Management of elderly patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Systemic chemotherapy plays important role in pancreatic cancer not only for palliative treatment of unresectable disease, but also for neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment of resectable disease. Most clinical trials of systemic chemotherapy have been conducted in non-elderly patients, and the results cannot always be extrapolated to elderly patients because of the uniqueness of this population. The number of elderly patients with pancreatic cancer has increased in an aging society; therefore, there is an urgent need to develop specific treatments for elderly patients with pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine or S-1 monotherapy is generally considered appropriate even for vulnerable elderly patients. FOLFIRINOX is considered inapplicable based on its safety profile. Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and nanoliposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil plus folinic acid can be administered to elderly patients, because the phase III trials have shown the efficacy and safety for patients including those who were 75 years or older. However, the feasibility of these therapies for elderly patients is still under debate since the number of elderly populations was relatively small in these studies. To determine the indication for these regimens in the elderly, the background of each patient should be considered. Geriatric assessment such as the Geriatric 8 and the Geriatric Nutritional Risk Index can identify vulnerabilities and are therefore recommended in daily clinical practice as well as in clinical studies of elderly patients. It is expected that geriatric assessment will elucidate the eligibility criteria for those regimens in elderly individuals. Randomized clinical trials are ongoing to establish a standard treatment in the vulnerable elderly with advanced pancreatic cancer, who cannot tolerate the same regimen as in the non-elderly patients.

Nivolumab versus sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (CheckMate 459): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Single-agent nivolumab showed durable responses, manageable safety, and promising survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the phase 1-2 CheckMate 040 study. We aimed to investigate nivolumab monotherapy compared with sorafenib monotherapy in the first-line setting for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial done at medical centres across 22 countries and territories in Asia, Australasia, Europe, and North America, patients at least 18 years old with histologically confirmed advanced hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for, or whose disease had progressed after, surgery or locoregional treatment; with no previous systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma, with Child-Pugh class A and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1, and regardless of viral hepatitis status were randomly assigned (1:1) via an interactive voice response system to receive nivolumab (240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks) or sorafenib (400 mg orally twice daily) until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02576509. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2016, and May 24, 2017, 743 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (nivolumab, n=371; sorafenib, n=372). At the primary analysis, the median follow-up for overall survival was 15·2 months (IQR 5·7-28·0) for the nivolumab group and 13·4 months (5·7-25·9) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 16·4 months (95% CI 13·9-18·4) with nivolumab and 14·7 months (11·9-17·2) with sorafenib (hazard ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·72-1·02]; p=0·075; minimum follow-up 22·8 months); the protocol-defined significance level of p=0·0419 was not reached. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia (1 [<1%] of 367 patients in the nivolumab group vs 52 [14%] of patients in the sorafenib group), aspartate aminotransferase increase (22 [6%] vs 13 [4%]), and hypertension (0 vs 26 [7%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in 43 (12%) patients receiving nivolumab and 39 (11%) patients receiving sorafenib. Four deaths in the nivolumab group and one death in the sorafenib group were assessed as treatment related. INTERPRETATION: First-line nivolumab treatment did not significantly improve overall survival compared with sorafenib, but clinical activity and a favourable safety profile were observed in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Thus, nivolumab might be considered a therapeutic option for patients in whom tyrosine kinase inhibitors and antiangiogenic drugs are contraindicated or have substantial risks. FUNDING: Bristol Myers Squibb in collaboration with Ono Pharmaceutical.

Systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma: current status and future perspectives.

Since sorafenib was established as the standard of care for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, various tyrosine kinase inhibitors, targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and other molecular growth factors, have been developed. Lenvatinib demonstrated non-inferiority to sorafenib in terms of the overall survival, and it has also become confirmed as another standard of care for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Recently, various immune checkpoint inhibitors have been investigated, either as monotherapy or in combination with another agent, and superiority of the combination of atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, in terms of the overall survival and progression-free survival, has been demonstrated over sorafenib, which is recognized as the treatment regimen of first choice for first-line systemic therapy of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Regorafenib, cabozantinib and ramucirumab have been demonstrated to show survival benefits as second-line treatment agents for progressive disease after first-line sorafenib treatment. There are still various medical requirements in systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma. To date, no evidence has been established for the selection of sequential treatment after immune checkpoint inhibitor-containing treatments, especially atezolizumab plus bevacizumab. A promising treatment for Child-Pugh class B hepatocellular carcinoma patients is also an urgent medical need that has not yet been met. Although there are some difficulties in establishing the needed evidence, well-designed clinical trials are warranted.

