The OCT2/MATE1 Interaction Between Trifluridine, Metformin and Cimetidine: A Crossover Pharmacokinetic Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Trifluridine/tipiracil, registered for the treatment of patients with metastatic gastric and colorectal cancer, is a substrate and inhibitor for the organic cation transporter 2 (OCT2) and the multidrug and toxin extrusion protein 1 (MATE1), which raises the potential for drug-drug interactions with other OCT2/MATE1 modulators. Therefore, we prospectively examined the effect of an OCT2/MATE1 inhibitor (cimetidine) and substrate (metformin) on the pharmacokinetics of trifluridine. METHODS: In this three-phase crossover study, patients with metastatic colorectal or gastric cancer were sequentially treated with trifluridine/tipiracil alone (phase A), trifluridine/tipiracil concomitant with metformin (phase B) and trifluridine/tipiracil concomitant with cimetidine (phase C). The primary endpoint was the relative difference in exposure of trifluridine assessed by the area under the curve from timepoint zero to infinity. A > 30% change in exposure was considered clinically relevant. A p-value of < 0.025 was considered significant because of a Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were included in the analysis. Metformin did not significantly alter the exposure to trifluridine (- 12.6%; 97.5% confidence interval - 25.0, 1.8; p = 0.045). Cimetidine did alter the exposure to trifluridine significantly (+ 18.0%; 97.5% confidence interval 4.5, 33.3; p = 0.004), but this increase did not meet our threshold for clinical relevance. Metformin trough concentrations were not influenced by trifluridine/tipiracil. CONCLUSIONS: Our result suggests that the OCT2/MATE1 modulators cimetidine and metformin can be co-administered with trifluridine/tipiracil without clinically relevant effects on drug exposure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NL8067 (registered 04-10-2019).

Overall survival after definitive chemoradiotherapy for patients with esophageal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.

Definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) is a potentially curative therapy for esophageal cancer. As indications for dCRT differ widely, it is challenging to draw conclusions on outcomes and survival. The aim of this study was to evaluate overall survival (OS) and recurrence patterns according to indications for treatment. Patients who underwent dCRT (50.4 Gy concomitant with carboplatin/paclitaxel) for esophageal cancer between 2012 and 2022 were identified. Indications for dCRT were: cervical tumor, irresectable disease, unfit for surgery, and patient and/or physician preference. The primary endpoint was OS calculated with the Kaplan-Meier method. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of patients that completed the dCRT regimen, 30- and 90-day mortality, and disease recurrence. One hundred and fifty-seven patients were included (72.6% esophageal squamous cell carcinoma) with a median follow-up of 20 months (IQR 10.0-43.9). The full dCRT regimen was completed by 116 patients (73.9%). Thirty- and 90-day mortality were 2.5% and 8.3%, respectively. Median and 5-year OS for all patients were 22.9 months (95% CI 18.0-27.9) and 31.4%, respectively. The median OS per indication was 23.7 months (95% CI 6.5-40.8) for patients with cervical tumors, 10.9 months (95% 0.0-23.2) for irresectable disease, 28.2 months (95% CI 12.3-44.0) for unfit patients, and 22.9 months (95% CI 15.4-30.5) for patients' preference for dCRT (P = 0.11). Disease recurrence was observed in 74 patients (46%), located locoregionally (46%), distant (19%), or combined (35%). Patients who underwent dCRT had a 5-year OS of 31.4%, but OS differed according to indications for treatment with patients who had irresectable disease having the worst prognosis.

Effect of Switching the Histamine-1 Receptor Antagonist Clemastine to Cetirizine in Paclitaxel Premedication Regimens: The H1-Switch Study.

