Background Lenvatinib has been approved in Italy since October 2019 as a first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to date data on effectiveness and safety of lenvatinib are not available in our region. To fill this gap, we performed a multicentric analysis of the real-world treatment outcomes with the propensity score matching in a cohort of Italian patients with unresectable HCC who were treated with either sorafenib or lenvatinib. Aims and Methods To evaluate the effectiveness of sorafenib and lenvatinib as primary treatment of advanced HCC in clinical practice we performed a multicentric analysis of the treatment outcomes of 288 such patients recruited in 11 centers in Italy. A propensity score was used to mitigate confounding due to referral biases in the assessment of mortality and progression-free survival. Results Over a follow-up period of 11 months the Cox regression model showed 48% reduction of death risk for patients treated with lenvatinib (95% CI: 0.34–0.81; p = 0.0034), compared with those treated with sorafenib. The median PFS was 9.0 and 4.9 months for lenvatinib and sorafenib arm, respectively. Patients treated with lenvatinib showed a higher percentage of response rate (29.4% vs 2.8%; p < 0.00001) compared with patients treated with sorafenib. Sorafenib was shown to be correlated with more HFSR, diarrhea and fatigue, while lenvatinib with more hypertension and fatigue. Conclusion Our study highlighted for the first time the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib in an Italian cohort of patients.

No abstract

Background: Based on patient and tumor characteristics, some authors favor laparoscopic microwave ablation (LMWA) over the percutaneous approach (PMWA) for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We compared the two techniques in terms of technique efficacy, local tumor progression (LTP) and complication rates. Study design: A retrospective comparative analysis was performed on 91 consecutive patients (102 HCC tumors) who underwent PMWA or LMWA between October 2014 and May 2019. Technique efficacy at one-month and LTP at follow-up were assessed by contrast-enhanced CT/MRI. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression were used to compare LTP-free survival (LTPFS). Results: At baseline analysis, LMWA group showed higher frequency of multinodular disease (p < .001) and average higher energy delivered over tumor size (p ¼ .033); PMWA group showed higher rates of non-treatment-naïve patients (p ¼ .001), patients with Hepatitis-C (p ¼ .03) and BCLC-A1 disease (p ¼ .006). Technique efficacy was not significantly different between the two groups (p ¼ .18). Among effectively treated patients, 75 (83 tumors) satisfied !6 months follow-up, 54 (57 tumors) undergoing PMWA and 21 (26 tumors) LMWA. LTP occurred in 14/83 cases (16.9%): 12 after PMWA (21.1%) and 2 after LMWA (7.7%). At univariate analysis, technique did not correlate to LTPFS (p ¼ .28). Subgroup analysis showed a trend toward worse LTPFS after PMWA of subcapsular tumors (p ¼ .16). Major complications were observed in six patients (6.6%), 2 after PMWA and 4 after LMWA (3.2% vs 14.3%, p ¼ .049). Conclusions: Technical approach did not affect LTPFS. Complications were reported more frequently after LMWA. Despite higher complication rates, LMWA seems a valid option for treatment of subcapsular tumors.

The aim of the present study is to analyze the feasibility and the impact of a two-step approach in the treatment of giant hemangiomas (GH) i.e., exceeding 10 cm in maximum diameter, consisting of transarterial embolization (TAE) followed by laparoscopic liver resection (LLR). Ten patients with 11 GH were treated with TAE and subsequent LLR between 2017 and 2020 (Group A). A matched cohort of 10 patients with GH treated with upfront LLR between 2014 and 2017 was identified for comparison (Group B). Data were analyzed regarding intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, including successful completion of LLR, morbidity, and mortality. Successful microparticle embolization of the GH-feeding arteries was performed in all patients in group A. In three cases a liquid embolic agent (Squid-18) was also injected to obtain complete embolization. No complications were observed after TAE. Successful surgery was performed after a mean time interval of 2.2 days from TAE without any case of conversion to laparotomy. Statistically significant differences between group A and group B were found in intraoperative blood loss (250 ± 200 vs. 400 ± 300 mL, p = 0.039), operative time (245 ± 60 vs. 420 ± 60 min, p = 0.027), and length of stay (5 ± 1 vs. 8 ± 2 days, p = 0.046). Our data suggest that two-step TAE + LLR might be a safe and effective option for surgical treatment of GH >10 cm.