Literature DB >> 33815418

Hepatocellular Carcinoma Immune Landscape and the Potential of Immunotherapies.

Julie Giraud1, Domitille Chalopin1, Jean-Frédéric Blanc2,3, Maya Saleh1,4.   

Abstract

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the most common liver tumor and among the deadliest cancers worldwide. Advanced HCC overall survival is meager and has not improved over the last decade despite approval of several tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKi) for first and second-line treatments. The recent approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has revolutionized HCC palliative care. Unfortunately, the majority of HCC patients fail to respond to these therapies. Here, we elaborate on the immune landscapes of the normal and cirrhotic livers and of the unique HCC tumor microenvironment. We describe the molecular and immunological classifications of HCC, discuss the role of specific immune cell subsets in this cancer, with a focus on myeloid cells and pathways in anti-tumor immunity, tumor promotion and immune evasion. We also describe the challenges and opportunities of immunotherapies in HCC and discuss new avenues based on harnessing the anti-tumor activity of myeloid, NK and γδ T cells, vaccines, chimeric antigen receptors (CAR)-T or -NK cells, oncolytic viruses, and combination therapies.
Copyright © 2021 Giraud, Chalopin, Blanc and Saleh.

Entities:  

Keywords:  NASH; cirrhosis; immune checkpoint inhibitors; immunosuppression; immunotherapy; inflammation; tumor microenvironment; tumor-associated macrophages

Year:  2021        PMID: 33815418      PMCID: PMC8012774          DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.655697

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Front Immunol        ISSN: 1664-3224            Impact factor:   7.561


Preface

The liver is a critical hub of metabolism, glucose storage, lipid and cholesterol homeostasis, detoxification and processing of xenobiotics, endocrine regulation of growth signaling, blood volume regulation, and immune surveillance. These essential functions are coordinated by multiple cell types: the hepatocytes, which make up 80% of the liver volume; the cholangiocytes, which line the biliary ducts and are the second most abundant parenchymal cells of the liver; the liver sinusoidal endothelial cells (LSECs), which line the hepatic sinusoidal walls and display specialized functions in scavenging, antigen presentation and leukocyte recruitment [reviewed in (1)]; the hepatic stellate cells (HSCs), the body's largest storage site of vitamin A at quiescent state; and the liver-resident immune cells, which are particularly enriched in this important immune organ. The liver is continuously challenged with microbial- and danger-associated molecular patterns (MAMPs and DAMPs) and non-self-peptides derived from dietary and gut-derived microbial antigens. Its capacity to deal with these insults is reflected by its particular immune environment. Indeed, the liver hosts the largest population of tissue-resident macrophages, known as Kupffer cells (KCs). It also exhibits a high frequency of tissue-resident lymphocytes, namely natural killer (NK) cells, NKT cells, conventional αβ T cells, unconventional γδ T cells and B cells. The liver's diverse immunotolerance mechanisms limit the development of chronic liver diseases, including cirrhosis and liver cancers. Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which accounts for approximately 90% of the incidence of all primary liver cancers, is the 5th most prevalent cancer worldwide and the 4th leading cause of death globally (2). Both environmental and genetic risk factors contribute to the etiology of HCC. The most notable environmental and potentially preventable risk factors include oncogenic virus infection with hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV), alcohol abuse, and the metabolic syndrome related to obesity and diabetes mellitus [reviewed in (3)]. In addition, some rare monogenic diseases and several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) predispose individuals to HCC [reviewed in (4)] (Figure 1A). HCC incidence has doubled in the last three decades in the US, presumably due to high prevalence of HCV infection in the mid 1900's and increasing obesity-related non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) progressing to non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Accordingly, suppression of HBV/HCV infections may improve HCC clinical outcomes, but few patients with HCC are cured of their hepatic infections due to treatment cost, compliance and toxicity issues, and NAFLD is expected to become the major risk factor for developing HCC in developed countries in the near future (5). In very early or early-stage HCC (stage 0/A, according to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC] staging system), the most effective therapeutic option remains surgical resection, liver transplantation or percutaneous local ablation. In this early stage, the median overall survival (mOS) is >60 months with a 5-year survival of 60–80%, but the 5-year recurrence rate is up to 70% [reviewed in (6)]. However, the large majority of HCCs are diagnosed at an intermediate (stage B) or an advanced stage (stage C), when the mOS is ~11–20 months with a 5-year survival of 16%.
Figure 1

HCC etiologies, genetic predisposition and current standard of care for the advanced stage. (A) HCC etiologies include chronic infection with HBV or HCV, alcohol abuse, dietary toxins and/or the metabolic syndrome linked to obesity and type 2 diabetes. In rare cases, HCC stems from a monogenic disease e.g., hemochromatosis, caused by mutations in the homeostatic iron regulator gene HFE1; Wilson disease involving mutations in the ATPase copper transporting beta gene ATP7B; tyrosinemia, resulting from mutations in the gene encoding fumarylacetoacetate hydrolase FAH, α1-trypsin deficiency caused by mutations in serpin family A member 1 SERPINA1; or glycogen storage disease, in which the glucose-6-phosphatase gene is mutated. (B) The standard of care for treating patients with advanced HCC has been revised with the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors. In first line, patients are administered TKi, mainly sorafenib or lenvatinib, or given the newly approved combination of bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) + atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1). In second line, patients refractory to TKi are treated with other TKIs, whereas anti-PD-1 ICI, nivolumab or pembrolizumab, have only been approved in the USA as an option for second line (despite the lack of superior efficacity in phase III trials compared to TKi).

HCC etiologies, genetic predisposition and current standard of care for the advanced stage. (A) HCC etiologies include chronic infection with HBV or HCV, alcohol abuse, dietary toxins and/or the metabolic syndrome linked to obesity and type 2 diabetes. In rare cases, HCC stems from a monogenic disease e.g., hemochromatosis, caused by mutations in the homeostatic iron regulator gene HFE1; Wilson disease involving mutations in the ATPase copper transporting beta gene ATP7B; tyrosinemia, resulting from mutations in the gene encoding fumarylacetoacetate hydrolase FAH, α1-trypsin deficiency caused by mutations in serpin family A member 1 SERPINA1; or glycogen storage disease, in which the glucose-6-phosphatase gene is mutated. (B) The standard of care for treating patients with advanced HCC has been revised with the approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors. In first line, patients are administered TKi, mainly sorafenib or lenvatinib, or given the newly approved combination of bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) + atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1). In second line, patients refractory to TKi are treated with other TKIs, whereas anti-PD-1 ICI, nivolumab or pembrolizumab, have only been approved in the USA as an option for second line (despite the lack of superior efficacity in phase III trials compared to TKi). The therapeutic options for these stages are limited to locoregional treatments, including transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) or radioembolization with yttrium 90 (90Y)-microspheres, and systemic treatment with multi tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKi), such as Sorafenib (7) or Lenvatinib (8), according to international guidelines (9). While approved as a first-line therapy, these TKi improve mOS by 3 months (7, 8, 10) and are associated with significant side effects (11). In patients that progress following first line TKi treatment, the second-line options have been, until recently, alternative TKi, primarily regorafenib (12) and cabozantinib (13), or the fully human monoclonal antibody targeting vascular-endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptor type 2 (VEGF-R2) ramucirumab (14). More recently, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have emerged as an alternative therapy in HCC and two anti-PD-1 drugs, nivolumab and pembrolizumab, have been approved in the USA based on two trials (15, 16) as a second line treatment for patients with advanced HCC refractory to sorafenib. The overall response rate (ORR) of nivolumab was reported to be 23% in sorafenib-naïve patients and 16-19% in sorafenib-experienced patients, with a mOS of 15 months. However, this did not reproduce in the phase III trial checkmate 459, in which the ORR to nivolumab in sorafenib-naïve patients was 15%, with a mOS of 16 months, i.e., not different from that with sorafenib. Further, in a recent trial, pembrolizumab monotherapy did not statistically impact HCC patients mOS and progression-free survival (PFS), as a second-line treatment (17). The combination of Regorafenib (angiogenesis inhibitor) and nivolumab has next been proposed as a second line treatment in sorafenib non-responders. This year, the combination of atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) and bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) has obtained approval as a new first line therapy, as it improved mOS > 17 months (18) (Figure 1B). However, despite this therapeutic advance, ~75% of HCC patients do not respond to these immunotherapies for unclear reasons. While there is evidence that boosting the activity of tumor-specific T cells might benefit patients with HCC, the underlying chronic inflammation renders this cancer's tumor microenvironment (TME) somewhat unique, and highlights the urgent need to further explore this organ-specific immunity, identify biomarkers to select patients who are likely to respond to such treatments, and develop new immunotherapies combinations.

The Landscape of Parenchymal, Stromal and Immune Cells in the Healthy vs. Cirrhotic Liver

Prior to delving into the immune landscape and immunosuppressive mechanisms of HCC, we briefly overview the architecture of the liver and its immune system under physiological conditions, and highlight specific changes occurring in cirrhosis. Anatomically, the human liver is composed of eight functional segments organized into hepatic lobules containing their portal vein, hepatic artery and bile duct triads (Figure 2A). Around 80% of the blood supply is delivered from the gut via the portal vein, while the remaining 20% flows through the hepatic artery. Upon mixing, the blood equilibrates and drains across the lobule through the hepatic sinusoids into the central veins, while the bile flows in the opposite direction via bile canaliculi. Such an organization creates oxygen and metabolic gradients, referred to as liver zonation, controlled in part by WNT/β-catenin signaling (Figure 2B). Liver sinusoids are lined by a fenestrated monolayer of LSECs that lack a basement membrane, allowing the blood to directly reach the underlying hepatocytes, organized in two-layered plates. The luminal side of LSECs interacts with liver resident immune cells, such as KCs, whereas their basal side, facing the space of Disse, interacts with hepatocytes and HSCs (Figure 2C). The liver has long been considered as a site of immune tolerance. This was based on early findings that transplanted allogeneic liver was significantly better tolerated than other organs, and patients required low levels of immunosuppression [reviewed in (19)]. Liver immune tolerance stems from complex interactions among liver-resident cells and peripheral leukocytes, and involves poor or incomplete activation of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, elevated expression of immune checkpoints and an immunosuppressive environment mediated by IL-10 and TGFβ [reviewed in (20)]. KCs that function to preserve tissue homeostasis through their phagocytic and antigen presentation activity are important players in maintaining immune tolerance. Interestingly, a recent paper from the Germain group unraveled that microbiota sensing by LSECs imposes a chemokine gradient around the portal triads resulting in discriminate abundance of KCs and other immune cells (e.g., NKT cells) in periportal regions. Functionally, such an “immune zonation” is critical in limiting local infection and associated inflammatory tissue damage and in preventing the systemic spread of bacteria (21). Besides KCs, hepatic NK cells are capable of directly killing stressed cells, and mediate antibody-dependent cell cytotoxicity (ADCC) upon engagement of CD16 (FcγRIIIA). Their activity is regulated by a dynamic equilibrium between activating [NKG2D, NKp46 (NCR1), NKp44 (NCR2), and NKp30 (NCR3)] and inhibitory (KIR and NKG2A) receptors. In addition to producing various cytokines, chemokines, and growth factors, they maintain immune tolerance through expression of immune checkpoints. Liver-resident NK cells (LrNK) differ from conventional NK (cNK) cells with respect to their origin, phenotypes and functions. Notably, LrNK cells share functional properties with innate lymphoid cells (ILCs) commonly found in mucosal tissues. NKT cells, which also express the NK cell marker CD56, actively patrol the liver and contribute to the clearance of pre-malignant senescent hepatocytes (22). They are recruited via the chemokine receptor CXCR6 interacting with CXCL16, secreted by LSECs and KCs, and are activated upon engagement of the glycolipid receptor CD1d. Last, CD19+ B cells exert their functions through antibody production, antigen presentation and immune cell regulation.
Figure 2

Architecture of the human liver and its immune system. (A) Schematic illustration of the human liver anatomy namely its 8 segments, hepatic lobules, and triads of portal vein/hepatic artery/bile duct. (B) The liver zonation. Oxygen and metabolic gradients define three liver zones with specialized hepatocytes functions. (C) A zoom on hepatic cellular interactions across the sinusoids, the space of Disse and the hepatocyte plates. Liver sinusoidal endothelial cells (LSECs) line the liver sinusoid by forming a fenestrated monolayer. Their basal side interacts with hepatocytes and hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) in the space of Disse, whereas their luminal side interacts with liver-resident leukocytes, including Kupffer cells (KCs).

