Keywords
hepatocellular carcinoma, medical therapy
hepatocellular carcinoma, medical therapy
Among all cancers globally, liver cancer ranked the sixth in incidence and the fourth in mortality, accounting for 841,080 new cases and 781,631 deaths worldwide in 20181. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the predominant form of primary liver cancer, with risk factors including hepatitis B virus (HBV) and hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection as well as cirrhosis of any etiology such as alcoholic liver disease, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, and primary biliary cholangitis. Diagnosis of HCC is usually made by contrast enhanced imaging. Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging remains the most commonly used staging system2,3. BCLC staging incorporates tumor burden, liver reserve, and performance status and classifies HCC into very early stage (0), early stage (A), intermediate stage (B), advanced stage (C), and terminal stage (D)4. The management strategy can then be recommended according to different stages of disease2. Recently, a popular staging system, the Hong Kong liver cancer staging system (HKLC), which is derived from a group of Hong Kong experts5, was introduced. According to this study, it has a better discriminating power than BCLC6. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that BCLC is derived from mostly HCV-related HCC cases, while HKLC is derived from an Asian cohort where HBV is the predominant risk factor for HCC. Surgical resection, tumor ablation, and liver transplantation are curative treatments indicated for very early and early stage HCC. Owing to a lack of widely implemented HCC surveillance programs in many parts of the world, most patients are unfortunately diagnosed at an advanced stage, precluding curative therapy7.
Non-surgical management for HCC includes locoregional intra-arterial therapy, systemic treatment with multi-kinase inhibitors, and immunotherapy. Recent advances and emerging strategies in these modalities to improve the outcome of HCC will be reviewed.
Trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the most popular form of intra-arterial therapy and is the established first-line treatment for intermediate-stage HCC2,3. It involves arterial catheterization, usually via the femoral artery, to cannulate the hepatic arterial branches. Cytotoxic agent, usually doxorubicin or cisplatin, is then delivered to the highly vascularized liver tumor. It is followed by blocking of the feeding vessel with an embolization agent, commonly lipiodol, to induce ischemic necrosis of the tumor. The rest of the liver parenchyma is relatively preserved as a result of dual blood supply from both the portal vein and the hepatic artery8. Significant improvement of survival was shown in patients with locally advanced HCC and Child-Pugh A or B cirrhosis treated with TACE as compared with best supportive care, with relative risk of death reduction more than 50%9–11 (Table 1). Post-embolization syndrome, liver failure due to ischemic damage, biliary injury, gastroduodenal ulceration, and renal dysfunction are potential complications of TACE. Acute liver decompensation may occur in up to one-fifth of patients undergoing TACE12. Dosage of cytotoxic agent, baseline liver function as reflected by bilirubin and prothrombin time, and stage of cirrhosis are identified risk factors. Absolute contraindications to TACE include decompensated cirrhosis, renal failure, main portal vein obstruction, extensive tumor burden, and technical difficulties13. Despite gradual improvement in efficacy and survival, patient selection for the initiation of TACE, the evaluation of tumor response, and the decision on the frequency and duration of therapy are not standardized because of marked heterogeneity within the group of intermediate-stage HCC14. The Hepatoma Arterial-Embolization Prognostic (HAP) score, Assessment for Retreatment with TACE (ART) score, and selection for TACE treatment (STATE) score are prognostic scores derived from combinations of tumor diameter, radiological response, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) level, and liver biochemistry (bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase [AST], and C-reactive protein) to better stratify and select patients for the initiation of or subsequent TACE15–18. However, controlled studies are required to determine whether implementing the prognostic scores in addition to BCLC staging can further improve treatment response and survival in patients receiving TACE. In addition, better definition of TACE failure is also needed, as it correlates with patient survival and mandates switching TACE to an alternative treatment strategy.
