Second line therapy after failure of sorafenib continues to be under study. Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma is measured in months, with median overall survival reaching 10.7 months with sorafenib. Because of the modest net benefit sorafenib has contributed, and rising incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma in the world, continued efforts are ongoing to look for efficient upfront, second line, or combination therapies. Herein we review the most relevant to date published literature on treatment options beyond sorafenib, reported studies, ongoing investigational efforts, and possibilities for future studies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular* ; Humans ; Immunotherapy ; Incidence ; Prognosis

Incidental gallbladder cancer (iGBC) diagnosed post-histopathological examination of gallbladders removed assuming benign gallstone disease constitutes a significant proportion of GBC patients. Most iGBC patients present with early-stage disease. The standard care for localized (non-metastatic) iGBC includes a reoperation for complete extended (radical) cholecystectomy involving liver resection and lymphadenectomy, followed by postoperative adjuvant systemic therapy. However, a major drawback of this approach is the high recurrence rate within six months post-radical surgery, which undermines the benefits of the extensive procedure; notably, most recurrences are distant, highlighting the efficacy of systemic therapy. Similar to other gastrointestinal cancers, there appears to be a potential for neoadjuvant systemic therapy (chemotherapy) before reoperative surgery in iGBC cases. The premise that neoadjuvant systemic therapy aids in selecting diseases with more favorable biological characteristics and addresses micro-metastatic disease appears applicable to iGBC as well. This systematic review examines the current evidence supporting or refuting neoadjuvant therapy and discusses criteria for selecting patients who would derive significant benefit, along with proposing an optimal chemotherapy regimen for iGBC patients. Improved outcomes have been reported in patients undergoing reoperation after 4 to 14 weeks following the initial cholecystectomy compared to immediate reoperation. Limited, yet promising, evidence supports the use of 3 to 4 cycles of gemcitabine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to reoperative surgery in select high-risk iGBC cases.

Incidental gallbladder cancer (iGBC) diagnosed post-histopathological examination of gallbladders removed assuming benign gallstone disease constitutes a significant proportion of GBC patients. Most iGBC patients present with early-stage disease. The standard care for localized (non-metastatic) iGBC includes a reoperation for complete extended (radical) cholecystectomy involving liver resection and lymphadenectomy, followed by postoperative adjuvant systemic therapy. However, a major drawback of this approach is the high recurrence rate within six months post-radical surgery, which undermines the benefits of the extensive procedure; notably, most recurrences are distant, highlighting the efficacy of systemic therapy. Similar to other gastrointestinal cancers, there appears to be a potential for neoadjuvant systemic therapy (chemotherapy) before reoperative surgery in iGBC cases. The premise that neoadjuvant systemic therapy aids in selecting diseases with more favorable biological characteristics and addresses micro-metastatic disease appears applicable to iGBC as well. This systematic review examines the current evidence supporting or refuting neoadjuvant therapy and discusses criteria for selecting patients who would derive significant benefit, along with proposing an optimal chemotherapy regimen for iGBC patients. Improved outcomes have been reported in patients undergoing reoperation after 4 to 14 weeks following the initial cholecystectomy compared to immediate reoperation. Limited, yet promising, evidence supports the use of 3 to 4 cycles of gemcitabine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to reoperative surgery in select high-risk iGBC cases.

