Real world clinical practice in treating advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: When East meets West.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C (BCLC C) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) includes a heterogeneous population for which sorafeninb is one of the recommended therapies. We aim to evaluate the real world clinical treatment and survival of BCLC stage C patients in an Asian cohort.
METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study that enrolled 427 consecutive BCLC stage C patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017 by using the HCC registry data for our hospital. All patients were managed via a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach.
RESULTS: Hepatitis B surface antigen positive was noted in 50.6% of the patients. The patients were classified as performance status (PS)1 alone (n = 83; 19.4%), PS2 alone (n = 23; 5.4%), or macrovascular invasion (MVI) or extrahepatic spread (EHS) (n = 321; 75.2%). The median overall survival (OS) was 11.0 months in the whole cohort. The most frequent treatments were transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) in the PS1 (45.8%) and PS2 patients (52.2%) and sorafenib (32.4%) in the MVI or EHS patients. The independent prognostic factors were the PS, Child-Pugh class, MVI or EHS, alpha fetoprotein levels, and treatment type.
CONCLUSIONS: We reported the real world management in BCLC stage C patients in an Asian cohort through the use of personalized management via a MDT approach.

Introduction

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the third most frequent cause of cancer death in the world [1, 2]. HCC is the first and second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in males and females, respectively, in Taiwan [3, 4].

Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage C patients are a heterogeneous population that includes patients with tumors that have macroscopic vascular invasion (MVI), patients with tumors that have extrahepatic spread (EHS), and patients with mild cancer-related symptoms (that is those with the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] Performance Status [PS] grades 1–2) [5]. Sorafenib is one of the recommended treatments for BCLC stage C patients [6], which is nonetheless suboptimal in efficacy and tolerability [7, 8]. A recent Italian study reported real world clinical practice results in treating naïve BCLC stage C HCC [9]. They found that the survival duration of BCLC stage C patients was improved through the use of personalized management via a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach. However, the leading etiology of chronic liver disease in the European population is hepatitis C virus (HCV), and validation of the Italian study’s approach in other populations with different ethnic and clinical backgrounds, as well as in contexts with variations in the provision of systemic and local-regional therapies, is needed.

We therefore investigated the real world clinical treatment and survival of BCLC stage C patients in an Asian medical center, most of whom were infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV).

Patients and methods

This is a retrospective study using the last version of the Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital HCC registry data, and consisted of data for 427 BCLC stage C HCC patients consecutively evaluated and managed from January 2011 to December 2017 at this hospital. A flow chart of the patients’ enrollment is shown in Fig 1. The data were prospectively collected and updated every 2 years. We contacted any patients who were lost to follow-up by phone and checked their vital status using the Cancers Screening and Tracing Information Integrated System for Taiwan (https://hosplab.hpa.gov.tw/CSTIIS/index.aspx). The HCC registry data was managed by Ms. Hui Ping Tseng, who has performed this work since 2005. The definition of HCC was based on assessment via an MDT conference and/or on international guidelines [10-14]. HCC diagnosis was histological in 240 (56.2%) cases, and in the remaining cases, it was based on typical features in imaging studies.

Fig 1

Flow chart of the patient enrollment from the Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (KCGMH) cancer database.

HCC, hepatocellular carcinoma; HCC was staged according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer staging system. AFP, Alpha fetoprotein; PS, Performance status; MVI, macrovascular invasion; EHS, extrahepatic spread.

The patients were classified into three groups according to the characteristics by which a patient is determined to have BCLC stage C HCC. That is, they were grouped into PS1 alone, PS2 alone, and MVI or EHS groups. The PS of each patient was assessed according to the standards of the ECOG [5]. The cancer registry data recorded the first-line treatment or treatments for the patients, which included the following: liver transplant, resection, radiofrequency ablation (RFA), transcatheter arterial chemoembolization/embolization (TACE/TAE), sorafenib, systemic chemotherapy, hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy (HAIC), external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), and/or best supportive care (BSC).

Sorafenib treatment has been reimbursed by the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) in Taiwan since August 2012 for patients with portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) (Vp3 or Vp4) [15] or EHS and Child-Pugh class A liver disease. Therefore, BCLC C patients with PS1 alone, PS2 alone, Child-Pugh class B liver disease, peripheral PVTT (Vp1 or Vp2), hepatic veins tumor thrombus, inferior vena cava tumor thrombus and those diagnosed during 2011 to August 2012 were not reimbursed.

For patients with PS1 alone or PS2 alone, the criteria for allocating patients to the different therapeutic approaches are as follows:

Liver transplant is recommended as the first-line option for HCC within the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) criteria but unsuitable for resection [16].

The general principle for liver resection of HCC followed the recommendations of the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) guidelines [17], which are based on a multi-parametric composite assessment of liver function, the extent of resection, the future liver remnant, PS, and the patient’s comorbidities. Liver resection is indicated in HCC patients with tumors located in one lobe of the liver [18].

RFA is indicated for patients with Child-Pugh class A or B liver disease and HCC within Milan criteria [18].

TACE or EBRT is indicated for patients with Child-Pugh class A or B liver disease and HCC within Milan criteria [10] in whom it is difficult to perform RFA because of medical comorbidities or tumor location [19].

TACE is indicated for patients with Child-Pugh class A or B liver disease and tumor burden at the BCLC stage B [19].

EBRT is indicated for patients with Child-Pugh class A or B liver disease and tumor burden at the BCLC stage B unsuitable to TACE [19].

