Recent Update on Immunotherapy and Its Combination With Interventional Therapies for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is one of the most common and deadly malignancies worldwide. Approximately, 80% of patients are initially diagnosed at intermediate or advanced stages, which means that curative therapies are unable to be performed. In most cases, systemic treatment is ineffective, especially when conventional cytotoxic agents are used. Sorafenib has been the only systemic agent proven to be effective in treating advanced HCC for over a decade. The rapid development of immunotherapy has remarkably revolutionized the management of advanced HCC. Besides, the combination of immunotherapy with molecular targeted agents or locoregional treatments is emerging as an effective tool for enhancing immunity. In the review, an overview of immunotherapy and its combination therapies for HCC is presented.

Keywords

Hepatocellular carcinoma immunotherapy interventional therapy immune checkpoint inhibitor molecular targeted therapy combination therapy

Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), accounting for 75% to 85% of primary liver cancer, is one of the most common and fatal cancers worldwide.^1-3 It mainly occurs in the background of long-term liver disease. Approximately, 80% of HCCs are at intermediate or advanced stage at the time of initial diagnosis.^3,4 Molecular targeted therapies have been developed as the preferred treatment recommendation for advanced HCC during the past decade.

Until 2016, sorafenib, the multityrosine kinase inhibitor (multi-TKI), was the only systemic agent for the treatment of advanced HCC. Subsequently, three new multi-TKIs have been approved worldwide since 2017.^5-7 The first-line study found that lenvatinib was not inferior to sorafenib, and the second-line studies found that regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab showed clear survival benefits over placebo.^5-9 Recently, donafenib showed superiority over sorafenib in improving overall survival (OS) for advanced HCC and has been recommended as the first-line recommendation for advanced HCC in China.¹⁰

Metronomic capecitabine seemed a treatment option for Child-Pugh B HCC patients, especially for these TKIs-intolerant patients.¹¹ In addition, the immune system is crucial in controlling cancer progression.^12,13 Cancer immunotherapy has revolutionized the management of solid malignancies. The aim of immunotherapy is to selectively target and kill tumor cells by boosting an individual’s immune system. Based on the results of IMbrave 150 trial, atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab has been recommended as the preferred first-line choice for advanced HCC.^14,15 This review summarizes the current application of immunotherapy and its combination therapies for the treatment of HCC.

Mechanism of Immunotherapy

Immune checkpoint molecules expressed by tumor cells, T-cells, and antigen-presenting cells (APCs) are pivotal modulators of antitumor T-cell responses. The main inhibitory immune checkpoint molecules, including programmed cell death l (PD-1), programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) as well as cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4), restrain T-cell activity; however, co-stimulatory immune checkpoint proteins, such as CD28, GITR, and OX40, can potentiate T-cell activity.¹⁶

The therapeutic targets of PD-1/PD-L1/ CTLA-4 currently form the mainstay of immunotherapy of HCC. Studies have revealed that the interplay of PD-1 and PD-L1 triggers extensive dephosphorylation of T-cell activating kinases,¹⁷ contributing to the loss of T-cell activity; therefore, PD-1 or PD-L1 inhibitor can restore potent CD8⁺ T-cell activity.¹⁸ The inhibitory effect of CTLA-4 acts at the immune synapse that controls interaction forces between T-cells and APCs by facilitating the interplay between B7 co-stimulatory ligands and CD28, resulting in increased activation of CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T-cells.¹⁹ Anti-CTLA-4 treatment can activate and increase the richness of both CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ T-cells, and reduce the proliferation and expansion of peripheral T-cells in HCC patients.²⁰ Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) induce immune cell infiltration into “cold” tumors, followed by conversion to “hot” tumors and increased response rates.

Immunotherapeutic Options

ICI monotherapy

The first ICI-related trial focusing on the treatment of HCC was a phase II clinical trial investigating tremelimumab (anti-CTLA-4 antibody, Table 1) as monotherapy for hepatitis C virus (HCV)-related advanced HCC. The results demonstrated an objective response rate (ORR) of up to 17.6%.²¹ Afterwards, an anti-PD-1 antibody, nivolumab, received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated authorization for treating advanced HCC after sorafenib based on the results of an ORR of 14.3% and an acceptable safety profile observed in the CheckMate 040 trial.^22,23 The KEYNOTE-224 trial investigating the effectiveness and safety of an anti-PD-1 antibody, pembrolizumab, as the second-line choice for advanced HCC who failed from sorafenib.²⁴ The results showed that the median OS and progression-free survival (PFS) of was 12.9 and 4.9 months, respectively. In 2018, pembrolizumab was also approved as a second-line choice for advanced HCC.

Table 1.

ICIs and their targets in HCC.

ICIs licensed or in clinical research
Agents targeting PD-1	Agents targeting PD-L1	Agents targeting CTLA-4
Nivolumab	Atezolizumab	Ipilimumab
Pembrolizumab	Durvalumab	Tremelimumab
Camrelizumab tislelizumab	Sintilimab
ICI combinations with systemic agents licensed or in clinical research
Agents targeting PD-L1 and VEGF	Agents targeting PD-1/PD-L1 and multiple tyrosine kinases	Agents targeting CTLA-4 andPD-1 or PD-L1
Atezolizumab + bevacizumab	Atezolizumab + cabozantinib	Ipilimumab + nivolumab
Sintilimab + bevacizumab biosimilar	Pembrolizumab + lenvatinibCamrelizumab + apatinibAtezolizumab + sorafenib/lenvatinib	Tremelimumab + durvalumab

Abbreviations: CTLA-4, cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen 4; HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; ICI, immune checkpoint inhibitor; PD-1, programmed death-1; PD-L1, programmed cell death l ligand 1; VEGF, vascular endothelial growth factor.

Key trials involving immunotherapy for advanced HCC are shown in Table 2. In the CheckMate 459 phase III trial studying nivolumab against sorafenib in patients newly exposed to systemic agents as a first-line treatment, a longer median OS was observed with nivolumab versus sorafenib (16.4 vs 14.7 months; P > .05). Nevertheless, OS improvement in this study failed to reach the predetermined statistical significance criteria.²⁵ As a result, the indication for nivolumab as a single agent therapy was retracted from the US market. An additional phase III KEYNOTE-240 trial, studying pembrolizumab against placebo after sorafenib as a second-line treatment, revealed a statistically significant prolongation of median OS (13.9 vs 10.6 months; P < .05), whereas, it also failed to reach the predetermined threshold of statistical significance.²⁶ Potential explanations for the lack of success in these two trials are as follows: (1) diversity in post-progression therapies of included patients; (2) statistical designs; and (3) a limited number of patients benefit from ICIs clinically and ICIs have unique characteristics that encourage antitumor activity. In CheckMate 459, greater than or equal to 31% of patients treated with sorafenib then achieved an ICI-based treatment response, whereas, the proportion of patients receiving a TKI was relatively similar in both groups (36% and 23%). In KEYNOTE-240, the administration of ICIs after disease progression in patients treated with placebo might also have an effect on survival. The dual primary endpoints of OS and PFS possibly influenced the statistically negative results of KEYNOTE-240.