Incidental gallbladder cancer (iGBC) diagnosed post-histopathological examination of gallbladders removed assuming benign gallstone disease constitutes a significant proportion of GBC patients. Most iGBC patients present with early-stage disease. The standard care for localized (non-metastatic) iGBC includes a reoperation for complete extended (radical) cholecystectomy involving liver resection and lymphadenectomy, followed by postoperative adjuvant systemic therapy. However, a major drawback of this approach is the high recurrence rate within six months post-radical surgery, which undermines the benefits of the extensive procedure; notably, most recurrences are distant, highlighting the efficacy of systemic therapy. Similar to other gastrointestinal cancers, there appears to be a potential for neoadjuvant systemic therapy (chemotherapy) before reoperative surgery in iGBC cases. The premise that neoadjuvant systemic therapy aids in selecting diseases with more favorable biological characteristics and addresses micro-metastatic disease appears applicable to iGBC as well. This systematic review examines the current evidence supporting or refuting neoadjuvant therapy and discusses criteria for selecting patients who would derive significant benefit, along with proposing an optimal chemotherapy regimen for iGBC patients. Improved outcomes have been reported in patients undergoing reoperation after 4 to 14 weeks following the initial cholecystectomy compared to immediate reoperation. Limited, yet promising, evidence supports the use of 3 to 4 cycles of gemcitabine-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy prior to reoperative surgery in select high-risk iGBC cases.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major global burden, ranking as the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality. HCC due to chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) or C virus (HCV) infection has decreased due to universal vaccination for HBV and effective antiviral therapy for both HBV and HCV, but HCC related to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and alcohol-associated liver disease is increasing. Biannual liver ultrasonography and serum α-fetoprotein are the primary surveillance tools for early HCC detection among high-risk patients (e.g., cirrhosis, chronic HBV). Alternative surveillance tools such as blood-based biomarker panels and abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are being investigated. Multiphasic computed tomography or MRI is the standard for HCC diagnosis, but histological confirmation should be considered, especially when inconclusive findings are seen on cross-sectional imaging. Staging and treatment decisions are complex and should be made in multidisciplinary settings, incorporating multiple factors including tumor burden, degree of liver dysfunction, patient performance status, available expertise, and patient preferences. Early-stage HCC is best treated with curative options such as resection, ablation, or transplantation. For intermediate-stage disease, locoregional therapies are primarily recommended although systemic therapies may be preferred for patients with large intrahepatic tumor burden. In advanced-stage disease, immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapy is the preferred treatment regimen. In this review article, we discuss the recent global epidemiology, risk factors, and HCC care continuum encompassing surveillance, diagnosis, staging, and treatments.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major global burden, ranking as the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality. HCC due to chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) or C virus (HCV) infection has decreased due to universal vaccination for HBV and effective antiviral therapy for both HBV and HCV, but HCC related to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and alcohol-associated liver disease is increasing. Biannual liver ultrasonography and serum α-fetoprotein are the primary surveillance tools for early HCC detection among high-risk patients (e.g., cirrhosis, chronic HBV). Alternative surveillance tools such as blood-based biomarker panels and abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are being investigated. Multiphasic computed tomography or MRI is the standard for HCC diagnosis, but histological confirmation should be considered, especially when inconclusive findings are seen on cross-sectional imaging. Staging and treatment decisions are complex and should be made in multidisciplinary settings, incorporating multiple factors including tumor burden, degree of liver dysfunction, patient performance status, available expertise, and patient preferences. Early-stage HCC is best treated with curative options such as resection, ablation, or transplantation. For intermediate-stage disease, locoregional therapies are primarily recommended although systemic therapies may be preferred for patients with large intrahepatic tumor burden. In advanced-stage disease, immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapy is the preferred treatment regimen. In this review article, we discuss the recent global epidemiology, risk factors, and HCC care continuum encompassing surveillance, diagnosis, staging, and treatments.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major global burden, ranking as the third leading cause of cancer-related mortality. HCC due to chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) or C virus (HCV) infection has decreased due to universal vaccination for HBV and effective antiviral therapy for both HBV and HCV, but HCC related to metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease and alcohol-associated liver disease is increasing. Biannual liver ultrasonography and serum α-fetoprotein are the primary surveillance tools for early HCC detection among high-risk patients (e.g., cirrhosis, chronic HBV). Alternative surveillance tools such as blood-based biomarker panels and abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) are being investigated. Multiphasic computed tomography or MRI is the standard for HCC diagnosis, but histological confirmation should be considered, especially when inconclusive findings are seen on cross-sectional imaging. Staging and treatment decisions are complex and should be made in multidisciplinary settings, incorporating multiple factors including tumor burden, degree of liver dysfunction, patient performance status, available expertise, and patient preferences. Early-stage HCC is best treated with curative options such as resection, ablation, or transplantation. For intermediate-stage disease, locoregional therapies are primarily recommended although systemic therapies may be preferred for patients with large intrahepatic tumor burden. In advanced-stage disease, immune checkpoint inhibitor-based therapy is the preferred treatment regimen. In this review article, we discuss the recent global epidemiology, risk factors, and HCC care continuum encompassing surveillance, diagnosis, staging, and treatments.

Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.