Professional Documents
Culture Documents
o Assessments and Research Practice Patterns and Trends Survey Questions Pre-/Post-Assessment Questions
DISCLAIMER
Participants have an implied responsibility to use the newly acquired information to enhance patient outcomes and their own professional development. The information presented in this activity is not meant to serve as a guideline for patient management. Any procedures, medications, or other courses of diagnosis or treatment discussed or suggested in this activity should not be used by clinicians without evaluation of their patients conditions and possible contraindications on dangers in use, review of any applicable manufacturers product information, and comparison with recommendations of other authorities.
Activity Agenda
o Introduction 5 mins o Overview of Epidemiology and Diagnosis of HCC 10 mins o Current and Emerging Management of HCC: Surgical Management, Loco-Regional Therapy, and Targeted Therapy Development 30 mins o Practical Application Cases 15 mins
Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this activity, participants should be better able to:
o Identify risk factors associated with HCC, including underlying liver disease, and to thoroughly assess patients upon presentation o Implement appropriate treatment plans for patients with HCC according to patient and tumor characteristics and evidence-based clinical guidelines o Evaluate recent trial data targeting novel agents being evaluated for the treatment of patients with advanced HCC and the potential impact these therapies may have on the current standard of care o Devise strategies to integrate novel targeted agents into treatment plans for patients with advanced HCC o Implement a more successful multidisciplinary approach for treating HCC based on expert and evidence-based recommendations
Demographic Question 1
If you are a physician, what is your primary specialty?
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Medical oncology Surgical oncology Radiation oncology Radiation (non-oncology) Internal medicine/primary care Gastroenterology Hepatology Pathology Medical oncology fellow Other physician
Demographic Question 2
If you are not a physician, what is your primary specialty?
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Pharmacy Nurse Nurse practitioner Physician assistant Research Data monitoring Industry Academic Other
Demographic Question 3
In a typical month, how many patients with hepatocellular carcinoma do you treat?
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 15 610 1115 1620 > 20 I do not treat patients with hepatocellular carcinoma
Pre-Assessment Question 1
Which of the following regarding LI-RADS is true?
1. A system of standardized terminology and criteria to interpret and report imaging examinations of the liver 2. Currently applies to patients with cirrhosis or at risk for HCC 3. Categorizes observations from LR1 to LR5, reflecting probability of benignity or HCC in at-risk patients 4. 1 and 2 only 5. 2 and 3 only 6. All of the above
Victims of HCC
Deaths: 23,000
15,870
7,130
YLL = Years of Life Lost; DALY = Disability Adjusted Life Years. US Burden of Disease Collaborators, 2013.
HCC
Aflatoxins
Inflammation
Dysplastic Lesions
Clonal Selection
0.8 0.6
Probability
Cluster B
Cluster A Pathways Proliferation Anti-apoptotic Ubiquitination Hypoxia-induced DNA instability
0.4 0.2
Cluster A
PI3K/AKT/mTOR Pathway
Growth factor
Cell membrane Growth factor receptor
P
PI3K PTEN mTOR Complex 2
mTOR
PDK1
AKT mTOR
Bad
mLST8 SIN1
rictor
Cell survival
Actin cytoskeleton
mLST8
Intermediate HCC
Early HCC
Burrel et al: MRI angiography (MRA) superior to helical CT for detection of HCC
Detection of main HCC and additional nodules pre-transplantation vs in explanted livers: Sensitivity of MRA and helical CT CT (%) Variables Pathology MRA (%)*
Per-patient basis (n=29)
Sensitivity (detection) Sensitivity (characterization) Specificity Accuracy Per-nodule basis (n=76), sensitivity analysis* All HCC nodules >20 mm 1020 mm <10 mm 76 25 28 23 76 (58/76) 100 (25/25) 89 (25/28) 34 (8/23) 61 (43/70) 100 (24/24) 65 (17/26) 10 (2/10) 100 90 95 98 100 96 NA NA
*MRA was performed in 50 cirrhotic patients; 29 patients presented 76 nodules Helical CT: Triphasic helical CT was performed in 26 of 29 HCC patients, presenting a total of 70 nodules
0
Zhang et al, 2004.