Table 2.

Results from key clinical trials involving immunotherapy for advanced HCC.

Treatments(trial)	N	Study phase	Median OS (HR, 95% CI)	Median PFS (HR, 95% CI)	ORR	Ref.
First-line setting
IMbrave150 (atezolizumab + bevacizumab vs sorafenib)	501	III	19.2 vs 13.4 months (0.66, 0.52-0.85; P = .0009)	6.8 vs 4.3 months (0.65, 0.53-0.81; P = .0001)	30% vs 11% (P < .001)	¹⁴
ORIENT-32 (sintilimab + IBI305 vs sorafenib)	571	III	NE vs 10.4 months (0.57, 0.43-0.75; P < .0001)	4.6 vs 2.8 months (0.56, 0.46-0.70; P < .0001)	20.5% vs 4.1% (P < .0001)	²⁷
CheckMate459 (nivolumab vs sorafenib)	743	III	16.4 vs 14.8 months (0.85, 0.72-1.00; P = .052)	3.7 vs 3.8 months (0.93, 0.79-1.10; NS)	15% vs 7% (P = NR)	²⁵
GO30140 (atezolizumab + bevacizumab)	164	Ib	17.1 months	7.3 months	37%	²⁸
GO30140 (atezolizumab)	59	Ib	NE	3.4 months	17%	²⁸
KEYNOTE-524 (pembrolizumab + lenvatinib)	104	Ib	22.0 months	9.3 months	36%	²⁹
COSMIC-312 (atezolizumab + cabozantinib vs sorafenib)	837	III	15.4 vs 15.5 months (0.90, 0.69-1.18; P = .44)	6.8 vs 4.2 months (0.63, 0.44-0.91; P = .0012)	11% vs 4% (P = NR)	³⁰
HIMALAYA (durvalumab + tremelimumab vs sorafenib)	1171	III	16.4 vs 13.8 months (0.78, 0.65-0.93; P = .0035)	3.78 vs 4.07 months (0.90, 0.77-1.05; P = NR)	20.1% vs 5.1% (P = NR)	³¹
LEAP-002 (lenvatinib + pembrolizumab vs lenvatinib)	794	III	21.2 vs 19.0 months (0.84, 0.708-0.997; P = .0227)	8.2 vs 8.1 months (0.834, 0.712-0.978; P = NR)	26,1% vs 17.5% (P = NR)	³²
NCT03764293 (camrelizumab + apatinib vs sorafenib)	543	III	22.1 vs 15.2 months (0.62, 0.49-0.80; P < .0001)	5.6 vs 3.7 months (0.52, 0.41-0.65; P < .0001)	25.4% vs 5.9% (P < .0001)	³³
RATIONALE-301 (tislelizumab vs sorafenib)	674	III	15.9 vs 14.1 months (0.85, 0.712-1.019; P = NR)	2.2 vs 3.6 months (1.1, 0.92-1.33; P = NR)	14.3% vs 5.4% (P = NR)	³⁴
Second-line setting
KEYNOTE-240 (pembrolizumab vs placebo)	413	III	13.8 vs 10.6 months (0.78, 0.61-1.00; P = .024)	3.0 vs 2.8 months (0.72, 0.57-0.90; P = .002)	18.3% vs 14.4% (P = .00007)	²⁶
CheckMate 040 (nivolumab + ipilimumab)	50	I/II	22.8 months	NR	32%	³⁵
KEYNOTE-224 (pembrolizumab)	104	II	12.9 months	4.9 months	17%	²⁴
RESCUE (camrelizumab + apatinib)	120	II	NR	5.5 months	22.5%	³⁶
NCT02519348 (durvalumab + tremelimumab)	75	I/II	18.7 months	2.2 months	24%	³⁷
NCT01008358 (tremelimumab)	20	II	8.2 months	6.5 months (TTP)	17.6%	²¹
NCT02989922 (camrelizumab)	217	II	13.8 months	2.1 months	14.7%	³⁸
RATIONALE-208 (tislelizumab)	249	II	12.4 months	2.7 months	12.4%	³⁹

Abbreviations: HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; NE, not estimable; NR, not reported; NS, not statistically significant; ORR, objective response rate; OS, overall survival; PFS, progression-free survival; TTP, time to progression.

Recently, camrelizumab (anti-PD-1 antibody) revealed obvious antitumor effect in pre-treated patients with unresectable HCC and might represent a new treatment option for these patients.³⁸ Meanwhile, tislelizumab (anti-PD-1 antibody) revealed sustained responses and was well tolerated in patients with unresectable HCC who had received prior systemic treatment.³⁹ Based on these results, camrelizumab and tislelizumab have been approved as the second-line treatment for advanced HCC patients who previously failed first-line treatment in China. More recently, the RATIONALE-301 phase III trial exploring tislelizumab against sorafenib in the first-line setting for unresectable HCC patients showed clinically meaningful OS benefit that was non-inferior to sorafenib with a favorable safety profile for advance HCC patients.³⁴

Other ICIs

In addition to PD-1, PD-L1, and CTLA-4, other immune checkpoint molecules also have potential to stimulate antitumor immune responses, including T-cell immunoglobulin mucin-3 (TIM-3),⁴⁰ lymphocyte activation gene 3 (LAG-3),⁴¹ and T-cell immunoglobulin and immunoreceptor tyrosine-based inhibitory motif (ITIM) domain (TIGHT).⁴² Studies have shown that the upregulation of PD-L1⁺ tumor cells as well as PD-1⁺ CD8⁺ T-cells in the immune infiltrate is associated with unfavorable outcomes in HCC.^43,44 TIM-3, which is most common in less differentiated HCC,⁴⁵ is reported to be expressed on CD4⁺ and CD8⁺ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs)⁴⁶ as well as tumor-associated macrophages.⁴⁷ TIM-3 can negatively regulate T-cell effector activity,⁴⁸ while when expression on Treg cells generates boosted inhibitory activity. In HCC patients, LAG-3 expression is considerably increased on tumor-specific CD4⁺ as well as CD8⁺ TILs compared with other immune compartments and provides a negative signal to T-cells.^41,49 The combination of PD-L1 inhibitor and other ICIs (TIM-3/LAG-3/CTLA-4) can further enhance its activity than PD-L1 monotherapy.⁴¹ Future ICIs targeting TIM-3, LAG-3, and TIGHT have potential to achieve satisfied prognosis for advanced HCC.

