Table of Contents  

Zopf: Diagnosis and systemic therapy for hepatobiliary cancer

Introduction

Liver cancer, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and cholangiocarcinoma (CC), is the second most common cause of cancer-related death, and its incidence rate is increasing.1 In the last decade, knowledge and understanding of liver cancer has improved, and in recent years new laboratory technologies have identified several molecular abnormalities that could enable more accurate classification of the disease and, thus, better treatment. The discovery of the TP53 hotspot mutation led to a change in tumour classification and, since then, by combining conventional clinical criteria with molecular data has had a significant effect on treatment decisions.2,3

The development of ultrasound, computerized tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has been instrumental in the earlier diagnosis and accurate staging of liver cancer, which affords advanced treatment options. Currently, several treatment options targeting pro-cancer molecular pathways are available and have proven survival benefit. Depending on the individual, further potentially curative options, such as resection of tumours, are available, and palliative therapies are applied in those with advanced cancer.4

This review presents and summarizes the available data on diagnostic approaches to hepatobiliary cancer, and the conservative medical therapy options.

Diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma

Identification of HCC and the differentiation of HCC from CC are highly relevant as proper staging strongly influences the therapeutic procedures available. Moreover, risk factors for both tumour entities broadly overlap, and in some cases intrahepatic CC is difficult to distinguish from HCC using established imaging methods. Imaging in HCC and CC is based on contrast-enhanced dynamic imaging methods such as contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), CT and MRI. Some special types that include liver cancers of mixed differentiation (HCC/CC) may be picked up on biopsy.

Diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma

Liver cancer can be diagnosed by imaging or biopsy. Patients at high risk of HCC show a specific imaging pattern (CT or MRI) of nodules > 10 mm in their cirrhotic livers. These nodules are identified by intense uptake of contrast agent during the arterial phase, followed by contrast washout in the venous or delayed phases.510 As HCCs mostly contain arterial blood, they appear brighter during the arterial phase than the surrounding liver, which contains both arterial and venous blood. During the venous phase, HCC appears less bright because it contains contrast-free arterial blood, whereas the surrounding liver parenchyma contains venous blood containing the contrast agent. This typical dynamic contrast pattern identifies HCC with limited levels of sensitivity, but with specificity near to 100%;10 for CEUS, the specificity values are not as high.11,12 In the absence of this typical appearance, a biopsy is needed to detect HCC.

Immunohistochemical analysis of glypican 3, heat shock protein 70, clathrin heavy chain and glutamine synthetase can be used to confirm HCC diagnosis, but these examinations do not replace the expertise of a pathologist.1315

As radiological analysis detects HCC with high levels of specificity, biopsies are no longer necessary for many patients.

To characterize lesions identified by surveillance, an algorithm has been developed and validated.5,7,9 Lesions that are < 10 mm in size are less likely to be HCC and require a short-interval follow-up, commonly every 3 months for at least 2 years. Lesions > 10 mm are suspected to be HCC. If CT or MRI shows typical characteristics of HCC, no further investigation is needed. If the features are atypical for HCC, a biopsy can be performed. However, a negative biopsy does not exclude HCC because it is difficult to differentiate between early-stage HCC and dysplastic nodules. In complicated diagnostic cases of liver cancer, sampling errors also have to be considered, and a second biopsy should be taken.16

A special feature of the HCC is the staging system. The most commonly used staging classification is the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) system, which has been widely validated.1720 This system determines cancer stage and patient prognosis based on tumour burden, severity of liver disease and the patient’s performance status. BCLC 0 or BCLC A describes very early and early-stage HCC with a solitary lesion, or up to three nodules < 3 cm without macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic spread; liver function is preserved. Patients in these early stages can benefit from potentially curative treatment options such as resection, ablation or transplantation.

Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer B includes patients with intermediate-stage HCC without symptoms but large, multifocal tumours without macrovascular invasion or extrahepatic spread. If liver function is not compromised, these patients may be candidates for transarterial chemoembolization (TACE). However, patients with large but solitary HCC > 5 cm without macrovascular invasion are assigned to stage BCLC A.20,21 These patients might benefit from tumour resection.1719

Stage BCLC C includes patients with advanced-stage HCC presenting with tumours that have spread beyond the liver and/or vascular invasion and/or mild cancer-related symptoms [Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) grades 1 and 2]. In these cases, a systemic therapy is the only treatment option, as described later in this review. Patients with BCLC D have end-stage disease with poor liver function (Child–Pugh class C) and are not candidates for transplantation and/or have marked cancer-related symptoms (ECOG > 2). The prognosis of this group is poor and these patients require supportive care. Measurements of α-fetoprotein (AFP) will not affect treatment strategy and might be useful only in clinical trials.1720

Diagnosis of cholangiocarcinoma

Cholangiocarcinoma is divided into three subtypes, based on its anatomical location: intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCC), peripheral cholangiocarcinoma (pCC) and ductal cholangiocarcinoma (dCC) (outside the liver).

