Correlation between Results of Semi-Quantitative and Quantitative Tests for Hepatitis B Virus Surface Antigen among Patients Achieving Viral Suppression with Antiviral Treatment.

Background: Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection remains a threat to global public health. Serum hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) has been used in screening for HBV infection. Quantitative HBsAg assays are useful for monitoring the natural history of HBV infection and its response to therapy. The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between quantitative (qHBsAg; IU/mL) and semi-quantitative (sqHBsAg; signal-to-cutoff ratio [S/Co]) HBsAg titers in patients with chronic hepatitis B (CHB). Methods: We retrospectively included 284 samples with HBV DNA < 20 IU/mL from patients who had simultaneous qHBsAg (using electrochemiluminescence assay) and sqHBsAg tests. Patients were grouped according to their serum HBV-envelope antigen (HBeAg) status (HBeAg-negative, n = 239 and HBeAg-positive, n = 45). The Spearman test was used to analyze the correlation between the quantitative and semi-quantitative assays. Results: There was a significant linear correlation between sqHBsAg and qHBsAg in the HBeAg-negative patients (qHBsAg [IU/mL] = 0.0094 × sqHBsAg [S/Co]1.323; adjusted R2 = 0.8445; p < 0.001). There was a substantial hook effect in the assays from the HBeAg-positive patients, so we performed a stratified analysis according to qHBsAg <1000 IU/mL or ≥1000 IU/mL and found a significant positive linear correlation between sqHBsAg S/Co and qHBsAg (qHBsAg [IU/mL] = 0.072 × sqHBsAg [S/Co]1.331; adjusted R2 = 0.7878; p < 0.001) in HBeAg-positive patients with qHBsAg titers of <1000 IU/mL and a significant negative correlation in HBeAg-positive patients with qHBsAg titers of ≥1000 IU/mL (qHBsAg [IU/mL] = 8.987 × 1014 × sqHBsAg [S/Co]−3.175; adjusted R2 = 0.6350; p < 0.001). Conclusions: There was a highly linear, positive correlation between qHBsAg and sqHBsAg in HBeAg-negative CHB patients. The hook effect led to a negative correlation in HBeAg-positive CHB patients with qHBsAg titers ≥1000 IU/mL.

Comparison of the outcomes between sorafenib and lenvatinib as the first-line systemic treatment for HBV-associated hepatocellular carcinoma: a propensity score matching analysis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: In a randomized controlled trial, lenvatinib was non-inferior to sorafenib in overall survival (OS) of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). This study aimed to compare the effects of sorafenib and lenvatinib as first-line systemic therapy against uHCC with real-world data in chronic hepatitis B patients. METHODS: This retrospective single-center study involved 132 patients with HBV-related uHCC. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline characteristics, including age, sex, serum alpha-fetoprotein levels, Child-Pugh class, tumor size, and tumor stage. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP), and tumor response. RESULTS: After PSM, the final analysis included 44 patients treated with lenvatinib and 88 with sorafenib. The OS (7.0 vs 9.2 months, p = 0.070) and PFS (4.6 vs 2.4 months, p = 0.134) were comparable between the two drugs. Multivariable analysis showed that lenvatinib and sorafenib were not independent prognostic factors of OS (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.41, 95% confidence interval = 0.96-2.08, p = 0.077) after adjustment for baseline alpha-fetoprotein levels, total bilirubin levels, alanine aminotransferase level, performance status, tumor stage, and tumor size. However, the lenvatinib group had a significantly prolonged TTP (5.2 vs 2.5 months, p = 0.018) and a higher objective response rate (18.2% vs 4.5%, p = 0.020) and disease control rate (77.3% vs 47.7%, p = 0.001) than the sorafenib group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that lenvatinib had a comparable OS and PFS but longer TTP and better tumor response compared to sorafenib in patients with HBV-related uHCC.

Comparable Efficacy Between Ongoing Versus Initiation of Antiviral Therapy at Treatment for HBV-related Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Suppression of hepatitis B virus (HBV) replication with antiviral therapy (AVT) using nucleos(t)ide analogs reduces the risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence and prolongs survival after curative treatment.1-5 Studies of the association between timing of AVT initiation and prognosis of patients with HCC receiving curative treatment are scarce. In the present study, we compared the therapeutic benefit of AVT, commenced before vs after curative treatment of HBV-related HCC, on long-term prognosis.

Effectiveness of Lenvatinib Versus Sorafenib for Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Hepatic Decompensation.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Lenvatinib and sorafenib are currently available to treat patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, since the clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of lenvatinib and sorafenib included only patients with Child-Pugh class A, little is known about the effectiveness of the treatments in patients with hepatic decompensation. We compared the effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib in decompensated patients with unresectable HCC. METHODS: Consecutive patients who were classified as Child-Pugh class B or C and received lenvatinib or sorafenib as first-line systemic therapy for unresectable HCC between November 2018 and April 2020 at a tertiary referral center were included in this retrospective study. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), and the secondary outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), time-to-progression, best overall tumor response, and safety profiles. RESULTS: Among 94 patients, 34 received lenvatinib and 60 received sorafenib. The median OS was 4.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9-5.2): 4.2 months (95% CI, 2.9-5.3) for lenvatinib and 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.7-6.4) for sorafenib. The treatment regimen was not associated with significant improvement in OS after adjusting for covariables (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.92; 95% CI, 0.54-1.54; P = 0.74). The treatment regimen was not an independent predictor of PFS (lenvatinib vs. sorafenib; aHR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.48-1.24; P = 0.28). HRs were maintained even after balancing with the inverse probability treatment weighting method. Objective response rates were 11.8% and 6.7% in patients receiving lenvatinib and sorafenib, respectively (P = 0.45). Ten patients in both groups (five in the lenvatinib group and five in the sorafenib group) underwent dose modification due to adverse events, and significant difference was not observed between the treatment groups (P = 0.49). CONCLUSION: The effectiveness of lenvatinib and sorafenib was comparable for the treatment of unresectable HCC in decompensated patients.