Time, Years
Chemical ablation
Thermal ablation
TACE only
TACE RFA other Supportive care
30
60 90 Months of Follow Up
120
150
OLT = orthotopic liver transplantation; RFA = radiofrequency ablation; TACE = transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. Tong et al, 2010.
HCC Is Inhibited in HCV Patients With Sustained Viral Response and Sustained Biochemical Response Following Treatment With IFN + RBV
3-year cumulative incidence
5-year cumulative incidence
Cumulative Incidence of HCC (%)
SVR (n=181)
Non-SVR (n=239)
SVR = sustained viral response; SBR = sustained biochemical response; IFN = interferon; RBV = ribavirin; HCV = hepatitis C virus. Nakajima et al, 2009.
Not All HCC Make All Biomarkers Patient number of AFP-L3%, DCP and AFP in those with Known HCC (n=685)
AFP > 20
DCP > 40
93
96
110
15
153 45 14
AFP-L3% > 10
AFP = alpha-fetoprotein; DCP = des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin; AFP-L3 = lens culinaris agglutinin A-reactive fraction of AFP. Toyoda et al, 2006.
Utility When Biomarkers are Used in Combination in patients with no known HCC: False Positives
False Positive AFP: 25% AFP-L3%: 7% DCP: 9% AFP-L3% True Negative
15
(3.7%)
258 (64%)
3
(0.7%)
9 2
(0.5%)
(2.2%)
26
(6.5%)
7
(1.7%)
81(20.2%)
AFP
DCP N = 401
Sterling et al, 2009.
Wakodiagnostics.com
AFP L3% Rises before AFP in Typical Course of HCC Occurrence Case
Before HCC diagnosis Tumor size: 2 cm
AFP: ng/mL
21 months
Months
AFP conc.
Sterling et al, 2012.
AFP-L3 conc.
AFP-L3%
AFP-L3%
Liver Dedicated Surveillance Ultrasound (US) + HCC biomarkers in at-risk patients* Good/Excellent quality US and normal HCC biomarkers
blood
Negative MRI
tests AFP-L3%/DCP (HCC serum biomarkers); *AASLD Guidelines 2009; # see LI-RADS. AASLD = American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases; AFP = alpha-fetoprotein; CT = computed tomography; DCP = des-gamma-carboxy prothrombin; HCC = hepatocellular carcinoma; LI-RADS = Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System; MRI = magnetic resonance imaging; US = ultrasound. Gish, 2014.
Corresponds to T1 stage HCC and does not qualify for automatic priority MELD points but must be considered towards the overall staging of the patient
Eligible for automatic priority
For example, a candidate would be eligible for additional priority with: Two 1.5 cm (5A) lesions; or One 1.5 cm lesion (5A) and one 2.5 cm lesion (5B); or One 3.5 cm lesion (5B); or Two 2.1 cm lesions (5B)
LI-RADS
o What is LI-RADS?
System of standardized terminology & criteria for imaging exams of liver Supported and endorsed by ACR Developed by radiologists with input from hepatobiliary surgeons, hepatologists, hepatopathologists, interventionalists LI-RADS is dynamic: will be expanded and refined as knowledge accrues
Macroregenerative Nodules
LI-RADS: Categories
LR-1 LR-2 LR-3 LR-4 Definitely benign Probably benign Intermediate probability for HCC Probably HCC
LR-5
LR-5V
Definitely HCC
Definitely HCC with Tumor in Vein
LR-M
American College of Radiology, version 2013.1.
LI-RADS: Algorithm
Observation in high-risk patient Treated observation Untreated observation
Definitely benign
Probably benign
LR-Treated
LR-1
LR-2
LR-M
Tumor in vein
LR-5V
Arterial phase hypo- or isoenhancement Diameter (mm): Washout Capsule Threshold growth < 20 20
None:
One: Two:
LR-3
LR-3 LR-4
LR-3
LR-4 LR-4
LR-3
LR-4 LR-4
LR-3
LR-4 LR-5
LR-4
LR-5 LR-5
2cm HCC
LR-5: 20mm Arterial phase hyper-enhancement AND 1 of following: Washout appearance Capsule appearance Threshold growth**
*OPTN requires growth by 50% or more in diameter during a greater than or equal to 6 month time interval. **LI-RADS defines threshold growth as 50% or more diameter increase during a greater then or equal to 6 month time interval Or as 100% or more diameter increase during a greater than or equal to 6 month time interval. American College of Radiology.
o Macrovasculoinvasive HCC
LI-RADS has LR-5V category for HCCs with tumor in vein OPTN does not have category for macrovasculoinvasive HCC
American College of Radiology.