Randomised, multicentre prospective trial of transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) plus sorafenib as compared with TACE alone in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: TACTICS trial.

OBJECTIVE: This trial compared the efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) plus sorafenib with TACE alone using a newly established TACE-specific endpoint and pre-treatment of sorafenib before initial TACE. DESIGN: Patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were randomised to TACE plus sorafenib (n=80) or TACE alone (n=76). Patients in the combination group received sorafenib 400 mg once daily for 2-3 weeks before TACE, followed by 800 mg once daily during on-demand conventional TACE sessions until time to untreatable (unTACEable) progression (TTUP), defined as untreatable tumour progression, transient deterioration to Child-Pugh C or appearance of vascular invasion/extrahepatic spread. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), which is not a conventional one but defined as TTUP, or time to any cause of death plus overall survival (OS). Multiplicity was adjusted by gatekeeping hierarchical testing. RESULTS: Median PFS was significantly longer in the TACE plus sorafenib than in the TACE alone group (25.2 vs 13.5 months; p=0.006). OS was not analysed because only 73.6% of OS events were reached. Median TTUP (26.7 vs 20.6 months; p=0.02) was also significantly longer in the TACE plus sorafenib group. OS at 1 year and 2 years in TACE plus sorafenib group and TACE alone group were 96.2% and 82.7% and 77.2% and 64.6%, respectively. There were no unexpected toxicities. CONCLUSION: TACE plus sorafenib significantly improved PFS over TACE alone in patients with unresectable HCC. Adverse events were consistent with those of previous TACE combination trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01217034.

TAS-118 (S-1 plus leucovorin) versus S-1 in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study (GRAPE trial).

BACKGROUND: In our previous randomised phase 2 study for patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer, S-1 plus leucovorin improved progression-free survival compared with S-1 alone. Here, we evaluated the efficacy of TAS-118 (S-1 plus leucovorin) versus S-1 in overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study was conducted at 58 centres in Japan and Korea. Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer that progressed during first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy or recurred during or after post-operative gemcitabine-based adjuvant treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either S-1 (40-60 mg, twice daily for 4 weeks in a 6-week cycle) or TAS-118 (S-1 40-60 mg plus leucovorin 25 mg, twice daily for 1 week in a 2-week cycle). The primary end-point was OS. RESULTS: A total of 603 patients were randomised, and 300 and 301 patients received TAS-118 and S-1, respectively. There was no difference in OS between groups (median OS for TAS-118 versus S-1, 7.6 months versus 7.9 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.98 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.82-1.16]; P = 0.756). Progression-free survival was significantly longer with TAS-118 than S-1 (median, 3.9 months versus 2.8 months; HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]; P = 0.009). There were interactions between Japan and Korea (P = 0.004) and between unresectable and recurrent disease (P = 0.025) in OS. Incidence, profile and severity of adverse events were similar between groups. CONCLUSION: TAS-118 did not improve OS in patients with gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic cancer compared to S-1. Further studies are needed to find patients who have benefit from adding leucovorin to S-1.

Phase I/II study of first-line combination therapy with sorafenib plus resminostat, an oral HDAC inhibitor, versus sorafenib monotherapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in east Asian patients.