Under most circumstances, patients with MVI or EHS were treated with sorafenib if they met the criteria of reimbursement. The criteria for allocating patients to the different therapeutic approaches are as follows:

RFA is indicated for patients with Child-Pugh class A or B liver disease and intrahepatic tumor burden within Milan criteria [10], with small metastatic lymph nodes or tiny lung nodules, misclassified as benign at the time of treatment.

TAE/TACE is indicated for patients with Child-Pugh class A or B liver disease and intrahepatic tumor burden at the BCLC stage B, with small metastatic lymph nodes or tiny lung nodules, misclassified as benign at the time of treatment.

Systemic chemotherapy or HAIC is indicated in patients with Child-Pugh class A liver disease and adequate hemogram data (white blood cell ≥ 4000/mL, platelet ≥ 100,000/mL) [19].

HAIC is indicated for patients with MVI [19].

Systemic chemotherapy is indicated for patients with EHS [19].

Liver resection is indicated in patients with HCC involving the ipsilateral portal vein. Resection is contraindicated in patients with HCC with contralateral portal vein or portal vein main trunk invasion [19].

Liver resection is indicated in patients with HCC involving ipsilateral hepatic vein. Liver resection is contraindicated in patients with HCC with right atrium or inferior vena cava involvement [19].

Liver resection is indicated in patients with HCC with extra-hepatic, single organ involvement. Liver resection is contraindicated in patients with HCCs with extra-hepatic, multiple organ involvement [19].

EBRT is indicated in patients with MVI and Child-Pugh class A or B liver disease [19].

The standard procedure of the MDT in our center

The MDT in our center includes hepatologists, radiologists, pathologists, transplant surgeons, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and nurses. The leader of our MDT is Yu-Fan Cheng. The MDT meetings are held every Tuesday, and all new HCC cases are discussed. Treatment experiences cases are discussed if the physician in charge requests. If MDT recommends BSC, the physician in charge will consult the palliative care professionals. If liver transplant is recommended, we refer these patients to liver transplant MDT for detailed discussion.

Our MDT include two nurses who administer and coordinate the meetings. The general flow begins with a brief clinical presentation by the physician in charge, followed by images review, discussion, and decision. A standardized one-page form is used. This form records the relevant clinical and laboratory data that determine liver function, PS, the tumor stage and the consensus recommendations. The physician in charge informs patients of the MDT recommendations. The document of the MDT recommendations is kept in the patient’s medical chart.

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (IRB number: 201901120B0). The requirement for informed consent was waived by the IRB.

Statistical analysis

Continuous variables were summarized as median and interquartile range, while categorical variables were summarized as frequency and relative percentage. Comparisons of continuous variables were carried out using the one-way ANOVA test, and comparisons between categorical variables were carried out using the Fisher’s exact test or the chi-squared test, as appropriate. Patient survival was calculated from the date of HCC diagnosis to the date of death or last contact. Overall survival (OS) was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the differences between groups were estimated with the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to evaluate the risk factors for mortality. Covariates in the multivariable model were chosen a priori for clinical importance. Potential confounders included age, gender, ECOG PS, the presence of MVI or EHS, Alpha fetoprotein (AFP), and treatment. These variables were always retained in the model in the multivariate regression analysis. A P value less than 0.05 in a two-tailed test was considered statistically significant. All analyses were performed using Stata version 14.0 (StataCorp 2015 Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.).

Results

Patients’ characteristics

Table 1 shows the demographic and clinical features of the BCLC stage C HCC patients classified according to PS and the presence of MVI or EHS. PS1 patients accounted for 19.4% of the entire cohort (n = 83), PS2 patients accounted for 5.4% (n = 23), and MVI or EHS patients accounted for 75.2% (n = 321). The patients in the MVI or EHS subgroup were younger and had a lower average creatinine level than the patients in the other two subgroups. They also included higher proportions of male and hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-positive alone patients and a lower proportion of portal hypertension (defined as portal systemic collateral or splenomegaly in image studies) patients. As expected, the proportions of patients with multiple tumors, tumor size> 5 cm, and AFP > 200 ng/dL were higher in the MVI or EHS subgroup.

Table 1

Demographic and clinical characteristics of the patients with advanced (BCLC C) HCC (N = 427).

Variables		PS1 (n = 83)	PS2 (n = 23)	MVI or EHS (n = 321)	P
Age	Years	67 (60–78)	69 (55–81)	60 (51–68)	<0.001
Sex	Male	55 (66.3%)	13 (56.5%)	267 (83.2%)	<0.001
Etiology	HBsAg positive alone	24 (28.9%)	3 (13.0%)	123 (38.3%)	0.002
	Anti-HCV positive alone	23 (27.7%)	11 (47.8%)	57 (17.8%)
	Alcohol abuse alone	4 (4.8%)	1 (4.3%)	13 (4.0%)
	Mixed = any combination	9 (10.8%)	3 (13.0%)	69 (21.5%)
	all negative	23 (27.7%)	5 (21.7%)	59 (18.4%)
ECOG PS	0	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	207 (64.5%)	<0.001
	1	83 (100.0%)	0 (0%)	82 (25.5%)
	2	0 (0%)	23 (100.0%)	32 (10.0%)
Bilirubin	mg/dL	1.1 (0.8–1.8)	1.0 (0.8–2.3)	1.2 (0.9–1.9)	0.89
Creatinine	mg/dL	1.2 (0.9–1.9)	1.3 (0.8–1.7)	1.0 (0.8–1.2)	<0.001
INR		1.1 (1.0–1.2)	1.1 (1.0–1.3)	1.1 (1.0–1.2)	0.84
Child Pugh class	A	59 (71.1%)	14 (60.9%)	237 (73.8%)	0.38
	B	24 (28.9%)	9 (39.1%)	84 (26.2%)
Portal hypertension	Yes	42 (50.6%)	17 (73.9%)	141 (43.9%)	0.02
Tumor number	Single	49 (59.0%)	16 (69.6%)	124 (38.6%)	<0.001
	Multiple	34 (41.0%)	7 (30.4%)	197 (61.4%)
Tumor size	<5cm	50 (60.2%)	18 (78.3%)	55 (17.1%)	<0.001
	≥5cm	32 (38.6%)	4 (17.4%)	255 (79.4%)
Ascites	Yes	24 (28.9%)	8 (34.8%)	66 (20.6%)	0.10
AFP>200 ng/dL	Yes	20 (24.1%)	8 (34.8%)	205 (63.9%)	<0.001
Diagnosis	Pathology	46 (55.4%)	7 (30.4%)	187 (58.3%)	0.03
	Clinical	37 (44.6%)	16 (69.6%)	134 (41.7%)

HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HCV, hepatitis C virus; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PS, Performance status; INR, International Normalized Ratio; AFP, Alpha fetoprotein; MVI, macrovascular invasion; EHS, extrahepatic spread; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer

Treatment

The treatment distributions differed significantly among the BCLC C subgroups (Table 2). In the PS1 and PS2 patients, TAE/TACE was most frequently applied (45.8% in the PS1 subgroup, 52.2% in the PS2 subgroup), followed by curative therapies, whereas sorafenib was not administered to any of the patients in the PS1 or PS2 subgroups. As expected, among the MVI or EHS patients, sorafenib was the most frequent treatment (32.4%), followed by various other treatments (i.e., systemic chemotherapy, HAIC, or EBRT) in 29.6% of the patients.

Table 2

Treatment distribution in the various BCLC C subclasses.

	PS1 (n = 83)	PS2 (n = 23)	MVI or EHS (n = 321)
Transplant	5 (6.0%)	3 (13.0%)	0 (0%)
Resection	20 (24.1%)	1 (4.3%)	55 (17.1%)
RFA	13 (15.7%)	6 (26.1%)	6 (1.9%)
TAE/TACE	38 (45.8%)	12 (52.2%)	55 (17.1%)
Sorafenib	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	104 (32.4%)
Other	7 (8.4%)	1 (4.3%)	95 (29.6%)
BSC	0 (0%)	0 (0%)	6 (1.9%)

Other treatment (i.e., systemic chemotherapy, hepatic artery infusion chemotherapy or external beam radiation therapy). RFA, radiofrequency ablation; TACE/TAE, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization/embolization; BSC, best supportive care; PS, Performance status; MVI, macrovascular invasion; EHS, extrahepatic spread; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer

Survival analyses

During the median follow-up period of 10.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 8.0–12.0], 296 (69.3%) patients died. The numbers of deaths across the subgroups were as follows: 33 (39.8%) in the PS1 group, 12 (52.2%) in the PS2 group, and 251 (78.2%) in the MVI or EHS group. In the whole population, the median OS was 11.0 months (95% CI, 9.0–13.0). The survival duration differed across the BCLC stage C subgroups (P < 0.001; Fig 2). It was 22.0 months (95% CI, 19.0–27.0) in the PS1 patients, 10.0 months (95% CI, 4.0–22.0) in the PS2 patients, and 7.0 months (95% CI, 6.0–8.6) in the MVI or EHS patients. The PS1 patients had a significantly longer survival duration than the PS2 patients (P = 0.024). The survival duration was not significantly different for the MVI or EHS patients compared to the PS2 patients (P = 0.672).

Fig 2

Survival of patients according to BCLC C subclasses.

PS, Performance status; MVI, macrovascular invasion; EHS, extrahepatic spread.

To assess the degree of MVI on the effect of OS, MVI patients were divided further according to the location/extent of vascular invasion. According to the Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) staging system [20], intrahepatic MVI was defined as tumor invasion of the intrahepatic branches of the portal vein or hepatic veins. Extrahepatic MVI was defined as tumor invasion of the main portal trunk or inferior vena cava.

There were 321 patients with MVI or EHS in our study. Among these, 75 patients had MVI+EHS (Patients with both MVI and EHS), 51 had EHS alone (Patients with EHS and without MVI), and 195 had MVI alone (Patients with MVI and without EHS). For patients with MVI alone (n = 195), according to the HKLC staging system [20], there were 73 with extrahepatic vascular invasion [i.e., central MVI (c-MVI)], 120 with intrahepatic vascular invasion [i.e., peripheral MVI (p-MVI)], and 2 with unclassified MVI (i.e., the location/extent of PVT was not mentioned in the image reports). The median OS was longer in patients with p-MVI (18.0 months; 95% CI, 12.0–24.0) compared to those with c-MVI (6.0 months; 95% CI, 3.0–7.0; p<0.001; Fig 3).

Fig 3

Survival of patients according to the type of MVI extension (black line, p-MVI; gray line, c-MVI).

p-MVI was defined as tumor invasion of the intrahepatic branches of the portal vein or hepatic veins. c-MVI was defined as tumor invasion of the main portal trunk or inferior vena cava.

After patients with hepatic vein and/or inferior vena cava tumor invasion (n = 48) were excluded, there are 58 patients with central (portal trunk) PVTT, 87 with peripheral PVTT, and 2 with unclassified PVTT. The median OS was longer in patients with p-MVI (14.1 months; 95% CI, 9.0–22.0) compared to those with c-MVI (5.1 months; 95% CI, 3.0–7.0; p = 0.002; Fig 4).

Fig 4

Survival of patients according to the type of MVI extension (black line, p-MVI; gray line, c-MVI).

c-MVI was defined as central (portal trunk) portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT). p-MVI was defined as peripheral PVTT.