PURPOSE: Premedication, including a histamine-1 receptor (H1) antagonist, is recommended to all patients treated with paclitaxel chemotherapy to reduce the incidence of hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). However, the scientific basis for this premedication is not robust, which provides opportunities for optimization. Substitution of intravenously administered first-generation H1 antagonist for orally administered second-generation H1 antagonist could reduce side effects, and improve efficiency and sustainability. This study investigates the efficacy and safety of substituting intravenous clemastine for oral cetirizine as prophylaxis for paclitaxel-induced HSRs. METHODS: This single-center, prospective, noninferiority study compares a historic cohort receiving a premedication regimen with intravenous clemastine to a prospective cohort receiving oral cetirizine. Primary end point of the study is HSR grade ≥3. The difference in incidence was calculated together with the 90% CI. We determined that the two-sided 90% CI of HSR grade ≥3 incidence in the oral cetirizine cohort should not be more than 4% higher (ie, the noninferiority margin) compared with the intravenous clemastine cohort. RESULTS: Two hundred and twelve patients were included in the oral cetirizine cohort (June 2022 and May 2023) and 183 in the intravenous clemastine cohort. HSR grade ≥3 incidence was 1.6% (n = 3) in the intravenous clemastine cohort and 0.5% (n = 1) in the oral cetirizine cohort, resulting in a difference of -1.2% (90% CI, -3.4 to 1.1). CONCLUSION: Premedication containing oral cetirizine is as safe as premedication containing intravenous clemastine in preventing paclitaxel-induced HSR grade ≥3. These findings could contribute to optimization of care for patients and improve efficiency and sustainability.

Irinotecan-Induced Toxicity: A Pharmacogenetic Study Beyond UGT1A1.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Side effects of irinotecan treatment can be dose limiting and may impair quality of life. In this study, we investigated the correlation between single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes encoding enzymes involved in the irinotecan metabolism and transport, outside UGT1A1, and irinotecan-related toxicity. We focused on carboxylesterases, which are involved in formation of the active metabolite SN-38 and on drug transporters. METHODS: Patients who provided written informed consent at the Erasmus Medical Center Cancer Institute to the Code Geno study (local protocol: MEC02-1002) or the IRI28-study (NTR-6612) were enrolled in the study and were genotyped for 15 SNPs in the genes CES1, CES2, SLCO1B1, ABCB1, ABCC2, and ABCG2. RESULTS: From 299 evaluable patients, 86 patients (28.8%) developed severe irinotecan-related toxicity. A significantly higher risk of toxicity was seen in ABCG2 c.421C>A variant allele carriers (P = 0.030, OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.06-3.34). Higher age was associated with all grade diarrhea (P = 0.041, OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.06). In addition, CES1 c.1165-41C>T and CES1 n.95346T>C variant allele carriers had a lower risk of all-grade thrombocytopenia (P = 0.024, OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.20-0.90 and P = 0.018, OR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08-0.79, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our study indicates that ABCG2 and CES1 SNPs might be used as predictive markers for irinotecan-induced toxicity.

Capecitabine-induced hand-foot syndrome: A pharmacogenetic study beyond DPYD.

AIM OF THE STUDY: Occurrence of hand-foot syndrome (HFS) during capecitabine treatment often results in treatment interruptions (26 %) or treatment discontinuation (17 %), and can severely decrease quality of life. In this study, we investigated whether single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in capecitabine metabolism - other than DPYD - are associated with an increased risk for capecitabine-induced HFS. METHODS: Patients treated with capecitabine according to standard of care were enrolled after providing written informed consent for genotyping purposes. Prospectively collected blood samples were used to extract genomic DNA, which was subsequently genotyped for SNPs in CES1, CES2 and CDA. SNPs and clinical baseline factors that were univariably associated with HFS with P ≤ 0.10, were tested in a multivariable model using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 446 patients eligible for analysis, 146 (32.7 %) developed HFS, of whom 77 patients (17.3 %) experienced HFS ≥ grade 2. In the multivariable model, CES1 1165-33 C>A (rs2244613, minor allele frequency 19 %) and CDA 266 + 242 A>G (rs10916825, minor allele frequency 35 %) variant allele carriers were at higher risk of HFS ≥ grade 2 (OR 1.888; 95 %CI 1.075-3.315; P = 0.027 and OR 1.865; 95 %CI 1.087-3.200; P = 0.024, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We showed that CES1 1165-33 C>A and CDA 266 + 242 A>G are significantly associated with HFS grade 2 and grade 3 in patients treated with capecitabine. Prospective studies should assess whether this increased risk can be mitigated in carriers of these SNPs, when pre-emptive genotyping is being followed by dose adjustment or by alternative treatment by a fluoropyrimidine that is not substrate to CES1, such as S1.