Post-Assessment Question 1
Which of the following regarding LI-RADS is true?
1. A system of standardized terminology and criteria to interpret and report imaging examinations of the liver 2. Currently applies to patients with cirrhosis or at risk for HCC 3. Categorizes observations from LR1 to LR5, reflecting probability of benignity or HCC in at-risk patients 4. 1 and 2 only 5. 2 and 3 only 6. All of the above 7. None of the above
Pre-Assessment Question 2
Which of the following phase III trials did not reach its primary endpoint?
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Brivanib in the BRISK-FL trial Everolimus in the EVOLVE-1 trial Ramucirumab in the REACH trial Regorafenib in the RESORCE trial 1 and 2 only 3 and 4 only
Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) Staging Classification and Treatment Schedule: proposed modifications/additions*
Hepatocellular carcinoma
(Modified from: Llovet JM et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:698-711.)
Single
3 nodules 3 cm
No
Median survival 11-20 months Resection Liver transplantation (CLT or LDLT) 5-year survival 40%-70% RFA (PEIa) *Sequence: TARE, TABE sorafenib?b *Combinations, TARE, TABE?b
a
Finn, 2010.
Radiology
o Eventually most patients will require systemic treatment if they live long enough o Cytotoxic chemotherapy has not had any impact on this disease o Sorafenib improves survival for patients with advanced HCC
Geographic Variations in Receipt of Potentially Curative Therapy in the Elderly Adjusting for time period, age, sex, comorbidity, liver disease severity, tumor size, risk factors for HCC
Adjusted odds ratio San Jose Utah 1.00 3.65 95% confidence interval 1.41-9.42 P-value Reference 0.008
Connecticut Detroit
Hawaii Iowa Los Angeles New Mexico San Francisco Atlanta Seattle
2.41 1.77
2.02 2.15 2.47 2.85 1.47 3.24 1.24
1.12-5.18 0.86-3.61
0.94-4.36 1.01-4.55 1.28-4.74 1.29-6.29 0.73-3.00 1.46-7.19 0.60-2.59
0.024 0.119
0.072 0.047 0.007 0.010 0.287 0.004 0.565
Hepatic Resection
Percentage of HCCs deemed resectable at diagnosis
30% resectable
70% unresectable
Radiofrequency Ablation
High frequency alternating current Ionic vibration & heat generation 45C: Protein denaturation 70C: Thermal coagulation 100C: Tissue desiccation
Adapted from Minami et al, 2011; Courtesy of Robert G. Gish, MD.
Child A
Child B
76%
46%
51%
31%
o Tateishi et al, 2005: -1000 RFA procedures in >700 patients: -Survival: 94, 77, and 54% (1-, 3-, and 5-year)
3yr Survival
83.9% 72.7%
P=0.24
Recurrence
45.2% 58.2%
P=0.54
97.9% 100.0%
o Overall survival + recurrence-free survival: RFA = surgical resection for single small HCC with good hepatic reserve o Rate of local recurrence: RFA > surgical resection
Hong et al, 2005.
Treatment: Chemoembolization
o Normal liver gets 75% of blood supply from portal vein and 25% of blood supply from hepatic artery o Tumor receives most of its blood supply from the hepatic artery o Injection into the hepatic artery spares most of the normal liver o Embolization of the hepatic artery prevents systemic absorption of chemotherapy agents and induces ischemic necrosis of tumor
Tumor
Catheter placement for chemoembolization
Hepatic artery
Liver
Portal vein
Year 1 57 32
Survival, % Year 2 31 11
Year 3 26 3
Llovet et al[2]: N = 112 with unresectable HCC, 80% to 90% HCV positive, 5-cm tumors (~ 70% multifocal)
Technique TACE Supportive care Survival, % Year 1 82 63 Year 2 63 27
HBV = hepatitis B virus; HCV = hepatitis C virus; TACE = transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. Lo et al, 2002; Llovet et al, 2002.
