Jagged 1 is a major Notch ligand along cholangiocarcinoma development in mice and humans

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) is a rare yet deadly malignancy with limited treatment options. Activation of the Notch signalling cascade has been implicated in cholangiocarcinogenesis. However, while several studies focused on the Notch receptors required for ICC development, little is known about the upstream inducers responsible for their activation. Here, we show that the Jagged 1 (Jag1) ligand is almost ubiquitously upregulated in human ICC samples when compared with corresponding non-tumorous counterparts. Furthermore, we found that while overexpression of Jag1 alone does not lead to liver tumour development, overexpression of Jag1 synergizes with activated AKT signalling to promote liver carcinogenesis in AKT/Jag1 mice. Histologically, tumours consisted exclusively of ICC, with hepatocellular tumours not occurring in AKT/Jag1 mice. Furthermore, tumours from AKT/Jag1 mice exhibited extensive desmoplastic reaction, an important feature of human ICC. At the molecular level, we found that both AKT/mTOR and Notch cascades are activated in AKT/Jag1 ICC tissues, and that the Notch signalling is necessary for ICC development in AKT/Jag1 mice. In human ICC cell lines, silencing of Jag1 via specific small interfering RNA reduces proliferation and increases apoptosis. Finally, combined inhibition of AKT and Notch pathways is highly detrimental for the in vitro growth of ICC cell lines. In summary, our study demonstrates that Jag1 is an important upstream inducer of the Notch signalling in human and mouse ICC. Targeting Jag1 might represent a novel therapeutic strategy for the treatment of this deadly disease

Transarterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Clinical Practice: Temporal Trends and Survival Outcomes of an Iterative Treatment

Background: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is one of the most frequently applied treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) worldwide. In this study, we aimed at evaluating whether and how TACE application and repetition, as well as the related outcome, have changed over the last three decades in Italy. Methods: Data of 7,184 patients with HCC were retrieved from the Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA) database. Patients were divided according to the period of diagnosis in six cohorts: P1 (1988–1993), P2 (1994–1998), P3 (1999–2004), P4 (2005–2009), P5 (2010–2014), and P6 (2015–2019). All the analyses were repeated in the overall patient population and in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) B patients, who are the subgroup of HCC patients originally supposed to receive TACE according to guidelines. TACE was defined as either the first or the main (more effective) treatment. Results: The proportion of patients receiving TACE as first or main therapy declined over time, and less than 50% of BCLC B patients were treated with chemoembolization from P3 onward. Conversely, TACE was widely used even outside the intermediate stage. Survival of TACE-treated patients progressively increased from P1 to P6. Although TACE was performed only once in the majority of patients, there was an increasing proportion of those receiving 2 or ≥3 treatments sessions over time. The overall survival (OS) of patients undergoing repeated treatments was significantly higher compared to those managed with a single TACE (median OS 40.0 vs. 65.0 vs. 71.8 months in 1, 2, and ≥3 TACE groups, respectively; p < 0.0001). However, after a first-line TACE, the adoption of curative therapies provided longer survival than repeating TACE (83.0 vs. 42.0 months; p < 0.0001), which in turn was associated with better outcomes compared to systemic therapies or best supportive care (BSC). Conclusions: Despite a decline in the percentage of treated patients over time, TACE has still an important role in the management of HCC patients. The survival of TACE-treated patients gradually improved over time, probably due to a better patient selection. Iterative TACE is effective, but an upward shift to curative therapies provides better outcomes while transition to systemic therapies and BSC leads to a worse prognosis

A nomogram-based prognostic model for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with sorafenib: A multicenter study

Among scores and staging systems used for HCC, none showed a good prognostic ability in patients with advanced HCC treated with Sorafenib. We aimed to evaluate predictive factors of overall survival (OS) and drug response in HCC patients undergoing Sorafenib included in the Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA.) multicenter cohort. Patients in the ITA.LI.CA database treated with Sorafenib and updated on 30 June 2019 were included. Demographic and clinical data before starting Sorafenib treatment were considered. For the evaluation of predictive factors for OS, a time-dependent Cox proportional hazard model was used. A total of 1107 patients were included in our analysis. The mean age was 64.3 years and 81.7% were male. Most patients were staged as BCLC B (205, 18.9%) or C (706, 65.1%). The median time of Sorafenib administration was 4 months (interquartile range (IQR) 2–12), and the median OS was 10 months (IQR: 4–20). A total of 263 patients (33.8%) out of 780 with available evaluation experienced objective tumoral response to Sorafenib. The Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Performance Status (PS) (hazard ratio (HR) 1.284), maximum tumoral diameter (HR 1.100), plasma total bilirubin (HR 1.119), aspartate amino transferase assessed as multiple of the upper normal value (HR 1.032), alpha-fetoprotein ≥200 ng/mL (HR 1.342), hemoglobin (HR 0.903) and platelet count (HR 1.002) were associated with OS at multivariate Cox regression analysis. Drug response was predicted by maximum tumoral diameter and platelet count. A novel prognostic nomogram for patients undergoing Sorafenib is hereby proposed. The novelty introduced is the comprehensive patient’s assessment using common markers of patient’s general status, liver damage and function and HCC biology. Further studies are required to test its accuracy and provide external validation

