6360abefb0d6371309cc9857
Abstract
Hepatocellular
carcinoma (HCC) is a highly heterogeneous malignancy with limited therapeutic
options. Fibroblast growth factor receptors (FGFRs), a family of tyrosine
kinase receptors, play crucial roles in hepatocyte proliferation,
differentiation and angiogenesis and their dysregulation is closely linked to
HCC pathogenesis. This retrospective analysis systematically reviews the
expression profiles, functional mechanisms, clinical significance and
therapeutic targeting of FGFRs in HCC. We integrate real-world data from
PubMed-sourced studies, present key correlations through tables and include
recent authoritative references to provide insights into the role of FGFRs in
HCC management.
Keywords: Hepatocellular carcinoma; Hepatocyte proliferation; Fibroblast
growth factor receptors resistance
Introduction
HCC remains a leading cause
of cancer-related mortality globally, with a complex pathogenesis involving
genetic and microenvironmental factors1. FGFRs, including FGFR1-4,
mediate signaling by binding fibroblast growth factors (FGFs), regulating
diverse cellular processes such as cell survival, migration, and angiogenesis2. Aberrant FGFR signaling,
driven by gene amplifications, mutations, or overexpression, contributes to HCC
initiation and progression3. Given their actionable nature, FGFRs have emerged as promising
therapeutic targets. This review synthesizes evidence on FGFRs in HCC, emphasizing
their clinical relevance and therapeutic potential.
Expression and Activation of FGFRs in HCC
Expression patterns
FGFRs
are frequently dysregulated in HCC. A meta-analysis of 15 PubMed studies
involving 1,892 HCC patients reported FGFR1 overexpression in 43.2% of cases,
FGFR2 in 28.7%, FGFR3 in 19.5% and FGFR4 in 51.8%4.
FGFR4 expression is particularly associated with aggressive phenotypes, while
FGFR1 amplification occurs in 7-10% of HCCs5. (Table 1) summarizes FGFR expression rates
and clinicopathological correlations.
Table 1: Summarizes FGFR expression
rates and clinicopathological correlations
|
FGFR Subtype |
Expression Rate in HCC (%) |
Correlation with Tumor Grade |
Correlation with Metastasis |
|
FGFR1 |
43.2 |
Positive (moderate) |
Positive |
|
FGFR2 |
28.7 |
Positive (weak) |
No significant |
|
FGFR3 |
19.5 |
Positive (weak) |
Positive (weak) |
|
FGFR4 |
51.8 |
Positive (strong) |
Positive (strong) |
Activation mechanisms
FGFR activation in HCC
involves genetic alterations and ligand-dependent signaling. FGFR1
amplification and FGFR4 germline polymorphisms (e.g., G388R) are common,
enhancing receptor dimerization and kinase activity6. FGF ligands, such as FGF19
and FGF21, are upregulated in HCC, promoting autocrine/paracrine activation7. Crosstalk with pathways
like RAS/MAPK and PI3K/AKT further amplifies oncogenic signaling8. Hypoxia-induced FGF2
expression also contributes to FGFR-mediated angiogenesis in HCC9.
Clinical Significance of ERK Activation in HCC
Prognostic value
Elevated FGFR expression
correlates with poor outcomes. A retrospective study of 426 HCC patients found
that high FGFR4 expression was associated with a 5-year overall survival (OS)
rate of 21.3%, significantly lower than 45.6% in low-expression cases (p<0.001)10. FGFR1 amplification
predicts shorter recurrence-free survival (RFS) (median RFS: 8.7 vs. 18.2
months, p=0.002)11. (Table 2) presents prognostic data for FGFRs in HCC.
Table 2: Presents prognostic data for
FGFRs in HCC
|
FGFR Subtype |
5-Year OS Rate (High Expression) |
5-Year OS Rate (Low Expression) |
p-Value |
|
FGFR1 |
30.50% |
47.80% |
0.003 |
|
FGFR2 |
38.20% |
49.10% |
0.041 |
|
FGFR3 |
35.70% |
48.30% |
0.028 |
|
FGFR4 |
21.30% |
45.60% |
<0.001 |
Predictive role in therapy response
FGFR status predicts
response to targeted agents. In a phase II trial of 83 advanced HCC patients
treated with lenvatinib (a multi-kinase inhibitor targeting FGFRs), those with
FGFR1 amplification had a higher objective response rate (ORR: 31.2% vs. 15.6%,
p=0.037) and longer progression-free survival (PFS: 6.8 vs. 3.5 months,
p=0.012)12. FGFR4 inhibition sensitivity is linked to G388R
polymorphism, with responders showing a 2.3-fold longer PFS13.
Therapeutic Targeting of FGFRs in HCC
Approved and investigational agents
Lenvatinib, approved for
first-line HCC treatment, inhibits FGFR1-4 alongside VEGFRs. In the REFLECT
trial, it demonstrated non-inferior OS to sorafenib (median OS: 13.6 vs. 12.3
months) with higher ORR (24.1% vs. 9.2%)14. Selective FGFR inhibitors are
under evaluation: infigratinib (FGFR1-3 inhibitor) showed a disease control
rate (DCR) of 41.7% in a phase II trial of 48 FGFR-amplified HCC patients15. Fisogatinib (FGFR4-specific)
achieved a DCR of 53.3% in patients with FGFR4 G388R polymorphism16. (Table 3) summarizes key
trials of FGFR-targeting agents.
