Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is DNA-based virus, member of the Hepadnaviridae family, which can cause liver disease and increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in infected individuals, replicating within the hepatocytes and interacting with several cellular proteins. Chronic hepatitis B can progressively lead to liver cirrhosis, which is an independent risk factor for HCC. Complications as liver decompensation or HCC impact the survival of HBV patients and concurrent HDV infection worsens the disease. The available data provide evidence that HBV infection is associated with the risk of developing HCC with or without an underlying liver cirrhosis, due to various direct and indirect mechanisms promoting hepatocarcinogenesis. The molecular profile of HBV-HCC is extensively and continuously under study, and it is the result of altered molecular pathways, which modify the microenvironment and lead to DNA damage. HBV produces the protein HBx, which has a central role in the oncogenetic process. Furthermore, the molecular profile of HBV-HCC was recently discerned from that of HDV-HCC, despite the obligatory dependence of HDV on HBV. Proper management of the underlying HBV-related liver disease is fundamental, including HCC surveillance, viral suppression, and application of adequate predictive models. When HBV-HCC occurs, liver function and HCC characteristics guide the physician among treatment strategies but always considering the viral etiology in the treatment choice.

Objective: The benefit of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) against HCV following successful treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial. This meta-analysis of individual patient data assessed HCC recurrence risk following DAA administration. Design: We pooled the data of 977 consecutive patients from 21 studies of HCV-related cirrhosis and HCC, who achieved complete radiological response after surgical/locoregional treatments and received DAAs (DAA group). Recurrence or death risk was expressed as HCC recurrence or death per 100 person-years (100PY). Propensity score-matched patients from the ITA.LI.CA. cohort (n=328) served as DAA-unexposed controls (no-DAA group). Risk factors for HCC recurrence were identified using random-effects Poisson. Results: Recurrence rate and death risk per 100PY in DAA-treated patients were 20 (95% CI 13.9 to 29.8, I ² =74.6%) and 5.7 (2.5 to 15.3, I ² =54.3), respectively. Predictive factors for recurrence were alpha-fetoprotein logarithm (relative risk (RR)=1.11, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.19; p=0.01, per 1 log of ng/mL), HCC recurrence history pre-DAA initiation (RR=1.11, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.16; p<0.001), performance status (2 vs 0, RR=4.35, 95% CI 1.54 to 11.11; 2 vs 1, RR=3.7, 95% CI 1.3 to 11.11; p=0.01) and tumour burden pre-HCC treatment (multifocal vs solitary nodule, RR=1.75, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.43; p<0.001). No significant difference was observed in RR between the DAA-exposed and DAA-unexposed groups in propensity score-matched patients (RR=0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.1; p=0.1). Conclusion: Effects of DAA exposure on HCC recurrence risk remain inconclusive. Active clinical and radiological follow-up of patients with HCC after HCV eradication with DAA is justified.

Introduction: Atezolizumab (ATEZO) plus bevacizumab (BEVA) represents the new standard of care for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the choice of the second-line treatment after the failure of immunotherapy-based first-line remains elusive. Taking into account the weaknesses of the available evidence, we developed a simulation model based on available phase III randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to identify optimal risk/benefit sequential strategies. Methods: A Markov model was built to estimate the overall survival (OS) of sequential first- and second-line systemic treatments. Sequences starting with first-line ATEZO plus BEVA followed by 5 second-line treatments (sorafenib [SORA], lenvatinib [LENVA], regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab) were compared. The probability of transition between states (initial treatment, cancer progression, and death) was derived from RCTs. Life-year gained (LYG) was the main outcome. Rates of severe adverse events (SAEs) (≥ grade 3) were calculated. The incremental safety-effectiveness ratio (ISER) was calculated as the difference in probability of SAEs divided by LYG between the 2 most effective sequences. Results: ATEZO plus BEVA followed by LENVA (median OS, 24 months) or SORA (median OS, 23 months) was the most effective sequence, producing a LYG of 0.50 and 0.42 year, respectively. ATEZO plus BEVA followed by SORA was the safest sequence (SAEs 63%). At a willingness-to-risk threshold of 10% of SAEs for LYG, ATEZO plus BEVA followed by second-line SORA was favored in 72% of cases, while at a threshold of 30% of SAEs for LYG, ATEZO plus BEVA followed by second-line LENVA was favored in 69% of cases. Conclusion: Our simulation model provides a strong rationale to support ongoing trials evaluating second-line tyrosine-kinase inhibitors after first-line ATEZO plus BEVA. Future evidence from ongoing RCTs and prospective real-world studies are needed to prove the net health benefit of sequential treatment options for advanced HCC.

