Dawson, Laura A.

Background : Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains a major cause of cancer-related mortality. Optimal treatment decisions are challenging, and existing treatment allocation frameworks may not fully reflect the evolving therapeutic landscape or contemporary clinical practices in North America. Methods : Using a modified Delphi process, a multidisciplinary panel of 20 North American experts in hepatology, medical oncology, surgery, radiology, and radiation oncology developed a consensus-based treatment framework for HCC, termed the BEACON-HCC system. The framework was informed by current evidence and expert opinion through iterative discussion and voting. In a pilot study using 29 real-world patient cases, we assessed concordance between external expert recommendations and BEACON-HCC recommendations and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) 2025 treatment recommendations. Results : The BEACON-HCC treatment allocation framework diverges from prior frameworks by incorporating nuanced clinical features such as degree of intrahepatic tumor burden and vascular invasion, and adverse tumor prognostic markers, to align treatment allocation with tumor biology and therapeutic potential. Key innovations include the incorporation of emerging modalities such as external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), transarterial radioembolization (TARE), and systemic-locoregional combination therapies. In the pilot exercise, expert treatment decisions showed 96.6% concordance with BEACON-HCC recommendations and 72.4% concordance with BCLC recommendations. Conclusions : BEACON-HCC is a consensus-based framework for treatment allocation that incorporates the expanding range of therapeutic options available to patients in the North American HCC population. Expert treatment decisions showed a high concordance with the BEACON-HCC system; further validation using empiric clinical data is planned through the HCC-Live Consortium.

PURPOSE External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) has gained delayed acceptance as a recommended first-line treatment modality for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), given limited evidence that it improves overall survival (OS). We analyzed individual patient data (IPD) from an international cohort to assess OS among patients with HCC treated with EBRT. METHODS We performed a systematic review of publications that assessed EBRT, met prespecified technical standards for HCC, and reported OS (search date December 15, 2022). Corresponding authors were invited to submit IPD for the study. We performed Kaplan-Meier survival analyses to determine OS and restricted mean survival time (RMST) stratified by Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage and treatment status (ie, treatment-naïve and experienced). We performed random effects Cox proportional hazards modeling to assess clinical characteristics associated with OS. RESULTS Data were provided on 4,913 patients treated with EBRT with a median follow-up time of 5.0 years. The median OS was 6.8 years (95% CI, 5.7 to 8.7) for BCLC-0 and 4.6 years (95% CI, 4.1 to 5.1) for BCLC-A. Among treatment-naïve patients, the median OS was not reached (95% CI, 8.6 to not reached) for BCLC-0 and was 5.4 years (95% CI, 4.5 to 6.7) for BCLC-A. In multivariable models, more advanced BCLC stage, higher tumor burden, worse performance status, and Child-Pugh class B or C were associated with a higher risk of mortality. Ablative radiation dose and more recent year of treatment were associated with a reduced risk of death. CONCLUSION To our knowledge, this study represents the largest multinational cohort of patients with HCC treated with EBRT. OS outcomes with EBRT for very early- and early-stage HCC appear to be comparable with resection, thermal ablation, and other ablative locoregional therapies. These data support the inclusion of EBRT in the BCLC HCC clinical decision-making process.