Combination Therapy

Given the recent unsuccessful phase III trials of ICIs monotherapy,^25,26 ICIs monotherapy is unable to achieve satisfactory treatment efficacy for advanced HCC. Several trials have demonstrated the synergistic advantage of combining PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors plus antiangiogenic TKIs or antibodies.^29,36,50-54 A number of new combination treatments are currently underway, including PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and anti-VEGF antibodies plus/or CTLA-4 inhibitors, which may represent a future focus of immunotherapy for HCC.

ICIs and anti-VEGF therapy

The combination of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1 antibody) and bevacizumab, the first ICI-based treatment, achieved an improvement on OS as the first-line treatment for advanced HCC.^14,55 In the IMbrave150 clinical trial that was carried out in 2020, 501 advanced HCC patients were randomized to receive either atezolizumab and bevacizumab or sorafenib. The study had the co-primary endpoints of OS and PFS, and showed remarkable improvement in OS and PFS at the first interim analysis (median follow-up of 8.6 months). Subsequently, with a median follow-up of 15.6 months, the median OS was 19.2 months in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 13.4 months in the sorafenib group (P < .001). The combination group also had better median PFS than the sorafenib group (6.8 vs 4.3 months; P < .001). Based on the findings of the IMbrave 150 trial, atezolizumab combined with bevacizumab became the preferred recommendation of first-line choice for advanced HCC.

The ORIENT-32 trial also demonstrated that sintilimab (anti-PD-1 antibody) combined with bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) was superior to first-line sorafenib in advanced HCC patients who had not received prior systemic therapy.²⁷ The median OS was not reached in the combination treatment and was 10.4 months in the sorafenib treatment after a median follow-up of 10 months. However, the COSMIC-312 trial revealed an obvious improvement in PFS with atezolizumab and cabozantinib than sorafenib (6.8 vs 4.2 months; P = .0012), whereas, a nonsignificant improvement in OS (15.4 vs 15.5 months P = .44) was observed.³⁰

In addition, a phase Ib trial exploring treatment efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus lenvatinib as first-line therapy for advanced HCC showed satisfied antitumor activity, with a median OS of 22.0 months and a median PFS of 9.3 months as well as an ORR of 46%.²⁹ Unfortunately, the LEAP-002 trial studying this combination against lenvatinib alone as the first-line treatment in advanced HCC patients who had not previously undergone systemic treatment did not meet the primary endpoints of OS and PFS with pre-specified statistical significance.³² By contrast, a phase III trial revealed that camrelizumab plus apatinib as first-line therapy significantly prolonged OS and PFS versus sorafenib with comparable treatment safety.³³ Currently, the combination of ICIs and molecular targeted therapy is also being compared with transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in the context of intermediate stage HCC, ie, the phase III RENOTACE (NCT04777851) trial as well as the phase III ABC-HCC (NCT04803994) trial.

In second-line therapy, atezolizumab is being incorporated into sorafenib/lenvatinib with the IMbrave251 trial, which will evaluate the effects on disease progression of atezolizumab-bevacizumab therapy (NCT04770896). A plausible explanation for this trial is that both sorafenib and lenvatinib can target tyrosine kinases capable of modulating immune activity and hence have the potential to act synergistically with atezolizumab.^51,52

Dual immunotherapy

Combinations of different ICIs may provide additional desired effects. The CheckMate 040 study revealed that the ORR of ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4 antibody) and nivolumab was 32%.³⁵ Meanwhile, this study demonstrated the best median OS of 22.8 months was achieved with 3 mg/kg ipilimumab once every 6 weeks plus 1 mg/kg nivolumab once every 2 weeks. This promising result has prompted the FDA to expedite approval of the combination to treat patients with advanced HCC following sorafenib. A CheckMate 9DW phase III trial (NCT04039607) is in progress to compare this combination with sorafenib/lenvatinib as the first-line treatment in advanced HCC patients.

A phase I/II trial using durvalumab (anti-PD-1 antibody) combined with tremelimumab was carried out in advanced HCC patients after sorafenib treatment. The trial yielded the most clinically significant benefit with 300 mg tremelimumab plus 1500 mg durvalumab once every 4 weeks and a median OS of 18.7 months and an ORR of 24% were observed.³⁷ In addition, in the HIMALAYA trial comparing durvalumab plus tremelimumab with sorafenib as the first-line treatment for advanced HCC, this combination produced superior efficacy compared with sorafenib (16.4 vs 13.8 months; P = .0035).³¹

ICIs and locoregional therapy

Locoregional therapies, mainly including radiofrequency ablation (RFA), TACE, and radiotherapy (RT), lead to extensive local necrosis of the tumor and subsequently elicit antitumor immune responses that may be further enhanced by ICIs.⁵⁶ Moreover, targeted therapy promotes normalization of vessel formation and inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which improves the efficacy of TACE/RFA and increases the levels of cytotoxic cells in the tumor microenvironment (TME).⁵⁶ Therefore, a synergistic combination with triple therapy may further enhance antitumor immune responses.

Mizukoshi et al⁵⁷ revealed that RFA could enhance T-cell infiltration and immune responses and that immunomodulatory agents might improve the immune effect of RFA against HCC. Zhang et al⁵⁸ reported that TACE combined with ICI might be an effective treatment approach for advanced HCC. According to a phase I/II trial evaluating tremelimumab combined with RFA/TACE to treat advanced HCC, 26% of patients responded, 89% of patients showed disease control, and OS was 12.3 months.⁵⁹ These results confirmed that the combination of tremelimumab with locoregional therapy was a potential new treatment. Meanwhile, a study revealed that RT combined with nivolumab was linked to prolonged PFS and OS in advanced HCC.⁶⁰

In addition, when antiangiogenic agents are added to locoregional therapies and ICIs, the efficacy could be greatly enhanced.⁵⁶ Some studies have shown the effectiveness and safety of TACE combined with antiangiogenic therapy and immunotherapy in advanced HCC.^61-64 In addition, some studies have also demonstrated that TACE plus antiangiogenic therapy plus immunotherapy remarkably improved OS and PFS over antiangiogenic therapy plus immunotherapy in unresectable HCC patients.^65,66 Several randomized controlled trials focusing on TACE combined with ICIs and anti-VEGF therapies are underway (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

First treatment option, expected survival and ongoing key randomized trials involving immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. AFP indicates α-fetoprotein; BSC, best supportive care; D-TACE, drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization; PS, performance status; TACE, transarterial chemoembolization.