Transarterial Chemoembolization for Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Clinical Practice: Temporal Trends and Survival Outcomes of an Iterative Treatment

BACKGROUND: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is one of the most frequently applied treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) worldwide. In this study, we aimed at evaluating whether and how TACE application and repetition, as well as the related outcome, have changed over the last three decades in Italy. METHODS: Data of 7,184 patients with HCC were retrieved from the Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA) database. Patients were divided according to the period of diagnosis in six cohorts: P1 (1988–1993), P2 (1994–1998), P3 (1999–2004), P4 (2005–2009), P5 (2010–2014), and P6 (2015–2019). All the analyses were repeated in the overall patient population and in Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) B patients, who are the subgroup of HCC patients originally supposed to receive TACE according to guidelines. TACE was defined as either the first or the main (more effective) treatment. RESULTS: The proportion of patients receiving TACE as first or main therapy declined over time, and less than 50% of BCLC B patients were treated with chemoembolization from P3 onward. Conversely, TACE was widely used even outside the intermediate stage. Survival of TACE-treated patients progressively increased from P1 to P6. Although TACE was performed only once in the majority of patients, there was an increasing proportion of those receiving 2 or ≥3 treatments sessions over time. The overall survival (OS) of patients undergoing repeated treatments was significantly higher compared to those managed with a single TACE (median OS 40.0 vs. 65.0 vs. 71.8 months in 1, 2, and ≥3 TACE groups, respectively; p < 0.0001). However, after a first-line TACE, the adoption of curative therapies provided longer survival than repeating TACE (83.0 vs. 42.0 months; p < 0.0001), which in turn was associated with better outcomes compared to systemic therapies or best supportive care (BSC). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a decline in the percentage of treated patients over time, TACE has still an important role in the management of HCC patients. The survival of TACE-treated patients gradually improved over time, probably due to a better patient selection. Iterative TACE is effective, but an upward shift to curative therapies provides better outcomes while transition to systemic therapies and BSC leads to a worse prognosis

Characteristics and outcome of anti-hepatitis D virus positive patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Background &amp; aims: Chronic hepatitis D virus (HDV) often leads to end-stage liver disease and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Comprehensive data pertaining to large populations with HDV and HCC are missing, therefore we sought to assess the characteristics, management, and outcome of these patients, comparing them to patients with hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection. Methods: We analysed the Italian Liver Cancer database focusing on patients with positivity for HBV surface antigen and anti-HDV antibodies (HBV/HDV, n = 107) and patients with HBV infection alone (n = 588). Clinical and oncological characteristics, treatment, and survival were compared in the two groups. Results: Patients with HBV/HDV had worse liver function [Model for End-stage Liver Disease score: 11 vs. 9, p &lt; .0001; Child-Turcotte-Pugh score: 7 vs. 5, p &lt; .0001] than patients with HBV. HCC was more frequently diagnosed during surveillance (72.9% vs. 52.4%, p = .0002), and the oncological stage was more frequently Milan-in (67.3% vs. 52.7%, p = .005) in patients with HBV/HDV. Liver transplantation was more frequently performed in HBV/HDV than in HBV patients (36.4% vs. 9.5%), while the opposite was observed for resection (8.4% vs. 20.1%, p &lt; .0001), and in a competing risk analysis, HBV/HDV patients had a higher probability of receiving transplantation, independently of liver function and oncological stage. A trend towards longer survival was observed in patients with HBV/HDV (50.4 vs. 44.4 months, p = .106). Conclusions: In patients with HBV/HDV, HCC is diagnosed more frequently during surveillance, resulting in a less advanced cancer stage in patients with more deranged liver function than HBV alone. Patients with HBV/HDV have a heightened benefit from liver transplantation, positively influencing survival

