Although transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the standard of care for intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), this is a largely heterogeneous disease that includes a subgroup of patients who do not benefit from TACE. The treatment strategy for this subgroup of patients currently remains an unmet need in clinical practice. Here, we performed a proof-of-concept study that lenvatinib may be a more favorable treatment option over TACE as an initial treatment in intermediate-stage HCC patients with large or multinodular tumours exceeding the up-to-seven criteria. This proof-of-concept study included 642 consecutive patients with HCC initially treated with lenvatinib or conventional TACE (cTACE) between January 2006 and December 2018. Of these patients, 176 who received lenvatinib or cTACE as an initial treatment and met the eligibility criteria (unresectable, beyond the up-to-seven criteria, no prior TACE/systemic therapy, no vascular invasion, no extrahepatic spread and Child–Pugh A liver function) were selected for the study. Propensity score matching was used to adjust for patient demographics. After propensity-score matching, the outcome of 30 patients prospectively treated with lenvatinib (14 in clinical trials, one in an early access program and 15 in real world settings) and 60 patients treated with cTACE as the initial treatment was compared. The change of albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score from baseline to the end of treatment were −2.61 to −2.61 for 30 patients in the lenvatinib group (p = 0.254) and −2.66 to −2.09 in the cTACE group (p < 0.01), respectively. The lenvatinib group showed a significantly higher objective response rate (73.3% vs. 33.3%; p < 0.001) and significantly longer median progression-free survival than the cTACE group (16.0 vs. 3.0 months; p < 0.001). Overall survival was significantly longer in the lenvatinib group than in the cTACE group (37.9 vs. 21.3 months; hazard ratio: 0.48, p < 0.01). In patients with large or multinodular intermediate-stage HCC exceeding the up-to-seven criteria with Child–Pugh A liver function, who usually do not benefit from TACE, lenvatinib provides a more favorable outcome than TACE.

Background: This study investigated the impact of baseline liver function according to the Child–Pugh score and ALBI (albumin-bilirubin) grade on the outcomes of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma treated with lenvatinib. Methods: A total of 82 lenvatinib treated patients were included. The correlations of baseline liver function according to the Child–Pugh score and ALBI grade with treatment outcomes, including objective response rate per mRECIST (modified Response Evaluation Criteria in the Solid Tumor), time to treatment failure, treatment duration, and likelihood of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events, were assessed in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with lenvatinib. Patients were divided into four groups: (1) Child–Pugh score 5 and ALBI grade 1 (group 1), (2) Child–Pugh score 5 and ALBI grade 2 (group 2), (3) Child–Pugh score 6 (group 3), and (4) Child–Pugh score ≥7 (group 4). Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify the factors contributing to the objective response rate and likelihood of discontinuation due to adverse events. Results: Among the 82 patients analyzed, group 1 had the highest objective response rate (57.1%) and the lowest likelihood of treatment discontinuation because of adverse events (11.1%) among the four groups (p < 0.05 and p < 0.05). Multivariate analysis identified ALBI grade 1 and baseline AFP level <200 ng/mL as the significant predictors of a high objective response rate (p < 0.05 and p < 0.01), and confirmed that patients with ALBI grade 1 had the lowest probability of treatment discontinuation due to adverse events (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Patients with Child–Pugh score of 5 and ALBI grade 1 predicted a higher response rate and lower treatment discontinuation due to adverse events by lenvatinib treatment.

Background and Aim: Endoscopic ultrasound‐guided biliary drainage (EUS‐BD) can be carried out by two different approaches: choledochoduodenostomy (CDS) and hepaticogastrostomy (HGS). We compared the efficacy and safety of these approaches in malignant distal biliary obstruction (MDBO) patients using a prospective, randomized clinical trial.Methods: Patients with malignant distal biliary obstruction after failed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography were randomly selected for either CDS or HGS. The procedures were carried out at nine tertiary centers from September 2013 to March 2016. Primary endpoint was technical success rate, and the noninferiority of HGS to CDS was examined with a one‐sided significance level of 5%, where the noninferiority margin was set at 15%. Secondary endpoints were clinical success, adverse events (AE), stent patency, survival time, and overall technical success including alternative EUS‐BD procedures.Results: Forty‐seven patients (HGS, 24; CDS, 23) were enrolled. Technical success rates were 87.5% and 82.6% in the HGS and CDS groups, respectively, where the lower limit of the 90% confidence interval of the risk difference was −12.2% (P = 0.0278). Clinical success rates were 100% and 94.7% in the HGS and CDS groups, respectively (P = 0.475). Overall AE rate, stent patency, and survival time did not differ between the groups. Overall technical success rates were 100% and 95.7% in the HGS and CDS groups, respectively (P = 0.983).Conclusions: This study suggests that HGS is not inferior to CDS in terms of technical success. When one procedure is particularly challenging, readily switching to the other could increase technical success.

The consensus‐based TOKYO criteria were proposed as a standardized reporting system for endoscopic transpapillary biliary drainage. The primary objective was to address issues arising from the inconsistent reporting of stent outcomes across studies, which has complicated the comparability and interpretation of study results. However, the original TOKYO criteria were not readily applicable to recent modalities of endoscopic biliary drainage such as biliary drainage based on endoscopic ultrasound or device‐assisted endoscopy. There are increasing opportunities for managing hilar biliary obstruction and benign biliary strictures through endoscopic drainage. Biliary ablation has been introduced to manage benign and malignant biliary strictures. In addition, the prolonged survival times of cancer patients have increased the importance of evaluating overall outcomes during the period requiring endoscopic biliary drainage rather than solely focusing on the patency of the initial stent. Recognizing these unmet needs, a committee has been established within the Japan Gastroenterological Endoscopy Society to revise the TOKYO criteria for current clinical practice. The revised criteria propose not only common reporting items for endoscopic biliary drainage overall, but also items specific to various conditions and interventions. The term “stent‐demanding time” has been defined to encompass the entire duration of endoscopic biliary drainage, during which the overall stent‐related outcomes are evaluated. The revised TOKYO criteria 2024 are expected to facilitate the design and reporting of clinical studies, providing a goal‐oriented approach to the evaluation of endoscopic biliary drainage.