Hepatocellular Carcinoma

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) annually treats around 450,000 veterans with cancer and diagnoses an additional 56,000.^1,2 Oral multikinase inhibitors (MKIs) are widely used as targeted therapies for many different malignancies. Despite the ease of oral administration, these agents are often accompanied by significant adverse effects (AEs) and drug-drug interactions.^3,4 Common AEs include hypertension, cutaneous reactions, gastrointestinal disturbances, proteinuria, and fatigue. Some serious outcomes that may occur are myocardial infarction, thrombosis, nephrotic syndrome, hemorrhage, hepatotoxicity, and gastrointestinal events.^5,6 Due to poor tolerability of these AEs, dose reductions, frequent therapy holds, and discontinuation of therapy may occur.

The US Food and Drug Administration recognizes dosing challenges with novel therapies and has created the Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) Project Optimus initiative to reform dose optimization in oncology drug development. The initiative aims to shift the focus from establishing dose regimens based on the maximum tolerated doses of cytotoxic chemotherapeutics to an emphasis on maximum efficacy, safety, and tolerability, which better reflect real-world dosing.^7,8

MKIs can be challenging to manage because of the frequent toxicity-related dose reductions, interruptions, and discontinuations. In a multicenter retrospective study, Schnadig et al investigated dosing characteristics of first-line sunitinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and found that, among 114 patients who experienced AEs while taking sunitinib, 39.5% had dose reductions, 5.3% delayed therapy, 18.4% required additional supportive medications, and 22.8% discontinued sunitinib.⁹ Overall survival and median progression-free survival of these patients were lower than reported by Motzer et al in a phase 3 clinical trial.¹⁰ Schnadig et al concluded that patients treated with sunitinib for RCC in the community setting required more frequent dose reductions and had less time on therapy compared with patients in clinical trials, which ultimately impacted clinical outcomes.⁹

At the VA North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS), patients with cancer have difficulty tolerating MKIs and often require dose alterations and/or discontinuation because of drug intolerance rather than discontinuation due to progression. Frequent dose adjustments for toxicity management can place more strain on patients and health care resources because of additional appointments, clinician time, and emergency department visits. Escalating drug costs can also cause concern when prescription doses are unused or changed frequently.

To capture and quantify prescribing practices and dose adjustments, this study evaluated the tolerability of MKIs at VANTHCS. This analysis may also guide clinicians in the selection of starting doses as well as dose titration expectations to optimize MKI therapy.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective chart review analyzed patients receiving oral oncology MKIs for various malignancies at VANTHCS between January 1, 2014, and October 31, 2024. Participants included adults aged ≥ 18 years with a prescription for axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, pazopanib, regorafenib, sorafenib, or sunitinib initiated by the hematology/oncology service at VANTHCS. Patients were included if they had follow-up documentation with the hematology/oncology service and/or other VANTHCS clinicians outlining their course of therapy after MKI initiation. Patients were excluded if they did not have sufficient follow-up documentation (eg, transferred care to a non-VA health care practitioner [HCP], moved to another VA health care system), were enrolled in clinical trials, or were prescribed an MKI from a Care in the Community (CITC) prescriber. Electronic health record review and data collection were performed using the VA Computerized Patient Record System and Research Electronic Data Capture. Data were collected from the time of initiation to cessation of therapy and included information regarding therapy changes, progressive disease, and date of death, when available. Data collected included age, sex, race, comorbidities, date of death, type of malignancy and subtypes, cancer stage, MKI used (ie, drug, dose, frequency, schedule, and indication), dates of medication changes (ie, start, adjustment, hold, discontinuation), concurrent antineoplastic treatments, and AEs documented at times of dose change or interruption.

The primary outcome was MKI tolerance determined using relative dose intensity (RDI) and mean and median time on therapy. Two methods are used to calculate RDI that vary in how they approach time on therapy as outlined in Hawn et al.¹¹ This study used method 2, which accounts for holds in therapy by comparing the actual duration of treatment with the duration expected according to treatment protocol. Method 1 compares the prescribed dose with the administered dose and does not adjust for holds.¹¹ Using method 2, the RDI in this study was calculated by dividing the total actual dose given by the total indicated dose for the malignancy being treated, which accounts for duration of treatment.

The total actual dose was the strength, frequency, and days on therapy for each time frame of treatment multiplied together. This method accounted for all dose adjustments and time periods of treatment holds, including patient self-adjustments, prescriber-directed adjustments, and nonadherence determined by HCP documentation and/or prescription data. Similarly, the indicated total dose was calculated by multiplying the indicated strength, frequency, and all days that treatment should have occurred (time from start to finish). Indicated doses were derived from the prescribing information for each malignancy with the exception of sunitinib, for which the off-label dose of 37.5 mg daily was considered a full dose.^12,13 The total indicated dose for axitinib was calculated by considering the dose escalation schedule from the prescribing information.

Patients who required dose reductions due to renal/hepatic impairments or drug-drug interactions had their total indicated dose calculated using dose adjustments listed in the prescribing information. The mean RDI for each MKI agent was calculated by averaging the RDI for each prescription. The overall combined mean RDI included the means of all the MKIs reviewed to avoid skewing the results toward an MKI with more prescriptions. RDIs were also calculated for each cancer type for each agent. Additional descriptive secondary outcomes included rates of AEs and adjustments in doses.

RESULTS

Electronic data extraction identified 278 patients with 366 MKI prescriptions, of which 108 veterans with 158 MKI prescriptions were excluded. The top reason for exclusion was patients managed through CITC. Ultimately, 170 veterans with 208 MKI prescriptions managed by the VANTHCS hematology/oncology clinic were included (Table 1). Among patients receiving MKIs, the mean age was 72.7 years, 98% were male, and 99% had metastatic disease.

The overall combined mean MKI RDI was 67.5% using method 2 and ranged from 85.5% for sunitinib to 49.0% for sorafenib (Figure 1). Additional information regarding mean and median RDIs using method 2 is shown in Figure 1 and further subdivided by cancer type in Table 2. Median RDIs overall were similar to mean RDIs for most agents. Figure 2 indicates the mean and median time on therapy, reflecting time on therapy excluding days therapy was held. The overall combined mean and median days on therapy for all MKIs were 155 days and 95 days, respectively. Mean time on therapy depended on the agent used and ranged from 35 days (regorafenib) to 237 days (cabozantinib).

Of 208 MKI prescriptions, 127 (61.1%) were initiated at a reduced dose due to baseline concerns for tolerance such as performance status, frailty, and prior intolerance of other treatments. Eighty-one prescriptions (38.9%) were initiated at their indicated doses. Ninety prescriptions (43.3%) required dose reductions during treatment. Some MKI prescriptions had multiple dose increases and decreases, which is why RDI more accurately reflects dose adjustments. A total of 376 AEs that contributed to a dose adjustment, hold, or discontinuation occurred across all MKI prescriptions. The most common AEs were 82 failure-to-thrive events (21.8%) (fatigue, malaise, loss of appetite, reduced mobility, global decline), 79 gastrointestinal events (21.0%) (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain), 62 dermatologic events (16.5%) (rash, hand-foot skin reactions, allergic response), 61 hepatic dysfunction events (16.2%) (liver enzyme elevations, hyperbilirubinemia), 40 cardiovascular events (10.6%) (hypertension, heart failure exacerbations, edema), and 33 renal dysfunction events (8.8%) (acute kidney injury, proteinuria) (Appendix 1).

DISCUSSION

The mean RDI of MKI prescriptions used in the veteran population at VANTHCS was about two-thirds of the indicated dose. These results indicate that most veterans required dose reductions and/or holds due to concerns over initial tolerance/performance status, worsening clinical condition, and/or intolerable AEs attributed to treatment. A retrospective study conducted by Denduluri et al suggested that an RDI of < 85% is a clinically meaningful reduction for traditional chemotherapy based on previous literature.¹⁴ However, it is less clear what RDI should be expected specifically for MKIs in real-world populations. The MKI phase 3 approval trials in RCC for axitinib, lenvatinib, and sunitinib found median RDIs of 89.4%, 69.6% to 70.4%, and 83.9%, respectively. Each trial cited dose reductions most commonly as the result of treatment-related AEs.^15,16

Studies on the impact of RDIs on survival outcomes found that higher RDIs may improve overall and progression-free survival. Retrospective studies inspecting lenvatinib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) indicated that an RDI > 70% in the initial 4 weeks resulted in favorable survival outcomes.¹⁷ Similarly, a retrospective study investigating sunitinib in RCC found that an RDI > 60% conferred favorable survival outcomes.¹⁸ Alghamdi et al noted that patients taking sorafenib for HCC who had RDI > 50% had a favorable trend in survival characteristics. Interestingly, the study found an RDI of 50% to 75% appeared to have better survival than an RDI > 75%.¹⁹ The authors of these studies hypothesized that additional dose reductions allowed for longer total time on therapy due to improved tolerability.^17-19

This analysis found that the RDIs for most MKI agents at VANTHCS were < 85% and lower than the RDIs found in other review articles and phase 3 trials, with the exceptions of pazopanib in thyroid cancer and sunitinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), thyroid cancer, and neuroendocrine cancer. The reasons for the lower RDIs in this study are likely multifactorial, reflecting patient population characteristics, off-label dosing practices, and HCP experiences with these agents. Many veterans have chronic comorbidities that could contribute to reduced performance status and ability to tolerate these therapies. Despite attempts to preemptively reduce doses for patients and account for potential impaired tolerance, there were patients who required further dose reductions in our study.