Study arm | Control arm | No. of patients | Outcome | Major side effects for study arm | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Llovet et al.9 | Embolization arm: gelatin sponge Chemoembolization arm: gelatin sponge plus doxorubicin | Placebo | 112 | Mean survival 25.3 versus 28.7 versus 17.9 months; HR 0.47, 95% CI 0.25–0.91, P = 0.025 for chemoembolization versus placebo | Cholecystitis, leucopenia, ischemic biliary and liver injury, infection, allergic dermatitis, alopecia |
Lo et al.10 | TACE | Placebo | 79 | Estimated 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival 57%, 31%, and 26% versus 32%, 11%, and 3% RR of death 0.50, 95% CI 0.31–0.81, P = 0.005 | Fever, abdominal pain, vomiting, ascites |
Yuen et al.11 | TACE | Conservative care | 96 | Mean survival 31.2 versus 14.1 months, P = 0.0126 | Hepatic decompensation |
Lammer et al.19 | DEB-TACE | TACE | 212 | Tumor response at 6 months 51.6% versus 43.5%, P = 0.110 for superiority | Significant reduction in liver toxicity and doxorubicin-related side effects in DEB-TACE arm |
Salem et al.21 | Y90 radioembolization | TACE | 179 | Time to progression >26 versus 6.8 months, P = 0.001 | Less diarrhea and hypoalbuminemia in Y90 arm |
Kudo et al.22 | TACE plus sorafenib | TACE | 156 | Median PFS 25.2 versus 13.5 months, P = 0.006 Median TTUP 26.7 versus 20.6 months, P = 0.020 | Thrombocytopenia, hand-foot- skin reaction, hypertension, increased lipase and amylase, neutropenia, fatigue, diarrhea, erythema multiforme more common in study arm |
Ricke et al.23 | SIRT plus sorafenib | Sorafenib | 424 | Median survival 12.1 versus 11.4 months; HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.81–1.25, P = 0.953 | Hyperbilirubinemia and fatigue more common in study arm |
TACE with drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE) and trans-arterial radio-embolization (TARE) are alternative intra-arterial locoregional therapies for HCC (Table 1). In DEB-TACE, cytotoxin-carrying microspheres are used instead of lipiodol, allowing simultaneous delivery of chemotherapeutic and embolization agents. The potential advantage of DEB-TACE is more sustained and selective drug delivery to the tumor with less systemic absorption and toxicity. However, evidence thus far does not show a clear benefit of DEB-TACE over conventional TACE. The PRECISION V trial is a phase II randomized trial comparing tumor response between DEB-TACE and TACE in 212 patients with unresectable HCC. Superiority in the primary endpoint of tumor response rate at 6 months was not met (51.6% for DEB-TACE versus 43.5% for TACE, P = 0.110 for superiority), but a significant reduction in liver toxicity and doxorubicin-related side effects was seen in the DEB-TACE arm19. TARE is a form of selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT), in which radioactive Yttrium-90 (Y90) microspheres are introduced into the tumor vasculature. The main anti-tumor effect in TARE is achieved by radiation instead of embolization. As the patency of the hepatic artery is maintained, TARE can be used in HCC with main portal vein invasion or thrombosis, which is considered a contraindication for conventional TACE. A meta-analysis of eight studies involving 1,500 patients demonstrated superiority of TARE over TACE in overall survival (OS), 3-year OS, time to progression (TTP), and hospitalization days20. A subsequent phase II randomized trial also showed significantly longer TTP in the TARE group compared with conventional TACE (>26 months versus 6.8 months, P <0.01)21. However, improvement of OS was not shown. A randomized controlled trial comparing DEB-TACE and TARE is currently underway (NCT01381211).
Tumor cell proliferation, differentiation, and angiogenesis are postulated to be mediated by multiple intracellular and cell surface protein kinases with their downstream pathways, as depicted in Figure 124. Sorafenib, an inhibitor of platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR), vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), rearrange during transfection (RET), and C-kit, is the first multi-kinase inhibitor proved to be beneficial in unresectable, advanced-stage HCC. The SHARP trial is the first phase III, placebo-controlled trial of the use of sorafenib in HCC. In this landmark study involving 602 patients with advanced disease naïve to systemic treatment, median OS was significantly improved in the sorafenib group compared to the placebo group (10.7 versus 7.9 months, P <0.001)25. Another multi-national randomized controlled trial in the Asia-Pacific region, where chronic hepatitis B is the major risk factor for HCC, also confirmed the findings in the SHARP study26. Further analysis of the two randomized controlled trials identified HCV-related HCC, absence of extrahepatic spread, and low neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as predictors of greater survival benefit with sorafenib27. The remarkable result with sorafenib is considered a major breakthrough in more than 30 years of pursuing a systemic treatment for HCC. However, the therapeutic window is narrow with sorafenib, with restrictions to patients with good performance status and compensated cirrhosis. Also, dose-limiting side effects including hand-foot-skin reaction, diarrhea, and weight loss are not uncommon. However, recent studies have shown an association between dermatological adverse effects with sorafenib with better treatment outcomes28,29. Over subsequent years, other agents have been studied as alternative first-line treatments against sorafenib or as second-line treatments against placebo in patients intolerant to or who have progressed while on sorafenib. Sunitinib, brivanib, linifanib, everolimus, and tivantinib were unable to meet their respective study end points as either non-inferior or superior to sorafenib or show survival benefit in those who failed sorafenib30–34.