Material deprivation affects the management and clinical outcome of hepatocellular carcinoma in a high-resource environment

none94Aim: This study investigated how material deprivation in Italy influences the stage of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) at diagnosis and the chance of cure. Methods: 4114 patients from the Italian Liver Cancer database consecutively diagnosed with HCC between January 2008 and December 2018 were analysed about severe material deprivation (SMD) rate tertiles of the region of birth and region of managing hospitals, according to the European Statistics on Income and Living Conditions. The main outcomes were HCC diagnosis modalities (during or outside surveillance), treatment adoption and overall survival. Results: In more deprived regions, HCC was more frequently diagnosed during surveillance, while the incidental diagnosis was prevalent in the least deprived. Tumour characteristics did not differ among regions. The proportion of patients undergoing potentially curative treatments progressively decreased as the SMD worsened. Consequently, overall survival was better in less deprived regions. Patients who moved from most deprived to less deprived regions increased their probability of receiving potentially curative treatments by 1.11 times (95% CI 1.03 to 1.19), decreasing their mortality likelihood (hazard ratio 0.78 95% CI 0.67 to 0.90). Conclusions: Socioeconomic status measured through SMD does not seem to influence HCC features at diagnosis but brings a negative effect on the chance of receiving potentially curative treatments. Patient mobility from the most deprived to the less deprived regions increased the access to curative therapies, with the ultimate result of improving survival.openCucchetti A.; Gramenzi A.; Johnson P.; Giannini E.G.; Tovoli F.; Rapaccini G.L.; Marra F.; Cabibbo G.; Caturelli E.; Gasbarrini A.; Svegliati-Baroni G.; Sacco R.; Zoli M.; Morisco F.; Di Marco M.; Mega A.; Foschi F.G.; Biasini E.; Masotto A.; Nardone G.; Raimondo G.; Azzaroli F.; Vidili G.; Brunetto M.R.; Farinati F.; Trevisani F.; Avanzato F.; Biselli M.; Caraceni P.; Garuti F.; Neri A.; Santi V.; Pellizzaro F.; Imondi A.; Sartori A.; Penzo B.; Sanmarco A.; Granito A.; Muratori L.; Piscaglia F.; Sansone V.; Forgione A.; Dajti E.; Marasco G.; Ravaioli F.; Cappelli A.; Golfieri R.; Mosconi C.; Renzulli M.; Cela E.M.; Facciorusso A.; Cacciato V.; Casagrande E.; Moscatelli A.; Pellegatta G.; de Matthaeis N.; Allegrini G.; Lauria V.; Ghittoni G.; Pelecca G.; Chegai F.; Coratella F.; Ortenzi M.; Missale G.; Olivani A.; Inno A.; Marchetti F.; Busacca A.; Camma C.; Di Martino V.; Maria Rizzo G.E.; Franze M.S.; Saitta C.; Sauchella A.; Berardinelli D.; Bevilacqua V.; Borghi A.; Gardini A.C.; Conti F.; Dall'Aglio A.C.; Ercolani G.; Adotti V.; Arena U.; Di Bonaventura C.; Campani C.; Dragoni G.; Gitto S.; Laffi G.; Coccoli P.; Malerba A.; Guarino M.; Capasso M.; Oliveri F.; Romagnoli V.Cucchetti, A.; Gramenzi, A.; Johnson, P.; Giannini, E. G.; Tovoli, F.; Rapaccini, G. L.; Marra, F.; Cabibbo, G.; Caturelli, E.; Gasbarrini, A.; Svegliati-Baroni, G.; Sacco, R.; Zoli, M.; Morisco, F.; Di Marco, M.; Mega, A.; Foschi, F. G.; Biasini, E.; Masotto, A.; Nardone, G.; Raimondo, G.; Azzaroli, F.; Vidili, G.; Brunetto, M. R.; Farinati, F.; Trevisani, F.; Avanzato, F.; Biselli, M.; Caraceni, P.; Garuti, F.; Neri, A.; Santi, V.; Pellizzaro, F.; Imondi, A.; Sartori, A.; Penzo, B.; Sanmarco, A.; Granito, A.; Muratori, L.; Piscaglia, F.; Sansone, V.; Forgione, A.; Dajti, E.; Marasco, G.; Ravaioli, F.; Cappelli, A.; Golfieri, R.; Mosconi, C.; Renzulli, M.; Cela, E. M.; Facciorusso, A.; Cacciato, V.; Casagrande, E.; Moscatelli, A.; Pellegatta, G.; de Matthaeis, N.; Allegrini, G.; Lauria, V.; Ghittoni, G.; Pelecca, G.; Chegai, F.; Coratella, F.; Ortenzi, M.; Missale, G.; Olivani, A.; Inno, A.; Marchetti, F.; Busacca, A.; Camma, C.; Di Martino, V.; Maria Rizzo, G. E.; Franze, M. S.; Saitta, C.; Sauchella, A.; Berardinelli, D.; Bevilacqua, V.; Borghi, A.; Gardini, A. C.; Conti, F.; Dall'Aglio, A. C.; Ercolani, G.; Adotti, V.; Arena, U.; Di Bonaventura, C.; Campani, C.; Dragoni, G.; Gitto, S.; Laffi, G.; Coccoli, P.; Malerba, A.; Guarino, M.; Capasso, M.; Oliveri, F.; Romagnoli, V