Predictive Biomarkers of Immunotherapy Efficacy

Immunotherapy has been proven effective for treating advanced HCC in numerous studies. Nevertheless, not all patients will obtain clinical benefits from immunotherapy. This finding indicated that further translational studies should be performed to identify biomarkers predictive of response, which can help to identify patients who will achieve the greatest therapeutic benefit.⁶⁷ Identifying those with intrinsic resistance or who do not respond to immunotherapy will enable other treatment methods to be attempted, decrease the number of patients who may not receive clinical survival benefits from immunotherapy, and save a considerable amount of health resources. Some studies^68,69 have shown that PD-L1 expression, tumor mutational burden (TMB), high microsatellite instability, TILs, and specific alterations can predict the efficacy of ICIs.

The phase II KEYNOTE-224 study²⁴ demonstrated that the combined positive score (PD-L1 expression on tumor cells plus immune cells) was related to the response to pembrolizumab and PFS in advanced HCC. However, tumor cells’ PD-L1 expression (cutoff ⩾ 1%) did not predict response to nivolumab or pembrolizumab.^22,24,25 As in some patients with ICI-treated cancer, high TMB has been associated with increased ICI response.⁵³ In addition, the presence of high microsatellite instability is also associated with a higher tumor mutational burden, making ICIs more effective on tumors with that characteristic. Nevertheless, the utility of TMB and microsatellite instability as biomarkers to predict response to ICI is restricted by the low incidence of microsatellite TMB-high HCC^70,71 and high instability status.^72,73

Studies in several malignant tumors, including melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), revealed that TILs were associated with OS.^74,75 Therefore, TILs might act as a predictive biomarker for ICIs. WNT/β-catenin signaling that is activated has been related to immune rejection in HCC and has been considered a potentially useful biomarker of immunotherapy resistance.^76,77 Nevertheless, several studies have questioned the prediction power of these alterations.^78,79 Thus, this observation requires further prospective validation in a larger group of samples. Currently, gene expression profiling is gaining resurgence as a method for predicting response to ICIs. Studies indicated that interferon signaling pathways and genes associated with inflammation were abundant in pretreatment HCC patients who responded to ICIs.^79,80 According to the present clinical data, a predictive model that involves several factors may offer a better reliable estimate of the probability of responding to immunotherapy compared with a single biomarker.⁵³

Management of Immune-Related Adverse Events

The skin, gastrointestinal (GI) tract, liver, lungs, and endocrine system are all susceptible to ICI toxicity.⁸¹ Although these events are usually acceptable, they may also pose a life-threatening threat.⁸² The most common immune-related adverse events (irAEs) that arise from impaired self-tolerance include fatigue, skin toxicities, and hepatotoxicity. However, a coexisting long-term liver disease, which is usually diagnosed at the cirrhotic stage, leads to the diagnosis of irAEs. Therefore, this diagnosis might be difficult given the mixed effects of organ dysfunction in this condition.⁸³

Severe irAEs were observed in approximately 10% to 20% of patients treated with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and in approximately 25% of patients treated with CTLA-4 inhibitors.^24-26,28 Combining PD-1/PD-L1 and CTLA-4 inhibitors may result in synergistic immunotoxicity, with approximately 50% of advanced HCC patients involved in the CheckMate 040 trial assessing nivolumab plus ipilimumab requiring corticosteroids.³⁵ The toxicities of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and antiangiogenic agent combinations are additive and mostly nonoverlapping. Severe adverse events occurred in 67% of patients with pembrolizumab combined with lenvatinib.²⁹

The diagnosis and grading of irAEs was based on the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria.⁸⁴ Grade 1 events are usually monitored only, while grade 2 toxicities can usually be mitigated with supportive treatments, with some patients able to continue ICI therapy. Grade ⩾ 3 toxicities need treatment interruption or discontinuation and prompt corticosteroid treatment for HCC patients with escalation to immunosuppressants if refractory to corticosteroids.^85,86 Given that skin toxicity is associated with an increased chance of benefit from sorafenib,⁸⁷ a study showed that irAEs originating from ICIs were associated with more significant clinical benefit.⁸⁸ However, continuation of ICI therapy after severe toxicity ought to be based on an individual basis given the ~30% incidence of recurrent irAEs.⁸⁹

Other HCC Immunotherapies for HCC

In the context of passive therapy, adoptive cell therapy (ACT) with effector cells is considered immunotherapy. For ACT, the lymphocytes are sensitized and/or expanded in the laboratory and reinfused back into the patient.⁹⁰ These cells mainly include natural killer (NK) cells, lymphokine-activated killer (LAK) cells, TILs, cytokine-induced killer (CIK) cells, and redirected peripheral blood T-cells. Adjuvant therapy with LAK cells delayed HCC recurrences but did not lengthen life expectancy.⁹¹ According to a multicenter phase III study conducted in 2015, adjuvant immunotherapy with CIK cells improved the OS and PFS of HCC patients undergoing surgery or ablation for curative purposes.⁹² Patients with HCC were also shown to be amenable to adjuvant TILs based on a phase I trial.⁹³ Allogeneic NK cells are being studied in phase II clinical trials to treat advanced HCC patients who have a high incidence of recurrence following resection (NCT02008929) and patients undergoing TACE (NCT02854839).

Using chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) to treat hematological malignancies has proved to be an effective strategy,^94-96 whereas, the application of CAR-T in treating HCC is still in development. Some preclinical studies have demonstrated the clinical potential of glypican-3 (GPC3)-CAR T-cells to treat HCC.^97-99 Currently, a clinical trial is being carried out to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of GPC3-CAR T-cells (NCT04121273). An ongoing clinical trial investigating α-fetoprotein (AFP)-specific T-cell receptor T-cells for the treatment of HCC (NCT03132792) has demonstrated objective remissions. In addition, TP53 hotspot mutations commonly observed in HCC¹⁰⁰ as well as hepatitis B virus (HBV) antigens (NCT03899415) may also be targets for T-cell receptor-engineered T-cells.

