Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management

The Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) has issued a consensus statement on the management of cardiac emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The document first appeared in the Chinese Journal of Cardiology, and a translated version was published in Circulation. The consensus statement was developed by 125 medical experts in the fields of cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. This included 23 experts currently working in Wuhan, China.

Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.

• The highest priority is prevention and control of transmission (including protecting staff).
• Patients should be assessed both for COVID-19 and for cardiovascular issues.
• At all times, all interventions and therapies provided should be in concordance with directives of infection control authorities.

“Considering that some asymptomatic patients may be a source of infection and transmission, all patients with severe emergent cardiovascular diseases should be managed as suspected cases of COVID-19 in Hubei Province,” noted writing chair and cardiologist Yaling Han, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China.

In areas outside Hubei Province, where COVID-19 was less prevalent, this “infected until proven otherwise” approach was also recommended, although not as strictly.

Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously

In patients with emergent cardiovascular needs in whom COVID-19 has not been ruled out, quarantine in a single-bed room is needed, they wrote. The patient should be monitored for clinical manifestations of the disease, and undergo COVID-19 nucleic acid testing as soon as possible.

After infection control is considered, including limiting risk for infection to health care workers, risk assessment that weighs the relative advantages and disadvantages of treating the cardiovascular disease while preventing transmission can be considered, the investigators wrote.

At all times, transfers to different areas of the hospital and between hospitals should be minimized to reduce the risk for infection transmission.

The authors also recommended the use of “select laboratory tests with definitive sensitivity and specificity for disease diagnosis or assessment.”

For patients with acute aortic syndrome or acute pulmonary embolism, this means CT angiography. When acute pulmonary embolism is suspected, D-dimer testing and deep vein ultrasound can be employed, and for patients with acute coronary syndrome, ordinary electrocardiography and standard biomarkers for cardiac injury are preferred.

In addition, “all patients should undergo lung CT examination to evaluate for imaging features typical of COVID-19. ... Chest x-ray is not recommended because of a high rate of false negative diagnosis,” the authors wrote.

Intervene with caution

Medical therapy should be optimized in patients with emergent cardiovascular issues, with invasive strategies for diagnosis and therapy used “with caution,” according to the Chinese experts.

Conditions for which conservative medical treatment is recommended during COVID-19 pandemic include ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) where thrombolytic therapy is indicated, STEMI when the optimal window for revascularization has passed, high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection, acute pulmonary embolism, acute exacerbation of heart failure, and hypertensive emergency.

“Vigilance should be paid to avoid misdiagnosing patients with pulmonary infarction as COVID-19 pneumonia,” they noted.

Diagnoses warranting invasive intervention are limited to STEMI with hemodynamic instability, life-threatening NSTEMI, Stanford type A or complex type B acute aortic dissection, bradyarrhythmia complicated by syncope or unstable hemodynamics mandating implantation of a device, and pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic instability for whom intravenous thrombolytics are too risky.

Interventions should be done in a cath lab or operating room with negative-pressure ventilation, with strict periprocedural disinfection. Personal protective equipment should also be of the strictest level.

In patients for whom COVID-19 cannot be ruled out presenting in a region with low incidence of COVID-19, interventions should only be considered for more severe cases and undertaken in a cath lab, electrophysiology lab, or operating room “with more than standard disinfection procedures that fulfill regulatory mandates for infection control.”

If negative-pressure ventilation is not available, air conditioning (for example, laminar flow and ventilation) should be stopped.

Establish plans now

“We operationalized all of these strategies at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center several weeks ago, since Boston had that early outbreak with the Biogen conference, but I suspect many institutions nationally are still formulating plans,” said Dhruv Kazi, MD, MSc, in an interview.

Although COVID-19 is “primarily a single-organ disease – it destroys the lungs” – transmission of infection to cardiology providers was an early problem that needed to be addressed, said Dr. Kazi. “We now know that a cardiologist seeing a patient who reports shortness of breath and then leans in to carefully auscultate the lungs and heart can get exposed if not provided adequate personal protective equipment; hence the cancellation of elective procedures, conversion of most elective visits to telemedicine, if possible, and the use of surgical/N95 masks in clinic and on rounds.”

Regarding the CSC recommendation to consider medical over invasive management, Dr. Kazi noteed that this works better in a setting where rapid testing is available. “Where that is not the case – as in the U.S. – resorting to conservative therapy for all COVID suspect cases will result in suboptimal care, particularly when nine out of every 10 COVID suspects will eventually rule out.”

One of his biggest worries now is that patients simply won’t come. Afraid of being exposed to COVID-19, patients with MIs and strokes may avoid or delay coming to the hospital.

“There is some evidence that this occurred in Wuhan, and I’m starting to see anecdotal evidence of this in Boston,” said Dr. Kazi. “We need to remind our patients that, if they experience symptoms of a heart attack or stroke, they deserve the same lifesaving treatment we offered before this pandemic set in. They should not try and sit it out.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) has issued a consensus statement on the management of cardiac emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The document first appeared in the Chinese Journal of Cardiology, and a translated version was published in Circulation. The consensus statement was developed by 125 medical experts in the fields of cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. This included 23 experts currently working in Wuhan, China.

Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.

• The highest priority is prevention and control of transmission (including protecting staff).
• Patients should be assessed both for COVID-19 and for cardiovascular issues.
• At all times, all interventions and therapies provided should be in concordance with directives of infection control authorities.

“Considering that some asymptomatic patients may be a source of infection and transmission, all patients with severe emergent cardiovascular diseases should be managed as suspected cases of COVID-19 in Hubei Province,” noted writing chair and cardiologist Yaling Han, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China.

In areas outside Hubei Province, where COVID-19 was less prevalent, this “infected until proven otherwise” approach was also recommended, although not as strictly.

Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously

In patients with emergent cardiovascular needs in whom COVID-19 has not been ruled out, quarantine in a single-bed room is needed, they wrote. The patient should be monitored for clinical manifestations of the disease, and undergo COVID-19 nucleic acid testing as soon as possible.

After infection control is considered, including limiting risk for infection to health care workers, risk assessment that weighs the relative advantages and disadvantages of treating the cardiovascular disease while preventing transmission can be considered, the investigators wrote.

At all times, transfers to different areas of the hospital and between hospitals should be minimized to reduce the risk for infection transmission.

The authors also recommended the use of “select laboratory tests with definitive sensitivity and specificity for disease diagnosis or assessment.”

For patients with acute aortic syndrome or acute pulmonary embolism, this means CT angiography. When acute pulmonary embolism is suspected, D-dimer testing and deep vein ultrasound can be employed, and for patients with acute coronary syndrome, ordinary electrocardiography and standard biomarkers for cardiac injury are preferred.

In addition, “all patients should undergo lung CT examination to evaluate for imaging features typical of COVID-19. ... Chest x-ray is not recommended because of a high rate of false negative diagnosis,” the authors wrote.

Intervene with caution

Medical therapy should be optimized in patients with emergent cardiovascular issues, with invasive strategies for diagnosis and therapy used “with caution,” according to the Chinese experts.

Conditions for which conservative medical treatment is recommended during COVID-19 pandemic include ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) where thrombolytic therapy is indicated, STEMI when the optimal window for revascularization has passed, high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection, acute pulmonary embolism, acute exacerbation of heart failure, and hypertensive emergency.

“Vigilance should be paid to avoid misdiagnosing patients with pulmonary infarction as COVID-19 pneumonia,” they noted.

Diagnoses warranting invasive intervention are limited to STEMI with hemodynamic instability, life-threatening NSTEMI, Stanford type A or complex type B acute aortic dissection, bradyarrhythmia complicated by syncope or unstable hemodynamics mandating implantation of a device, and pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic instability for whom intravenous thrombolytics are too risky.

Interventions should be done in a cath lab or operating room with negative-pressure ventilation, with strict periprocedural disinfection. Personal protective equipment should also be of the strictest level.

In patients for whom COVID-19 cannot be ruled out presenting in a region with low incidence of COVID-19, interventions should only be considered for more severe cases and undertaken in a cath lab, electrophysiology lab, or operating room “with more than standard disinfection procedures that fulfill regulatory mandates for infection control.”

If negative-pressure ventilation is not available, air conditioning (for example, laminar flow and ventilation) should be stopped.

Establish plans now

“We operationalized all of these strategies at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center several weeks ago, since Boston had that early outbreak with the Biogen conference, but I suspect many institutions nationally are still formulating plans,” said Dhruv Kazi, MD, MSc, in an interview.

Although COVID-19 is “primarily a single-organ disease – it destroys the lungs” – transmission of infection to cardiology providers was an early problem that needed to be addressed, said Dr. Kazi. “We now know that a cardiologist seeing a patient who reports shortness of breath and then leans in to carefully auscultate the lungs and heart can get exposed if not provided adequate personal protective equipment; hence the cancellation of elective procedures, conversion of most elective visits to telemedicine, if possible, and the use of surgical/N95 masks in clinic and on rounds.”

Regarding the CSC recommendation to consider medical over invasive management, Dr. Kazi noteed that this works better in a setting where rapid testing is available. “Where that is not the case – as in the U.S. – resorting to conservative therapy for all COVID suspect cases will result in suboptimal care, particularly when nine out of every 10 COVID suspects will eventually rule out.”

One of his biggest worries now is that patients simply won’t come. Afraid of being exposed to COVID-19, patients with MIs and strokes may avoid or delay coming to the hospital.

“There is some evidence that this occurred in Wuhan, and I’m starting to see anecdotal evidence of this in Boston,” said Dr. Kazi. “We need to remind our patients that, if they experience symptoms of a heart attack or stroke, they deserve the same lifesaving treatment we offered before this pandemic set in. They should not try and sit it out.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Chinese Society of Cardiology (CSC) has issued a consensus statement on the management of cardiac emergencies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The document first appeared in the Chinese Journal of Cardiology, and a translated version was published in Circulation. The consensus statement was developed by 125 medical experts in the fields of cardiovascular disease and infectious disease. This included 23 experts currently working in Wuhan, China.

Three overarching principles guided their recommendations.

• The highest priority is prevention and control of transmission (including protecting staff).
• Patients should be assessed both for COVID-19 and for cardiovascular issues.
• At all times, all interventions and therapies provided should be in concordance with directives of infection control authorities.

“Considering that some asymptomatic patients may be a source of infection and transmission, all patients with severe emergent cardiovascular diseases should be managed as suspected cases of COVID-19 in Hubei Province,” noted writing chair and cardiologist Yaling Han, MD, of the General Hospital of Northern Theater Command in Shenyang, China.

In areas outside Hubei Province, where COVID-19 was less prevalent, this “infected until proven otherwise” approach was also recommended, although not as strictly.

Diagnosing CVD and COVID-19 simultaneously

In patients with emergent cardiovascular needs in whom COVID-19 has not been ruled out, quarantine in a single-bed room is needed, they wrote. The patient should be monitored for clinical manifestations of the disease, and undergo COVID-19 nucleic acid testing as soon as possible.

After infection control is considered, including limiting risk for infection to health care workers, risk assessment that weighs the relative advantages and disadvantages of treating the cardiovascular disease while preventing transmission can be considered, the investigators wrote.

At all times, transfers to different areas of the hospital and between hospitals should be minimized to reduce the risk for infection transmission.

The authors also recommended the use of “select laboratory tests with definitive sensitivity and specificity for disease diagnosis or assessment.”

For patients with acute aortic syndrome or acute pulmonary embolism, this means CT angiography. When acute pulmonary embolism is suspected, D-dimer testing and deep vein ultrasound can be employed, and for patients with acute coronary syndrome, ordinary electrocardiography and standard biomarkers for cardiac injury are preferred.

In addition, “all patients should undergo lung CT examination to evaluate for imaging features typical of COVID-19. ... Chest x-ray is not recommended because of a high rate of false negative diagnosis,” the authors wrote.

Intervene with caution

Medical therapy should be optimized in patients with emergent cardiovascular issues, with invasive strategies for diagnosis and therapy used “with caution,” according to the Chinese experts.

Conditions for which conservative medical treatment is recommended during COVID-19 pandemic include ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) where thrombolytic therapy is indicated, STEMI when the optimal window for revascularization has passed, high-risk non-STEMI (NSTEMI), patients with uncomplicated Stanford type B aortic dissection, acute pulmonary embolism, acute exacerbation of heart failure, and hypertensive emergency.

“Vigilance should be paid to avoid misdiagnosing patients with pulmonary infarction as COVID-19 pneumonia,” they noted.

Diagnoses warranting invasive intervention are limited to STEMI with hemodynamic instability, life-threatening NSTEMI, Stanford type A or complex type B acute aortic dissection, bradyarrhythmia complicated by syncope or unstable hemodynamics mandating implantation of a device, and pulmonary embolism with hemodynamic instability for whom intravenous thrombolytics are too risky.

Interventions should be done in a cath lab or operating room with negative-pressure ventilation, with strict periprocedural disinfection. Personal protective equipment should also be of the strictest level.

In patients for whom COVID-19 cannot be ruled out presenting in a region with low incidence of COVID-19, interventions should only be considered for more severe cases and undertaken in a cath lab, electrophysiology lab, or operating room “with more than standard disinfection procedures that fulfill regulatory mandates for infection control.”

If negative-pressure ventilation is not available, air conditioning (for example, laminar flow and ventilation) should be stopped.

Establish plans now

“We operationalized all of these strategies at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center several weeks ago, since Boston had that early outbreak with the Biogen conference, but I suspect many institutions nationally are still formulating plans,” said Dhruv Kazi, MD, MSc, in an interview.

Although COVID-19 is “primarily a single-organ disease – it destroys the lungs” – transmission of infection to cardiology providers was an early problem that needed to be addressed, said Dr. Kazi. “We now know that a cardiologist seeing a patient who reports shortness of breath and then leans in to carefully auscultate the lungs and heart can get exposed if not provided adequate personal protective equipment; hence the cancellation of elective procedures, conversion of most elective visits to telemedicine, if possible, and the use of surgical/N95 masks in clinic and on rounds.”

Regarding the CSC recommendation to consider medical over invasive management, Dr. Kazi noteed that this works better in a setting where rapid testing is available. “Where that is not the case – as in the U.S. – resorting to conservative therapy for all COVID suspect cases will result in suboptimal care, particularly when nine out of every 10 COVID suspects will eventually rule out.”

One of his biggest worries now is that patients simply won’t come. Afraid of being exposed to COVID-19, patients with MIs and strokes may avoid or delay coming to the hospital.

“There is some evidence that this occurred in Wuhan, and I’m starting to see anecdotal evidence of this in Boston,” said Dr. Kazi. “We need to remind our patients that, if they experience symptoms of a heart attack or stroke, they deserve the same lifesaving treatment we offered before this pandemic set in. They should not try and sit it out.”

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization on March 28, 2020, allowing for the usage of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate products in certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The products, currently stored by the Strategic National Stockpile, will be distributed by the SNS to states so that doctors may prescribe the drugs to adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the absence of appropriate or feasible clinical trials. The SNS will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ship the products to states.

According to the Emergency Use Authorization, fact sheets will be provided to health care providers and patients with important information about hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate, including the risks of using them to treat COVID-19.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization on March 28, 2020, allowing for the usage of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate products in certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The products, currently stored by the Strategic National Stockpile, will be distributed by the SNS to states so that doctors may prescribe the drugs to adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the absence of appropriate or feasible clinical trials. The SNS will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ship the products to states.

According to the Emergency Use Authorization, fact sheets will be provided to health care providers and patients with important information about hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate, including the risks of using them to treat COVID-19.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration issued an Emergency Use Authorization on March 28, 2020, allowing for the usage of hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate products in certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

The products, currently stored by the Strategic National Stockpile, will be distributed by the SNS to states so that doctors may prescribe the drugs to adolescent and adult patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in the absence of appropriate or feasible clinical trials. The SNS will work with the Federal Emergency Management Agency to ship the products to states.

According to the Emergency Use Authorization, fact sheets will be provided to health care providers and patients with important information about hydroxychloroquine sulfate and chloroquine phosphate, including the risks of using them to treat COVID-19.