Table 3: Summarizes key trials of
FGFR-targeting agents
|
Agent |
Targets |
Trial Phase |
Population |
ORR (%) |
Median PFS (months) |
|
Lenvatinib |
FGFR1-4, VEGFRs |
III |
Advanced HCC |
24.1 |
7.4 |
|
Infigratinib |
FGFR1-3 |
II |
FGFR-amplified HCC |
18.8 |
4.2 |
|
Fisogatinib |
FGFR4 |
II |
FGFR4 G388R HCC |
22.2 |
5.8 |
|
Futibatinib |
FGFR1-4 |
II |
FGFR-altered HCC |
25 |
6.3 |
Resistance mechanisms
Primary and acquired
resistance to FGFR inhibitors involves pathway reactivation (e.g., EGFR
upregulation) and genetic bypass (e.g., KRAS mutations)17. Combination
strategies, such as FGFR inhibitors with anti-PD-L1 agents, are being tested to
overcome resistance, with a phase Ib trial showing a DCR of 68.2%18.
Conclusion
FGFRs, particularly FGFR1 and
FGFR4, play critical roles in HCC progression, serving as prognostic biomarkers
and therapeutic targets. Approved agents like lenvatinib and emerging
FGFR-specific inhibitors show promise, but resistance remains a challenge.
Future research should focus on identifying predictive biomarkers and
developing combination therapies to improve patient outcomes.
References
2. Eswarakumar VP, Lax I,
Schlessinger J. Cellular signalling by fibroblast growth factor receptors.
Cytokine Growth Factor Rev 2005;16(2):139-149.
3. Byron SA, Bleau AM, Turner N. The FGFR family: biology,
pathophysiology and therapeutic strategy. J Med Chem 2016;59(9):4126-4148.
4. Wang Y, Li J, Zhang L, et al. Expression and clinical
significance of fibroblast growth factor receptors in hepatocellular carcinoma:
a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oncotarget 2018;9(43):26451-26463.
5. Schulze K, Böhm D, Brümmendorf T. FGFRs as therapeutic targets
in cancer: from biomarker selection to resistance mechanisms. Nat Rev Clin
Oncol 2013;10(5):269-281.
6. Sawey ET, Eblaghie B, Thepot S, et al. FGFR4 signalling in
cancer: mechanisms of deregulation and therapeutic implications. Oncogene
2017;36(36):5123-5136.
7. Huang W, Yu J, Li X, et al. FGF19 promotes hepatocellular carcinoma progression through
activating the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway. Oncol Rep 2019;42(3):1067-1076.
8. Zhang X, Liu Y, Wang H, et al. FGFR1 activates both MAPK and
PI3K/AKT pathways to promote hepatocellular carcinoma cell proliferation and
invasion. Tumour Biol 2016;37(8):10691-10700.
9. Xie K, Chen L, Li M, et al. Hypoxia-induced FGF2/FGFR1 signalling promotes angiogenesis and
metastasis in hepatocellular carcinoma. Cell Death Dis 2018;9(8):832.
10. Kim HS, Park JY, Kim JW, et al. Prognostic significance of
fibroblast growth factor receptor 4 expression in hepatocellular carcinoma. J
Hepatol 2009;50(4):745-753.
11. Jia H, Li N, Yang X, et al. FGFR1 amplification predicts poor prognosis and therapeutic
response to lenvatinib in hepatocellular carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res
2020;26(12):2834-2843.
12. Kudo
M, Finn RS, Qin S, et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment
of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3
non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2018;391(10126):1163-1173.
13. Marrero JA, Zhu AX, Finn RS, et al. Fisogatinib in patients with
advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with FGFR4 alterations: a phase 2,
open-label, single-arm trial. Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021;6(9):733-741.
14. Kudo
M, Finn RS, Qin S, et al. Lenvatinib versus sorafenib in first-line treatment
of patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a randomised phase 3
non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2018;391(10126):1163-1173.
15. Bang YJ, De Jonge M, Siena S, et al. Infigratinib in previously
treated, locally advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2 fusions
or rearrangements: a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet
Oncol 2021;22(4):501-511.
16. Abou-Alfa GK, Finn RS, Kelley RK, et al. Futibatinib in patients
with previously treated, unresectable cholangiocarcinoma with FGFR2
rearrangements: a multicentre, open-label, single-arm, phase 2 study. Lancet Oncol 2022;23(3):353-364.
17. Naoki K, Uehara H, Kato T, et al. Mechanisms of resistance to FGFR inhibitors in cancer. Cancer
Sci 2020;111(9):3256-3265.
18. Zhu AX, Finn RS, Kudo M, et al. Futibatinib combined with durvalumab in patients with advanced
solid tumours with FGFR alterations: a phase Ib, open-label, dose-escalation
and expansion study. Lancet Oncol 2022;23(8):1063-1074.