Fifty-five (17.1%) of the patients with MVI or EHS in this study underwent surgical resection. Among those, 2 had MVI and EHS, 5 had EHS alone, and 48 had MVI alone. The median overall survival was 67 months; 95% CI, 23-not available (not available indicates that the 95% CI survival has not yet been reached).

Prognostic factors

The univariate analysis results regarding prognostic factors associated with mortality are shown in Table 3. This analysis showed that mortality was associated with age < 70 years, ECOG PS = 2, Child-Pugh class B, multiple tumors, MVI or EHS, tumor size > 5cm, AFP > 200 ng/dL, bilirubin > 1.1 mg/dL, international normalized ratio (INR) > 1.25, and treatment. Multivariate regression analysis showed that ECOG PS 2, Child-Pugh class B, MVI or EHS, AFP >200 ng/mL, and treatment were independently associated with mortality (Table 4).

Table 3

Risk factors for mortality in patients with advanced HCC (BCLC C Stage).

Variables	Univariate HR (95% CI)	P value
Age (years)
< = 70	1
>70	0.69 (0.53–0.91)	0.008
Sex
Female	1
Male	1.18 (0.88–1.59)	0.26
Etiology
Anti-HCV positive alone	1
HBs Ag positive alone	0.92 (0.67–1.25)	0.58
Alcohol abuse alone	1.12 (0.60–2.07)	0.73
Mixed	1.13 (0.79–1.61)	0.51
Others	0.85 (0.59–1.21)	0.37
ECOG PS
0–1	1
2	1.48 (1.05–2.08)	0.03
Child Pugh class
A	1
B	1.88 (1.46–2.42)	<0.001
Portal hypertension
No	1
yes	0.91 (0.72–1.14)	0.40
Ascites
No	1
yes	1.26 (0.96–1.65)	0.10
Tumor number
Single	1
Multiple	1.99 (1.57–2.53)	<0.001
Subgroup
PS1+PS2	1
MVI or EHS	2.77 (2.01–3.82)	<0.001
Tumor size (cm)
<5	1
> = 5	1.88 (1.43–2.48)	<0.001
AFP (ng/dL)
< = 200	1
>200	1.78 (1.41–2.26)	<0.001
Bilirubin (mg/dL)
< = 1.1	1
>1.1	1.36 (1.08–1.71)	0.01
INR
<1.25	1
> = 1.25	1.54 (1.21–1.96)	0.001
Creatinine (mg/dL)
< = 1.2	1
>1.2	1.11 (0.86–1.43)	0.43
Treatment
Curative (transplant + resection + RFA)	1
TACE/TAE	3.02 (2.04–4.47)	<0.001
Sorafenib	5.85 (3.98–8.60)	<0.001
BSC	16.09 (6.69–38.69)	<0.001
others	4.86 (3.29–7.19)	<0.001

HBsAg, hepatitis B surface antigen; HCV, hepatitis C virus; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PS, Performance status; INR, International Normalized Ratio; AFP, Alpha fetoprotein; MVI, macrovascular invasion; EHS, extrahepatic spread; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; RFA, radiofrequency ablation; TACE/TAE, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization/embolization; BSC, best supportive care

Table 4

Independent risk factors for mortality in patients with advanced HCC (multivariate regression analysis).

Variables	Multivariate HR (95% CI)	P value
Age (years)
≤ 70	1
> 70	0.79 (0.6–1.04)	0.10
Sex
Female	1
Male	0.82 (0.61–1.11)	0.20
ECOG PS
0–1	1
2	1.66 (1.19–2.33)	0.003
Child Pugh class
A	1
B	1.90 (1.47–2.46)	<0.001
Subgroup
PS1+PS2	1
MVI or EHS	2.15 (1.55–3.00)	<0.001
AFP (ng/dL)
≤ 200, as reference	1
> 200	1.36 (1.07–1.73)	0.01
Treatment
Curative (transplant + resection + RFA)	1
TAE	2.81 (1.94–4.08)	<0.001
Sorafenib	4.25 (2.92–6.19)	<0.001
BSC	9.35 (3.87–22.57)	<0.001
others	3.32 (2.27–4.85)	<0.001

ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PS, Performance status; INR, International Normalized Ratio; AFP, Alpha fetoprotein; MVI, macrovascular invasion; EHS, extrahepatic spread; BCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer; RFA, radiofrequency ablation; TACE/TAE, transcatheter arterial chemoembolization/embolization; BSC, best supportive care; AFP, Alpha fetoprotein

Discussion

Previous studies have reported that adherence to BCLC guidelines was poor in BCLC C patients [9, 21, 22]. Poor adherence among these patients may be due to some of them being treated with a single drug, sorafenib, which is suboptimal in tolerability and efficacy. Furthermore, the low adherence of such patients to the guidelines may be supported by studies showing that, in selected cases, better results were noted with local-regional therapies and surgery [23, 24].

Of the PS1 patients in this study, more than 90% were treated with curative therapies or TAE/TACE, and no one received sorafenib treatment. PS is related to cancer-related symptoms. However, 59% of patients had single tumor and 60% of patients had tumors less than 5 cm in this group. These patients with a low tumor burden might not have cancer-related symptoms. However, Giannini, et al reported that the attribution of a cancer-dependent—as recommended by the BCLC system—mild deterioration of PS is very subjective. Several confounding factors, such as old age, presence of decompensated cirrhosis and the extrahepatic comorbidities may play a major role [9].

The American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) guidelines recently revised the BCLC staging [6]. The PS for BCLC stages 0, A, and B has been changed to 0–1 to better reflect clinical practice due to the significant overlap that exists between PS0 and PS1 and the potential bias of physician and patient-reported PS [25].