[email protected]

Up to 20% of patients in medical settings experience health anxiety.^1,2 In DSM-IV-TR, this condition was called hypochondriasis, and its core feature was having a preoccupation with fears or the idea that one has a serious disease based on a misinterpretation of ≥1 bodily signs or symptoms despite undergoing appropriate medical evaluation.³ In DSM-5, hypochondriasis was removed, and somatic symptom disorder and illness anxiety disorder were introduced.¹ Approximately 75% of patients with a previous diagnosis of hypochondriasis meet the diagnostic criteria for somatic symptom disorder, and approximately 25% meet the criteria for illness anxiety disorder.¹ In clinical practice, the less pejorative and more commonly used term for these conditions is “health anxiety.”

Patients with health anxiety can be challenging to treat because they persist in believing they have an illness despite appropriate medical evaluation. Clinicians’ responses to such patients can range from feeling the need to do more to alleviate their suffering to strongly disliking them. Although these patients can elicit negative countertransference, we should remember that their lives are being adversely affected due to the substantial functional impairment they experience from their health worries. As psychiatrists, we can help our patients with health anxiety by employing the following strategies.

Maintain constant communication with other clinicians who manage the patient’s medical complaints. A clear line of communication with other clinicians can help minimize inconsistent or conflicting messages and potentially reduce splitting. This also can allow other clinicians to air their concerns, and for you to emphasize to them that patients with health anxiety can have an actual medical disease.

Allow patients to discuss their symptoms without interrupting them. This will help them understand that you are listening to them and taking their worries seriously.² Elicit further discussion by asking them about²:

• their perception of their health
• how frequently they worry about their health
• fears about what could happen
• triggers for their worries
• how seriously they feel other clinicians regard their concerns
• behaviors they use to subdue their worries
• avoidance behaviors
• the impact their worries have on their lives.

Assess patients for the presence of comorbid mental health conditions such as anxiety disorders, mood disorders, psychotic disorders, personality disorders, and substance use disorders. Treating these conditions can help reduce your patients’ health anxiety–related distress and impairment.

Acknowledge that your patients’ symptoms are real to them and genuinely experienced.² By focusing on worry as the most important symptom and recognizing how discomforting and serious that worry can be, you can validate your patients’ feelings and increase their motivation for continuing treatment.²

Avoid reassuring patients that they are medically healthy, because any relief your patients gain from this can quickly fade, and their anxiety may worsen.² Instead, acknowledge their concerns by saying, “It’s clear that you are worried about your health. We have ways of helping this, and this will not affect any other treatment you are receiving.”² This could allow your patients to recognize that they have health anxiety without believing that their medical problems will be disregarded or dismissed.²

Explain to patients that their perceptions could be symptoms of anxiety instead of an actual medical illness, equating health anxiety to a false alarm.² Ask patients to summarize any information you present to them, because misinterpreting health information is a core feature of health anxiety.²

Up to 20% of patients in medical settings experience health anxiety.^1,2 In DSM-IV-TR, this condition was called hypochondriasis, and its core feature was having a preoccupation with fears or the idea that one has a serious disease based on a misinterpretation of ≥1 bodily signs or symptoms despite undergoing appropriate medical evaluation.³ In DSM-5, hypochondriasis was removed, and somatic symptom disorder and illness anxiety disorder were introduced.¹ Approximately 75% of patients with a previous diagnosis of hypochondriasis meet the diagnostic criteria for somatic symptom disorder, and approximately 25% meet the criteria for illness anxiety disorder.¹ In clinical practice, the less pejorative and more commonly used term for these conditions is “health anxiety.”

Patients with health anxiety can be challenging to treat because they persist in believing they have an illness despite appropriate medical evaluation. Clinicians’ responses to such patients can range from feeling the need to do more to alleviate their suffering to strongly disliking them. Although these patients can elicit negative countertransference, we should remember that their lives are being adversely affected due to the substantial functional impairment they experience from their health worries. As psychiatrists, we can help our patients with health anxiety by employing the following strategies.

Maintain constant communication with other clinicians who manage the patient’s medical complaints. A clear line of communication with other clinicians can help minimize inconsistent or conflicting messages and potentially reduce splitting. This also can allow other clinicians to air their concerns, and for you to emphasize to them that patients with health anxiety can have an actual medical disease.

Allow patients to discuss their symptoms without interrupting them. This will help them understand that you are listening to them and taking their worries seriously.² Elicit further discussion by asking them about²:

• their perception of their health
• how frequently they worry about their health
• fears about what could happen
• triggers for their worries
• how seriously they feel other clinicians regard their concerns
• behaviors they use to subdue their worries
• avoidance behaviors
• the impact their worries have on their lives.

Assess patients for the presence of comorbid mental health conditions such as anxiety disorders, mood disorders, psychotic disorders, personality disorders, and substance use disorders. Treating these conditions can help reduce your patients’ health anxiety–related distress and impairment.

Acknowledge that your patients’ symptoms are real to them and genuinely experienced.² By focusing on worry as the most important symptom and recognizing how discomforting and serious that worry can be, you can validate your patients’ feelings and increase their motivation for continuing treatment.²

Avoid reassuring patients that they are medically healthy, because any relief your patients gain from this can quickly fade, and their anxiety may worsen.² Instead, acknowledge their concerns by saying, “It’s clear that you are worried about your health. We have ways of helping this, and this will not affect any other treatment you are receiving.”² This could allow your patients to recognize that they have health anxiety without believing that their medical problems will be disregarded or dismissed.²

Explain to patients that their perceptions could be symptoms of anxiety instead of an actual medical illness, equating health anxiety to a false alarm.² Ask patients to summarize any information you present to them, because misinterpreting health information is a core feature of health anxiety.²

Up to 20% of patients in medical settings experience health anxiety.^1,2 In DSM-IV-TR, this condition was called hypochondriasis, and its core feature was having a preoccupation with fears or the idea that one has a serious disease based on a misinterpretation of ≥1 bodily signs or symptoms despite undergoing appropriate medical evaluation.³ In DSM-5, hypochondriasis was removed, and somatic symptom disorder and illness anxiety disorder were introduced.¹ Approximately 75% of patients with a previous diagnosis of hypochondriasis meet the diagnostic criteria for somatic symptom disorder, and approximately 25% meet the criteria for illness anxiety disorder.¹ In clinical practice, the less pejorative and more commonly used term for these conditions is “health anxiety.”

Patients with health anxiety can be challenging to treat because they persist in believing they have an illness despite appropriate medical evaluation. Clinicians’ responses to such patients can range from feeling the need to do more to alleviate their suffering to strongly disliking them. Although these patients can elicit negative countertransference, we should remember that their lives are being adversely affected due to the substantial functional impairment they experience from their health worries. As psychiatrists, we can help our patients with health anxiety by employing the following strategies.

Maintain constant communication with other clinicians who manage the patient’s medical complaints. A clear line of communication with other clinicians can help minimize inconsistent or conflicting messages and potentially reduce splitting. This also can allow other clinicians to air their concerns, and for you to emphasize to them that patients with health anxiety can have an actual medical disease.

Allow patients to discuss their symptoms without interrupting them. This will help them understand that you are listening to them and taking their worries seriously.² Elicit further discussion by asking them about²:

• their perception of their health
• how frequently they worry about their health
• fears about what could happen
• triggers for their worries
• how seriously they feel other clinicians regard their concerns
• behaviors they use to subdue their worries
• avoidance behaviors
• the impact their worries have on their lives.

Assess patients for the presence of comorbid mental health conditions such as anxiety disorders, mood disorders, psychotic disorders, personality disorders, and substance use disorders. Treating these conditions can help reduce your patients’ health anxiety–related distress and impairment.

Acknowledge that your patients’ symptoms are real to them and genuinely experienced.² By focusing on worry as the most important symptom and recognizing how discomforting and serious that worry can be, you can validate your patients’ feelings and increase their motivation for continuing treatment.²

Avoid reassuring patients that they are medically healthy, because any relief your patients gain from this can quickly fade, and their anxiety may worsen.² Instead, acknowledge their concerns by saying, “It’s clear that you are worried about your health. We have ways of helping this, and this will not affect any other treatment you are receiving.”² This could allow your patients to recognize that they have health anxiety without believing that their medical problems will be disregarded or dismissed.²

Explain to patients that their perceptions could be symptoms of anxiety instead of an actual medical illness, equating health anxiety to a false alarm.² Ask patients to summarize any information you present to them, because misinterpreting health information is a core feature of health anxiety.²

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the immunotherapy durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) in combination with etoposide and either carboplatin or cisplatin as first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).

Durvalumab plus chemotherapy “can be considered a new standard in ES-SCLC,” said Myung-Ju Ahn, MD, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, last year at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) annual meeting, where he discussed results from the phase 3 trial known as CASPIAN.

The new approval is based on efficacy and safety data from that trial, conducted in patients with previously untreated ES-SCLC. In the experimental group (n = 268), durvalumab plus etoposide and a platinum agent (EP) was followed by maintenance durvalumab, and in the control group (n = 269) patients received the EP regimen alone.

Median overall survival (OS) was 13 months in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group compared with 10.3 months in the chemotherapy alone group (hazard ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.91; P = .0047).

Reporting these results, trial investigator Luis Paz-Ares, MD, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, put the new survival benefit in the context of standard treatments at the ESMO meeting last year.

“Initial response rates to etoposide plus a platinum are high, but responses are not durable and patients treated with EP typically relapse within 6 months of starting treatment with a median OS of approximately 10 months,” he said.

In addition to the primary endpoint of OS, additional efficacy outcome measures were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR).

Median PFS was not statistically significant with immunotherapy; it was 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.7-6.2) in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group and 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.8-6.2) in the chemotherapy alone group (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94).

The investigator-assessed ORR was 68% in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group and 58% in the chemotherapy alone group.

The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) in patients with ES-SCLC were nausea, fatigue/asthenia, and alopecia, according to the FDA.

At ESMO, Paz-Ares reported that rates of serious adverse events (AEs) were comparable at 30.9% and 36.1% for the durvalumab plus EP group vs. EP alone, respectively; rates of AEs leading to discontinuation were identical in both groups at 9.4%. Unsurprisingly, immune-mediated AEs were higher at 19.6% in the durvalumab combination group vs. 2.6% in the EP alone group.

In this setting, durvalumab is administered prior to chemotherapy on the same day. The recommended durvalumab dose (when administered with etoposide and carboplatin or cisplatin) is 1,500 mg every 3 weeks prior to chemotherapy and then every 4 weeks as a single-agent maintenance therapy.

Durvalumab is already approved for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer in patients whose tumors have only spread in the chest, and is also approved for use in urothelial cancer.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the immunotherapy durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) in combination with etoposide and either carboplatin or cisplatin as first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).

Durvalumab plus chemotherapy “can be considered a new standard in ES-SCLC,” said Myung-Ju Ahn, MD, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, last year at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) annual meeting, where he discussed results from the phase 3 trial known as CASPIAN.

The new approval is based on efficacy and safety data from that trial, conducted in patients with previously untreated ES-SCLC. In the experimental group (n = 268), durvalumab plus etoposide and a platinum agent (EP) was followed by maintenance durvalumab, and in the control group (n = 269) patients received the EP regimen alone.

Median overall survival (OS) was 13 months in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group compared with 10.3 months in the chemotherapy alone group (hazard ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.91; P = .0047).

Reporting these results, trial investigator Luis Paz-Ares, MD, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, put the new survival benefit in the context of standard treatments at the ESMO meeting last year.

“Initial response rates to etoposide plus a platinum are high, but responses are not durable and patients treated with EP typically relapse within 6 months of starting treatment with a median OS of approximately 10 months,” he said.

In addition to the primary endpoint of OS, additional efficacy outcome measures were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR).

Median PFS was not statistically significant with immunotherapy; it was 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.7-6.2) in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group and 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.8-6.2) in the chemotherapy alone group (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94).

The investigator-assessed ORR was 68% in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group and 58% in the chemotherapy alone group.

The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) in patients with ES-SCLC were nausea, fatigue/asthenia, and alopecia, according to the FDA.

At ESMO, Paz-Ares reported that rates of serious adverse events (AEs) were comparable at 30.9% and 36.1% for the durvalumab plus EP group vs. EP alone, respectively; rates of AEs leading to discontinuation were identical in both groups at 9.4%. Unsurprisingly, immune-mediated AEs were higher at 19.6% in the durvalumab combination group vs. 2.6% in the EP alone group.

In this setting, durvalumab is administered prior to chemotherapy on the same day. The recommended durvalumab dose (when administered with etoposide and carboplatin or cisplatin) is 1,500 mg every 3 weeks prior to chemotherapy and then every 4 weeks as a single-agent maintenance therapy.

Durvalumab is already approved for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer in patients whose tumors have only spread in the chest, and is also approved for use in urothelial cancer.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Food and Drug Administration has approved the immunotherapy durvalumab (Imfinzi, AstraZeneca) in combination with etoposide and either carboplatin or cisplatin as first-line treatment of patients with extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC).

Durvalumab plus chemotherapy “can be considered a new standard in ES-SCLC,” said Myung-Ju Ahn, MD, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea, last year at the European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) annual meeting, where he discussed results from the phase 3 trial known as CASPIAN.

The new approval is based on efficacy and safety data from that trial, conducted in patients with previously untreated ES-SCLC. In the experimental group (n = 268), durvalumab plus etoposide and a platinum agent (EP) was followed by maintenance durvalumab, and in the control group (n = 269) patients received the EP regimen alone.

Median overall survival (OS) was 13 months in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group compared with 10.3 months in the chemotherapy alone group (hazard ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.59-0.91; P = .0047).

Reporting these results, trial investigator Luis Paz-Ares, MD, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, put the new survival benefit in the context of standard treatments at the ESMO meeting last year.

“Initial response rates to etoposide plus a platinum are high, but responses are not durable and patients treated with EP typically relapse within 6 months of starting treatment with a median OS of approximately 10 months,” he said.

In addition to the primary endpoint of OS, additional efficacy outcome measures were investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR).

Median PFS was not statistically significant with immunotherapy; it was 5.1 months (95% CI, 4.7-6.2) in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group and 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.8-6.2) in the chemotherapy alone group (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94).

The investigator-assessed ORR was 68% in the durvalumab plus chemotherapy group and 58% in the chemotherapy alone group.

The most common adverse reactions (≥ 20%) in patients with ES-SCLC were nausea, fatigue/asthenia, and alopecia, according to the FDA.

At ESMO, Paz-Ares reported that rates of serious adverse events (AEs) were comparable at 30.9% and 36.1% for the durvalumab plus EP group vs. EP alone, respectively; rates of AEs leading to discontinuation were identical in both groups at 9.4%. Unsurprisingly, immune-mediated AEs were higher at 19.6% in the durvalumab combination group vs. 2.6% in the EP alone group.

In this setting, durvalumab is administered prior to chemotherapy on the same day. The recommended durvalumab dose (when administered with etoposide and carboplatin or cisplatin) is 1,500 mg every 3 weeks prior to chemotherapy and then every 4 weeks as a single-agent maintenance therapy.

Durvalumab is already approved for metastatic non–small cell lung cancer in patients whose tumors have only spread in the chest, and is also approved for use in urothelial cancer.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

“There is no sound save the throb of the blowers and the vibration of the hard-driven engines. There is little motion as the gun crews man their guns and the fire-control details stand with heads bent and their hands clapped over their headphones. Somewhere out there are the enemy planes.”

That’s from one of my favorite WW2 histories, “Torpedo Junction,” by Robert J. Casey. He was a reporter stationed on board the cruiser USS Salt Lake City. The entry is from a day in February 1942 when the ship was part of a force that bombarded the Japanese encampment on Wake Island. The excerpt describes the scene later that afternoon, as they awaited a counterattack from Japanese planes.

For some reason that paragraph kept going through my mind this past Sunday afternoon, in the comparatively mundane situation of sitting in the hospital library signing off on my dictations and reviewing test results. I certainly was in no danger of being bombed or strafed, yet ...

Around me, the hospital was preparing for battle. As I rounded, most of the beds were empty and many of the floors above me were shut down and darkened. Waiting rooms were empty. If you hadn’t read the news you’d think there was a sudden lull in the health care world.

But the real truth is that it’s the calm before an anticipated storm. The elective procedures have all been canceled. Nonurgent outpatient tests are on hold. Only the sickest are being admitted, and they’re being sent out as soon as possible. Every bed possible is being kept open for the feared onslaught of coronavirus patients in the coming weeks. Protective equipment, already in short supply, is being stockpiled as it becomes available. Plans have been made to erect triage tents in the parking lots. 

