Gbolahan Olumide B, Schacht Michael A, Beckley Eric W, LaRoche Thomas P, O'Neil Bert H, Pyko Maximilian
1Division of Hematology Oncology, 2Department of Interventional Radiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, USA.
J Gastrointest Oncol. 2017 Apr;8(2):215-228. doi: 10.21037/jgo.2017.03.13.
The management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains challenging due to late presentation and the presence of accompanying liver dysfunction. As such, most patients are not eligible for curative resection and liver transplant. Management in this scenario depends on a number of factors including hepatic function, tumor burden, patency of hepatic vasculature and patients' functional status. Based on these, patients can be offered catheter based intra-arterial therapy for intermediate stage disease and in more advanced disease, sorafenib. Given recent data, regorafenib is now an option following failure of sorafenib. Catheter directed intra-arterial therapy takes advantage of tumor hypervascularity and the unique dual blood supply of the liver, as hepatic tumors receive arterial perfusion via the hepatic artery while the rest of the liver is supplied by the portal vein. This allows selective embolization and delivery of chemotherapeutic agents to the tumor. Compared to best supportive care, intra-arterial therapy offers a survival benefit in intermediate stage HCC and is the recommended approach for treatment. None of the catheter based approaches; including bland embolization, conventional trans-arterial chemoembolization (cTACE), drug eluting bead trans-arterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE) or trans-arterial radioembolization (TARE) offers a clear advantage over the other, although DEB-TACE may be characterized by less systemic toxicity. All of these approaches are contraindicated in patients with portal vein thrombosis (PVT). On the other hand, intra-arterial, radio embolization, with Yttrium-90 (Y90) can be offered to patients with PVT. The place of this modality in management of HCC is still being investigated. The role of sorafenib in advanced HCC is not in doubt, as until recently, it was the only systemic therapy approved for the management in this setting. This is despite multiple trials evaluating other agents. The addition of sorafenib to catheter-based therapy in intermediate stage disease has also failed to show any benefit. The modest survival benefit with sorafenib and the failure of other targeted agents suggest that it is important to look beyond inhibition of angiogenesis in advanced HCC. Identification of key drivers and mediators of HCC remains paramount for successful drug development. In line with this, it is refreshing that the excitement that has followed developments in cancer immunotherapy is finding its way to HCC with early trials of anti-PD1 monoclonal antibodies showing sufficient activity that phase III trials are now ongoing for Pembrolizumab and Nivolumab in advanced HCC. Future drug development efforts will focus on defining the feasibility of combining different treatment approaches targeting multiple important modulators of HCC.
由于肝癌(HCC)多在晚期出现且伴有肝功能障碍,其治疗仍具有挑战性。因此,大多数患者不适合进行根治性切除和肝移植。这种情况下的治疗取决于多种因素,包括肝功能、肿瘤负荷、肝血管的通畅情况以及患者的功能状态。基于这些因素,对于中期疾病患者可采用基于导管的动脉内治疗,而对于更晚期的疾病,则可使用索拉非尼。鉴于近期的数据,瑞戈非尼现在成为索拉非尼治疗失败后的一种选择。导管导向动脉内治疗利用了肿瘤的高血管化以及肝脏独特的双重血液供应,因为肝脏肿瘤通过肝动脉接受动脉灌注,而肝脏的其余部分由门静脉供血。这使得能够选择性地栓塞肿瘤并向肿瘤递送化疗药物。与最佳支持治疗相比,动脉内治疗在中期肝癌中可带来生存获益,是推荐的治疗方法。包括单纯栓塞、传统经动脉化疗栓塞(cTACE)、载药微球经动脉化疗栓塞(DEB - TACE)或经动脉放射性栓塞(TARE)在内的基于导管的治疗方法均未显示出相对于其他方法的明显优势,尽管DEB - TACE的全身毒性可能较小。所有这些方法在门静脉血栓形成(PVT)患者中均为禁忌。另一方面,对于PVT患者可采用钇 - 90(Y90)进行动脉内放射性栓塞治疗。这种治疗方式在肝癌治疗中的地位仍在研究中。索拉非尼在晚期肝癌中的作用毋庸置疑,因为直到最近,它仍是唯一被批准用于该情况下治疗的全身疗法。尽管有多项试验评估了其他药物,但在中期疾病中将索拉非尼与基于导管的治疗联合使用也未显示出任何益处。索拉非尼带来的适度生存获益以及其他靶向药物的失败表明,在晚期肝癌中,超越血管生成抑制进行研究很重要。确定肝癌的关键驱动因素和介质对于成功开展药物研发至关重要。与此相符的是,令人振奋的是,随着癌症免疫疗法的发展,其热度也延伸到了肝癌领域,抗PD1单克隆抗体的早期试验显示出足够的活性,目前针对晚期肝癌的派姆单抗和纳武单抗正在进行III期试验。未来的药物研发工作将集中于确定联合针对肝癌多种重要调节因子的不同治疗方法的可行性。