To generate tumor-specific immunity, therapeutic vaccines are used against cancer. HCC peptide vaccines typically target tumor-associated antigens (TAAs), such as telomerase, GPC-3, and AFP.¹⁰¹ However, there has been little progress on approaches targeting telomerase and GPC-3,^102,103 and none are being developed into drugs. In HCC, many clinical trials of vaccines based on tumor lysates have failed to achieve consistent results.¹⁰⁴ Furthermore, clinical studies of vaccines using neoantigens are lacking, and the presence of mutations is not clearly related to the immune response.⁸³

Oncolytic virus therapies using genetically engineered or naturally occurring deficient viruses that can only replicate and kill cancer cells have the potential to be the next major advancement in cancer treatment after immunotherapy using ICIs.¹⁰⁵Intralesional injection of the oncolytic virus JX-594 (pexastimogene devacirepvec, Pexa-Vec) into primary or metastatic liver tumors was generally well tolerated in a phase I trial.¹⁰⁶ Unfortunately, JX-594 did not significantly improve OS as second-line monotherapy in advanced HCC in the phase IIb trial (TRAVERSE).¹⁰⁷ Moreover, the PHOCUS phase III trial comparing JX-594 plus sorafenib as first-line treatment versus sorafenib monotherapy in advanced HCC was prematurely terminated after a planned interim futility analysis revealed no benefit.¹⁰⁸ Nevertheless, clinical trials using different oncolytic viruses are worth exploring. In addition, as demonstrated by Zou et al,¹⁰⁹ adenoviral vectors encoding antibody fragments were feasible for using to treat HCC, offering a new option for HCC immunotherapy.

Future Perspectives

Immunotherapy has started a new era to treat HCC.² In the future, there is potential for immunotherapy to enhance locoregional and radical treatments for HCC, and neoadjuvant therapy for HCC are likely to achieve unprecedented therapeutic outcomes. In addition, novel immunotherapies, including new target antibodies, bispecific antibodies, combination regimens, engineered cytokines, adoptive T-cell therapy, tumor vaccines, and oncolytic viruses, might be available to treat all stages of HCC in the near future. Moreover, studies must be carried out to determine whether new ICI-based combination treatments can provide advanced HCC patients with clinical survival benefits following resistance to atezolizumab and bevacizumab combination therapy in the first-line setting. Few studies have associated immune classes,⁷⁶ gene signatures,⁸⁰ and even specific mutations^77,110 of HCC with therapy response or primary resistance. However, the initial nature of these studies means that the creation of new regimens will be developed empirically. All of these issues highlight the importance of identifying the molecular mechanisms that determine susceptibility and resistance to individual agents or combinations to develop valuable biomarkers that can assist in advancing personalized treatments. Based on the current reported evidence and ongoing trials, immunotherapy especially combination with other therapies has potential to act as a significant approach for the treatment of HCC.

Conclusion

The combination of atezolizumab and bevacizumab takes the treatment of advanced HCC into an era of immunotherapy. Immunotherapy with synergistic combination is likely to be the key in exploring effective immunotherapeutic breakthroughs in the future. Meanwhile, one of the focuses for the future work could be an exploration of prognostic biomarkers that could accurately predict survival and stratify beneficial patients from immunotherapy.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests:

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding:

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81901847), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20190177), the Key R&D Program (Social Development) Project of Jiangsu Province (BE2021648).

Author Contributions

Huang JT, Zhang S, and Yang YH contributed equally to drafting the; Zhang ZC, Jiang N, Li WC, and Shen J polished up the vocabulary and the grammar; Zhong BY and Zhu XL contributed equally to the study concept and design; all authors contributed to reviewing and criticizing revision of the and approving the final version of the .

ORCID iDs

Bin-Yan Zhong

Xiao-Li Zhu

References

Sung

Ferlay

Siegel

, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209-249. doi:10.3322/caac.21660.

Llovet

Kelley

Villanueva

, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021;7:6. doi:10.1038/s41572-020-00240-3.

Villanueva

. Hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1450-1462. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1713263.

Yang

Hainaut

Gores

Amadou

Plymoth

Roberts

. A global view of hepatocellular carcinoma: trends, risk, prevention and management. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;16:589-604. doi:10.1038/s41575-019-0186-y.

Kudo

Finn

Qin

, et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018;391:1163-1173. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30207-1.

Bruix

Qin

Merle

, 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. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)32453-9.

Abou-Alfa

Meyer

Cheng

, et al. Cabozantinib in patients with advanced and progressing hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:54-63. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1717002.

Zhu

Kang

Yen

, et al. Ramucirumab after sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and increased alpha-fetoprotein concentrations (REACH-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2019;20:282-296. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30937-9.

Rizzo

Nannini

Novelli

Dalia Ricci

Scioscio

Pantaleo

. Dose reduction and discontinuation of standard-dose regorafenib associated with adverse drug events in cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2020;12:1758835920936932. doi:10.1177/1758835920936932.

10.

Qin

, et al. Donafenib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment of unresectable or metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomized, open-label, parallel-controlled phase II-III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:3002-3011. doi:10.1200/JCO.21.00163.

11.

De Lorenzo

Tovoli

Barbera

, et al. Metronomic capecitabine vs. best supportive care in child-pugh B hepatocellular carcinoma: a proof of concept. Sci Rep. 2018;8:9997. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-28337-6.

12.

Schreiber

Old

Smyth

. Cancer immunoediting: integrating immunity’s roles in cancer suppression and promotion. Science. 2011;331:1565-1570. doi:10.1126/science.1203486.

13.

Rizzo

Ricci

Brandi

. Systemic adjuvant treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma: tempted to do something rather than nothing. Future Oncol. 2020;16:2587-2589. doi:10.2217/fon-2020-0669.

14.

Finn

Qin

Ikeda

, et al. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1894-1905. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1915745.

15.

Rizzo

Ricci

Gadaleta-Caldarola

Brandi

. First-line immune checkpoint inhibitor-based combinations in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: current management and future challenges. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;15:1245-1251. doi:10.1080/17474124.2021.1973431.

16.

Wei

Duffy

Allison

. Fundamental mechanisms of immune checkpoint blockade therapy. Cancer Discov. 2018;8:1069-1086. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-18-0367.

17.

Yokosuka

Takamatsu

Kobayashi-Imanishi

Hashimoto-Tane

Azuma

Saito

. Programmed cell death 1 forms negative costimulatory microclusters that directly inhibit T cell receptor signaling by recruiting phosphatase SHP2. J Exp Med. 2012;209:1201-1217. doi:10.1084/jem.20112741.

