Background/Aims: Several treatment options are currently available for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) failing previous sorafenib treatment. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of regorafenib and nivolumab in these patients.Methods: Consecutive HCC patients who received regorafenib or nivolumab after failure of sorafenib treatment were included. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints were time to progression, tumor response rate, and adverse events. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score was conducted to reduce treatment selection bias.Results: Among 150 study patients, 102 patients received regorafenib and 48 patients received nivolumab. Median OS was 6.9 (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0–10.8) months for regorafenib and 5.9 (95% CI, 3.7–8.1) months for nivolumab (P=0.77 by log-rank test). In multivariable analysis, nivolumab was associated with prolonged OS (vs. regorafenib: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30–0.96; P=0.04). Time to progression was not significantly different between groups (nivolumab vs. regorafenib: aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.51–1.30; P=0.48). HRs were maintained after IPTW. Objective response rates were 5.9% and 16.7% in patients treated with regorafenib and nivolumab, respectively (P=0.04).Conclusions: After sorafenib failure, the use of nivolumab may be associated with improved OS and better objective response rate as compared to using regorafenib.

Objectives Hepatocellular carcinoma can develop after hepatitis C virus eradication. We developed a new hepatocellular carcinoma risk score (HCC-SVR score) based on independent predictors for chronic hepatitis C after sustained virological response. Methods Between 2003 and 2016, a total of 1193 patients with chronic hepatitis C who achieved sustained virological response through antiviral therapy were included (669 for training cohort and 524 for validation cohort). The HCC-SVR score was developed using multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression modelling. Results Hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 19) occurred more frequently in older, male patients and was associated with liver cirrhosis; hypertension; diabetes; lower platelet count; higher alpha-fetoprotein, aspartate, and alanine aminotransferase; lower total cholesterol; and higher fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4) (all P < 0.05). FIB-4 (hazard ratio = 1.080), male gender (hazard ratio = 8.189), and higher alpha-fetoprotein (hazard ratio = 1.060) independently predicted hepatocellular carcinoma (all P < 0.05). HCC-SVR score successfully predicted hepatocellular carcinoma development risk [area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) = 0.771, 0.857, and 0.911 at 2, 4, and 6 years, respectively]. The cumulative incidence rate of hepatocellular carcinoma differed significantly among groups stratified by HCC-SVR risk score (0–2 points, low; 3–7 points, intermediate; 8–9 points, high risk) (all P < 0.05 by log-rank test). HCC-SVR score was maintained in a validation cohort (n = 524) (AUC = 0.728 at 2 years, 0.737 at 4 years, and 0.809 at 6 years). Conclusion The HCC-SVR score enables risk stratification for hepatocellular carcinoma development at sustained virological response in patients with chronic hepatitis C.

No abstract

Background: For patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), the definition of refractoriness to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), which might make them a candidate for systemic therapy, is still controversial. We aimed to derive and validate a tumor marker-based algorithm to define the refractoriness to TACE in patients with intermediate-stage HCC. Methods: This multi-cohort study was comprised of patients who underwent TACE for treatment-naïve intermediate-stage HCC. We derived a prediction model for overall survival (OS) using the pre- and post-TACE model to predict tumor recurrence after living donor liver transplantation (MoRAL) (i.e., MoRAL score = 11×√protein induced by vitamin K absence-II + 2×√alpha-fetoprotein), which was proven to reflect both tumor burden and biologic aggressiveness of HCC in the explant liver, from a training cohort (n = 193). These results were externally validated in both an independent hospital cohort (from two large-volume centers, n = 140) and a Korean National Cancer Registry sample cohort (n = 149). Results: The changes in MoRAL score (ΔMoRAL) after initial TACE was an independent predictor of OS (MoRAL-increase vs. MoRAL-non-increase: adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 2.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.37–3.46, p = 0.001; median OS = 18.8 vs. 37.8 months). In a subgroup of patients with a high baseline MoRAL score (≥89.5, 25th percentile and higher), the prognostic impact of ΔMoRAL was more pronounced (MoRAL-increase vs. MoRAL-non-increase: HR = 3.68, 95% CI = 1.54–8.76, p < 0.001; median OS = 9.9 vs. 37.4 months). These results were reproduced in the external validation cohorts. Conclusion: The ΔMoRAL after the first TACE, a simple and objective index, provides refined prognostication for patients with intermediate-stage HCC. Proceeding to a second TACE may not provide additional survival benefits in cases of a MoRAL-increase after the first TACE in patients with a high baseline MoRAL score (≥89.5), who might be candidates for systemic therapy.