I sit in the library and think of this. It’s quiet except for the soft hum of the air conditioning blowers as Phoenix starts to warm up for another summer. The muted purr of the computer’s hard drive as I click away on the keys. On the floors above me the nurses and respiratory techs and doctors go about their daily business of patient care, wondering when the real battle will begin (probably 2-3 weeks from the time of this writing, if not sooner).

These are scary times. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t frightened about what might happen to me, my family, my friends, my coworkers, my patients.

The people working in the hospital above me are in the same boat, all nervous about what’s going to happen. None of them is any more immune to coronavirus than the people they’ll be treating.

But, like the crew of the USS Salt Lake City, they’re ready to do their jobs. Because it’s part of what drove each of us into our own part of this field. Because we care and want to help. And health care doesn’t work unless the whole team does.

I respect them all for it. I always have and always will, and now more than ever.

Good luck.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz. He has no relevant disclosures.

“There is no sound save the throb of the blowers and the vibration of the hard-driven engines. There is little motion as the gun crews man their guns and the fire-control details stand with heads bent and their hands clapped over their headphones. Somewhere out there are the enemy planes.”

That’s from one of my favorite WW2 histories, “Torpedo Junction,” by Robert J. Casey. He was a reporter stationed on board the cruiser USS Salt Lake City. The entry is from a day in February 1942 when the ship was part of a force that bombarded the Japanese encampment on Wake Island. The excerpt describes the scene later that afternoon, as they awaited a counterattack from Japanese planes.

For some reason that paragraph kept going through my mind this past Sunday afternoon, in the comparatively mundane situation of sitting in the hospital library signing off on my dictations and reviewing test results. I certainly was in no danger of being bombed or strafed, yet ...

Around me, the hospital was preparing for battle. As I rounded, most of the beds were empty and many of the floors above me were shut down and darkened. Waiting rooms were empty. If you hadn’t read the news you’d think there was a sudden lull in the health care world.

But the real truth is that it’s the calm before an anticipated storm. The elective procedures have all been canceled. Nonurgent outpatient tests are on hold. Only the sickest are being admitted, and they’re being sent out as soon as possible. Every bed possible is being kept open for the feared onslaught of coronavirus patients in the coming weeks. Protective equipment, already in short supply, is being stockpiled as it becomes available. Plans have been made to erect triage tents in the parking lots. 

I sit in the library and think of this. It’s quiet except for the soft hum of the air conditioning blowers as Phoenix starts to warm up for another summer. The muted purr of the computer’s hard drive as I click away on the keys. On the floors above me the nurses and respiratory techs and doctors go about their daily business of patient care, wondering when the real battle will begin (probably 2-3 weeks from the time of this writing, if not sooner).

These are scary times. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t frightened about what might happen to me, my family, my friends, my coworkers, my patients.

The people working in the hospital above me are in the same boat, all nervous about what’s going to happen. None of them is any more immune to coronavirus than the people they’ll be treating.

But, like the crew of the USS Salt Lake City, they’re ready to do their jobs. Because it’s part of what drove each of us into our own part of this field. Because we care and want to help. And health care doesn’t work unless the whole team does.

I respect them all for it. I always have and always will, and now more than ever.

Good luck.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz. He has no relevant disclosures.

“There is no sound save the throb of the blowers and the vibration of the hard-driven engines. There is little motion as the gun crews man their guns and the fire-control details stand with heads bent and their hands clapped over their headphones. Somewhere out there are the enemy planes.”

That’s from one of my favorite WW2 histories, “Torpedo Junction,” by Robert J. Casey. He was a reporter stationed on board the cruiser USS Salt Lake City. The entry is from a day in February 1942 when the ship was part of a force that bombarded the Japanese encampment on Wake Island. The excerpt describes the scene later that afternoon, as they awaited a counterattack from Japanese planes.

For some reason that paragraph kept going through my mind this past Sunday afternoon, in the comparatively mundane situation of sitting in the hospital library signing off on my dictations and reviewing test results. I certainly was in no danger of being bombed or strafed, yet ...

Around me, the hospital was preparing for battle. As I rounded, most of the beds were empty and many of the floors above me were shut down and darkened. Waiting rooms were empty. If you hadn’t read the news you’d think there was a sudden lull in the health care world.

But the real truth is that it’s the calm before an anticipated storm. The elective procedures have all been canceled. Nonurgent outpatient tests are on hold. Only the sickest are being admitted, and they’re being sent out as soon as possible. Every bed possible is being kept open for the feared onslaught of coronavirus patients in the coming weeks. Protective equipment, already in short supply, is being stockpiled as it becomes available. Plans have been made to erect triage tents in the parking lots. 

I sit in the library and think of this. It’s quiet except for the soft hum of the air conditioning blowers as Phoenix starts to warm up for another summer. The muted purr of the computer’s hard drive as I click away on the keys. On the floors above me the nurses and respiratory techs and doctors go about their daily business of patient care, wondering when the real battle will begin (probably 2-3 weeks from the time of this writing, if not sooner).

These are scary times. I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t frightened about what might happen to me, my family, my friends, my coworkers, my patients.

The people working in the hospital above me are in the same boat, all nervous about what’s going to happen. None of them is any more immune to coronavirus than the people they’ll be treating.

But, like the crew of the USS Salt Lake City, they’re ready to do their jobs. Because it’s part of what drove each of us into our own part of this field. Because we care and want to help. And health care doesn’t work unless the whole team does.

I respect them all for it. I always have and always will, and now more than ever.

Good luck.

Dr. Block has a solo neurology practice in Scottsdale, Ariz. He has no relevant disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ixekizumab for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients aged 6-17 years, according to an announcement from Lilly.

Patients need to be candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and have no known hypersensitivity to the biologic.

The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the interleukin-17a antagonist were demonstrated in a phase 3 study that included 171 patients aged 6-17 years with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. At 12 weeks, 89% those on ixekizumab achieved a 75% improvement on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, compared with 25% of those on placebo, and 81% achieved a static Physician’s Global Assessment of clear or almost clear, compared with 11% of those on placebo, according to the Lilly statement.

The safety profile seen with ixekizumab (Taltz) among the pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis is consistent with what has been observed among adult patients, although there were higher rates of conjunctivitis, influenza, and urticaria among the pediatric patients, the statement noted. The biologic may increase the risk of infection, and patients should be evaluated for tuberculosis, hypersensitivity, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is also recommended that routine immunizations be completed before initiating treatment.

Ixekizumab was initially approved for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2016, followed by approvals for treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis in 2017, and for adults with ankylosing spondylitis in August 2019.

The biologic therapies – etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, and ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12/23 antagonist – were previously approved by the FDA for pediatric psoriasis, in children ages 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively.

Updated prescribing information for ixekizumab can be found on the Lilly website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ixekizumab for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients aged 6-17 years, according to an announcement from Lilly.

Patients need to be candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and have no known hypersensitivity to the biologic.

The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the interleukin-17a antagonist were demonstrated in a phase 3 study that included 171 patients aged 6-17 years with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. At 12 weeks, 89% those on ixekizumab achieved a 75% improvement on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, compared with 25% of those on placebo, and 81% achieved a static Physician’s Global Assessment of clear or almost clear, compared with 11% of those on placebo, according to the Lilly statement.

The safety profile seen with ixekizumab (Taltz) among the pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis is consistent with what has been observed among adult patients, although there were higher rates of conjunctivitis, influenza, and urticaria among the pediatric patients, the statement noted. The biologic may increase the risk of infection, and patients should be evaluated for tuberculosis, hypersensitivity, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is also recommended that routine immunizations be completed before initiating treatment.

Ixekizumab was initially approved for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2016, followed by approvals for treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis in 2017, and for adults with ankylosing spondylitis in August 2019.

The biologic therapies – etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, and ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12/23 antagonist – were previously approved by the FDA for pediatric psoriasis, in children ages 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively.

Updated prescribing information for ixekizumab can be found on the Lilly website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved ixekizumab for treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in patients aged 6-17 years, according to an announcement from Lilly.

Patients need to be candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy and have no known hypersensitivity to the biologic.

The safety, tolerability, and efficacy of the interleukin-17a antagonist were demonstrated in a phase 3 study that included 171 patients aged 6-17 years with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. At 12 weeks, 89% those on ixekizumab achieved a 75% improvement on Psoriasis Area and Severity Index score, compared with 25% of those on placebo, and 81% achieved a static Physician’s Global Assessment of clear or almost clear, compared with 11% of those on placebo, according to the Lilly statement.

The safety profile seen with ixekizumab (Taltz) among the pediatric patients with plaque psoriasis is consistent with what has been observed among adult patients, although there were higher rates of conjunctivitis, influenza, and urticaria among the pediatric patients, the statement noted. The biologic may increase the risk of infection, and patients should be evaluated for tuberculosis, hypersensitivity, and inflammatory bowel disease. It is also recommended that routine immunizations be completed before initiating treatment.

Ixekizumab was initially approved for treating adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in 2016, followed by approvals for treatment of adults with active psoriatic arthritis in 2017, and for adults with ankylosing spondylitis in August 2019.

The biologic therapies – etanercept, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, and ustekinumab (Stelara), an IL-12/23 antagonist – were previously approved by the FDA for pediatric psoriasis, in children ages 4 years and older and 12 years and older, respectively.

Updated prescribing information for ixekizumab can be found on the Lilly website.

[email protected]

Not long ago, weekends for Cornelia Griggs, MD, meant making trips to the grocery store, chasing after two active toddlers, and eating brunch with her husband after a busy work week. But life has changed dramatically for the family since the spread of COVID-19. On a recent weekend, Dr. Griggs and her husband, Robert Goldstone, MD, spent their days off drafting a will.

Courtesy Dr. Cornelia Griggs

“We’re both doctors, and we know that health care workers have an increased risk of contracting COVID,” said Dr. Griggs, a pediatric surgery fellow at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “It felt like the responsible thing to do: Have a will in place to make sure our wishes are clear about who would manage our property and assets, and who would take care of our kids – God forbid.”

Outlining their final wishes is among many difficult decisions the doctors, both 36, have been forced to make in recent weeks. Dr. Goldstone, a general surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, is no longer returning to New York during his time off, said Dr. Griggs, who has had known COVID-19 exposures. The couple’s children, aged 4 and almost 2, are temporarily living with their grandparents in Connecticut to decrease their exposure risk.

“I felt like it was safer for all of them to be there while I was going back and forth from the hospital,” Dr. Griggs said. “My husband is in Boston. The kids are in Connecticut and I’m in New York. That inherently is hard because our whole family is split up. I don’t know when it will be safe for me to see them again.”

Health professional couples across the country are facing similar challenges as they navigate the risk of contracting COVID-19 at work, while trying to protect their families at home. From childcare dilemmas to quarantine quandaries to end-of-life considerations, partners who work in health care are confronting tough questions as the pandemic continues.

Courtesy Dr. Angela Weyand

Courtesy Dr. Bethany Agusala

Courtesy Dr. Sathya

Editor's Note, 3/31/20: Due to incorrect information provided, the hospital where Dr. Sathya's wife works was misidentified. We have removed the name of that hospital. The story does not include his wife's employer, because Dr. Sathya did not have permission to disclose her workplace and she wishes to remain anonymous.

[email protected]

Not long ago, weekends for Cornelia Griggs, MD, meant making trips to the grocery store, chasing after two active toddlers, and eating brunch with her husband after a busy work week. But life has changed dramatically for the family since the spread of COVID-19. On a recent weekend, Dr. Griggs and her husband, Robert Goldstone, MD, spent their days off drafting a will.

Courtesy Dr. Cornelia Griggs

“We’re both doctors, and we know that health care workers have an increased risk of contracting COVID,” said Dr. Griggs, a pediatric surgery fellow at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “It felt like the responsible thing to do: Have a will in place to make sure our wishes are clear about who would manage our property and assets, and who would take care of our kids – God forbid.”

Outlining their final wishes is among many difficult decisions the doctors, both 36, have been forced to make in recent weeks. Dr. Goldstone, a general surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, is no longer returning to New York during his time off, said Dr. Griggs, who has had known COVID-19 exposures. The couple’s children, aged 4 and almost 2, are temporarily living with their grandparents in Connecticut to decrease their exposure risk.

“I felt like it was safer for all of them to be there while I was going back and forth from the hospital,” Dr. Griggs said. “My husband is in Boston. The kids are in Connecticut and I’m in New York. That inherently is hard because our whole family is split up. I don’t know when it will be safe for me to see them again.”

Health professional couples across the country are facing similar challenges as they navigate the risk of contracting COVID-19 at work, while trying to protect their families at home. From childcare dilemmas to quarantine quandaries to end-of-life considerations, partners who work in health care are confronting tough questions as the pandemic continues.

Courtesy Dr. Angela Weyand

Courtesy Dr. Bethany Agusala

Courtesy Dr. Sathya

Editor's Note, 3/31/20: Due to incorrect information provided, the hospital where Dr. Sathya's wife works was misidentified. We have removed the name of that hospital. The story does not include his wife's employer, because Dr. Sathya did not have permission to disclose her workplace and she wishes to remain anonymous.

[email protected]

Not long ago, weekends for Cornelia Griggs, MD, meant making trips to the grocery store, chasing after two active toddlers, and eating brunch with her husband after a busy work week. But life has changed dramatically for the family since the spread of COVID-19. On a recent weekend, Dr. Griggs and her husband, Robert Goldstone, MD, spent their days off drafting a will.

Courtesy Dr. Cornelia Griggs

“We’re both doctors, and we know that health care workers have an increased risk of contracting COVID,” said Dr. Griggs, a pediatric surgery fellow at Columbia University Irving Medical Center in New York. “It felt like the responsible thing to do: Have a will in place to make sure our wishes are clear about who would manage our property and assets, and who would take care of our kids – God forbid.”

Outlining their final wishes is among many difficult decisions the doctors, both 36, have been forced to make in recent weeks. Dr. Goldstone, a general surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, is no longer returning to New York during his time off, said Dr. Griggs, who has had known COVID-19 exposures. The couple’s children, aged 4 and almost 2, are temporarily living with their grandparents in Connecticut to decrease their exposure risk.

“I felt like it was safer for all of them to be there while I was going back and forth from the hospital,” Dr. Griggs said. “My husband is in Boston. The kids are in Connecticut and I’m in New York. That inherently is hard because our whole family is split up. I don’t know when it will be safe for me to see them again.”

Health professional couples across the country are facing similar challenges as they navigate the risk of contracting COVID-19 at work, while trying to protect their families at home. From childcare dilemmas to quarantine quandaries to end-of-life considerations, partners who work in health care are confronting tough questions as the pandemic continues.

Courtesy Dr. Angela Weyand

Courtesy Dr. Bethany Agusala

Courtesy Dr. Sathya

Editor's Note, 3/31/20: Due to incorrect information provided, the hospital where Dr. Sathya's wife works was misidentified. We have removed the name of that hospital. The story does not include his wife's employer, because Dr. Sathya did not have permission to disclose her workplace and she wishes to remain anonymous.

[email protected]

AstraZeneca has announced that the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial for dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with chronic kidney disease has been halted early because of overwhelming efficacy of the drug, at the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee.

DAPA-CKD is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded trial in 4,245 patients with stage 2-4 chronic kidney disease. Patients received either 10 mg of the dapagliflozin once-daily or a placebo. The primary composite endpoint is worsening of renal function, defined as a composite of an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of at least 50%, onset of end-stage kidney disease, and death from cardiovascular or renal cause.

The decision to stop the trial came after a routine assessment of efficacy and safety that showed dapagliflozin’s benefits significantly earlier than expected. AstraZeneca will initiate closure of the study, and results will be published and submitted for presentation at a forthcoming medical meeting.

Dapagliflozin is a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor currently indicated for the treatment type 2 diabetes patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes and for reduction of the risk of hospitalization for heart failure. In August 2019, the drug was granted Fast Track status by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic kidney disease. In January 2020, the agency also granted Fast Track status for the reduction of risk of cardiovascular death or worsening of heart failure in adult patients, regardless of diabetes status, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“Chronic kidney disease patients have limited treatment options, particularly those without type-2 diabetes. We are very pleased the data monitoring committee concluded that patients experienced overwhelming benefit. Farxiga has the potential to change the management of chronic kidney disease for patients around the world,” Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said in the press release.