Dietary sodium restriction prevents vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor-induced hypertension.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFIs) are effective anticancer agents which often induce hypertension. VEGFI-induced hypertension is sodium-sensitive in animal studies. Therefore, the efficacy of dietary sodium restriction (DSR) to prevent VEGFI-induced hypertension in cancer patients was studied. METHODS: Cancer patients with VEGFI-induced hypertension (day mean >135/85 mmHg or a rise in systolic and/or diastolic BP ≥ 20 mmHg) were treated with DSR (aiming at <4 g salt/day). The primary endpoint was the difference in daytime mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) increase between the treatment cycle with and without DSR. RESULTS: During the first VEGFI treatment cycle without DSR, mean daytime MAP increased from 95 to 110 mmHg. During the subsequent treatment cycle with DSR, mean daytime MAP increased from 94 to 102 mmHg. Therefore, DSR attenuated the increase in mean daytime MAP by 7 mmHg (95% CI 1.3-12.0, P = 0.009). DSR prevented the rise in the endothelin-1/renin ratio that normally accompanies VEGFI-induced hypertension (P = 0.020) and prevented the onset of proteinuria: 0.15 (0.10-0.25) g/24 h with DSR versus 0.19 (0.11-0.32) g/24 h without DSR; P = 0.005. DISCUSSION: DSR significantly attenuated VEGFI induced BP rise and proteinuria and thus is an effective non-pharmacological intervention.

Chemotherapy aNd chemoradiotherapy for adenocarcinoma of the OESophagus and esophagogastric junction with oligometastases: Protocol of the TNT-OES-1 trial.

Background: FLOT and CROSS are effective neoadjuvant regimens for esophageal cancer patients. Chemotherapy (FLOT) is aimed to have merely a systemic effect whereas neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CROSS) achieves good locoregional response with clinically complete response (cCR) rates up to 33% [1]. The aim of the present study is to assess safety and feasibility of dual therapy (FLOT-CROSS) in patients with oligometastases. Methods: This phase-II single-center, single-arm, intervention study includes patients with oligometastatic adenocarcinoma of the esophagus or esophagogastric junction. Patients will be treated with four biweekly cycles of FLOT, consisting of intravenous fluorouracil (2600 mg/m2), leucovorin (200 mg/m2), oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2) and docetaxel (50 mg/m2). Response evaluation by CT-scan will be performed 4-6 weeks after completion of FLOT. In case of regression or stable disease according to RECIST criteria (v.1.1), patients will receive additional CROSS, consisting of five weekly cycles of intravenous carboplatin (AUC 2) and paclitaxel (50 mg/m2), with concurrent 41.4 Gy radiotherapy, in 23 daily fractions of 1.8 Gy [2]. Response evaluation by endoscopy with biopsies, endoscopic ultrasonography and CT-scan will be performed 4-6 weeks after completion of CROSS. Primary endpoint is tolerability of FLOT-CROSS, defined as the proportion of patients who complete the full regimen. Secondary endpoints include disease control rate, objective response rate, overall survival and progression-free survival. In total, 20 patients will be included. Discussion: If patients are able to complete and tolerate FLOT-CROSS, this regimen should be tested in a phase-III trial and as neoadjuvant treatment in patients with locally advanced non-metastatic esophageal or junctional adenocarcinoma.

Effect of the Proton Pump Inhibitor Esomeprazole on the Systemic Exposure of Capecitabine: Results of A Randomized Crossover Trial.