CTLA-4, cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4; ERK, extracellular-signal-regulated kinase; FGFR, fibroblast growth factor receptor; MEK, mitogen-activated protein kinase/ERK kinase; PD-1, programmed cell death protein 1; PDGFR, platelet-derived growth factor receptor; PD-L1, programmed death ligand-1; RET, rearrange during transfection; VEGFR, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor.
Lenvatinib, an inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR), VEGFR, PDGFR, RET, and C-kit, emerged almost a decade after sorafenib as an alternative first-line treatment for advanced HCC. Non-inferiority to sorafenib in terms of OS (13.6 versus 12.3 months, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79–1.06) was demonstrated in the REFLECT trial35. In patients who progressed while on sorafenib, regorafenib and cabozantinib prolonged survival in their respective phase III randomized controlled trials (Table 2). Bruix et al. demonstrated that regorafenib treatment resulted in longer median survival than placebo (10.6 versus 7.8 months; hazard ratio [HR] 0.63, P <0.001)36. Comparable improvement in median OS was shown with cabozantinib by Abou-Alfa et al. (10.2 versus 8.0 months; HR 0.76, P = 0.005)37. The recombinant IgG1 monoclonal antibody ramucirumab, which inhibits type 2 VEGFR-mediated angiogenesis, is the latest approved agent for advanced HCC. The initial REACH trial using ramucirumab failed to demonstrate benefit over placebo in patients with BCLC stage B and C disease not amenable to locoregional therapy and treated with first-line sorafenib38. However, the effect of ramucirumab was noted to correlate with baseline AFP level, and benefit in OS was seen in the subgroup of patients with baseline AFP concentration above 400 ng/ml. The finding formed the basis of the follow-up REACH-2 trial, in which only sorafenib-treated patients with baseline serum AFP concentration over 400 ng/ml were recruited. Median OS (8.5 versus 7.3 months; HR 0.71, P = 0.020) and progression-free survival (PFS) (2.8 versus 1.6 months; HR 0.45, P <0.001) were significantly improved in the ramucirumab group compared with the placebo group39. The study also highlighted that HCC is a heterogeneous disease and that stratification with biomarkers such as AFP is important in the future development of cancer therapy.
The past decade has witnessed major breakthroughs in cancer immunotherapy, which has demonstrated benefit in various solid organ and hematological malignancies40. HCC develops in an inflammatory milieu, and immune tolerance is reported to play an important role in tumor pathogenesis41,41. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPIs) targeting the programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) pathway and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) pathway are the two most studied immunotherapy mechanisms in HCC (Figure 1). The two pathways are believed to act at different stages of the immune response. The PD-1/PD-L1 pathway promotes immune tolerance by suppressing the activity of T cells and mediating the differentiation of regulatory T cells, while the CTLA-4 pathway prevents autoimmunity by inhibiting the proliferation of potential autoreactive T cells43,44. By inhibiting these immune checkpoints, self-tolerance to malignant cells is lost, resulting in immune-mediated clearance of tumor tissue.
CTLA-4 blockage with tremelimumab is the first checkpoint inhibitor being evaluated as a potential treatment for hepatitis C-related HCC. A phase II study found that tremelimumab exhibits both anti-tumor and antiviral activities, with an acceptable safety profile45.
Nivolumab is a monoclonal antibody inhibiting PD-1 receptor and demonstrated a favorable response rate of 20% in the dose expansion and escalation study (CheckMate 040)46. The median OS in sorafenib-experienced patients in this phase II study was 16.7 months with an overall response rate of 14.5%. A similar response rate and improvements in OS, objective response rate, and complete response rate were confirmed in the subsequent head-to-head comparison against sorafenib as first-line therapy in advanced HCC (CheckMate 459), but the primary endpoint of OS did not reach statistical significance47.
Pembrolizumab is another anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody being investigated as a potential treatment for advanced HCC. In the phase II Keynote-224 trial, an objective response was observed in 18 of 104 sorafenib-experienced patients (17%), including one complete and 17 partial responses48. A consistent result was seen in the Keynote-240 study, a follow-up phase III randomized controlled trial comparing pembrolizumab with best supportive care as second-line therapy after sorafenib, but the co-primary endpoint of improvement in OS and PFS was not met49. A similar phase III study using pembrolizumab in Asian subjects is being conducted (Keynote-394, NCT03062358).
Studies have also looked into a potential synergistic effect with combined inhibition of PD-1 and CTLA-4 pathways. Tremelimumab together with the anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody durvalumab have demonstrated favorable anti-tumor activity with acceptable tolerability in a small pilot study involving patients with advanced HCC or biliary tract carcinomas50. A phase III multicenter randomized study (HIMALAYA, NCT03298451) is currently underway testing the dual therapy against sorafenib as first-line treatment in patients with unresectable HCC. The combination of nivolumab and the CTLA-4-inhibiting antibody ipilimumab also showed efficacy with a median OS of 23 months in its dose-finding study51.
The side effect profile of ICPIs is diverse and distinctive from conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy. The immune-related adverse reactions can affect virtually any organ but most commonly involve the endocrine system, skin, gastrointestinal tract, and liver. For grade 1 toxicity, such as mild endocrinopathy, ICPIs can be continued with close monitoring and hormone replacement. Grade 2 or above toxicity usually mandates interruption of ICPIs with or without the need for steroids and immunosuppressants52. Compared with patients with melanoma and non-small-cell lung cancer, HCC patients tend to have more elevation of AST/alanine aminotransferase when given ICPIs53. It can be difficult to differentiate hepatitis associated with ICPIs from other causes of deranged liver function such as disease progression, reactivation of concurrent viral hepatitis, or decompensation of underlying cirrhosis.
Investigators have brought together locoregional therapy with systemic therapy or systemic therapy of different classes with the hope of augmenting tumor response. The initial experience with adding sorafenib or other molecular targeted therapy to TACE was disappointing54. Inadequate dose and duration of sorafenib in these trials were identified as key reasons for failure. The Japanese TACTICS trial eventually demonstrated superiority of TACE plus sorafenib over TACE alone in terms of longer PFS (25.2 versus 13.5 months, P = 0.006) and longer time to TACE untreatable progression (26.7 versus 20.6 months, P = 0.020)22. The SORAMIC study looked into the combination of sorafenib and SIRT with Y90 compared with sorafenib alone for advanced HCC. The primary endpoint of OS was not met, but subgroup analysis of non-cirrhotic patients or patients aged under 65 years did show a survival benefit with combination therapy23. Future trials should address issues such as timing of sorafenib administration in relation to intra-arterial therapy, patient selection for such combination therapy by balancing potential benefits with incremental adverse effects, and more precise definition of both treatment efficacy and failure.
The combination of atezolizumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, and bevacizumab, an anti-VEGF antibody, has been investigated as a first-line systemic therapy in unresectable or metastatic HCC. It is postulated that the anti-angiogenic and immunomodulatory effect of bevacizumab can augment the anti-tumor immune activity of atezolizumab, as shown by a partial response rate of 62% in the phase I trial55. Encouraging results were recently reported from the phase III IMbrave 150 trial comparing the dual therapy with sorafenib, in which statistically significant improvement in both OS and PFS was shown (HR of OS 0.58, P <0.001 and HR of PFS 0.59, P <0.001)56.
Additional phase III trials on combinations of systemic therapies including lenvatinib and pembrolizumab (NCT03713593), cabozantinib and atezolizumab (NCT03755791), sintilimab and IBI305 (NCT0379440), and apatinib and SHR1210 (NCT03764293) are currently ongoing (Table 2).
HCC remains a deadly disease, and unresectable HCC is associated with limited survival. Considerable advancement in local and systemic therapies has been achieved in recent years owing to better understanding of the tumor microenvironment and the interplay between the tumor and the host immune system. With the latest breakthrough achieved with ICPIs, the armamentarium of treatment for HCC is rapidly expanding. However, heterogeneity in patient selection and definition of treatment response in the existing literature make the application of trial results to real-world practice difficult. With the standardization of trial design, prognostic markers of treatment response can be identified, allowing the selection of patients for the most appropriate anti-tumor therapy. Future studies should also continue to utilize therapeutic agents of different classes to achieve synergistic activity while minimizing toxicity.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 1 17 Jun 20 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)