Architecture of the human liver and its immune system. (A) Schematic illustration of the human liver anatomy namely its 8 segments, hepatic lobules, and triads of portal vein/hepatic artery/bile duct. (B) The liver zonation. Oxygen and metabolic gradients define three liver zones with specialized hepatocytes functions. (C) A zoom on hepatic cellular interactions across the sinusoids, the space of Disse and the hepatocyte plates. Liver sinusoidal endothelial cells (LSECs) line the liver sinusoid by forming a fenestrated monolayer. Their basal side interacts with hepatocytes and hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) in the space of Disse, whereas their luminal side interacts with liver-resident leukocytes, including Kupffer cells (KCs). Liver injury, caused by viral infection or chronic steatohepatitis related to alcohol or metabolic disorders, triggers an inflammatory cell death, leading to DAMP release and the influx of immune cells. Chronic inflammation activates HSCs, the main actors in liver fibrosis that produce extracellular matrix (ECM) components, forming the so-called “scar tissue.” Liver cirrhosis, which affects 1% of the world population, represents the soil where most HCC cases develop. Indeed, continuous cellular stress, repetitive cycles of necrosis and compensatory regeneration of parenchymal cells and chronic inflammation elicit cellular senescence and mutagenesis leading eventually to HCC development. Furthermore, a reduction of sinusoid porosity (defenestration), associated with collagenization of the space of Disse, was shown to impede immunosurveillance [reviewed in (23)]. The recent use of high-dimensional single cell approaches (e.g., mass cytometry and single cell RNA sequencing [scRNAseq]) in humans has unraveled the cellular landscape of the healthy (24, 25) and cirrhotic (26) livers and uncovered subtype heterogeneity for all major liver populations. According to two reports by Aizarani et al. (24) and MacParland et al. (25), in which parenchymal and non-parenchymal cells from dissociated human normal liver tissue were analyzed, the healthy liver is predominantly populated by leukocytes, which make up 45% of all liver cells, out-numbering hepatocytes (ALBhigh) that account for ~35% of the cells in this organ. This is followed by endothelial cells, including LSECs (CD34CLEC4G+ CLEC4M+) and macrovascular endothelial cells (CD34+ PECAMhigh) that account for ~7.5% and ~2.5% of hepatic cells, respectively. HSCs (RGS5+ ACTA2+) are found at <1% of the cells in this organ whereas cholangiocytes (EPCAM+ KRT19high CTFRhigh ALBlow) occupy ~9% of the liver cellular landscape (24, 25) (Figure 3). Interestingly, among the EpCAM+ cholangiocytes, a putative bipotent liver progenitor population was identified by Aizarani et al. (24) based on the expression of intermediate levels of the intracellular calcium signal transducer TACTSD2/TROP2 (TROP2int). This population was shown to give rise to ASGR1+ hepatocyte-biased cells (TROP2low) or KRT19high CFTRhigh ALBlow cholangiocytes (TROP2hi) (24). Furthermore, to model liver zonation, Aizarani et al. (24) applied diffusion pseudotime analysis and showed that hepatocytes and LSECs gene expression is highly zonated. LSECs in the periportal zone expressed genes involved in hormone signaling and metabolism, whereas pericentral and mid zone LSECs and hepatocytes were enriched in gene expression related to platelet activation, immune regulation and scavenging.
Figure 3

The landscapes of the normal, cirrhotic and HCC-bearing livers. All immune and non-immune cell types identified by high-resolution single cell analyses of the human healthy and cirrhotic livers and of HCC are illustrated along with their discriminatory markers. Arrows depict direction of change in cirrhosis or HCC vs. the normal liver, with green arrows indicating an expansion, red arrows a depletion and blue horizontal arrow no change in the examined cell subset. The cellular landscapes of the healthy and cirrhotic livers were from (26). The information on the HCC landscape was from (27), but with complementary information from the following studies: γδ T cells and M2 macrophages (28), cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) and tumor-endothelial cells (TECs) (29). New subsets of cells arising in the cirrhotic condition are also depicted and labeled as ‘scar-associated’ cells: SAEndo: scar-associated endothelial cells; SAMes: scar-associated mesenchymal cells; SAMac: scar-associated macrophages, as in (26). The HCC analyses were on sorted CD45+ immune cells. Symbols for genes and associated proteins are defined in Supplementary Table 1.

The landscapes of the normal, cirrhotic and HCC-bearing livers. All immune and non-immune cell types identified by high-resolution single cell analyses of the human healthy and cirrhotic livers and of HCC are illustrated along with their discriminatory markers. Arrows depict direction of change in cirrhosis or HCC vs. the normal liver, with green arrows indicating an expansion, red arrows a depletion and blue horizontal arrow no change in the examined cell subset. The cellular landscapes of the healthy and cirrhotic livers were from (26). The information on the HCC landscape was from (27), but with complementary information from the following studies: γδ T cells and M2 macrophages (28), cancer-associated fibroblasts (CAFs) and tumor-endothelial cells (TECs) (29). New subsets of cells arising in the cirrhotic condition are also depicted and labeled as ‘scar-associated’ cells: SAEndo: scar-associated endothelial cells; SAMes: scar-associated mesenchymal cells; SAMac: scar-associated macrophages, as in (26). The HCC analyses were on sorted CD45+ immune cells. Symbols for genes and associated proteins are defined in Supplementary Table 1. Among the leukocytes, the ratio of lymphocytes to mononuclear phagocytes (MNPs) is 3:1, with the former occupying ~35% and the latter 10% of total liver cells. The lymphocytic compartment includes ~11% αβ T cells, ~6.7% γδ T cells, ~12.3% NK + NKT cells, and ~ 5% B cells (25). Among the innate immune cells, NK cells cluster in three groups, NK1 (XCL1+ CCL3+), NK2 (XCL2+ CD160+ KLRD1+) and cytotoxic NKs (GNLY+ FGFBP2+ SPON2+), whereas MNPs consist of three subsets, including two CD68+ KC clusters, KC1 (CD1C+ FCER1A+) and KC2 (MARCO+ LILRB5+TIMD4+) and a liver resident inflammatory macrophage subset (LYZ+ CD74+). The 3 classical dendritic cell (DC) subsets were also identified, namely conventional DCs, cDC1 (CD1C+ CLEC9A+) and cDC2 (FCER1A+ CD1E+), and plasmacytoid DCs (LILRA4+ CLEC4C+ GZMB+) (Figure 3). In the cirrhotic liver, scRNAseq uncovered all major immune cell populations and revealed a decrease in CD8+ T cells, associated with an increase in CD4+ T cells, as compared to the healthy liver. Re-clustering of MNPs identified four subgroups, annotated as KC1 (CD163+ MARCO+ TIMD4hi), KC2 (CD163+ MARCO+ TIMD4low), scar-associated macrophages (TREM2+ CD9+), tissue monocytes (MNDA+ S100A12+ FCN1+) (Figure 3). The MARCO+ population decreases in cirrhosis compared to the healthy liver while TREM2+ CD9+ scar-associated macrophages, derived from circulating monocytes, expand early in the course of the disease. This latter population of cells is conserved in humans and mice and displays pro-fibrogenic properties (26). Deep clustering of mesenchymal cell populations uncovered a cluster of PDGFα+ cells that also expand in cirrhosis, expressing high levels of fibrillar collagens and pro-fibrogenic genes. RNA velocity experiments indicated a trajectory from human HSCs to these scar-associated mesenchymal cells, and ligand/cognate receptors analysis combined with functional studies, pointed to TNFRSF12A, PDGFRA, and Notch signaling as important regulators of mesenchymal cell function in the human liver fibrotic niche (26). Collectively, these single cell analyses revealed context-dependent cellular phenotypic diversity, opening the field to exploring potential mechanisms involved in HCC progression from cirrhosis. For instance, the fibrotic context is associated with the emergence of scar-associated mesenchymal cells and scar-associated macrophages with pro-fibrogenic properties. Future functional studies are needed to determine the value of targeting these cell subsets or specific molecular effectors therein as therapeutic strategies in HCC.

HCC Subtypes According to Molecular and Immune Classifications

Molecular Classification of HCC

Progression from cirrhosis to HCC is mediated by a step-wise accumulation of somatic mutations and copy number variations in driver genes (30). The most frequent alteration is the reactivation of the telomerase reverse transcriptase (TERT), a key event observed in 20% of high-grade dysplastic lesions and up to 60% of early HCC (31). Besides TERT promoter mutations that impact telomere maintenance, 10 pathways were found to be recurrently altered in HCC, including pathways involved in cell cycle control (TP53, CDKNA2, CCND1), oxidative stress (NFE2L2, KEAP1), and chromatin modification (ARID1A, ARID2), but also the Wnt/β-catenin pathway (CTNNB1, AXIN1) and the RTK/RAS/PI3K pathway (RPS6KA3, PIK3CA, KRAS, NRAS, FGF19, VEGFA) (32) (Figure 4). The TGFβ pathway is additionally involved in HCC progression, with some tumors presenting aberrant activation of this pathway, whereas others harboring inactivating mutations in genes required for TGFβ signal transduction e.g., the SPTBN1 gene (33). Last, ~20% of HCC express markers of progenitor cells, e.g., epithelial cell adhesion molecule (EpCAM) and cytokeratin 19 (CK19) and arise from either progenitors or dedifferentiated hepatocytes (12).
Figure 4

Molecular and immunological classifications of HCC. (A) The main oncogenic events associated with HCC are presented in descending order of incidence, the most common being defects in telomere maintenance, followed by alterations in cell cycle control, and activation of the WNT/β-catenin pathway. (B) Based on molecular features, HCC patients can be grouped into either the proliferative or non-proliferative class, the first with higher prevalence of HBV infection and a bad prognosis, whereas the second including cases with HCV infection or alcohol abuse and having a better prognosis. Integration of genomic, expression and epigenetic data by the TCGA research network (32) identified a different classification, namely iClusters 1-3. iCluster 2 which represents 50% of the patients and is related to the non-proliferative class, includes three sub-classes: an “active immune subclass,” an “immune excluded” subclass and an “immune low” subclass. An “immune exhausted” subclass is found within iCluster 3 of the proliferative class, whereas iCluster 1 is characterized by an “immune low” signature.