Retrospective data suggest that gastric acid reduction by proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) impairs the dissolution and subsequent absorption of capecitabine, and thus potentially reduces the capecitabine exposure. Therefore, we examined prospectively the effect of esomeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine. In this randomized crossover study, patients with cancer were assigned to 2 sequence groups, each consisting of 3 phases: capecitabine with esomeprazole administration 3 hours before (phase A), capecitabine alone (phase B), and capecitabine concomitant with cola and esomeprazole co-administration 3 hours before (phase C). The primary end point was the relative difference (RD) in exposure to capecitabine assessed by the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero to infinity (AUC0-inf ) and analyzed by a linear mixed effect model. Twenty-two evaluable patients were included in the analysis. After esomeprazole, there was a 18.9% increase in AUC0-inf of capecitabine (95% confidence interval (CI) -10.0% to 57.0%, P = 0.36). In addition, capecitabine half-life was significantly longer after esomeprazole (median 0.63 hours vs. 0.46 hours, P = 0.005). Concomitant cola did not completely reverse the effects observed after esomeprazole (RD 3.3% (95% CI -16.3 to 27.4%, P = 1.00). Capecitabine exposure is not negatively influenced by esomeprazole cotreatment. Therefore, altered capecitabine pharmacokinetics do not explain the assumed worse clinical outcome of PPI-cotreated patients with cancer.

Tissue Type Differences in ABCB1 Expression and Paclitaxel Tissue Pharmacokinetics in Patients With Esophageal Cancer.

Background: Data from previous work suggests that there is no correlation between systemic (plasma) paclitaxel exposure and efficacy in patients treated for esophageal cancer. In this trial, we investigated ATP-binding cassette efflux transporter expression and intratumoral pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel to identify changes which could be a first sign of chemoresistance. Methods: Patients with esophageal cancer treated with paclitaxel and carboplatin (± concomitant radiotherapy) were included. During the first and last cycle of weekly paclitaxel, blood samples and biopsies of esophageal mucosa and tumor tissue were taken. Changes in paclitaxel exposure and expression of ABCB1 (P-glycoprotein) over time were studied in both tumor tissue and normal appearing esophageal mucosa. Results: ABCB1 was significantly higher expressed in tumor tissue compared to esophageal tissue, during both the first and last cycle of paclitaxel (cycle 1: p < 0.01; cycle 5/6: p = 0.01). Interestingly, ABCB1 expression was significantly higher in adenocarcinoma than in squamous cell carcinoma (p < 0.01). During the first cycle, a trend towards a higher intratumoral paclitaxel concentration was observed compared to the esophageal mucosa concentration (RD:43%; 95%CI: -3% to 111% p = 0.07). Intratumoral and plasma paclitaxel concentrations were significantly correlated during the first cycle (AUC0-48 h: r = 0.72; p < 0.01). Conclusion: Higher ABCB1 expression in tumor tissue, and differences between histological tumor types might partly explain why tumors respond differently to systemic treatment. Resistance by altered intratumoral paclitaxel concentrations could not be demonstrated because the majority of the biopsies taken at the last cycle of paclitaxel did contain a low amount of tumor cells or no tumor.

Effect of Scalp Cooling on the Pharmacokinetics of Paclitaxel.

Chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA), a side effect with high impact, can be prevented by cooling the scalp during the administration of some cytotoxic drugs. However, the effects of this prolonged scalp cooling on the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapy have never been investigated. In this study, we compared the pharmacokinetics of the widely used chemotherapeutic agent paclitaxel (weekly dose of 80-100 mg/m2) in female patients with solid tumors using concomitant scalp cooling (n = 14) or not (n = 24). Blood samples were collected in all patients for pharmacokinetic analyses up to 6 h after one course of paclitaxel administration. The primary endpoint was the clearance (L/h) of paclitaxel. Paclitaxel clearance-expressed as relative difference in geometric means-was 6.8% (90% CI: -16.7% to 4.4%) lower when paclitaxel was administered with concomitant scalp cooling versus paclitaxel infusions without scalp cooling. Within the subgroup of patients using scalp cooling, paclitaxel clearance was not statistically significantly different between patients with CIA (alopecia grade 1 or 2) and those without CIA. Hence, scalp cooling did not negatively influence the clearance of paclitaxel treatment.

