Therapeutic Outcome of Multidisciplinary Treatment in Unresectable Biliary Tract Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Analysis.

Background: There is little established evidence regarding treatment strategies for unresectable biliary tract cancer (BTC). This study aimed to clarify the situation of multidisciplinary treatment for unresectable BTC in the 2000s when there was no international standard first-line therapy. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 315 consecutive patients with unresectable BTC who had been treated at seven tertiary institutions in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan between 1999 and 2008. Results: The unresectable factors were as follows: locally advanced, 101 cases (32.1%); hematogenous metastases, 80 cases (25.4%); and peritoneal dissemination, 30 cases (9.5%). Chemotherapy or radiation therapy was administered to 218 patients (69.2%). The best supportive care was provided in 97 cases (30.8%). The most common regimen was gemcitabine monotherapy, followed by gemcitabine combination therapy and S-1 monotherapy. The 1- and 2-year survival rates of all patients were 34.6% and 12.2%, respectively. The median survival time (MST) was 8 months in all patients. The 1-year survival rate was 65%, and the MST was 12 months among the locally advanced patients, whereas patients with peritoneal dissemination had the worst outcome; the 1-year survival rate was 7%, and the MST was 5 months. Among treated 90 cases of perihilar cholangiocarcinoma, patients who received chemoradiotherapy (n = 24) had a significantly better outcome than those who received chemotherapy alone (MST: 20 vs. 11 months, P < 0.001). Conclusions: Unresectable BTC has heterogeneous treatment outcomes depending on the mode of tumor extension and location. Multidisciplinary treatment seems useful for patients with locally advanced BTC, whereas patients with metastatic disease still have a poor prognosis.

Prognostic significance of sarcopenia as determined by bioelectrical impedance analysis in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel: A retrospective study.

Sarcopenia often affects patients with various types of cancer, and has been reported to affect patient prognosis and therapeutic effects. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are no reports on the relationship between gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel combination therapy (GnP) and sarcopenia in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. The present study analyzed the relationship between overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rate, disease control rate, adverse events (AEs) and sarcopenia in patients with pancreatic cancer treated with GnP. A total of 121 consecutive patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who received GnP as first-line chemotherapy between January 2015 and December 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. GnP consisted of 1,000 mg/m2 gemcitabine and 125 mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel, which were administered on days 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks. The skeletal muscle index (SMI) was calculated using bioimpedance analysis (BIA) as an index of sarcopenia prior to GnP. The patients were divided into sarcopenia (n=41) and non-sarcopenia (n=80) groups using cutoff values of 8.87 and 6.42 kg/m2 for male and female patients, respectively. The sarcopenia and non-sarcopenia groups had a median OS of 8.1 and 13.9 months, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-1.20], and a median PFS of 4.3 and 6.3 months, respectively (HR 0.63; 95% CI 0.42-0.95). The response and disease controls rate were not statistically different between the groups (20 vs. 32%, P=0.20; 81 vs. 80%, P=1.0). In addition, comparison of common grade 3 and 4 AEs between the two groups revealed no statistically significant differences. In conclusion, the results of the present study indicated that SMI obtained by BIA may be a predictor of treatment response and prognosis in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who undergo GnP.

Randomized Phase II Study of Gemcitabine Monotherapy vs. Gemcitabine with an EPA-Enriched Oral Supplement in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is often associated with cachexia. It had been reported that eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) improve cachexia. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine with an EPA-enriched oral supplement in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: This open-label phase II study consisted of patients (pts) who were randomly categorized into the EPA group (1,000 mg/m2 gemcitabine was administered on day 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks while an EPA-enriched oral supplement (prosure®, EPA 1.056 mg per pack) was taken daily at the maximum of two packs or the gemcitabine monotherapy group with an allocation ratio of 2:1. The primary endpoint was the evaluation of the 1-year survival estimating 10% addition. RESULTS: Randomized 68 pts were examined (EPA: 45, gemcitabine: 23). The 1-year survival probability of the EPA group was 35% while the gemcitabine group was 19%. The median survival times were 8.2 and 9.7 mo, respectively. The hazard ratio for EPA group was 0.79 [95% CI 0.46-1.37]; (P = 0.40). The toxicities were mild and insignificant in both groups. More beneficial effects of EPA in survival were observed in men, pancreatic body-tail and low C-reactive protein patients. CONCLUSION: An EPA-enriched oral supplement may be effective in advanced pancreatic cancer.