Surgical resection
o Surgery superior to TACE for tumors smaller than 2 cm and/or CLIP stage 0
BUT for tumors > 3 cm and/or CLIP stage 1-2, 5-year survival identical for both groups (27%)
o Median OS (P = .1529)
o Resection: 65.1 months o TACE: 50.4 months
CLIP = Cancer of the Liver Italian Program; HBV = hepatitis B virus; TACE = transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. Lee et al, 2002.
Days
LT = liver transplantation; TACE = transcatheter arterial chemoembolization. Otto et al, 2006.
0.8
P = .0017 0.6 0.4 35.4% 0.2 0 0 TACE responders TACE nonresponders
365
1460
1825
Results
o Dose:
Main PVT were treated with > 1 cycle (p = 0.0296 with cirrhosis; p = 0.0077 without cirrhosis) No significant difference in the median first dose or accumulated radiation dose (Gy)
Adverse Events:
Cirrhosis No PVT N =52 N (%) Branch PVT N = 19 N (%) Bilirubin Ascites HE 18 (35) 8 (15) 2 (4) 8 (42) 1 (5) 1 (5) Main PVT N =11 N (%) 7 (64) 6 (55) 0 0.2003 0.0042 1.0000 P value
o Tumor Response:
WHO criteria: 42.2% EASL (necrosis >50%): 70% Stable Disease: 34.7% Progression: 23.1%
Without Cirrhosis No PVT Branch Main P value
N =19
N (%)
PVT
N =6 (N %)
PVT
N =1 N (%)
Bilirubin
Ascites HE
1 (5)
0 0
0
1 (17) 0
0
0 0
1.0000
0.2692 -
EASL = European Association for the Study of the Liver; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group; PVT = portal vein thrombosis; WHO = World Health Organization. Kulik et al, 2008.
PRECISION TACE with DC Bead Addressing the challenge of improved survival in hepatocellular carcinoma
PR
Milan Criteria
1 lesion < 5 cm
o No evidence of extrahepatic spread o Based on pre-transplant imaging o 4 year survival 74% o Recurrence rate <10% o Validated in several studies with > 1000 patients
5 yr survival >70% Recurrence < 15%
Recurrence (%)
40
Milan No (n=172)
30 20 10 0 0 1 2 3
(n=173)
86% 71%
(n=208)
79%
(n=185)
64%
(n=109)
41%
(n=133)
32%
0.50
0.25 Hazard ratio in sorafenib group: 0.69 (95% CI, 0.55-0.87) P=0.00058* 0 8
274 276
16
241 224
24
205 179
32 40 48 Time (weeks)
161 126 108 78 67 47
56
38 25
64
12 7
72
0 2
80
0.75
0.50
0.25
12
126 101
18
80 57
24 30 36 Time (weeks)
50 31 28 12 14 8
42
8 2
48
2 1
54
Partial response
Stable disease
2
71
1
67
Progressive disease
Progression-free rate at 4 mo
18
62
24
42
*Not assessable: sorafenib (8.7%), placebo (8.3%). RECIST=Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Llovet et al, 2008.
Phase II SPACE Trial: Sorafenib or Placebo in Combination With TACE for Intermediate-Stage HCC
o Phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of sorafenib or placebo in combination with TACE with DEBDOX for intermediate-stage HCC
Selected Eligibility Criteria
R A N D O M I Z E 1:1 (n = 307)
Primary Endpoint
TTP TACE with DEBDOX + sorafenib 400 mg bid TACE with DEBDOX + placebo
Secondary Endpoints
OS Safety Time to untreatable progression Time to vascular invasion/EHS Biomarker analysis Patient-reported outcomes
TACE = transarterial chemoembolization; DEBDOX = doxorubicin-eluting beads; EHS = extrahepatic spread; MVI = macroscopic vascular invasion; TTP = time to radiologic progression. Lencioni et al, 2012.
o o
Median TTP (50th percentile) was 169 days in the sorafenib group; 166 days in the placebo groups TTP at the 25th and 75th percentiles (preplanned) was 112/88 days and 285/224 days in the sorafenib and placebo groups, respectively
Assessment *
HR 95% CI P value (1sided)**
TTP
OS***
Time to VI/EHS***
0.621 0.321, 1.200 0.076
TTUP
* = ITT population (all randomized patients; ** = predefined alpha = 0.15; *** = median was not reached in either group. EHS = extrahepatic spread; VI = vascular invasion; TTP = time to radiologic progression; TTUP = time to untreatable progression. Lencioni et al, 2012.