For the PS2 patients in this study, the most common treatment was TAE/TACE (52.2%), while none of them received sorafenib treatment. The survival of these patients was not significantly different from that of the patients with MVI or EHS, which may have been due to the small number of patients in the PS2 alone subgroup.

For the MVI or EHS patients in this study, sorafenib was the most frequently administered treatment (32.4% of cases). However, 17.1% of the patients with MVI or EHS in this study underwent surgical resection. Median OS was 67 months in these patients. According to western guidelines, HCC with MVI is a contraindication for liver resection [6, 17]. In contrast, liver resection is recommended for selected patients with MVI or EHS in Taiwan [19].

Nearly 30% of the patients with MVI or EHS in our cohort underwent other treatments (i.e., systemic chemotherapy, HAIC, or EBRT). In contrast, none of the patients in the Italian study received these kinds of treatment [9]. In the west, although EBRT is being increasingly used in patients with MVI, it is not recommended by the EASL guideline [17]. In contrast, EBRT is recommended for patients with HCC and MVI in the Asia-Pacific and Taiwan guidelines [19, 26]. Meanwhile, HAIC is widely used for patients with HCC and PVTT in Japanese hospitals [27]. It is also one of the treatment modalities for patients with MVI recommended by the Taiwan guideline [19].

Few of the patients with EHS in this study underwent systemic chemotherapy, and these patients were all diagnosed before the initiation of sorafenib treatment reimbursement by the NHIA.

Our study showed that the OS of peripheral MVI patients was significantly longer than in the central MVI patients, similar finding was noted in the publication by Giannini et al [9].

Serper et al. reported that subspecialist care within 30 days of HCC diagnosis and review by an MDT were associated with reduced mortality compared with care provided by gastroenterologists in a community setting in a Veterans Administration cohort [28]. The current healthcare system in Taiwan, known as the National Health Insurance system, was instituted in 1995. The population coverage reached and has been maintained at or above 99% since 2004. Under the system, citizens are free to choose hospitals and physicians without referral. The NHIA offers reimbursement for all treatment modalities for HCC patients, as patients with cancers can apply a catastrophic illness card. As such, patients with HCC do not have to pay anything when they receive medical care related to HCC. Furthermore, the island of Taiwan has an area of 35,808 square kilometers, which is smaller than that of Switzerland, and is highly urbanized, with 26 academic medical centers. Therefore, most patients with HCC receive treatment in medical centers.

There were some limitations in this study. First, this is a retrospective study.

Second, the HCC registry data used in the study did not record extrahepatic comorbidities, and the severities of comorbidities are associated with survival and the treatment received. Also, we also did not review how many patients did not comply with the recommendations of the MDT. Moreover, the HCC registry data used only recorded the first-line therapy; therefore, we could not analyze the data regarding further treatments. In addition, sorafenib treatment has been reimbursed by the NHIA since August 2012 only for patients with PVTT (Vp3 or Vp4) [15] or EHS and Child-Pugh class A liver disease. Finally, we only enrolled patients who were diagnosed and managed at this hospital. Therefore, patients who were diagnosed at this hospital but received treatment at other hospital were excluded. That could explain the low percentage of patients who received BSC in our cohort.

The strengths of this study were as follows. First, we contacted every patient who was lost to follow-up by phone and checked the vital status of these patients by using the Cancers Screening and Tracing Information Integrated System for Taiwan (https://hosplab.hpa.gov.tw/CSTIIS/index.aspx). Therefore, we could make sure the vital status of every single patient enrolled in the present study. Second, this study investigated patients treated in a single liver transplant center. All of the patients received care from subspecialists and had their cases reviewed by an MDT. All of the treatment modalities for HCC were available to them and reimbursed by the NHIA. As such, variables that could modulate treatment decisions in clinical practice, including the availability of treatment procedures, expertise of the hospital, and financial constraints, could be excluded. Finally, since referral is not required in Taiwan, there was no referral bias in this study.

In conclusion, the differences in findings between the current study conducted in the East and the Italian study from the West were as follows. First, HBV is the leading etiology of chronic liver disease in Taiwan, whereas HCV is the leading etiology of chronic liver disease in Italy [9]. Second, EBRT and cytotoxic chemotherapy are among the treatment modalities used in patients with MVI and EHS in Taiwan [19], whereas these modalities are not recommended by the EASL guideline [17] and, therefore, were not used in the Italian study [9]. Third, referral is not required in Taiwan, whereas referral is required in most of the western countries.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

20 Jan 2020

PONE-D-19-35575

Real world clinical practice in treating advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: when East meets West

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Tsung-Hui Hu,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript within 60 days. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gianfranco D. Alpini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please modify the title to ensure that it meets PLOS’ guidelines (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title). In particular, the title should be "specific, descriptive, concise, and comprehensible to readers outside the field". In this case, the inclusion of the phrase "when East meets West" suggests that the study is comparing treatments between these two geographic areas. We would therefore recommend rephrasing the title as "Clinical treatments and outcomes of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma patients in an Asian medical center" (or similar).

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Yi-Hao Yen and coautours describe in this manuscript the outcome of a cohort of patients with HCC BCLC C in Taiwan. They described a good survival in stage C patients through the use of personalized management via MDT than that achieved by the one-size-fits-all approach used in clinical trials.

The topic is relevant, the study well conducted despite being a retrospective analysis, the analysis scientific sound.

I only have minor comments:

Among MVI patients, did author looked at whether OS was longer in those with peripheral than with central (portal trunk) MVI?