Failure to thrive was the most common AE leading to dose adjustment or discontinuation, which illustrates the extensive effects these agents have on patient functioning in a real-world population. Notably though, the RDI for sunitinib was higher in this population because about half of patients were dosed using the off-label recommendation, whereas the prescribing information recommends a more intensive 6-week dosing cycle for certain cancer types.^12,13,20 Sorafenib was also often dose-adjusted based on a pharmacokinetic study of sorafenib in renal/hepatic dysfunction, and the RDI likely reflects the off-label prescribing pattern.²¹

Patients with thyroid cancer were found to have higher RDIs compared with those receiving the same agents for other cancer types. Improved tolerability of MKIs in thyroid cancer may be due to a generally more tolerable disease course. Thyroid cancer is the most common cancer in individuals aged < 40 years, a population that is often more robust with fewer comorbidities. Moreover, the 5-year relative survival rate for thyroid cancer remains > 98%.²² This rate is in contrast to those for other cancer types such as HCC, with a 5-year relative survival rate of only 15%.²³

It is challenging to compare the mean and median times on therapy found in this study with those in current literature, as this review included multiple different cancer types for each agent. However, the numbers are generally lower than durations of therapy found across the different disease states and further emphasize the difficulty in tolerating MKIs in the VANTHCS population. Regorafenib had a short duration of time on therapy, which highlights the importance of trials like ReDOS and initiatives such as OCE Project Optimus in helping improve tolerance.^7,8,24

Comparing our results with other studies proved challenging because the RDI calculation methods were not specified. Calculating RDIs in this study using method 1, which does not account for holds, resulted in higher RDIs (Appendix 2). Using method 1, all MKIs had RDIs < 85%, except for pazopanib in thyroid cancer (100%) and RCC (87.9%), and sunitinib in GIST (93.6%), thyroid cancer (100%), and neuroendocrine cancer (93.7%). Notably, using method 1 increased the RDI for pazopanib in neuroendocrine cancer from 5.4% to 50.0%. The low RDI was attributed to a single veteran with a long hold duration, which demonstrates the discrepancy that can occur between the 2 methods.

Limitations

The retrospective design, lack of survival outcomes, and difficulty comparing results with other literature were limitations of this study. Because survival outcomes were not evaluated, future research should seek to investigate how RDIs and dose adjustments made among MKIs can affect survival outcomes in real-world populations. This veteran population with cancer often had multiple chronic comorbidities, which may have contributed to difficulty tolerating MKIs and could have impacted results. Disease-related factors may have influenced the poor tolerance of the MKIs and were not specifically accounted for. Adjustment for comorbidities was not possible because of discrepancies and/or incomplete diagnosis codes and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores documented in patient charts. Therefore, we decided not to report these findings due to potential inaccuracies.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study demonstrate that oncology MKI agents used at VANTHCS were difficult for patients to tolerate, leading to suboptimal dosing compared with indicated doses established in clinical trials and prescribing information. Clinicians may use these data to help guide clinical decision-making whenever initiating and managing MKI agents in this population. These findings reinforce that MKI agents are often difficult to tolerate in real-world practice, and indicated doses are often not achieved. Further studies should aim to investigate the effect that various RDIs have on overall survival. Further investigation into different dosing schemes for MKIs to improve tolerability and longer-term use may also prove beneficial.

This analysis may help guide clinicians to carefully approach dosing MKI agents in the veteran population. Given the RDI and AEs, more clinicians may consider starting at lower than indicated doses with the goal to titrate up as tolerated. Additionally, the results highlight the importance of considering palliative care consults and ensuring appropriate supportive care agents are preemptively engaged and adjusted as needed. Approaching dosing and titrations cautiously may help reduce the burden of management on the health care system.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) annually treats around 450,000 veterans with cancer and diagnoses an additional 56,000.^1,2 Oral multikinase inhibitors (MKIs) are widely used as targeted therapies for many different malignancies. Despite the ease of oral administration, these agents are often accompanied by significant adverse effects (AEs) and drug-drug interactions.^3,4 Common AEs include hypertension, cutaneous reactions, gastrointestinal disturbances, proteinuria, and fatigue. Some serious outcomes that may occur are myocardial infarction, thrombosis, nephrotic syndrome, hemorrhage, hepatotoxicity, and gastrointestinal events.^5,6 Due to poor tolerability of these AEs, dose reductions, frequent therapy holds, and discontinuation of therapy may occur.

The US Food and Drug Administration recognizes dosing challenges with novel therapies and has created the Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) Project Optimus initiative to reform dose optimization in oncology drug development. The initiative aims to shift the focus from establishing dose regimens based on the maximum tolerated doses of cytotoxic chemotherapeutics to an emphasis on maximum efficacy, safety, and tolerability, which better reflect real-world dosing.^7,8

MKIs can be challenging to manage because of the frequent toxicity-related dose reductions, interruptions, and discontinuations. In a multicenter retrospective study, Schnadig et al investigated dosing characteristics of first-line sunitinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and found that, among 114 patients who experienced AEs while taking sunitinib, 39.5% had dose reductions, 5.3% delayed therapy, 18.4% required additional supportive medications, and 22.8% discontinued sunitinib.⁹ Overall survival and median progression-free survival of these patients were lower than reported by Motzer et al in a phase 3 clinical trial.¹⁰ Schnadig et al concluded that patients treated with sunitinib for RCC in the community setting required more frequent dose reductions and had less time on therapy compared with patients in clinical trials, which ultimately impacted clinical outcomes.⁹

At the VA North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS), patients with cancer have difficulty tolerating MKIs and often require dose alterations and/or discontinuation because of drug intolerance rather than discontinuation due to progression. Frequent dose adjustments for toxicity management can place more strain on patients and health care resources because of additional appointments, clinician time, and emergency department visits. Escalating drug costs can also cause concern when prescription doses are unused or changed frequently.

To capture and quantify prescribing practices and dose adjustments, this study evaluated the tolerability of MKIs at VANTHCS. This analysis may also guide clinicians in the selection of starting doses as well as dose titration expectations to optimize MKI therapy.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective chart review analyzed patients receiving oral oncology MKIs for various malignancies at VANTHCS between January 1, 2014, and October 31, 2024. Participants included adults aged ≥ 18 years with a prescription for axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, pazopanib, regorafenib, sorafenib, or sunitinib initiated by the hematology/oncology service at VANTHCS. Patients were included if they had follow-up documentation with the hematology/oncology service and/or other VANTHCS clinicians outlining their course of therapy after MKI initiation. Patients were excluded if they did not have sufficient follow-up documentation (eg, transferred care to a non-VA health care practitioner [HCP], moved to another VA health care system), were enrolled in clinical trials, or were prescribed an MKI from a Care in the Community (CITC) prescriber. Electronic health record review and data collection were performed using the VA Computerized Patient Record System and Research Electronic Data Capture. Data were collected from the time of initiation to cessation of therapy and included information regarding therapy changes, progressive disease, and date of death, when available. Data collected included age, sex, race, comorbidities, date of death, type of malignancy and subtypes, cancer stage, MKI used (ie, drug, dose, frequency, schedule, and indication), dates of medication changes (ie, start, adjustment, hold, discontinuation), concurrent antineoplastic treatments, and AEs documented at times of dose change or interruption.

The primary outcome was MKI tolerance determined using relative dose intensity (RDI) and mean and median time on therapy. Two methods are used to calculate RDI that vary in how they approach time on therapy as outlined in Hawn et al.¹¹ This study used method 2, which accounts for holds in therapy by comparing the actual duration of treatment with the duration expected according to treatment protocol. Method 1 compares the prescribed dose with the administered dose and does not adjust for holds.¹¹ Using method 2, the RDI in this study was calculated by dividing the total actual dose given by the total indicated dose for the malignancy being treated, which accounts for duration of treatment.