Repeated Lusutrombopag Treatment for Thrombocytopenia in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Lusutrombopag, a small-molecule thrombopoietin receptor agonist, is used to treat thrombocytopenia based on the results of a phase 3 trial, including data for single-use administration in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) undergoing invasive procedures. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of repeated lusutrombopag use. METHODS: Lusutrombopag was administered repeatedly in patients undergoing multi-cycle invasive procedures at intervals >1 month. RESULTS: Data from 8 patients (median platelet count at baseline, 44.0 [range, 35-49] × 109/L) and 25 cycles of invasive procedures, including 2 cycles in 3 patients, 3 cycles in 4 patients, and 7 cycles in 1 patient, were retrospectively evaluated. The procedures included 18 transarterial chemoembolizations, 5 radiofrequency ablations, and 2 liver needle biopsies. Platelet counts increased significantly compared with baseline, and median changes in platelet counts were 46.0 × 109/L (p = 0.012) in cycle 1, 44.0 × 109/L (p = 0.012) in cycle 2, and 42.0 × 109/L (p = 0.008) in cycles 3-7. No severe adverse events, including portal vein thrombus or bleeding, were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Repeated use of lusutrombopag might be safe and effective against thrombocytopenia in patients with CLD undergoing multi-cycle invasive procedures, although long-term data from more patients are required.

Genome-wide association meta-analysis identifies GP2 gene risk variants for pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths in Japan. To identify risk loci, we perform a meta-analysis of three genome-wide association studies comprising 2,039 pancreatic cancer patients and 32,592 controls in the Japanese population. Here, we identify 3 (13q12.2, 13q22.1, and 16p12.3) genome-wide significant loci (P < 5.0 × 10-8), of which 16p12.3 has not been reported in the Western population. The lead single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) at 16p12.3 is rs78193826 (odds ratio = 1.46, 95% confidence interval = 1.29-1.66, P = 4.28 × 10-9), an Asian-specific, nonsynonymous glycoprotein 2 (GP2) gene variant. Associations between selected GP2 gene variants and pancreatic cancer are replicated in 10,822 additional cases and controls of East Asian origin. Functional analyses using cell lines provide supporting evidence of the effect of rs78193826 on KRAS activity. These findings suggest that GP2 gene variants are probably associated with pancreatic cancer susceptibility in populations of East Asian ancestry.

A Phase II Trial of Everolimus in Patients with Advanced Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Carcinoma Refractory or Intolerant to Platinum-Containing Chemotherapy (NECTOR Trial).

BACKGROUND: Platinum-containing regimens are widely used as first-line chemotherapy for unresectable pancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC), but second-line chemotherapies have yet to be established. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the safety and efficacy of everolimus in patients with pancreatic NEC refractory or intolerant to platinum-containing chemotherapy. METHODS: This study was a prospective, multicenter, phase II trial in patients with pancreatic NEC after platinum-containing chemotherapy. Everolimus treatment was continued until disease progression or intolerable toxicity was observed. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Participants comprised 25 patients. Median age was 63 years, median PFS was 1.2 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9-3.1 months), median overall survival was 7.5 months (95% CI 3.1-13.5 months), overall response rate was 0%, and disease control rate was 39.1%. Common grade 3/4 adverse events were hyperglycemia (20%), thrombocytopenia (16%), and anemia (16%). CONCLUSION: The efficacy of everolimus was limited in patients with unresectable pancreatic NEC.