PURPOSE: Resminostat is an oral inhibitor of class I, IIB, and IV histone deacetylases. This phase I/II study compared the safety and efficacy of resminostat plus sorafenib versus sorafenib monotherapy as first-line therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: In phase I, resminostat (400 mg or 600 mg/day on days 1 to 5 every 14 days) was administered with sorafenib (800 mg/day for 14 days) to determine the recommended dose for phase II. In phase II, patients were randomized (1:1) to sorafenib monotherapy or resminostat plus sorafenib. The primary endpoint was time-to-progression (TTP). RESULTS: Nine patients (3: 400 mg, 6: 600 mg) were enrolled in phase I, and the recommended dose of resminostat was determined to be 400 mg/day. Then 170 patients were enrolled in phase II. Median TTP/overall survival (OS) were 2.8/14.1 months with monotherapy versus 2.8/11.8 months with combination therapy (Hazard Ratio [HR]: 0.984, p = 0.925/HR: 1.046, p = 0.824). The overall incidence of adverse events was similar in both groups (98.8% versus 100.0%). However, thrombocytopenia ≥ Grade 3 was significantly more frequent in the combination therapy group (34.5% versus 2.4%, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed that median TTP/OS was 1.5/6.9 months for monotherapy versus 2.8/13.1 months for combination therapy (HR: 0.795, p = 0.392/HR: 0.567, p = 0.065) among patients with a normal-to-high baseline platelet count (≥ 150 × 103/mm3). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with advanced HCC, first-line therapy with resminostat at the recommended dose plus sorafenib showed no significant efficacy advantage over sorafenib monotherapy.

A multicenter Phase II study of sorafenib in Japanese patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and Child Pugh A and B class.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate prospectively the efficacy and safety of sorafenib, which has been the first-line treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), in Japanese HCC patients (pts) with not only Child-Pugh (C-P) A class but also C-P B class. METHODS: Sorafenib was administered orally at the dose of 400 mg twice daily for pts with HCC and liver function of C-P score of 5-8. Administration was continued until the detection of disease progression or appearance of unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP), and toxicity and the secondary endpoints included objective response, overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Forty C-P A pts and 12 C-P B pts were enrolled. The median TTP in the C-P A pts and C-P B pts was 3.3 months and 3.2 months, respectively. Among the pts with C-P A, complete response, partial response, and stable disease were achieved for 2.5%, 7.5% and 47.5%. Among the pts with C-P B, there were no treatment responses, 66.7% of pts had stable disease. The median OS in the C-P A pts and C-P B pts was 13.4 months and 7.4 months, respectively. With regard to toxicities, fewer C-P A pts experienced Grade 3/4 toxicities than C-P B pts (77.5% vs. 91.6%). There were no treatment-related deaths in either group of patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows sorafenib has similar effectiveness in the recent post-approval studies and is well-tolerated in Japanese pts with HCC and Child Pugh A class. Sorafenib should be used with great care for Child Pugh class B pts.

Ramucirumab as second-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Japanese subgroup analysis of the REACH trial.

BACKGROUND: REACH evaluated ramucirumab in the second-line treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. In the intent-to-treat population (n = 565), a significant improvement in overall survival (OS) was not observed. In patients with an elevated baseline α-fetoprotein (AFP) level (400 ng/mL or greater), an improvement in OS was demonstrated. An analysis of the Japanese patients in REACH was performed. METHODS: An analysis was performed with the subset of the intent-to-treat population enrolled in Japan (n = 93). RESULTS: The median OS was 12.9 months for the ramucirumab arm (n = 45) and 8.0 months for the placebo arm (n = 48) [hazard ratio (HR) 0.621 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.391-0.986); P = 0.0416]. The median progression-free survival was 4.1 months for the ramucirumab arm and 1.7 months for the placebo arm [HR 0.449 (95 % CI 0.285-0.706); P = 0.0004]. The objective response rates were 11 % for the ramucirumab arm and 2 % for the placebo arm (P = 0.0817). The grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events occurring in more than 5 % of patients with a higher incidence for the ramucirumab arm (n = 44) than for the placebo arm (n = 47) were ascites (7% vs 2 %), hypertension (7 % vs 2 %), and cholangitis (7 % vs 0 %). In patients with a baseline AFP level of 400 ng/mL or greater, the median OS was 12.9 months for the ramucirumab arm (n = 20) and 4.3 months for the placebo arm (n = 22) [HR 0.464 (95 % CI 0.232-0.926); P = 0.0263]. CONCLUSIONS: In the Japanese patients in REACH, ramucirumab treatment improved OS, including in patients with a baseline AFP level of 400 ng/mL or greater; improvements in progression-free survival and objective response rate were also demonstrated. The safety profile of ramucirumab was acceptable and well tolerated in Japanese patients. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01140347.