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma is further divided, based on phenotype, into mass-forming, periductal infiltrating and intraductal growth types.22 The clinical symptoms of iCC are non-specific, and include abdominal pain, cachexia, fatigue, night sweats and malaise.23 iCC frequently presents as an intrahepatic mass on imaging modalities such as CT and MRI. The use of contrast enhancement improves the sensitivity of imaging-based detection of iCC. These tumours typically have progressive uptake of contrast agents during the venous phase, in contrast to HCC.24 CT and MRI are interchangeable in the evaluation of tumour size and detection of satellite lesions; however, CT is better for assessment of vascular encasement, identification of extrahepatic metastasis and determination of resectability.25,26

The tumour marker carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) can aid in the diagnosis, but it detects iCC with only 62% sensitivity and 63% specificity.27 Moreover, increased levels of CA 19-9 can be found in cholestasis due to choledocholithiasis or bacterial cholangitis. Nevertheless, very high CA 19-9 levels (> 1000 U/ml) have been associated with metastatic iCC, so this marker might be used in staging rather than diagnosis.28 A definitive diagnosis of iCC requires biopsy of the mass.

The treatment of choice for iCC is surgical resection if the patients have potentially resectable tumours and are appropriate surgical candidates. Liver transplantation as a curative option for iCC is very controversial because the recurrence rate within 5 years after transplantation is 70%. However, patients with very small iCCs < 2 cm in the context of liver cirrhosis do well undergoing liver transplantation. In patients with non-resectable iCC, locoregional therapies, such as TACE and radiofrequency ablation, are therapeutic options.29 For advanced-stage iCC, systemic chemotherapy, as discussed later, is the standard of care.30

Peripheral cholangiocarcinoma

Peripheral cholangiocarcinoma can present with exophytic or intraductal macroscopic growth patterns. The exophytic or mass-forming type can be of a nodular or periductal (the most common subtype) structure.31 As in iCC cases, patients with pCC can show only non-specific symptoms; however, they often present with symptoms of biliary obstruction with jaundice and, less commonly, cholangitis.25 In addition, hypertrophy of the unaffected lobe can be observed (hypertrophy–atrophy complex).23 Laboratory parameters affected by pCC are parameters of cholestasis, such as alkaline phosphatase and bilirubin, but they do not provide specific information. For unknown reasons, serum CA19-9 levels are less specific in the diagnosis of pCC than of iCC. To exclude immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4)-associated disease of the bile ducts, which can present in a similar clinical manner, IgG4 levels should be measured.23

Imaging for pCC can be performed with MRI, CT, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, endoscopic cholangiography (ERC), endoscopic cholangioscopy and endoscopic ultrasound. Of these methods, MRI plus magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography is the preferred imaging modality because it has a high accuracy, up to 95% in the assessment of resectability and tumour extent.23 Additionally, endoscopic ultrasound can be helpful in evaluation of the presence of regional lymphadenopathy, and fine-needle biopsy can aid in detecting omental metastasis. However, fine-needle biopsy should not be performed on the primary tumour to avoid dissemination of the tumour.32 ERC is a diagnostic and a therapeutic approach. It can be used to assess and sample the biliary system via brush cytology or biopsy, and can be therapeutically applied for dilatation and stent placement in case of biliary obstruction.

The Bismuth–Corlette classification is based on the anatomical location of CC and describes the expansion along the biliary tree.23 If possible, resection or transplantation is chosen in a curative approach. For patients who are not candidates for surgical therapy, systemic chemotherapy is recommended, as described later.

Ductal cholangiocarcinoma

The precursor lesions of dCC are intraductal papillary neoplasm and biliary intraepithelial neoplasia.33 The clinical complaints are similar to pCC, with painless jaundice and elevation of cholestasis parameters in the laboratory analysis. dCCs are grouped as extrahepatic CCs, although they are similar to pCC with respect to their pathogenesis and therapeutic options. Therefore, the diagnostic methods and the therapeutic approaches for dCC are generally identical to those for pCC.

Systemic therapy of hepatocellular carcinoma

In HCC, conventional systemic chemotherapy shows no significant survival advantages. Several phase III trials testing doxorubicin monotherapy, PIAF regimen (cisplatin, interferon α-2b, doxorubicin and fluorouracil) or FOLFOX4 regimen (fluorouracil, leucovorin and oxaliplatin) had no beneficial effect in the treatment of HCC and presented in some instances with significant toxicity.3436 Also, with anti-oestrogen therapies and vitamin D derivates, randomized studies failed.16

In 2007, a phase III Study of Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (SHARP) trial demonstrated survival benefits for the multi-protein kinase inhibitor sorafenib versus placebo [10.7 months vs. 7.9 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.69], which was a breakthrough in therapy for HCC.37 A similar beneficial outcome was observed in another phase III trial in Asian patients mostly with hepatitis B-related HCC, which was conducted at the same time.38 Sorafenib is recommended in patients with good liver function (Child–Pugh A) and advanced tumour burden (BCLC C), or with tumours at intermediate stage (BCLC B) progressing on locoregional therapies. Treatment is associated with manageable side effects such as diarrhoea, hand–foot skin reactions, fatigue and/or hypertension. Unfortunately, no predictive biomarkers of responsiveness to sorafenib exist. The antitumour effect of sorafenib results from targeting cancer cells and their microenvironment by blocking up to 40 multi-protein kinases, including angiogenic [e.g. vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and platelet-derived growth factor receptor beta (PDGFRB)] and proliferative drivers (e.g. RAF1, BRAF and KIT).