Molecular and immunological classifications of HCC. (A) The main oncogenic events associated with HCC are presented in descending order of incidence, the most common being defects in telomere maintenance, followed by alterations in cell cycle control, and activation of the WNT/β-catenin pathway. (B) Based on molecular features, HCC patients can be grouped into either the proliferative or non-proliferative class, the first with higher prevalence of HBV infection and a bad prognosis, whereas the second including cases with HCV infection or alcohol abuse and having a better prognosis. Integration of genomic, expression and epigenetic data by the TCGA research network (32) identified a different classification, namely iClusters 1-3. iCluster 2 which represents 50% of the patients and is related to the non-proliferative class, includes three sub-classes: an “active immune subclass,” an “immune excluded” subclass and an “immune low” subclass. An “immune exhausted” subclass is found within iCluster 3 of the proliferative class, whereas iCluster 1 is characterized by an “immune low” signature. Earlier studies classified HCC into two main transcriptome-based classes, based on genetic, epigenetic and phenotypic features: HCC of the proliferative class, which displayed a poor clinical outcome, and HCC of the non-proliferative class, with a better outcome. The proliferative class was associated with the HBV etiology, and characterized by the activation of PI3K–AKTmTOR, RAS–MAPK, and MET signaling along with chromosomal instability (34). The non-proliferative class, which is more prevalent in alcohol- or HCV-related HCC, regrouped heterogeneous tumors, including a subclass characterized by mutations in CTNNB1, the gene encoding β-catenin. More recent classification by Schulze et al. (35) and the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) network (32) revised the molecular landscape of HCC (Figure 4). Three integrative clusters were identified: whereas, iCluster 1 and iCluster 3 distinguished two subclasses of the proliferative class, iCluster 2 overlapped with the non-proliferative class. iCluster 1 is associated with poorer differentiation, higher tumor grade, the presence of macrovascular invasion and overexpression of proliferation (PLK1, MKI67) and progenitor cells (EPCAM and AFP) gene markers, while iCluster 3 is characterized by high frequency of TP53 mutation, 17p loss and activation of WNT-TGFβ signaling. On the other end, iCluster 2 regroups heterogenous moderately differentiated tumors characterized by TERT promotor mutations. Identification of the mutational landscape of HCC unveiled several druggable targets in >25% of the cases (35). However, a potential limitation of tumor cell-based therapy is a notable inter- and intra-tumoral heterogeneity, mediated in part by non-neutral selection of mutations conferring a selective advantage (30) and subclone evolution (36). Using scRNAseq of liver cancers, Ma et al. (29) identified links between intra-tumoral heterogeneity (ITH), tumor micro-environment (TME) and survival outcome. They discriminated ITH according to the average expression of 10 cancer stemness genes, namely EPCAM, CD24, CD44, CD47, KRT19, PROM1, ALDH1A1, ANPEP, ICAM1 and SOX9. This allowed them to derive diversity scores based on transcriptomic profiles, grouping the tumors into Div-high and Div-low groups. The Div-high group displayed poorer mOS and PFS, expressed higher levels of hypoxia-inducible factor 1-alpha (HIF1α)-dependent VEGFA and displayed a marked TME reprogramming. Concordantly, NOTCH and VEGF signaling, together with fetal-associated endothelial cells (PLVAP+ VEGFR2+) found in tumors, have been demonstrated to reprogram the CD14+ monocytes into fetal-like immunosuppressive tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs (FOLR2high CD163high) (37).

Immunological Classification of HCC

Immunological classification of HCC has been proposed by different groups using gene expression profiling (38) and protein level approaches based on multiplex immunohistochemistry (IHC) analysis (38) and mass cytometry (CyTOF) (28). Using deconvolution of 8 datasets, Llovet and colleagues analyzed a total of 956 HCC samples and reported that ~25% of HCC cases expressed an immune gene signature (39). Such an “immune class” was found to be associated with better mOS, and expressed PD-1 and PD-L1, tertiary lymphoid structures (TLS) markers and determinants of cytolytic T cells activity e.g., an IFNγ signature. Further stratification identified two TME-based sub-classes within the immune class, dubbed the “active immune” and the “exhausted immune” subclasses. The “active immune” sub-class was enriched in T cell response effectors (IFNγ and granzyme B signatures), whereas the “exhausted immune” sub-class included signatures of T cell exhaustion, immunosuppressive macrophages and TGFβ signaling. A third immunological class, referred to as “immune excluded” was distinguished in ~25% of HCC patients, based on the expression of immune genes, particularly an immunosuppressive signature, in the tissue surrounding the tumor, but with little immune gene expression in the tumor core. Such an “immune excluded” class was associated with a bad prognosis and overlapped with a subset of tumors in TCGA iCluster 2 with an activated WNT-β-catenin pathway (39) (Figure 4B). The immunological environment of HCC and its association with the molecular classification was further analyzed by Kurebayashi et al. (38) using multiplex immunohistochemistry. The authors classified HCC into three immune-subtypes based on the numbers of infiltrating immune cells: “Immune-high,” “immune-mid” and “immune-low.” Consistent with Sia et al. (39), the “immune-high” subtype, which was enriched in T cells and B-/plasma cells, was associated with a good prognosis (38). Zhang et al. (28) expanded this analysis and defined three HCC groups, namely the “immunocompetent,” “immunosuppressive,” and “immunodeficient” subtypes. The immunocompetent subtype, characterized as CD45high FOXP3low, had normal T cell infiltration including high infiltration of γδ T cells. On the contrary, the immunosuppressive subtype, marked by a CD45high FOXP3high staining, exhibited high frequencies of immunosuppressive cells (regulatory T and B cells and immunosuppressive macrophages) and molecules (PD-1, PD-L1, TIM-3, CTLA-4, VEGF, TGFβ, and IL-10). Finally, the CD45low immunodeficient subtype showed a reduced infiltration of lymphocytes (28). While these studies demonstrated marked heterogeneity in HCC tumors and their associated TME with broad classification of patients, in depth characterization of the immune landscape of HCC at high resolution is expected to refine patients stratification and identify putative immune-therapeutic targets.

The Immune Landscape of HCC

The immune landscape of HCC has been more recently explored using single cell approaches. In general, a progressive depletion of intrahepatic LrNK cells, cytolytic T cells and γδ T cells and an enrichment of regulatory T cells (Treg) and macrophages occur in HCC (28, 28, 32, 40–42) (Figures 3, 5). While tumor-infiltrating CD8+ T cells are significantly correlated with better prognosis (38, 43), Treg are associated with a poorer mOS (44). RNA velocity analysis indicated a directional flow from proliferative to exhausted CD8+ T cells in HCC (27). Exhaustion is characterized by the expression of a range of inhibitory receptors, including PD-1, TIM-3, LAG3, TIGIT, and LAYN [reviewed in (45)], and with reduced effector functions via TOX-mediated epigenetic and transcriptional alterations (46–48). However, not all exhausted CD8+ T cells are the same, as two subsets can be discriminated: PD-1+ TCF1+ “precursors” that self-renew and give rise to PD-1+ TCF1− “terminally differentiated” exhausted T cells (49–51). Notably, the presence of the precursors, but not the terminally differentiated exhausted T cells, is associated with a better response to anti-PD-1. Similarly, NK cells display an exhausted phenotype, expressing high levels of immune checkpoints such as PD-L1, PD-1, LAG3, TIM-3, CD155, and CD96 (52, 53). Further, they produce immunosuppressive cytokines such as TGFβ and IL-10 and less IFN-γ (52–56). The role of B lymphocytes in the development of HCC and their prognostic value is still debated. Their ADCC and antigen-presentation functions are countered by their ability to induce immunosuppression. In surgically resected HCC, CD20+ B cells are associated with a better prognosis (38, 57), especially when they are in close proximity of tumor-infiltrating T cells (58). However, their prognostic value in the context of TLS depends on whether these are found intra-tumorally or in the surrounding tissue [reviewed in (59)]. Notably, TLS presence in the adjacent non-tumoral liver tissue was associated with an increased risk for late recurrence and a poor mOS in 82 patients with surgically resected HCC (60). Mechanistically, such ectopic TLS harbored progenitors/cancer stem cells (expressing CD44v6) and a tumor-promoting environment characterized by a persistent NF-κB activation favoring tumor outgrowth, as demonstrated in a mouse model (60). Concordantly, alymphoid conditions suppressed CD44v6+ HCC-initiating cells and prevented hepatocarcinogenesis (60, 61). Additionally, B cells favored HCC progression by limiting the resolution of senescence-mediated liver fibrosis (62). In contrast, it was recently shown that intra-tumoral TLS were predictive of a lower risk of early relapse after surgical resections, as analyzed in 273 patients (63). In contrast, CD68+ CD163+ TAMs, which accumulate at the tumor margin, and CCR1+ monocytes, are associated with bad mOS (64–66). TAMs are recruited to HCC in response to CCL2. The expression of the CCL2 gene is controlled by diverse mechanisms including through APOBEC3B-mediated de-repression of epigenetic marks in its promoter (67), and through Yes-associated protein (YAP) transcriptional regulation, as shown in tumor-initiating cells (TICs) (68). Together with IL-13, CCL2 drives the metastasis of MYC/Twist1 tumors (69). TAMs contribute to HCC malignant progression and metastasis through diverse mechanisms, e.g., via the production of cytokines such as IL-6 (70) and hepatocyte compensatory proliferation (71), immunosuppression and induction of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) [reviewed in (72)]. The immune checkpoint TIM-3, induced by TGFβ in the tumor microenvironment (TME), is implicated in the pro-tumoral effects of TAMs in HCC (70). Similarly, the receptors Triggering Receptor Expressed on Myeloid cells (TREM)1 (73) and TREM2 (74) have been demonstrated to promote the dysfunction and apoptosis of cytotoxic CD8+ T cells in HCC, while enhancing the recruitment of CCR6+ Foxp3+ Tregs. Platelets, key effectors of immune-mediated tissue damage, have also been implicated in HCC. Using different mouse models of dietary-inducing NASH and data from human patients, Malehmir et al. (75) demonstrated enhanced platelets influx, aggregation and activation in liver sinusoids in NASH. This was mediated by their interaction with KCs, involving hyaluronic acid/CD44 binding and the platelet receptor glycoprotein 1b alpha (GPIbα). Anti-platelet treatments, including aspirin, or specific blockade of GPIbα blunted the development of NASH, through limiting CD8 T lymphocytes, NKT cells and KC recruitment. In the HBsAg transgenic mouse model of HCC, platelets were similarly shown to promote the recruitment of HBsAg-specific CD8 T cells that elicit cycles of hepatocyte killing and inflammation leading to fibrosis. Inhibition of platelet activation potently reduced the development of HCC in this model (76).
Figure 5

