Kazuomi Ueshima

OBJECTIVE: This trial compared the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) plus sorafenib with TACE alone using a newly established TACE-specific endpoint and pre-treatment of sorafenib before initial TACE. DESIGN: Patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were randomised to TACE plus sorafenib (n=80) or TACE alone (n=76). Patients in the combination group received sorafenib 400 mg once daily for 2-3 weeks before TACE, followed by 800 mg once daily during on-demand conventional TACE sessions until time to untreatable (unTACEable) progression (TTUP), defined as untreatable tumour progression, transient deterioration to Child-Pugh C or appearance of vascular invasion/extrahepatic spread. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), which is not a conventional one but defined as TTUP, or time to any cause of death plus overall survival (OS). Multiplicity was adjusted by gatekeeping hierarchical testing. RESULTS: Median PFS was significantly longer in the TACE plus sorafenib than in the TACE alone group (25.2 vs 13.5 months; p=0.006). OS was not analysed because only 73.6% of OS events were reached. Median TTUP (26.7 vs 20.6 months; p=0.02) was also significantly longer in the TACE plus sorafenib group. OS at 1 year and 2 years in TACE plus sorafenib group and TACE alone group were 96.2% and 82.7% and 77.2% and 64.6%, respectively. There were no unexpected toxicities. CONCLUSION: TACE plus sorafenib significantly improved PFS over TACE alone in patients with unresectable HCC. Adverse events were consistent with those of previous TACE combination trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01217034.

The Clinical Practice Manual for Hepatocellular Carcinoma was published based on evidence confirmed by the Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hepatocellular Carcinoma along with consensus opinion among a Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) expert panel on hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Since the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines are based on original articles with extremely high levels of evidence, expert opinions on HCC management in clinical practice or consensus on newly developed treatments are not included. However, the practice manual incorporates the literature based on clinical data, expert opinion, and real-world clinical practice currently conducted in Japan to facilitate its use by clinicians. Alongside each revision of the JSH Guidelines, we issued an update to the manual, with the first edition of the manual published in 2007, the second edition in 2010, the third edition in 2015, and the fourth edition in 2020, which includes the 2017 edition of the JSH Guideline. This article is an excerpt from the fourth edition of the HCC Clinical Practice Manual focusing on pathology, diagnosis, and treatment of HCC. It is designed as a practical manual different from the latest version of the JSH Clinical Practice Guidelines. This practice manual was written by an expert panel from the JSH, with emphasis on the consensus statements and recommendations for the management of HCC proposed by the JSH expert panel. In this article, we included newly developed clinical practices that are relatively common among Japanese experts in this field, although all of their statements are not associated with a high level of evidence, but these practices are likely to be incorporated into guidelines in the future. To write this article, coauthors from different institutions drafted the content and then critically reviewed each other's work. The revised content was then critically reviewed by the Board of Directors and the Planning and Public Relations Committee of JSH before publication to confirm the consensus statements and recommendations. The consensus statements and recommendations presented in this report represent measures actually being conducted at the highest-level HCC treatment centers in Japan. We hope this article provides insight into the actual situation of HCC practice in Japan, thereby affecting the global practice pattern in the management of HCC.

The Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Hepatocellular Carcinoma proposed by the Japan Society of Hepatology was updated in June 2014 at a consensus meeting of the Liver Cancer Study Group of Japan. Three important items have been updated: the surveillance and diagnostic algorithm, the treatment algorithm, and the definition of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) failure/refractoriness. The most important update to the diagnostic algorithm is the inclusion of gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging as a first line surveillance/diagnostic tool. Another significant update concerns removal of the term "lipiodol" from the definition of TACE failure/refractoriness.

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.

In the 2010 version of the Japan Society of Hepatology (JSH) consensus-based treatment algorithm for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) failure/refractoriness was defined assuming the use of superselective lipiodol TACE, which has been widely used worldwide and particularly in Japan, and areas with lipiodol deposition were considered to be necrotic. However, this concept is not well accepted internationally. Furthermore, following the approval of microspheres, an embolic material that does not use lipiodol, in February 2014 in Japan, the phrase 'lipiodol deposition' needed to be changed to 'necrotic lesion or viable lesion'. Accordingly, the respective section in the JSH guidelines was revised to define TACE failure as an insufficient response after ≥2 consecutive TACE procedures that is evident on response evaluation computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging after 1-3 months, even after chemotherapeutic agents have been changed and/or the feeding artery has been reanalyzed. In addition, the appearance of a higher number of lesions in the liver than that recorded at the previous TACE procedure (other than the nodule being treated) was added to the definition of TACE failure/refractoriness. Following the discussion of other issues concerning the continuous elevation of tumor markers, vascular invasion, and extrahepatic spread, descriptions similar to those in the previous version were approved. The revision of these TACE failure definitions was approved by over 85% of HCC experts.