Vasoactive drugs are recommended to be started as soon as possible in suspected variceal bleeding, even before diagnostic endoscopy. However, it is still unclear whether the therapeutic efficacies of the various vasoactive drugs used are comparable. The aim of this prospective, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial was to characterize the effects of terlipressin, somatostatin, and octreotide when they are initiated before endoscopic treatment in patients with acute variceal bleeding. Patients with liver cirrhosis and significant upper gastrointestinal bleeding were randomly assigned to receive early administration of terlipressin, somatostatin, or octreotide, followed by endoscopic treatment. Patients with nonvariceal bleeding were excluded after endoscopy. The primary endpoint was 5-day treatment success, defined as control of bleeding without rescue treatment, rebleeding, or mortality, with a noninferiority margin of 0.1. In total, 780 patients with variceal bleeding were enrolled: 261 in the terlipressin group; 259 in the somatostatin group; and 260 in the octreotide group. At the time of initial endoscopy, active bleeding was noted in 43.7%, 44.4%, and 43.5% of these patients, respectively (P = 0.748), and treatment success was achieved by day 5 in 86.2%, 83.4%, and 83.8% (P = 0.636), with similar rates of control of bleeding without rescue treatment (89.7%, 87.6%, and 88.1%; P = 0.752), rebleeding (3.4%, 4.8%, and 4.4%; P = 0.739), or mortality (8.0%, 8.9%, and 8.8%; P = 0.929). The absolute values of the lower bound of confidence intervals for terlipressin versus somatostatin, terlilpressin versus octreotide, and octreotide versus somatostatin were 0.095, 0.090, and 0.065, respectively. Conclusion: Hemostatic effects and safety did not differ significantly between terlipressin, somatostatin, and octreotide as adjuvants to endoscopic treatment in patients with acute gastroesophageal variceal bleeding. (Hepatology 2014;60:954–963)

Han Ah Lee, Joon Young Jung, Young-Sun Lee, Young Kul Jung, Ji Hoon Kim, Hyonggin An, Hyung Joon Yim, Yoon Tae Jeen, Jong Eun Yeon, Kwan Soo Byun, Soon Ho Um, and Yeon Seok Seo. Gut and Liver 2021;15:599-605. https://doi.org/10.5009/gnl20171

Heo J, et al. Gut Liver. 2009 Sep;3(3):197-204. http://dx.doi.org/10.5009/gnl.2009.3.3.197

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death, especially in Eastern areas. With advancements in diagnosis and treatment modalities for HCC, the survival and prognosis of HCC patients are improving. However, treatment patterns are not uniform between areas despite efforts to promote a common protocol. Although many hepatologists in Asian countries may adopt the principles of the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system, they are also independently making an effort to expand the indications of each treatment and to combine therapies for better outcomes. Several expanded criteria for liver transplantation in HCC have been developed in Asian countries. Living donor liver transplantation is much more commonly performed in these countries than deceased donor liver transplantation, and it may be preceded by other treatments such as the down-staging of tumors. Local ablation therapies are often combined with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and the outcome is comparable to that of surgical resection. The indications of TACE are expanding, and there are new types of transarterial therapies. Although data on drug-eluting beads, TACE, and radioembolization in Asian countries are still relatively sparse compared with Western countries, these methods are gradually gaining popularity because of better tolerability and the possibility of improved response rates. Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy and radiotherapy are not included in Western guidelines, but are currently being used actively in several Asian countries. For more advanced HCCs, appropriate combinations of TACE, radiotherapy, and sorafenib can be considered, and emerging data indicate improved outcomes of combination therapies compared with single therapies. To include these paradigm shifts into newer treatment guidelines, more studies may be needed, but they are certainly in progress.

Sorafenib is the first approved systemic treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, its clinical utility is limited, especially in Asian countries. Several reports have suggested the survival benefits of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) for advanced HCC with main portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT). This study aimed to compare the efficacy of sorafenib-based therapy with that of HAIC-based therapy for advanced HCC with main PVTT. Advanced HCC patients with main PVTT treated with sorafenib or HAIC between 2008 and 2016 at Korea University Medical Center were included. We evaluated overall survival (OS), time-to-progression (TTP), and the disease control rate (DCR). Seventy-three patients were treated with sorafenib (n=35) or HAIC (n=38). Baseline characteristics were not significantly different between groups, except the presence of solid organ metastasis (46% vs 5.3%, p<0.001). The median OS time was not significantly different between the groups (6.4 months vs 10.0 months, p=0.139). TTP was longer in the HAIC group than in the sorafenib group (2.1 months vs 6.2 months, p=0.006). The DCR was also better in the HAIC group than in the sorafenib group (37% vs 76%, p=0.001). Subgroup analysis, which excluded patients with extrahepatic solid organ metastasis, showed the same trends for the median OS time (8.8 months vs 11.1 months, p=0.097), TTP (1.9 months vs 6.0 months, p<0.001), and DCR (53% vs 81%, p=0.030). HAIC-based therapy may be an alternative to sorafenib for advanced HCC with main PVTT by providing longer TTP and a better DCR.

Kim YS, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2003 Dec;18(6):833-841. http://dx.doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2003.18.6.833