The tumor immunological microenvironment of HCC. Schematic illustration of the different actors demonstrated to contribute to immunosuppression or immune activity in the TME of HCC. Tumor-initiating cells (TIC) and tumor cells (hues of brown) orchestrate the immunological environment by secreting inflammatory cytokines e.g., osteopontin (OPN) and chemokines e.g., the monocyte chemoattractant CCL2, which promote tumorigenesis through the recruitment of monocytes and their differentiation to tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs). In addition, β-catenin-activated tumor cells can inhibit anti-tumor immunity by blocking CD103+ DCs tumor infiltration. Spatially, TAMs are enriched in the peri-tumoral area, express CD68, CD163, CD38, and the folate receptor (FOLR2), induced by fetal-associated endothelial cells (fEC). Two subsets of tumor-enriched macrophages can be distinguished by single cell analyses, THBS1+ macrophages and C1QA+ macrophages, with an MDSC and TAM signature, respectively. The latter is associated with a poor prognosis in HCC. The immunosuppressive activity of TAMs is mediated by various immune checkpoints, including PD-1, PD-L1, TIM-3, TREM1 and TREM2. Besides TAMs, the TME is enriched in Treg but depleted of other T cells and NK cells, which when present exhibit an exhausted phenotype. Among the CD8 T cells, The PD-1+ TCF1+ “precursors” are associated with a good response to anti-PD-1. TLS found in the adjacent non-tumoral liver tissue are associated with a poor prognosis as they can harbor progenitor/cancer stem cells (expressing CD44v6) and promote tumorigenesis by impairing the clearance of senescent hepatocytes. In contrast, intratumoral TLS and CD20+ B cells are predictive of a lower risk of relapse and a better CD8 T cell anti-tumor activity. Eosinophils also confer a tumorilytic activity, and enhancing their recruitment with inhibitors of the CCL11 peptidase DPP4 improved the efficacy of anti-PD-1+anti-CTLA4 immunotherapy.

The tumor immunological microenvironment of HCC. Schematic illustration of the different actors demonstrated to contribute to immunosuppression or immune activity in the TME of HCC. Tumor-initiating cells (TIC) and tumor cells (hues of brown) orchestrate the immunological environment by secreting inflammatory cytokines e.g., osteopontin (OPN) and chemokines e.g., the monocyte chemoattractant CCL2, which promote tumorigenesis through the recruitment of monocytes and their differentiation to tumor-associated macrophages (TAMs). In addition, β-catenin-activated tumor cells can inhibit anti-tumor immunity by blocking CD103+ DCs tumor infiltration. Spatially, TAMs are enriched in the peri-tumoral area, express CD68, CD163, CD38, and the folate receptor (FOLR2), induced by fetal-associated endothelial cells (fEC). Two subsets of tumor-enriched macrophages can be distinguished by single cell analyses, THBS1+ macrophages and C1QA+ macrophages, with an MDSC and TAM signature, respectively. The latter is associated with a poor prognosis in HCC. The immunosuppressive activity of TAMs is mediated by various immune checkpoints, including PD-1, PD-L1, TIM-3, TREM1 and TREM2. Besides TAMs, the TME is enriched in Treg but depleted of other T cells and NK cells, which when present exhibit an exhausted phenotype. Among the CD8 T cells, The PD-1+ TCF1+ “precursors” are associated with a good response to anti-PD-1. TLS found in the adjacent non-tumoral liver tissue are associated with a poor prognosis as they can harbor progenitor/cancer stem cells (expressing CD44v6) and promote tumorigenesis by impairing the clearance of senescent hepatocytes. In contrast, intratumoral TLS and CD20+ B cells are predictive of a lower risk of relapse and a better CD8 T cell anti-tumor activity. Eosinophils also confer a tumorilytic activity, and enhancing their recruitment with inhibitors of the CCL11 peptidase DPP4 improved the efficacy of anti-PD-1+anti-CTLA4 immunotherapy. scRNAseq of sorted CD45+ cells from the tumor, adjacent liver, hepatic lymph nodes, blood, and ascites of 16 treatment-naive HCC patients recovered all of the major cell populations such as T, B, NK and myeloid cells, but also few minor cell populations including mast cells and ILCs (27) (Figure 3). All types of T cells (including Treg, exhausted T cells [Tex] and proliferative T cells) were enriched in the tumors, as previously reported (77). Four clusters of NK cells, enriched in the tumor, were identified, including two circulating NK clusters (IFNγ+ FCGR3A+ CX3CR1+ T-bet+) and two LrNK clusters (CD160+ CXCR6+ EOMES+). However, their respective roles in tumorigenesis and patients prognosis have not been addressed. A diverse repertoire of functionally distinct myeloid cells were identified, particularly, two subsets of macrophages within the tumors: THBS1+ macrophages enriched in myeloid-derived suppressor cell (MDSC) genes (S100A genes, FCN1 and VCAN) and C1QA+ macrophages, enriched in tumor associated macrophage (TAM) genes APOE, C1QB and TREM2 (Figures 3, 5). Only the latter was associated with a poor prognosis in the TCGA liver hepatocellular carcinoma (LIHC) cohort. In parallel, 3 intra-tumoral clusters of DCs were distinguished, namely cDC2 (highly expressing CD1C, FCER1A, and CLEC10A), cDC1 (highly expressing CLEC9A, XCR1 and CADM1) and a non-classical LAMP3+ DCs (highly expressing CCR7, LAMP3, CD80 and CCL19) with migration capacity toward the lymph nodes. Interestingly, ligand-receptor pairs analysis indicated that the LAMP3+ DCs are the subset that would interact with Tex cells and Tregs. This LAMP3 population seems to correspond to mregDCs, a DC cluster annotated in human lung cancer as a population involved in tumor antigen uptake and expressing immunoregulatory molecules (78, 79).

HCC Patients Response to ICIs

PD-1 is primarily expressed on the surface of activated T cells, but also on NK/NKT cells (54), B cells (80) and myeloid cells including monocytes, DCs, MDSCs and TAMs (81). Its induction in response to cytokine signaling is tightly regulated at the epigenetic and post-transcriptional levels (48, 81, 82). Recently, two studies used multiparametric flow cytometry and multiplex IHC to show that higher intratumoral frequency of PD-1high CD8+ T cells (83) and CD38+ CD68+ macrophages (84) was strongly associated with improved response to ICI in patients with advanced HCC. PD-L1 is expressed by DCs, monocytes, macrophages, B cells, NK cells, LSECs, and tumor cells. Its expression is induced by hypoxia (73), among other mechanisms. PD-L1 expression on tumor-infiltrating immune cells is associated with a better prognosis while the prognostic value of its expression on neoplastic cells is controversial (39, 43). Further, the response of patients with HCC to Nivolumab (anti-PD1) was not found to be associated with PD-L1 expression on tumor cells, implicating other PD-L1 expressing cells in this response (15). In murine models with transplantable HCC, PD-L1 expression on myeloid cells mediated the anti-PD-L1 response (85). Previous studies in melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have attributed the response to ICIs to tumor mutational burden (86, 87), levels of neo-antigens (88) or tumor-specific antigens (89, 90), the presence of TLS [reviewed in (59)] or specific oncogenic pathways (91, 92). Nonetheless, the mechanisms involved in patients response to ICIs, particularly in HCC, remain for the most part unclear. For example, the mutational burden did not correlate with ICI response in HCC (93), and neither the mutational load nor the presence of neoantigens was associated with the immune class, which predicted a favorable response to ICI therapy (39). Instead, the activation of β-catenin was associated with resistance to ICI, as demonstrated in a mouse model (94) (Figure 4). Using a MYC;p53−/− HCC mouse model, Ruiz de Galarreta et al. (94) demonstrated that β-catenin promoted immune escape by preventing the recruitment of CD103+ DCs, impairing antigen-specific T cells-mediated anti-tumor immunity. Accordingly, activating mutations in CTNNB1 correlate with resistance to ICI monotherapy with either anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1, as shown in a prospective sequencing analysis of 27 evaluable advanced HCC patients, in which none of the 10 patients with WNT pathway alterations achieved clinical benefit, whereas around half of the non-WNT pathway–altered patients showed durable stable disease (93). Nevertheless, these results also show that 50% of ICI non-responders harbor mechanisms unrelated to β-catenin activation. Treating fibrosis using a TGFβ neutralizing antibody in the STAMmouse model fibrosis-associated HCC, triggered a redistribution of CD8+ lymphocytes into the tumors, which re-invigorated anti-tumor response (95). These results are consistent with those of Mariathasan et al. (96), who reported that TGFβ attenuated the response to PD-L1 blockade by restricting intra-tumoral T-cell infiltration. Since TGFβ alterations are found in a subset of HCC patients (33), agents that block this pathway should be tested in this group, highlighting the need for personalized medicine. Similarly, the immunosuppressive molecule VEGF was found to be enriched in a subset of HCC patients, particularly those with Div-high tumors, supporting the use of the anti-PD-L1 (Atezolizumab) + anti-VEGF (Bevacizumab) combination. However, the cellular subsets, putative signaling pathways, and associated biomarkers required for an effective patient's response to this new combination therapy require further exploration. The etiology of HCC might contribute to the heterogeneity in patients' response to immunotherapy. Indeed, Lim et al. (44) reported that the TME of HBV-related HCC is more immunosuppressive than that of non-viral HCC. Particularly, PD-1high Tregs and PD-1+ CD8+ resident memory T cells were more prominent in HBV-related HCC, suggesting that PD-1 blockade might be a suited strategy for this etiology. In contrast, immunotherapies that target CD244+ NK cells and Tim-3+ CD8+ T cells, enriched in non-viral HCC, may be more effective in those patients (44).