Methods: it should be reported the standard procedure of the MDT in their centre/s

Abstract: "We achieved better survival in BCLC C patients through the use of personalized management via a MDT approach." - please clarify with who, the comparison is performed

Discussion: 17.1% of the patients with MVI or EHS in this study underwent surgical resection - could you please report details on their outcomes

Discussion: "HBV is the leading etiology of chronic liver disease in Taiwan and the prevalence of non-cirrhotic HCC in Taiwan may be high [28], which may explain why there was a higher proportion of

patients with Child-Pugh class A liver functional reserve in our cohort" - how can you make this statement without reporting histological data?

Reviewer #2: In this paper authors aim to evaluate the real world clinical treatment and survival of BCLC C patients in an Asian cohort. 427 consecutive BCLC C patients diagnosed between were included. The median overall survival (OS) was 11.0 months in the whole cohort, which was longer than that reported in a previous phase III trial of sorafenib in advanced HCC patients conducted in Asia. The most frequent treatments were transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) in the PS1 (45.8%) and PS2 patients (52.2%) and sorafenib (32.4%) in the macrovascular invasion (MVI) or extrahepatic spread (EHS). The independent prognostic factors were the PS, Child-Pugh class, MVI or EHS, alpha fetoprotein levels, and treatment type.

This paper is an interesting report of the real world multidisciplinary approach to therapy of advanced HCC in the east world, which, follow a recent well published paper from Italy with the same aim.

Major comments:

Please include limits of the paper. In particular authors should mention that this study cannot be compared with data of a registration clinical trial, like the one of sorafenib, as done. Moreover authors should highlight how the design of this paper is a limit per se.

Authors should details what is the novelty of the paper and differences with respect Ref. 6

Author should clearly explain the criteria for allocating people to the different therapeutic approaches, in particular when the decision differs with respect current international guidelines.

In the abstract, please specify that Sorafeninb is among the recommended therapy, and not the only one, since a new first line therapy has been approved.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: marco carbone

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

14 Feb 2020

Reviewer #1: Yi-Hao Yen and coauthors describe in this manuscript the outcome of a cohort of patients with HCC BCLC C in Taiwan. They described a good survival in stage C patients through the use of personalized management via MDT than that achieved by the one-size-fits-all approach used in clinical trials.

The topic is relevant, the study well conducted despite being a retrospective analysis, the analysis scientific sound.

I only have minor comments:

Among MVI patients, did author looked at whether OS was longer in those with peripheral than with central (portal trunk) MVI?

Response: Thank you so much for your comments.

To assess the degree of MVI on the effect of OS, MVI patients were divided further according to the location/extent of vascular invasion. According to the Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) staging system [20], intrahepatic MVI was defined as tumor invasion of the intrahepatic branches of the portal vein or hepatic veins. Extrahepatic MVI was defined as tumor invasion of the main portal trunk or inferior vena cava.

There were 321 patients with MVI or EHS in our study. Among these, 75 patients had MVI+EHS (Patients with both MVI and EHS), 51 had EHS alone (Patients with EHS and without MVI), and 195 had MVI alone (Patients with MVI and without EHS). For patients with MVI alone (n=195), according to the HKLC staging system [20], there were 73 with extrahepatic vascular invasion [i.e., central MVI (c-MVI)], 120 with intrahepatic vascular invasion [i.e., peripheral MVI (p-MVI)], and 2 with unclassified MVI (i.e., the location/extent of PVT was not mentioned in the image reports). The median OS was longer in patients with p-MVI (18.0 months; 95 % CI, 12.0-24.0) compared to those with c-MVI (6.0 months; 95 % CI, 3.0-7.0; p<0.001; Fig.3).

After patients with hepatic vein and/or inferior vena cava tumor invasion (n=48) were excluded, there are 58 patients with central (portal trunk) PVTT, 87 with peripheral PVTT, and 2 with unclassified PVTT. The median OS was longer in patients with p-MVI (14.1 months; 95 % CI, 9.0-22.0) compared to those with c-MVI (5.1 months; 95 % CI, 3.0-7.0; p=0.002; Fig.4).

Page 19-20.

Methods: it should be reported the standard procedure of the MDT in their centre/s

Response: Thank you so much for your comments.

The standard procedure of the MDT in our center

The MDT in our center includes hepatologists, radiologists, pathologists, transplant surgeons, surgical oncologists, radiation oncologists, medical oncologists, and nurses. The leader of our MDT is Yu-Fan Cheng. The MDT meetings are held every Tuesday, and all new HCC cases are discussed. Treatment experiences cases are discussed if the physician in charge requests. If MDT recommends BSC, the physician in charge will consult the palliative care professionals. If liver transplant is recommended, we refer these patients to liver transplant MDT for detailed discussion.

Our MDT include two nurses who administer and coordinate the meetings. The general flow begins with a brief clinical presentation by the physician in charge, followed by images review, discussion, and decision. A standardized one-page form is used. This form records the relevant clinical and laboratory data that determine liver function, PS, the tumor stage and the consensus recommendations. The physician in charge informs patients of the MDT recommendations. The document of the MDT recommendations is kept in the patient’s medical chart. Page 10, last paragraph and page 11, first paragraph.

Abstract: "We achieved better survival in BCLC C patients through the use of personalized management via a MDT approach." - please clarify with who, the comparison is performed

Response: Thank you so much for your comments.

1. In our study, we followed the publication by Giannini et al. [1]. They reported that they achieved a median survival of 22.3 months in BCLC C patients using a patient-tailored management established by a MDT, which is remarkably longer than the one achieved with sorafenib in both randomized and post-marketing Western studies [2,3].