Randomized, phase II trial of sequential hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy and sorafenib versus sorafenib alone as initial therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: SCOOP-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains unclear. We conducted a multi-center randomized phase II study comparing a sequential HAIC-sorafenib regimen versus sorafenib alone as an initial therapy for HCC. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (ratio, 1:1) to receive sequential HAIC with cisplatin followed by sorafenib (HAIC group, n = 35) or sorafenib alone (sorafenib group, n = 33) as an initial therapy. The primary endpoint was the one-year survival rate. Secondary endpoint included overall survival (OS), the 2-year survival rate, the time-to-progression (TTP), the objective response rate (ORR), the disease control rate (DCR), and safety. RESULTS: For the primary endpoint, the one-year survival rates were 46% in the HAIC group and 58% in the sorafenib group. The median OS period was 10.0 months (95% CI, 7.0-18.8) in the HAIC group and 15.2 months (95% CI, 8.2-19.7) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.86, P = 0.78). The median TTP, ORR and DCR in the HAIC group were 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.7-5.5), 14.3, and 45.7%, respectively, while those in the sorafenib group were 3.9 months (95% CI, 2.3-6.8), 9.1, and 45.5%, respectively. No unexpected adverse events related to HAIC or sorafenib were observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential HAIC with cisplatin and sorafenib does not improve the survival benefit, compared with sorafenib alone, when used as an initial therapy for advanced HCC. However, this study was underpowered in regard to its primary and secondary endpoints, so the results should be interpreted with caution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN ID 000006147 , registration data: August 11, 2011.

Phase I/II Study: Experience with the Late Onset of Acute Pancreatitis after the Start of Chemotherapy with Gemcitabine Plus nab-Paclitaxel for Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer.

Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel is the current standard chemotherapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. We conducted a phase I/II study in Japan, in which high response rates and manageable toxicity were observed. In this study, two patients were reported as experiencing pancreatitis due to chemotherapy. In general, pancreatitis is sometimes observed when the tumor involves the pancreatic duct, and the onset is observed before the diagnosis or at the initial stage. The onset of pancreatitis in these cases was unique and observed after the start of chemotherapy. Pancreatitis may be induced by the alleviation of stenosis of the pancreatic duct associated with tumor shrinkage.

Randomized phase III trial of post-operative chemotherapy for patients with stage I/II/III small bowel adenocarcinoma (JCOG1502C, J-BALLAD).

A randomized phase III trial was initiated in May 2017 to confirm the superiority of post-operative therapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin over observation in terms of relapse-free survival in patients with curatively resected small bowel adenocarcinoma. Total 150 patients will be enrolled from 20 Japanese institutions over a period of 6.5 years. Relapse-free survival is the primary endpoint, while the secondary endpoints are overall survival, disease-free survival as defined by the Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG), disease-free survival as defined by the International Rare Cancer Initiative (IRCI), and adverse events. Global phase III trial of IRCI to confirm the superiority of post-operative chemotherapy for small bowel adenocarcinoma was started in the UK in August 2015 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02502370). An integrated analysis of the IRCI trial and our study are planned. Our trial has been registered in the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN000027280 (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm).

Predictive value of ERCC1, ERCC2, ERCC4, and glutathione S-Transferase Pi expression for the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRINOX in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