Cardiovascular toxicity of angiogenesis inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors: synergistic anti-tumour effects at the cost of increased cardiovascular risk?

In the past two decades, treatment outcomes for a wide range of malignancies have improved remarkably due to the development of novel anti-cancer therapies, including vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors (VEGFIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Despite their unprecedented anti-tumour effects, it is becoming increasingly clear that both types of agents are associated with specific cardiovascular toxicity, including hypertension, congestive heart failure, myocarditis and acceleration of atherosclerosis. Currently, VEGFI and ICI combination therapy is recommended for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and has shown promising treatment efficacy in other tumour types as well. Consequently, VEGFI and ICI combination therapy will most likely become an important therapeutic strategy for various malignancies. However, this combinatory approach is expected to be accompanied by a substantial increase in cardiovascular risk, as both types of agents could act synergistically to induce cardiovascular sequelae. Therefore, a comprehensive baseline assessment and adequate monitoring by specialised cardio-oncology teams is essential in case these agents are used in combination, particularly in high-risk patients. This review summarises the mechanisms of action and treatment indications for currently registered VEGFIs and ICIs, and discusses their main vascular and cardiac toxicity. Subsequently, we provide the biological rationales for the observed promising synergistic anti-tumour effects of combined VEGFI/ICI administration. Lastly, we speculate on the increased risk for cardiovascular toxicity in case these agents are used in combination and its implications and future directions for the clinical situation.

The added value of H2 antagonists in premedication regimens during paclitaxel treatment.

BACKGROUND: Ranitidine, a histamine 2 blocker, is the standard of care to prevent hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) caused by paclitaxel infusion. However, the added value of ranitidine in this premedication regimen is controversial. Therefore, we compared the incidence of HSRs during paclitaxel treatment between a standard regimen including ranitidine and a regimen without ranitidine. METHODS: This prospective, pre-post interventional, non-inferiority study compared the standard premedication regimen (N = 183) with dexamethasone, clemastine and ranitidine with a premedication regimen without ranitidine (N = 183). The primary outcome was the incidence of HSR grade ≥3. Non-inferiority was determined by checking whether the upper bound of the two-sided 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in HSR rates excluded the +6% non-inferiority margin. RESULTS: In both the pre-intervention (with ranitidine) and post-intervention (without ranitidine) group 183 patients were included. The incidence of HSR grade ≥3 was 4.4% (N = 8) in the pre-intervention group and 1.6% (N = 3) in the post-intervention group: difference -2.7% (90% CI: -6.2 to 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: As the upper boundary of the 90% CI does not exceed the predefined non-inferiority margin of +6%, it can be concluded that a premedication regimen without ranitidine is non-inferior to a premedication regimen with ranitidine. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.trialregister.nl ; NL8173.

Combining Sorafenib and Immunosuppression in Liver Transplant Recipients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation occurs in approximately 20% of patients. Most of these patients use immunosuppressant drugs. Meanwhile, patients with HCC recurrence are frequently treated with the small molecule kinase inhibitor (SMKI) sorafenib. However, sorafenib and many immunosuppressants are substrates of the same enzymatic pathways (e.g., CYP3A4), which may potentially result in altered SMKI or immunosuppressant plasma levels. Therefore, we investigated changes in drug exposure of both sorafenib and immunosuppressants over time in four patients with systemic immunosuppressant and sorafenib treatment after HCC recurrence. In this study, sorafenib exposure declined over time during combined treatment with immunosuppressants, while two patients also experienced declining tacrolimus plasma levels. Importantly, patients were unable to increase the sorafenib dose higher than 200 mg b.i.d. without experiencing significant toxicity. We recommend to treat patients using both sorafenib and immunosuppressants with a sorafenib starting dose of 200 mg b.i.d.