The total actual dose was the strength, frequency, and days on therapy for each time frame of treatment multiplied together. This method accounted for all dose adjustments and time periods of treatment holds, including patient self-adjustments, prescriber-directed adjustments, and nonadherence determined by HCP documentation and/or prescription data. Similarly, the indicated total dose was calculated by multiplying the indicated strength, frequency, and all days that treatment should have occurred (time from start to finish). Indicated doses were derived from the prescribing information for each malignancy with the exception of sunitinib, for which the off-label dose of 37.5 mg daily was considered a full dose.^12,13 The total indicated dose for axitinib was calculated by considering the dose escalation schedule from the prescribing information.

Patients who required dose reductions due to renal/hepatic impairments or drug-drug interactions had their total indicated dose calculated using dose adjustments listed in the prescribing information. The mean RDI for each MKI agent was calculated by averaging the RDI for each prescription. The overall combined mean RDI included the means of all the MKIs reviewed to avoid skewing the results toward an MKI with more prescriptions. RDIs were also calculated for each cancer type for each agent. Additional descriptive secondary outcomes included rates of AEs and adjustments in doses.

RESULTS

Electronic data extraction identified 278 patients with 366 MKI prescriptions, of which 108 veterans with 158 MKI prescriptions were excluded. The top reason for exclusion was patients managed through CITC. Ultimately, 170 veterans with 208 MKI prescriptions managed by the VANTHCS hematology/oncology clinic were included (Table 1). Among patients receiving MKIs, the mean age was 72.7 years, 98% were male, and 99% had metastatic disease.

The overall combined mean MKI RDI was 67.5% using method 2 and ranged from 85.5% for sunitinib to 49.0% for sorafenib (Figure 1). Additional information regarding mean and median RDIs using method 2 is shown in Figure 1 and further subdivided by cancer type in Table 2. Median RDIs overall were similar to mean RDIs for most agents. Figure 2 indicates the mean and median time on therapy, reflecting time on therapy excluding days therapy was held. The overall combined mean and median days on therapy for all MKIs were 155 days and 95 days, respectively. Mean time on therapy depended on the agent used and ranged from 35 days (regorafenib) to 237 days (cabozantinib).

Of 208 MKI prescriptions, 127 (61.1%) were initiated at a reduced dose due to baseline concerns for tolerance such as performance status, frailty, and prior intolerance of other treatments. Eighty-one prescriptions (38.9%) were initiated at their indicated doses. Ninety prescriptions (43.3%) required dose reductions during treatment. Some MKI prescriptions had multiple dose increases and decreases, which is why RDI more accurately reflects dose adjustments. A total of 376 AEs that contributed to a dose adjustment, hold, or discontinuation occurred across all MKI prescriptions. The most common AEs were 82 failure-to-thrive events (21.8%) (fatigue, malaise, loss of appetite, reduced mobility, global decline), 79 gastrointestinal events (21.0%) (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain), 62 dermatologic events (16.5%) (rash, hand-foot skin reactions, allergic response), 61 hepatic dysfunction events (16.2%) (liver enzyme elevations, hyperbilirubinemia), 40 cardiovascular events (10.6%) (hypertension, heart failure exacerbations, edema), and 33 renal dysfunction events (8.8%) (acute kidney injury, proteinuria) (Appendix 1).

DISCUSSION

The mean RDI of MKI prescriptions used in the veteran population at VANTHCS was about two-thirds of the indicated dose. These results indicate that most veterans required dose reductions and/or holds due to concerns over initial tolerance/performance status, worsening clinical condition, and/or intolerable AEs attributed to treatment. A retrospective study conducted by Denduluri et al suggested that an RDI of < 85% is a clinically meaningful reduction for traditional chemotherapy based on previous literature.¹⁴ However, it is less clear what RDI should be expected specifically for MKIs in real-world populations. The MKI phase 3 approval trials in RCC for axitinib, lenvatinib, and sunitinib found median RDIs of 89.4%, 69.6% to 70.4%, and 83.9%, respectively. Each trial cited dose reductions most commonly as the result of treatment-related AEs.^15,16

Studies on the impact of RDIs on survival outcomes found that higher RDIs may improve overall and progression-free survival. Retrospective studies inspecting lenvatinib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) indicated that an RDI > 70% in the initial 4 weeks resulted in favorable survival outcomes.¹⁷ Similarly, a retrospective study investigating sunitinib in RCC found that an RDI > 60% conferred favorable survival outcomes.¹⁸ Alghamdi et al noted that patients taking sorafenib for HCC who had RDI > 50% had a favorable trend in survival characteristics. Interestingly, the study found an RDI of 50% to 75% appeared to have better survival than an RDI > 75%.¹⁹ The authors of these studies hypothesized that additional dose reductions allowed for longer total time on therapy due to improved tolerability.^17-19

This analysis found that the RDIs for most MKI agents at VANTHCS were < 85% and lower than the RDIs found in other review articles and phase 3 trials, with the exceptions of pazopanib in thyroid cancer and sunitinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), thyroid cancer, and neuroendocrine cancer. The reasons for the lower RDIs in this study are likely multifactorial, reflecting patient population characteristics, off-label dosing practices, and HCP experiences with these agents. Many veterans have chronic comorbidities that could contribute to reduced performance status and ability to tolerate these therapies. Despite attempts to preemptively reduce doses for patients and account for potential impaired tolerance, there were patients who required further dose reductions in our study.

Failure to thrive was the most common AE leading to dose adjustment or discontinuation, which illustrates the extensive effects these agents have on patient functioning in a real-world population. Notably though, the RDI for sunitinib was higher in this population because about half of patients were dosed using the off-label recommendation, whereas the prescribing information recommends a more intensive 6-week dosing cycle for certain cancer types.^12,13,20 Sorafenib was also often dose-adjusted based on a pharmacokinetic study of sorafenib in renal/hepatic dysfunction, and the RDI likely reflects the off-label prescribing pattern.²¹

Patients with thyroid cancer were found to have higher RDIs compared with those receiving the same agents for other cancer types. Improved tolerability of MKIs in thyroid cancer may be due to a generally more tolerable disease course. Thyroid cancer is the most common cancer in individuals aged < 40 years, a population that is often more robust with fewer comorbidities. Moreover, the 5-year relative survival rate for thyroid cancer remains > 98%.²² This rate is in contrast to those for other cancer types such as HCC, with a 5-year relative survival rate of only 15%.²³

It is challenging to compare the mean and median times on therapy found in this study with those in current literature, as this review included multiple different cancer types for each agent. However, the numbers are generally lower than durations of therapy found across the different disease states and further emphasize the difficulty in tolerating MKIs in the VANTHCS population. Regorafenib had a short duration of time on therapy, which highlights the importance of trials like ReDOS and initiatives such as OCE Project Optimus in helping improve tolerance.^7,8,24

Comparing our results with other studies proved challenging because the RDI calculation methods were not specified. Calculating RDIs in this study using method 1, which does not account for holds, resulted in higher RDIs (Appendix 2). Using method 1, all MKIs had RDIs < 85%, except for pazopanib in thyroid cancer (100%) and RCC (87.9%), and sunitinib in GIST (93.6%), thyroid cancer (100%), and neuroendocrine cancer (93.7%). Notably, using method 1 increased the RDI for pazopanib in neuroendocrine cancer from 5.4% to 50.0%. The low RDI was attributed to a single veteran with a long hold duration, which demonstrates the discrepancy that can occur between the 2 methods.

Limitations

The retrospective design, lack of survival outcomes, and difficulty comparing results with other literature were limitations of this study. Because survival outcomes were not evaluated, future research should seek to investigate how RDIs and dose adjustments made among MKIs can affect survival outcomes in real-world populations. This veteran population with cancer often had multiple chronic comorbidities, which may have contributed to difficulty tolerating MKIs and could have impacted results. Disease-related factors may have influenced the poor tolerance of the MKIs and were not specifically accounted for. Adjustment for comorbidities was not possible because of discrepancies and/or incomplete diagnosis codes and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores documented in patient charts. Therefore, we decided not to report these findings due to potential inaccuracies.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study demonstrate that oncology MKI agents used at VANTHCS were difficult for patients to tolerate, leading to suboptimal dosing compared with indicated doses established in clinical trials and prescribing information. Clinicians may use these data to help guide clinical decision-making whenever initiating and managing MKI agents in this population. These findings reinforce that MKI agents are often difficult to tolerate in real-world practice, and indicated doses are often not achieved. Further studies should aim to investigate the effect that various RDIs have on overall survival. Further investigation into different dosing schemes for MKIs to improve tolerability and longer-term use may also prove beneficial.