Several phase II trials have failed in challenging sorafenib in first-line or placebo in second-line regimens. These therapies include sunitinib (multi-targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR and PDGFR, and KIT), brivanib [selective dual inhibitor of VEGFR and fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) tyrosine kinases], ramucirumab (VEGFR2 inhibitor), linifanib (VEGFR and PDGFR inhibitor), erlotinib [epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor] and everolimus (mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitor). The reasons for these negative results include marginal anti-tumoral potency, liver toxicity, flaws in trial design and lack of biomarker-based enrichment.39 These negative trials underline the stable benefits of sorafenib in first-line therapy. It is estimated that only half of the patients progressing to sorafenib will be considered for second-line therapies. Their median survival is 7–8 months.

Recently, a phase III trial comparing regorafenib, another multi-kinase inhibitor targeting similar kinases to sorafenib, with placebo in patients intolerant of sorafenib or progressing under sorafenib treatment, demonstrated a survival benefit (10.6 months vs. 7.8 months, HR 0.62).40 Improved survival was reported in all subgroups. These results suggest that regorafenib is a potent anticancer agent with a substantial clinical benefit and it will be adopted by clinical guidelines as the standard of care for patients destined for second-line therapy. The prevalence of toxicity (fatigue, hand–foot syndrome, hypertension) was higher than reported for sorafenib. Adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation were observed in 10% of cases.

With only two drugs as effective systemic treatments for this prevalent tumour entity, the need for novel therapies is high. Most of the substances currently under investigation in phase II trials are immune checkpoint inhibitors, MET inhibitors and anti-angiogenic agents. The following sections describe the substances in detail.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors

Several inhibitory pathways in the immune system are connected to modulate the duration and amplitude of immune responses. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have shown substantial activity in patients with advanced solid malignant tumour entities, such as non-small-cell lung cancer and melanoma. A pilot study with the CTLA-4 monoclonal antibody tremelimumab presented a median survival of 8.2 months in patients with advanced HCC.41 However, PD-1-specific inhibitory antibodies (nivolumab and pembrolizumab) seem to be better tolerated than anti-CTLA agents. A recent phase I–II trial with nivolumab in patients with advanced HCC has demonstrated long-term rates of up to 16% objective responses.42 Ongoing phase III trials are further investigating nivolumab (NCT02576509) and pembrolizumab (NCT02702401) in first- and second-line settings.

MET inhibitors

It is assumed that the MET signalling pathway is activated in only 50% of patients with advanced HCC. The tubulin inhibitor tivantinib has been shown to increase time to progression in a randomized, placebo-controlled phase II trial in a subgroup of patients with advanced HCC and high expression of MET.43 These findings have initiated two biomarker-enriched phase III trials investigating the efficacy of tivantinib in second-line therapy (NCT01755767, NCT02029157). There are several studies providing evidence that the mechanism of action of tivantinib is related to microtubule dynamics independently of MET. Another drug, cabozantinib, inhibits both MET and VEGFR2. It is currently under investigation in a phase III study in the second-line setting (NCT01908426).

Anti-angiogenic agents

Novel drugs enhancing and/or mimicking the mechanism of action of sorafenib and regorafenib are currently under investigation. The multi-kinase inhibitor lenvatinib, blocking VEGFR1–3, platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha, FGFR1–4, RET and KIT, has been tested in a phase II trial. Thirty seven per cent of the patients with intermediate and advanced HCC showed partial response according to the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (mRECIST) and a median overall survival of 18.7 months.44 These results are being investigated in comparison with sorafenib in an ongoing phase III trial (NCT01761266). Moreover, two selective VEGFR2 inhibitors (ramucirumab and apatinib) are being evaluated in the second-line setting. Ramucirumab is being investigated in patients with an AFP level > 400 ng/ml based on subgroup analysis data (NCT02435433) and apatinib is undergoing investigation for all candidates (NCT02329860).

Systemic therapy of cholangiocarcinoma

Many patients with CC present with non-resectable intra- and extrahepatic metastases or advanced tumour stage at diagnosis.4548 The median survival of untreated patients with non-resectable CC is only about 3–6 months.49 Therefore, most patients are undergoing palliative systemic chemotherapy.