The platinum-based chemotherapy regimen FOLFIRINOX (leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) is currently used as a standard treatment for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. FOLFIRINOX is associated with severe toxicities, including neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, and anorexia; however, there are currently no reliable biomarkers to predict its efficacy and safety. Several studies of patients with various cancers have shown that tumor expression of excision repair cross-complementing (ERCC) proteins and glutathione S-transferase Pi (GSTPi) correlates with the response to platinum-based chemotherapies. Therefore, in this study, we examined the associations between expression of ERCC proteins and GSTPi and the safety and efficacy of FOLFIRINOX in 34 patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer. ERCC1, ERCC2, ERCC4, and GSTPi expression were examined by immunohistochemical staining of tumor specimens and the results were correlated with overall survival, progression-free survival, response rate, disease control rate, and the frequency of grade 3-4 neutropenia and non-hematologic toxicities. We found that ERCC1, ERCC2, ERCC4, and GSTPi were expressed in tumor samples from 64%, 24%, 18%, and 64% of patients, respectively. Notably, there were no statistically significant associations between the expression pattern of any of the proteins and either the clinical outcomes or the frequency of grade 3-4 neutropenia or grade 3-4 anorexia. Collectively, these data indicate that tumor expression of ERCC1, ERCC2, ERCC4, and GSTPi does not predict the safety or efficacy of FOLFIRINOX in patients with pancreatic cancer.

Prediction model for pancreatic cancer risk in the general Japanese population.

Genome-wide association studies (GWASs) have identified many single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) that are significantly associated with pancreatic cancer susceptibility. We sought to replicate the associations of 61 GWAS-identified SNPs at 42 loci with pancreatic cancer in Japanese and to develop a risk model for the identification of individuals at high risk for pancreatic cancer development in the general Japanese population. The model was based on data including directly determined or imputed SNP genotypes for 664 pancreatic cancer case and 664 age- and sex-matched control subjects. Stepwise logistic regression uncovered five GWAS-identified SNPs at five loci that also showed significant associations in our case-control cohort. These five SNPs were included in the risk model and also applied to calculation of the polygenic risk score (PRS). The area under the curve determined with the leave-one-out cross-validation method was 0.63 (95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.66) or 0.61 (0.58-0.64) for versions of the model that did or did not include cigarette smoking and family history of pancreatic cancer in addition to the five SNPs, respectively. Individuals in the lowest and highest quintiles for the PRS had odds ratios of 0.62 (0.42-0.91) and 1.98 (1.42-2.76), respectively, for pancreatic cancer development compared with those in the middle quintile. We have thus developed a risk model for pancreatic cancer that showed moderately good discriminatory ability with regard to differentiation of pancreatic cancer patients from control individuals. Our findings suggest the potential utility of a risk model that incorporates replicated GWAS-identified SNPs and established demographic or environmental factors for the identification of individuals at increased risk for pancreatic cancer development.

Alpha-fetoprotein kinetics in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma receiving ramucirumab or placebo: an analysis of the phase 3 REACH study.

BACKGROUND: Post-hoc analyses of AFP response and progression and their relationship with objective measures of response and survival were performed in patients from REACH. METHODS: Serum AFP was measured at baseline and every 3 cycles (2 weeks/cycle). Associations between AFP and radiographic progression and efficacy end points were analysed. RESULTS: Median percent AFP increase from baseline was smaller in the ramucirumab than in the placebo arm throughout treatment. Time to AFP progression (HR 0.621; P < 0.0001) and to radiographic progression (HR 0.613; P < 0.0001) favoured ramucirumab. Association between AFP and radiographic progression was shown at 6 (OR 6.44, 95% CI 4.03, 10.29; P < 0.0001) and 12 weeks (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.47, 3.53; P = 0.0002). AFP response was higher with ramucirumab compared with placebo (P < 0.0001). More patients in the ramucirumab arm experienced tumour shrinkage and AFP response compared with placebo. Survival was longer in patients with AFP response (13.6 months) than in patients without (6.2 months), irrespective of treatment (HR 0.457, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ramucirumab prolonged time to AFP progression, slowed AFP increase and was more likely to induce AFP response. Similar benefits in radiographic progression and response correlated with AFP changes.