Observational registry of sorafenib use in clinical practice across Child-Pugh subgroups: The GIDEON study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: GIDEON (Global Investigation of therapeutic DEcisions in hepatocellular carcinoma and Of its treatment with sorafeNib) is a prospective, observational registry study evaluating the safety of sorafenib and treatment practices in hepatocellular carcinoma patients. This large global database allowed for assessment of the use and tolerability of sorafenib in patients with liver dysfunction. METHODS: Baseline characteristics and medical/treatment history were collected in patients for whom a decision to treat with sorafenib had been made. Adverse event, dosing, and outcomes data were collected during follow-up. RESULTS: In the overall safety population (n=3202), 1968 patients (61%) had Child-Pugh A status and 666 (21%) had Child-Pugh B. The majority of Child-Pugh A (72%) and Child-Pugh B (70%) patients received an initial sorafenib dose of 800mg, consistent with the label, and dose reduction rates were 40% and 29%, respectively. The type and incidence of adverse events were generally consistent across Child-Pugh subgroups. The incidence of drug-related adverse events leading to discontinuation was similar between Child-Pugh A and Child-Pugh B patients (17% and 21%). In the intent-to-treat population (n=3213), median overall survival (months [95% confidence interval]) was longer in Child-Pugh A patients (13.6 [12.8-14.7]) compared with Child-Pugh B patients (5.2 [4.6-6.3]). CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, the safety profile of sorafenib appeared to be consistent across Child-Pugh A and Child-Pugh B patients. Findings suggest sorafenib may be safely used in some Child-Pugh B patients and indicate the importance of careful patient evaluation when making treatment decisions. LAY SUMMARY: The GIDEON (Global Investigation of therapeutic DEcisions in hepatocellular carcinoma and Of its treatment with sorafeNib) study is a large prospective registry of patients with liver cancer who were treated with sorafenib. The aims were to evaluate the safety and tolerability of sorafenib among those in which the liver was not functioning properly. The study showed that the safety profile of sorafenib was consistent across patients with preserved liver function and those in which the liver was not functioning properly, and therefore, suggesting that sorafenib may be a valid treatment for some patients with liver impairment.

Safety and effectiveness of sorafenib in Japanese patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in daily medical practice: interim analysis of a prospective postmarketing all-patient surveillance study.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib was approved for treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in Japan in 2009. A prospective postmarketing all-patient surveillance (PMS) study was requested by Japanese authorities to confirm safety and effectiveness of sorafenib in Japanese HCC population. METHODS: Patients with unresectable HCC treated with sorafenib were followed up for 12 months. Data on patient demographic characteristics, treatment status, clinical outcome, and adverse events (AEs) were collected. RESULTS: This interim analysis included 1109 and 1065 patients evaluable for safety and effectiveness, respectively. Most patients (83.4 %) received the recommended initial dose of 400 mg twice daily. After a follow-up of 12-months, 89.8 % had discontinued treatment, most because of AEs (44.5 %) or progression (33.8 %). The most common drug-related adverse events (DRAE) were hand-foot skin reaction (51.4 %), liver dysfunction (26.4 %), diarrhea (25.1 %), and hypertension (21.6 %). The median overall survival (OS) was 348 days [95 % confidence interval (CI) 299-389 days], and the median duration of treatment was 87 days (95 % CI 78-98 days). Multivariate analyses identified baseline prognostic factors for longer OS, including female sex, low Child-Pugh score, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0, tumor stage I/II/III, low aspartate aminotransferase level, high hemoglobin level, hepatitis C and history of surgical resection. CONCLUSIONS: In general, the safety and effectiveness findings in this PMS were consistent with findings from previous clinical studies. Sorafenib was well tolerated and clinically useful for Japanese patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01411436.

Regional differences in sorafenib-treated patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: GIDEON observational study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Treatment approaches for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vary across countries, but these differences and their potential impact on outcomes have not been comprehensively assessed. Data from the multinational GIDEON (Global Investigation of therapeutic DEcisions in HCC and Of its treatment with sorafeNib) registry evaluated differences in patient characteristics, practice patterns and outcomes in HCC across geographical regions in patients who received sorafenib. METHODS: GIDEON is a non-randomised, observational registry study conducted in 39 countries across five global regions. HCC patients in whom a decision to treat with sorafenib was made in clinical practice and according to local practices were included. RESULTS: 3202 patients were evaluable for safety analysis: Asia-Pacific (n = 928), Japan (n = 508), Europe (n = 1113), USA (n = 563) and Latin America (n = 90). Patients in Japan had earlier-stage disease at initial diagnosis compared with patients in other regions (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage A; 43.7% vs 9.1-24.3%). Use of locoregional therapies before sorafenib, including transarterial chemoembolisation, was more common in Japan (84.4%) and Asia-Pacific (67.2%) compared with the USA (49.4%) and Europe (43.5%). Treatment patterns with respect to sorafenib also differed, with a shorter duration of treatment reported in the USA and Asia-Pacific. Time from initial diagnosis to death was longer in Japan compared with other regions (median, 79.6 months vs 14.8-25.0 months). CONCLUSIONS: Data from GIDEON highlight regional variations in the management of HCC and patient outcomes. Greater standardisation of management may help optimise outcomes for HCC patients.