[email protected]

AstraZeneca has announced that the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial for dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with chronic kidney disease has been halted early because of overwhelming efficacy of the drug, at the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee.

DAPA-CKD is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded trial in 4,245 patients with stage 2-4 chronic kidney disease. Patients received either 10 mg of the dapagliflozin once-daily or a placebo. The primary composite endpoint is worsening of renal function, defined as a composite of an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of at least 50%, onset of end-stage kidney disease, and death from cardiovascular or renal cause.

The decision to stop the trial came after a routine assessment of efficacy and safety that showed dapagliflozin’s benefits significantly earlier than expected. AstraZeneca will initiate closure of the study, and results will be published and submitted for presentation at a forthcoming medical meeting.

Dapagliflozin is a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor currently indicated for the treatment type 2 diabetes patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes and for reduction of the risk of hospitalization for heart failure. In August 2019, the drug was granted Fast Track status by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic kidney disease. In January 2020, the agency also granted Fast Track status for the reduction of risk of cardiovascular death or worsening of heart failure in adult patients, regardless of diabetes status, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“Chronic kidney disease patients have limited treatment options, particularly those without type-2 diabetes. We are very pleased the data monitoring committee concluded that patients experienced overwhelming benefit. Farxiga has the potential to change the management of chronic kidney disease for patients around the world,” Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said in the press release.

[email protected]

AstraZeneca has announced that the phase 3 DAPA-CKD trial for dapagliflozin (Farxiga) in patients with chronic kidney disease has been halted early because of overwhelming efficacy of the drug, at the recommendation of an independent data monitoring committee.

DAPA-CKD is an international, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded trial in 4,245 patients with stage 2-4 chronic kidney disease. Patients received either 10 mg of the dapagliflozin once-daily or a placebo. The primary composite endpoint is worsening of renal function, defined as a composite of an estimated glomerular filtration rate decline of at least 50%, onset of end-stage kidney disease, and death from cardiovascular or renal cause.

The decision to stop the trial came after a routine assessment of efficacy and safety that showed dapagliflozin’s benefits significantly earlier than expected. AstraZeneca will initiate closure of the study, and results will be published and submitted for presentation at a forthcoming medical meeting.

Dapagliflozin is a sodium-glucose transporter 2 inhibitor currently indicated for the treatment type 2 diabetes patients with inadequately controlled type 2 diabetes and for reduction of the risk of hospitalization for heart failure. In August 2019, the drug was granted Fast Track status by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of chronic kidney disease. In January 2020, the agency also granted Fast Track status for the reduction of risk of cardiovascular death or worsening of heart failure in adult patients, regardless of diabetes status, with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction.

“Chronic kidney disease patients have limited treatment options, particularly those without type-2 diabetes. We are very pleased the data monitoring committee concluded that patients experienced overwhelming benefit. Farxiga has the potential to change the management of chronic kidney disease for patients around the world,” Mene Pangalos, executive vice president of BioPharmaceuticals R&D, said in the press release.

[email protected]

The 2019-2020 flu paradox continues in the United States: Fewer respiratory samples are testing positive for influenza, but more people are seeking care for respiratory symptoms because of COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Positive tests of respiratory samples in clinical laboratories were down to 6.9% for the week ending March 21, compared with 14.9% the week before, but outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) rose from 5.6% of all visits to 6.2% for third week of March, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

The CDC defines ILI as “fever (temperature of 100°F [37.8°C] or greater) and a cough and/or a sore throat without a known cause other than influenza.” The outpatient ILI visit rate needs to get below the national baseline of 2.4% for the CDC to call the end of the 2019-2020 flu season.

This week’s map shows that fewer states are at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale: 33 states plus Puerto Rico for the week ending March 21, compared with 35 and Puerto Rico the previous week. The number of states at level 10 had risen the two previous weeks, CDC data show.

“Influenza severity indicators remain moderate to low overall, but hospitalization rates differ by age group, with high rates among children and young adults,” the influenza division said.

Overall mortality also has not been high, but 155 children have died from the flu so far in 2019-2020, which is more than any season since the 2009 pandemic, the CDC noted.

[email protected]

The 2019-2020 flu paradox continues in the United States: Fewer respiratory samples are testing positive for influenza, but more people are seeking care for respiratory symptoms because of COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Positive tests of respiratory samples in clinical laboratories were down to 6.9% for the week ending March 21, compared with 14.9% the week before, but outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) rose from 5.6% of all visits to 6.2% for third week of March, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

The CDC defines ILI as “fever (temperature of 100°F [37.8°C] or greater) and a cough and/or a sore throat without a known cause other than influenza.” The outpatient ILI visit rate needs to get below the national baseline of 2.4% for the CDC to call the end of the 2019-2020 flu season.

This week’s map shows that fewer states are at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale: 33 states plus Puerto Rico for the week ending March 21, compared with 35 and Puerto Rico the previous week. The number of states at level 10 had risen the two previous weeks, CDC data show.

“Influenza severity indicators remain moderate to low overall, but hospitalization rates differ by age group, with high rates among children and young adults,” the influenza division said.

Overall mortality also has not been high, but 155 children have died from the flu so far in 2019-2020, which is more than any season since the 2009 pandemic, the CDC noted.

[email protected]

The 2019-2020 flu paradox continues in the United States: Fewer respiratory samples are testing positive for influenza, but more people are seeking care for respiratory symptoms because of COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Positive tests of respiratory samples in clinical laboratories were down to 6.9% for the week ending March 21, compared with 14.9% the week before, but outpatient visits for influenza-like illness (ILI) rose from 5.6% of all visits to 6.2% for third week of March, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

The CDC defines ILI as “fever (temperature of 100°F [37.8°C] or greater) and a cough and/or a sore throat without a known cause other than influenza.” The outpatient ILI visit rate needs to get below the national baseline of 2.4% for the CDC to call the end of the 2019-2020 flu season.

This week’s map shows that fewer states are at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale: 33 states plus Puerto Rico for the week ending March 21, compared with 35 and Puerto Rico the previous week. The number of states at level 10 had risen the two previous weeks, CDC data show.

“Influenza severity indicators remain moderate to low overall, but hospitalization rates differ by age group, with high rates among children and young adults,” the influenza division said.

Overall mortality also has not been high, but 155 children have died from the flu so far in 2019-2020, which is more than any season since the 2009 pandemic, the CDC noted.

[email protected]

From the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Hematology Oncology, Birmingham, AL, and the University of South Alabama, Division of Hematology Oncology, Mobile, AL. Dr. Paluri and Dr. Hatic contributed equally to this article.

Abstract

• Objective: To review systemic treatment options for patients with locally advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
• Methods: Review of the literature.
• Results: The paradigm of what constitutes first-line treatment for advanced HCC is shifting. Until recently, many patients with advanced HCC were treated with repeated locoregional therapies, such as transartertial embolization (TACE). However, retrospective studies suggest that continuing TACE after refractoriness or failure may not be beneficial and may delay subsequent treatments because of deterioration of liver function or declines in performance status. With recent approvals of several systemic therapy options, including immunotherapy, it is vital to conduct a risk-benefit assessment prior to repeating TACE after failure, so that patients are not denied the use of available systemic therapeutic options due to declined performance status or organ function from these procedures. The optimal timing and the sequence of systemic and locoregional therapy must be carefully evaluated by a multidisciplinary team.
• Conclusion: Randomized clinical trials to improve patient selection and determine the proper sequence of treatments are needed. Given the heterogeneity of HCC, molecular profiling of the tumor to differentiate responders from nonresponders may elucidate potential biomarkers to effectively guide treatment recommendations.

Keywords: liver cancer; molecular therapy; immunotherapy.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents 90% of primary liver malignancies. It is the fifth most common malignancy in males and the ninth most common in females worldwide.¹ In contrast to other major cancers (colon, breast, prostate), the incidence of and mortality from HCC has increased over the past decade, following a brief decline between 1999 and 2004.² The epidemiology and incidence of HCC is closely linked to chronic liver disease and conditions predisposing to liver cirrhosis. Worldwide, hepatitis B virus infection is the leading cause of liver cirrhosis and, hence, HCC. In the United States, 50% of HCC cases are linked to hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Diabetes mellitus and alcoholic and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are the other major etiologies of HCC. Indeed, the metabolic syndrome, independent of other factors, is associated with a 2-fold increase in the risk of HCC.³

Although most cases of HCC are predated by liver cirrhosis, in about 20% of patients HCC occurs without liver cirrhosis.⁴ Similar to other malignancies, surgery in the form of resection (for isolated lesions in the context of good liver function) or liver transplant (for low-volume disease with mildly impaired liver function) provides the best chance of a cure. Locoregional therapies involving hepatic artery–directed therapy are offered for patients with more advanced disease that is limited to the liver, while systemic therapy is offered for advanced unresectable disease that involves portal vein invasion, lymph nodes, and distant metastasis. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system is the most widely used for staging and treatment in HCC. It not only considers the size of the tumor, but also incorporates the degree of liver dysfunction and the patient’s functional status.^5,6

Molecular Pathogenesis

Similar to other malignancies, a multistep process of carcinogenesis, with accumulation of genomic alterations at the molecular and cellular levels, is recognized in HCC. In about 80% of cases, repeated and chronic injury, inflammation, and repair lead to a distortion of normal liver architecture and development of cirrhotic nodules. Exome sequencing of HCC tissues has identified risk factor–specific mutational signatures, including those related to the tumor microenvironment, and defined the extensive landscape of altered genes and pathways in HCC (eg, angiogenic and MET pathways).⁷ In the Schulze et al study, the frequency of alterations that could be targeted by available Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved drugs comprised either amplifications or mutations of FLTs (6%), FGF3 or 4 or 19 (4%), PDGFRs (3%), VEGFA (1%), HGF (3%), MTOR (2%), EGFR (1%), FGFRs (1%), and MET (1%).⁷ Epigenetic modification of growth-factor expression, particularly insulin-like growth factor 2 and transforming growth factor alpha, and structural alterations that lead to loss of heterozygosity are early events that cause hepatocyte proliferation and progression of dysplastic nodules.^8,9 Advances in whole-exome sequencing have identified TERT promoter mutations, leading to activation of telomerase, as an early event in HCC pathogenesis. Other commonly altered genes include CTNNB1 (B-Catenin) and TP53. As a group, alterations in the MAP kinase pathway genes occur in about 40% of HCC cases.

Actionable oncogenic driver alterations are not as common as tumor suppressor pathway alterations in HCC, making targeted drug development challenging.^10,11 The FGFR (fibroblast growth factor receptor) pathway, which plays a critical role in carcinogenesis-related cell growth, survival, neo-angiogenesis, and acquired resistance to other cancer treatments, is being explored as a treatment target.¹² The molecular characterization of HCC may help with identifying new biomarkers and present opportunities for developing therapeutic targets.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 61-year-old man with a history of chronic hepatitis C and hypertension presents to his primary care physician due to right upper quadrant pain. Laboratory evaluation shows transaminases elevated 2 times the upper limit of normal. This leads to an ultrasound and follow-up magnetic resonance imaging. Imaging shows diffuse cirrhotic changes, with a 6-cm, well-circumscribed lesion within the left lobe of the liver that shows rapid arterial enhancement with venous washout. These vascular characteristics are consistent with HCC. In addition, 2 satellite lesions in the left lobe and sonographic evidence of invasion into the portal vein are present. Periportal lymph nodes are pathologically enlarged.

The physical examination is unremarkable, except for mild tenderness over the right upper quadrant of the abdomen. Serum bilirubin, albumin, platelets, and international normalized ratio are normal, and alpha fetoprotein (AFP) is elevated at 1769 ng/mL. The patient’s family history is unremarkable for any major illness or cancer. Computed tomography scan of the chest and pelvis shows no evidence of other lesions. His liver disease is classified as Child–Pugh A. Due to locally advanced presentation, the tumor is deemed to be nontransplantable and unresectable, and is staged as BCLC-C. The patient continues to work and his performance status is ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) 0. He is referred to the liver tumor clinic for further evaluation and management. The tumor board consensus is to initiate systemic treatment.

What systemic treatment would you recommend for this patient with locally advanced unresectable HCC with nodal metastasis?

First-Line Therapeutic Options

Systemic treatment of HCC is challenging because of the underlying liver cirrhosis and hepatic dysfunction present in most patients. Overall prognosis is therefore dependent on the disease biology and burden and on the degree of hepatic dysfunction. These factors must be considered in patients with advanced disease who present for systemic therapy. As such, patients with BCLC class D HCC with poor performance status and impaired liver function are better off with best supportive care and hospice services (Figure). Table 1 and Table 2 outline the landmark trials that led to the approval of agents for advanced HCC treatment.

Sorafenib

In the patient with BCLC class C HCC who has preserved liver function (traditionally based on a Child–Pugh score of ≤ 6 and a decent functional status [ECOG performance status 1-2]), sorafenib is the first FDA-approved first-line treatment. Sorafenib is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) kinase signaling, in addition to many other tyrosine kinase pathways (including the platelet-derived growth factor and Raf-Ras pathways). Evidence for the clinical benefit of sorafenib comes from the SHARP trial.¹³ This was a multinational, but primarily European, randomized phase 3 study that compared sorafenib to best supportive care for advanced HCC in patients with a Child–Pugh score ≤ 6A and a robust performance status (ECOG 0 and 1). Overall survival (OS) with placebo and sorafenib was 7.9 months and 10.7 months, respectively. There was no difference in time to radiologic progression, and the progression-free survival (PFS) at 4 months was 62% with sorafenib and 42% with placebo. Patients with HCV-associated HCC appeared to derive a more substantial benefit from sorafenib.¹⁴ In a smaller randomized study of sorafenib in Asian patients with predominantly hepatitis B–associated HCC, OS in the sorafenib and best supportive care arms was lower than that reported in the SHARP study (6.5 months vs 4.2 months), although OS still was longer in the sorafenib group.¹⁵

Significant adverse events reported with sorafenib include fatigue (30%), hand and foot syndrome (30%), diarrhea (15%), and mucositis (10%). Major proportions of patients in the clinical setting have not tolerated the standard dose of 400 mg twice daily. Dose-adjusted administration of sorafenib has been advocated in patients with more impaired liver function (Child–Pugh class 7B) and bilirubin of 1.5 to 3 times the upper limit of normal, although it is unclear whether these patients are deriving any benefit from sorafenib.¹⁶ At this time, in a patient with preserved liver function, starting with 400 mg twice daily, followed by dose reduction based on toxicity, remains standard.

Lenvatinib

After multiple attempts to develop newer first-line treatments for HCC, lenvatinib, another small-molecule multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR signaling, was approved by the FDA in August 2018. Approval was based on a noninferiority study of lenvatinib versus sorafenib in patients with unresectable, treatment-naïve HCC who had preserved liver function and excellent performance status.¹⁷ Lenvatinib was noninferior to sorafenib, with an OS of 13.6 months versus 12.3 months for sorafenib. Lenvatinib was associated with an improved response rate (24% vs 9%), increased time to disease progression, and longer PFS (7.3 months vs 3.6 months). Patients with a performance status of 0 and 1 were allowed in this trial. Lenvatinib is associated with a more favorable adverse effect profile and is desirable in patients in whom tumor shrinkage is important. Compared to those treated with sorafenib, patients treated with lenvatinib reported a somewhat higher incidence of higher-grade hypertension (42% vs 30%), loss of appetite (34% vs 27%), and weight loss (31%), but lower rates of diarrhea (39% vs 46%) and skin toxicity (27% vs 52%).

Following the sorafenib approval, clinical studies of several other agents did not meet their primary endpoint and failed to show improvement in clinical outcomes compared to sorafenib. However, over the past years the treatment landscape for advanced HCC has been changed with the approval of several agents in the second line. The overall response rate (ORR) has become the new theme for management of advanced disease. With multiple therapeutic options available, optimal sequencing now plays a critical role, especially for transitioning from locoregional to systemic therapy. Five drugs are now indicated for second-line treatment of patients who progressed on or were intolerant to sorafenib: regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab.