SLCO1B1 Polymorphism Is a Drug Response Predictive Marker for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Patients Treated With Gemcitabine, S-1, or Gemcitabine Plus S-1.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on advanced pancreatic cancer risk and overall survival (OS) in a candidate-gene approach. METHODS: Overall, 5438 SNPs in 219 candidate genes encoding several drug-metabolizing enzymes or transporters were analyzed. In the screening study, 3 SNPs were found associated with OS (P ≤ 0.0005). We validated these SNPs as part of the randomized phase 3 study (GEST study). The associations between OS and SNPs were investigated using log-rank test and Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: From the GEST study, the SNP rs4149086 in the 3' UTR of the solute carrier organic anion transporter family member 1B1 (SLCO1B1) gene showed significant interaction with treatment (P = 0.02). In the gemcitabine group, the SNP was associated with short OS (hazard ratio [HR], 3.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.30-10.8; P = 0.008) even after multiple-comparisons adjustment. In contrast, the SNP was not associated with OS in S-1 (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.33-1.81; P = 0.55) or gemcitabine plus S-1 groups (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.46-3.00; P = 0.72). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer with the rs4149086 AG or GG genotype may obtain good clinical results when treated with S-1-containing regimens.

A randomised controlled trial of gemcitabine hydrochloride plus S-1 combination therapy versus gemcitabine hydrochloride therapy alone in pancreatic cancer patients aged ≥75 years: a study protocol for an open-label randomised feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: In Japan, the age of patients with pancreatic cancer has increased. Combination chemotherapies such as 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin, oxaliplatin and irinotecan therapy and gemcitabine hydrochloride (GEM) +nab paclitaxel therapy have been developed as the standard treatments for young patients with advanced recurrent pancreatic cancer. However, both therapies produce toxicity and their administration is limited by the patients' age or performance status. The efficacy and safety data obtained in the GEST study-a large-scale randomised controlled study conducted in patients with pancreatic cancer in Japan-suggested that GEM +S-1 (GS) combination therapy is a promising candidate for those aged between 75 and 80 years. However, for patients aged ≥80 years, no efficacy or safety data on GS therapy are currently available. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This open-label, randomised phase II study will involve patients with advanced recurrent pancreatic cancer, aged ≥75 years, with favourable general conditions. Using the electronic data capture system, participants will be randomly allocated to groups with standard treatment (GEM therapy alone) and study treatment (GS therapy). The treatments will be administered until the conditions meet the discontinuation criteria. The primary endpoint is overall survival. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the National Hospital Organisation's Central Review Board (H28-NHOD-01). DISCUSSION: This study will reveal if GS therapy could be a standard treatment option for elderly patients with pancreatic cancer, by clarifying its efficacy and safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000025747; Pre-results.

Phase II study of fixed dose-rate gemcitabine plus S-1 as a second-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer.

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine plus platinum is considered standard first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. However, no standard second-line therapy has been established for this disease. According to reports, S-1 exerts anti-tumor effects on advanced biliary tract cancer and gemcitabine is more effective via fixed dose-rate administration. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a combination of fixed dose-rate gemcitabine and S-1 after failure of gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus cisplatin therapy. METHODS: This single-arm phase II study (clinical trial number: UMIN000005918) set the response rate as the primary endpoint and used a MiniMax two-stage design with a null hypothesis < 7% and alternative hypothesis ≥ 25%. Thirty-five patients were needed to yield a power of 90% and α value of 0.05. Patients received gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2, div, 100-min period, day 1) and S-1 (40 mg/m2 twice daily, oral, days 1-7), every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable adverse events were observed. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were enrolled, and 3 of 23 first-stage patients responded. The overall response rate was 9.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7-19.2%]. The median overall and progression-free survival were 7.0 [95% CI: 5.3-8.6] and 2.6 months (95% CI: 1.6-3.5), respectively. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were leukopenia (19.5%), neutropenia (19.5%), anemia (14.6%), thrombocytopenia (7.3%), and anorexia (4.8%). CONCLUSION: Second-line fixed dose-rate gemcitabine plus S-1 was not sufficiently effective and tolerable in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer refractory to gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus cisplatin.

