Suchergebnisse

Laura Kulik,1 Leonardo G da Fonseca,2 Aiwu Ruth He,3 Jordi Rimola,4 Andrea Wilson Woods,5 York F Zöllner,6 Peter R Galle7 1Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA; 2Clinical Oncology, Instituto do Cancer do Estado de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil; 3Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA; 4Radiology Department, Hospital Clínic de Barcelona, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain; 5Blue Faery: The Adrienne Wilson Liver Cancer Association, Birmingham, AL, USA; 6Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Competence Center Health, Hamburg, Germany; 7University Medical Centre Mainz, Mainz, GermanyCorrespondence: Peter R GalleUniversity Medical Centre Mainz, Mainz, GermanyTel +49 6131 177275Email Peter.Galle@unimedizin-mainz.deAbstract: A virtual expert roundtable was convened on April 16, 2020, to discuss the evolving landscape of care for treating patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and discuss questions related to patient care and treatment selection. This commentary presents highlights from this discussion and provides an expert opinion about approaches to treatment for HCC in the Americas and the European Union. We anticipate that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab will become the standard of care for advanced HCC patients. However, this approach will make decisions regarding the sequencing of treatments for second-line therapies and beyond more challenging. Therapy will require individualization based on patient characteristics and preferences, while insurance coverage decisions and requirements may also impact the options that patients can access. Additional research regarding prognostic and predictive biomarkers is needed to help better identify optimal treatment approaches for specific patient populations. Multidisciplinary tumor boards will continue to play a critical role in guiding treatment selection for individual patients. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab offers a promising new first-line therapeutic option for patients with advanced HCC, but more research is needed to optimize and individualize patient therapy.Keywords: hepatocellular carcinoma, immuno-oncologics, biomarkers, patient-reported outcomes

A virtual expert roundtable was convened on April 16, 2020, to discuss the evolving landscape of care for treating patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and discuss questions related to patient care and treatment selection. This commentary presents highlights from this discussion and provides an expert opinion about approaches to treatment for HCC in the Americas and the European Union. We anticipate that atezolizumab plus bevacizumab will become the standard of care for advanced HCC patients. However, this approach will make decisions regarding the sequencing of treatments for second-line therapies and beyond more challenging. Therapy will require individualization based on patient characteristics and preferences, while insurance coverage decisions and requirements may also impact the options that patients can access. Additional research regarding prognostic and predictive biomarkers is needed to help better identify optimal treatment approaches for specific patient populations. Multidisciplinary tumor boards will continue to play a critical role in guiding treatment selection for individual patients. Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab offers a promising new first-line therapeutic option for patients with advanced HCC, but more research is needed to optimize and individualize patient therapy.

This new diagnostic consensus guideline is a joint project of the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology [ESGAR] that now merges the former ECCO-ESGAR Imaging Guideline and the former ECCO Endoscopy Guideline, also including laboratory parameters. It has been drafted by 30 ECCO and ESGAR members from 17 European countries. All the authors recognize th e work of and are grateful to previous ECCO and ESGAR members who contributed tocreating the earlier consensus guidelines on imaging and endoscopy. The former guidelines have been condensed into this new diagnostic consensus guideline which consists of two papers: the first detailing assessment at initial diagnosis, to monitor treat ment and for the detection of complications; the second dealing with the available scoring systems and general considerations regarding the different diagnostic tools. The strategy to define consensus was similar to that previously described in other ECCO consensus guidelines [available at www.ecco-ibd.eu]. Briefly, an open call for participants was made, with ECCO participants selected by the Guidelines' Committee of ECCO [known as GuiCom] on the basis of their publication record and a personal statement and ESGAR participants nominated by ESGAR. The following working parties were established: diagnostics at initial diagnosis, diagnostics for monitoring treatment in patients with known IBD, diagnostics for the detect ion of complications, scores for IBD, and general principles and technical aspects. Provisional guideline statements and supporting text were written following a comprehensive literature review, then refined following two voting rounds. The first voting round introduced a more comprehensive voting procedure, in which each Guidelines participants voted on all statements by explicitly reviewing those statements together with their respective supporting text and references. The second voting round included optional national representative participation of ECCO's 36 member countries and ESGAR's 28 member countries. The level of evidence was graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine [www.cebm.net]. The ECCO statements were finalized by the authors at a face-to-face meeting in Barcelona in October 2017 and represent consensus with agreement of at least 80% of the present participants. Consensus statements are intended to be read in context with their qualifying comments and not in isolation. The supporting text was then finalised under the direction of each working group leader [SV, TK, GF, VA, EC], before being integrated by the consensus leaders [CM, JS, AS].

This new diagnostic consensus guideline is a joint project of the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] and the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology [ESGAR] that now merges the former ECCO-ESGAR Imaging Guideline and the former ECCO Endoscopy Guideline, also including laboratory parameters. It has been drafted by 30 ECCO and ESGAR members from 17 European countries. All the authors recognize the work of and are grateful to previous ECCO and ESGAR members who contributed to creating the earlier consensus guidelines on imaging and endoscopy. The former guidelines have been condensed into this new diagnostic consensus guideline which consists of two papers: the first detailing assessment at initial diagnosis, to monitor treat ment and for the detection of complications; the second dealing with the available scoring systems and general considerations regarding the different diagnostic tools. The strategy to define consensus was similar to that previously described in other ECCO consensus guidelines [available at www.ecco-ibd.eu]. Briefly, an open call for participants was made, with ECCO participants selected by the Guidelines' Committee of ECCO [known as GuiCom] on the basis of their publication record and a personal statement and ESGAR participants nominated by ESGAR. The following working parties were established: diagnostics at initial diagnosis, diagnostics for monitoring treatment in patients with known IBD, diagnostics for the detection of complications, scores for IBD, and general principles and technical aspects. Provisional guideline statements and supporting text were written following a comprehensive literature review, then refined following two voting rounds. The first voting round introduced a more comprehensive voting procedure, in which each Guidelines participants voted on all statements by explicitly reviewing those statements together with their respective supporting text and references. The second voting round included optional national representative participation of ECCO's 36 member countries and ESGAR's 28 member countries. The level of evidence was graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine [www.cebm.net]. The ECCO statements were finalized by the authors at a face-to-face meeting in Barcelona in October 2017 and represent consensus with agreement of at least 80% of the present participants. Consensus statements are intended to be read in context with their qualifying comments and not in isolation. The supporting text was then finalised under the direction of each working group leader [SV, TK, GF, VA, EC], before being integrated by the consensus leaders [CM, JS, AS].