Regorafenib

Regorafenib was evaluated in the advanced HCC setting in a single-arm, phase 2 trial involving 36 patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease who had progressed on prior sorafenib.¹⁸ Patients received regorafenib 160 mg orally once daily for 3 weeks on/1 week off cycles. Disease control was achieved in 72% of patients, with stable disease in 25 patients (69%). Based on these results, regorafenib was further evaluated in the multicenter, phase 3, 2:1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled RESORCE study, which enrolled 573 patients.¹⁹ Due to the overlapping safety profiles of sorafenib and regorafenib, the inclusion criteria required patients to have tolerated a sorafenib dose of at least 400 mg daily for 20 of the past 28 days of treatment prior to enrollment. The primary endpoint of the study, OS, was met (median OS of 10.6 months in regorafenib arm versus 7.8 months in placebo arm; hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P < 0.0001). Serious adverse events occurred in 44% of the patients who received regorafenib; the most common were hypertension (15%), hand-foot-skin reaction (HFSR, 13%), fatigue (9%), bleeding events (6%), and diarrhea (3%). Seven (2%) deaths in the regorafenib group were attributable to this drug. HFSR due to regorafenib was found to be associated with better survival outcomes.²⁰ In the selected subpopulation for the study, treatment with the sequence of sorafenib followed by regorafenib resulted in a median OS of 26 months.²¹

Cabozantinib

CELESTIAL was a phase 3, double-blind study that assessed the efficacy of cabozantinib versus placebo in patients with advanced HCC who had received prior sorafenib.²² In this study, 707 patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease who progressed on at least 1 prior systemic therapy were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with cabozantinib at 60 mg daily or placebo. Patients treated with cabozantinib had a longer OS (10.2 months vs 8.0 months), resulting in a 24% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.76), and a longer median PFS (5.2 months versus 1.9 months). The disease control rate was higher with cabozantinib (64% vs 33%) as well. The incidence of high‐grade adverse events in the cabozantinib group was twice that of the placebo group. Common adverse events reported with cabozantinib included HFSR (17%), hypertension (16%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (12%), fatigue (10%), and diarrhea (10%). 

Ramucirumab

REACH was a phase 3 study exploring the efficacy of ramucirumab that did not meet its primary endpoint; however, the subgroup analysis in AFP-high patients showed an OS improvement with ramucirumab.²³ This led to the phase 3 REACH-2 trial, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind biomarker study in patients with advanced HCC who either progressed on or were intolerant to sorafenib and had an AFP level ≥ 400 ng/mL.²⁴ Patients were randomized to ramucirumab 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks or placebo. The study met its primary endpoint, showing improved OS (8.5 months vs 7.3 months; P = 0.0059). The most common treatment-related adverse events in the ramucirumab group were ascites (5%), hypertension (12%), asthenia (5%), malignant neoplasm progression (6%), increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (5%), and thrombocytopenia.

Immunotherapy

HCC is considered an inflammation-induced cancer, which renders immunotherapeutic strategies more appealing. The PD-L1/PD-1 pathway is the critical immune checkpoint mechanism and is an important target for treatment. HCC uses a complex, overlapping set of mechanisms to evade cancer-specific immunity and to suppress the immune system. Initial efforts to develop immunotherapies for HCC focused on anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies. CheckMate 040 evaluated nivolumab in 262 sorafenib-naïve and -treated patients with advanced HCC (98% with Child–Pugh scores of 5 or 6), with a median follow-up of 12.9 months.²⁵ In sorafenib-naïve patients (n = 80), the ORR was 23%, and the disease control rate was 63%. In sorafenib-treated patients (n = 182), the ORR was 18%. Response was not associated with PD-L1 expression. Durable objective responses, a manageable safety profile, and promising efficacy led the FDA to grant accelerated approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with HCC who have been previously treated with sorafenib. Based on this, the phase 3 randomized CheckMate-459 trial evaluated the efficacy of nivolumab versus sorafenib in the first-line. Median OS and ORR were better with nivolumab (16.4 months vs 14.7 months; HR 0.85; P = 0.752; and 15% [with 5 complete responses] vs 7%), as was the safety profile (22% vs 49% reporting grade 3 and 4 adverse events). ²⁶

The KEYNOTE-224 study²⁷ evaluated pembrolizumab in 104 patients with previously treated advanced HCC. This study showed an ORR of 17%, with 1 complete response and 17 partial responses. One-third of the patients had progressive disease, while 46 had stable disease. Among those who responded, 56% maintained a durable response for more than 1 year. Subsequently, in KEYNOTE 240, pembrolizumab showed an improvement in OS (13.9 months vs 10.6 months; HR, 0.78; P = 0.0238) and PFS (3.0 months versus 2.8 months; HR, 0.78; P = 0.0186) compared with placebo.²⁸ The ORR for pembrolizumab was 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7%-21.8%) versus 2.2% (95% CI, 0.5%-6.4%; P = 0.00001) for placebo. Mean duration of response was 13.8 months.

In the IMbrave150 trial, atezolizumab/bevacizumab combination, compared to sorafenib, had better OS (not estimable vs 13.2 months; P = 0.0006), PFS (6.8 months vs 4.5 months, P < 0.0001), and ORR (33% vs 13%, P < 0.0001), but grade 3-4 events were similar.²⁹ This combination has potential for first-line approval. The COSMIC–312 study is comparing the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab to sorafenib monotherapy and cabozantinib monotherapy in advanced HCC.

Resistance to immunotherapy can be extrinsic, associated with activation mechanisms of T-cells, or intrinsic, related to immune recognition, gene expression, and cell-signaling pathways.³⁰ Tumor-immune heterogeneity and antigen presentation contribute to complex resistance mechanisms.^31,32 Although clinical outcomes have improved with immune checkpoint inhibitors, the response rate is low and responses are inconsistent, likely due to an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment.³³ Therefore, several novel combinations of checkpoint inhibitors and targeted drugs are being evaluated to bypass some of the resistance mechanisms (Table 3).

Chemotherapy

Multiple combinations of cytotoxic regimens have been evaluated, but efficacy has been modest, suggesting the limited role for traditional chemotherapy in the systemic management of advanced HCC. Response rates to chemotherapy are low and responses are not durable. Gemcitabine- and doxorubicin-based treatment and FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) are some regimens that have been studied, with a median OS of less than 1 year for these regimens.^34-36 FOLFOX had a higher response rate (8.15% vs 2.67%; P = 0.02) and longer median OS (6.40 months versus 4.97 months; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.02; P = 0.07) than doxorubicin.³⁴ With the gemcitabine/oxaliplatin combination, ORR was 18%, with stable disease in 58% of patients, and median PFS and OS were 6.3 months and 11.5 months, respectively.³⁵ In a study that compared doxorubicin and PIAF (cisplatin/interferon a-2b/doxorubicin/5-fluorouracil), median OS was 6.83 months and 8.67 months, respectively (P = 0.83). The hazard ratio for death from any cause in the PIAF group compared with the doxorubicin group was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.71-1.32). PIAF had a higher ORR (20.9%; 95% CI, 12.5%-29.2%) than doxorubicin (10.5%; 95% CI, 3.9%-16.9%).

The phase 3 ALLIANCE study evaluated the combination of sorafenib and doxorubicin in treatment-naïve HCC patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease, and did not demonstrate superiority with the addition of cytotoxic chemotherapy.³⁷ Indeed, the combination of chemotherapy with sorafenib appears harmful in terms of lower OS (9.3 months vs 10.6 months; HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.8-1.4) and worse toxicity. Patients treated with the combination experienced more hematologic (37.8% vs 8.1%) and nonhematologic adverse events (63.6% vs 61.5%).

Locoregional Therapy

The role of locoregional therapy in advanced HCC remains the subject of intense debate. Patients with BCLC stage C HCC with metastatic disease and those with lymph node involvement are candidates for systemic therapy. The optimal candidate for locoregional therapy is the patient with localized intermediate-stage disease, particularly hepatic artery–delivered therapeutic interventions. However, the presence of a solitary large tumor or portal vein involvement constitutes gray areas regarding which therapy to deliver directly to the tumor via the hepatic artery, and increasingly stereotactic body radiation therapy is being offered.

Transarterial Chemoembolization

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), with or without chemotherapy, is the most widely adopted locoregional therapy in the management of HCC. TACE exploits the differential vascular supply to the HCC and normal liver parenchyma. Normal liver receives only one-fourth of its blood supply from the hepatic artery (three-fourths from the portal vein), whereas HCC is mainly supplied by the hepatic artery. A survival benefit for TACE compared to best supportive care is widely acknowledged for intermediate-stage HCC, and transarterial embolization (TAE) with gelatin sponge or microspheres is noninferior to TACE.^38,39 Overall safety profile and efficacy inform therapy selection in advanced HCC, although the evidence for TACE in advanced HCC is less robust. Although single-institution experiences suggest survival numbers similar to and even superior to sorafenib,^40,41 there is a scarcity of large randomized clinical trial data to back this up. Based on this, patients with advanced HCC should only be offered liver-directed therapy within a clinical trial or on a case-by-case basis under multidisciplinary tumor board consensus.

A serious adverse effect of TACE is post-embolization syndrome, which occurs in about 30% of patients and may be associated with poor prognosis.⁴² The syndrome consists of right upper quadrant abdominal pain, malaise, and worsening nausea/vomiting following the embolization procedure. Laboratory abnormalities and other complications may persist for up to 30 days after the procedure. This is a concern, because post-embolization syndrome may affect the ability to deliver systemic therapy.

Transarterial Radioembolization

In the past few years, there has been an uptick in the utilization of transarterial radioembolization (TARE), which instead of delivering glass beads, as done in TAE, or chemotherapy-infused beads, as done in TACE, delivers the radioisotope Y-90 to the tumor via the hepatic artery. TARE is able to administer larger doses of radiation to the tumor while avoiding normal liver tissue, as compared to external-beam radiation. There has been no head-to-head comparison of these different intra-arterial therapy approaches, but TARE with Y-90 has been shown to be safe in patients with portal vein thrombosis. A recent multicenter retrospective study of TARE demonstrated a median OS of 8.8 to 10.8 months in patients with BCLC C HCC,⁴³ and in a large randomized study of Y-90 compared to sorafenib in advanced and previously treated intermediate HCC, there was no difference in median OS between the treatment modalities (8 months for selective internal radiotherapy, 9 months for sorafenib; P = 0.18). Treatment with Y-90 was better tolerated.⁴⁴ A major impediment to the adoption of TARE is the time it takes to order, plan, and deliver Y-90 to patients. Radio-embolization-induced liver disease, similar to post-embolization syndrome, is characterized by jaundice and ascites, which may occur 4 to 8 weeks postprocedure and is more common in patients with HCC who do not have cirrhosis. Compared to TACE, TARE may offer a better adverse effect profile, with improvement in quality of life.

Combination of Systemic and Locoregional Therapy

Even in carefully selected patients with intermediate- and advanced-stage HCC, locoregional therapy is not curative. Tumor embolization may promote more angiogenesis, and hence tumor progression, by causing hypoxia and upregulation of hypoxia-inducible factor.⁴⁵ This upregulation of angiogenesis as a resistance mechanism to tumor embolization provides a rationale for combining systemic therapy (typically based on abrogating angiogenesis) with TACE/TAE. Most of the experience has been with sorafenib in intermediate-stage disease, and the results have been disappointing. The administration of sorafenib after at least a partial response with TACE did not provide additional benefit in terms of time to progression.⁴⁶ Similarly, in the SPACE trial, concurrent therapy with TACE-doxorubicin-eluting beads and sorafenib compared to TACE-doxorubicin-eluting beads and placebo yielded similar time to progression numbers for both treatment modalities.⁴⁷ While the data have been disappointing in intermediate-stage disease, as described earlier, registry data suggest that patients with advanced-stage disease may benefit from this approach.⁴⁸

In the phase 2 TACTICS trial, 156 patients with unresectable HCC were randomized to receive TACE alone or sorafenib plus TACE, with a novel endpoint, time to untreatable progression (TTUP) and/or progression to TACE refractoriness.⁴⁹ Treatment with sorafenib following TACE was continued until TTUP, decline in liver function to Child–Pugh class C, or the development of vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread. Development of new lesions while on sorafenib was not considered as progressive disease as long as the lesions were amenable to TACE. In this study, PFS was longer with sorafenib-TACE compared to TACE alone (26.7 months vs 20.6 months; P = 0.02). However, the TTUP endpoint needs further validation, and we are still awaiting the survival outcomes of this study. At this time, there are insufficient data to recommend the combination of liver-directed locoregional therapy and sorafenib or other systemic therapy options outside of a clinical trial setting.

Current Treatment Approach for Advanced HCC (BCLC-C)

Although progress is being made in the development of effective therapies, advanced HCC is generally incurable. These patients experience significant symptom burden throughout the course of the disease. Therefore, the optimal treatment plan must focus on improving or maintaining quality of life, in addition to overall efficacy. It is important to actively involve patients in treatment decisions for an individualized treatment plan, and to discuss the best strategy for incorporating current advances in targeted and immunotherapies. The paradigm of what constitutes first-line treatment for advanced HCC is shifting due to the recent systemic therapy approvals. Prior to the availability of these therapies, many patients with advanced HCC were treated with repeated locoregional therapies. For instance, TACE was often used to treat unresectable HCC multiple times beyond progression. There was no consensus on the definition of TACE failure, and hence it was used in broader, unselected populations. Retrospective studies suggest that continuing TACE after refractoriness or failure may not be beneficial, and may delay subsequent treatments because of deterioration of liver function or declines in performance status. With recent approvals of several systemic therapy options, including immunotherapy, it is vital to conduct a risk-benefit assessment prior to repeating TACE after failure, so that patients are not denied the use of available systemic therapeutic options due to declined performance status or organ function from these procedures. The optimal timing and the sequence of systemic and locoregional therapy must be carefully evaluated by a multidisciplinary team.

CASE CONCLUSION

An important part of evaluating a new patient with HCC is to determine whether they are a candidate for curative therapies, such as transplant or surgical resection. These are no longer an option for patients with intermediate disease. For patients with advanced disease characteristics, such as vascular invasion or systemic metastasis, the evidence supports using systemic therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib. Lenvatinib, with a better tolerance profile and response rate, is the treatment of choice for the patient described in the case scenario. Lenvatinib is also indicated for first-line treatment of advanced HCC, and is useful in very aggressive tumors, such as those with an AFP level exceeding 200 ng/mL.

Future Directions

The emerging role of novel systemic therapeutics, including immunotherapy, has drastically changed the treatment landscape for hepatocellular cancers, with 6 new drugs for treating advanced hepatocellular cancers approved recently. While these systemic drugs have improved survival in advanced HCC in the past decade, patient selection and treatment sequencing remain a challenge, due to a lack of biomarkers capable of predicting antitumor responses. In addition, there is an unmet need for treatment options for patients with Child–Pugh class B7 and C liver disease and poor performance status.

The goal of future management should be to achieve personalized care aimed at improved safety and efficacy by targeting multiple cancer pathways in the HCC cascade with combination treatments. Randomized clinical trials to improve patient selection and determine the proper sequence of treatments are needed. Given the heterogeneity of HCC, molecular profiling of the tumor to differentiate responders from nonresponders may elucidate potential biomarkers to effectively guide treatment recommendations.

From the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Hematology Oncology, Birmingham, AL, and the University of South Alabama, Division of Hematology Oncology, Mobile, AL. Dr. Paluri and Dr. Hatic contributed equally to this article.

Abstract

• Objective: To review systemic treatment options for patients with locally advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
• Methods: Review of the literature.
• Results: The paradigm of what constitutes first-line treatment for advanced HCC is shifting. Until recently, many patients with advanced HCC were treated with repeated locoregional therapies, such as transartertial embolization (TACE). However, retrospective studies suggest that continuing TACE after refractoriness or failure may not be beneficial and may delay subsequent treatments because of deterioration of liver function or declines in performance status. With recent approvals of several systemic therapy options, including immunotherapy, it is vital to conduct a risk-benefit assessment prior to repeating TACE after failure, so that patients are not denied the use of available systemic therapeutic options due to declined performance status or organ function from these procedures. The optimal timing and the sequence of systemic and locoregional therapy must be carefully evaluated by a multidisciplinary team.
• Conclusion: Randomized clinical trials to improve patient selection and determine the proper sequence of treatments are needed. Given the heterogeneity of HCC, molecular profiling of the tumor to differentiate responders from nonresponders may elucidate potential biomarkers to effectively guide treatment recommendations.