The Influence of Body Composition on the Systemic Exposure of Paclitaxel in Esophageal Cancer Patients.

Changes in body composition are associated with chemotherapy-related toxicities and effectiveness of treatment. It is hypothesized that the pharmacokinetics (PK) of chemotherapeutics may depend on body composition. The effects of body composition on the variability of paclitaxel PK were studied in patients with esophageal cancer. Skeletal muscle index (SMI), visceral adipose tissue (VAT), and skeletal muscle density (SMD) were measured at the third lumbar vertebra on computed tomography (CT) scans performed before treatment. Paclitaxel PK data were collected from a prospective study performed between May 2004 and January 2014. Non-linear mixed-effects modeling was used to fit paclitaxel PK profiles and evaluate the covariates body surface area (BSA), SMI, VAT, and SMD using a significance threshold of p < 0.001. Paclitaxel was administered to 184 patients in a dose range of 50 to 175 mg/m2. Median BSA was 1.98 m2 (range of 1.4 to 2.8 m2). SMI, VAT, and SMD were not superior to BSA in predicting paclitaxel PK. The additive value of SMI, VAT, and SMD to BSA was also negligible. We did not find evidence that paclitaxel dosing could be further optimized by correcting for SMI, VAT, or SMD.

Influence of Probenecid on the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Sorafenib.

Prior studies have demonstrated an organic anion transporter 6 (OAT6)-mediated accumulation of sorafenib in keratinocytes. The OAT6 inhibitor probenecid decreases sorafenib uptake in skin and might, therefore, decrease sorafenib-induced cutaneous adverse events. Here, the influence of probenecid on sorafenib pharmacokinetics and toxicity was investigated. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed in 16 patients on steady-state sorafenib treatment at days 1 and 15 of the study. Patients received sorafenib (200-800 mg daily) in combination with probenecid (500 mg two times daily (b.i.d.)) on days 2-15. This study was designed to determine bioequivalence with geometric mean Area under the curve from zero to twelve hours (AUC0-12 h) as primary endpoint. During concomitant probenecid, sorafenib plasma AUC0-12 h decreased by 27% (90% CI: -38% to -14%; P < 0.01). Furthermore, peak and trough levels of sorafenib, as well as sorafenib concentrations in skin, decreased to a similar extent in the presence of probenecid. The metabolic ratio of sorafenib-glucuronide to parent drug increased (+29%) in the presence of probenecid. A decrease in systemic sorafenib concentrations during probenecid administration seems to have influenced cutaneous concentrations. Since sorafenib-glucuronide concentrations increased compared with sorafenib and sorafenib-N-oxide, probenecid may have interrupted enterohepatic circulation of sorafenib by inhibition of the organic anion transporting polypeptides 1B1 (OATP1B1). Sorafenib treatment with probenecid is, therefore, not bioequivalent to sorafenib monotherapy. A clear effect of probenecid on sorafenib toxicity could not be identified in this study.

Adjuvant Hepatic Arterial Infusion Pump Chemotherapy After Resection of Colorectal Liver Metastases: Results of a Safety and Feasibility Study in The Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The 10-year overall survival with adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy after resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) was 61% in clinical trials from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. A pilot study was performed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy in patients with resectable CRLMs. STUDY DESIGN: A phase II study was performed in two centers in The Netherlands. Patients with resectable CRLM without extrahepatic disease were eligible. All patients underwent complete resection and/or ablation of CRLMs and pump implantation. Safety was determined by the 90-day HAIP-related postoperative complications from the day of pump placement (Clavien-Dindo classification, grade III or higher) and feasibility by the successful administration of the first cycle of HAIP chemotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients, with a median age of 57 years (interquartile range [IQR] 51-64) were included. Grade III or higher HAIP-related postoperative complications were found in two patients (10%), both of whom had a reoperation (without laparotomy) to replace a pump with a slow flow rate or to reposition a flipped pump. No arterial bleeding, arterial dissection, arterial thrombosis, extrahepatic perfusion, pump pocket hematoma, or pump pocket infections were found within 90 days after surgery. After a median of 43 days (IQR 29-52) following surgery, all patients received the first dose of HAIP chemotherapy, which was completed uneventfully in all patients. CONCLUSION: Pump implantation is safe, and administration of HAIP chemotherapy is feasible, in patients with resectable CRLMs, after training of a dedicated multidisciplinary team.