18.

Ahn

Araki

Hashimoto

, et al. Role of PD-1 during effector CD8 T cell differentiation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018;115:4749-4754. doi:10.1073/pnas.1718217115.

19.

Maker

Attia

Rosenberg

. Analysis of the cellular mechanism of antitumor responses and autoimmunity in patients treated with CTLA-4 blockade. J Immunol. 2005;175:7746-7754. doi:10.4049/jimmunol.175.11.7746.

20.

Agdashian

ElGindi

Xie

, et al. The effect of anti-CTLA4 treatment on peripheral and intra-tumoral T cells in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2019;68:599-608. doi:10.1007/s00262-019-02299-8.

21.

Sangro

Gomez-Martin

de la Mata

, et al. A clinical trial of CTLA-4 blockade with tremelimumab in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and chronic hepatitis C. J Hepatol. 2013;59:81-88. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2013.02.022.

22.

El-Khoueiry

Sangro

Yau

, et al. Nivolumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 040): an open-label, non-comparative, phase 1/2 dose escalation and expansion trial. Lancet. 2017;389:2492-2502. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31046-2.

23.

Llovet

Villanueva

Marrero

, et al. Trial design and endpoints in hepatocellular carcinoma: AASLD consensus conference. Hepatology. 2021;73:158-191. doi:10.1002/hep.31327.

24.

Zhu

Finn

Edeline

, et al. Pembrolizumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib (KEYNOTE-224): a non-randomised, open-label phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2018;19:940-952. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30351-6.

25.

Yau

Park

Finn

, et al. Nivolumab versus sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 459): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:77-90. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00604-5.

26.

Finn

Ryoo

Merle

, et al. Pembrolizumab as second-line therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in KEYNOTE-240: a randomized, double-blind, phase III trial. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:193-202. doi:10.1200/JCO.19.01307.

27.

Ren

Bai

, et al. Sintilimab plus a bevacizumab biosimilar (IBI305) versus sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (ORIENT-32): a randomised, open-label, phase 2-3 study. Lancet Oncol. 2021;22:977-990. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00252-7.

28.

Lee

Ryoo

Hsu

, et al. Atezolizumab with or without bevacizumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (GO30140): an open-label, multicentre, phase 1b study. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:808-820. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30156-X.

29.

Finn

Ikeda

Zhu

, et al. Phase Ib study of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2020;38:2960-2970. doi:10.1200/JCO.20.00808.

30.

Kelley

Rimassa

Cheng

, et al. Cabozantinib plus atezolizumab versus sorafenib for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (COSMIC-312): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2022;23:995-1008. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00326-6.

31.

Abou-Alfa

Lau

Kudo

, et al. Tremelimumab plus durvalumab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. NEJM Evidence. 2022;1:Evidoa2100070. doi:10.1056/EVIDoa2100070.

32.

Finn

Kudo

Merle

, et al. LBA34—primary results from the phase III LEAP-002 study: lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab versus lenvatinib as first-line (1L) therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC). Ann Oncol. 2022;33:S808-S869.

33.

Qin

Chan

, et al. LBA35-camrelizumab (C) plus rivoceranib (R) vs. sorafenib (S) as first-line therapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (UHCC): a randomized, phase III trial. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:S808-S869.

34.

Qin

Kudo

Meyer

. LBA36-final analysis of RATIONALE-301: randomized, phase III study of tislelizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2022;33:S808-S869.

35.

Yau

Kang

Kim

, et al. Efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma previously treated with sorafenib: the checkmate 040 randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:e204564. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.4564.

36.

Shen

, et al. Camrelizumab in combination with apatinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (RESCUE): a nonrandomized, open-label, phase II trial. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27:1003-1011. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-20-2571.

37.

Kelley

Sangro

Harris

, et al. Safety, efficacy, and pharmacodynamics of tremelimumab plus durvalumab for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: randomized expansion of a phase I/II study. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:2991-3001. doi:10.1200/JCO.20.03555.

38.

Qin

Ren

Meng

, et al. Camrelizumab in patients with previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:571-580. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30011-5.

39.

Ducreux

Abou-Alfa

Ren

Edeline

Cheng

. O-1 results from a global phase 2 study of tislelizumab, an investigational PD-1 antibody, in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Ann Oncol. 2021;32:S217.

40.

Anderson

Joller

Kuchroo

. Lag-3, Tim-3, and TIGIT: co-inhibitory receptors with specialized functions in immune regulation. Immunity. 2016;44:989-1004. doi:10.1016/j.immuni.2016.05.001.

41.

Zhou

Sprengers

Boor

PPC

, et al. Antibodies against immune checkpoint molecules restore functions of tumor-infiltrating T cells in hepatocellular carcinomas. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:1107-1119. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.06.017.

42.

Harden

Gonzalez

, et al. The surface protein TIGIT suppresses T cell activation by promoting the generation of mature immunoregulatory dendritic cells. Nat Immunol. 2009;10:48-57. doi:10.1038/ni.1674.

43.

Shi

Zeng

, et al. PD-1 and PD-L1 upregulation promotes CD8(+) T-cell apoptosis and postoperative recurrence in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Int J Cancer. 2011;128:887-896. doi:10.1002/ijc.25397.

44.

Gao

Wang

Qiu

, et al. Overexpression of PD-L1 significantly associates with tumor aggressiveness and postoperative recurrence in human hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;15:971-979. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-08-1608.

45.

, et al. Immune checkpoint proteins PD-1 and TIM-3 are both highly expressed in liver tissues and correlate with their gene polymorphisms in patients with HBV-related hepatocellular carcinoma. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95:e5749. doi:10.1097/MD.0000000000005749.

46.

Tao

, et al. Tim-3/galectin-9 signaling pathway mediates T-cell dysfunction and predicts poor prognosis in patients with hepatitis B virus-associated hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2012;56:1342-1351. doi:10.1002/hep.25777.

47.

Yan

Liu

, et al. Tim-3 fosters HCC development by enhancing TGF-beta-mediated alternative activation of macrophages. Gut. 2015;64:1593-1604. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2014-307671.

48.

Yang

Turner

, et al. TIM-3 as a target for cancer immunotherapy and mechanisms of action. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18:645. doi:10.3390/ijms18030645.

49.

Andrews

Marciscano

Drake

Vignali

. LAG3 (CD223) as a cancer immunotherapy target. Immunol Rev. 2017;276:80-96. doi:10.1111/imr.12519.