Sorafenib
Sorafenib
1075
940
OS
OS
1 NCT01015833; 2
Linifanib: Who benefited? What are predictive markers? Study M06-879: 1st or 2nd Line Advanced HCC Best Percentage Change from Baseline in Target Lesions
Endpoints Primary PFR at 16 Weeks % [95% CI] Secondary TTPra, median mo [95% CI] OS, median mo [95% CI] ORR % [95% CI]
All Patients n=44 31.8 [18.6, 47.6] 5.4 [3.6, 7.3] 9.7 [6.4, 12.2] 9.1 [2.5, 21.7]
Child-Pugh A n=38 34.2 [19.6, 51.4] 5.4 [3.6, 9.2] 10.4 [8.4, 14.3] 10.5 [2.9, 24.8]
Child-Pugh B n=6 16.7 [0.4, 64.1] NR [3.7, NR] 2.5 [1.0, 4.5] 0
aRadiographic
progression only. Data available August 2010. Responses confirmed on 2 visits>4 weeks apart.
Toh et al, 2013. NR = not reached; ORR = objective response rate; OS = overall survival; PFR = progression-free rate; TTP = time to disease progression; TTPr = time to disease progression-radiographic.
(CELESTIAL)7
ADI-PEG-208
Placebo
Placebo
760
633
OS
OS
2016
2014
1 7
Llovet et al, 2012; 2 Zhu et al, 2014; 3 NCT01140347; 4 NCT01108705; 5 NCT01755767; 6 NCT01774344; NCT01908426; 8 NCT01287585.
BRISK-PS: Decreased Time to Progression (but no change in survival: data not shown)
1.0 0.8
Probability of Progression
75 / 132 2.7
0.2
P (log rank)
0.0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Months
Number of Patients at Risk Brivanib 263 144 Placebo 132 45
Llovet et al, 2012.
14
16
18
20
22
24
92 21
37 6
20 5
9 2
3 1
2 1
1 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 0
Brivanib: Can We Find the Subset of Patients Who Will Benefit? Change in Target Tumor from Baseline
Maximum Tumor Change from Baseline (%) Brivanib N = 210 Placebo N = 101
Ramucirumab
o VEGFR-2 and its ligands (including VEGF-A, -C, and -D) are important mediators of angiogenesis and angiogenesis is integral to HCC carcinogenesis and pathogenesis o Ramucirumab is a recombinant human monoclonal antibody (MAb) of the immunoglobulin G, subclass 1 (IgG1) that binds to the extracellular domain of VEGFR-2 with high specificity and affinity o Ramucirumab was well tolerated in 2 Phase 1 studies involving patients with advanced, refractory solid tumors; and 2 HCC patients (receiving doses of 10 mg/kg Q2W) had disease stabilization on-study for 9 and 14 months, respectively
VEGFR-2 = vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2. Zhu et al, 2010.
(%)
Child A Child B
o HGF expression and cMET activation in models can induce tumor growth5
HGF expression reported to be decreased in HCC
o cMET overexpression by IHC correlates with poor prognostic features and poor outcomes6,7,8 o Elevated plasma HGF associated with decreased benefit to sorafenib in SHARP9
HGF = hepatocyte growth factor; ICH = immunohistochemistry 1. Borowiak et al, 2004; 2. Kiss et al, 1997; 3. Selden et al, 1994; 4.Tavian et al, 2000; 5. Horiguchi et al, 2002; 6. Ueki et al, 1997; 7. Wu et al, 2006; 8. Rimassa et al, 2012; 9. Lovett et al, 2012.
Conclusions
o Molecular targeted therapeutics will play a role in the future of HCC management o Sorafenib has established a benchmark for front-line studies o Great unmet need for patients who are ineligible for, intolerant to, and who progress on sorafenib o Integrating new clinical assessment tools into clinical trials o Randomized Phase II trials are needed to better assess activity for moving agents into Phase III o Identify promising new targets for therapy
better identify patients who will receive benefit
Treatment
Post-Assessment Question 2
Which of the following phase III trials did not reach its primary endpoint?