ICI Combination Therapies

Several pre-clinical studies and ongoing clinical trials (Table 1) are exploring the potential of combining different ICIs. For e.g., a phase III trial is currently testing the combination of durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) and tremelimumab (anti-CTLA-4) as a first line therapy (NCT03298451). The combinations of ICIs together with ablation (97), chemo-radioembolization or targeted therapies (TKi or anti-VEGF) in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting are also being explored (Table 1). For e.g., two trials are testing the combination of pembrolizumab + Lenvatinib (NCT 03006926) or of pembrolizumab + regorafenib (NCT03347292) for first line therapies. Radioembolization was reported to elicit an immune response, both locally and systemically, leading to enhanced infiltration of TIM-3+ tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs), NK, and NKT cells (98). It is thus plausible that an ICI targeting TIM-3 might enhance the clinical response of radioembolization or other interventions in HCC patients. A phase II trial is currently testing cobolimab, a TIM-3 binding antibody, in combination with anti-PD-1 on the response of patients with locally advanced or metastatic liver cancer (NCT03680508). Similarly, combining multiple strategies targeting inhibitory receptors (PD-1, TIM-3, LAG3, CTLA4, TREM1, TREM2) and/or their ligands (PD-L1, B7 superfamily member1 [B7S1]) have shown synergistic effects in restoring TILs anti-tumoral immune responses in pre-clinical studies (73, 74, 99–102) and enhancing NK cell infiltration and activity (52–56, 103). Additional strategies include the inhibition of TAM recruitment, their polarization to an immunosuppressive phenotype or their function in hampering anti-tumor immunity or promoting tumorigenesis. The pro-inflammatory protein osteopontin (OPN) produced by cancer cells has been implicated in cancer promotion and metastasis, through the stimulation of CSF1 signaling in TAMs. Blockade of the CSF1/CSF1R pathway enhanced the efficacy of anti PD-L1 in OPN-overexpressing HCC, by reducing macrophage recruitment (102). Blockade of the CCL2/CCR2 axis was also shown to inhibit the recruitment of TAMs leading to enhanced infiltration of CD8+ T cells and improved anti-tumor immunity (104). However, this approach should be considered with caution as some macrophages exert anti-tumoral activity. Indeed, Eggert et al. (105) reported that the CCL2-CCR2 axis promotes the clearance of senescent hepatocytes preventing HCC outgrowth in mice. Among the TAM targets that recently surfaced as critical inhibitors of anti-tumor immunity are the receptors TREM1 and TREM2. Blockade of TREM1 (73) or TREM2 (74) attenuated immunosuppression and CD8+ T cell dysfunction boosting the efficacy of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 immunotherapy. An alternative approach to skew TAM functions is through vaccination. Using a mouse model, a recent study demonstrated that a Listeria-based HCC vaccine enhanced the efficacy of PD-1 blockade by skewing the TAMs to an anti-tumoral phenotype (106). Consistent with the improved patients response to the anti-PD-L1 + anti-VEGF combination therapy, it has been recently demonstrated using murine models of HCC that this approach fortified hepatic vessels and overcame resistance to either monotherapy (107). Last, a less studied immune cell population in the context of anti-tumor immunity are the eosinophils, which were recently shown in a murine model of HCC to promote tumor-cell killing through degranulation and contribute to the efficacy of the anti-PD1 + anti-CTLA4 combination immunotherapy. Their recruitment in response to the cancer-cell secreted alarmin IL-33, is mediated by the chemokine CCL11, and enhanced with the administration of sitagliptin, an inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase DPP4 (CD26) that cleaves CCL11. These results suggest that combined modulation of both type 1 and 2 immune responses may improve therapeutic management of HCC (108).
Table 1

Clinical trials of immunotherapies for HCC.