Adjuvant setting

The role of adjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiation after complete resection is not definite yet. Unfortunately, local recurrence, especially of extrahepatic CC, is common. Thus, European (European Society for Medical Oncology) and US (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) guidelines mention adjuvant therapy as an option.50 In case of R0 resection without lymph node involvement, the mentioned guidelines recommend adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). Patients with R1 resection or positive lymph nodes could be treated with chemoradiotherapy. A recent phase III trial investigated sequential chemotherapy with gemcitabine and capecitabine for 12 weeks followed by chemoradiotherapy, and showed promising results.51 Currently, the role of adjuvant chemotherapy is undergoing further evaluation in phase III trials [Capecitabine or Observation After Surgery in Treating Patients with Biliary Tract Cancer (BILCAP) (NCT00363584), Gemcitabine Hydrochloride and Oxaliplatin or Observation in Treating Patients with Biliary Tract Cancer that has Been Removed by Surgery (PRODIGE-12) (NCT01313377), Adjuvant Chemotherapy with Gemcitabine and Cisplatin Compared to Observation After Curative Intent Resection of Biliary Tract Cancer (ACTICCA-1) (NCT02170090)] in European countries.

Palliative chemotherapy

Systemic chemotherapy using a combination of 5-FU and leucovorin, with or without etoposide, has been shown to improve survival.52 Phase II studies with 5-FU have demonstrated response rates from 10% to 34%.53,54 On the other hand, the combination of 5-FU, capecitabine and platinum (cisplatin/oxaliplatin) has not improved response rates significantly.5559 Recently, various chemotherapeutic drugs have been investigated; response to gemcitabine monotherapy ranged between 17% and 36%.60,61 Gemcitabine in combination with capecitabine induced a response in 25% of patients,6266 and a dual approach with oxaliplatin and gemcitabine resulted in a response rate of 50%.6769 Since 2010, combination therapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin has been recommended as standard first-line chemotherapy for non-resectable CC.30 In the ABC-02 trial median survival was significantly longer in the combination therapy group than in the gemcitabine monotherapy group (11.7 months vs. 8.1 months).30 However, patients with reduced renal function can also be treated with oxaliplatin. In elderly patients or patients with impaired ECOG performance status, monotherapy with gemcitabine is usually recommended.

Second-line chemotherapy

There are currently no data providing clear evidence of any benefit of second-line chemotherapies. Median survival in a Japanese phase II trial as well as in the larger ABC-02 phase III trial with gemcitabine and cisplatin was 11.7 and 11.2 months, respectively.70 Interestingly, in the Japanese trial, 75% of patients received a second-line therapy, compared with only 15% of patients in the ABC-02 trial. A systematic review analysed data from more than 750 patients with CC. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.2 and 7.2 months, respectively, with second-line therapies. The response rate and rate of tumour control were low, at 7.7% and 48%, respectively.71 A large retrospective analysis compared various second-line regimens with best supportive care and showed a survival benefit of such regimens.72

Investigational targets and drugs

Several trials of dendritic cell-based vaccines, peptide-based vaccines and antibodies have been initiated. Immunotherapeutic approaches can be divided into passive and active therapies.7394 Passive immunotherapies include EGFR and VEGFR antibodies. EGFR expression is observed in iCC, but overexpression of EGFR occurs in only 5–32% of patients. KRAS mutations are detected less often in CC than in other other cancer entities.73,74 In one study, the EGFR antibody cetuximab in combination with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) was associated with a response rate of 63%.75 Another trial failed to demonstrate any beneficial effect of cetuximab and GEMOX.76 It is possible that KRAS mutations are responsible for resistance to EGFR antibodies. An Asian phase II study did not demonstrate a benefit of EGFR antibody therapy in KRAS wildtype.77 Combination therapy with GEMOX and the tyrosine kinase inhibitor erlotinib had no effect in patients with CC.78 Erlotinib was also investigated in a dual approach with bevacizumab, a VEGFR antibody with a tolerable toxicity profile, and a response rate of 12% was reported.79 In this study the PFS was 4.4 months and the OS 9.9 months.79 In contrast with HCC, the multi-kinase inhibitor sorafenib alone as well as in combination with erlotinib or gemcitabine did not demonstrate any significant antitumour effect on CC.8085 Another tyrosine kinase inhibitor, cediranib, which was investigated in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin in a phase II trial, did not demonstrate an advantage over gemcitabine and cisplatin.86 Nevertheless, the multi-kinase inhibitor sunitinib showed a PFS of 1.7 months with a response rate of 8.9% in second-line therapy.87 The multi-targeted kinase inhibitor vandetanib targeting EGFR and VEGFR, in combination with gemcitabine, resulted in no survival benefit.88 Recently, a response rate of 12% was achieved with the MEK1/2 inhibitor selumetinib, with PFS of 3.7 months and OS of 9.8 months.89 The oral pro-drug of 5-FU (S1) in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin produced a response rate of 20%, but this is not different from the response rates to monotherapies.90,91

The combination of the c-MET inhibitor tivantinib with gemcitabine was associated with only low response rates,92 and in combination with cabozantinib, another c-MET inhibitor, resulted in no objective response in CC.93

As an active immunotherapeutic approach, checkpoint inhibitors could be an effective treatment option, because PD-L1 is expressed in the majority of iCC and is associated with decreased survival.94 However, the role of checkpoint inhibitors in the treatment of CC has not been investigated fully until now. Therefore, immunotherapeutic approaches for CC are not yet included into standard of care.

