Bruix, Jordi

Objective: To establish comprehensive recommendations on the management of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma (pCCA) and to identify areas in need of future investigation. Summary Background Data: The lack of consensus in management of pCCA across institutions worldwide impairs optimal patient care and best-achievable oncological outcome. A holistic and critical assessment of the body of evidence and collaborative guidance are required. Methods: The Consensus4pCCA conference developed unbiased consensus using the Zurich-Danish model. An impartial and multidisciplinary jury adopted comprehensive recommendations grounded on the work of eight expert panels answering predefined clinical questions and considering the best-quality evidence through a systematic review. The development of recommendations complied with GRADE and SIGN50 methodologies. Results: Seventy-one international experts considered 570 studies. Ten jury members concluded 71 recommendations covering definition and diagnosis, preoperative assessment and optimization, surgical resection, liver transplantation, and outcome reporting for pCCA patients. The consensus underscored that making patients amenable to high-quality curative resection and reducing its associated morbidity must be of highest priority. As such, multidisciplinary expertise and centralized care at all stages of disease management are critical to ensure both safety and oncological adequacy. To overcome the evidence-gap for rare diseases like pCCA, the jury urged large-scale registries to address open questions across the disease continuum and highlighted priorities for future investigation. Conclusion: The Consensus4pCCA represents an unprecedented commitment to collectively harmonize global treatment strategies for pCCA. This collective effort bridges the gap between expert opinions and clinical evidence and holds great promise to improve patient outcomes in the future.

Abstract Hepatocellular carcinoma remains a global health challenge affecting close to 1 million cases yearly. Liver transplantation provides the best long‐term outcomes for those meeting strict criteria. Efforts have been made to expand these criteria, whereas others have attempted downstaging approaches. Although locoregional approaches to downstaging are appealing and have demonstrated efficacy, limitations and challenges exists including poor imaging modality to assess response and appropriate endpoints along the process. Recent advances in systemic treatments including immune checkpoint inhibitors alone or in combination with tyrosine kinase inhibitors have prompted the discussion regarding their role for downstaging disease prior to transplantation. Here, we provide a review of prior locoregional approaches for downstaging, new systemic agents and their role for downstaging, and finally, key and critical considerations of the assessment, endpoints, and optimal designs in clinical trials to address this key question.

PURPOSE This phase I/II study evaluated tremelimumab (anticytotoxic T-lymphocyte–associated antigen-4 monoclonal antibody) and durvalumab (antiprogrammed death ligand-1 monoclonal antibody) as monotherapies and in combination for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), including a novel regimen featuring a single, priming dose of tremelimumab (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02519348 ). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with HCC who had progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomly assigned to receive T300 + D (tremelimumab 300 mg plus durvalumab 1,500 mg [one dose each during the first cycle] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), durvalumab monotherapy (1,500 mg once every 4 weeks), tremelimumab monotherapy (750 mg once every 4 weeks [seven doses] and then once every 12 weeks), or T75 + D (tremelimumab 75 mg once every 4 weeks plus durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks [four doses] followed by durvalumab 1,500 mg once every 4 weeks). Safety was the primary end point. Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR) by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1 and overall survival; exploratory end points included circulating lymphocyte profiles. RESULTS A total of 332 patients were enrolled (T300 + D, n = 75; durvalumab, n = 104; tremelimumab, n = 69; and T75 + D, n = 84). Tolerability was acceptable across arms, with grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events occurring in 37.8%, 20.8%, 43.5%, and 24.4%, respectively. Confirmed ORRs (95% CI) were 24.0% (14.9 to 35.3), 10.6% (5.4 to 18.1), 7.2% (2.4 to 16.1), and 9.5% (4.2 to 17.9), respectively. An early expansion of CD8+ lymphocytes was associated with response across arms, with highest proliferating CD8+ lymphocyte levels occurring in the T300 + D arm. The median (95% CI) overall survival was 18.7 (10.8 to 27.3), 13.6 (8.7 to 17.6), 15.1 (11.3 to 20.5), and 11.3 (8.4 to 15.0) months in the T300 + D, durvalumab, tremelimumab, and T75 + D arms, respectively. CONCLUSION All regimens were found to be tolerable and clinically active; however, the T300 + D regimen demonstrated the most encouraging benefit-risk profile. The unique pharmacodynamic activity and association with ORR of the T300 + D regimen further support its continued evaluation in HCC.