ImmunotherapyIdentifierStudy titleInterventionsNumber enrolledPrimary completion
Phase III clinical trials
ICI + combinations
ICI as Adjuvant (Stage A)NCT03867084Safety and Efficacy of Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) vs. Placebo as AdjuvantTherapy in Participants With Hepatocellular Carcinoma(HCC) and CompleteRadiological Response After Surgical Resection or Local Ablation (MK-3475-937/KEYNOTE-937)Biological: Pembrolizumab Drug: Placebo950June 2025
NCT03383458A Study of Nivolumab in Participants With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Who Are at High Risk of Recurrence After Curative Hepatic Resection or Ablation (CheckMate 9DX)Biological: Nivolumab Other: Placebo530Jan 2023
NCT04102098A Study of Atezolizumab Plus Bevacizumab vs. Active Surveillance as Adjuvant Therapy in Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma at High Risk of Recurrence After Surgical Resection or Ablation (IMbrave050)Drug: Atezolizumab Drug: Bevacizumab662Mar 2023
NCT03847428Assess Efficacy and Safety of Durvalumab Alone or Combined With Bevacizumab in High Risk of Recurrence HCC Patients After Curative Treatment (EMERALD-2)Drug: Durvalumab Drug: Bevacizumab Other: Placebo888Sept 2022
NCT03859128Toripalimab or Placebo as Adjuvant Therapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Curative Hepatic Resection (JUPITER 04)Biological: TORIPALIMAB INJECTION (JS001)402Oct 2022
ICI + TACE (Stage B)NCT04229355DEB-TACE Plus Lenvatinib or Sorafenib or PD-1 Inhibitor for Unresectable Hepatocellular CarcinomaDrug: DEB-TACE plus Sorafenib Drug: DEB-TACE plus Lenvatinib Drug: DEB-TACE plus PD-1 inhibitor90Dec 2022
NCT04246177Safety and Efficacy of Lenvatinib (E7080/MK-7902) With Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) in Combination With Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE) in Participants With Incurable/Non-metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma (MK-7902-012/E7080-G000-318/LEAP-012)
NCT03949231Infusion of Toripalimab Via Hepatic Arterial vs. Vein for Immunotherapy of Advanced Hepatocellular CarcinomaDrug: Toripalimab200Jan 2022
NCT03755739Trans-Artery/Intra-Tumor Infusion of Checkpoint Inhibitors for Immunotherapy of AdvancedSolid TumorsDrug: Checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) such as Pembrolizumab200Nov 2033
NCT04268888Nivolumab in Combination With TACE/TAE for Patients With Intermediate Stage HCCDrug: Nivolumab and TACE/TAE Procedure: TACE/TAE522June 2025
NCT0378957A Global Study to Evaluate Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE) in Combination With Durvalumab and Bevacizumab Therapy in Patients With Locoregional Hepatocellular Carcinoma (EMERALD-1)Drug: Durvalumab Drug: Bevacizumab Other: Placebo Procedure: Transarterial Chemoembolization (TACE)600Aug 2021
ICI + stereotaxic radiotherapy (Stage B)NCT04167293Combination of Sintilimab and Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (ISBRT01)Radiation: stereotactic body radiotherapy Drug: Sintilimab116Nov 2021
Monotherapy (Stage C)NCT02576509An Investigational Immuno-therapy Study of Nivolumab Compared to Sorafenib as a First Treatment in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular CarcinomaDrug: Nivolumab Drug: Sorafenib743May 2019
NCT03412773Phase 3 Study of Tislelizumab vs. Sorafenib in Participants With Unresectable HCCDrug: Tislelizumab Drug: Sorafenib674June 2021
ICI + αVEGF (Stage C)NCT03434379A Study of Atezolizumab in Combination With Bevacizumab Compared With Sorafenib in Patients With Untreated Locally Advanced or Metastatic Hepatocellular Carcinoma [IMbrave150] (IMbrave150)Drug: Atezolizumab Drug: Bevacizumab Drug: Sorafenib480Feb 2021
NCT03794440A Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Sintilimab in Combination With IBI305 (Anti-VEGF Monoclonal Antibody) Compared to Sorafenib as the First-Line Treatment for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Drug: Sintilimab Drug: IBI305 Drug: Sorafenib566Dec 2022
ICI + TKi (Stage C)NCT03713593Safety and Efficacy of Lenvatinib (E7080/MK-7902) in Combination With Pembrolizumab (MK-3475) vs. Lenvatinib as First-line Therapy in Participants With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (MK-7902-002/E7080-G000-311/LEAP-002)Drug: lenvatinib Biological: pembrolizumab Drug: saline placebo750May 2022
NCT03764293A Study to Evaluate SHR-1210 in Combination With Apatinib as First-Line Therapy in Patients With Advanced HCCDrug: SHR-1210 Drug: Apatinib Drug: Sorafenib510Dec 2021
NCT03755791Study of Cabozantinib in Combination With Atezolizumab vs. Sorafenib in Subjects With Advanced HCC Who Have Not Received Previous Systemic Anticancer Therapy (COSMIC-312)Drug: Cabozantinib Drug: Sorafenib Drug: Atezolizumab740June 2021
ICI + ICI (Stage C)NCT03298451Study of Durvalumab and Tremelimumab as First-line Treatment in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HIMALAYA)Drug: Durvalumab Drug: Tremelimumab (Regimen 1) Drug: Tremelimumab (Regimen 2) Drug: Sorafenib Drug: Durvalumab (Regimen 1) Drug: Durvalumab (Regimen 2)1324Dec 2020
NCT04039607A Study of Nivolumab in Combination With Ipilimumab in Participants With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (CheckMate 9DW)Drug: Nivolumab Drug: Ipilimumab Drug: Sorafenib Drug: lenvatinib650Mar 2023
ACTNCT02678013RFA+Highly-purified CTL vs. RFA Alone for Recurrent HCCProcedure: RFA Procedure: RFA+highly-purified CTL210Jan 2020
NCT02709070Resection+Highly Purified CTL vs. Resection Alone for HCCProcedure: resection Procedure: highly-purified CTL210Mar 2020
NCT03592706Autologous Immune Killer Cells to Treat Liver Cancer Patients as an Adjunct TherapyBiological: IKC (Immune Killer Cells) Procedure: TACE (Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization)60Feb 2021
OVNCT02562755Hepatocellular Carcinoma Study Comparing Vaccinia Virus Based Immunotherapy PlusSorafenib vs. Sorafenib AloneBiological: Pexastimogene Devacirepvec (Pexa Vec) Drug: Sorafenib600Dec 2020
VaxNCT02232490Liver Cancer Immunotherapy: Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial of Hepcortespenlisimut-LBiological: hepcortespenlisimut-L Biological: Placebo120Nov 2019
Phase II clinical trials
ICI + combinations
Neoadjuvant (Stage A)NCT03222076Nivolumab With or Without Ipilimumab in Treating Patients With Resectable Liver CancerBiological: Ipilimumab Biological: Nivolumab30Sept 2022
NCT03510871Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab as Neoadjuvant Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC)Drug: nivolumab, ipilimumab40Dec 2022
NCT03630640Neoadjuvant and Adjuvant Nivolumab in HCC Patients Treated by ElectroporationDrug: Nivolumab Injection [Opdivo]50Sept 2020
NCT03682276Safety and Bioactivity of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab Combination Prior to Liver Resection in Hepatocellular CarcinomaBiological: Ipilimumab Biological: Nivolumab32Dec 2020
NCT04174781Neoadjuvant Therapy for Hepatocellular CarcinomaDrug: Sintilimab Injection Drug: TACE61Nov 2020
ICI + TACE (Stage B)NCT03638141CTLA-4 /PD-L1 Blockade Following Transarterial Chemoembolization (DEB-TACE)in Patients With Intermediate Stage of HCC (Hepatocellular Carcinoma) Using Durvalumab and TremelimumabDrug: Durvalumab Drug: Tremelimumab (Cohort A dose) Drug: Tremelimumab (Cohort B dose)30Nov 2020
NCT04273100PD-1 Monoclonal Antibody, Lenvatinib and TACE in the Treatment of HCCCombination Product: PD-1 mAb combined with TACE and lenvatinib56Dec 2020
NCT03817736Sequential TransArterial Chemoembolization and Stereotactic RadioTherapy WithImmunoTherapy for Downstaging Hepatocellular Carcinoma for HepatectomyProcedure: TACE Radiation: SBRT Drug: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor33Feb 2022
NCT04522544Durvalumab (MEDI4736) and Tremelimumab in Combination With Either Y-90 SIRT orTACE for Intermediate Stage HCC With Pick-the-winner DesignDrug: Tremelimumab Drug: Durvalumab Procedure: Y-90 SIRT Procedure: TACE84Mar 2024
NCT04518852TACE, Sorafenib and PD-1 Monoclonal Antibody in the Treatment of HCCCombination Product: TACE combined with sorafenib and PD-1 mAb60July 2022
NCT03937830Combined Treatment of Durvalumab, Bevacizumab, Tremelimumab and TransarterialChemoembolization (TACE) in Subjects With Hepatocellular Carcinoma or Biliary Tract CarcinomaDrug: durvalumab Drug: Doxorubicin-Eluting Beads Procedure: TACE (and 2 more…)22Dec 2022
NCT03817736Sequential TransArterial Chemoembolization and Stereotactic RadioTherapy With ImmunoTherapy for Downstaging Hepatocellular Carcinoma for HepatectomyProcedure: TACE Radiation: SBRT Drug: Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor33Feb 2022
NCT04268888Nivolumab in Combination With TACE/TAE for Patients With Intermediate Stage HCCDrug: Nivolumab and TACE/TAE Procedure: TACE/TAE522June 2025
NCT03259867Combination of TATE and PD-1 Inhibitor in Liver CancerDrug: Opdivo Injectable Product or Keytruda Injectable Product Combination Product: Trans-arterial tirapazamine embolization80Oct 2020
NCT04191889A Trial of Hepatic Arterial Infusion Combined With Apatinib and Camrelizumab for C-staged Hepatocellular Carcinoma in BCLC ClassificationCombination Product: Hepatic Arterial Infusion combined with Apatinib and Camrelizumab84Dec 2021
NCT03397654Study of Pembrolizumab Following TACE in Primary Liver Carcinoma (PETAL)Drug: Pembrolizumab Combination Product: Trans-arterial chemoembolization26Mar 2020
ICI + radioembolization Thermal ablation and radiotherapy (Stage B)NCT03033446Study of Y90-Radioembolization With Nivolumab in Asians With Hepatocellular CarcinomaRadiation: Y-90 Radioembolization Drug: Nivolumab40Dec 2019
NCT03380130A Study of the Safety and Antitumoral Efficacy of Nivolumab After SIRT for the Treatment of Patients With HCC (NASIR-HCC)Drug: Nivolumab Device: SIR-Spheres40Oct 2019
NCT03753659IMMULAB - Immunotherapy With Pembrolizumab in Combination With Local Ablation in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC)Drug: Pembrolizumab Procedure: Radio Frequency Ablation (RFA) Procedure: Microwave Ablation (MWA) (and 2 more…)30Mar 2022
NCT04193696RT+ Anti-PD-1 for Patients With Advanced HCC (RT+PD-1-HCC)Drug: Radiation therapy and systemic anti-PD-1 immunotherapy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma39June 2020
NCT03864211Thermal Ablation Followed by Immunotherapy for HCCProcedure: Thermal ablation Drug: Toriplimab120Mar 2021
NCT04167293Combination of Sintilimab and Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (ISBRT01)Radiation: stereotactic body radiotherapy Drug: Sintilimab116Nov 2021
NCT03316872Study of Pembrolizumab and Radiotherapy in Liver CancerDrug: Pembrolizumab Radiation: Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT)30Apr 2020
Monotherapy Stage C)NCT01693562A Phase 1/2 Study to Evaluate MEDI4736Drug: MEDI47361022Feb 2020
NCT03389126Phase II Study of Avelumab in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Prior Sorafenib Treatment (Avelumab HCC)Drug: Avelumab30Dec 2019
ICI + TKi (Stage C)NCT01658878An Immuno-therapy Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness, Safety and Tolerability of Nivolumab or Nivolumab in Combination With Other Agents in Patients With Advanced Liver CancerBiological: Nivolumab Drug: Sorafenib Drug: Ipilimumab Drug: Cabozantinib1097Aug 2020
NCT03841201Immunotherapy With Nivolumab in Combination With Lenvatinib for Advanced Stage Hepatocellular CarcinomaDrug: Lenvatinib Drug: Nivolumab50July 2021
NCT04183088Regorafenib Plus Tislelizumab as First-line Systemic Therapy for Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular CarcinomaDrug: Tislelizumab+ regorafenib for part 1;Tislelizumab+ regorafenib for group 1 of part 2; Placebo+regorafenib for group 2 of part 2.125Mar 2024
NCT04310709Combination of Regorafenib and Nivolumab in Unresectable Hepatocellular CarcinomaDrug: Regorafenib/Nivolumab42May 2022
NCT03439891Sorafenib and Nivolumab in Treating Participants With Unresectable, Locally Advanced or Metastatic Liver CancerOther: Laboratory Biomarker Analysis Biological: Nivolumab Drug: Sorafenib40Sept 2022
NCT03170960Study of Cabozantinib in Combination With Atezolizumab to Subjects With LocallyAdvanced or Metastatic Solid TumorsDrug: cabozantinib Drug: atezolizumab1732Dec 2020
NCT03899428Immune Checkpoint Therapy vs. Target Therapy in Reducing Serum HBsAg Levels inPatients With HBsAg+ Advanced Stage HCCDrug: Durvalumab Drug: Sorafenib Drug: Lenvatinib (and 2 more…)30Dec 2021
NCT04442581Cabozantinib and Pembrolizumab for the First-Line Treatment of Advanced Liver CancerDrug: Cabozantinib S-malate Biological: Pembrolizumab29Sept 2023
NCT04523662Study on the Effectiveness and Safety of Carrelizumab Combined With Apatinib Mesylate and Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Advanced Liver CancerDrug: Camrelizumab Apatinib Mesylas27Aug 2022
NCT04212221MGD013 Monotherapy and Combination With Brivanib Dose Escalation and Expansion Study in Advanced Liver Cancer PatientsDrug: MGD013 monotherapy Drug: MGD013 in combination with Brivanib Alaninate300Dec 2022
NCT03463876A Trial of SHR-1210 (an Anti-PD-1 Inhibitor) in Combination With Apatinib in Patients With Advanced HCC(RESCUE)Drug: SHR 1210+apatinib190June 2019
ICI + ICINCT03228667QUILT-3.055: A Study of Combination Immunotherapies in Patients Who Have Previously Received Treatment With Immune Checkpoint InhibitorsDrug: N-803 + Pembrolizumab Drug: N-803 + Nivolumab Drug: N-803 + Atezolizumab (and 7 more…)636June 2021
NCT03311334A Study of DSP-7888 Dosing Emulsion in Combination With Immune CheckpointInhibitors in Adult Patients With Advanced Solid TumorsDrug: DSP-7888 Dosing Emulsion Drug: Nivolumab Drug: Pembrolizumab84Nov 2021
NCT03228667QUILT-3.055: A Study of Combination Immunotherapies in Patients Who Have PreviouslyReceived Treatment With Immune Checkpoint InhibitorsDrug: N-803 + Pembrolizumab Drug: N-803 + Nivolumab Drug: N-803 + Atezolizumab (and 7 more…)636June 2021
NCT04430452Hypofractionated Radiotherapy Followed by Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab for the Treatment of Liver Cancer After Progression on Prior PD-1 InhibitionBiological: Durvalumab Radiation: Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy Biological: Tremelimumab30Aug 2022
NCT04547452Combination of Sintilimab and Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy in AdvancedMetastatic HCCRadiation: Stereotactic body radiation therapy Drug: Anti-PD-1 antibody drug named Sintilimab84July 2022
NCT03655613APL-501 or Nivolumab in Combination With APL-101 in Locally Advanced or Metastatic HCC and RCCBiological: APL-501 Drug: APL-101 Biological: Nivolumab119Sept 2020
NCT04380545Nivolumab, Fluorouracil, and Interferon Alpha 2B for the Treatment of Unresectable Fibrolamellar CancerDrug: Fluorouracil Biological: Nivolumab Biological: Recombinant Interferon Alpha 2b-like Protein15July 2021
NCT02519348A Study of Durvalumab or Tremelimumab Monotherapy, or Durvalumab in Combination With Tremelimumab or Bevacizumab in Advanced Hepatocellular CarcinomaBiological: Durvalumab + tremelimumab Biological: Durvalumab Biological: Tremelimumab Biological: Durvalumab + Bevacizumab433Nov 2020
NCT03755739Trans-Artery/Intra-Tumor Infusion of Checkpoint Inhibitors for Immunotherapy of Advanced Solid TumorsDrug: Checkpoint inhibitor (CPI) such as Pembrolizumab200Nov 2033
NCT02940496Pembrolizumab With or Without Elbasvir/Grazoprevir and Ribavirin in Treating Patients With Advanced Refractory Liver CancerDrug: Elbasvir/Grazoprevir Other: Laboratory Biomarker Analysis Biological: Pembrolizumab Drug: Ribavirin30Dec 2021
NCT03836352Study of an Immunotherapeutic, DPX-Survivac, in Combination With Low DoseCyclophosphamide & Pembrolizumab, in Subjects With Selected Advanced & Recurrent Solid TumorsOther: DPX-Survivac Drug: Cyclophosphamide Drug: Pembrolizumab184Dec 2022
NCT03544723Safety and Efficacy of p53 Gene Therapy Combined With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors inSolid Tumors.Drug: Ad-p5340June 2022
NCT03680508TSR-022 (Anti-TIM-3 Antibody) and TSR-042 (Anti-PD-1 Antibody) in Patients WithLiver CancerDrug: TSR-022 and TSR-04242Oct 2022
CAR-TNCT03941626Autologous CAR-T/TCR-T Cell Immunotherapy for Solid MalignanciesBiological: CAR-T/TCR-T cells immunotherapy50Dec 2020
NCT03638206Autologous CAR-T/TCR-T Cell Immunotherapy for MalignanciesBiological: CAR-T cell immunotherapy73Mar 2023
NCT03013712A Clinical Research of CAR T Cells Targeting EpCAM Positive CancerBiological: CAR-T cell immunotherapy60Dec 2018
ACTNCT03093688Clinical Safety and Efficacy Study of Infusion of iNKT Cells and CD8+T Cells in Patients With Advanced Solid TumorBiological: Infusion of iNKT cells and CD8+T cells40Dec 2021
NCT04502082Study of ET140203 T Cells in Adults With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (ARYA-1)Biological: ET140203 autologous T cell product50Jan 2023
NCT03998033Study of ET140202 T Cells in Adults With Advanced Hepatocellular CarcinomaBiological: ET140202 autologous T cell product50July 2022
NCT03592706Autologous Immune Killer Cells to Treat Liver Cancer Patients as an Adjunct TherapyBiological: IKC (Immune Killer Cells) Procedure: TACE (Transcatheter Arterial Chemoembolization)60Feb 2021
NCT02856815Safety and Efficacy of “Immune Cell-LC” in TACE TherapyBiological: Immuncell-LC78October 30, 2020
OVNCT03071094A Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of the Combination of the Oncolytic Immunotherapy Pexa-Vec With the PD-1 Receptor Blocking Antibody Nivolumab in the First-line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC)Biological: Pexastimogene Devacirepvec (Pexa Vec) Drug: Nivolumab30Sept 2020
VaxNCT03067493RFA Combined With Neo-MASCT for Primary HCC: a Phase II TrialBiological: Neo-MASCT98Mar 2021
Phase I clinical trials
ICI + combinations
Neoadjuvant (Stage A)NCT03682276Safety and Bioactivity of Ipilimumab and Nivolumab Combination Prior to Liver Resection in Hepatocellular CarcinomaBiological: Ipilimumab Biological: Nivolumab32Dec 2020
ICI + TACE (Stage B)NCT03143270A Study to Test the Safety and Feasibility of Nivolumab With Drug Eluting Bead Transarterial Chemoembolization in Patients With Liver CancerDrug: Drug Eluting Bead Transarterial Chemoembolization Drug: Nivolumab14Apr 2022
ICI + radioembolization (Stage B)NCT03099564Pembrolizumab Plus Y90 Radioembolization in HCC SubjectsDrug: Pembrolizumab Device: Y90 radioembolization30July 2020
NCT02837029Nivolumab and Yttrium Y 90 Glass Microspheres in Treating Patients With Advanced Liver CancerOther: Laboratory Biomarker Analysis Biological: Nivolumab Radiation: Yttrium Y 90 Glass Microspheres27July 2019
NCT01658878An Immuno-therapy Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness, Safety and Tolerability of Nivolumab or Nivolumab in Combination With Other Agents in Patients With Advanced Liver CancerBiological: Nivolumab Drug: Sorafenib Drug: Ipilimumab Drug: Cabozantinib1097Aug 2020
NCT03474640Safety, Tolerability and Pharmacokinetics of an Anti-PD-1 Monoclonal Antibody in Subjects With Advanced MalignanciesBiological: Toripalimab, Recombinant Humanized anti-PD-1 Monoclonal Antibody258Aug 2022
NCT03655613APL-501 or Nivolumab in Combination With APL-101 in Locally Advanced or Metastatic HCC and RCCBiological: APL-501 Drug: APL-101 Biological: Nivolumab119Sept 2020
NCT04564313Safety and Efficacy of Camrelizumab (Anti-PD-1 Antibody) in Recurrent HCC After Liver TransplantationDrug: Camrelizumab treatment20July 2021
NCT02940496Pembrolizumab With or Without Elbasvir/Grazoprevir and Ribavirin in Treating Patients With Advanced Refractory Liver CancerDrug: Elbasvir/Grazoprevir Other: Laboratory Biomarker Analysis Biological: Pembrolizumab Drug: Ribavirin30Dec 2021
NCT03203304Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy (SBRT) Followed by Immunotherapy in Liver CancerDrug: Nivolumab Drug: Ipilimumab50Aug 2021
NCT04220944Combined Locoregional Treatment With Immunotherapy for Unresectable HCC.Drug: Sintilimab Procedure: Microwave Ablation Procedure: TACE45June 2021
NCT03864211Thermal Ablation Followed by Immunotherapy for HCCProcedure: Thermal ablation Drug: Toriplimab120Mar 2021
New ICINCT04374877Study of SRF388 in Patients With Advanced Solid TumorsDrug: SRF388122July 2021
CAR-TNCT04121273GPC3-targeted CAR-T Cell for Treating GPC3 Positive Advanced HCCBiological: CAR-T cell immunotherapy20Oct 2021
NCT02905188Glypican 3-specific Chimeric Antigen Receptor Expressing T Cells for Hepatocellular Carcinoma (GLYCAR)Genetic: GLYCAR T cells Drug: Cytoxan Drug: Fludarabine14Dec 2021
NCT03198546GPC3-T2-CAR-T Cells for Immunotherapy of Cancer With GPC3 ExpressionBiological: GPC3 and/or TGFβ targeting CAR-T cells30Aug 2020
NCT03941626Autologous CAR-T/TCR-T Cell Immunotherapy for Solid MalignanciesBiological: CAR-T/TCR-T cells immunotherapy50Dec 2020
NCT03638206Autologous CAR-T/TCR-T Cell Immunotherapy for MalignanciesBiological: CAR-T cell immunotherapy73Mar 2023
NCT03013712A Clinical Research of CAR T Cells Targeting EpCAM Positive CancerBiological: CAR-T cell immunotherapy60Dec 2018
ACTNCT03093688Clinical Safety and Efficacy Study of Infusion of iNKT Cells and CD8+T Cells in Patients With Advanced Solid TumorBiological: Infusion of iNKT cells and CD8+T cells40Dec 2021
NCT04032392Immunotherapy of Advanced Hepatitis B Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma With γδ T CellsBiological: autologous γδ T cells20July 2021
NCT04502082Study of ET140203 T Cells in Adults With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (ARYA-1)Biological: ET140203 autologous T cell product50Jan 2023
NCT03998033Study of ET140202 T Cells in Adults With Advanced Hepatocellular CarcinomaBiological: ET140202 autologous T cell product50July 2022
NCT03132792AFPc332T in Advanced HCCGenetic: Autologous genetically modified AFPc332T cells45June 2021
NCT03441100TCR-engineered T Cells in Solid Tumors: IMA202-101Drug: IMA202 Product Device: IMA_Detect15June 2022
NCT03319459FATE-NK100 as Monotherapy and in Combination With Monoclonal Antibody in Subjects With Advanced Solid TumorsDrug: FATE-NK100 Drug: Cetuximab Drug: Trastuzumab100Oct 2021
NCT03841110FT500 as Monotherapy and in Combination With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Subjects With Advanced Solid TumorsDrug: FT500 Drug: Nivolumab Drug: Pembrolizumab (and 3 more…)76Mar 2022
Agonists/CytokinesNCT02315066Study Of OX40 Agonist PF-04518600 Alone And In Combination With 4-1BB Agonist PF-05082566Drug: PF-04518600 Drug: PF-04518600 plus PF-05082566176Dec 2020
NCT03655002IRX-2, Cyclophosphamide, and Nivolumab in Treating Patients With Recurrent or Metastatic and Refractory Liver CancerDrug: Cyclophosphamide Biological: Cytokine-based Biologic Agent IRX-2 Biological: Nivolumab28June 2022
OVNCT03071094A Trial to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of the Combination of the Oncolytic Immunotherapy Pexa-Vec With the PD-1 Receptor Blocking Antibody Nivolumab in the First-line Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC)Biological: Pexastimogene Devacirepvec (Pexa Vec) Drug: Nivolumab30Sept 2020
VaxNCT04248569DNAJB1-PRKACA Fusion Kinase Peptide Vaccine Combined With Nivolumab and Ipilimumab for Patients With Fibrolamellar Hepatocellular CarcinomaDrug: DNAJB1-PRKACA peptide vaccine Drug: Nivolumab Drug: Ipilimumab12Mar 2024
Clinical trials of immunotherapies for HCC.