TACE Treatment in Patients with Sorafenib-treated Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Clinical Practice: Final Analysis of GIDEON.

PURPOSE: To evaluate transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) use prior to and concomitantly with sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) across different global regions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: GIDEON is an observational registry study of more than 3000 HCC patients. Patients with histologically, cytologically, or radiographically diagnosed HCC, and for whom a decision had been made to treat with sorafenib, were eligible. Patients were enrolled into the registry from 39 countries beginning in January 2009, with the last patient follow-up in April 2012. Detailed data on treatment history, treatment patterns, adverse events, and outcomes were collected. All treatment decisions were at the discretion of the treating physicians. Documented approval from local ethics committees was obtained, and all patients provided signed informed consent. Descriptive statistics, including minimum, median, and maximum, were calculated for metric data, and frequency tables for categorical data. Kaplan-Meier estimates with 95% confidence intervals were calculated for survival end points. RESULTS: A total of 3202 patients were eligible for safety analysis, of whom 2631 (82.2%) were male. Median age was 62 years (range, 15-98 years). A total of 1511 (47.2%) patients underwent TACE prior to sorafenib; 325 (10.1%) underwent TACE concomitantly. TACE prior to sorafenib was more common in Japan and Asia-Pacific compared with all other regions (362 [71.3%] and 560 [60.3%] vs 12-209 [13.3%-37.1%]). Adverse events were reported in 2732 (85.3%) patients overall, with no notable differences in the incidence of adverse events, regardless of TACE treatment history. Overall survival was 12.7 months in prior-TACE patients, 9.2 months in non-prior-TACE patients, 21.6 months in concomitant-TACE patients, and 9.7 months in non-concomitant-TACE patients. CONCLUSION: Global variation exists in TACE use in sorafenib-treated HCC patients. The combination of TACE with sorafenib appears to be a well-tolerated and viable therapeutic approach.

Effect of everolimus on survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after failure of sorafenib: the EVOLVE-1 randomized clinical trial.

IMPORTANCE: Aside from the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib, there are no effective systemic therapies for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of everolimus in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma for whom sorafenib treatment failed. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: EVOLVE-1 was a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study conducted among 546 adults with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh A liver function whose disease progressed during or after sorafenib or who were intolerant of sorafenib. Patients were enrolled from 17 countries between May 2010 and March 2012. Randomization was stratified by region (Asia vs rest of world) and macrovascular invasion (present vs absent). INTERVENTIONS: Everolimus, 7.5 mg/d, or matching placebo, both given in combination with best supportive care and continued until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Per the 2:1 randomization scheme, 362 patients were randomized to the everolimus group and 184 patients to the placebo group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included time to progression and the disease control rate (the percentage of patients with a best overall response of complete or partial response or stable disease). RESULTS: No significant difference in overall survival was seen between treatment groups, with 303 deaths (83.7%) in the everolimus group and 151 deaths (82.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.86-1.27; P = .68; median overall survival, 7.6 months with everolimus, 7.3 months with placebo). Median time to progression with everolimus and placebo was 3.0 months and 2.6 months, respectively (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.15), and disease control rate was 56.1% and 45.1%, respectively (P = .01). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events for everolimus vs placebo were anemia (7.8% vs 3.3%, respectively), asthenia (7.8% vs 5.5%, respectively), and decreased appetite (6.1% vs 0.5%, respectively). No patients experienced hepatitis C viral flare. Based on central laboratory results, hepatitis B viral reactivation was experienced by 39 patients (29 everolimus, 10 placebo); all cases were asymptomatic, but 3 everolimus recipients discontinued therapy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Everolimus did not improve overall survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma whose disease progressed during or after receiving sorafenib or who were intolerant of sorafenib. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01035229.

