Active clinical trials for "Carcinoma, Hepatocellular"

Background: Liver cancer is the sixth most common cancer worldwide. Diagnosing liver cancer usually requires a liver sample. Getting the best sample helps determine whether cancer is present and what kind of cancer it is. But sampling can be difficult. This study will look at combining two devices to provide better liver samples. Objective: To see if combining fusion imaging and optical imaging can better sample areas of concern in the liver and determine the presence of disease. Eligibility: People ages 18 and older who need a liver biopsy as part of diagnosis or treatment. Design: Participants will be screened with: Review of imaging Medical history Physical exam Blood test results Participants will have a dye injected into a vein 24 hours before their biopsy. They will be monitored for 30 minutes for any side effects. For the biopsy, participants skin will be numbed. They may have stickers placed on their belly to help guide the needle. They will have a CT scan to plan the needle s pathway. For the scan, they will lie in a machine that takes pictures of the body. A small camera will be placed near the needle to take pictures of the liver. A medical GPS tracking system will be used. This will guide the needle into the area of the participant s liver where the biopsy will be taken. After the biopsy, participants will recover in the hospital for 4 6 hours. After the procedure, researchers will take the participants biopsy tissue and look at it to try to compare new ways to picture the sample.

This study will compare stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) to trans-arterial chemoembolization (TACE) as a bridging strategy for patients with HCC undergoing liver transplantation. We propose that SBRT will be associated with longer time intervals between initial treatment and the need for retreatment, compared to TACE, as a "bridge" to liver transplantation in subjects with HCC.

The purpose of this study is to investigate both the efficacy and safety of sintilimab combined with bevacizumab and radiotherapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Regorafenib is an oral tumour deactivation agent that potently blocks multiple protein kinases, including kinases involved in tumour angiogenesis (VEGFR1, -2, -3, TIE2), oncogenesis (KIT, RET, RAF-1, BRAF, BRAFV600E), metastasis (VEGFR3, PDGFR, FGFR) and tumour immunity (CSF1R). In particular, regorafenib inhibits mutated KIT, a major oncogenic driver in gastrointestinal stromal tumours, and thereby blocks tumour cell proliferation. Regorafenib has shown in clinical trials an acceptable benefit-risk across different tumor types, including colorectal cancer (CRC), GastroIntestinal Stromal Tumors (GIST) and HCC. The most frequently observed adverse drug reactions (≥30%) in patients receiving regorafenib are pain, hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR), asthenia/fatigue, diarrhea, decreased appetite and food intake, hypertension, and infection. Nivolumab is a human immunoglobulin G4 (IgG4) monoclonal antibody to the programmed death (PD)-1 receptor, blocking the interaction with PD-ligand (PD-L)1/PD-L213 and restoring T-cell-mediated antitumor activity. Nivolumab was evaluated in second-line the CheckMate 040 Study (Escalation and Expansion cohort. In both cohorts of the CheckMate 040 Study, the safety profile was acceptable and there were no reported nivolumab-related deaths. In the dose-expansion cohorts from the Phase 1/2 CheckMate 040 Study, 65% of patients had treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade 18% with Grade 3 or 4 TRAEs with fatigue, pruritus, and rash being the most common. Elevation of aspartate transaminase (AST) and alanine transaminase (ALT) were the most frequent Grade 3-4 TRAEs. AST/ALT elevations, however, were generally asymptomatic and readily managed. For this reason, the rationale of this Phase I/IIa trial is to optimize the action of regorafenib and nivolumab but bearing in mind the potential impact of the drug-interaction and enhancement of the severity and/or frequency of adverse events. Thus, regorafenib will be administered as monotherapy during the first 2 cycles (each cycle is 3 weeks on plus 1 week off) of treatment to enhance T cell trafficking and infiltration into the tumor bed to increase the benefits of anti-PD-PD-L1, specific stimuli while emitting Damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), followed by regorafenib plus nivolumab to impact step 7 of the cancer immunity cycle described by Chen. The anti-PD-L1 effect under hypoxia was evaluated by Noman et al in a tumor model and they postulated that the abrogated myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC)-mediated T cell suppression is achieved in part by modulating the cytokine production (IL-6 and IL-10). Specifically, hypoxia could promote immunosuppression by reducing the cytotoxic efficacy of immune cells, by increasing the peri-tumoral immunosuppressive cell populations infiltration of and priming the expression of immunosuppressive cytokines. Current options for first line are sorafenib and atezolizumab-bevacizumab. Lenvatinib has been shown to be non-inferior to sorafenib, but it is less frequently used and its toxicity profile mandates a stringent selection of patients. Sorafenib shares some molecular targets with regorafenib, but this has specific action against VEGFR-2, VEGFR-3, Tie-2, PDGFR, FGFR-1, c-Kit, RET and p38-alpha7. Both are antiangiogenic as bevacizumab, but while bevacizumab is limited to the VEGF pathway, they act on several additional target involved in cancer progression. Atezolizumab and nivolumab target the PD1 checkpoint but acting at different levels: PD-1 receptor for Nivolumab and PD-L1 for Atezolizumab. This implies a difference and if resistance to one of the antibodies emerges during treatment, the use of the other one may overcome such key event leading to treatment failure. Recently, the combination of tremelimumab and durvalumab improved OS in comparison to sorafenib; in addition, durvalumab monotherapy was not inferior to sorafenib. The aim of this study is to do a sequential treatment combining regorafenib, second- line treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with anti PD-1 to enhance the outcome of patients based on the synergy between both drugs.

A global study to assess the efficacy and safety of durvalumab in combination with bevacizumab or durvalumab alone in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who are at high risk of recurrence.

This study will evaluate the safety and efficacy of pembrolizumab (MK-3475) versus placebo as adjuvant therapy in participants with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and complete radiological response after surgical resection or local ablation. The primary hypotheses of this study are that adjuvant pembrolizumab is superior to placebo with respect to: 1) recurrence-free survival (RFS) as assessed by blinded independent central review (BICR); and 2) overall survival (OS).

This trial aims to improve hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) tumor responses in patients undergoing Y90 radioembolization by using personalized dosimetry as part of treatment planning. Using standard calculations for Y90 doses may not be specific enough for individual patients given that there can be differences in how tumor cells and liver cells respond to radiation. Personalized dose plans may help improve treatment and outcomes in liver cancer.

This randomized phase III trial studies sorafenib tosylate and stereotactic body radiation therapy to see how well they work compared to sorafenib tosylate alone in treating patients with liver cancer. Sorafenib tosylate may stop the growth of tumor cells by blocking some of the enzymes needed for cell growth. Stereotactic body radiation therapy may be able to send the radiation dose directly to the tumor and cause less damage to normal tissue. Giving sorafenib tosylate together with stereotactic body radiation therapy may kill more tumor cells.

The purpose of this study is to find out what effects, good and/or bad, the combination of the drug sorafenib in combination with the drug doxorubicin might have on the growth and spread of liver cancer (HCC).

The purpose of this study is to determine if nivolumab or sorafenib is more effective in the treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.