This analysis may help guide clinicians to carefully approach dosing MKI agents in the veteran population. Given the RDI and AEs, more clinicians may consider starting at lower than indicated doses with the goal to titrate up as tolerated. Additionally, the results highlight the importance of considering palliative care consults and ensuring appropriate supportive care agents are preemptively engaged and adjusted as needed. Approaching dosing and titrations cautiously may help reduce the burden of management on the health care system.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) annually treats around 450,000 veterans with cancer and diagnoses an additional 56,000.^1,2 Oral multikinase inhibitors (MKIs) are widely used as targeted therapies for many different malignancies. Despite the ease of oral administration, these agents are often accompanied by significant adverse effects (AEs) and drug-drug interactions.^3,4 Common AEs include hypertension, cutaneous reactions, gastrointestinal disturbances, proteinuria, and fatigue. Some serious outcomes that may occur are myocardial infarction, thrombosis, nephrotic syndrome, hemorrhage, hepatotoxicity, and gastrointestinal events.^5,6 Due to poor tolerability of these AEs, dose reductions, frequent therapy holds, and discontinuation of therapy may occur.

The US Food and Drug Administration recognizes dosing challenges with novel therapies and has created the Oncology Center of Excellence (OCE) Project Optimus initiative to reform dose optimization in oncology drug development. The initiative aims to shift the focus from establishing dose regimens based on the maximum tolerated doses of cytotoxic chemotherapeutics to an emphasis on maximum efficacy, safety, and tolerability, which better reflect real-world dosing.^7,8

MKIs can be challenging to manage because of the frequent toxicity-related dose reductions, interruptions, and discontinuations. In a multicenter retrospective study, Schnadig et al investigated dosing characteristics of first-line sunitinib for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and found that, among 114 patients who experienced AEs while taking sunitinib, 39.5% had dose reductions, 5.3% delayed therapy, 18.4% required additional supportive medications, and 22.8% discontinued sunitinib.⁹ Overall survival and median progression-free survival of these patients were lower than reported by Motzer et al in a phase 3 clinical trial.¹⁰ Schnadig et al concluded that patients treated with sunitinib for RCC in the community setting required more frequent dose reductions and had less time on therapy compared with patients in clinical trials, which ultimately impacted clinical outcomes.⁹

At the VA North Texas Health Care System (VANTHCS), patients with cancer have difficulty tolerating MKIs and often require dose alterations and/or discontinuation because of drug intolerance rather than discontinuation due to progression. Frequent dose adjustments for toxicity management can place more strain on patients and health care resources because of additional appointments, clinician time, and emergency department visits. Escalating drug costs can also cause concern when prescription doses are unused or changed frequently.

To capture and quantify prescribing practices and dose adjustments, this study evaluated the tolerability of MKIs at VANTHCS. This analysis may also guide clinicians in the selection of starting doses as well as dose titration expectations to optimize MKI therapy.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective chart review analyzed patients receiving oral oncology MKIs for various malignancies at VANTHCS between January 1, 2014, and October 31, 2024. Participants included adults aged ≥ 18 years with a prescription for axitinib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, pazopanib, regorafenib, sorafenib, or sunitinib initiated by the hematology/oncology service at VANTHCS. Patients were included if they had follow-up documentation with the hematology/oncology service and/or other VANTHCS clinicians outlining their course of therapy after MKI initiation. Patients were excluded if they did not have sufficient follow-up documentation (eg, transferred care to a non-VA health care practitioner [HCP], moved to another VA health care system), were enrolled in clinical trials, or were prescribed an MKI from a Care in the Community (CITC) prescriber. Electronic health record review and data collection were performed using the VA Computerized Patient Record System and Research Electronic Data Capture. Data were collected from the time of initiation to cessation of therapy and included information regarding therapy changes, progressive disease, and date of death, when available. Data collected included age, sex, race, comorbidities, date of death, type of malignancy and subtypes, cancer stage, MKI used (ie, drug, dose, frequency, schedule, and indication), dates of medication changes (ie, start, adjustment, hold, discontinuation), concurrent antineoplastic treatments, and AEs documented at times of dose change or interruption.

The primary outcome was MKI tolerance determined using relative dose intensity (RDI) and mean and median time on therapy. Two methods are used to calculate RDI that vary in how they approach time on therapy as outlined in Hawn et al.¹¹ This study used method 2, which accounts for holds in therapy by comparing the actual duration of treatment with the duration expected according to treatment protocol. Method 1 compares the prescribed dose with the administered dose and does not adjust for holds.¹¹ Using method 2, the RDI in this study was calculated by dividing the total actual dose given by the total indicated dose for the malignancy being treated, which accounts for duration of treatment.

The total actual dose was the strength, frequency, and days on therapy for each time frame of treatment multiplied together. This method accounted for all dose adjustments and time periods of treatment holds, including patient self-adjustments, prescriber-directed adjustments, and nonadherence determined by HCP documentation and/or prescription data. Similarly, the indicated total dose was calculated by multiplying the indicated strength, frequency, and all days that treatment should have occurred (time from start to finish). Indicated doses were derived from the prescribing information for each malignancy with the exception of sunitinib, for which the off-label dose of 37.5 mg daily was considered a full dose.^12,13 The total indicated dose for axitinib was calculated by considering the dose escalation schedule from the prescribing information.

Patients who required dose reductions due to renal/hepatic impairments or drug-drug interactions had their total indicated dose calculated using dose adjustments listed in the prescribing information. The mean RDI for each MKI agent was calculated by averaging the RDI for each prescription. The overall combined mean RDI included the means of all the MKIs reviewed to avoid skewing the results toward an MKI with more prescriptions. RDIs were also calculated for each cancer type for each agent. Additional descriptive secondary outcomes included rates of AEs and adjustments in doses.

RESULTS

Electronic data extraction identified 278 patients with 366 MKI prescriptions, of which 108 veterans with 158 MKI prescriptions were excluded. The top reason for exclusion was patients managed through CITC. Ultimately, 170 veterans with 208 MKI prescriptions managed by the VANTHCS hematology/oncology clinic were included (Table 1). Among patients receiving MKIs, the mean age was 72.7 years, 98% were male, and 99% had metastatic disease.

The overall combined mean MKI RDI was 67.5% using method 2 and ranged from 85.5% for sunitinib to 49.0% for sorafenib (Figure 1). Additional information regarding mean and median RDIs using method 2 is shown in Figure 1 and further subdivided by cancer type in Table 2. Median RDIs overall were similar to mean RDIs for most agents. Figure 2 indicates the mean and median time on therapy, reflecting time on therapy excluding days therapy was held. The overall combined mean and median days on therapy for all MKIs were 155 days and 95 days, respectively. Mean time on therapy depended on the agent used and ranged from 35 days (regorafenib) to 237 days (cabozantinib).

Of 208 MKI prescriptions, 127 (61.1%) were initiated at a reduced dose due to baseline concerns for tolerance such as performance status, frailty, and prior intolerance of other treatments. Eighty-one prescriptions (38.9%) were initiated at their indicated doses. Ninety prescriptions (43.3%) required dose reductions during treatment. Some MKI prescriptions had multiple dose increases and decreases, which is why RDI more accurately reflects dose adjustments. A total of 376 AEs that contributed to a dose adjustment, hold, or discontinuation occurred across all MKI prescriptions. The most common AEs were 82 failure-to-thrive events (21.8%) (fatigue, malaise, loss of appetite, reduced mobility, global decline), 79 gastrointestinal events (21.0%) (nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain), 62 dermatologic events (16.5%) (rash, hand-foot skin reactions, allergic response), 61 hepatic dysfunction events (16.2%) (liver enzyme elevations, hyperbilirubinemia), 40 cardiovascular events (10.6%) (hypertension, heart failure exacerbations, edema), and 33 renal dysfunction events (8.8%) (acute kidney injury, proteinuria) (Appendix 1).