50.

Bruni

Angell

Galon

. The immune contexture and Immunoscore in cancer prognosis and therapeutic efficacy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2020;20:662-680. doi:10.1038/s41568-020-0285-7.

51.

Huinen

Huijbers

EJM

van Beijnum

Nowak-Sliwinska

Griffioen

. Anti—angiogenic agents—overcoming tumour endothelial cell anergy and improving immunotherapy outcomes. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2021;18:527-540. doi:10.1038/s41571-021-00496-y.

52.

Fukumura

Kloepper

Amoozgar

Duda

Jain

. Enhancing cancer immunotherapy using antiangiogenics: opportunities and challenges. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2018;15:325-340. doi:10.1038/nrclinonc.2018.29.

53.

Havel

Chowell

Chan

. The evolving landscape of biomarkers for checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2019;19:133-150. doi:10.1038/s41568-019-0116-x.

54.

Kalbasi

Ribas

. Tumour-intrinsic resistance to immune checkpoint blockade. Nat Rev Immunol. 2020;20:25-39. doi:10.1038/s41577-019-0218-4.

55.

Cheng

Qin

Ikeda

, et al. Updated efficacy and safety data from IMbrave150: atezolizumab plus bevacizumab vs. J Hepatol. 2022;76:862-873. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2021.11.030.

56.

Llovet

De Baere

Kulik

, et al. Locoregional therapies in the era of molecular and immune treatments for hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;18:293-313. doi:10.1038/s41575-020-00395-0.

57.

Mizukoshi

Yamashita

Arai

, et al. Enhancement of tumor-associated antigen-specific T cell responses by radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology. 2013;57:1448-1457. doi:10.1002/hep.26153.

58.

Zhang

Chen

Liu

Shi

Zhou

. Safety and efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization and immune checkpoint inhibition with camrelizumab for treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatocell Carcinoma. 2022;9:265-272. doi:10.2147/JHC.S358658.

59.

Duffy

Ulahannan

Makorova-Rusher

, et al. Tremelimumab in combination with ablation in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2017;66:545-551. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2016.10.029.

60.

Lee

, et al. Clinical significance of radiotherapy before and/or during nivolumab treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Med. 2019;8:6986-6994. doi:10.1002/cam4.2570.

61.

Yang

Xiang

, et al. Safety and efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors and tyrosine kinase inhibitors for hepatocellular carcinoma. Front Oncol. 2021;11:657512. doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.657512.

62.

Cao

Yang

, et al. The efficacy of TACE combined with lenvatinib plus sintilimab in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter retrospective study. Front Oncol. 2021;11:783480. doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.783480.

63.

Liu

Zhang

, et al. Comprehensive treatment of trans-arterial chemoembolization plus lenvatinib followed by camrelizumab for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients. Front Pharmacol. 2021;12:709060. doi:10.3389/fphar.2021.709060.

64.

Teng

Ding

Sun

Chen

. A retrospective study on therapeutic efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors plus lenvatinib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Technol Cancer Res Treat. 2022;21:15330338221075174. doi:10.1177/15330338221075174.

65.

Zhou

Yang

, et al. Apatinib plus camrelizumab with/without chemoembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma: a real-world experience of a single center. Front Oncol. 2021;11:835889. doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.835889.

66.

Zheng

Fang

, et al. Efficacy and safety of TACE combined with sorafenib plus immune checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of intermediate and advanced TACE-refractory hepatocellular carcinoma: a retrospective study. Front Mol Biosci. 2020;7:609322. doi:10.3389/fmolb.2020.609322.

67.

Cheng

Hsu

Chan

Choo

Kudo

. Challenges of combination therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors for hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2020;72:307-319. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2019.09.025.

68.

Boyiadzis

Kirkwood

Marshall

Pritchard

Azad

Gulley

. Significance and implications of FDA approval of pembrolizumab for biomarker-defined disease. J Immunother Cancer. 2018;6:35. doi:10.1186/s40425-018-0342-x.

69.

Topalian

Taube

Anders

Pardoll

. Mechanism-driven biomarkers to guide immune checkpoint blockade in cancer therapy. Nat Rev Cancer. 2016;16:275-287. doi:10.1038/nrc.2016.36.

70.

Wong

Fessas

Dominy

, et al. Qualification of tumour mutational burden by targeted next-generation sequencing as a biomarker in hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Int. 2021;41:192-203. doi:10.1111/liv.14706.

71.

Ang

Klempner

Ali

, et al. Prevalence of established and emerging biomarkers of immune checkpoint inhibitor response in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncotarget. 2019;10:4018-4025. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.26998.

72.

Hause

Pritchard

Shendure

Salipante

. Classification and characterization of microsatellite instability across 18 cancer types. Nat Med. 2016;22:1342-1350. doi:10.1038/nm.4191.

73.

Bonneville

Krook

Kautto

, et al. Landscape of microsatellite instability across 39 cancer types [published online ahead of print October 3, 2017]. JCO Precis Oncol. doi:10.1200/PO.17.00073.

74.

Thomas

Busam

From

, et al. Tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte grade in primary melanomas is independently associated with melanoma-specific survival in the population-based genes, environment and melanoma study. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:4252-4259. doi:10.1200/JCO.2013.51.3002.

75.

Zeng

, et al. Prognostic and predictive value of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes for clinical therapeutic research in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Oncotarget. 2016;7:13765-13781. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.7282.

76.

Sia

Jiao

Martinez-Quetglas

, et al. Identification of an immune-specific class of hepatocellular carcinoma, based on molecular features. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:812-826. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2017.06.007.

77.

Ruiz

Galarreta

Bresnahan

Molina-Sanchez

, et al. beta-catenin activation promotes immune escape and resistance to anti-PD-1 therapy in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Discov. 2019;9:1124-1141. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.CD-19-0074.

78.

von Felden

Craig

Garcia-Lezana

, et al. Mutations in circulating tumor DNA predict primary resistance to systemic therapies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncogene. 2021;40:140-151. doi:10.1038/s41388-020-01519-1.

79.

Haber

Torres-Martin

Dufour

J-F

, et al. Molecular markers of response to anti-PD1 therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:4100-4100. doi:10.1200/JCO.2021.39.15_suppl.4100.

80.

Sangro

Melero

Wadhawan

, et al. Association of inflammatory biomarkers with clinical outcomes in nivolumab-treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol. 2020;73:1460-1469. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2020.07.026.

81.