Keywords: liver cancer; molecular therapy; immunotherapy.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents 90% of primary liver malignancies. It is the fifth most common malignancy in males and the ninth most common in females worldwide.¹ In contrast to other major cancers (colon, breast, prostate), the incidence of and mortality from HCC has increased over the past decade, following a brief decline between 1999 and 2004.² The epidemiology and incidence of HCC is closely linked to chronic liver disease and conditions predisposing to liver cirrhosis. Worldwide, hepatitis B virus infection is the leading cause of liver cirrhosis and, hence, HCC. In the United States, 50% of HCC cases are linked to hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Diabetes mellitus and alcoholic and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are the other major etiologies of HCC. Indeed, the metabolic syndrome, independent of other factors, is associated with a 2-fold increase in the risk of HCC.³

Although most cases of HCC are predated by liver cirrhosis, in about 20% of patients HCC occurs without liver cirrhosis.⁴ Similar to other malignancies, surgery in the form of resection (for isolated lesions in the context of good liver function) or liver transplant (for low-volume disease with mildly impaired liver function) provides the best chance of a cure. Locoregional therapies involving hepatic artery–directed therapy are offered for patients with more advanced disease that is limited to the liver, while systemic therapy is offered for advanced unresectable disease that involves portal vein invasion, lymph nodes, and distant metastasis. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system is the most widely used for staging and treatment in HCC. It not only considers the size of the tumor, but also incorporates the degree of liver dysfunction and the patient’s functional status.^5,6

Molecular Pathogenesis

Similar to other malignancies, a multistep process of carcinogenesis, with accumulation of genomic alterations at the molecular and cellular levels, is recognized in HCC. In about 80% of cases, repeated and chronic injury, inflammation, and repair lead to a distortion of normal liver architecture and development of cirrhotic nodules. Exome sequencing of HCC tissues has identified risk factor–specific mutational signatures, including those related to the tumor microenvironment, and defined the extensive landscape of altered genes and pathways in HCC (eg, angiogenic and MET pathways).⁷ In the Schulze et al study, the frequency of alterations that could be targeted by available Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved drugs comprised either amplifications or mutations of FLTs (6%), FGF3 or 4 or 19 (4%), PDGFRs (3%), VEGFA (1%), HGF (3%), MTOR (2%), EGFR (1%), FGFRs (1%), and MET (1%).⁷ Epigenetic modification of growth-factor expression, particularly insulin-like growth factor 2 and transforming growth factor alpha, and structural alterations that lead to loss of heterozygosity are early events that cause hepatocyte proliferation and progression of dysplastic nodules.^8,9 Advances in whole-exome sequencing have identified TERT promoter mutations, leading to activation of telomerase, as an early event in HCC pathogenesis. Other commonly altered genes include CTNNB1 (B-Catenin) and TP53. As a group, alterations in the MAP kinase pathway genes occur in about 40% of HCC cases.

Actionable oncogenic driver alterations are not as common as tumor suppressor pathway alterations in HCC, making targeted drug development challenging.^10,11 The FGFR (fibroblast growth factor receptor) pathway, which plays a critical role in carcinogenesis-related cell growth, survival, neo-angiogenesis, and acquired resistance to other cancer treatments, is being explored as a treatment target.¹² The molecular characterization of HCC may help with identifying new biomarkers and present opportunities for developing therapeutic targets.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 61-year-old man with a history of chronic hepatitis C and hypertension presents to his primary care physician due to right upper quadrant pain. Laboratory evaluation shows transaminases elevated 2 times the upper limit of normal. This leads to an ultrasound and follow-up magnetic resonance imaging. Imaging shows diffuse cirrhotic changes, with a 6-cm, well-circumscribed lesion within the left lobe of the liver that shows rapid arterial enhancement with venous washout. These vascular characteristics are consistent with HCC. In addition, 2 satellite lesions in the left lobe and sonographic evidence of invasion into the portal vein are present. Periportal lymph nodes are pathologically enlarged.

The physical examination is unremarkable, except for mild tenderness over the right upper quadrant of the abdomen. Serum bilirubin, albumin, platelets, and international normalized ratio are normal, and alpha fetoprotein (AFP) is elevated at 1769 ng/mL. The patient’s family history is unremarkable for any major illness or cancer. Computed tomography scan of the chest and pelvis shows no evidence of other lesions. His liver disease is classified as Child–Pugh A. Due to locally advanced presentation, the tumor is deemed to be nontransplantable and unresectable, and is staged as BCLC-C. The patient continues to work and his performance status is ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) 0. He is referred to the liver tumor clinic for further evaluation and management. The tumor board consensus is to initiate systemic treatment.

What systemic treatment would you recommend for this patient with locally advanced unresectable HCC with nodal metastasis?

First-Line Therapeutic Options

Systemic treatment of HCC is challenging because of the underlying liver cirrhosis and hepatic dysfunction present in most patients. Overall prognosis is therefore dependent on the disease biology and burden and on the degree of hepatic dysfunction. These factors must be considered in patients with advanced disease who present for systemic therapy. As such, patients with BCLC class D HCC with poor performance status and impaired liver function are better off with best supportive care and hospice services (Figure). Table 1 and Table 2 outline the landmark trials that led to the approval of agents for advanced HCC treatment.

Sorafenib

In the patient with BCLC class C HCC who has preserved liver function (traditionally based on a Child–Pugh score of ≤ 6 and a decent functional status [ECOG performance status 1-2]), sorafenib is the first FDA-approved first-line treatment. Sorafenib is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) kinase signaling, in addition to many other tyrosine kinase pathways (including the platelet-derived growth factor and Raf-Ras pathways). Evidence for the clinical benefit of sorafenib comes from the SHARP trial.¹³ This was a multinational, but primarily European, randomized phase 3 study that compared sorafenib to best supportive care for advanced HCC in patients with a Child–Pugh score ≤ 6A and a robust performance status (ECOG 0 and 1). Overall survival (OS) with placebo and sorafenib was 7.9 months and 10.7 months, respectively. There was no difference in time to radiologic progression, and the progression-free survival (PFS) at 4 months was 62% with sorafenib and 42% with placebo. Patients with HCV-associated HCC appeared to derive a more substantial benefit from sorafenib.¹⁴ In a smaller randomized study of sorafenib in Asian patients with predominantly hepatitis B–associated HCC, OS in the sorafenib and best supportive care arms was lower than that reported in the SHARP study (6.5 months vs 4.2 months), although OS still was longer in the sorafenib group.¹⁵

Significant adverse events reported with sorafenib include fatigue (30%), hand and foot syndrome (30%), diarrhea (15%), and mucositis (10%). Major proportions of patients in the clinical setting have not tolerated the standard dose of 400 mg twice daily. Dose-adjusted administration of sorafenib has been advocated in patients with more impaired liver function (Child–Pugh class 7B) and bilirubin of 1.5 to 3 times the upper limit of normal, although it is unclear whether these patients are deriving any benefit from sorafenib.¹⁶ At this time, in a patient with preserved liver function, starting with 400 mg twice daily, followed by dose reduction based on toxicity, remains standard.

Lenvatinib

After multiple attempts to develop newer first-line treatments for HCC, lenvatinib, another small-molecule multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR signaling, was approved by the FDA in August 2018. Approval was based on a noninferiority study of lenvatinib versus sorafenib in patients with unresectable, treatment-naïve HCC who had preserved liver function and excellent performance status.¹⁷ Lenvatinib was noninferior to sorafenib, with an OS of 13.6 months versus 12.3 months for sorafenib. Lenvatinib was associated with an improved response rate (24% vs 9%), increased time to disease progression, and longer PFS (7.3 months vs 3.6 months). Patients with a performance status of 0 and 1 were allowed in this trial. Lenvatinib is associated with a more favorable adverse effect profile and is desirable in patients in whom tumor shrinkage is important. Compared to those treated with sorafenib, patients treated with lenvatinib reported a somewhat higher incidence of higher-grade hypertension (42% vs 30%), loss of appetite (34% vs 27%), and weight loss (31%), but lower rates of diarrhea (39% vs 46%) and skin toxicity (27% vs 52%).

Following the sorafenib approval, clinical studies of several other agents did not meet their primary endpoint and failed to show improvement in clinical outcomes compared to sorafenib. However, over the past years the treatment landscape for advanced HCC has been changed with the approval of several agents in the second line. The overall response rate (ORR) has become the new theme for management of advanced disease. With multiple therapeutic options available, optimal sequencing now plays a critical role, especially for transitioning from locoregional to systemic therapy. Five drugs are now indicated for second-line treatment of patients who progressed on or were intolerant to sorafenib: regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab.

Regorafenib

Regorafenib was evaluated in the advanced HCC setting in a single-arm, phase 2 trial involving 36 patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease who had progressed on prior sorafenib.¹⁸ Patients received regorafenib 160 mg orally once daily for 3 weeks on/1 week off cycles. Disease control was achieved in 72% of patients, with stable disease in 25 patients (69%). Based on these results, regorafenib was further evaluated in the multicenter, phase 3, 2:1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled RESORCE study, which enrolled 573 patients.¹⁹ Due to the overlapping safety profiles of sorafenib and regorafenib, the inclusion criteria required patients to have tolerated a sorafenib dose of at least 400 mg daily for 20 of the past 28 days of treatment prior to enrollment. The primary endpoint of the study, OS, was met (median OS of 10.6 months in regorafenib arm versus 7.8 months in placebo arm; hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P < 0.0001). Serious adverse events occurred in 44% of the patients who received regorafenib; the most common were hypertension (15%), hand-foot-skin reaction (HFSR, 13%), fatigue (9%), bleeding events (6%), and diarrhea (3%). Seven (2%) deaths in the regorafenib group were attributable to this drug. HFSR due to regorafenib was found to be associated with better survival outcomes.²⁰ In the selected subpopulation for the study, treatment with the sequence of sorafenib followed by regorafenib resulted in a median OS of 26 months.²¹

Cabozantinib

CELESTIAL was a phase 3, double-blind study that assessed the efficacy of cabozantinib versus placebo in patients with advanced HCC who had received prior sorafenib.²² In this study, 707 patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease who progressed on at least 1 prior systemic therapy were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with cabozantinib at 60 mg daily or placebo. Patients treated with cabozantinib had a longer OS (10.2 months vs 8.0 months), resulting in a 24% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.76), and a longer median PFS (5.2 months versus 1.9 months). The disease control rate was higher with cabozantinib (64% vs 33%) as well. The incidence of high‐grade adverse events in the cabozantinib group was twice that of the placebo group. Common adverse events reported with cabozantinib included HFSR (17%), hypertension (16%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (12%), fatigue (10%), and diarrhea (10%). 

Ramucirumab

REACH was a phase 3 study exploring the efficacy of ramucirumab that did not meet its primary endpoint; however, the subgroup analysis in AFP-high patients showed an OS improvement with ramucirumab.²³ This led to the phase 3 REACH-2 trial, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind biomarker study in patients with advanced HCC who either progressed on or were intolerant to sorafenib and had an AFP level ≥ 400 ng/mL.²⁴ Patients were randomized to ramucirumab 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks or placebo. The study met its primary endpoint, showing improved OS (8.5 months vs 7.3 months; P = 0.0059). The most common treatment-related adverse events in the ramucirumab group were ascites (5%), hypertension (12%), asthenia (5%), malignant neoplasm progression (6%), increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (5%), and thrombocytopenia.

Immunotherapy

HCC is considered an inflammation-induced cancer, which renders immunotherapeutic strategies more appealing. The PD-L1/PD-1 pathway is the critical immune checkpoint mechanism and is an important target for treatment. HCC uses a complex, overlapping set of mechanisms to evade cancer-specific immunity and to suppress the immune system. Initial efforts to develop immunotherapies for HCC focused on anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies. CheckMate 040 evaluated nivolumab in 262 sorafenib-naïve and -treated patients with advanced HCC (98% with Child–Pugh scores of 5 or 6), with a median follow-up of 12.9 months.²⁵ In sorafenib-naïve patients (n = 80), the ORR was 23%, and the disease control rate was 63%. In sorafenib-treated patients (n = 182), the ORR was 18%. Response was not associated with PD-L1 expression. Durable objective responses, a manageable safety profile, and promising efficacy led the FDA to grant accelerated approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with HCC who have been previously treated with sorafenib. Based on this, the phase 3 randomized CheckMate-459 trial evaluated the efficacy of nivolumab versus sorafenib in the first-line. Median OS and ORR were better with nivolumab (16.4 months vs 14.7 months; HR 0.85; P = 0.752; and 15% [with 5 complete responses] vs 7%), as was the safety profile (22% vs 49% reporting grade 3 and 4 adverse events). ²⁶

The KEYNOTE-224 study²⁷ evaluated pembrolizumab in 104 patients with previously treated advanced HCC. This study showed an ORR of 17%, with 1 complete response and 17 partial responses. One-third of the patients had progressive disease, while 46 had stable disease. Among those who responded, 56% maintained a durable response for more than 1 year. Subsequently, in KEYNOTE 240, pembrolizumab showed an improvement in OS (13.9 months vs 10.6 months; HR, 0.78; P = 0.0238) and PFS (3.0 months versus 2.8 months; HR, 0.78; P = 0.0186) compared with placebo.²⁸ The ORR for pembrolizumab was 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7%-21.8%) versus 2.2% (95% CI, 0.5%-6.4%; P = 0.00001) for placebo. Mean duration of response was 13.8 months.

In the IMbrave150 trial, atezolizumab/bevacizumab combination, compared to sorafenib, had better OS (not estimable vs 13.2 months; P = 0.0006), PFS (6.8 months vs 4.5 months, P < 0.0001), and ORR (33% vs 13%, P < 0.0001), but grade 3-4 events were similar.²⁹ This combination has potential for first-line approval. The COSMIC–312 study is comparing the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab to sorafenib monotherapy and cabozantinib monotherapy in advanced HCC.

Resistance to immunotherapy can be extrinsic, associated with activation mechanisms of T-cells, or intrinsic, related to immune recognition, gene expression, and cell-signaling pathways.³⁰ Tumor-immune heterogeneity and antigen presentation contribute to complex resistance mechanisms.^31,32 Although clinical outcomes have improved with immune checkpoint inhibitors, the response rate is low and responses are inconsistent, likely due to an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment.³³ Therefore, several novel combinations of checkpoint inhibitors and targeted drugs are being evaluated to bypass some of the resistance mechanisms (Table 3).

Chemotherapy

Multiple combinations of cytotoxic regimens have been evaluated, but efficacy has been modest, suggesting the limited role for traditional chemotherapy in the systemic management of advanced HCC. Response rates to chemotherapy are low and responses are not durable. Gemcitabine- and doxorubicin-based treatment and FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) are some regimens that have been studied, with a median OS of less than 1 year for these regimens.^34-36 FOLFOX had a higher response rate (8.15% vs 2.67%; P = 0.02) and longer median OS (6.40 months versus 4.97 months; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.02; P = 0.07) than doxorubicin.³⁴ With the gemcitabine/oxaliplatin combination, ORR was 18%, with stable disease in 58% of patients, and median PFS and OS were 6.3 months and 11.5 months, respectively.³⁵ In a study that compared doxorubicin and PIAF (cisplatin/interferon a-2b/doxorubicin/5-fluorouracil), median OS was 6.83 months and 8.67 months, respectively (P = 0.83). The hazard ratio for death from any cause in the PIAF group compared with the doxorubicin group was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.71-1.32). PIAF had a higher ORR (20.9%; 95% CI, 12.5%-29.2%) than doxorubicin (10.5%; 95% CI, 3.9%-16.9%).

The phase 3 ALLIANCE study evaluated the combination of sorafenib and doxorubicin in treatment-naïve HCC patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease, and did not demonstrate superiority with the addition of cytotoxic chemotherapy.³⁷ Indeed, the combination of chemotherapy with sorafenib appears harmful in terms of lower OS (9.3 months vs 10.6 months; HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.8-1.4) and worse toxicity. Patients treated with the combination experienced more hematologic (37.8% vs 8.1%) and nonhematologic adverse events (63.6% vs 61.5%).

Locoregional Therapy

The role of locoregional therapy in advanced HCC remains the subject of intense debate. Patients with BCLC stage C HCC with metastatic disease and those with lymph node involvement are candidates for systemic therapy. The optimal candidate for locoregional therapy is the patient with localized intermediate-stage disease, particularly hepatic artery–delivered therapeutic interventions. However, the presence of a solitary large tumor or portal vein involvement constitutes gray areas regarding which therapy to deliver directly to the tumor via the hepatic artery, and increasingly stereotactic body radiation therapy is being offered.