Randomized phase III study of gemcitabine plus S-1, S-1 alone, or gemcitabine alone in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer in Japan and Taiwan: GEST study.

PURPOSE: The present phase III study was designed to investigate the noninferiority of S-1 alone and superiority of gemcitabine plus S-1 compared with gemcitabine alone with respect to overall survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The participants were chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive only gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle), only S-1 (80, 100, or 120 mg/d according to body-surface area on days 1 through 28 of a 42-day cycle), or gemcitabine plus S-1 (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus S-1 60, 80, or 100 mg/d according to body-surface area on days 1 through 14 of a 21-day cycle). RESULTS: In the total of 834 enrolled patients, median overall survival was 8.8 months in the gemcitabine group, 9.7 months in the S-1 group, and 10.1 months in the gemcitabine plus S-1 group. The noninferiority of S-1 to gemcitabine was demonstrated (hazard ratio, 0.96; 97.5% CI, 0.78 to 1.18; P < .001 for noninferiority), whereas the superiority of gemcitabine plus S-1 was not (hazard ratio, 0.88; 97.5% CI, 0.71 to 1.08; P = .15). All treatments were generally well tolerated, although hematologic and GI toxicities were more severe in the gemcitabine plus S-1 group than in the gemcitabine group. CONCLUSION: Monotherapy with S-1 demonstrated noninferiority to gemcitabine in overall survival with good tolerability and presents a convenient oral alternative for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Current status of hepatocellular carcinoma treatment in Japan: case study and discussion-voting system.

The Toward Integrated Treatment of Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Nexavar (TiTAN) Symposium was held in August 2010 in Tokyo, Japan, during which the position of sorafenib (Nexavar®) in the treatment of HCC in Japan (for which it received approval in 2009) was discussed by a panel of eight expert hepatologists in a session chaired by Dr Kudo. The following article focuses on the discussion that went on during this session, including question and answer sessions regarding the experiences of the 350 conference attendees in treating patients with HCC, as well as some of the more challenging disease management issues. Since 2008, when the phase III Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomized Protocol (SHARP) trial demonstrated an increase in the median overall survival (OS) for patients with unresectable HCC treated with sorafenib compared with placebo, international and Japanese guidelines recommend sorafenib as a first-line option for patients with advanced HCC Child-Pugh liver function class A who have extrahepatic metastasis. Sorafenib is also recommended for patients unresponsive to transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) or hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC). Importantly, if HCC is judged to be unresponsive to TACE, treatment should be switched to sorafenib in a timely manner. Almost half of the conference attendees said that they used both the Japan Society of Hepatology clinical practice guidelines and the clinical practice guidelines for HCC when determining treatment strategies for individual HCC patients. Sorafenib should currently not be used as adjuvant therapy or in combination with TACE or HAIC until evidence from ongoing clinical trials shows that it is beneficial in these settings.

Role of chemotherapy in treatments for biliary tract cancer.

The purpose of chemotherapy in patients with advanced solid cancers, including biliary tract cancer, is generally to improve the survival and quality of life of the patients. Also, adjuvant chemotherapy is expected to increase the curability of surgery in patients scheduled to undergo surgery. Most patients with unresectable biliary tract cancer develop obstructive jaundice, and biliary drainage is needed before any of the aforementioned treatments. Once jaundice is resolved by stenting of the bile duct or bilio-intestinal bypass, cholangitis often develops, leading to rapid deterioration of the patient's general condition. Therefore, the beneficial effect of chemotherapy in such patients remains controversial. A few randomized controlled trials have demonstrated the survival benefit of chemotherapy as compared with supportive care. In one of these trials, improvement of the quality of life was also confirmed. Recently, since the survival benefit of combined gemcitabine plus cisplatin therapy over gemcitabine alone has been demonstrated in randomized controlled clinical trials, this combined regimen has been recognized as a standard therapy for unresectable biliary tract cancer. A second-line regimen is now expected to be established for patients with gemcitabine-refractory biliary tract cancer, although the significance of second-line therapy remains unclear. One of the next issues in relation to chemotherapy for biliary tract cancer is the development of molecular-targeted agents; however, few large clinical trials of such agents have been conducted for biliary tract cancer. Various issues in chemotherapy for biliary tract cancer remain to be investigated, and global cooperation is necessary to conduct large clinical trials.

