 2 continuously on days 1–5 and 8–12 of every 28-day cycle via an implanted catheter system). The primary endpoint was overall survival. The primary efficacy analysis comprised all randomised patients (the intention-to-treat population), and the safety analysis comprised all randomised patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01214343. Findings Between Nov 4, 2010, and June 10, 2014, 206 patients were randomly assigned (103 to the sorafenib group, 103 to the sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy group). One patient in the sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy group withdrew after randomisation. Median overall survival was similar in the sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (n=102) and sorafenib monotherapy (n=103) groups (11·8 months [95% CI 9·1–14·5] vs 11·5 months [8·2–14·8]; hazard ratio 1·009 [95% CI 0·743–1·371]; p=0·955). Grade 3–4 adverse events that were more frequent in the sorafenib plus hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy group than in the sorafenib monotherapy group included anaemia (15 [17%] of 88 vs six [6%] of 102), neutropenia (15 [17%] vs one [1%]), thrombocytopenia (30 [34%] vs 12 [12%]), and anorexia (12 [14%] vs six [6%]). Interpretation Addition of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy to sorafenib did not significantly improve overall survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Funding Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare

Assessment of Macrovascular Invasion in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Clinical Implications and Treatment Outcomes with Systemic Therapy

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 macrovascular invasion progression disease (MVI-PD) to track MVI progression, and Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1 progression 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. 40 (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 three months was analyzed based on the assessment of imaging response during the first three 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

Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Japan: JSH Consensus Statements and Recommendations 2021 Update

The Clinical Practice Manual for Hepatocellular Carcinoma was published based on evidence confirmed by the Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hepatocellular Carcinoma along with consensus opinion among a Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) expert panel on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Since the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines are based on original articles with extremely high levels of evidence, expert opinions on HCC management in clinical practice or consensus on newly developed treatments are not included. However, the practice manual incorporates the literature based on clinical data, expert opinion, and real-world clinical practice currently conducted in Japan to facilitate its use by clinicians. Alongside each revision of the JSH Guidelines, we issued an update to the manual, with the first edition of the manual published in 2007, the second edition in 2010, the third edition in 2015, and the fourth edition in 2020, which includes the 2017 edition of the JSH Guideline. This article is an excerpt from the fourth edition of the HCC Clinical Practice Manual focusing on pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of HCC. It is designed as a practical manual different from the latest version of the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines. This practice manual was written by an expert panel from the JSH, with emphasis on the consensus statements and recommendations for the management of HCC proposed by the JSH expert panel. In this article, we included newly developed clinical practices that are relatively common among Japanese experts in this field, although all of their statements are not associated with a high level of evidence, but these practices are likely to be incorporated into guidelines in the future. To write this article, coauthors from different institutions drafted the content and then critically reviewed each other’s work. The revised content was then critically reviewed by the Board of Directors and the Planning and Public Relations Committee of JSH before publication to confirm the consensus statements and recommendations. The consensus statements and recommendations presented in this report represent measures actually being conducted at the highest-level HCC treatment centers in Japan. We hope this article provides insight into the actual situation of HCC practice in Japan, thereby affecting the global practice pattern in the management of HCC

Final Results of TACTICS: A Randomized, Prospective Trial Comparing Transarterial Chemoembolization Plus Sorafenib to Transarteria Chemoembolization Alone in Patients with Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma

IntroductionSeveral clinical trials comparing the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus molecular-targeted agents versus TACE alone revealed no clinical benefits in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS). Here, we report the final OS analysis from the TACTICS trial, which previously demonstrated significant improvement in PFS with TACE plus sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) (NCT01217034).MethodsPatients with unresectable HCC were randomized to a TACE plus sorafenib group (N = 80) or a TACE alone group (N = 76). Patients in the combination treatment group received sorafenib 400 mg once daily for 2-3 weeks before TACE, followed by 800 mg once daily during on-demand conventional TACE sessions until time to untreatable progression. In this trial, TACE-specific PFS was used. TACE-specific PFS is defined as the time from randomization to progressive disease (PD) or death from any cause, and PD was defined as untreatable progression, caused by the inability of a patient to further receive or benefit from TACE for reasons that include intrahepatic tumor progression (25% increase vs. baseline) according to response evaluation criteria in cancer of the liver, the detection of extrahepatic spread, vascular invasion, or transient deterioration of liver function to Child-Pugh C after TACE.ResultsAt the cut-off date of July 31, 2020, 131 OS events were observed. The median OS was 36.2 months with TACE plus sorafenib and 30.8 months with TACE alone (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.861; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.607-1.223; p = 0.40, ΔOS, 5.4 months). The updated PFS was 22.8 months with TACE plus sorafenib and 13.5 months with TACE alone (HR = 0.661; 95% CI, 0.466-0.938; p = 0.02). Post-trial treatments with active procedures/agents were received by 47 (58.8%) patients in the TACE plus sorafenib group and 58 (76.3%) in the TACE alone group (p = 0.01). In post hoc analysis, PFS and OS benefit were shown in HCC patients with tumor burden beyond up-to-7 criteria.ConclusionsIn TACTICS trial, TACE plus sorafenib did not show significant OS benefit over TACE alone; however, clinical meaningful OS prolongation and significantly improved PFS was observed. Thus, the TACE plus sorafenib can be considered a choice of treatment in intermediate-stage HCC, especially in patients with high tumor burden. Trial Registration: NCT01217034

Analysis of Sorafenib Outcome: Focusing on the Clinical Course in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Treatment outcomes of sorafenib therapy may greatly vary depending not only on tumor spread but also on past clinical processes prior to sorafenib therapy and timing of sorafenib administration in the past clinical course of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We evaluated the efficacy of sorafenib in patients with HCC, taking into account of their past clinical courses.Patients with HCC treated with sorafenib as a first-line systemic therapy, whose courses documented from the time of the initial diagnosis, were retrospectively analyzed.Of the 123 patients receiving sorafenib therapy at an advanced-stage, baseline characteristics differed including the rate of hepatitis C virus, Child-Pugh class, and status of intrahepatic lesions according to stage progression processes. Overall survival (OS) in patients progressed directly from the early-stage (15.3 months) was significantly longer than that in patients diagnosed at the advanced-stage (5.3 months, P = 0.022) and progressed from the intermediate-stages (6.0 months, P = 0.041). Of 105 patients diagnosed at the intermediate-stage on past clinical courses, OS of starting sorafenib therapy before progression to the advanced-stage (67 patients) was significantly longer than for patients starting sorafenib therapy only after progression to the advanced-stage (38 patients) (P = 0.015).Characteristic differences between past stage progression processes might affect prognosis in advanced-stage HCC patients receiving sorafenib. Switching to sorafenib therapy before progression to the advanced-stage appears more effective than that after progression to the advanced-stage in patients diagnosed in the intermediate-stage on past clinical courses prior to sorafenib administration

Evolving Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma in the Asia–Pacific Region: A Review and Multidisciplinary Expert Opinion

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the fourth most common driver of cancer-related death globally, with an estimated 72% of cases in Asia. For more than a decade, first-line systemic treatments for advanced or unresectable HCC were limited to the multi-targeted kinase inhibitors sorafenib and, more recently, lenvatinib. Now, treatment options have expanded to include immunotherapy, as exemplified by the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) atezolizumab combined with the antiangiogenic agent bevacizumab. Additional combinations of ICIs with kinase inhibitors, other ICIs, or antiangiogenic agents are under investigation, further supporting the new era of immunotherapy for first-line treatment of advanced or unresectable HCC. We describe this evolving landscape and provide expert opinion on therapeutic best practices in the Asia–Pacific region, where different costs of, and patient access to, treatment are a challenge. With the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab likely to become the clinical standard of care, optimising treatment sequence and ensuring patient access to newer therapies remain priorities. Cost containment and treatment sequencing may be facilitated by characterisation of predictive positive and negative biomarkers. With these considerations in mind, this review and expert opinion focused on advanced HCC in the Asia–Pacific region offers perspectives of multiple stakeholders, including physicians, payer systems, and patients