Long-Term Outcomes of Transarterial Radioembolization for Large Single Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Comparison to Resection.

The surgical treatment for large hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains controversial because of a high risk of recurrence after resection. This study aimed to compare long-term outcomes of transarterial radioembolization (TARE) with resection for patients with large HCC. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 557 patients who were initially treated with either resection (n = 500) or TARE (n = 57) for large (≥5 cm), single nodular HCC at 2 tertiary centers in Korea. Patients with major portal vein tumor thrombosis or extrahepatic metastasis were excluded. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were time to progression (TTP), time to intrahepatic progression (TTIP), and safety. Results: The resection group was younger (median, 60 vs. 69 y) and had a smaller tumor size (median, 7.0 vs. 10.0 cm) (all P < 0.05). After baseline characteristics were balanced using inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting, the OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.40-2.43; P = 0.97), TTP (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.55-2.20; P = 0.80), and TTIP (HR, 1.45; 95% CI, 0.72-2.93; P = 0.30) of the TARE group was comparable to the resection group. TARE was not an independent risk for OS (adjusted HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.42-2.59; P = 0.93), TTP (adjusted HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.50-1.95; P = 0.96), or TTIP (adjusted HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 0.65-2.58; P = 0.46). The TARE group had a shorter hospital stay and fewer adverse events than the resection group. Conclusion: Compared with surgical resection for large single nodular HCC, TARE showed a comparable OS, TTP, and TTIP and a better safety profile.

Yttrium-90 Radioembolization Is Associated with Better Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma Compared with Conventional Chemoembolization: A Propensity Score-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: Both trans-arterial radioembolization (TARE) and conventional trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) can effectively control hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients who are not suitable for curative resection. This study compared the effectiveness of TARE and conventional TACE as the initial trans-arterial treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) assessed by tumor response and clinical outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data were retrospectively analyzed the propensity score-matched cohort for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and intrahepatic PFS in patients who have received TARE or TACE as the first HCC treatment from March 2012 to December 2017. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients initially treated with TARE (n = 54) or TACE (n = 84) was included in this study. Of 138 patients, median age was 59 years and the mean follow-up period was 27.6 months. TARE showed better OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.31-0.92, log-rank P = 0.02), better PFS (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.36-0.97, log-rank P = 0.04), and better intrahepatic PFS (HR = 0.51, 95% CI = 0.30-0.88, log-rank P = 0.01) compared with TACE. TARE was an independent prognostic factor for OS (adjusted HR [aHR] = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.30-0.90, P = 0.02), PFS (aHR = 0.57, 95% CI = 0.35-0.94, P = 0.03), and intrahepatic PFS (aHR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.28-0.84, P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: TARE as initial trans-arterial treatment is associated with better clinical outcomes such as longer OS compared with TACE in patients with HCC.

Comparison of Overall Survival between Surgical Resection and Radiofrequency Ablation for Hepatitis B-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

It remains controversial whether surgical resection, compared to radiofrequency ablation (RFA), improves overall survival (OS) in patients with early hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to compare OS after RFA with that after resection for HCC. This retrospective study included patients who underwent RFA or surgical resection as initial treatment for hepatitis B virus (HBV)-related HCC at a very early or early stage. A total of 761 patients (RFA, n = 194; resection, n = 567) from Seoul National University Hospital (Seoul, South Korea) and 1277 patients (RFA, n = 352; resection, n = 925) from the Korean Primary Liver Cancer Registry were included in the hospital and nationwide cohorts, respectively. Primary and secondary endpoints were OS and recurrence-free survival (RFS), respectively. Additional analysis was performed when the history of the antiviral treatment and the type of prescribed nucleos(t)ide analogue were confirmed. The rate of complications was compared between the two treatment groups in the hospital cohort. Baseline characteristics were balanced, using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). In the hospital cohort, the RFA group had a smaller mean tumor size (1.7 vs. 3.9 cm) but a higher proportion of cirrhotic patients than the resection group (85.6% vs. 63.1%) (both p < 0.01). During 81.0 (interquartile range, 62.3-107.1) months of follow-up, there was no difference in OS (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 0.870, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.400-1.897, p = 0.73) and RFA was associated with shorter RFS (aHR = 1.562, 95% CI = 1.099-2.219, p = 0.01) after employing IPTW. Antiviral treatment was independently associated with longer OS (aHR = 0.444, 95% CI = 0.251-0.786, p = 0.01) as well as RFS (aHR = 0.544, 95% CI = 0.391-0.757, p < 0.01) in the hospital cohort. In the nationwide cohort, there was no difference in OS (aHR = 0.981, 95% CI = 0.661-1.456, p = 0.92) between the two treatment groups when adjusted for antiviral treatment, which was a negative independent risk factor for mortality (aHR = 0.655, 95% CI = 0.451-0.952, p = 0.03) after IPTW. Among patients treated with tenofovir (n = 96) or entecavir (n = 184) in the hospital cohort, there was no difference in either OS (aHR = 0.522, 95% CI = 0.058-4.724, p = 0.56) or RFS (aHR = 1.116, 95% CI = 0.738-1.688, p = 0.60). The overall incidence of complications was higher in the resection group (26.3%) than in the RFA group (13.9%) (p < 0.01). RFA may provide comparable OS to resection in the treatment of very early or early HCC with a lower rate of complications, although RFS is marginally shorter than in the resection group after adjusting for antiviral treatment. Regardless of the type of NA, antiviral treatment in patients with HBV-related HCC is strongly associated with both OS and RFS.