Fessas

Possamai

Clark

, et al. Immunotoxicity from checkpoint inhibitor therapy: clinical features and underlying mechanisms. Immunology. 2020;159:167-177. doi:10.1111/imm.13141.

82.

Postow

Sidlow

Hellmann

. Immune-related adverse events associated with immune checkpoint blockade. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:158-168. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1703481.

83.

Sangro

Sarobe

Hervas-Stubbs

Melero

. Advances in immunotherapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021;18:525-543. doi:10.1038/s41575-021-00438-0.

84.

Puzanov

Diab

Abdallah

, et al. Managing toxicities associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors: consensus recommendations from the Society for Immunotherapy of Cancer (SITC) toxicity management working group. J Immunother Cancer. 2017;5:95. doi:10.1186/s40425-017-0300-z.

85.

Brahmer

Lacchetti

Schneider

, et al. Management of immune-related adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy: American society of clinical oncology clinical practice guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36:1714-1768. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.77.6385.

86.

Pinato

Kaseb

Wang

, et al. Impact of corticosteroid therapy on the outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy. J Immunother Cancer. 2020;8:e000726. doi:10.1136/jitc-2020-000726.

87.

Reig

Torres

Rodriguez-Lope

, et al. Early dermatologic adverse events predict better outcome in HCC patients treated with sorafenib. J Hepatol. 2014;61:318-324. doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2014.03.030.

88.

Pinato

Marron

Mishra-Kalyani

, et al. Treatment-related toxicity and improved outcome from immunotherapy in hepatocellular cancer: evidence from an FDA pooled analysis of landmark clinical trials with validation from routine practice. Eur J Cancer. 2021;157:140-152. doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2021.08.020.

89.

Dolladille

Ederhy

Sassier

, et al. Immune checkpoint inhibitor rechallenge after immune-related adverse events in patients with cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2020;6:865-871. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2020.0726.

90.

Rosenberg

Restifo

. Adoptive cell transfer as personalized immunotherapy for human cancer. Science. 2015;348:62-68. doi:10.1126/science.aaa4967.

91.

Takayama

Sekine

Makuuchi

, et al. Adoptive immunotherapy to lower postsurgical recurrence rates of hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2000;356:802-807. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02654-4.

92.

Lee

Lim

, et al. Adjuvant immunotherapy with autologous cytokine-induced killer cells for hepatocellular carcinoma. Gastroenterology. 2015;148:1383-1391.e6. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2015.02.055.

93.

Jiang

Tang

Zhang

, et al. A phase I clinical trial utilizing autologous tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in patients with primary hepatocellular carcinoma. Oncotarget. 2015;6:41339-41349. doi:10.18632/oncotarget.5463.

94.

Maude

Laetsch

Buechner

, et al. Tisagenlecleucel in children and young adults with B-cell lymphoblastic leukemia. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:439-448. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1709866.

95.

Neelapu

Locke

Bartlett

, et al. Axicabtagene ciloleucel CAR T-cell therapy in refractory large B-cell lymphoma. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:2531-2544. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1707447.

96.

Abramson

Palomba

Gordon

, et al. Lisocabtagene maraleucel for patients with relapsed or refractory large B-cell lymphomas (TRANSCEND NHL 001): a multicentre seamless design study. Lancet. 2020;396:839-852. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31366-0.

97.

Luo

Shi

, et al. Combined antitumor effects of sorafenib and GPC3-CAR T cells in mouse models of hepatocellular carcinoma. Mol Ther. 2019;27:1483-1494. doi:10.1016/j.ymthe.2019.04.020.

98.

Batra

Rathi

Guo

, et al. Glypican-3-specific CAR T cells coexpressing IL15 and IL21 have superior expansion and antitumor activity against hepatocellular carcinoma. Cancer Immunol Res. 2020;8:309-320. doi:10.1158/2326-6066.CIR-19-0293.

99.

Gao

, et al. Development of T cells redirected to glypican-3 for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2014;20:6418-6428. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-14-1170.

100.

Malekzadeh

Pasetto

Robbins

, et al. Neoantigen screening identifies broad TP53 mutant immunogenicity in patients with epithelial cancers. J Clin Invest. 2019;129:1109-1114. doi:10.1172/JCI123791.

101.

Tagliamonte

Petrizzo

Mauriello

Tornesello

Buonaguro

. Potentiating cancer vaccine efficacy in liver cancer. Oncoimmunology. 2018;7:e1488564. doi:10.1080/2162402X.2018.1488564.

102.

Sawada

Yoshikawa

Nobuoka

, et al. Phase I trial of a glypican-3-derived peptide vaccine for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: immunologic evidence and potential for improving overall survival. Clin Cancer Res. 2012;18:3686-3696. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-3044.

103.

Greten

Forner

Korangy

, et al. A phase II open label trial evaluating safety and efficacy of a telomerase peptide vaccination in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC Cancer. 2010;10:209. doi:10.1186/1471-2407-10-209.

104.

Prieto

Melero

Sangro

. Immunological landscape and immunotherapy of hepatocellular carcinoma. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;12:681-700. doi:10.1038/nrgastro.2015.173.

105.

Fukuhara

Ino

Todo

. Oncolytic virus therapy: a new era of cancer treatment at dawn. Cancer Sci. 2016;107:1373-1379. doi:10.1111/cas.13027.

106.

Park

Hwang

Liu

, et al. Use of a targeted oncolytic poxvirus, JX-594, in patients with refractory primary or metastatic liver cancer: a phase I trial. Lancet Oncol. 2008;9:533-542. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70107-4.

107.

Moehler

Heo

Lee

, et al. Vaccinia-based oncolytic immunotherapy Pexastimogene Devacirepvec in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after sorafenib failure: a randomized multicenter Phase IIb trial (TRAVERSE). Oncoimmunology. 2019;8:1615817. doi:10.1080/2162402X.2019.1615817.

108.

Foerster

Galle

. The current landscape of clinical trials for systemic treatment of HCC. Cancers (Basel). 2021;13:1962. doi:10.3390/cancers13081962.

109.

Zou

Tuhin

Monty

, et al. Gene therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma using adenoviral vectors delivering a gene encoding IL-17A-neutralizing antibody fragments. Hum Gene Ther. 2020;31:1074-1085. doi:10.1089/hum.2019.169.

110.

Harding

Nandakumar

Armenia

, et al. Prospective genotyping of hepatocellular carcinoma: clinical implications of next-generation sequencing for matching patients to targeted and immune therapies. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25:2116-2126. doi:10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-2293.