Transarterial Chemoembolization

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), with or without chemotherapy, is the most widely adopted locoregional therapy in the management of HCC. TACE exploits the differential vascular supply to the HCC and normal liver parenchyma. Normal liver receives only one-fourth of its blood supply from the hepatic artery (three-fourths from the portal vein), whereas HCC is mainly supplied by the hepatic artery. A survival benefit for TACE compared to best supportive care is widely acknowledged for intermediate-stage HCC, and transarterial embolization (TAE) with gelatin sponge or microspheres is noninferior to TACE.^38,39 Overall safety profile and efficacy inform therapy selection in advanced HCC, although the evidence for TACE in advanced HCC is less robust. Although single-institution experiences suggest survival numbers similar to and even superior to sorafenib,^40,41 there is a scarcity of large randomized clinical trial data to back this up. Based on this, patients with advanced HCC should only be offered liver-directed therapy within a clinical trial or on a case-by-case basis under multidisciplinary tumor board consensus.

A serious adverse effect of TACE is post-embolization syndrome, which occurs in about 30% of patients and may be associated with poor prognosis.⁴² The syndrome consists of right upper quadrant abdominal pain, malaise, and worsening nausea/vomiting following the embolization procedure. Laboratory abnormalities and other complications may persist for up to 30 days after the procedure. This is a concern, because post-embolization syndrome may affect the ability to deliver systemic therapy.

Transarterial Radioembolization

In the past few years, there has been an uptick in the utilization of transarterial radioembolization (TARE), which instead of delivering glass beads, as done in TAE, or chemotherapy-infused beads, as done in TACE, delivers the radioisotope Y-90 to the tumor via the hepatic artery. TARE is able to administer larger doses of radiation to the tumor while avoiding normal liver tissue, as compared to external-beam radiation. There has been no head-to-head comparison of these different intra-arterial therapy approaches, but TARE with Y-90 has been shown to be safe in patients with portal vein thrombosis. A recent multicenter retrospective study of TARE demonstrated a median OS of 8.8 to 10.8 months in patients with BCLC C HCC,⁴³ and in a large randomized study of Y-90 compared to sorafenib in advanced and previously treated intermediate HCC, there was no difference in median OS between the treatment modalities (8 months for selective internal radiotherapy, 9 months for sorafenib; P = 0.18). Treatment with Y-90 was better tolerated.⁴⁴ A major impediment to the adoption of TARE is the time it takes to order, plan, and deliver Y-90 to patients. Radio-embolization-induced liver disease, similar to post-embolization syndrome, is characterized by jaundice and ascites, which may occur 4 to 8 weeks postprocedure and is more common in patients with HCC who do not have cirrhosis. Compared to TACE, TARE may offer a better adverse effect profile, with improvement in quality of life.

Combination of Systemic and Locoregional Therapy

Even in carefully selected patients with intermediate- and advanced-stage HCC, locoregional therapy is not curative. Tumor embolization may promote more angiogenesis, and hence tumor progression, by causing hypoxia and upregulation of hypoxia-inducible factor.⁴⁵ This upregulation of angiogenesis as a resistance mechanism to tumor embolization provides a rationale for combining systemic therapy (typically based on abrogating angiogenesis) with TACE/TAE. Most of the experience has been with sorafenib in intermediate-stage disease, and the results have been disappointing. The administration of sorafenib after at least a partial response with TACE did not provide additional benefit in terms of time to progression.⁴⁶ Similarly, in the SPACE trial, concurrent therapy with TACE-doxorubicin-eluting beads and sorafenib compared to TACE-doxorubicin-eluting beads and placebo yielded similar time to progression numbers for both treatment modalities.⁴⁷ While the data have been disappointing in intermediate-stage disease, as described earlier, registry data suggest that patients with advanced-stage disease may benefit from this approach.⁴⁸

In the phase 2 TACTICS trial, 156 patients with unresectable HCC were randomized to receive TACE alone or sorafenib plus TACE, with a novel endpoint, time to untreatable progression (TTUP) and/or progression to TACE refractoriness.⁴⁹ Treatment with sorafenib following TACE was continued until TTUP, decline in liver function to Child–Pugh class C, or the development of vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread. Development of new lesions while on sorafenib was not considered as progressive disease as long as the lesions were amenable to TACE. In this study, PFS was longer with sorafenib-TACE compared to TACE alone (26.7 months vs 20.6 months; P = 0.02). However, the TTUP endpoint needs further validation, and we are still awaiting the survival outcomes of this study. At this time, there are insufficient data to recommend the combination of liver-directed locoregional therapy and sorafenib or other systemic therapy options outside of a clinical trial setting.

Current Treatment Approach for Advanced HCC (BCLC-C)

Although progress is being made in the development of effective therapies, advanced HCC is generally incurable. These patients experience significant symptom burden throughout the course of the disease. Therefore, the optimal treatment plan must focus on improving or maintaining quality of life, in addition to overall efficacy. It is important to actively involve patients in treatment decisions for an individualized treatment plan, and to discuss the best strategy for incorporating current advances in targeted and immunotherapies. The paradigm of what constitutes first-line treatment for advanced HCC is shifting due to the recent systemic therapy approvals. Prior to the availability of these therapies, many patients with advanced HCC were treated with repeated locoregional therapies. For instance, TACE was often used to treat unresectable HCC multiple times beyond progression. There was no consensus on the definition of TACE failure, and hence it was used in broader, unselected populations. Retrospective studies suggest that continuing TACE after refractoriness or failure may not be beneficial, and may delay subsequent treatments because of deterioration of liver function or declines in performance status. With recent approvals of several systemic therapy options, including immunotherapy, it is vital to conduct a risk-benefit assessment prior to repeating TACE after failure, so that patients are not denied the use of available systemic therapeutic options due to declined performance status or organ function from these procedures. The optimal timing and the sequence of systemic and locoregional therapy must be carefully evaluated by a multidisciplinary team.

CASE CONCLUSION

An important part of evaluating a new patient with HCC is to determine whether they are a candidate for curative therapies, such as transplant or surgical resection. These are no longer an option for patients with intermediate disease. For patients with advanced disease characteristics, such as vascular invasion or systemic metastasis, the evidence supports using systemic therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib. Lenvatinib, with a better tolerance profile and response rate, is the treatment of choice for the patient described in the case scenario. Lenvatinib is also indicated for first-line treatment of advanced HCC, and is useful in very aggressive tumors, such as those with an AFP level exceeding 200 ng/mL.

Future Directions

The emerging role of novel systemic therapeutics, including immunotherapy, has drastically changed the treatment landscape for hepatocellular cancers, with 6 new drugs for treating advanced hepatocellular cancers approved recently. While these systemic drugs have improved survival in advanced HCC in the past decade, patient selection and treatment sequencing remain a challenge, due to a lack of biomarkers capable of predicting antitumor responses. In addition, there is an unmet need for treatment options for patients with Child–Pugh class B7 and C liver disease and poor performance status.

The goal of future management should be to achieve personalized care aimed at improved safety and efficacy by targeting multiple cancer pathways in the HCC cascade with combination treatments. Randomized clinical trials to improve patient selection and determine the proper sequence of treatments are needed. Given the heterogeneity of HCC, molecular profiling of the tumor to differentiate responders from nonresponders may elucidate potential biomarkers to effectively guide treatment recommendations.

From the University of Alabama at Birmingham, Division of Hematology Oncology, Birmingham, AL, and the University of South Alabama, Division of Hematology Oncology, Mobile, AL. Dr. Paluri and Dr. Hatic contributed equally to this article.

Abstract

• Objective: To review systemic treatment options for patients with locally advanced unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).
• Methods: Review of the literature.
• Results: The paradigm of what constitutes first-line treatment for advanced HCC is shifting. Until recently, many patients with advanced HCC were treated with repeated locoregional therapies, such as transartertial embolization (TACE). However, retrospective studies suggest that continuing TACE after refractoriness or failure may not be beneficial and may delay subsequent treatments because of deterioration of liver function or declines in performance status. With recent approvals of several systemic therapy options, including immunotherapy, it is vital to conduct a risk-benefit assessment prior to repeating TACE after failure, so that patients are not denied the use of available systemic therapeutic options due to declined performance status or organ function from these procedures. The optimal timing and the sequence of systemic and locoregional therapy must be carefully evaluated by a multidisciplinary team.
• Conclusion: Randomized clinical trials to improve patient selection and determine the proper sequence of treatments are needed. Given the heterogeneity of HCC, molecular profiling of the tumor to differentiate responders from nonresponders may elucidate potential biomarkers to effectively guide treatment recommendations.

Keywords: liver cancer; molecular therapy; immunotherapy.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) represents 90% of primary liver malignancies. It is the fifth most common malignancy in males and the ninth most common in females worldwide.¹ In contrast to other major cancers (colon, breast, prostate), the incidence of and mortality from HCC has increased over the past decade, following a brief decline between 1999 and 2004.² The epidemiology and incidence of HCC is closely linked to chronic liver disease and conditions predisposing to liver cirrhosis. Worldwide, hepatitis B virus infection is the leading cause of liver cirrhosis and, hence, HCC. In the United States, 50% of HCC cases are linked to hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. Diabetes mellitus and alcoholic and nonalcoholic steatohepatitis are the other major etiologies of HCC. Indeed, the metabolic syndrome, independent of other factors, is associated with a 2-fold increase in the risk of HCC.³

Although most cases of HCC are predated by liver cirrhosis, in about 20% of patients HCC occurs without liver cirrhosis.⁴ Similar to other malignancies, surgery in the form of resection (for isolated lesions in the context of good liver function) or liver transplant (for low-volume disease with mildly impaired liver function) provides the best chance of a cure. Locoregional therapies involving hepatic artery–directed therapy are offered for patients with more advanced disease that is limited to the liver, while systemic therapy is offered for advanced unresectable disease that involves portal vein invasion, lymph nodes, and distant metastasis. The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system is the most widely used for staging and treatment in HCC. It not only considers the size of the tumor, but also incorporates the degree of liver dysfunction and the patient’s functional status.^5,6

Molecular Pathogenesis

Similar to other malignancies, a multistep process of carcinogenesis, with accumulation of genomic alterations at the molecular and cellular levels, is recognized in HCC. In about 80% of cases, repeated and chronic injury, inflammation, and repair lead to a distortion of normal liver architecture and development of cirrhotic nodules. Exome sequencing of HCC tissues has identified risk factor–specific mutational signatures, including those related to the tumor microenvironment, and defined the extensive landscape of altered genes and pathways in HCC (eg, angiogenic and MET pathways).⁷ In the Schulze et al study, the frequency of alterations that could be targeted by available Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved drugs comprised either amplifications or mutations of FLTs (6%), FGF3 or 4 or 19 (4%), PDGFRs (3%), VEGFA (1%), HGF (3%), MTOR (2%), EGFR (1%), FGFRs (1%), and MET (1%).⁷ Epigenetic modification of growth-factor expression, particularly insulin-like growth factor 2 and transforming growth factor alpha, and structural alterations that lead to loss of heterozygosity are early events that cause hepatocyte proliferation and progression of dysplastic nodules.^8,9 Advances in whole-exome sequencing have identified TERT promoter mutations, leading to activation of telomerase, as an early event in HCC pathogenesis. Other commonly altered genes include CTNNB1 (B-Catenin) and TP53. As a group, alterations in the MAP kinase pathway genes occur in about 40% of HCC cases.

Actionable oncogenic driver alterations are not as common as tumor suppressor pathway alterations in HCC, making targeted drug development challenging.^10,11 The FGFR (fibroblast growth factor receptor) pathway, which plays a critical role in carcinogenesis-related cell growth, survival, neo-angiogenesis, and acquired resistance to other cancer treatments, is being explored as a treatment target.¹² The molecular characterization of HCC may help with identifying new biomarkers and present opportunities for developing therapeutic targets.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 61-year-old man with a history of chronic hepatitis C and hypertension presents to his primary care physician due to right upper quadrant pain. Laboratory evaluation shows transaminases elevated 2 times the upper limit of normal. This leads to an ultrasound and follow-up magnetic resonance imaging. Imaging shows diffuse cirrhotic changes, with a 6-cm, well-circumscribed lesion within the left lobe of the liver that shows rapid arterial enhancement with venous washout. These vascular characteristics are consistent with HCC. In addition, 2 satellite lesions in the left lobe and sonographic evidence of invasion into the portal vein are present. Periportal lymph nodes are pathologically enlarged.

The physical examination is unremarkable, except for mild tenderness over the right upper quadrant of the abdomen. Serum bilirubin, albumin, platelets, and international normalized ratio are normal, and alpha fetoprotein (AFP) is elevated at 1769 ng/mL. The patient’s family history is unremarkable for any major illness or cancer. Computed tomography scan of the chest and pelvis shows no evidence of other lesions. His liver disease is classified as Child–Pugh A. Due to locally advanced presentation, the tumor is deemed to be nontransplantable and unresectable, and is staged as BCLC-C. The patient continues to work and his performance status is ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) 0. He is referred to the liver tumor clinic for further evaluation and management. The tumor board consensus is to initiate systemic treatment.

What systemic treatment would you recommend for this patient with locally advanced unresectable HCC with nodal metastasis?

First-Line Therapeutic Options

Systemic treatment of HCC is challenging because of the underlying liver cirrhosis and hepatic dysfunction present in most patients. Overall prognosis is therefore dependent on the disease biology and burden and on the degree of hepatic dysfunction. These factors must be considered in patients with advanced disease who present for systemic therapy. As such, patients with BCLC class D HCC with poor performance status and impaired liver function are better off with best supportive care and hospice services (Figure). Table 1 and Table 2 outline the landmark trials that led to the approval of agents for advanced HCC treatment.

Sorafenib

In the patient with BCLC class C HCC who has preserved liver function (traditionally based on a Child–Pugh score of ≤ 6 and a decent functional status [ECOG performance status 1-2]), sorafenib is the first FDA-approved first-line treatment. Sorafenib is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that targets vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) kinase signaling, in addition to many other tyrosine kinase pathways (including the platelet-derived growth factor and Raf-Ras pathways). Evidence for the clinical benefit of sorafenib comes from the SHARP trial.¹³ This was a multinational, but primarily European, randomized phase 3 study that compared sorafenib to best supportive care for advanced HCC in patients with a Child–Pugh score ≤ 6A and a robust performance status (ECOG 0 and 1). Overall survival (OS) with placebo and sorafenib was 7.9 months and 10.7 months, respectively. There was no difference in time to radiologic progression, and the progression-free survival (PFS) at 4 months was 62% with sorafenib and 42% with placebo. Patients with HCV-associated HCC appeared to derive a more substantial benefit from sorafenib.¹⁴ In a smaller randomized study of sorafenib in Asian patients with predominantly hepatitis B–associated HCC, OS in the sorafenib and best supportive care arms was lower than that reported in the SHARP study (6.5 months vs 4.2 months), although OS still was longer in the sorafenib group.¹⁵

Significant adverse events reported with sorafenib include fatigue (30%), hand and foot syndrome (30%), diarrhea (15%), and mucositis (10%). Major proportions of patients in the clinical setting have not tolerated the standard dose of 400 mg twice daily. Dose-adjusted administration of sorafenib has been advocated in patients with more impaired liver function (Child–Pugh class 7B) and bilirubin of 1.5 to 3 times the upper limit of normal, although it is unclear whether these patients are deriving any benefit from sorafenib.¹⁶ At this time, in a patient with preserved liver function, starting with 400 mg twice daily, followed by dose reduction based on toxicity, remains standard.

Lenvatinib

After multiple attempts to develop newer first-line treatments for HCC, lenvatinib, another small-molecule multikinase inhibitor of VEGFR signaling, was approved by the FDA in August 2018. Approval was based on a noninferiority study of lenvatinib versus sorafenib in patients with unresectable, treatment-naïve HCC who had preserved liver function and excellent performance status.¹⁷ Lenvatinib was noninferior to sorafenib, with an OS of 13.6 months versus 12.3 months for sorafenib. Lenvatinib was associated with an improved response rate (24% vs 9%), increased time to disease progression, and longer PFS (7.3 months vs 3.6 months). Patients with a performance status of 0 and 1 were allowed in this trial. Lenvatinib is associated with a more favorable adverse effect profile and is desirable in patients in whom tumor shrinkage is important. Compared to those treated with sorafenib, patients treated with lenvatinib reported a somewhat higher incidence of higher-grade hypertension (42% vs 30%), loss of appetite (34% vs 27%), and weight loss (31%), but lower rates of diarrhea (39% vs 46%) and skin toxicity (27% vs 52%).

