Background and Aims: During liver transplantation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence remains a critical challenge for patient survival. Targeted therapies, such as sorafenib and regorafenib, have been utilized to manage relapsed HCC in this unique setting. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of Sorafenib and Regorafenib in patients with HCC who experienced recurrence after liver transplantation. We focused on survival outcomes, treatment responses, and the management of side effects in this patient group. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 73 patients who experienced HCC recurrence post-liver transplantation between 2012 and 2022 across 11 oncology centers in Turkey. Patients were categorized according to Child–Pugh classification and treated with sorafenib as first-line therapy and Regorafenib in case of progression. Survival rates were analyzed using the Kaplan–Meier method, and risk factors were evaluated using Cox regression analysis. Results: Of the 73 patients included in the study, 62 were male (84.9%), and 11 were female (15.1%), with a mean age of 61.5 ± 10.9 years. All patients received sorafenib as first-line treatment. Among patients who experienced progression with sorafenib or discontinued treatment due to toxicity, 45.2% (n = 33) continued treatment with regorafenib. The median progression-free survival (PFS1) time with sorafenib was 5.6 months, and the one-year survival rate was 24.3%. The median progression-free survival (PFS2) time with regorafenib, which was administered as second-line treatment, was also calculated as 5.9 months. Overall survival (OS) duration was determined as 35.9 months. The most common side effects associated with both drugs included fatigue, hand and foot syndrome, and hypertension. Significantly better survival outcomes were shown in the Child–Pugh A group compared to other patients. Conclusions: These results suggest that Sorafenib and Regorafenib treatments offer a survival advantage in patients with relapsed HCC post-transplantation. However, individualized treatment strategies and close follow-up are crucial for optimizing outcomes. Further studies are needed to refine therapeutic protocols and enhance the care of this specific patient group.

Sunitinib malate is a multitargeted oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) which is used in treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma with side effects such as diarrhea, mucositis, asthenia and myelosuppression. Serious toxicity associated with sunitinib is a rare situation. However; there are few cases reported in the literature. As a result of the inhibition that is caused by sunitinib malate agent at the receptor level, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) level increases. These increased VEGF levels are considered to having a positive contribution on neurological side effects. Neurotoxicity that is related with the usage of sunitinib malate for two weeks will be presented in this case report.

Background andAims: During liver transplantation, hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence remains a critical challenge for patient survival. Targeted therapies, such as Sorafenib and Regorafenib, have been utilized to manage relapsed HCC in this unique setting. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of Sorafenib and Regorafenib in patients with HCC who experienced recurrence after liver transplantation. We focused on survival outcomes, treatment responses, and the management of side effects in this patient group. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 73 patients who experienced HCC recurrence post-liver transplantation between 2012 and 2022, across 11oncology centers in Turkey. Patients were categorised according to Child-Pugh classification and treated with Sorafenib as first-line therapy and Regorafenib in case of progression. Survival rates were analysed by Kaplan-Meier method and risk factors were evaluated by Cox regression analysis. Results: Of the 73 patients included in the study, 62 were male (84,9%) and 11 were female (15,1%) with a mean age of 61,5 ± 10,9 years. All patients received sorafenib as first-line treatment. Among patients who experienced progression with sorafenib or discontinued treatment due to toxicity, 45,2% (n=33) continued treatment with regorafenib. The median progression-free survival (PFS1) time with Sorafenib was 5,6 months and the one-year survival rate was 24,3%. The median progression-free survival (PFS2) time with Regorafenib, which was administered as second-line treatment, was also calculated as 5,9 months. Overall survival (OS) duration was determined as 35,9 months. The most common side effects associated with both drugs included fatigue, hand-foot syndrome and hypertension. Significantly better survival outcomes were shown in the Child-Pugh A group compared to other patients. Conclusion: These results suggest that Sorafenib and Regorafenib treatments offer a survival advantage in patients with relapsed HCC post-transplantation. However, individualized treatment strategies and close follow-up are crucial for optimizing outcomes. Further studies are needed to refine therapeutic protocols and enhance the care of this specific patient group.

The objective of this multi-centre, real-world study was to examine the potential influence of comprehensive molecular profiling on the development of treatment decisions or adjustments for patients with advanced solid malignancies. We then evaluated the impact of these informed choices on patient treatment outcomes. The study encompassed 234 adult patients (mean age: 52.7 ± 14.3 years, 54.7% women) who were diagnosed with solid tumours at 21 different medical centres in Turkey. Remarkably, 67.9% of the patients exhibited metastasis at the time of diagnosis. We utilized an OncoDNA (Gosselies, Belgium) platform (OncoDEEP) integrating next-generation sequencing with additional tests to harvest complex molecular profiling data. The results were analyzed in relation with two specific outcomes: (i) the impact on therapeutic decisions, including formulation or modifications, and (ii) associated treatment response. Out of the 228 patients with final molecular profiling results, 118 (50.4%) had their treatment modified, whilst the remaining 110 (47.0%) did not. The response rates were comparable, with 3.9 versus 3.4% for complete response, 13.6 versus 29.3% for partial response, 66.9 versus 51.7% for progressive disease and 15.5 versus 15.5% for stable disease for treatments informed and not informed by complex molecular profiling, respectively (P = 0.16). Our real-world findings highlight the significant impact of complex molecular profiling on the treatment decisions made by oncologists for a substantial portion of patients with advanced solid tumours. Regrettably, no significant advantage was detected in terms of treatment response or disease control rates.