Overview of prognostic systems for hepatocellular carcinoma and ITA.LI.CA external validation of MESH and CNLC classifications

Prognostic assessment in patients with HCC remains an extremely difficult clinical task due to the complexity of this cancer where tumour characteristics interact with degree of liver dysfunction, patient general health status, and a large span of available treatment options. Several prognostic systems have been proposed in the last three decades, both from the Asian and European/North American countries. Prognostic scores, such as the CLIP score and the recent MESH score, have been generated on a solid statistical basis from real life population data, while staging systems, such as the BCLC scheme and the recent CNLC classification, have been created by experts according to recent HCC prognostic evidences from the literature. A third category includes combined prognostic systems that can be used both as prognostic scores and staging systems. A recent example is the ITA.LI.CA prognostic system including either a prognostic score and a simplified staging system. This review focuses first on an overview of the main prognostic systems for HCC classified according to the above three categories, and, second, on a comprehensive description of the methodology required for a correct comparison between different systems in terms of prognostic performance. In this second section the main studies in the literature comparing different prognostic systems are described in detail. Lastly, a formal comparison between the last prognostic systems proposed for each of the above three categories is performed using a large Italian database including 6882 HCC patients in order to concretely apply the comparison rules previously described

Relationship between low Ankle-Brachial Index and rapid renal function decline in patients with atrial fibrillation: A prospective multicentre cohort study

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between Ankle-Brachial Index (ABI) and renal function progression in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). DESIGN: Observational prospective multicentre cohort study. SETTING:Atherothrombosis Center of I Clinica Medica of 'Sapienza' University of Rome; Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences of University Magna Græcia of Catanzaro; Atrial Fibrillation Registry for Ankle-Brachial Index Prevalence Assessment-Collaborative Italian Study. PARTICIPANTS: 897 AF patients on treatment with vitamin K antagonists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The relationship between basal ABI and renal function progression, assessed by the estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR) calculated with the CKD-EPI formula at baseline and after 2 years of follow-up. The rapid decline in eGFR, defined as a decline in eGFR >5 mL/min/1.73 m(2)/year, and incident eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) were primary and secondary end points, respectively. RESULTS: Mean age was 71.8±9.0 years and 41.8% were women. Low ABI (ie, ≤0.90) was present in 194 (21.6%) patients. Baseline median eGFR was 72.7 mL/min/1.73 m(2), and 28.7% patients had an eGFR60 mL/min/1.73 m(2), 153 (23.9%) had a reduction of the eGFR <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2). ABI ≤0.90 was also an independent predictor for incident eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (HR 1.851, 95% CI 1.205 to 2.845, p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AF, an ABI ≤0.90 is independently associated with a rapid decline in renal function and incident eGFR<60 mL/min/1.73 m(2). ABI measurement may help identify patients with AF at risk of renal function deterioration

Frequency of left ventricular hypertrophy in non-valvular atrial fibrillation

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is significantly related to adverse clinical outcomes in patients at high risk of cardiovascular events. In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), data on LVH, that is, prevalence and determinants, are inconsistent mainly because of different definitions and heterogeneity of study populations. We determined echocardiographic-based LVH prevalence and clinical factors independently associated with its development in a prospective cohort of patients with non-valvular (NV) AF. From the "Atrial Fibrillation Registry for Ankle-brachial Index Prevalence Assessment: Collaborative Italian Study" (ARAPACIS) population, 1,184 patients with NVAF (mean age 72 \ub1 11 years; 56% men) with complete data to define LVH were selected. ARAPACIS is a multicenter, observational, prospective, longitudinal on-going study designed to estimate prevalence of peripheral artery disease in patients with NVAF. We found a high prevalence of LVH (52%) in patients with NVAF. Compared to those without LVH, patients with AF with LVH were older and had a higher prevalence of hypertension, diabetes, and previous myocardial infarction (MI). A higher prevalence of ankle-brachial index 640.90 was seen in patients with LVH (22 vs 17%, p = 0.0392). Patients with LVH were at significantly higher thromboembolic risk, with CHA2DS2-VASc 652 seen in 93% of LVH and in 73% of patients without LVH (p &lt;0.05). Women with LVH had a higher prevalence of concentric hypertrophy than men (46% vs 29%, p = 0.0003). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that female gender (odds ratio [OR] 2.80, p &lt;0.0001), age (OR 1.03 per year, p &lt;0.001), hypertension (OR 2.30, p &lt;0.001), diabetes (OR 1.62, p = 0.004), and previous MI (OR 1.96, p = 0.001) were independently associated with LVH. In conclusion, patients with NVAF have a high prevalence of LVH, which is related to female gender, older age, hypertension, and previous MI. These patients are at high thromboembolic risk and deserve a holistic approach to cardiovascular prevention