Background: Radiology-based outcomes, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR), are used as surrogate endpoints in oncology trials. We aimed to assess the surrogacy relationship of PFS with overall survival (OS) in clinical trials of systemic therapies targeting advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) by novel meta-regression methods. Methods: A search of databases (PubMed, American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Meeting Libraries, Clinicaltrials.gov) for trials of systemic therapies for advanced HCC reporting both OS and PFS was performed. Individual patient data were extracted from PFS and OS Kaplan–Meier curves. Summary median PFS and OS data were obtained from random-effect model. The surrogate relationships of median PFS, first quartile (Q1), third quartile (Q3), and restricted mean survival time (RMST) for OS were evaluated by the coefficient of determination R². Heterogeneity was explored by meta-regression. Results: We identified 49 trials, 11 assessing immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and 38 multikinase inhibitors (MKIs). Overall, the correlation between median PFS and median OS was weak (R² = 0.20. 95% Confidence Intervals [CI]-0.02;0.42). Surrogacy robustness varied between treatment classes and PFS endpoints. In ICI trials only, the correlations between Q1-PFS and Q1-OS and between 12-month PFS-RMST and 12-month OS-RMST were high (R² = 0.89, 95%CI 0.78–0.98, and 0.80, 95% CI 0.63–0.96, respectively). Interaction p-values obtained by meta-regression confirmed the robustness of results. Conclusions: In trials of systemic therapies for advanced HCC, the surrogate relationship of PFS with OS is highly variable depending on treatment class (ICI or MKI) and evaluation time-point. In ICI trials, Q1-PFS and 12-month PFS-RMST are robust surrogate endpoints for OS.

Background: The treatments for cancer palliation in patients with concomitant malignant biliary obstruction (MBO) and gastric outlet obstruction (MGOO) are still under investigation due to the lack of evidence available in the medical literature. We performed a systematic search and critical review to investigate efficacy and safety among patients with MBO and MGOO undergoing both endoscopic ultrasound-guided biliary drainage (EUS-BD) and MGOO endoscopic treatment. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. EUS-BD included both transduodenal and transgastric techniques. Treatment of MGOO included duodenal stenting or EUS-GEA (gastroenteroanastomosis). Outcomes of interest were technical success, clinical success, and rate of adverse events (AEs) in patients undergoing double treatment in the same session or within one week. Results: 11 studies were included in the systematic review for a total number of 337 patients, 150 of whom had concurrent MBO and MGOO treatment, fulfilling the time criteria. MGOO was treated by duodenal stenting (self-expandable metal stents) in 10 studies, and in one study by EUS-GEA. EUS-BD had a mean technical success of 96.4% (CI 95%, 92.18–98.99) and a mean clinical success of 84.96% (CI 95%, 67.99–96.26). The average frequency of AEs for EUS-BD was 28.73% (CI 95%, 9.12–48.33). Clinical success for duodenal stenting was 90% vs. 100% for EUS-GEA. Conclusions: EUS-BD could become the preferred drainage in the case of double endoscopic treatment of concomitant MBO and MGOO in the near future, with the promising EUS-GEA becoming a valid option for MGOO treatment in these patients.