The Future of Immunotherapies in HCC Beyond ICI

Besides ICI, several immunotherapeutic strategies for HCC patients are emerging, such as targeted therapies promoting ADCC, adoptive cell therapy (ACT), including the transfer of autologous CD8 T cells, iNKT cells, γδ T cells, cytokine-induced immune killer cells (IKC), chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cells, oncolytic viruses and vaccines (Figure 6). For a number of these strategies, tumor-specific antigens (TSA) or tumor-associated antigens (TAA) are targeted. In HCC, these include α-fetoprotein (109–111), hTERT (112), glypican-3 (GPC3) (113–115), p53 (116), melanoma antigen gene A (MAGE-A) (117), squamous cell carcinoma antigen recognized by T cells (SART) (118), and NY-ESO-1 (119). More recently, the oncogenic phosphatase PRL3 was confirmed as a TAA, as it was shown to be expressed in tumors, but not in patient-matched normal tissue, across 11 cancers. A humanized antibody targeting this TAA, PRL3-zumab, was shown to enhance the intra-tumoral recruitment of B cells, NK cells and macrophages, suggesting that this antibody might promote tumor killing by ADCC (120). Similarly, the elevated expression of GPC3 in >70% of HCC, and its association with poor prognosis (121), has led to the development of several immunotherapeutic strategies, including the humanized monoclonal antibody codrituzumab (122), bi-specific antibodies (123), CAR-T cells (124), antibody-drug conjugates (125), and vaccines (126). GPC3-CAR-T cells have been shown to be polyfunctional and capable of eliminating HCC in a transplantable orthotopic mouse model (127), and there are currently at least 5 phase I clinical trials recruiting patients with HCC to test GPC3-CAR-T cells (Table 1; ClinicalTrials.gov, December 2020). Another CAR-T cell tested in multiple solid tumors including HCC is the EpCAM-CAR-T, as registered in a phase I/II trial (NCT03013712). In a similar approach, a phase I trial is testing the transfer of autologous genetically modified AFPc332T cells, T cells expressing an enhanced TCR Specific for α-fetoprotein in HLA-A2 positive patients with advanced HCC (NCT03132792). In the oncolytic viruses sphere, a phase III trial (NCT02562755) is testing a vaccinia virus-based immunotherapy, Pexastimogene Devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec), in patients with advanced HCC, based on promising results from the phase IIb trial TRAVERSE (128). Pexa-Vec is also being tested in combination with nivolumab in the first-line treatment of advanced HCC in a phase II trial (NCT03071094). As for vaccines, a phase III trial (NCT02232490) is evaluating the benefit of hepcortespenlisimut-L (Hepko-V5), an oral allogeneic vaccine derived from patients' blood, given in an experimental arm vs. placebo, to patients with advanced HCC. Similarly, a phase II trial (NCT03067493) is testing the Neoantigen Multiple Target Antigen Stimulating Cell Therapy (Neo-MASCT) vaccine, which consists of 18 cycles, each including one DC subcutaneous injection and one CTL infusion.
Figure 6

Immunotherapies in ongoing clinical trials for advanced HCC. Several ICIs targeting checkpoints on lymphocytes but also NK and myeloid cells are currently being assessed as monotherapies or in combinations. Additional strategies include CAR-T cells, oncolytic viruses, vaccines, antibody-drug conjugates and bi-specific antibodies.