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Brivanib in the BRISK-FL trial Everolimus in the EVOLVE-1 trial Ramucirumab in the REACH trial Regorafenib in the RESORCE trial 1 and 2 only 3 and 4 only
Case Study 1
o 65 year old Asian man
Chronic HBV treated with tenofovir No decompensation (MELD 6) Good functional status
o HCC screening
CT: 2.6 cm (S6) enhancing mass with PV washout AFP 15 ng/ml
HBV = hepatitis B virus; MELD = model for end-stage liver disease; PV = portal venous; AFP = alfa-fetoprotein.
RD: 402 Tilt: 0 mA: 366 KVp: 120 Acq no: 13 Page: 112 of 768 P
RD: 402 Tilt: 0 mA: 297 KVp: 120 Acq no: 14 Page: 217 of 768 P
arterial phase
o Primary resection
chemo-prevention
Case Study 2: Patient during a Follow-up visit 5 Years After Diagnosis of HCV
o 5 years after your initial evaluation for HCV genotype1, patient declined INF based therapies historically, at age 40, the patient presents with abdominal fullness, a 5-lb weight loss, and fatigue o Laboratory tests Albumin: 3.0 g/dL INR: 1.5 Bilirubin: 3 mg/dL ECOG PS 1
HCV = hepatitis C virus; INF = interferon; INR = international normalized ratio; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status.
Question 1
What is the best next step to treat this patient?
a) b) c) d) e) f) g) TACE RFA Liver transplantation IV doxorubicin Yttrium-90 microspheres Oral therapy with a multitargeted TKI Other
Question 2
What is the best next step to treat this patient?
a) b) c) d) e) f) g) TACE RFA Liver transplantation IV doxorubicin Yttrium-90 microspheres Oral therapy with a multitargeted TKI sorafenib Other
Question 3
What is the optimal sorafenib dosage for this patient?
a) 100 mg orally twice daily b) 200 mg orally twice daily c) 400 mg orally twice daily
o More than 90% of patients experience skin reactions on multitargeted TKI therapy
Incidence of hand-foot skin reaction reported as high as 60%
21% in SHARP trial (all grades)
Question 4
What is the next best step for treatment?
a) Immediate sorafenib discontinuation plus supportive care to address skin reaction b) Sorafenib dose interruption for 1 week plus supportive care c) Sorafenib dose reduction by 50% plus supportive care d) Sorafenib dose reduction by 75% plus supportive care e) Use supportive care to address skin reaction; alter dose after 1 week if no improvement
Question 5
What therapies would you initiate before starting sorafenib?
a) b) c) d) e) f) Loperamide hydrochloride Vitamin B6 Hydrocodone bitartrate Dolasetron mesylate Other None
Question 6
What HCV therapies would you consider before or after starting sorafenib?
a) b) c) d) e) f) INF + ribavirin SOF + ribavirin for 24 weeks INF + ribavirin + SOF INF + ribavirin + SIM SOF + SIM None
Audience Q&A
Thank You
o Thank you for participating in this activity, Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Management Strategies for Emerging Targeted Therapies o Enduring Activity:
Downloadable Slide Deck and accompanying speaker notes for use as a self-study resource to assist in reinforcing key learning points from this live activity or for you to incorporate into additional staff education.
o Please email: 1225" in the subject line to: optin@AXISMedEd.com o You will be provided a link in which to access and download these supplemental educational resources.
CanLiv - The Hepatobiliary Cancers Foundation is led by physicians, scientists and individuals affected by cancer of the bile ducts, gallbladder and liver. CanLiv is dedicated to engaging and uniting the cancer research and patient communities to drive the science that will improve hepatobiliary cancer patients outcomes. Join us in the quest to cure bile duct, gallbladder and liver cancers
www.canliv.org
CanLiv Mission:
Be the catalyst that brings together patients and their families affected by cancers of the bile duct, gall bladder, and liver with doctors, researchers and partners; and to create a community of stakeholders that will work together to advance research, improve patient outcomes, and search for the cure.