Switch to miriplatin for multinodular hepatocellular carcinoma unresponsive to transarterial chemoembolization with epirubicin: a prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the efficacy of transarterial chemoembolization using miriplatin, a platinum-based anticancer drug, as a retreatment regimen for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) unresponsive to chemoembolization using epirubicin. METHODS: Between April 2013 and December 2014, we enrolled 57 consecutive chamoembolization-naïve patients with unresectable HCC, and performed chemoembolization with epirubicin. Treatment effect, necrotizing rate of the target nodules, was evaluated at 1-3 months after treatment using contrast-enhanced CT or MRI. We subsequently included retreatment chemoembolization with miriplatin for patients whose treatment effect was <50% after chemoembolization with epirubicin. The treatment effect after chemoembolization with miriplatin and the liver function before and after chemoembolization were evaluated. RESULTS: Eighteen patients of the 57 showed a treatment effect <50% after chemoembolization with epirubicin, and were switched to chemoembolization with miriplatin. The treatment effect after chemoembolization with miriplatin was ≥50% in four (22%) patients. Four of the remaining 14 (78%) patients who had <50% necrosis exhibited deterioration of the liver function after chemoembolization with miriplatin. Univariate analysis indicated that an alpha-fetprotein-L3 level <10% and a serum albumin level ≥3.6 g/dl were predictive factors of therapeutic response after chemoembolization with miriplatin (P < 0.05). However, there was no predictive factor regarding the deterioration of liver function after chemoembolization with miriplatin. CONCLUSIONS: In unresectable HCC patients who were unresponsive to chemoembolization with epirubicin, switching the chemotherapeutic regimen to a platinum-based anticancer drug in retreatment chemoembolization should be considered as a treatment option. Trial registration: UMIN 000015887.

Health-related quality of life in a randomised phase III study of gemcitabine plus S-1, S-1 alone and gemcitabine alone for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer: GEST study.

OBJECTIVE: This study was performed to compare health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS), S-1 alone and gemcitabine alone as first-line chemotherapy for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer in the GEST (Gemcitabine and TS-1 Trial) study and to assess the impacts of adverse events and tumour response on HRQOL. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine alone (1000 mg/m2 weekly for 3 of 4 weeks), S-1 alone (80, 100 or 120 mg/day twice daily for 4 of 6 weeks) or GS (gemcitabine at 1000 mg/m2 weekly plus S-1 at 60, 80 or 100 mg/day twice daily for 2 of 3 weeks). HRQOL was assessed using the EuroQoL-5D (EQ-5D) questionnaire at baseline and weeks 6, 12, 24, 48 and 72. EQ-5D scores, quality-adjusted life months (QALMs), quality-adjusted progression-free months (QAPFMs) and time until definitive HRQOL deterioration (TUDD) were compared among the three groups. The impacts of adverse events and tumour response on EQ-5D scores were analysed. RESULTS: Including EQ-5D scores after death as 0, the mean profile was significantly better in the GS than gemcitabine group (difference, 0.069; p=0.003), but not the S-1 group (difference, -0.011; p=0.613). The mean profiles until death were similar in the three groups. QALMs, QAPFMs and TUDD were significantly longer in the GS than gemcitabine group (p<0.001, p<0.001 and p=0.004, respectively), but not the S-1 group (p=0.563, p=0.741 and p=0.701, respectively). Fatigue, anorexia and tumour response were significantly associated with changes in EQ-5D scores. CONCLUSIONS: GS achieved better HRQOL than gemcitabine alone, resulting a good balance between overall survival and HRQOL benefits. S-1 alone provides HRQOL similar to that provided by gemcitabine alone. Preventing fatigue and anorexia and maintaining better response would improve HRQOL.