References

1. 

Kassebaum NJ, Bertozzi-Villa A, Coggeshall MS, et al. Global, regional, and national levels and causes of maternal mortality during 1990-2013: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. Lancet 2014; 384:980–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60696-6

2. 

Bressac B, Kew M, Wands J, Ozturk M. Selective G to T mutations of p53 gene in hepatocellular carcinoma from southern Africa. Nature 1991; 350:429–31. https://doi.org/10.1038/350429a0

3. 

Hsu IC, Metcalf RA, Sun T, Welsh JA, Wang NJ, Harris CC. Mutational hotspot in the p53 gene in human hepatocellular carcinomas. Nature 1991; 350:427–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/350427a0

4. 

Bruix J, Han KH, Gores G, Llovet JM, Mazzaferro V. Liver cancer: approaching a personalized care. J Hepatol 2015; 62(Suppl. 1):144–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2015.02.007

5. 

Bruix J, Sherman M, American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Management of hepatocellular carcinoma: an update. Hepatology 2011; 53:1020–2. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.24199

6. 

Darnell A, Forner A, Rimola J, et al. Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System with MR Imaging: evaluation in nodules 20 mm or smaller detected in cirrhosis at screening US. Radiology 2015; 275:698–707. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.15141132

7. 

Khalili K, Kim TK, Jang HJ, et al. Optimization of imaging diagnosis of 1–2 cm hepatocellular carcinoma: an analysis of diagnostic performance and resource utilization. J Hepatol 2011; 54:723–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2010.07.025

8. 

Mitchell DG, Bruix J, Sherman M, Sirlin CB. LI-RADS (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System): summary, discussion, and consensus of the LI-RADS Management Working Group and future directions. Hepatology 2015; 61:1056–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.27304

9. 

Sangiovanni A, Manini MA, Iavarone M, et al. The diagnostic and economic impact of contrast imaging techniques in the diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. Gut 2010; 59:638–44. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2009.187286

10. 

Forner A, Vilana R, Ayuso C, et al. Diagnosis of hepatic nodules 20 mm or smaller in cirrhosis: Prospective validation of the noninvasive diagnostic criteria for hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2008; 47:97–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.21966

11. 

Galassi M, Iavarone M, Rossi S, et al. Patterns of appearance and risk of misdiagnosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis at contrast enhanced ultrasound. Liver Int 2013; 33:771–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/liv.12124

12. 

Vilana R, Forner A, Bianchi L, et al. Intrahepatic peripheral cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis patients may display a vascular pattern similar to hepatocellular carcinoma on contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Hepatology 2010; 51:2020–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.23600

13. 

Di Tommaso L, Destro A, Fabbris V, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of clathrin heavy chain staining in a marker panel for the diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2011; 53:1549–57. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.24218

14. 

Di Tommaso L, Destro A, Seok JY, et al. The application of markers (HSP70 GPC3 and GS) in liver biopsies is useful for detection of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2009; 50:746–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2008.11.014

15. 

Tremosini S, Forner A, Boix L, et al. Prospective validation of an immunohistochemical panel (glypican 3, heat shock protein 70 and glutamine synthetase) in liver biopsies for diagnosis of very early hepatocellular carcinoma. Gut 2012; 61:1481–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301862

16. 

Bruix J, Reig M, Sherman M. Evidence-based diagnosis, staging, and treatment of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology 2016; 150:835–53. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2015.12.041

17. 

Llovet JM, Brú C, Bruix J. Prognosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: the BCLC staging classification. Semin Liver Dis 1999; 19:329–38. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2007-1007122

18. 

Llovet JM, Burroughs A, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet 2003; 362:1907–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(03)14964-1

19. 

Forner A, Llovet JM, Bruix J. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Lancet 2012; 379:1245–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61347-0

20. 

Reig M, Darnell A, Forner A, Rimola J, Ayuso C, Bruix J. Systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: the issue of treatment stage migration and registration of progression using the BCLC-refined RECIST. Semin Liver Dis 2014; 34:444–55. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0034-1394143

21. 

Forner A, Gilabert M, Bruix J, Raoul JL. Treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 2014; 11:525–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2014.122

22. 

Yamasaki S. Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: macroscopic type and stage classification. J Hepatobiliary Pancreatic Surg 2003; 10:288–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00534-002-0732-8

23. 

Blechacz B, Komuta M, Roskams T, Gores GJ. Clinical diagnosis and staging of cholangiocarcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011; 8:512–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrgastro.2011.131

24. 

Rimola J, Forner A, Reig M, et al. Cholangiocarcinoma in cirrhosis: absence of contrast washout in delayed phases by magnetic resonance imaging avoids misdiagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2009; 50:791–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.23071

25. 

Razumilava N, Gores GJ. Classification, diagnosis, and management of cholangiocarcinoma. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013; 11:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2012.09.009

26. 

Vilgrain V. Staging cholangiocarcinoma by imaging studies. HPB 2008; 10:106–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13651820801992617

27. 

