Survival benefit of radioembolization for inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma using yttrium-90 microspheres.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Transarterial radioembolization with yttrium-90 microspheres is one treatment option for inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma. We compared the survival in a cohort of patients receiving radioembolization or no radioembolization. METHODS: The data of 46 patients referred for radioembolization was retrospectively reviewed. The patient, tumor characteristics, and the survival were compared in the two groups. The independent predictors for survival were studied with multivariate analysis. The side-effects and the complication of radioembolization-induced liver disease was recorded. RESULTS: Thirty patients received radioembolization; 16 patients did not. The two groups did not differ in the mean age, Child-Pugh classes, Barcelona Clinic of Liver Cancer (BCLC) stages, tumor types, sum of diameter of the two biggest tumors, and extent of portal vein invasion. Those with BCLC stage C tumor, with portal vein thrombus, or with less than three nodules had significantly longer survival after radioembolization. There was a trend of longer survival in patients with Child-Pugh A liver function, or with BCLC stage B tumor after radioembolization. The median survival was more than 31.9 months, 14.5 months, and 5.2 months in patients with BCLC stage A, B, and C tumors. The independent predictors for longer survival were Child-Pugh class, tumor diameter sum, BCLC stage, and receiving radioembolization. Grade 2 irradiation-induced gastritis occurred in three patients (10%). Radioembolization-induced liver disease occurred in four patients (13%). CONCLUSIONS: Radioembolization may prolong survival for patients with inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma. Radioembolization-induced liver disease occurred and should be further studied.

BRCA mutation testing for ovarian cancer in the context of available targeted therapy: Survey and consensus of Hong Kong specialists.

AIMS: BRCA mutation (BRCAmut) testing is an important tool for the risk assessment, prevention and early diagnosis of breast cancer (BC) and ovarian cancer (OC), and more recently, for determining patient susceptibility to targeted therapy. This study assessed the current BRCAmut testing patterns and explored physicians' perspectives on the utilities and optimal sequencing of the testing, in order to facilitate and standardize testing practices. METHODS: Medical specialists in BC and OC in Hong Kong were invited to complete a questionnaire on BRCAmut testing practices. A panel of specialists with extensive BRCAmut testing experience was also convened to develop consensus statements on testing, using the Delphi method and an anonymous electronic voting system. RESULTS: The survey respondents (n = 71) recognized family history (FH) of BC and/or OC and an early age of onset as key factors for referring BRCAmut testing. The proportion of respondents who would test all OCs regardless of FH or age, as per the recent international guideline, was low (28.2%). The largest hurdles to testing were the cost, as well as the availability of next-generation sequencing-accredited testing and genetic counseling facilities. The panelists suggested that the sequence of somatic testing followed by germline testing may help address both the imminent need of treatment planning and longer term hereditary implications. The potential emotional and financial burdens of BRCAmut testing should be weighed against the potential therapeutic benefits, and the type and timing of testing personalized. CONCLUSIONS: Accessibility of BRCAmut testing to all at-risk individuals will be achievable through improvements in testing affordability, as well as widened availability of accredited testing and genetic counseling facilities.

Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Previously Treated With Docetaxel-Based Chemotherapy: Treatment Patterns From the PROXIMA Prospective Registry.

PURPOSE: There is a major clinical need to devise an optimal treatment sequence for the multiple therapy options available for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In the absence of prospective clinical trials, sequencing information can be derived from large, real-world registry studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PROXIMA (Treatment Patterns in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer Previously Treated With Docetaxel-Based Chemotherapy) is a large, global, prospective registry study evaluating real-world treatment patterns of patients with mCRPC who experience disease progression during or after docetaxel therapy. Patients were enrolled worldwide between 2011 and 2014. Treatments were determined by the treating physicians and recorded in categories of chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and palliative therapy. Treatment sequencing patterns, response to treatment, and types of progression were recorded and analyzed. Progression-free survival and overall survival with different treatment modalities were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Treatment patterns were evaluated in 903 patients. Therapy selection was influenced by region. Hormonal therapy (57.5%) and taxane chemotherapy (26.4%) were the most frequently administered first subsequent treatments after docetaxel. Tumor responses to first subsequent treatment were observed in 22.6% of evaluable patients. Overall survival and progression-free survival did not differ significantly across different treatment modalities. CONCLUSION: Identifying an optimal treatment sequence is vital for improving the care of patients with mCRPC. The PROXIMA registry provided a representative sample of global data on real-world treatment patterns for patients with mCRPC previously treated with docetaxel. These data can be used to devise optimal therapy sequences and inform treatment decisions.

Randomized Phase II Study of the X-linked Inhibitor of Apoptosis (XIAP) Antisense AEG35156 in Combination With Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC).

OBJECTIVES: This multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase II trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of AEG35156 in addition to sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), as compared with sorafenib alone. METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive AEG35156 (300 mg weekly intravenous infusion) in combination with sorafenib (400 mg twice daily orally) or sorafenib alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Other endpoints include overall survival (OS), objective response rates (ORR), and safety profile. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients were enrolled; of them, 48 were evaluable. At a median follow-up of 16.2 months, the median PFS and OS were 4.0 months (95% CI, 1.2-4.1) and 6.5 months (95% CI, 3.9-11.5) for combination arm, and 2.6 (95% CI, 1.2-5.4) and 5.4 months (95% CI, 4.3-11.2) for sorafenib arm. Patients who had the study treatment interrupted or had dose modifications according to protocol did significantly better, in terms of PFS and OS, than those who had no dose reduction in combination arm and those in sorafenib arm. The ORR based on Choi and RECIST criteria were 16.1% and 9.7% in combination arm, respectively. The ORR was 0 in control arm. One drug-related serious adverse event of hypersensitivity occurred in the combination arm, whereas 2 gastrointestinal serious adverse events in the sorafenib arm. CONCLUSION: AEG35156 in combination with sorafenib showed additional activity in terms of ORR and was well tolerated. The benefit on PFS is moderate but more apparent in the dose-reduced subgroups.