ADC Values for Detecting Bowel Inflammation and Biologic Therapy Response in Patients With Crohn Disease: A Post Hoc Prospective Trial Analysis.

BACKGROUND. New biologic agents for Crohn disease (CD) create a need for noninvasive disease markers. DWI may assess bowel inflammation without contrast agents. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate ADC values for identifying bowel inflammation and therapeutic response in patients with CD treated with biologic therapy. METHODS. This study entailed post hoc analysis of prospective trial data. Analysis included 89 patients (median age, 37 years; 49 women, 40 men) with CD treated by biologic therapy who underwent MR enterography (MRE) at baseline and 46 weeks after therapy, from March 2013 to April 2021; 43 patients underwent ileocolonoscopy at both time points. Analysis was conducted at the level of small-bowel and colorectal segments (586 segments analyzed). MR index of activity (MaRIA) score and presence of endoscopic ulcers were determined at both time points. One observer measured bowel wall ADC. Diagnostic performance was evaluated. Dichotomous ADC assessments used a threshold of 1301 × 10-6 mm2/s based on initial ROC analysis; dichotomous MaRIA score assessments used a threshold of 11 (moderate to severe inflammation). A second observer repeated ADC measurements in 15 patients. RESULTS. At baseline, ADC had AUC of 0.92, sensitivity of 78.6%, specificity of 91.4%, and accuracy of 88.2% for detecting segments with MaRIA score 11 or greater. At baseline, AUC for detecting endoscopic ulcers was 0.96 for MaRIA score versus 0.87 for ADC (p < .001); sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 70.8%, 90.2%, and 85.1% for ADC and 86.2%, 96.2%, and 93.6% for MaRIA score. At follow-up, ADC had AUC of 0.87, sensitivity of 75.4%, specificity of 83.6%, and accuracy of 80.0% for detecting improvement in MaRIA score to less than 11. At follow-up, AUC for detecting endoscopic ulcer healing was 0.94 for MaRIA score versus 0.84 for ADC (p = .01); sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were 70.7%, 95.8%, and 84.4% for ADC and 90.2%, 100.0%, and 95.6% for MaRIA score. Interobserver agreement for ADC, based on intraclass correlation coefficient, was 0.70 at baseline and 0.65 at follow-up. CONCLUSION. The findings do not support use of ADC rather than MaRIA scores for detecting biologic therapy response. CLINICAL IMPACT. ADC may have an adjunct role in assessing bowel inflammation in CD, but showed limited performance for detecting biologic therapy response.

Early diarrhoea under sorafenib as a marker to consider the early migration to second-line drugs.

BACKGROUND: Despite atezolizumab and bevacizumab (A + B) is currently the first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients, some patients will not be adequate for this combination. In the setting of sorafenib some adverse events have been proposed as prognostic factors. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the early diarrhoea development as prognostic factor in 344 HCC patients. METHODS: The development of early diarrhoea in sorafenib treatment defined as patients who developed diarrhoea and needed dose modification within the first 60 days of treatment (e-diarrhoea) and 3-grouping variables were analysed: Patients with e-diarrhoea, patients who developed diarrhoea after the first 60 days of treatment (L-diarrhoea) and patients that never developed diarrhoea (never diarrhoea). RESULTS: The median overall survival in sorafenib treated patients was significantly different across groups (6.8 months for e-diarrhoea, 26.7 months for L-diarrhoea and 13.3 months for never-diarrhoea). The emergence of e-diarrhoea was associated with poor outcomes (hazard ratio [HR] 1.84 [95%CI 1.15-2.95]), while there was no increased/decreased risk of dismal evolution in patients with L-diarrhoea (HR 0.66 [95%CI 0.42-1.03]). CONCLUSION: The emergence of e-diarrhoea in HCC patients treated with sorafenib is an early predictor of dismal evolution under this therapy. Thus, prompt identification of these non-responders may be useful for an early switch to second-line therapies.

Pancreatic Insufficiency in Patients Under Sorafenib Treatment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

GOALS: To describe the occurrence of malabsorption (MA) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients under sorafenib, the potential relationship with pancreatic insufficiency (PI), and the role of pancreatic enzymes supplementation. BACKGROUND: With the increasing options of second-line systemic therapies for HCC, the recognition of drug intolerance using practical tools is crucial. It has been proposed that a MA syndrome could be due to sorafenib-induced pancreatic dysfunction. STUDY: All sorafenib-treated patients with suspicion of MA (defined as decreased stool consistency lasting >4 wk or presenting ≥10% body weight loss without HCC progression) were prospectively evaluated by serum markers, endoscopy, and imaging techniques. RESULTS: We evaluated 81 sorafenib-treated patients and 21 developed MA suspicion (85.7% male, 81.5% Child-Pugh A, 52.4% BCLC-B, and 47.6% BCLC-C) within a median 5.9 months after starting sorafenib. The median treatment duration, follow-up, and overall survival after MA suspicion were 5.9, 20.3, and 20.3 months, respectively. Nine of them (42.9%) presented hyperparathyroidism secondary to vitamin D deficiency and 8 with PI. A gradual decrease in pancreatic volume of up to 19% was observed among patients with PI. Six of the 8 patients with PI received pancreatic enzymes, with complete recovery from MA symptoms and stabilization of pancreatic volume. CONCLUSIONS: We validated the association between MA and PI in 10% of sorafenib-treated patients. Pancreatic enzymes supplementation successfully led to symptomatic recovery. Awareness of this adverse event can help in the management of sorafenib irrespective of cancer type and likely, of other tyrosine kinase inhibitors for HCC patients.

