We're Still in an Update Process of the BCLC System.

Jian-Hong Zhong,Liang Ma,Bang-De Xiang,Le-Qun Li,Tian Yang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000001922

IF: 13.787

2018-01-01

Annals of Surgery

Abstract:To the Editor: A n update review of treatment options and controversies in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) found the management of HCC has witnessed significant strides with advances in existing options and introduction of several new treatment modalities of various combinations. As researchers at a large tertiary liver care center with a longstanding interest in the treatment of patients with HCC, we are concerned about the results and conclusions presented in this large, well-designed study by Dhir et al. Diagnosis and treatment of HCC is guided largely by disease stage, most often assessed using the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system. Although the BCLC system has been extremely useful for guiding research and clinical practice, some of its treatment recommendations for intermediate and advanced HCC are not consistent with the literature. Expanding the selection criteria for resection is needed to allow many HCC patients to gain access to potentially greater clinical benefits without a significant increase in hospital mortality or other adverse outcomes. Our position is consistent with longstanding clinical practice at many Asian and Western medical centers, where patients falling outside BCLC criteria are routinely treated by resection. Indeed, analysis of data from the BRIDGE study involving Asian, European, and North American medical centers shows that resection may benefit certain ‘‘nonideal’’ patients more than BCLC-recommended treatments. Though the time remaining to an update in current guidelines is now running faster than ever before, some issues about expanding the indication of resection also need to be raised. New reviews written by key proponents of the BCLC system still recommends only transarterial chemobolization or sorafenib for patients with intermediate or advanced HCC. Yet, a substantial evidence base strongly supports curative resection as a safe and effective option for many of these patients. The current BCLC position to restrict resection only to patients with very early and early HCC has far-reaching effects, because more than half of the patients referred to tertiary care centers have intermediate or advanced disease. The BCLC staging system recommends chemoembolization therapy for patients with intermediate HCC. However, the efficacy of chemoembolizaiton is far from satisfied. Systematic reviews with large sample size showed good overall survival in patients with multinodular HCC after resection. Moreover, the only randomized controlled trial revealed that resection provided significantly better overall survival than conventional chemoembolizaiton to treat patients with multiple HCC outside of Milan criteria. Actually, ‘‘the majority of patients undergoing resection would not be considered ideal candidates based on current guidelines.’’ For patients with advanced HCC, sorafenib is recommended by the BCLC staging system. However, the efficacy of this drug is far from clear. The statement that ‘‘sorafenib is the only treatment found to prolong survival’’ seems at odds with the evidence base, which shows a maximal median survival benefit of less than 3 months for sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC. A substantial number of patients fail to respond to the drug, and also the disturbing emergence of resistance. This lack of efficacy, coupled with the relatively high risk of adverse events and prohibitive cost, makes sorafenib a lessthan-ideal choice. At the same time, resection has been shown in numerous studies to be a safe and effective option for many patients with advanced HCC. Systematic review of 24 studies involving 4389 patients showed good overall survival in patients with HCC involving macrovascular invasion. None of these patient populations qualifies for resection under existing BCLC recommendations. For patients with clinically significant portal hypertension (CSPH), resection is also not recommended by the BCLC staging system. However, prospective study revealed that resection was associated with good short-term outcomes in patients with CSPH. Moreover, retrospective studies with large sample size also found the good long-term outcomes after resection for such patients. In this aspect, so much evidences in the literature, even if not randomized and burdened by several biases, would bring further support to the role of resection in presence of CSPH. Though the role of resection for patients with advanced HCC was not involved, we were pleased to that review by key proponents of the BCLC system have taken into account recent studies of how best to treat patients with multifocal HCC or HCC involving portal hypertension. Such patients may benefit from more aggressive treatment. Nevertheless, the BCLC system remains outdated in limiting patients with intermediate and advanced disease only to transarterial chemoembolization or sorafenib. This seems to contradict those authors’ philosophy that ‘‘evidence-based management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is key to their optimal care’’ and ‘‘moving from what can be done to what is worth doing.’’ In addition, as stated by Dhir et al, ‘‘the main treatment algorithms continue to rely on hepatic resection or transplantation with controversies involving patients harboring early-stage disease and borderline hepatic function.’’ We must note that tumor stage of nearly 70% of patients with HCC is intermediate or advanced when the disease is diagnosed at first time. Since resection is associated with better survival than transarterial chemoembolization or sorafenib for these patients, why do we let our patients be disappointed?