Phase III study of sorafenib after transarterial chemoembolisation in Japanese and Korean patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: In Japan and South Korea, transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is an important locoregional treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, has been shown effective and safe in patients with advanced HCC. This phase III trial assessed the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in Japanese and Korean patients with unresectable HCC who responded to TACE. METHODS: Patients (n=458) with unresectable HCC, Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis and ≥25% tumour necrosis/shrinkage 1-3 months after 1 or 2 TACE sessions were randomised 1:1 to sorafenib 400mg bid or placebo and treated until progression/recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end-point was time to progression/recurrence (TTP). Secondary end-point was overall survival (OS). FINDINGS: Baseline characteristics in the two groups were similar; >50% of patients started sorafenib>9 weeks after TACE. Median TTP in the sorafenib and placebo groups was 5.4 and 3.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio (HR), 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-1.09; P=0.252). HR (sorafenib/placebo) for OS was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.69-1.64; P=0.790). Median daily dose of sorafenib was 386 mg, with 73% of patients having dose reductions and 91% having dose interruptions. Median administration of sorafenib and placebo was 17.1 and 20.1 weeks, respectively. No unexpected adverse events were observed. INTERPRETATION: This trial, conducted prior to the reporting of registrational phase III trials, found that sorafenib did not significantly prolong TTP in patients who responded to TACE. This may have been due to delays in starting sorafenib after TACE and/or low daily sorafenib doses.

Issues and controversies of hepatocellular carcinoma-targeted therapy clinical trials in Asia: experts' opinion.

Asia has a disproportionate share of the world's burden of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the highly regarded clinical practice guidelines and recommendations for the design and conduct of clinical trials for HCC largely reflect Western practice. In order to design mutually beneficial international clinical trials of promising targeted therapies, it is imperative to understand how the aetiology, staging and treatment of HCC differ between Asian and Western countries. Our group, comprising experts in oncology and hepatology from countries that constitute the Eastern Asian region, convened to compare and contrast our current practices, evaluate potential compliance with the clinical trial recommendations, and offer suggestions for modifications that would enhance international collaboration. Here, we describe the results of our discussions, including recommendations for appropriate patient stratification based on potentially important differences in HCC aetiology, identification of practices that may confound interpretation of clinical trial outcomes (traditional Chinese medicine; antivirals that target hepatitis B virus; heterogeneous embolization procedures), suggestions for utilizing a common staging system in study protocols, recognition that sorafenib usage is limited by financial constraints and potentially increased toxicity in Asian patients, and expansion of patient populations that should be eligible for initial clinical trials with new agents.

Guidelines for chemotherapy of biliary tract and ampullary carcinomas.

Few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with large numbers of patients have been conducted to date in patients with biliary tract cancer, and standard chemotherapy has not been established yet. In this article we review previous studies and clinical trials regarding chemotherapy for unresectable biliary tract cancer, and we present guidelines for the appropriate use of chemotherapy in patients with biliary tract cancer. According to an RCT comparing chemotherapy and best supportive care for these patients, survival was significantly longer and quality of life was significantly better in the chemotherapy group than in the control group. Thus, chemotherapy for patients with biliary tract cancer seems to be a significant treatment of choice. However, chemotherapy for patients with biliary tract cancer should be indicated for those with unresectable, locally advanced disease or distant metastasis, or for those with recurrence after resection. That is why making the diagnosis of unresectable disease should be done with greatest care. As a rule, pathological diagnosis, including cytology or histopathological diagnosis, is preferable. Chemotherapy is recommended in patients with a good general condition, because in patients with general deterioration, such as those with a performance status of 2 or 3 or those with insufficient biliary decompression, the benefit of chemotherapy is limited. As chemotherapy for unresectable biliary tract cancer, the use of gemcitabine or tegafur/gimeracil/oteracil potassium is recommended. As postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, no effective adjuvant therapy has been established at the present time. It is recommended that further clinical trials, especially large multi-institutional RCTs (phase III studies) using novel agents such as gemcitabine should be performed as soon as possible in order to establish a standard treatment.