Quality of Care Standards in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: a European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] Position Paper.

The management of inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is complex, and requires tight control of disease activity, close monitoring to avoid treatment side effects, health care professionals with expertise in IBD, and an interdisciplinary, holistic approach. Despite various efforts to standardise structures, processes, and outcomes,1-8 and due to the high variability at the local, national, and international levels, there are still no clear definitions or outcome measures available to establish quality of care standards for IBD patients which are applicable in all contexts and all countries. For this reason, the European Crohn's and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] supported the construction of a list of criteria summarising current standards of care in IBD. The list comprises 111 quality standard points grouped into three main domains [structure n = 31, process n = 42, outcomes n = 38] and is based on scientific evidence, interdisciplinary expert consensus, and patient-oriented perspectives. The list of proposed criteria is intended to represent the position of ECCO regarding the optimum quality of care that should be available to patients. Since health care systems and regulations vary considerably between countries, this list may require adaptation at local and national levels. It is recognised that not all these criteria that have been identified as optimal will be available in every unit. However, ECCO will continue its efforts to develop and coordinate projects and initiatives that will help to guarantee optimal quality of care for all IBD patients.

Complete response under sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: Relationship with dermatologic adverse events.

The clinical benefit of sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has been undervalued due to the absence of complete responses, even though patients who develop early dermatologic reactions have shown to have a positive outcome. In addition, sorafenib is described as an antiangiogenic drug, but it also acts on immunological cells. Thus, the goal of this study was to assess the complete response rate in a retrospective cohort of HCC patients treated with sorafenib and to describe the profile of the patients who achieve complete response for identifying factors related to this event and their connection with the immunological profile of sorafenib. Ten Spanish centers submitted cases of complete response under sorafenib. The baseline characteristics, development of early dermatologic reactions, and cause of treatment discontinuation were annotated. Radiological images taken before starting sorafenib, at first control, after starting sorafenib, at the time of complete response, and at least 1 month after treatment were centrally reviewed. Of the 1119 patients studied, 20 had been classified as complete responders by the centers, but eight of these patients were excluded after central review. Ten patients had complete disappearance of all tumor sites, and two had just a small residual fibrotic scar. Thus, 12 patients were classified as complete responders (58% HCV, median age 59.7 years, 83.4% Child-Pugh class A, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 91.7%, and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C 83.3%). The median overall survival and treatment duration were 85.8 and 40.1 months, respectively. All but one patient developed early dermatologic reactions, and seven patients discontinued sorafenib after achieving complete response due to adverse events, patient decision, or liver decompensation. Conclusion: Complete response affects 1% of patients with HCC who are treated with sorafenib. The association of complete response with early dermatologic reactions supports the role of a specific immune/inflammatory patient profile in the improved response to sorafenib. (Hepatology 2018;67:612-622).

Postprogression survival of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: rationale for second-line trial design.

UNLABELLED: Sorafenib improves overall survival (OS) of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in the absence of objective response. Thus, time to tumor progression (TTP) is used to capture benefits of novel molecular agents, but proof of its surrogacy with survival is lacking. Furthermore, survival predictors upon progression are not established and there is a need to characterize postprogression survival (PPS) and assess with time-dependent covariates analysis if it is influenced by progression pattern, and not solely by simultaneous impairment of liver function and performance status. We prospectively followed HCC patients treated with sorafenib. Clinical and biochemical evaluation were done every 4 weeks. Radiologic assessment of progression was done at week 4 and then every 8 weeks using RECIST 1.1. The progression pattern was divided into: intrahepatic/extrahepatic increase in tumor size, new intrahepatic lesion, and new extrahepatic lesion (NEH). We included 147 patients (hepatitis C virus [HCV] 57.1%, performance status [PS] 0 83.6%, Child-Pugh A 82.3%, and BCLC-C 47.3%). The median OS was 12.7 months and its independent predictors (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]) were: baseline BCLC 2.49 [1.66-3.73], PS 1.86 [1.12-3.10], registration during follow-up of Child-Pugh B or Child-Pugh C scores (2.36 [1.51-3.69] and 2.89 [1.62-5.15], respectively), definitive sorafenib interruption 2.48 [1.54-4.01], and TTP 3.39 [1.89-6.1]. The presence of NEH 2.42 [1.32-4.44] is also an independent predictor of OS and PPS in patients with radiologic progression. CONCLUSION: Tumor progression is a surrogate of survival but its impact varies according to progression pattern. Thus, PPS is influenced by progression pattern and this is key in prognostic prediction and second-line trial design and analysis.