S-1 versus placebo in patients with sorafenib-refractory advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (S-CUBE): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Unresectable advanced hepatocellular carcinoma is a heterogeneous disease, for which sorafenib is the first targeted agent approved for first-line therapy, and treatment options for patients with sorafenib-refractory advanced hepatocellular carcinoma are limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of S-1, a chemotherapeutic agent based on fluorouracil, in patients with sorafenib-refractory advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study done at 57 sites in Japan. Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who were ineligible for surgical or local-regional therapy and judged refractory to sorafenib (ie, had progressed on sorafenib or had discontinued sorafenib because of adverse events) were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive oral S-1 (weight-banded 80 mg/m2 [80-120 mg per day]), or placebo, twice per day for 28 days consecutively, followed by a minimum 14 day drug-free period. This cycle was repeated until disease progression or the patient became intolerant to the study treatment. Patients were stratified by site and presence or absence of extrahepatic metastasis or vascular invasion. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the full analysis set (ie, all patients who were treated with study drug except any individuals who were found not to have hepatocellular carcinoma or who were found to have active double cancer). Patients, medical staff, investigators, and the sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. Blinding was maintained even after study treatment concluded. This study is registered with JapicCTI, number JapicCTI-090920, and has been completed. FINDINGS: Between Oct 26, 2009, and Aug 22, 2012, we screened 399 patients. 65 patients were excluded due to not meeting criteria (n=61), declining to participate (n=3), or other reasons (n=1). 334 patients were randomly assigned to receive either S-1 (n=223) or placebo (n=111). One patient in the S-1 group did not receive treatment, and was thus excluded from analyses. At data cutoff, median follow-up was 32·4 months (IQR 24·0-34·7) in the S-1 group and 32·9 months (23·7-39·5) in the placebo group. Median overall survival was 11·1 months (95% CI 9·7-13·1) in the S-1 group and 11·2 months (9·2-12·8) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·86, 95% CI 0·67-1·10; p=0·220). The most frequently reported adverse events were skin hyperpigmentation (123 [55%] of 222 patients in the S-1 group vs nine [8%] of 111 patients in the placebo group), decreased appetite (104 [47%] vs 21 [19%]), fatigue (102 [46%] vs 20 [18%]), diarrhoea (77 [35%] vs 14 [13%]), and increased blood bilirubin (77 [35%] vs 14 [13%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 90 (41%) of 222 patients in the S-1 group and 24 (22%) of 111 patients in the placebo group. Five treatment-related deaths were reported in the S-1 group. INTERPRETATION: S-1 did not prolong overall survival in patients with sorafenib-refractory advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Further research is needed to identify subgroups of patients who might benefit from S-1. FUNDING: Taiho Pharmaceuticals.

Multicenter, randomized, open-label Phase II study comparing S-1 alternate-day oral therapy with the standard daily regimen as a first-line treatment in patients with unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: Non-inferiority for overall survival (OS) following alternate-day treatment with the oral anticancer drug S-1 compared with standard daily treatment was assessed in Japanese patients with unresectable advanced pancreatic cancer in a multicenter, randomized, phase II study. This trial was registered at the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (no. 000008604). METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned 2:1 to treatment with alternate-day (twice daily on alternate days from days 1 through 42 of a 42-day cycle) or daily (twice daily on days 1 through 28 of a 42-day cycle) treatment with S-1. The primary endpoint was OS. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure, response rate, quality of life assessments, and safety. RESULTS: A total of 190 patients were enrolled, of which 185 were included in the final analysis (alternate-day: 121; daily: 64). Median OS was 9.4 for the alternate-day group and 10.4 months for the daily group [hazard ratio (HR), 1.19; 95% credible interval, 0.86 to 1.64], indicating that non-inferiority of alternate-day treatment to daily treatment was not demonstrated. Median PFS was 3.0 for the alternate-day group and 4.2 months for the daily group (HR, 1.65; 95% credible interval, 1.20-2.29). The incidence of anorexia, fatigue, neutrophils, pigmentation, and pneumonitis was lower in alternate-day treatment compared with daily treatment. CONCLUSION: S-1 for advanced pancreatic cancer should be taken daily as recommended, based on the decreased OS and PFS and marginal improvement in safety observed in the alternate-day group.