Background/aim In a randomized controlled trial, lenvatinib was non-inferior to sorafenib in overall survival (OS) of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). This study aimed to compare the effects of sorafenib and lenvatinib as first-line systemic therapy against uHCC with real-world data in chronic hepatitis B patients. Methods This retrospective single-center study involved 132 patients with HBV-related uHCC. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline characteristics, including age, sex, serum alpha-fetoprotein levels, Child–Pugh class, tumor size, and tumor stage. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and tumor response. Results After PSM, the final analysis included 44 patients treated with lenvatinib and 88 with sorafenib. The OS (7.0 vs 9.2 months, p = 0.070) and PFS (4.6 vs 2.4 months, p = 0.134) were comparable between the two drugs. Multivariable analysis showed that lenvatinib and sorafenib were not independent prognostic factors of OS (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.41, 95% confidence interval = 0.96–2.08, p = 0.077) after adjustment for baseline alpha-fetoprotein levels, total bilirubin levels, alanine aminotransferase level, performance status, tumor stage, and tumor size. However, the lenvatinib group had a significantly prolonged TTP (5.2 vs 2.5 months, p = 0.018) and a higher objective response rate (18.2% vs 4.5%, p = 0.020) and disease control rate (77.3% vs 47.7%, p = 0.001) than the sorafenib group. Conclusions Our study demonstrated that lenvatinib had a comparable OS and PFS but longer TTP and better tumor response compared to sorafenib in patients with HBV-related uHCC.

No abstract

It remains controversial whether surgical resection, compared to radiofrequency ablation (RFA), improves overall survival (OS) in patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to compare OS after RFA with that after resection for HCC. This retrospective study included patients who underwent RFA or surgical resection as initial treatment for hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related HCC at a very early or early stage. A total of 761 patients (RFA, n = 194; resection, n = 567) from Seoul National University Hospital (Seoul, South Korea) and 1277 patients (RFA, n = 352; resection, n = 925) from the Korean Primary Liver Cancer Registry were included in the hospital and nationwide cohorts, respectively. Primary and secondary endpoints were OS and recurrence-free survival (RFS), respectively. Additional analysis was performed when the history of the antiviral treatment and the type of prescribed nucleos(t)ide analogue were confirmed. The rate of complications was compared between the two treatment groups in the hospital cohort. Baseline characteristics were balanced, using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). In the hospital cohort, the RFA group had a smaller mean tumor size (1.7 vs. 3.9 cm) but a higher proportion of cirrhotic patients than the resection group (85.6% vs. 63.1%) (both p < 0.01). During 81.0 (interquartile range, 62.3–107.1) months of follow-up, there was no difference in OS (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.870, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.400–1.897, p = 0.73) and RFA was associated with shorter RFS (aHR = 1.562, 95% CI = 1.099–2.219, p = 0.01) after employing IPTW. Antiviral treatment was independently associated with longer OS (aHR = 0.444, 95% CI = 0.251–0.786, p = 0.01) as well as RFS (aHR = 0.544, 95% CI = 0.391–0.757, p < 0.01) in the hospital cohort. In the nationwide cohort, there was no difference in OS (aHR = 0.981, 95% CI = 0.661–1.456, p = 0.92) between the two treatment groups when adjusted for antiviral treatment, which was a negative independent risk factor for mortality (aHR = 0.655, 95% CI = 0.451–0.952, p = 0.03) after IPTW. Among patients treated with tenofovir (n = 96) or entecavir (n = 184) in the hospital cohort, there was no difference in either OS (aHR = 0.522, 95% CI = 0.058–4.724, p = 0.56) or RFS (aHR = 1.116, 95% CI = 0.738–1.688, p = 0.60). The overall incidence of complications was higher in the resection group (26.3%) than in the RFA group (13.9%) (p < 0.01). RFA may provide comparable OS to resection in the treatment of very early or early HCC with a lower rate of complications, although RFS is marginally shorter than in the resection group after adjusting for antiviral treatment. Regardless of the type of NA, antiviral treatment in patients with HBV-related HCC is strongly associated with both OS and RFS.

Objectives This study aimed to examine the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) death according to blood pressure levels and systolic and/or diastolic hypertension. Methods From 20,636 cohort participants, 14,375 patients were enrolled after patients with prior hypertension on antihypertensive drugs were excluded. For the combination analysis, participants were divided into four groups (systolic/diastolic hypertension, systolic hypertension only, diastolic hypertension only, and non-hypertension). The risk of CV death was calculated using the hazard ratio (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) in a Cox regression model. Results The risk of CVD death increased in systolic hypertension (HR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.26–2.00) and systolic/diastolic hypertension (HR = 1.84, 95% CI 1.51–2.25). The highest risks of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke were observed in the diastolic hypertension (HR = 4.11, 95% CI 1.40–12.06) and systolic/diastolic hypertension groups (HR = 2.59, 95% CI 1.92–3.50), respectively. The risk of CVD death was drastically increased in those with SBP≥120 mmHg/DBP≥80 mmHg. The highest risk was observed in those with SBP of 130–131 mmHg and 134–137 mmHg. Conclusion The combined analysis of systolic and/or diastolic hypertension appears to be a good predictor of CVD death. The risk of CVD death in the prehypertensive group could be carefully monitored as well as in the hypertensive group, presumably due to less attention and the lack of antihypertensive treatment.

IntroductionAlthough transarterial radioembolization (TARE) using yttrium-90 (90Y) is a treatment option for large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), a fraction of patients are ineligible for TARE due to high lung shunt fraction (LSF).MethodsWe evaluated if treatment with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE), owing to TARE ineligibility was associated with early HCC progression. Consecutive patients with HCC who were initially TARE candidates were included. Patients with vascular invasion or metastasis were excluded. Primary endpoints were time-to-progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoint was objective response rate.ResultsIn total, 175 patients were included: 144 underwent TARE (TARE-eligible group) and 31 underwent TACE due to high LSF (TARE-ineligible group). This latter group had larger tumors (13.8 cm vs. 7.8 cm, P&lt;0.001) and higher MoRAL scores (1,385.8 vs. 413.3, P=0.002) than the TARE-eligible group. After balancing baseline characteristics with an inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), the TARE-ineligible group showed shorter TTP [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR)=2.16, 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.14–4.07, P=0.02] and OS (aHR=1.80, 95% CI=0.85–3.80, P=0.12), although the latter was not statistically significant. The TARE-ineligible group had a significantly lower objective response rate than the TARE-eligible group (9.7% vs. 56.9%, P&lt;0.001).ConclusionTARE-ineligible patients had larger tumors and higher MoRAL scores than TARE-eligible patients. Treatment with TACE, owing to high LSF, was associated with a shorter TTP even after balancing tumor size and MoRAL scores.