Following the sorafenib approval, clinical studies of several other agents did not meet their primary endpoint and failed to show improvement in clinical outcomes compared to sorafenib. However, over the past years the treatment landscape for advanced HCC has been changed with the approval of several agents in the second line. The overall response rate (ORR) has become the new theme for management of advanced disease. With multiple therapeutic options available, optimal sequencing now plays a critical role, especially for transitioning from locoregional to systemic therapy. Five drugs are now indicated for second-line treatment of patients who progressed on or were intolerant to sorafenib: regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab.

Regorafenib

Regorafenib was evaluated in the advanced HCC setting in a single-arm, phase 2 trial involving 36 patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease who had progressed on prior sorafenib.¹⁸ Patients received regorafenib 160 mg orally once daily for 3 weeks on/1 week off cycles. Disease control was achieved in 72% of patients, with stable disease in 25 patients (69%). Based on these results, regorafenib was further evaluated in the multicenter, phase 3, 2:1 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled RESORCE study, which enrolled 573 patients.¹⁹ Due to the overlapping safety profiles of sorafenib and regorafenib, the inclusion criteria required patients to have tolerated a sorafenib dose of at least 400 mg daily for 20 of the past 28 days of treatment prior to enrollment. The primary endpoint of the study, OS, was met (median OS of 10.6 months in regorafenib arm versus 7.8 months in placebo arm; hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P < 0.0001). Serious adverse events occurred in 44% of the patients who received regorafenib; the most common were hypertension (15%), hand-foot-skin reaction (HFSR, 13%), fatigue (9%), bleeding events (6%), and diarrhea (3%). Seven (2%) deaths in the regorafenib group were attributable to this drug. HFSR due to regorafenib was found to be associated with better survival outcomes.²⁰ In the selected subpopulation for the study, treatment with the sequence of sorafenib followed by regorafenib resulted in a median OS of 26 months.²¹

Cabozantinib

CELESTIAL was a phase 3, double-blind study that assessed the efficacy of cabozantinib versus placebo in patients with advanced HCC who had received prior sorafenib.²² In this study, 707 patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease who progressed on at least 1 prior systemic therapy were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to treatment with cabozantinib at 60 mg daily or placebo. Patients treated with cabozantinib had a longer OS (10.2 months vs 8.0 months), resulting in a 24% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.76), and a longer median PFS (5.2 months versus 1.9 months). The disease control rate was higher with cabozantinib (64% vs 33%) as well. The incidence of high‐grade adverse events in the cabozantinib group was twice that of the placebo group. Common adverse events reported with cabozantinib included HFSR (17%), hypertension (16%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (12%), fatigue (10%), and diarrhea (10%). 

Ramucirumab

REACH was a phase 3 study exploring the efficacy of ramucirumab that did not meet its primary endpoint; however, the subgroup analysis in AFP-high patients showed an OS improvement with ramucirumab.²³ This led to the phase 3 REACH-2 trial, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind biomarker study in patients with advanced HCC who either progressed on or were intolerant to sorafenib and had an AFP level ≥ 400 ng/mL.²⁴ Patients were randomized to ramucirumab 8 mg/kg every 2 weeks or placebo. The study met its primary endpoint, showing improved OS (8.5 months vs 7.3 months; P = 0.0059). The most common treatment-related adverse events in the ramucirumab group were ascites (5%), hypertension (12%), asthenia (5%), malignant neoplasm progression (6%), increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (5%), and thrombocytopenia.

Immunotherapy

HCC is considered an inflammation-induced cancer, which renders immunotherapeutic strategies more appealing. The PD-L1/PD-1 pathway is the critical immune checkpoint mechanism and is an important target for treatment. HCC uses a complex, overlapping set of mechanisms to evade cancer-specific immunity and to suppress the immune system. Initial efforts to develop immunotherapies for HCC focused on anti-PD-1 and anti-PD-L1 antibodies. CheckMate 040 evaluated nivolumab in 262 sorafenib-naïve and -treated patients with advanced HCC (98% with Child–Pugh scores of 5 or 6), with a median follow-up of 12.9 months.²⁵ In sorafenib-naïve patients (n = 80), the ORR was 23%, and the disease control rate was 63%. In sorafenib-treated patients (n = 182), the ORR was 18%. Response was not associated with PD-L1 expression. Durable objective responses, a manageable safety profile, and promising efficacy led the FDA to grant accelerated approval of nivolumab for the treatment of patients with HCC who have been previously treated with sorafenib. Based on this, the phase 3 randomized CheckMate-459 trial evaluated the efficacy of nivolumab versus sorafenib in the first-line. Median OS and ORR were better with nivolumab (16.4 months vs 14.7 months; HR 0.85; P = 0.752; and 15% [with 5 complete responses] vs 7%), as was the safety profile (22% vs 49% reporting grade 3 and 4 adverse events). ²⁶

The KEYNOTE-224 study²⁷ evaluated pembrolizumab in 104 patients with previously treated advanced HCC. This study showed an ORR of 17%, with 1 complete response and 17 partial responses. One-third of the patients had progressive disease, while 46 had stable disease. Among those who responded, 56% maintained a durable response for more than 1 year. Subsequently, in KEYNOTE 240, pembrolizumab showed an improvement in OS (13.9 months vs 10.6 months; HR, 0.78; P = 0.0238) and PFS (3.0 months versus 2.8 months; HR, 0.78; P = 0.0186) compared with placebo.²⁸ The ORR for pembrolizumab was 16.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.7%-21.8%) versus 2.2% (95% CI, 0.5%-6.4%; P = 0.00001) for placebo. Mean duration of response was 13.8 months.

In the IMbrave150 trial, atezolizumab/bevacizumab combination, compared to sorafenib, had better OS (not estimable vs 13.2 months; P = 0.0006), PFS (6.8 months vs 4.5 months, P < 0.0001), and ORR (33% vs 13%, P < 0.0001), but grade 3-4 events were similar.²⁹ This combination has potential for first-line approval. The COSMIC–312 study is comparing the combination of cabozantinib and atezolizumab to sorafenib monotherapy and cabozantinib monotherapy in advanced HCC.

Resistance to immunotherapy can be extrinsic, associated with activation mechanisms of T-cells, or intrinsic, related to immune recognition, gene expression, and cell-signaling pathways.³⁰ Tumor-immune heterogeneity and antigen presentation contribute to complex resistance mechanisms.^31,32 Although clinical outcomes have improved with immune checkpoint inhibitors, the response rate is low and responses are inconsistent, likely due to an immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment.³³ Therefore, several novel combinations of checkpoint inhibitors and targeted drugs are being evaluated to bypass some of the resistance mechanisms (Table 3).

Chemotherapy

Multiple combinations of cytotoxic regimens have been evaluated, but efficacy has been modest, suggesting the limited role for traditional chemotherapy in the systemic management of advanced HCC. Response rates to chemotherapy are low and responses are not durable. Gemcitabine- and doxorubicin-based treatment and FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) are some regimens that have been studied, with a median OS of less than 1 year for these regimens.^34-36 FOLFOX had a higher response rate (8.15% vs 2.67%; P = 0.02) and longer median OS (6.40 months versus 4.97 months; HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.63-1.02; P = 0.07) than doxorubicin.³⁴ With the gemcitabine/oxaliplatin combination, ORR was 18%, with stable disease in 58% of patients, and median PFS and OS were 6.3 months and 11.5 months, respectively.³⁵ In a study that compared doxorubicin and PIAF (cisplatin/interferon a-2b/doxorubicin/5-fluorouracil), median OS was 6.83 months and 8.67 months, respectively (P = 0.83). The hazard ratio for death from any cause in the PIAF group compared with the doxorubicin group was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.71-1.32). PIAF had a higher ORR (20.9%; 95% CI, 12.5%-29.2%) than doxorubicin (10.5%; 95% CI, 3.9%-16.9%).

The phase 3 ALLIANCE study evaluated the combination of sorafenib and doxorubicin in treatment-naïve HCC patients with Child–Pugh class A liver disease, and did not demonstrate superiority with the addition of cytotoxic chemotherapy.³⁷ Indeed, the combination of chemotherapy with sorafenib appears harmful in terms of lower OS (9.3 months vs 10.6 months; HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.8-1.4) and worse toxicity. Patients treated with the combination experienced more hematologic (37.8% vs 8.1%) and nonhematologic adverse events (63.6% vs 61.5%).

Locoregional Therapy

The role of locoregional therapy in advanced HCC remains the subject of intense debate. Patients with BCLC stage C HCC with metastatic disease and those with lymph node involvement are candidates for systemic therapy. The optimal candidate for locoregional therapy is the patient with localized intermediate-stage disease, particularly hepatic artery–delivered therapeutic interventions. However, the presence of a solitary large tumor or portal vein involvement constitutes gray areas regarding which therapy to deliver directly to the tumor via the hepatic artery, and increasingly stereotactic body radiation therapy is being offered.

Transarterial Chemoembolization

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), with or without chemotherapy, is the most widely adopted locoregional therapy in the management of HCC. TACE exploits the differential vascular supply to the HCC and normal liver parenchyma. Normal liver receives only one-fourth of its blood supply from the hepatic artery (three-fourths from the portal vein), whereas HCC is mainly supplied by the hepatic artery. A survival benefit for TACE compared to best supportive care is widely acknowledged for intermediate-stage HCC, and transarterial embolization (TAE) with gelatin sponge or microspheres is noninferior to TACE.^38,39 Overall safety profile and efficacy inform therapy selection in advanced HCC, although the evidence for TACE in advanced HCC is less robust. Although single-institution experiences suggest survival numbers similar to and even superior to sorafenib,^40,41 there is a scarcity of large randomized clinical trial data to back this up. Based on this, patients with advanced HCC should only be offered liver-directed therapy within a clinical trial or on a case-by-case basis under multidisciplinary tumor board consensus.

A serious adverse effect of TACE is post-embolization syndrome, which occurs in about 30% of patients and may be associated with poor prognosis.⁴² The syndrome consists of right upper quadrant abdominal pain, malaise, and worsening nausea/vomiting following the embolization procedure. Laboratory abnormalities and other complications may persist for up to 30 days after the procedure. This is a concern, because post-embolization syndrome may affect the ability to deliver systemic therapy.

Transarterial Radioembolization

In the past few years, there has been an uptick in the utilization of transarterial radioembolization (TARE), which instead of delivering glass beads, as done in TAE, or chemotherapy-infused beads, as done in TACE, delivers the radioisotope Y-90 to the tumor via the hepatic artery. TARE is able to administer larger doses of radiation to the tumor while avoiding normal liver tissue, as compared to external-beam radiation. There has been no head-to-head comparison of these different intra-arterial therapy approaches, but TARE with Y-90 has been shown to be safe in patients with portal vein thrombosis. A recent multicenter retrospective study of TARE demonstrated a median OS of 8.8 to 10.8 months in patients with BCLC C HCC,⁴³ and in a large randomized study of Y-90 compared to sorafenib in advanced and previously treated intermediate HCC, there was no difference in median OS between the treatment modalities (8 months for selective internal radiotherapy, 9 months for sorafenib; P = 0.18). Treatment with Y-90 was better tolerated.⁴⁴ A major impediment to the adoption of TARE is the time it takes to order, plan, and deliver Y-90 to patients. Radio-embolization-induced liver disease, similar to post-embolization syndrome, is characterized by jaundice and ascites, which may occur 4 to 8 weeks postprocedure and is more common in patients with HCC who do not have cirrhosis. Compared to TACE, TARE may offer a better adverse effect profile, with improvement in quality of life.

Combination of Systemic and Locoregional Therapy

Even in carefully selected patients with intermediate- and advanced-stage HCC, locoregional therapy is not curative. Tumor embolization may promote more angiogenesis, and hence tumor progression, by causing hypoxia and upregulation of hypoxia-inducible factor.⁴⁵ This upregulation of angiogenesis as a resistance mechanism to tumor embolization provides a rationale for combining systemic therapy (typically based on abrogating angiogenesis) with TACE/TAE. Most of the experience has been with sorafenib in intermediate-stage disease, and the results have been disappointing. The administration of sorafenib after at least a partial response with TACE did not provide additional benefit in terms of time to progression.⁴⁶ Similarly, in the SPACE trial, concurrent therapy with TACE-doxorubicin-eluting beads and sorafenib compared to TACE-doxorubicin-eluting beads and placebo yielded similar time to progression numbers for both treatment modalities.⁴⁷ While the data have been disappointing in intermediate-stage disease, as described earlier, registry data suggest that patients with advanced-stage disease may benefit from this approach.⁴⁸

In the phase 2 TACTICS trial, 156 patients with unresectable HCC were randomized to receive TACE alone or sorafenib plus TACE, with a novel endpoint, time to untreatable progression (TTUP) and/or progression to TACE refractoriness.⁴⁹ Treatment with sorafenib following TACE was continued until TTUP, decline in liver function to Child–Pugh class C, or the development of vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread. Development of new lesions while on sorafenib was not considered as progressive disease as long as the lesions were amenable to TACE. In this study, PFS was longer with sorafenib-TACE compared to TACE alone (26.7 months vs 20.6 months; P = 0.02). However, the TTUP endpoint needs further validation, and we are still awaiting the survival outcomes of this study. At this time, there are insufficient data to recommend the combination of liver-directed locoregional therapy and sorafenib or other systemic therapy options outside of a clinical trial setting.

Current Treatment Approach for Advanced HCC (BCLC-C)

Although progress is being made in the development of effective therapies, advanced HCC is generally incurable. These patients experience significant symptom burden throughout the course of the disease. Therefore, the optimal treatment plan must focus on improving or maintaining quality of life, in addition to overall efficacy. It is important to actively involve patients in treatment decisions for an individualized treatment plan, and to discuss the best strategy for incorporating current advances in targeted and immunotherapies. The paradigm of what constitutes first-line treatment for advanced HCC is shifting due to the recent systemic therapy approvals. Prior to the availability of these therapies, many patients with advanced HCC were treated with repeated locoregional therapies. For instance, TACE was often used to treat unresectable HCC multiple times beyond progression. There was no consensus on the definition of TACE failure, and hence it was used in broader, unselected populations. Retrospective studies suggest that continuing TACE after refractoriness or failure may not be beneficial, and may delay subsequent treatments because of deterioration of liver function or declines in performance status. With recent approvals of several systemic therapy options, including immunotherapy, it is vital to conduct a risk-benefit assessment prior to repeating TACE after failure, so that patients are not denied the use of available systemic therapeutic options due to declined performance status or organ function from these procedures. The optimal timing and the sequence of systemic and locoregional therapy must be carefully evaluated by a multidisciplinary team.

CASE CONCLUSION

An important part of evaluating a new patient with HCC is to determine whether they are a candidate for curative therapies, such as transplant or surgical resection. These are no longer an option for patients with intermediate disease. For patients with advanced disease characteristics, such as vascular invasion or systemic metastasis, the evidence supports using systemic therapy with sorafenib or lenvatinib. Lenvatinib, with a better tolerance profile and response rate, is the treatment of choice for the patient described in the case scenario. Lenvatinib is also indicated for first-line treatment of advanced HCC, and is useful in very aggressive tumors, such as those with an AFP level exceeding 200 ng/mL.

Future Directions

The emerging role of novel systemic therapeutics, including immunotherapy, has drastically changed the treatment landscape for hepatocellular cancers, with 6 new drugs for treating advanced hepatocellular cancers approved recently. While these systemic drugs have improved survival in advanced HCC in the past decade, patient selection and treatment sequencing remain a challenge, due to a lack of biomarkers capable of predicting antitumor responses. In addition, there is an unmet need for treatment options for patients with Child–Pugh class B7 and C liver disease and poor performance status.

The goal of future management should be to achieve personalized care aimed at improved safety and efficacy by targeting multiple cancer pathways in the HCC cascade with combination treatments. Randomized clinical trials to improve patient selection and determine the proper sequence of treatments are needed. Given the heterogeneity of HCC, molecular profiling of the tumor to differentiate responders from nonresponders may elucidate potential biomarkers to effectively guide treatment recommendations.