DISCUSSION

The mean RDI of MKI prescriptions used in the veteran population at VANTHCS was about two-thirds of the indicated dose. These results indicate that most veterans required dose reductions and/or holds due to concerns over initial tolerance/performance status, worsening clinical condition, and/or intolerable AEs attributed to treatment. A retrospective study conducted by Denduluri et al suggested that an RDI of < 85% is a clinically meaningful reduction for traditional chemotherapy based on previous literature.¹⁴ However, it is less clear what RDI should be expected specifically for MKIs in real-world populations. The MKI phase 3 approval trials in RCC for axitinib, lenvatinib, and sunitinib found median RDIs of 89.4%, 69.6% to 70.4%, and 83.9%, respectively. Each trial cited dose reductions most commonly as the result of treatment-related AEs.^15,16

Studies on the impact of RDIs on survival outcomes found that higher RDIs may improve overall and progression-free survival. Retrospective studies inspecting lenvatinib in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) indicated that an RDI > 70% in the initial 4 weeks resulted in favorable survival outcomes.¹⁷ Similarly, a retrospective study investigating sunitinib in RCC found that an RDI > 60% conferred favorable survival outcomes.¹⁸ Alghamdi et al noted that patients taking sorafenib for HCC who had RDI > 50% had a favorable trend in survival characteristics. Interestingly, the study found an RDI of 50% to 75% appeared to have better survival than an RDI > 75%.¹⁹ The authors of these studies hypothesized that additional dose reductions allowed for longer total time on therapy due to improved tolerability.^17-19

This analysis found that the RDIs for most MKI agents at VANTHCS were < 85% and lower than the RDIs found in other review articles and phase 3 trials, with the exceptions of pazopanib in thyroid cancer and sunitinib in gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST), thyroid cancer, and neuroendocrine cancer. The reasons for the lower RDIs in this study are likely multifactorial, reflecting patient population characteristics, off-label dosing practices, and HCP experiences with these agents. Many veterans have chronic comorbidities that could contribute to reduced performance status and ability to tolerate these therapies. Despite attempts to preemptively reduce doses for patients and account for potential impaired tolerance, there were patients who required further dose reductions in our study.

Failure to thrive was the most common AE leading to dose adjustment or discontinuation, which illustrates the extensive effects these agents have on patient functioning in a real-world population. Notably though, the RDI for sunitinib was higher in this population because about half of patients were dosed using the off-label recommendation, whereas the prescribing information recommends a more intensive 6-week dosing cycle for certain cancer types.^12,13,20 Sorafenib was also often dose-adjusted based on a pharmacokinetic study of sorafenib in renal/hepatic dysfunction, and the RDI likely reflects the off-label prescribing pattern.²¹

Patients with thyroid cancer were found to have higher RDIs compared with those receiving the same agents for other cancer types. Improved tolerability of MKIs in thyroid cancer may be due to a generally more tolerable disease course. Thyroid cancer is the most common cancer in individuals aged < 40 years, a population that is often more robust with fewer comorbidities. Moreover, the 5-year relative survival rate for thyroid cancer remains > 98%.²² This rate is in contrast to those for other cancer types such as HCC, with a 5-year relative survival rate of only 15%.²³

It is challenging to compare the mean and median times on therapy found in this study with those in current literature, as this review included multiple different cancer types for each agent. However, the numbers are generally lower than durations of therapy found across the different disease states and further emphasize the difficulty in tolerating MKIs in the VANTHCS population. Regorafenib had a short duration of time on therapy, which highlights the importance of trials like ReDOS and initiatives such as OCE Project Optimus in helping improve tolerance.^7,8,24

Comparing our results with other studies proved challenging because the RDI calculation methods were not specified. Calculating RDIs in this study using method 1, which does not account for holds, resulted in higher RDIs (Appendix 2). Using method 1, all MKIs had RDIs < 85%, except for pazopanib in thyroid cancer (100%) and RCC (87.9%), and sunitinib in GIST (93.6%), thyroid cancer (100%), and neuroendocrine cancer (93.7%). Notably, using method 1 increased the RDI for pazopanib in neuroendocrine cancer from 5.4% to 50.0%. The low RDI was attributed to a single veteran with a long hold duration, which demonstrates the discrepancy that can occur between the 2 methods.

Limitations

The retrospective design, lack of survival outcomes, and difficulty comparing results with other literature were limitations of this study. Because survival outcomes were not evaluated, future research should seek to investigate how RDIs and dose adjustments made among MKIs can affect survival outcomes in real-world populations. This veteran population with cancer often had multiple chronic comorbidities, which may have contributed to difficulty tolerating MKIs and could have impacted results. Disease-related factors may have influenced the poor tolerance of the MKIs and were not specifically accounted for. Adjustment for comorbidities was not possible because of discrepancies and/or incomplete diagnosis codes and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status scores documented in patient charts. Therefore, we decided not to report these findings due to potential inaccuracies.

CONCLUSIONS

Results of this study demonstrate that oncology MKI agents used at VANTHCS were difficult for patients to tolerate, leading to suboptimal dosing compared with indicated doses established in clinical trials and prescribing information. Clinicians may use these data to help guide clinical decision-making whenever initiating and managing MKI agents in this population. These findings reinforce that MKI agents are often difficult to tolerate in real-world practice, and indicated doses are often not achieved. Further studies should aim to investigate the effect that various RDIs have on overall survival. Further investigation into different dosing schemes for MKIs to improve tolerability and longer-term use may also prove beneficial.

This analysis may help guide clinicians to carefully approach dosing MKI agents in the veteran population. Given the RDI and AEs, more clinicians may consider starting at lower than indicated doses with the goal to titrate up as tolerated. Additionally, the results highlight the importance of considering palliative care consults and ensuring appropriate supportive care agents are preemptively engaged and adjusted as needed. Approaching dosing and titrations cautiously may help reduce the burden of management on the health care system.

BERLIN — Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) could be detected earlier, treated more effectively, and prevented more widely if European countries adopt structured, risk-stratified surveillance alongside systemic public health strategies, according to a joint statement from United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS).

The statement calls on EU and national policymakers to embed a twofold approach into healthcare systems that combines surveillance and prevention, rather than relying on voluntary participation. It also encourages stronger prevention measures, such as improved food labeling and restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children. The statement — which was also endorsed by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) — was presented at UEG Week 2025 . 

“Curing HCC in early stages rather than treating the disease in a palliative setting should be the goal for all liver doctors and carers, and this is certainly the goal for patients,” said Thomas Seufferlein, MD, professor of gastroenterology at Ulm University, Germany, and one of the members of the DGVS who initiated the statement.

“We have to take HCC screening seriously which means setting up a structured, nationwide, well-documented, and evaluated program for HCC screening in Germany,” he said in an interview.

HCC is mainly curable in the early stages by local ablation, resection, or liver transplantation, “so early diagnosis is of the utmost importance for improving survival,” added Patrick Michl, MD, gastroenterologist, University of Heidelberg, Germany, DGVS member and co-initiator of the statement.

 

Risk-Stratified HCC Surveillance

In the face of rising rates worldwide, the UEG/DGVS call on policymakers to recognize liver cancer as a preventable and growing public health priority and to implement structured surveillance programs guided by risk thresholds. In particular, they support the recent policy statement from EASL recommending risk-based screening.

EASL’s key recommendations include:

• Targeted surveillance for individuals with an annual HCC risk exceeding 1.5%, where it is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective
• Risk scoring tools such as the age-male-albumin-bilirubin-platelets score that incorporates age, sex, platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin, to stratify patients by HCC risk, including those without established cirrhosis
• Enhanced surveillance for very high-risk groups, where MRI-based surveillance may be warranted despite higher costs, given its superior sensitivity for early-stage disease
• A de-escalation in low-risk individuals
• Patients with an annual HCC risk < 0.5% may be safely spared surveillance, avoiding unnecessary interventions

Evidence from France, Italy, and the UK showed that structured surveillance in high-risk groups is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective. National models in France have demonstrated higher curative treatment rates and fewer costly late-stage cases with structured surveillance. In the UK, health technology assessments indicate targeted surveillance is an efficient use of National Health Services resources, particularly when uptake is optimized. Italian models show that earlier diagnosis in well-defined high-risk groups can offset downstream treatment costs.

Seufferlein noted that Germany needs a “structured program to be implemented and there is currently little public awareness regarding this surveillance strategy.” However, he added there is a structured hepatitis B vaccination program in Germany, which has been successful. “Studies show that the inclusion of hep B vaccination in infancy and childhood has led to good uptake among young age groups.”

Germany, however, has yet to conduct national studies. “Prospective data on HCC surveillance benefits in Germany are lacking,” said Michl, “but multi-country models incorporating Germany’s cost structures suggest similar benefits would accrue if there were greater adherence to guideline-based recommendations and if publicly funded screening programs were implemented.”

