4.8 Review

Challenges of combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors for hepatocellular carcinoma

Journal

JOURNAL OF HEPATOLOGY
Volume 72, Issue 2, Pages 307-319

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhep.2019.09.025

Keywords

Immune checkpoint inhibitor; Hepatocellular carcinoma; Combination; Biomarker

Funding

  1. Centers of Genomic and Precision Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan
  2. Ministry of Education, Taiwan [NTU-107L9014]
  3. Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan [MOST 107-3017-F-002-002-, MOST 1072314-B-002-210-MY3, 108-2314-B-002-075-MY3]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy targeting anti-programmed cell death-1 (anti-PD-1) or its ligand (anti-PD-L1) is the backbone of numerous combination regimens aimed at improving the objective response and survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Clinical trials of immuno-oncology regimens in other cancer types have shed light on issues of study design, including how to choose candidate regimens based on early-phase trial results, statistical considerations in trials with multiple primary endpoints, and the importance of predictive biomarkers. In this review, the updated data from early-phase trials of combination immunotherapy for HCC are summarised. Since the most extensively tested combination regimens for advanced HCC comprise anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 agents plus antiangiogenic agents, the relative benefit and antitumor mechanism of antiangiogenic multikinase inhibitors versus specific VEGF/VEGFR inhibitors are discussed. Other critical issues in the development of combination immunotherapy, including optimal management of immune-related adverse events and the value of ICI therapy in combination with locoregional treatment for HCC, are also explored. (C) 2019 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available