Immunotherapies in ongoing clinical trials for advanced HCC. Several ICIs targeting checkpoints on lymphocytes but also NK and myeloid cells are currently being assessed as monotherapies or in combinations. Additional strategies include CAR-T cells, oncolytic viruses, vaccines, antibody-drug conjugates and bi-specific antibodies.

Conclusions

HCC comprises a heterogeneous set of cancers with different etiologies, mutations and immune microenvironments, as demonstrated by broad molecular and immunological classifications. The advent of recent technologies including single cell approaches is now allowing high resolution characterization of the immune landscapes of HCC and is expected to uncover novel immunotherapeutic targets and approaches tailored to patients. ICI combination therapies are expected to dramatically improve the systemic therapy of advanced HCC. However, the prioritization of different combinations requires additional understanding of liver-specific immunity and the validation of therapeutic targets in suitable pre-clinical models of HCC taking into consideration the genetic heterogeneity of tumor cells and the cirrhotic or NASH environments. Further, an in-depth characterization of the biomarkers leading to improved patients' response to the various such combinations will contribute to better selection of patients and ameliorate the outcome. Last, a critical issue not discussed here is the management of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) often elicited by immunotherapies and that should be considered in designing and implementing immunotherapies. It is hoped that with the rapidly evolving field of oncoimmunology and trials in different cancer types, we will learn valuable lessons for future drug discovery in HCC.

Author Contributions

JG and MS conceived the structure of this review. DC contributed to the description of the immune landscape of the liver and of HCC and prepared Figure 3. J-FB contributed to the review of clinical activity in HCC. All authors revised the manuscript and approved the final version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
  127 in total

1.  Fibrinogen-like Protein 1 Is a Major Immune Inhibitory Ligand of LAG-3.

Authors:  Jun Wang; Miguel F Sanmamed; Ila Datar; Tina Tianjiao Su; Lan Ji; Jingwei Sun; Ling Chen; Yusheng Chen; Gefeng Zhu; Weiwei Yin; Linghua Zheng; Ting Zhou; Ti Badri; Sheng Yao; Shu Zhu; Agedi Boto; Mario Sznol; Ignacio Melero; Dario A A Vignali; Kurt Schalper; Lieping Chen
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2018-12-20       Impact factor: 41.582

2.  Onco-fetal Reprogramming of Endothelial Cells Drives Immunosuppressive Macrophages in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Ankur Sharma; Justine Jia Wen Seow; Charles-Antoine Dutertre; Rhea Pai; Camille Blériot; Archita Mishra; Regina Men Men Wong; Gurmit Singh Naranjan Singh; Samydurai Sudhagar; Shabnam Khalilnezhad; Sergio Erdal; Hui Min Teo; Ahad Khalilnezhad; Svetoslav Chakarov; Tony Kiat Hon Lim; Alexander Chung Yaw Fui; Alfred Kow Wei Chieh; Cheow Peng Chung; Glenn Kunnath Bonney; Brian Kim-Poh Goh; Jerry K Y Chan; Pierce K H Chow; Florent Ginhoux; Ramanuj DasGupta
Journal:  Cell       Date:  2020-09-24       Impact factor: 41.582

3.  Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

Authors:  Jordi Bruix; Shukui Qin; Philippe Merle; Alessandro Granito; Yi-Hsiang Huang; György Bodoky; Marc Pracht; Osamu Yokosuka; Olivier Rosmorduc; Valeriy Breder; René Gerolami; Gianluca Masi; Paul J Ross; Tianqiang Song; Jean-Pierre Bronowicki; Isabelle Ollivier-Hourmand; Masatoshi Kudo; Ann-Lii Cheng; Josep M Llovet; Richard S Finn; Marie-Aude LeBerre; Annette Baumhauer; Gerold Meinhardt; Guohong Han
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2016-12-06       Impact factor: 79.321

4.  Phase I pharmacologic and biologic study of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B), a fully human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2.

Authors:  Jennifer L Spratlin; Roger B Cohen; Matthew Eadens; Lia Gore; D Ross Camidge; Sami Diab; Stephen Leong; Cindy O'Bryant; Laura Q M Chow; Natalie J Serkova; Neal J Meropol; Nancy L Lewis; E Gabriela Chiorean; Floyd Fox; Hagop Youssoufian; Eric K Rowinsky; S Gail Eckhardt
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-01-04       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  Sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Josep M Llovet; Sergio Ricci; Vincenzo Mazzaferro; Philip Hilgard; Edward Gane; Jean-Frédéric Blanc; Andre Cosme de Oliveira; Armando Santoro; Jean-Luc Raoul; Alejandro Forner; Myron Schwartz; Camillo Porta; Stefan Zeuzem; Luigi Bolondi; Tim F Greten; Peter R Galle; Jean-François Seitz; Ivan Borbath; Dieter Häussinger; Tom Giannaris; Minghua Shan; Marius Moscovici; Dimitris Voliotis; Jordi Bruix
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2008-07-24       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  The immune contexture of hepatocellular carcinoma predicts clinical outcome.

Authors:  Friedrich Foerster; Moritz Hess; Aslihan Gerhold-Ay; Jens Uwe Marquardt; Diana Becker; Peter Robert Galle; Detlef Schuppan; Harald Binder; Ernesto Bockamp
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-03-29       Impact factor: 4.379

7.  TGFβ attenuates tumour response to PD-L1 blockade by contributing to exclusion of T cells.

Authors:  Sanjeev Mariathasan; Shannon J Turley; Dorothee Nickles; Alessandra Castiglioni; Kobe Yuen; Yulei Wang; Edward E Kadel; Hartmut Koeppen; Jillian L Astarita; Rafael Cubas; Suchit Jhunjhunwala; Romain Banchereau; Yagai Yang; Yinghui Guan; Cecile Chalouni; James Ziai; Yasin Şenbabaoğlu; Stephen Santoro; Daniel Sheinson; Jeffrey Hung; Jennifer M Giltnane; Andrew A Pierce; Kathryn Mesh; Steve Lianoglou; Johannes Riegler; Richard A D Carano; Pontus Eriksson; Mattias Höglund; Loan Somarriba; Daniel L Halligan; Michiel S van der Heijden; Yohann Loriot; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Lawrence Fong; Ira Mellman; Daniel S Chen; Marjorie Green; Christina Derleth; Gregg D Fine; Priti S Hegde; Richard Bourgon; Thomas Powles
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2018-02-14       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 8.  Liver sinusoidal endothelial cells - gatekeepers of hepatic immunity.

Authors:  Shishir Shetty; Patricia F Lalor; David H Adams
Journal:  Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 46.802

9.  MYC and Twist1 cooperate to drive metastasis by eliciting crosstalk between cancer and innate immunity.

Authors:  Renumathy Dhanasekaran; Virginie Baylot; Phuoc T Tran; Dean W Felsher; Minsoon Kim; Sibu Kuruvilla; David I Bellovin; Nia Adeniji; Anand Rajan Kd; Ian Lai; Meital Gabay; Ling Tong; Maya Krishnan; Jangho Park; Theodore Hu; Mustafa A Barbhuiya; Andrew J Gentles; Kasthuri Kannan
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2020-01-14       Impact factor: 8.140

10.  TOX is a critical regulator of tumour-specific T cell differentiation.

Authors:  Andrew C Scott; Friederike Dündar; Paul Zumbo; Smita S Chandran; Christopher A Klebanoff; Mojdeh Shakiba; Prerak Trivedi; Laura Menocal; Heather Appleby; Steven Camara; Dmitriy Zamarin; Tyler Walther; Alexandra Snyder; Matthew R Femia; Elizabeth A Comen; Hannah Y Wen; Matthew D Hellmann; Niroshana Anandasabapathy; Yong Liu; Nasser K Altorki; Peter Lauer; Olivier Levy; Michael S Glickman; Jonathan Kaye; Doron Betel; Mary Philip; Andrea Schietinger
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2019-06-17       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  31 in total

1.  Neuregulin 4 suppresses NASH-HCC development by restraining tumor-prone liver microenvironment.

Authors:  Peng Zhang; Zhimin Chen; Henry Kuang; Tongyu Liu; Jiaqiang Zhu; Linkang Zhou; Qiuyu Wang; Xuelian Xiong; Ziyi Meng; Xiaoxue Qiu; Ramiah Jacks; Lu Liu; Siming Li; Carey N Lumeng; Qing Li; Xiang Zhou; Jiandie D Lin
Journal:  Cell Metab       Date:  2022-08-15       Impact factor: 31.373

2.  Novel Paired Cell Lines for the Study of Lipid Metabolism and Cancer Stemness of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Yun-Hsin Cheng; Ying-Chieh Ko; Hsiang-Ju Ku; Ching-Chun Huang; Yu-Ching Yao; Yi-Tzu Liao; Ying-Tsong Chen; Shiu-Feng Huang; Li-Rung Huang
Journal:  Front Cell Dev Biol       Date:  2022-05-26

3.  A Single Nucleotide Mixture Enhances the Antitumor Activity of Molecular-Targeted Drugs Against Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Da Mao; Meihong Xu; Qiyu Jiang; Huiwei Sun; Fang Sun; Ruichuang Yang; Yantao Chai; Xiaojuan Li; Boan Li; Yong Li
Journal:  Front Pharmacol       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 5.988

Review 4.  Advances in Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Yue Chen; Haoyue Hu; Xianglei Yuan; Xue Fan; Chengda Zhang
Journal:  Front Immunol       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 8.786

5.  SMOX expression predicts the prognosis of non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Zhanghao Huang; Shuo Wang; Hai-Jian Zhang; You Lang Zhou; Jia-Hai Shi
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2021-07

6.  SLC39A10 Upregulation Predicts Poor Prognosis, Promotes Proliferation and Migration, and Correlates with Immune Infiltration in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Zuyi Ma; Zhenchong Li; Shujie Wang; Qi Zhou; Zuguang Ma; Chunsheng Liu; Bowen Huang; Zehao Zheng; LinLing Yang; Yiping Zou; Chuanzhao Zhang; Shanzhou Huang; Baohua Hou
Journal:  J Hepatocell Carcinoma       Date:  2021-08-07

Review 7.  Cell Death in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Pathogenesis and Therapeutic Opportunities.

Authors:  Ester García-Pras; Anabel Fernández-Iglesias; Jordi Gracia-Sancho; Sofía Pérez-Del-Pulgar
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-23       Impact factor: 6.639

Review 8.  Emerging Roles of T Cells in the Pathogenesis of Nonalcoholic Steatohepatitis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Authors:  Petra Hirsova; Adebowale O Bamidele; Haiguang Wang; Davide Povero; Xavier S Revelo
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2021-10-28       Impact factor: 6.055

9.  Ariadne's Thread in the Network of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Immunobiology.

Authors:  John Koskinas; Athanasios Armakolas
Journal:  J Clin Transl Hepatol       Date:  2021-06-07

Review 10.  Prospects and Challenges for T Cell-Based Therapies of HCC.

Authors:  Norman Woller; Sophie Anna Engelskircher; Thomas Wirth; Heiner Wedemeyer
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 6.600

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.