Current recommendations in Germany for surveillance are based on evidence-based guidelines of the DGVS with stronger (‘should’) or weaker (‘may’) evidence-based recommendations. For example, patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection should be offered regular surveillance once their platelet age gender–hepatitis B risk score is ≥ 10. In patients with advanced fibrosis because of chronic hepatitis C virus infection, regular surveillance should also be offered.

 

Barriers to Screening Uptake

HCC remains one of the most lethal cancers in Europe, largely because it is often diagnosed too late. Underdiagnosis of chronic liver disease, limited access to imaging, and reimbursement gaps prevent timely intervention.

Maria Buti, MD, consultant hepatologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved in drafting the statement, remarked that “Patients with liver cirrhosis, or with advanced fibrosis, and also some high-risk noncirrhotic patients such as those with hepatitis B, clearly benefit from surveillance. Surveillance can change life expectancy and also reduce morbidity.”

However, structural barriers continue to impede uptake. “It is not always easy to identify patients with liver cirrhosis because the majority are completely asymptomatic in the early stages,” she said.

Even when risk factors are identified, adherence to 6-monthly surveillance remains patchy. “Sometimes physicians forget to request ultrasounds, or patients don’t understand the importance of it because they feel well,” Buti told GI & Hepatology News.

 

Expanded Training and Public Health Measures

The joint statement also advocates for expanded physician training in nutrition and hepatology, equitable access to diagnostic tools including MRI, and EU-wide nutrition labeling systems such as Nutri-Score.

The authors also called for strengthened public health measures to tackle obesity, alcohol misuse, and hepatitis transmission, and fiscal and regulatory measures such as taxation of obesogenic foods, and reducing the cost burden of healthier foods.

“If we decrease the percentage of people with liver cirrhosis through prevention, fewer people will need surveillance,” Buti stated.

Seufferlein, Michl, and Buti all declared no relevant disclosures. All three experts are members of the UEG Public Affairs Group.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) could be detected earlier, treated more effectively, and prevented more widely if European countries adopt structured, risk-stratified surveillance alongside systemic public health strategies, according to a joint statement from United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS).

The statement calls on EU and national policymakers to embed a twofold approach into healthcare systems that combines surveillance and prevention, rather than relying on voluntary participation. It also encourages stronger prevention measures, such as improved food labeling and restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children. The statement — which was also endorsed by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) — was presented at UEG Week 2025 . 

“Curing HCC in early stages rather than treating the disease in a palliative setting should be the goal for all liver doctors and carers, and this is certainly the goal for patients,” said Thomas Seufferlein, MD, professor of gastroenterology at Ulm University, Germany, and one of the members of the DGVS who initiated the statement.

“We have to take HCC screening seriously which means setting up a structured, nationwide, well-documented, and evaluated program for HCC screening in Germany,” he said in an interview.

HCC is mainly curable in the early stages by local ablation, resection, or liver transplantation, “so early diagnosis is of the utmost importance for improving survival,” added Patrick Michl, MD, gastroenterologist, University of Heidelberg, Germany, DGVS member and co-initiator of the statement.

 

Risk-Stratified HCC Surveillance

In the face of rising rates worldwide, the UEG/DGVS call on policymakers to recognize liver cancer as a preventable and growing public health priority and to implement structured surveillance programs guided by risk thresholds. In particular, they support the recent policy statement from EASL recommending risk-based screening.

EASL’s key recommendations include:

• Targeted surveillance for individuals with an annual HCC risk exceeding 1.5%, where it is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective
• Risk scoring tools such as the age-male-albumin-bilirubin-platelets score that incorporates age, sex, platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin, to stratify patients by HCC risk, including those without established cirrhosis
• Enhanced surveillance for very high-risk groups, where MRI-based surveillance may be warranted despite higher costs, given its superior sensitivity for early-stage disease
• A de-escalation in low-risk individuals
• Patients with an annual HCC risk < 0.5% may be safely spared surveillance, avoiding unnecessary interventions

Evidence from France, Italy, and the UK showed that structured surveillance in high-risk groups is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective. National models in France have demonstrated higher curative treatment rates and fewer costly late-stage cases with structured surveillance. In the UK, health technology assessments indicate targeted surveillance is an efficient use of National Health Services resources, particularly when uptake is optimized. Italian models show that earlier diagnosis in well-defined high-risk groups can offset downstream treatment costs.

Seufferlein noted that Germany needs a “structured program to be implemented and there is currently little public awareness regarding this surveillance strategy.” However, he added there is a structured hepatitis B vaccination program in Germany, which has been successful. “Studies show that the inclusion of hep B vaccination in infancy and childhood has led to good uptake among young age groups.”

Germany, however, has yet to conduct national studies. “Prospective data on HCC surveillance benefits in Germany are lacking,” said Michl, “but multi-country models incorporating Germany’s cost structures suggest similar benefits would accrue if there were greater adherence to guideline-based recommendations and if publicly funded screening programs were implemented.”

Current recommendations in Germany for surveillance are based on evidence-based guidelines of the DGVS with stronger (‘should’) or weaker (‘may’) evidence-based recommendations. For example, patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection should be offered regular surveillance once their platelet age gender–hepatitis B risk score is ≥ 10. In patients with advanced fibrosis because of chronic hepatitis C virus infection, regular surveillance should also be offered.

 

Barriers to Screening Uptake

HCC remains one of the most lethal cancers in Europe, largely because it is often diagnosed too late. Underdiagnosis of chronic liver disease, limited access to imaging, and reimbursement gaps prevent timely intervention.

Maria Buti, MD, consultant hepatologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved in drafting the statement, remarked that “Patients with liver cirrhosis, or with advanced fibrosis, and also some high-risk noncirrhotic patients such as those with hepatitis B, clearly benefit from surveillance. Surveillance can change life expectancy and also reduce morbidity.”

However, structural barriers continue to impede uptake. “It is not always easy to identify patients with liver cirrhosis because the majority are completely asymptomatic in the early stages,” she said.

Even when risk factors are identified, adherence to 6-monthly surveillance remains patchy. “Sometimes physicians forget to request ultrasounds, or patients don’t understand the importance of it because they feel well,” Buti told GI & Hepatology News.

 

Expanded Training and Public Health Measures

The joint statement also advocates for expanded physician training in nutrition and hepatology, equitable access to diagnostic tools including MRI, and EU-wide nutrition labeling systems such as Nutri-Score.

The authors also called for strengthened public health measures to tackle obesity, alcohol misuse, and hepatitis transmission, and fiscal and regulatory measures such as taxation of obesogenic foods, and reducing the cost burden of healthier foods.

“If we decrease the percentage of people with liver cirrhosis through prevention, fewer people will need surveillance,” Buti stated.

Seufferlein, Michl, and Buti all declared no relevant disclosures. All three experts are members of the UEG Public Affairs Group.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BERLIN — Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) could be detected earlier, treated more effectively, and prevented more widely if European countries adopt structured, risk-stratified surveillance alongside systemic public health strategies, according to a joint statement from United European Gastroenterology (UEG) and the German Society for Gastroenterology, Digestive and Metabolic Diseases (DGVS).

The statement calls on EU and national policymakers to embed a twofold approach into healthcare systems that combines surveillance and prevention, rather than relying on voluntary participation. It also encourages stronger prevention measures, such as improved food labeling and restrictions on marketing unhealthy foods to children. The statement — which was also endorsed by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) — was presented at UEG Week 2025 . 

“Curing HCC in early stages rather than treating the disease in a palliative setting should be the goal for all liver doctors and carers, and this is certainly the goal for patients,” said Thomas Seufferlein, MD, professor of gastroenterology at Ulm University, Germany, and one of the members of the DGVS who initiated the statement.

“We have to take HCC screening seriously which means setting up a structured, nationwide, well-documented, and evaluated program for HCC screening in Germany,” he said in an interview.

HCC is mainly curable in the early stages by local ablation, resection, or liver transplantation, “so early diagnosis is of the utmost importance for improving survival,” added Patrick Michl, MD, gastroenterologist, University of Heidelberg, Germany, DGVS member and co-initiator of the statement.

 

Risk-Stratified HCC Surveillance

In the face of rising rates worldwide, the UEG/DGVS call on policymakers to recognize liver cancer as a preventable and growing public health priority and to implement structured surveillance programs guided by risk thresholds. In particular, they support the recent policy statement from EASL recommending risk-based screening.

