Page 696 - Read Online
P. 696

Merle et al. Hepatoma Res 2020;6:60                              Hepatoma Research
               DOI: 10.20517/2394-5079.2020.52




               Review                                                                        Open Access


               Comparison and analysis of the efficacy of drug
               therapy for liver cancer



               Philippe Merle 1,2,3 , Miroslava Subic 1

               1 Unité d’Hépatologie et Gastroentérologie, Hôpital de la Croix Rousse, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon 69004, France.
               2 Centre de Recherche en Cancérologie de Lyon, INSERM U1052, Lyon 69003, France.
               3 Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Villeurbanne 69100, France.

               Correspondence to: Prof. Philippe Merle, Unité d’Hépatologie, Groupement Hospitalier Lyon Nord, Hospices Civils de Lyon, 103
               Grande rue de la Croix-Rousse, Lyon 69004, France. E-mail: philippe.merle@inserm.fr
               How to cite this article: Merle P, Subic M. Comparison and analysis of the efficacy of drug therapy for liver cancer. Hepatoma Res
               2020;6:60. http://dx.doi.org/10.20517/2394-5079.2020.52
               Received: 18 May 2020    First Decision: 24 Jun 2020    Revised: 14 Jul 2020    Accepted: 20 Jul 2020    Published: 1 Sep 2020

               Academic Editor: Shu-Kui Qin    Copy Editor: Cai-Hong Wang    Production Editor: Jing Yu



               Abstract
 Received:     First Decision:     Revised:     Accepted:    Published:
               Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a poor prognosis tumor when not accessible to potentially curative treatments
 Science Editor:     Copy Editor:     Production Editor: Jing Yu   such as surgical resection, thermal ablations or liver transplantation. Systemic cytotoxic chemotherapies have
               shown inconsistent clinical benefit. In 2007, sorafenib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI), was the first systemic
               therapy able to significantly improve the outcome of HCC patients non-eligible for curative or loco-regional
               therapies, despite a modest tolerance and low tumor objective response rate (ORR). Among the newer TKIs
               approved after 2017, lenvatinib was the first to show a striking ORR and demonstrate non-inferiority vs. sorafenib
               in the first-line setting. Furthermore, phase 3 trials showed the benefit of other TKIs, regorafenib and cabozantinib,
               and the anti-angiogenic ramucirumab monoclonal antibody, in systemic second-line therapy. Immune checkpoint
               inhibitors targeting PD1, achieved striking tumor shrinkage in some patients in monotherapy, seeming to be
               associated with exciting outcomes. Unfortunately, this occurred in too few patients to improve the median overall
               survival. More recently, the combination of anti-angiogenic drugs targeting the liver microenvironment with PD-1/
               PD-L1 inhibitors, such as the combination of bevacizumab and atezolizumab, proved to be substantially effective
               in phase 3, and other combinations of PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors or TKIs have raised a lot of hopes for the
               systemic treatment of HCC.

               Keywords: Hepatocellular carcinoma, therapy, immune checkpoint inhibitors, tyrosine kinase inhibitors






                           © The Author(s) 2020. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
                           International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use,
                sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as long
                as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license,
                and indicate if changes were made.


                                                                                                                                                        www.hrjournal.net
   691   692   693   694   695   696   697   698   699   700   701