Blechacz B, Gores GJ. Cholangiocarcinoma: advances in pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment. Hepatology 2008; 48:308–21. https://doi.org/10.1002/hep.22310

28. 

Patel AH, Harnois DM, Klee GG, LaRusso NF, Gores GJ. The utility of CA 19-9 in the diagnoses of cholangiocarcinoma in patients without primary sclerosing cholangitis. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95:204–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.01685.x

29. 

Kuhlmann JB, Blum HE. Locoregional therapy for cholangiocarcinoma. Curr Opin Gastroenterol 2013; 29:324–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MOG.0b013e32835d9dea

30. 

Valle J, Wasan H, Palmer DH, et al. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer. N Engl J Med 2010; 362:1273–81. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0908721

31. 

Yamashita Y, Takahashi M, Kanazawa S, Charnsangavej C, Wallace S. Hilar cholangiocarcinoma. An evaluation of subtypes with CT and angiography. Acta Radiol 1992; 33:351–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/028418519203300413

32. 

Heimbach JK, Sanchez W, Rosen CB, Gores GJ. Trans-peritoneal fine needle aspiration biopsy of hilar cholangiocarcinoma is associated with disease dissemination. HPB 2011; 13:356–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-2574.2011.00298.x

33. 

Nakanuma Y, Sato Y, Harada K, Sasaki M, Xu J, Ikeda H. Pathological classification of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma based on a new concept. World J Hepatol 2010; 2:419–27. https://doi.org/10.4254/wjh.v2.i12.419

34. 

Qin SK, Cao MR, Qian J, et al. Clinical study of FOLFOX regimen for the patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma [in Chinese]. Chin Clin Oncol 2005; 10:58.

35. 

Yeo W, Mok TS, Zee B, et al. A randomized phase III study of doxorubicin versus cisplatin/interferon alpha-2b/doxorubicin/fluorouracil (PIAF) combination chemotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97:1532–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji315

36. 

Gish RG, Porta C, Lazar L, et al. Phase III randomized controlled trial comparing the survival of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma treated with nolatrexed or doxorubicin. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:3069–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2006.08.4046

37. 

Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, et al. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2008; 359:378–90. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa0708857

38. 

Cheng AL, Kang YK, Chen Z, et al. Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2009; 10:25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70285-7

39. 

Llovet JM, Hernandez-Gea V. Hepatocellular carcinoma: reasons for phase III failure and novel perspectives on trial design. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20:2072–9. https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-13-0547

40. 

Bruix J, Qin S, Merle P, et al. Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2017; 389:56–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32453-9

41. 

Sangro B, Gomez-Martin C, de la Mata M, et al. A clinical trial of CTLA-4 blockade with tremelimumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol 2013; 59:81–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2013.02.022

42. 

El-Khoueiry AB, Sangro B, Yau T, et al. Nivolumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 040): an open-label, non-comparative, phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion trial [published online ahead of print April 20 2017]. Lancet 2017. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31046-2

43. 

Best J, Schotten C, Lohmann G, Gerken G, Dechêne A. Tivantinib for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2017; 18:727–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/14656566.2017.1316376

44. 

Ikeda K, Kudo M, Kawazoe S, et al. Phase 2 study of lenvatinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Gastroenterol 2017; 52:512–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00535-016-1263-4

45. 

von Hahn T, Ciesek S, Wegener G, et al. Epidemiological trends in incidence and mortality of hepatobiliary cancers in Germany. Scand J Gastroenterol 2011; 46:1092–8. https://doi.org/10.3109/00365521.2011.589472

46. 

Wang Y, Li J, Xia Y, et al. Prognostic nomogram for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma after partial hepatectomy. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31:1188–95. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.41.5984

47. 

Shaib YH, Davila JA, McGlynn K, El-Serag HB. Rising incidence of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma in the United States: a true increase? J Hepatol 2004; 40:472–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2003.11.030

48. 

Alvaro D, Crocetti E, Ferretti S, Bragazzi MC, Capocaccia R, with the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver Committee. Descriptive epidemiology of cholangiocarcinoma in Italy. Digest Liver Dis 2010; 42:490–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dld.2009.10.009

49. 

Farley DR, Weaver AL, Nagorney DM. ‘Natural history’ of unresected cholangiocarcinoma: patient outcome after noncurative intervention. Mayo Clin Proc 1995; 70:425–9. https://doi.org/10.4065/70.5.425

50. 

Eckel F, Brunner T, Jelic S, with the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Guidelines Working Group. Biliary cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2011; 22(Suppl. 6):vi40–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdr375

51. 

Ben-Josef E, Guthrie KA, El-Khoueiry AB, et al. SWOG S0809: a Phase II intergroup trial of adjuvant capecitabine and gemcitabine followed by radiotherapy and concurrent capecitabine in extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33:2617–22. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2014.60.2219

52. 

Glimelius B, Hoffman K, Sjoden PO, et al. Chemotherapy improves survival and quality of life in advanced pancreatic and biliary cancer. Ann Oncol 1996; 7:593–600. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.annonc.a010676

53. 