EASL’s key recommendations include:

• Targeted surveillance for individuals with an annual HCC risk exceeding 1.5%, where it is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective
• Risk scoring tools such as the age-male-albumin-bilirubin-platelets score that incorporates age, sex, platelet count, albumin, and bilirubin, to stratify patients by HCC risk, including those without established cirrhosis
• Enhanced surveillance for very high-risk groups, where MRI-based surveillance may be warranted despite higher costs, given its superior sensitivity for early-stage disease
• A de-escalation in low-risk individuals
• Patients with an annual HCC risk < 0.5% may be safely spared surveillance, avoiding unnecessary interventions

Evidence from France, Italy, and the UK showed that structured surveillance in high-risk groups is both clinically beneficial and cost-effective. National models in France have demonstrated higher curative treatment rates and fewer costly late-stage cases with structured surveillance. In the UK, health technology assessments indicate targeted surveillance is an efficient use of National Health Services resources, particularly when uptake is optimized. Italian models show that earlier diagnosis in well-defined high-risk groups can offset downstream treatment costs.

Seufferlein noted that Germany needs a “structured program to be implemented and there is currently little public awareness regarding this surveillance strategy.” However, he added there is a structured hepatitis B vaccination program in Germany, which has been successful. “Studies show that the inclusion of hep B vaccination in infancy and childhood has led to good uptake among young age groups.”

Germany, however, has yet to conduct national studies. “Prospective data on HCC surveillance benefits in Germany are lacking,” said Michl, “but multi-country models incorporating Germany’s cost structures suggest similar benefits would accrue if there were greater adherence to guideline-based recommendations and if publicly funded screening programs were implemented.”

Current recommendations in Germany for surveillance are based on evidence-based guidelines of the DGVS with stronger (‘should’) or weaker (‘may’) evidence-based recommendations. For example, patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection should be offered regular surveillance once their platelet age gender–hepatitis B risk score is ≥ 10. In patients with advanced fibrosis because of chronic hepatitis C virus infection, regular surveillance should also be offered.

 

Barriers to Screening Uptake

HCC remains one of the most lethal cancers in Europe, largely because it is often diagnosed too late. Underdiagnosis of chronic liver disease, limited access to imaging, and reimbursement gaps prevent timely intervention.

Maria Buti, MD, consultant hepatologist, Hospital Vall d’Hebron, Barcelona, Spain, who was not involved in drafting the statement, remarked that “Patients with liver cirrhosis, or with advanced fibrosis, and also some high-risk noncirrhotic patients such as those with hepatitis B, clearly benefit from surveillance. Surveillance can change life expectancy and also reduce morbidity.”

However, structural barriers continue to impede uptake. “It is not always easy to identify patients with liver cirrhosis because the majority are completely asymptomatic in the early stages,” she said.

Even when risk factors are identified, adherence to 6-monthly surveillance remains patchy. “Sometimes physicians forget to request ultrasounds, or patients don’t understand the importance of it because they feel well,” Buti told GI & Hepatology News.

 

Expanded Training and Public Health Measures

The joint statement also advocates for expanded physician training in nutrition and hepatology, equitable access to diagnostic tools including MRI, and EU-wide nutrition labeling systems such as Nutri-Score.

The authors also called for strengthened public health measures to tackle obesity, alcohol misuse, and hepatitis transmission, and fiscal and regulatory measures such as taxation of obesogenic foods, and reducing the cost burden of healthier foods.

“If we decrease the percentage of people with liver cirrhosis through prevention, fewer people will need surveillance,” Buti stated.

Seufferlein, Michl, and Buti all declared no relevant disclosures. All three experts are members of the UEG Public Affairs Group.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Purpose

The aim of this study is to quantify the frequency of Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Precision Oncology Knowledge Base (OncoKB) Level 1 genetic alterations in Veterans with various solid organ malignancies and evaluate the clinical benefit and impact of testing on treatment of these patients.

Background

The VA National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP) facilitates comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) testing of Veterans with advanced cancer. While CGP is increasingly utilized and routinely ordered in patients with advanced solid organ malignancies, the clinical utility and value has not been proven in certain cancers. We present data from 5,979 patients with head and neck (H&N), pancreatic, hepatocellular (HCC), esophageal and kidney cancers who underwent CGP.

Methods

Our cohort consists of Veterans that received CGP testing to identify somatic variants between 1/1/2019 and 4/2/2025. Identified variants and biomarkers were formatted for use with oncoKB-annotator, a publicly available tool to annotate genomic variants with FDA approved drug recommendations stored as Level 1 annotations in OncoKB, and prescribed drugs were extracted from the Veteran Health Administration’s (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). Cancers were grouped by MSK’s OncoTree codes, and summary counts of Veterans tested, Veterans recommended, Veterans prescribed recommended FDA approved drugs were determined. Percentages were calculated using the total number of Veterans tested as the denominator.

Results

Level 1 OncoKB alterations were infrequent in H&N (0.94%), kidney (0.45%), HCC(0.28%), and pancreatic adenocarcinomas (1%). The frequency of Level 1 alterations in esophageal adenocarcinomas (EAC) was 20%. Approximately 98% of the Level 1 alterations in EAC patients were HER2 positivity or MSI-High status, which can be determined by other diagnostic methodologies such as IHC. The remaining 2% of EAC patients with level 1 alterations had BRAF V600E or NTRK rearrangements.

Conclusions

The incidence of level 1 genetic variants in H&N, kidney, HCC and pancreatic adenocarcinoma is very low and would very uncommonly result in clinical benefit. Although there is an expanding number of precision oncology-based therapies available, the proportion of patients with the aforementioned solid organ malignancies who benefitted from CGP was low, suggesting CGP has minimal impact on the treatment of Veterans with these malignancies.

Purpose

The aim of this study is to quantify the frequency of Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Precision Oncology Knowledge Base (OncoKB) Level 1 genetic alterations in Veterans with various solid organ malignancies and evaluate the clinical benefit and impact of testing on treatment of these patients.

Background

The VA National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP) facilitates comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) testing of Veterans with advanced cancer. While CGP is increasingly utilized and routinely ordered in patients with advanced solid organ malignancies, the clinical utility and value has not been proven in certain cancers. We present data from 5,979 patients with head and neck (H&N), pancreatic, hepatocellular (HCC), esophageal and kidney cancers who underwent CGP.

Methods

Our cohort consists of Veterans that received CGP testing to identify somatic variants between 1/1/2019 and 4/2/2025. Identified variants and biomarkers were formatted for use with oncoKB-annotator, a publicly available tool to annotate genomic variants with FDA approved drug recommendations stored as Level 1 annotations in OncoKB, and prescribed drugs were extracted from the Veteran Health Administration’s (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). Cancers were grouped by MSK’s OncoTree codes, and summary counts of Veterans tested, Veterans recommended, Veterans prescribed recommended FDA approved drugs were determined. Percentages were calculated using the total number of Veterans tested as the denominator.

Results

Level 1 OncoKB alterations were infrequent in H&N (0.94%), kidney (0.45%), HCC(0.28%), and pancreatic adenocarcinomas (1%). The frequency of Level 1 alterations in esophageal adenocarcinomas (EAC) was 20%. Approximately 98% of the Level 1 alterations in EAC patients were HER2 positivity or MSI-High status, which can be determined by other diagnostic methodologies such as IHC. The remaining 2% of EAC patients with level 1 alterations had BRAF V600E or NTRK rearrangements.

Conclusions

The incidence of level 1 genetic variants in H&N, kidney, HCC and pancreatic adenocarcinoma is very low and would very uncommonly result in clinical benefit. Although there is an expanding number of precision oncology-based therapies available, the proportion of patients with the aforementioned solid organ malignancies who benefitted from CGP was low, suggesting CGP has minimal impact on the treatment of Veterans with these malignancies.

Purpose

The aim of this study is to quantify the frequency of Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) Precision Oncology Knowledge Base (OncoKB) Level 1 genetic alterations in Veterans with various solid organ malignancies and evaluate the clinical benefit and impact of testing on treatment of these patients.

Background

The VA National Precision Oncology Program (NPOP) facilitates comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) testing of Veterans with advanced cancer. While CGP is increasingly utilized and routinely ordered in patients with advanced solid organ malignancies, the clinical utility and value has not been proven in certain cancers. We present data from 5,979 patients with head and neck (H&N), pancreatic, hepatocellular (HCC), esophageal and kidney cancers who underwent CGP.

Methods

Our cohort consists of Veterans that received CGP testing to identify somatic variants between 1/1/2019 and 4/2/2025. Identified variants and biomarkers were formatted for use with oncoKB-annotator, a publicly available tool to annotate genomic variants with FDA approved drug recommendations stored as Level 1 annotations in OncoKB, and prescribed drugs were extracted from the Veteran Health Administration’s (VHA) Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). Cancers were grouped by MSK’s OncoTree codes, and summary counts of Veterans tested, Veterans recommended, Veterans prescribed recommended FDA approved drugs were determined. Percentages were calculated using the total number of Veterans tested as the denominator.