2. In our study, using patient-tailored management established by an MDT, we achieved a median survival of 11.0 months for the BCLC stage C patients in the real-world cohort, which is longer than the one achieved with sorafenib in a randomized controlled trial conducted in Asia [4].

3. However, I have deleted this paragraph because of another reviewer’s comments: In particular, the authors should mention that this study cannot be compared with data from a registration clinical trial, like the one of sorafenib, as done.

References:

1. Giannini EG, Bucci L, Garuti F, Brunacci M, Lenzi B, Valente M, et al; Italian Liver Cancer (ITA.LI.CA) group. Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma need a personalized management: A lesson from clinical practice. Hepatology. 2018;67:1784-1796

2. Llovet JM, Ricci S, Mazzaferro V, Hilgard P, Gane E, Blanc JF, et al. SHARP Investigators Study Group. Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. N Engl J Med 2008;359:378-390.

3. Iavarone M, Cabibbo G, Piscaglia F, Zavaglia C, Grieco A, Villa E, et al. Field-practice study of sorafenib therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective multicenter study in Italy. Hepatology. 2011;54:2055-2063

4. Cheng AL, Kang YK, Chen Z, Tsao CJ, Qin S, Kim JS, et al. Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2009;10:25-34.

Discussion: 17.1% of the patients with MVI or EHS in this study underwent surgical resection - could you please report details on their outcomes

Response: Thank you so much for your comments.

Fifty-five (17.1%) of the patients with MVI or EHS in this study underwent surgical resection. Among those, 2 had MVI and EHS, 5 had EHS alone, and 48 had MVI alone. The median overall survival was 67 months; 95% CI, 23-not available (not available indicates that the 95% CI survival has not yet been reached). Page 20, last paragraph.

Discussion: "HBV is the leading etiology of chronic liver disease in Taiwan and the prevalence of non-cirrhotic HCC in Taiwan may be high [28], which may explain why there was a higher proportion of patients with Child-Pugh class A liver functional reserve in our cohort" - how can you make this statement without reporting histological data?

Response: Thank you so much for your comments. I have deleted this paragraph.

Reviewer #2: In this paper authors aim to evaluate the real world clinical treatment and survival of BCLC C patients in an Asian cohort. 427 consecutive BCLC C patients diagnosed between were included. The median overall survival (OS) was 11.0 months in the whole cohort, which was longer than that reported in a previous phase III trial of sorafenib in advanced HCC patients conducted in Asia. The most frequent treatments were transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) in the PS1 (45.8%) and PS2 patients (52.2%) and sorafenib (32.4%) in the macrovascular invasion (MVI) or extrahepatic spread (EHS). The independent prognostic factors were the PS, Child-Pugh class, MVI or EHS, alpha fetoprotein levels, and treatment type.

This paper is an interesting report of the real world multidisciplinary approach to therapy of advanced HCC in the east world, which, follow a recent well published paper from Italy with the same aim.

Major comments:

Please include limits of the paper. In particular authors should mention that this study cannot be compared with data of a registration clinical trial, like the one of sorafenib, as done. Moreover authors should highlight how the design of this paper is a limit per se.

Response: Thank you so much for your comments.

1. I have deleted the paragraph regarding this study compared with data from a registration clinical trial, like the one of sorafenib.

2. I have highlighted the way the design of this paper is a limitation per se. The abstract states that this is a retrospective cohort study that enrolled 427 consecutive BCLC stage C patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2017 by using the HCC registry data for our hospital. The patients and methods section states: This is a retrospective study using the last version of the Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital HCC registry data. The discussion states: There were some limitations in this study. First, this is a retrospective study.

Authors should details what is the novelty of the paper and differences with respect Ref. 6

Response: Thank you so much for your comments.

1. A recent Italian study reported real world clinical practice results in treating naïve BCLC stage C HCC [9]. They found that the survival duration of BCLC stage C patients was improved through the use of personalized management via a multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach. However, the leading etiology of chronic liver disease in the European population is hepatitis C virus (HCV), and validation of the Italian study’s approach in other populations with different ethnic and clinical backgrounds, as well as in contexts with variations in the provision of systemic and local-regional therapies, is needed. We therefore investigated the real world clinical treatment and survival of BCLC stage C patients in an Asian medical center, most of whom were infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV). Page 5, last paragraph and page 6, first paragraph.

2. Nearly 30% of the patients with MVI or EHS in our cohort underwent other treatments (i.e., systemic chemotherapy, HAIC, or EBRT). In contrast, none of the patients in the Italian study received these kinds of treatment [9]. In the west, although EBRT is being increasingly used in patients with MVI, it is not recommended by the EASL guideline [17]. In contrast, EBRT is recommended for patients with HCC and MVI in the Asia-Pacific and Taiwan guidelines [19, 26]. Meanwhile, HAIC is widely used for patients with HCC and PVTT in Japanese hospitals [27]. It is also one of the treatment modalities for patients with MVI recommended by the Taiwan guideline [19]. Page 29, last paragraph and page 30, first paragraph.

3. Serper et al. reported that subspecialist care within 30 days of HCC diagnosis and review by an MDT were associated with reduced mortality compared with care provided by gastroenterologists in a community setting in a Veterans Administration cohort [28]. The current healthcare system in Taiwan, known as the National Health Insurance system, was instituted in 1995. The population coverage reached and has been maintained at or above 99% since 2004. Under the system, citizens are free to choose hospitals and physicians without referral. The NHIA offers reimbursement for all treatment modalities for HCC patients, as patients with cancers can apply a catastrophic illness card. As such, patients with HCC do not have to pay anything when they receive medical care related to HCC. Furthermore, the island of Taiwan has an area of 35,808 square kilometers, which is smaller than that of Switzerland, and is highly urbanized, with 26 academic medical centers. Therefore, most patients with HCC receive treatment in medical centers. Page 30, last paragraph and page 31, first paragraph.

