Stereotactic Body Radiosurgery for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma

Background: Lenvatinib has been recently approved as a first-line treatment option for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Korea. We aimed to study the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib therapy in a real-world practice and to find prognostic factors related to survival and disease progression. Methods: A hospital-based retrospective study was conducted on 111 consecutive patients who had unresectable HCC and were treated with lenvatinib at Samsung Medical Center from October 2018 to March 2020. Efficacy was determined using the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) criteria in 111 patients who completed 1st tumor assessment. Safety was evaluated in 116 HCC patients including 5 patients who discontinued lenvatinib due to adverse events (AEs) before 1st tumor assessment using Common Terminology Criteria for AEs version 5.0. Results: A total of 111 patients with a median age of 59 years were analyzed during a median follow-up duration of 6.2 (4.4–9.0) months. The Kaplan-Meier estimate of overall survival was 10.5 months, and the median progression-free survival was 6.2 months. Based on mRECIST criteria, the objective response rate was 18.9% and disease control rate was 75.7%. AEs developed in 86/116 (74.1%) patients, and grade ≥3 AEs developed in 16/116 (13.8%) patients. Diarrhea, hand-foot skin rash, abdominal pain, hypertension, and anorexia were identified as the AEs with the highest frequencies of any grade. REFLECT eligibility criteria including tumor extent ≥50% liver occupation or inadequate bone marrow function and occurrence of anorexia were prognostic factors for survival, and occurrence of diarrhea was a favorable factor for disease progression. Conclusion: Lenvatinib therapy showed a favorable efficacy and safety in a real-world practice. The REFLECT eligibility criteria and specific AEs could be one of the prognostic markers.

Download Full-text

Is Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma Superior Even to Lenvatinib? A Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison

Targeted Oncology ◽

10.1007/s11523-021-00803-8 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Andrea Casadei-Gardini ◽

Toshifumi Tada ◽

Shigeo Shimose ◽

Takashi Kumada ◽

Takashi Niizeki ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Indirect Comparison ◽

Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Adjusted Indirect Comparison

Download Full-text

Differentiation between hepatocellular carcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma using contrast-enhanced ultrasound: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation ◽

10.3233/ch-211145 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-17

Author(s):

Yanling Chen ◽

Wenping Wang

Keyword(s):

Hepatocellular Carcinoma ◽

Diagnostic Accuracy ◽

Publication Bias ◽

Likelihood Ratio ◽

Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Arterial Phase ◽

Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽

Diagnostic Ability ◽

Contrast Enhanced

AIM: To explore the diagnostic ability of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in distinguishing intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched for studies reporting the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS in differentiating ICC from HCC. The diagnostic ability of CEUS was assessed based on the pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and area under the curve (AUC) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The methodologic quality was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool. Subgroup analyses, meta-regression and investigation of publication bias were performed to identify the source of heterogeneity. RESULTS: A total of eight studies were included, consisting of 1,116 patients with HCC and 529 with ICC. The general diagnostic performance of CEUS in distinguishing ICC and HCC were as follows: pooled sensitivity, 0.92 (95% CI: 0.84–0.96); pooled specificity, 0.87 (95% CI: 0.79–0.92); pooled PLR, 7.1 (95% CI: 4.1–12.0); pooled NLR, 0.09 (95% CI: 0.05–0.19); pooled DOR, 76 (95% CI: 26–220) and AUC, 0.95(95% CI: 0.93–0.97). Different liver background may be a potential factor that influenced the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS according to the subgroup analysis, with the pooled DOR of 89.67 in the mixed liver background group and 46.87 in the cirrhosis group, respectively. Six informative CEUS features that may help differentiate HCC from ICC were extracted. The three CEUS features favoring HCC were arterial phase hyperenhancement(APHE), mild washout and late washout (>60s); the three CEUS favoring ICC were arterial rim enhancement, marked washout and early washout(<60s). No potential publication bias was observed. CONCLUSION: CEUS showed great diagnostic ability in differentiating ICC from HCC, which may be promising for noninvasive evaluation of these diseases.

Download Full-text