Efficacy and Toxicity of Weekly Carboplatin and Paclitaxel as Induction or Palliative Treatment in Advanced Esophageal Cancer Patients.

Many patients have advanced esophageal cancer at diagnosis. However, the most optimal treatment has not been identified. Therefore, we evaluated a weekly regimen of carboplatin (area under the curve (AUC)) of 4 and paclitaxel at 100 mg/m2 as an induction or palliative treatment. All patients with advanced (gastro)esophageal cancer treated with this regimen between 2002-2018 were included. Exclusion criteria were previous radiotherapy or treatment elsewhere. Data on toxicity, response, and survival were collected. Analyses were performed in two groups: induction (iCT) or palliative chemotherapy (pCT). Median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method. A total of 291 patients was included (iCT: 122; pCT: 169). Most patients had T3 carcinoma (iCT: 54%; pCT: 66%) and stage IV disease (iCT: 42%; pCT: 91%). A toxicity grade ≥3 occurred mainly as hematological toxicity (iCT: 71%; pCT: 73%) and gastrointestinal toxicity (iCT: 3%; pCT: 5%). Response rates were 48% (iCT) and 44% (pCT). Esophagectomy or definitive chemoradiotherapy followed in 42% of iCT, resulting in a PFS of 22.1 months (interquartile range (IQR): 12.4-114.2) and OS of 26.8 months (IQR: 15.4-91.7). For pCT, PFS was 8.2 months (IQR: 5.1-14.5) and OS 10.9 months (IQR: 6.5-18.3). This retrospective cohort study demonstrated that weekly carboplatin (AUC4) and paclitaxel (100 mg/m2) is a well-tolerated and effective induction or palliative treatment regimen for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Future research should directly compare this treatment regimen with other first-line treatment options to determine its true value for clinical practice.

Sorafenib-Induced Changes in Thyroid Hormone Levels in Patients Treated for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Context: The pathogenesis of tyrosine kinase inhibitor-induced thyroid hormone (TH) alterations are still a matter of debate. Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the effects of sorafenib on TH levels in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to evaluate possible mechanisms. Design: We performed a prospective cohort study between 2009 and 2016. Setting: This study was conducted at a tertiary referral center. Patients: This study included 57 consecutive patients with HCC who were treated with sorafenib. Main Outcome Measure: Thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and free thyroxine (FT4) levels were measured every 6 weeks, and extensive thyroid function tests (TFTs) were measured before treatment (t0), after 6 weeks (t6), and at the end of therapy. The effect of sorafenib on TH transport by monocarboxylate transporter (MCT)8 or MCT10 was tested in transfected COS1 cells. Results: Four patients (7%) developed thyroiditis. Among the other patients, 30% had elevation of TSH or FT4 above the normal range. Overall, between t0 and t6, mean TSH increased from 1.28 to 1.57 mU/L (P < 0.001) and mean FT4 from 18.4 to 21.2 pmol/L (P < 0.001). Simultaneously, the serum triiodothyronine (T3)/reverse triiodothyronine ratio and the (T3/thyroxine) ×100 ratio decreased. Sorafenib decreased cellular T3 uptake by MCT8 and to a lesser extent by MCT10. Conclusions: These in vivo data suggest that sorafenib affects TFTs on multiple levels. Our in vitro experiments suggest a possible role of sorafenib-induced inhibition of T3 transport into the cell by MCT8 and MCT10.