Patt YZ, Jones DV Jr, Hoque A, et al. Phase II trial of intravenous fluorouracil and subcutaneous interferon alfa-2b for biliary tract cancer. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14:2311–15. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1996.14.8.2311

54. 

Harvey JH, Smith FP, Schein PS. 5-Fluorouracil, mitomycin, and doxorubicin (FAM) in carcinoma of the biliary tract. J Clin Oncol 1984; 2:1245–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1984.2.11.1245

55. 

Lee GW, Kang JH, Kim HG, Lee JS, Lee JS, Jang JS. Combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin as first-line treatment for immunohistochemically proven cholangiocarcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol 2006; 29:127–31. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.coc.0000203742.22828.bb

56. 

Nehls O, Oettle H, Hartmann JT, et al. Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in patients with advanced biliary system adenocarcinoma: a prospective multicentre phase II trial. Br J Cancer 2008; 98:309–15. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604178

57. 

Nehls O, Klump B, Arkenau HT, et al. Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil and leucovorin for advanced biliary system adenocarcinomas: a prospective phase II trial. Br J Cancer 2002; 87:702–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6600543

58. 

Ducreux M, Rougier P, Fandi A, et al. Effective treatment of advanced biliary tract carcinoma using 5-fluorouracil continuous infusion with cisplatin. Ann Oncol 1998; 9:653–6. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008241008379

59. 

Ducreux M, Van Cutsem E, Van Laethem JL, et al. A randomised phase II trial of weekly high-dose 5-fluorouracil with and without folinic acid and cisplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma: results of the 40955 EORTC trial. Eur J Cancer 2005; 41:398–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2004.10.026

60. 

Okusaka T, Ishii H, Funakoshi A, et al. Phase II study of single-agent gemcitabine in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2006; 57:647–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-005-0095-3

61. 

Kubicka S, Rudolph KL, Tietze MK, Lorenz M, Manns M. Phase II study of systemic gemcitabine chemotherapy for advanced unresectable hepatobiliary carcinomas. Hepatogastroenterology 2001; 48:783–9.

62. 

Riechelmann RP, Townsley CA, Chin SN, Pond GR, Knox JJ. Expanded phase II trial of gemcitabine and capecitabine for advanced biliary cancer. Cancer 2007; 110:1307–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22902

63. 

Koeberle D, Saletti P, Borner M, et al. Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced biliary tract cancers receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine: a multicenter, phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research. J Clin Oncol 2008; 26:3702–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2008.16.5704

64. 

Cho JY, Paik YH, Chang YS, et al. Capecitabine combined with gemcitabine (CapGem) as first-line treatment in patients with advanced/metastatic biliary tract carcinoma. Cancer 2005; 104:2753–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.21591

65. 

Knox JJ, Hedley D, Oza A, Siu LL, Pond GR, Moore MJ. Gemcitabine concurrent with continuous infusional 5-fluorouracil in advanced biliary cancers: a review of the Princess Margaret Hospital experience. Ann Oncol 2004; 15:770–4. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdh172

66. 

Knox JJ, Hedley D, Oza A, et al. Combining gemcitabine and capecitabine in patients with advanced biliary cancer: a phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 2005; 23:2332–8. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.51.008

67. 

Andre T, Tournigand C, Rosmorduc O, et al. Gemcitabine combined with oxaliplatin (GEMOX) in advanced biliary tract adenocarcinoma: a GERCOR study. Ann Oncol 2004; 15:1339–43. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdh351

68. 

André T, Reyes-Vidal JM, Fartoux L, et al. Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin in advanced biliary tract carcinoma: a phase II study. Br J Cancer 2008; 99:862–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6604628

69. 

Verderame F, Russo A, Di Leo R, et al. Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancers. Ann Oncol 2006; 17(Suppl. 7):vii68–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdl955

70. 

Valle JW, Furuse J, Jitlal M, et al. Cisplatin and gemcitabine for advanced biliary tract cancer: a meta-analysis of two randomised trials. Ann Oncol 2014; 25:391–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdt540

71. 

Lamarca A, Hubner RA, David Ryder W, Valle JW. Second-line chemotherapy in advanced biliary cancer: a systematic review. Ann Oncol 2014; 25:2328–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu162

72. 

Walter T, Horgan AM, McNamara M, et al. Feasibility and benefits of second-line chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer: a large retrospective study. Eur J Cancer 2013; 49:329–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2012.08.003

73. 

Harder J, Waiz O, Otto F, et al. EGFR and HER2 expression in advanced biliary tract cancer. World J Gastroenterol 2009; 15:4511–17. https://doi.org/10.3748/wjg.15.4511

74. 

Andersen JB, Spee B, Blechacz BR, et al. Genomic and genetic characterization of cholangiocarcinoma identifies therapeutic targets for tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Gastroenterology 2012; 142:1021–31. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2011.12.005

75. 