Results

Level 1 OncoKB alterations were infrequent in H&N (0.94%), kidney (0.45%), HCC(0.28%), and pancreatic adenocarcinomas (1%). The frequency of Level 1 alterations in esophageal adenocarcinomas (EAC) was 20%. Approximately 98% of the Level 1 alterations in EAC patients were HER2 positivity or MSI-High status, which can be determined by other diagnostic methodologies such as IHC. The remaining 2% of EAC patients with level 1 alterations had BRAF V600E or NTRK rearrangements.

Conclusions

The incidence of level 1 genetic variants in H&N, kidney, HCC and pancreatic adenocarcinoma is very low and would very uncommonly result in clinical benefit. Although there is an expanding number of precision oncology-based therapies available, the proportion of patients with the aforementioned solid organ malignancies who benefitted from CGP was low, suggesting CGP has minimal impact on the treatment of Veterans with these malignancies.

Below are some selections from what I am reading in the AGA journals, highlighting clinically applicable and possibly practice-changing expert reviews and studies.

Esophagus/Motility

Carlson DA, et al. A Standardized Approach to Performing and Interpreting Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Panometry for Esophageal Motility Disorders: The Dallas Consensus. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.234.

Parkman HP, et al; NIDDK Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium. Characterization of Patients with Symptoms of Gastroparesis Having Frequent Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalizations. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.033.

Dellon ES, et al. Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Budesonide Oral Suspension for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A 4-Year, Phase 3, Open-Label Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.024.

Small Bowel

Hård Af Segerstad EM, et al; TEDDY Study Group. Early Dietary Fiber Intake Reduces Celiac Disease Risk in Genetically Prone Children: Insights From the TEDDY Study. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.241.

Colon

Shaukat A, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Current Role of Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Commentary. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.04.003.

Bergman D, et al. Cholecystectomy is a Risk Factor for Microscopic Colitis: A Nationwide Population-based Matched Case Control Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.032.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Ben-Horin S, et al; Israeli IBD Research Nucleus (IIRN). Capsule Endoscopy-Guided Proactive Treat-to-Target Versus Continued Standard Care in Patients With Quiescent Crohn’s Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.031.

Pancreas

Guilabert L, et al; ERICA Consortium. Impact of Fluid Therapy in the Emergency Department in Acute Pancreatitis: a posthoc analysis of the WATERFALL Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.038.

Hepatology

Rhee H, et al. Noncontrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs Ultrasonography for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance: A Randomized, Single-Center Trial. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.12.035.

Kronsten VT, et al. Hepatic Encephalopathy: When Lactulose and Rifaximin Are Not Working. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.010.

Edelson JC, et al. Accuracy and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound–Guided Liver Biopsy in Patients with Metabolic Dysfunction–Associated Liver Disease. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250918.

Miscellaneous

Martin J, et al. Practical and Impactful Tips for Private Industry Collaborations with Gastroenterology Practices. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.021.

Tejada, Natalia et al. Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Are Not Associated With Increased Incidence of Pneumonia After Endoscopic Procedures. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250925.

Lazaridis KN, et al. Microplastics and Nanoplastics and the Digestive System. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 May. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100694.

Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.

Below are some selections from what I am reading in the AGA journals, highlighting clinically applicable and possibly practice-changing expert reviews and studies.

Esophagus/Motility

Carlson DA, et al. A Standardized Approach to Performing and Interpreting Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Panometry for Esophageal Motility Disorders: The Dallas Consensus. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.234.

Parkman HP, et al; NIDDK Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium. Characterization of Patients with Symptoms of Gastroparesis Having Frequent Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalizations. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.033.

Dellon ES, et al. Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Budesonide Oral Suspension for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A 4-Year, Phase 3, Open-Label Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.024.

Small Bowel

Hård Af Segerstad EM, et al; TEDDY Study Group. Early Dietary Fiber Intake Reduces Celiac Disease Risk in Genetically Prone Children: Insights From the TEDDY Study. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.241.

Colon

Shaukat A, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Current Role of Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Commentary. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.04.003.

Bergman D, et al. Cholecystectomy is a Risk Factor for Microscopic Colitis: A Nationwide Population-based Matched Case Control Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.032.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Ben-Horin S, et al; Israeli IBD Research Nucleus (IIRN). Capsule Endoscopy-Guided Proactive Treat-to-Target Versus Continued Standard Care in Patients With Quiescent Crohn’s Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.031.

Pancreas

Guilabert L, et al; ERICA Consortium. Impact of Fluid Therapy in the Emergency Department in Acute Pancreatitis: a posthoc analysis of the WATERFALL Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.038.

Hepatology

Rhee H, et al. Noncontrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs Ultrasonography for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance: A Randomized, Single-Center Trial. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.12.035.

Kronsten VT, et al. Hepatic Encephalopathy: When Lactulose and Rifaximin Are Not Working. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.010.

Edelson JC, et al. Accuracy and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound–Guided Liver Biopsy in Patients with Metabolic Dysfunction–Associated Liver Disease. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250918.

Miscellaneous

Martin J, et al. Practical and Impactful Tips for Private Industry Collaborations with Gastroenterology Practices. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.021.

Tejada, Natalia et al. Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Are Not Associated With Increased Incidence of Pneumonia After Endoscopic Procedures. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250925.

Lazaridis KN, et al. Microplastics and Nanoplastics and the Digestive System. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 May. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100694.

Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.

Below are some selections from what I am reading in the AGA journals, highlighting clinically applicable and possibly practice-changing expert reviews and studies.

Esophagus/Motility

Carlson DA, et al. A Standardized Approach to Performing and Interpreting Functional Lumen Imaging Probe Panometry for Esophageal Motility Disorders: The Dallas Consensus. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.234.

Parkman HP, et al; NIDDK Gastroparesis Clinical Research Consortium. Characterization of Patients with Symptoms of Gastroparesis Having Frequent Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalizations. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.033.

Dellon ES, et al. Long-term Safety and Efficacy of Budesonide Oral Suspension for Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A 4-Year, Phase 3, Open-Label Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.024.

Small Bowel

Hård Af Segerstad EM, et al; TEDDY Study Group. Early Dietary Fiber Intake Reduces Celiac Disease Risk in Genetically Prone Children: Insights From the TEDDY Study. Gastroenterology. 2025 Feb. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.241.

Colon

Shaukat A, et al. AGA Clinical Practice Update on Current Role of Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Commentary. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.04.003.

Bergman D, et al. Cholecystectomy is a Risk Factor for Microscopic Colitis: A Nationwide Population-based Matched Case Control Study. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2024.12.032.

Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Ben-Horin S, et al; Israeli IBD Research Nucleus (IIRN). Capsule Endoscopy-Guided Proactive Treat-to-Target Versus Continued Standard Care in Patients With Quiescent Crohn’s Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Gastroenterology. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.02.031.

Pancreas

Guilabert L, et al; ERICA Consortium. Impact of Fluid Therapy in the Emergency Department in Acute Pancreatitis: a posthoc analysis of the WATERFALL Trial. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.038.

Hepatology

Rhee H, et al. Noncontrast Magnetic Resonance Imaging vs Ultrasonography for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance: A Randomized, Single-Center Trial. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2024.12.035.

Kronsten VT, et al. Hepatic Encephalopathy: When Lactulose and Rifaximin Are Not Working. Gastroenterology. 2025 Jan. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2025.01.010.

Edelson JC, et al. Accuracy and Safety of Endoscopic Ultrasound–Guided Liver Biopsy in Patients with Metabolic Dysfunction–Associated Liver Disease. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250918.

Miscellaneous

Martin J, et al. Practical and Impactful Tips for Private Industry Collaborations with Gastroenterology Practices. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2025 Mar. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2025.01.021.

Tejada, Natalia et al. Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists Are Not Associated With Increased Incidence of Pneumonia After Endoscopic Procedures. Tech Innov Gastrointest Endosc. 2025 Apr. doi: 10.1016/j.tige.2025.250925.

Lazaridis KN, et al. Microplastics and Nanoplastics and the Digestive System. Gastro Hep Adv. 2025 May. doi: 10.1016/j.gastha.2025.100694.

Dr. Trieu is assistant professor of medicine, interventional endoscopy, in the Division of Gastroenterology at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, Missouri.

Click here to view more from Cancer Data Trends 2025.

Click here to view more from Cancer Data Trends 2025.

Click here to view more from Cancer Data Trends 2025.