4508 Background: The combination of dual immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) T (anti–CTLA-4) and D (anti–PD-L1) showed tolerability with a promising objective response rate (ORR) in the initial cohort of this study (NCT02519348). Subsequent evaluation of pts with solid tumors treated with increasing doses of T suggested priming with a higher dose of T may induce a stronger immune response and enhance anti-tumor activity. Thus, the randomized expansion cohorts comprised 4 arms evaluating T and D as monotherapies and 2 T+D regimens, including a novel T+D regimen featuring a single, priming dose of T. Methods: ICI-naïve pts with aHCC who progressed on, were intolerant to, or refused sorafenib were randomized to one of two T+D combinations: T300+D (T 300 mg + D 1500 mg 1 dose followed by D Q4 weekly [Q4W]) or T75+D (T 75 mg Q4W + D 1500 mg Q4W [4 doses] followed by D Q4W); or single agent D (1500 mg Q4W) or T (750 mg Q4W). Safety was the primary endpoint. ORR by blinded, independent central review using RECIST v1.1, duration of response (DoR), circulating lymphocytes, and overall survival (OS) were assessed. Results: At data cut-off (09/02/2019), 332 pts were enrolled. Median follow-ups were 11.7 months (mo) for T300+D, 14.6 (T75+D), 8.9 (D), and 15.8 (T). Treatment-related adverse event (trAE) incidences are shown (Table); no deaths were attributed to trAEs for T300+D or T. The T300+D arm had the highest confirmed ORR (DoR not reached [NR]) and longest OS (Table). A unique proliferative T cell profile was identified for pts in the T300+D arm, suggesting additive biologic activity for the combination, and showed pts with an OR exhibited high cytotoxic (CD8) counts. Conclusions: The encouraging clinical activity and tolerable safety profile suggest T300+D provides the best benefit-risk profile as opposed to T75+D or monotherapies. The unique pharmacodynamic activity of the T300+D regimen further supports its use in aHCC. T300+D and D are being evaluated in the ongoing phase III HIMALAYA study (NCT03298451) in first-line HCC vs sorafenib. Funding: AstraZeneca. Clinical trial information: NCT02519348 . [Table: see text]

The presence of an intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) in a cirrhotic liver is a contraindication for liver transplantation in most centers worldwide. Recent investigations have shown that “very early” iCCA (single tumors ≤2 cm) may have acceptable results after liver transplantation. This study further evaluates this finding in a larger international multicenter cohort. The study group was composed of those patients who were transplanted for hepatocellular carcinoma or decompensated cirrhosis and found to have an iCCA at explant pathology. Patients were divided into those with “very early” iCCA and those with “advanced” disease (single tumor >2 cm or multifocal disease). Between January 2000 and December 2013, 81 patients were found to have an iCCA at explant; 33 had separate nodules of iCCA and hepatocellular carcinoma, and 48 had only iCCA (study group). Within the study group, 15/48 (31%) constituted the “very early” iCCA group and 33/48 (69%) the “advanced” group. There were no significant differences between groups in preoperative characteristics. At explant, the median size of the largest tumor was larger in the “advanced” group (3.1 [2.5‐4.4] versus 1.6 [1.5‐1.8]). After a median follow‐up of 35 (13.5‐76.4) months, the 1‐year, 3‐year, and 5‐year cumulative risks of recurrence were, respectively, 7%, 18%, and 18% in the very early iCCA group versus 30%, 47%, and 61% in the advanced iCCA group, P = 0.01. The 1‐year, 3‐year, and 5‐year actuarial survival rates were, respectively, 93%, 84%, and 65% in the very early iCCA group versus 79%, 50%, and 45% in the advanced iCCA group, P = 0.02. Conclusion: Patients with cirrhosis and very early iCCA may become candidates for liver transplantation; a prospective multicenter clinical trial is needed to further confirm these results. (H epatology 2016;64:1178‐1188)

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer-related death and is currently the main event leading to death in patients with cirrhosis. Evolving information suggests that the metabolic syndrome with non-alcoholic liver disease may be an important cause of HCC in addition to viral hepatitis and alcohol-induced liver disease. The molecular pathogenesis is extremely complex and heterogeneous. To date the molecular information has not impacted on treatment decisions. Periodic surveillance imaging of patients with cirrhosis is widely practiced, especially because diagnostic, radiographic criteria for early-stage HCC have been defined (including nodules between 1 and 2 cm) and effective treatment is available for tumours detected at an early stage. Worldwide the approach to resection versus transplantation varies depending upon local resources, expertise and donor availability. The criteria for transplantation are discussed, and the controversial areas highlighted with evidence-based recommendations provided. Several approaches are available for intermediate stage disease, including radiofrequency ablation, transarterial chemoembolisation and radioembolisation; the rationale for these therapies is buttressed by appropriate outcome-based studies. For advanced disease, systemic therapy with sorafenib remains the option best supported by current data. Thus, while several trials have failed to improve the benefits of established therapies, studies assessing the sequential or combined application of those already known to be beneficial are needed. Also, new concepts are provided in regards to selecting and stratifying patients for second-line studies, which may help explain the failure of prior studies.