Gruenberger B, Schueller J, Heubrandtner U, et al. Cetuximab, gemcitabine, and oxaliplatin in patients with unresectable advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer: a phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11:1142–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70247-3

76. 

Malka D, Cervera P, Foulon S, et al. Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin with or without cetuximab in advanced biliary-tract cancer (BINGO): a randomised, open-label, non-comparative phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2014; 15:819–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70212-8

77. 

Chen JS, Hsu C, Chiang NJ, et al. A KRAS mutation status-stratified randomized phase II trial of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin alone or in combination with cetuximab in advanced biliary tract cancer. Ann Oncol 2015; 26:943–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdv035

78. 

Lee J, Park SH, Chang HM, et al. Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin with or without erlotinib in advanced biliary-tract cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study. Lancet Oncol 2012; 13:181–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70301-1

79. 

Lubner SJ, Mahoney MR, Kolesar JL, et al. Report of a multicenter phase II trial testing a combination of biweekly bevacizumab and daily erlotinib in patients with unresectable biliary cancer: a phase II Consortium study. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28:3491–7. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.28.4075

80. 

El-Khoueiry AB, Rankin C, Siegel AB, et al. S0941: a phase 2 SWOG study of sorafenib and erlotinib in patients with advanced gallbladder carcinoma or cholangiocarcinoma. Br J Cancer 2014; 110:882–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.801

81. 

El-Khoueiry AB, Rankin CJ, Ben-Josef E, et al. SWOG 0514: a phase II study of sorafenib in patients with unresectable or metastatic gallbladder carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma. Invest New Drugs 2012; 30:1646–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10637-011-9719-0

82. 

Zhu AX, Meyerhardt JA, Blaszkowsky LS, et al. Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab in advanced biliary-tract cancers and correlation of changes in 18-fluorodeoxyglucose PET with clinical outcome: a phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2010; 11:48–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70333-X

83. 

Bengala C, Bertolini F, Malavasi N, et al. Sorafenib in patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma: a phase II trial. Br J Cancer 2010; 102:68–72. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605458

84. 

Lee JK, Capanu M, O’Reilly EM, et al. A phase II study of gemcitabine and cisplatin plus sorafenib in patients with advanced biliary adenocarcinomas. Br J Cancer 2013; 109:915–19. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.432

85. 

Moehler M, Maderer A, Schimanski C, et al. Gemcitabine plus sorafenib versus gemcitabine alone in advanced biliary tract cancer: a double-blind placebo-controlled multicentre phase II AIO study with biomarker and serum programme. Eur J Cancer 2014; 50:3125–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2014.09.013

86. 

Valle JW, Wasan H, Lopes A, et al. Cediranib or placebo in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC-03): a randomised phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2015; 16:967–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00139-4

87. 

Yi JH, Thongprasert S, Lee J, et al. A phase II study of sunitinib as a second-line treatment in advanced biliary tract carcinoma: a multicentre, multinational study. Eur J Cancer 2012; 48:196–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2011.11.017

88. 

Santoro A, Gebbia V, Pressiani T, et al. A randomized, multicenter, phase II study of vandetanib monotherapy versus vandetanib in combination with gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus placebo in subjects with advanced biliary tract cancer: the VanGogh study. Ann Oncol 2015; 26:542–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu576

89. 

Bekaii-Saab T, Phelps MA, Li X, et al. Multi-institutional phase II study of selumetinib in patients with metastatic biliary cancers. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:2357–63. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2010.33.9473

90. 

Li H, Zhang ZY, Zhou ZQ, Guan J, Tong DN, Zhou GW. Combined gemcitabine and S-1 chemotherapy for treating unresectable hilar cholangiocarcinoma: a randomized open-label clinical trial. Oncotarget 2016; 7:26888–97. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.8590

91. 

Sasaki T, Isayama H, Nakai Y, et al. A randomized phase II study of gemcitabine and S-1 combination therapy versus gemcitabine monotherapy for advanced biliary tract cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2013; 71:973–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00280-013-2090-4

92. 

Pant S, Saleh M, Bendell J, et al. A phase I dose escalation study of oral c-MET inhibitor tivantinib (ARQ 197) in combination with gemcitabine in patients with solid tumors. Ann Oncol 2014; 25:1416–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdu157

93. 

Goyal L, Zheng H, Yurgelun MB, et al. A phase 2 and biomarker study of cabozantinib in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma [published online ahead of print February 13 2017]. Cancer 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30571

94. 

Gani F, Nagarajan N, Kim Y, et al. Program death 1 immune checkpoint and tumor microenvironment: implications for patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. Ann Surg Oncol 2016; 23:2610–17. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5101-y


Comments on this article



View all comments  |  Add comment 





Home  Editorial Board  Search  Current Issue  Archive Issues  Announcements  Aims & Scope  About the Journal  How to Submit  Contact Us
Find out how to become a part of the HMJ  |   CLICK HERE >>
© Copyright 2012 - 2013 HMJ - HAMDAN Medical Journal. All Rights Reserved         Website Developed By Cedar Solutions INDIA