Singal, Amit

BackgroundCurative surgical treatments afford the best prognosis for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA); however, the comparative effectiveness of treatment options and factors associated with curative treatment receipt for early stage iCCA remain unknown.MethodsThe authors identified patients who were diagnosed with early stage iCCA, defined as a unifocal tumor <3 cm, during 2004–2018 from the National Cancer Database. Multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses were used to identify the factors associated with curative treatment and overall survival (OS), respectively.ResultsThe proportion of patients with early stage iCCA increased from 4.5% in 2004 to 7.3% in 2018, with the odds of early stage detection increasing by 3.1% per year (odds ratio [OR], 1.031; 95% CI, 1.015–1.049). Of 1093 patients who had early stage iCCA, 464 (42.5%) underwent resection, 113 (10.3%) underwent ablation, 62 (5.7%) underwent liver transplantation, and 454 (41.5%) received noncurative treatments. Hispanic patients (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.33–0.97) and Black patients (aOR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.28–0.77) were less likely to receive curative treatments than White patients. Compared with patients who underwent surgical resection, those who underwent liver transplantation had a trend toward improved OS (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.37–1.08), whereas those who underwent local ablation (aHR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01–1.92) and noncurative treatments (aHR, 3.97; 95% CI, 3.24–4.88) experienced worse OS.ConclusionsMore than one third of patients with early stage iCCA did not receive curative treatment, with Hispanic and Black patients being less likely to receive curative treatments than White patients. Surgical resection and liver transplantation were associated with improved survival compared with local ablation. Future studies should investigate disparities in curative treatment receipt and outcomes for early stage iCCA.

AbstractBackgroundTransarterial radioembolization (TARE) is increasingly used as an alternative to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to perform an overall and individual patient data (IPD) meta‐analysis of studies comparing TACE and TARE.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search using pre‐specified keywords with the aid of an informationist for articles from inception to 3/2020. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoint was time to progression (TTP).ResultsSeventeen studies met inclusion criteria with 2465 unique patients, with one randomized trial, 4 prospective studies and 12 retrospective studies. Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B (42.8%) was the most common stage followed by BCLC A (30.3%) and BCLC C (29.0%). There was no difference in OS between the two modalities (−0.55 months, 95% CI −1.95 to 3.05). In three studies with available TTP data, TARE resulted in a longer TTP than TACE (mean TTP 17.5 vs. 9.8 months; mean TTP difference 4.8 months, 95% CI 1.3–8.3 months). IPD‐level meta‐analysis of 311 patients from three studies showed no difference in overall OS between the two modalities including among subgroups stratified by tumor stage and liver function. Limitations of the current literature include inconsistent length of follow‐up, inconsistency in response criteria, and safety reporting.ConclusionsCurrent data suggest TARE provides significantly longer TTP than TACE, although the two treatments do not significantly differ in terms of OS. Given limitations of the current data, there is rationale for prospective studies comparing these modalities.

Abstract Background and Aims Immunotherapy has emerged as an effective treatment for patients with advanced‐stage HCC. We aimed to investigate the efficacy of immunotherapy for advanced HCC in a nationwide cohort and racial and ethnic disparities in access to immunotherapy. Approach and Results We used the US National Cancer Database to identify patients with tumor‐node‐metastasis stage 3 or 4 HCC between 2017 and 2018. We performed multivariable Cox regression to identify factors associated with overall survival (OS) and logistic regression to identify factors associated with receipt of immunotherapy. Of the 3,990 patients treated for advanced HCC, 3,248 (81.4%) patients received chemotherapy and 742 (18.6%) patients received immunotherapy as a first‐line treatment. Immunotherapy was associated with improved OS compared with chemotherapy (adjusted HR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.65–0.88) after adjusting for covariates. There were racial and ethnic disparities in access to immunotherapy, with Hispanic (adjusted OR [aOR]: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.46–0.83) and Black patients (aOR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54–0.89) less likely to receive immunotherapy compared with White patients. There was a significant interaction between race‐ethnicity and facility type, with higher disparity observed in nonacademic centers (interaction p = 0.004). Conclusions Immunotherapy was associated with improved OS compared with chemotherapy in advanced HCC. There are significant disparities in early access to immunotherapy, likely due to differential access to clinical trials and experimental therapies. A comprehensive approach to monitoring and eliminating racial‐ethnic disparities in the management of advanced HCC is urgently needed.

Abstract The burden of HCC is substantial. To address gaps in HCC care, the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) Practice Metrics Committee (PMC) aimed to develop a standard set of process‐based measures and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) along the HCC care continuum. We identified candidate process and outcomes measures for HCC care based on structured literature review. A 13‐member panel with content expertise across the HCC care continuum evaluated candidate measures on importance and performance gap using a modified Delphi approach (two rounds of rating) to define the final set of measures. Candidate PROs based on a structured scoping review were ranked by 74 patients with HCC across 7 diverse institutions. Out of 135 measures, 29 measures made the final set. These covered surveillance (6 measures), diagnosis (6 measures), staging (2 measures), treatment (10 measures), and outcomes (5 measures). Examples included the use of ultrasound (± alpha‐fetoprotein [AFP]) every 6 months, need for surveillance in high‐risk populations, diagnostic testing for patients with a new AFP elevation, multidisciplinary liver tumor board (MLTB) review of Liver Imaging‐Reporting and Data System 4 lesions, standard evaluation at diagnosis, treatment recommendations based on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging, MLTB discussion of treatment options, appropriate referral for evaluation of liver transplantation candidacy, and role of palliative therapy. PROs include those related to pain, anxiety, fear of treatment, and uncertainty about the best individual treatment and the future. The AASLD PMC has developed a set of explicit quality measures in HCC care to help bridge the gap between guideline recommendations and measurable processes and outcomes. Measurement and subsequent implementation of these metrics could be a central step in the improvement of patient care and outcomes in this high‐risk population.