489 Background: To determine if SBRT followed by sorafenib (SBRT/S) improves overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QOL) vs. sorafenib alone (S), in patients (pts) with HCC. Methods: Eligible pts had new or recurrent HCC, unsuitable for surgery, ablation or TACE, with Zubrod performance status (PS) 0-2, Child-Pugh (CP) A, BCLC stage B or C, ≤ 5 HCCs, sum of hepatic HCCs ≤ 20 cm, and distant metastases ≤ 3 cm. Pts were randomized 1:1 to S 400 mg BID vs. SBRT (27.5-50 Gy in 5 fractions) followed by S 200 mg BID, increased to 400 mg BID after 28 days. Primary endpoint was OS; reported secondary endpoints - PFS, adverse events (AEs - CTCAEv4), and QOL (improvement in FACT-Hep score by ≥ 5 points from baseline to 6 months). Planned sample size was 292 pts (238 OS events, HR=0.72, 80% power, 1-sided α=0.05). Accrual closed early, due to a change in HCC standard of care. Statistics were amended to report as of 7/1/2022, projecting 155 OS events, with 65% power and the same α. OS and PFS were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and arms compared using log-rank test. Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyze treatment effect. Secondary endpoints were tested with 2-sided α=0.05. Results: Of 193 pts accrued from April 2013 to March 2021 from 23 sites, 177 eligible pts were randomized to S (n=92) vs. SBRT/S (n=85). Median age was 66 yrs (27-84); 41% had Hep. C; 19% had Hep. B or B/C. 82% were BCLC stage C. 74% had macrovascular invasion (MVI), 63% with VP3 or VP4 MVI. 4% had metastases. Median sum of max diameter of HCCs was 8.2 cm for S and 6.7 cm for SBRT/S; 40% had a single HCC. Median follow-up for all and alive pts was 13.2 and 33.7 mo. 22% of S pts received SBRT after discontinuing S. With 153 OS events, median OS was improved from 12.3 mo. (90% CI 10.6, 14.3) with S to 15.8 mo. (90% CI 11.4-19.2) with SBRT/S (HR=0.77, 1-sided p=0.0554). After adjusting for PS, M stage, CP A5 vs. 6, and degree of MVI, OS was statistically significantly improved for SBRT/S (HR=0.72, 95% CI 0.52-0.99, 2-sided Cox p=0.042). Median PFS was improved from 5.5 mo. (95% CI 3.4-6.3) with S to 9.2 months (95% CI 7.5-11.9) with SBRT/S (HR=0.55, 95% CI 0.40-0.75, 2-sided p=0.0001). 8 grade (G) 3+ bleeds were seen: 5 in S arm (1 G3 variceal, 2 G3 upper GI, 1 G3 hepatic, and 1 G4 abdominal) and 3 post SBRT/S (2 G3 upper GI, 1 G3 lower GI). Treatment-related G3+ AEs were not significantly different (S - 42%; SBRT/S - 47%; p=0.52), with 3 G5 AEs (S - 1 hepatic failure, 1 death NOS; SBRT/S - 1 lung infection). 83 (47%) pts consented to QoL. Of 20 S and 17 SBRT/S pts with QoL assessments at baseline and 6 months, 10% on S improved in FACT-Hep score vs 35% on SBRT/S. Conclusions: Compared to S alone, SBRT improved OS & PFS in patients with HCC, with no observed increase in AEs, and a strong suggestion for QOL benefit at 6 months. Supported by U10CA180868 (NRG Onc. Op., U10CA180822 (NRG Onc. SDMC), UG1CA189867 (NCORP), and U24CA180803 (IROC) from the NCI. Clinical trial information: NCT01730937 .

Transplant oncology defines any application of transplant medicine and surgery aimed at improving cancer patients’ survival and/or quality of life. In practice, liver transplantation for selected hepato-biliary cancers is the only solid organ transplant with demonstrated efficacy in curing cancer. Four are the proposed future contributions of transplant oncology in hepato-biliary cancer (4-e). (1) evolutionary approach to cancer care that includes liver transplantation; (2) elucidation of self and non-self recognition systems, by linking tumor and transplant immunology; (3) exploration of innovative endpoints both in clinical and experimental settings taking advantage from the access to the entire liver explant; (4) extension of surgical limitation in the multidisciplinary approach to hepato-biliary oncology. The aim of this review is to define the principles of transplant oncology that may be applied to hepato-biliary cancer treatment and research, attempting to balance current evidences with future opportunities.

Abstract Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has emerged as a major cause of cancer deaths globally. The landscape of systemic therapy has recently changed, with six additional systemic agents either approved or awaiting approval for advanced stage HCC. While these agents have the potential to improve outcomes, a survival increase of 2–5 months remains poor and falls short of what has been achieved in many other solid tumor types. The roles of genomics, underlying cirrhosis, and optimal use of treatment strategies that include radiation, liver transplantation, and surgery remain unanswered. Here, we discuss new treatment opportunities, controversies, and future directions in managing HCC.