4. The strengths of this study were as follows. First, we contacted every patient who was lost to follow-up by phone and checked the vital status of these patients by using the Cancers Screening and Tracing Information Integrated System for Taiwan (https://hosplab.hpa.gov.tw/CSTIIS/index.aspx). Therefore, we could make sure the vital status of every single patient enrolled in the present study. Second, this study investigated patients treated in a single liver transplant center. All of the patients received care from subspecialists and had their cases reviewed by an MDT. All of the treatment modalities for HCC were available to them and reimbursed by the NHIA. As such, variables that could modulate treatment decisions in clinical practice, including the availability of treatment procedures, expertise of the hospital, and financial constraints, could be excluded. Finally, since referral is not required in Taiwan, there was no referral bias in this study. page 32, 2nd paragraph.

5. In conclusion, the differences in findings between the current study conducted in the East and the Italian study from the West were as follows. First, HBV is the leading etiology of chronic liver disease in Taiwan, whereas HCV is the leading etiology of chronic liver disease in Italy [9]. Second, EBRT and cytotoxic chemotherapy are among the treatment modalities used in patients with MVI and EHS in Taiwan [19], whereas these modalities are not recommended by the EASL guideline [17] and, therefore, were not used in the Italian study [9]. Third, referral is not required in Taiwan, whereas referral is required in most of the western countries. Page 32, last paragraph and page 33, 1st paragraph.

Author should clearly explain the criteria for allocating people to the different therapeutic approaches, in particular when the decision differs with respect current international guidelines.

Response: Thank you so much for your comments.

Sorafenib treatment has been reimbursed by the National Health Insurance Administration (NHIA) in Taiwan since August 2012 for patients with portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) (Vp3 or Vp4) [15] or EHS and Child-Pugh class A liver disease. Therefore, BCLC C patients with PS1 alone, PS2 alone, Child-Pugh class B liver disease, peripheral PVTT (Vp1 or Vp2), hepatic veins tumor thrombus, inferior vena cava tumor thrombus and those diagnosed during 2011 to August 2012 were not reimbursed.

For patients with PS1 alone or PS2 alone, the criteria for allocating patients to the different therapeutic approaches are as follows:

1. Liver transplant is recommended as the first-line option for HCC within the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) criteria but unsuitable for resection [16].

2. The general principle for surgical resection of HCC followed the recommendations of the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) guidelines [17], which are based on a multi-parametric composite assessment of liver function, the extent of resection, the future liver remnant, PS, and the patient’s comorbidities. Resection is indicated in HCC patients with tumors located in one lobe of the liver [18].

3. RFA is indicated for patients with Child-Pugh class A or B liver disease and HCC within Milan criteria [18].

4. TACE or EBRT is indicated for patients with Child-Pugh class A or B liver disease and HCC within Milan criteria [10] in whom it is difficult to perform RFA because of medical comorbidities or tumor location [19].

5. TACE is indicated for patients with Child-Pugh class A or B liver disease and tumor burden at the BCLC stage B [19].

6. EBRT is indicated for patients with Child-Pugh class A or B liver disease and tumor burden at the BCLC stage B unsuitable to TACE [19].

Under most circumstances, patients with MVI or EHS were treated with sorafenib if they met the criteria of reimbursement. The criteria for allocating patients to the different therapeutic approaches are as follows:

1. RFA is indicated for patients with Child-Pugh class A or B liver disease and intrahepatic tumor burden within Milan criteria [10], with small metastatic lymph nodes or tiny lung nodules, misclassified as benign at the time of treatment.

2. TAE/TACE is indicated for patients with Child-Pugh class A or B liver disease and intrahepatic tumor burden at the BCLC stage B, with small metastatic lymph nodes or tiny lung nodules, misclassified as benign at the time of treatment.

3. Systemic chemotherapy or HAIC is indicated in patients with Child-Pugh class A liver disease and adequate hemogram data (white blood cell ≥ 4000/mL, platelet ≥ 100,000/mL) [22].

4. HAIC is indicated for patients with MVI [19].

5. Systemic chemotherapy is indicated for patients with EHS [19].

6. Resection is indicated in patients with HCC involving the ipsilateral portal vein. Resection is contraindicated in patients with HCC with contralateral portal vein or portal vein main trunk invasion [19].

7. Resection is indicated in patients with HCC involving ipsilateral hepatic vein. Resection is contraindicated in patients with HCC with right atrium or inferior vena cava involvement [19].

8. Resection is indicated in patients with HCC with extra-hepatic, single organ involvement. Resection is contraindicated in patients with HCCs with extra-hepatic, multiple organ involvement [19].

9. EBRT is indicated in patients with MVI and Child-Pugh class A or B liver disease [19].

Page 7, last paragraph to page 10, first paragraph.

In the abstract, please specify that Sorafeninb is among the recommended therapy, and not the only one, since a new first line therapy has been approved.

Response: Thank you so much for your comments. I have corrected according to your comments: sorafeninb is one of the recommended therapies.

Submitted filename: response to reviewers 20200214.docx

Click here for additional data file.

20 Feb 2020

Real world clinical practice in treating advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: when East meets West

PONE-D-19-35575R1

Dear Dr. Tsung-Hui Hu,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Gianfranco D. Alpini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed by the authors. The manuscript has been significantly ameliorated after the revision.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

25 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-35575R1

Real world clinical practice in treating advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: when East meets West

Dear Dr. Hu:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Gianfranco D. Alpini

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE