The Role of Angiogenesis in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) accounts for about 90% of all primary liver cancers and is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The hypervascular nature of most HCC tumors underlines the importance of angiogenesis in the pathobiology of these tumors. Several angiogenic pathways have been identified as being dysregulated in HCC, suggesting they may be involved in the development and pathogenesis of HCC. These data provide practical targets for systemic treatments such as those targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and its ligand. However, the clinical relevance of other more recently identified angiogenic pathways in HCC pathogenesis or treatment remains unclear. Research into molecular profiles and validation of prognostic or predictive biomarkers will be required to identify the patient subsets most likely to experience meaningful benefit from this important class of agents.

Schisantherin A Improves Learning and Memory of Mice with D-Galactose-Induced Learning and Memory Impairment Through Its Antioxidation and Regulation of p19/p53/p21/Cyclin D1/CDK4/RB Gene Expressions.

Schisantherin A (SCA) was evaluated for possible function in restoring the learning and memory impairment induced by D-galactose in mice. ICR mice were treated with D-galactose subcutaneously (220 mg·kg-1), and followed by SCA in different doses (1.25, 2.50 and 5.00 mg·kg-1, administered orally) for 42 days. Effects of SCA on learning and memory were examined by step-through tests and Morris water maze tests. The activity of superoxide dismutase (SOD), the content of malondialdehyde (MDA) in the peripheral blood and hippocampus of mice were assayed by water-soluble tetrazolium-1 (WST-1) and thiobarbituric acid (TBA) methods. The contents of 8 hydroxy deoxy guanosine (8-OHdG) in the hippocampus of mice were detected by immunosorbent assay methods, respectively. Quantitative real-time PCR and Western Blot were respectively used to detect the expression of p19, p53, p21, cyclin D1, CDK4 and RB genes, and the phosphorylation of RB in the hippocampus of mice. We found that SCA significantly improved the learning and memory impairment induced by D-galactose in mice. After SCA treatment, SOD activity was increased and the content of MDA was decreased in both peripheral blood and hippocampus of mice. 8-OHDG content was also decreased in the hippocampus of mice. Furthermore, the expression of p19, p53 and p21 genes was reduced and the expression of cyclin D1 and CDK4 and the phosphorylation of RB protein were elevated in the hippocampus. SCA may improve the learning and memory impairment induced by D-galactose by enhancing the antioxidant capacity, and regulating the expression of p19/p53/p21/cyclinD1/CDK4 genes, and the phosphorylation of RB protein in the hippocampus of mice.

Outcomes of sequential treatment with sorafenib followed by regorafenib for HCC: Additional analyses from the phase III RESORCE trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The RESORCE trial showed that regorafenib improves overall survival (OS) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma progressing during sorafenib treatment (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.78; p <0.0001). This exploratory analysis describes outcomes of sequential treatment with sorafenib followed by regorafenib. METHODS: In RESORCE, 573 patients were randomized 2:1 to regorafenib 160 mg/day or placebo for 3 weeks on/1 week off. Efficacy and safety were evaluated by last sorafenib dose. The time from the start of sorafenib to death was assessed. Time to progression (TTP) in RESORCE was analyzed by TTP during prior sorafenib treatment. RESULTS: HRs (regorafenib/placebo) for OS by last sorafenib dose were similar (0.67 for 800 mg/day; 0.68 for <800 mg/day). Rates of grade 3, 4, and 5 adverse events with regorafenib by last sorafenib dose (800 mg/day vs. <800 mg/day) were 52%, 11%, and 15% vs. 60%, 10%, and 12%, respectively. Median times (95% CI) from the start of sorafenib to death were 26.0 months (22.6-28.1) for regorafenib and 19.2 months (16.3-22.8) for placebo. Median time from the start of sorafenib to progression on sorafenib was 7.2 months for the regorafenib arm and 7.1 months for the placebo arm. An analysis of TTP in RESORCE in subgroups defined by TTP during prior sorafenib in quartiles (Q) showed HRs (regorafenib/placebo; 95% CI) of 0.66 (0.45-0.96; Q1); 0.26 (0.17-0.40; Q2); 0.40 (0.27-0.60; Q3); and 0.54 (0.36-0.81; Q4). CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory analyses show that regorafenib conferred a clinical benefit regardless of the last sorafenib dose or TTP on prior sorafenib. Rates of adverse events were generally similar regardless of the last sorafenib dose. LAY SUMMARY: This analysis examined characteristics and outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who were treated with regorafenib after they had disease progression during sorafenib treatment. Regorafenib provided clinical benefit to patients regardless of the pace of their disease progression during prior sorafenib treatment and regardless of their last sorafenib dose. The sequence of sorafenib followed by regorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma may extend survival beyond what has been previously reported. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01774344.

Effect of adjuvant capecitabine or fluorouracil, with or without oxaliplatin, on survival outcomes in stage III colon cancer and the effect of oxaliplatin on post-relapse survival: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from four randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy is the standard of care for stage III colon cancer. Adjuvant capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin versus leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin has not been directly compared; therefore, we aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of these treatments using individual patient data pooled from four randomised controlled trials. We also assessed post-relapse survival, which has been postulated to be worse in patients receiving adjuvant oxaliplatin. METHODS: Patients with resected stage III colon cancer who were 18 years of age or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, from four randomised controlled trials (NSABP C-08, XELOXA, X-ACT, and AVANT; 8734 patients in total) were pooled and analysed. The treatment regimens included in our analyses were: XELOX (oxaliplatin and capecitabine); leucovorin and fluorouracil; capecitabine; FOLFOX-4 (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin); and modified FOLFOX-6 (mFOLFOX-6). Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint for all trials that supplied patients for this analysis. Here, we compared disease-free, relapse-free, and overall survival between the patient groups who received capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and those who received leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin. Post-relapse survival was compared between the combined XELOX and FOLFOX groups, and the leucovorin and fluorouracil groups. Post-relapse survival was also compared between the capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin groups. FINDINGS: Disease-free survival did not differ significantly between patients who received leucovorin and fluorouracil versus those who received capecitabine in adjusted analyses (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02 [0·93-1·11; p=0·72]) or in unadjusted analyses (HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92-1·10; p=0·86]). Relapse-free survival was similar (adjusted HR 1·02 [0·93-1·12; p=0·72] and unadjusted HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92-1·11; p=0·86]), as was overall survival (adjusted HR 1·04 [95% CI 0·93-1·15; p=0·50] and unadjusted HR 1·02 [0·92-1·14]; p=0·65). For overall survival, a significant interaction between oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine was recorded in the multiple Cox regression analysis (p=0·014). Post-relapse survival was similar in adjusted (p=0·23) and unadjusted analyses (p=0·33) for the comparison of XELOX or FOLFOX versus leucovorin and fluorouracil, and was also similar for capecitabine-based regimens versus leucovorin and fluorouracil-based regimens (unadjusted p=0·26). INTERPRETATION: Combination therapy with oxaliplatin provided consistently improved outcomes without adversely affecting post-relapse survival in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, irrespective of whether the fluoropyrimidine backbone was capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil. These data add to the existing evidence that oxaliplatin plus capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil is the standard of care for the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, and offers physicians flexibility to treat patients according to the patients' overall physical performance and preference. FUNDING: Genentech Inc.

Chemoembolization of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with cisplatinum, doxorubicin, mitomycin C, ethiodol, and polyvinyl alcohol: a 2-center study.

BACKGROUND: Unresectable intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma has a poor prognosis, with a median survival of 5 to 8 months without treatment. Response and survival after chemoembolization were evaluated. METHODS: Lobar or segmental chemoembolization with cisplatinum, doxorubicin, mitomycin-C, ethiodol, and polyvinyl alcohol particles was performed at monthly intervals for 1-4 sessions until the entire intrahepatic tumor burden was treated. Cross-sectional imaging and clinical and laboratory evaluation were performed before treatment, 1 month after treatment, and then every 3 months. A second cycle of treatment was performed for intrahepatic recurrence. Toxicity was assessed using NCI CTC v.3.0. Response was evaluated using RECIST criteria, and survival was estimated with Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were treated. Thirty-seven had pathologically proven cholangiocarcinoma, and 25 had poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma of unknown primary, likely cholangiocarcinoma. One hundred and twenty-two total procedures were performed during the initial cycle of treatment (mean, 2.0 per patient). Twenty patients received a second cycle, for a total of 165 procedures. There were 5 major complications. Thirty-day disease-specific mortality was 0%. Forty-five of 62 patients were evaluable for morphologic response after completion of their initial cycle: 11% (n = 5) partial responses, 64% (n = 29) stable, and 24% (n = 11) progressed. Median time to progression from first chemoembolization was 8 months, with 28% free of progression at 12 months. Median survival from time of diagnosis was 20 months, with 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival of 75%, 39%, and 17%, respectively. Median survival from time of first chemoembolization was 15 months, with 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival of 61%, 27%, and 8%, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in survival between patients with cholangiocarcinoma and those with poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma. Patients who also received systemic chemotherapy had improved overall survival (median 28 vs 16 months, P = .02; HR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.13-3.33). CONCLUSIONS: Chemoembolization provided local disease control (PR + SD) of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and adenocarcinoma of unknown primary in 76%. Overall survival after chemoembolization showed the best outcomes for those receiving multidisciplinary integrated liver-directed and systemic therapies.

Chemoembolization of colorectal liver metastases with cisplatin, doxorubicin, mitomycin C, ethiodol, and polyvinyl alcohol.

BACKGROUND: Unresectable colorectal liver metastases have a 1- and 2-year survival of 55% and 33% with current systemic therapies. The authors evaluated response and survival after transarterial chemoembolization. METHODS: Chemoembolization with cisplatin, doxorubicin, mitomycin C, ethiodized oil, and polyvinyl alcohol particles was performed at monthly intervals for 1 to 4 sessions. Cross-sectional imaging and clinical and laboratory evaluation were performed before treatment, 1 month after treatment, and then every 3 months. A second cycle was performed for intrahepatic recurrence. Toxicity was assessed using National Cancer Institute's Common Toxicity Criteria version 3.0. Response was evaluated using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. Progression and survival were estimated with Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: A total of 245 treatments were performed over 141 cycles on 121 patients. Ninety-five of 141 treatment cycles were evaluable for response: 2 (2%) partial response, 39 (41%) stable disease, and 54 (57%) progression. Median time to disease progression (TTP) in the treated liver was 5 months, and median TTP anywhere was 3 months. Median survival was 33 months from diagnosis of the primary colon cancer, 27 months from development of liver metastases, and 9 months from chemoembolization. Survival was significantly better when chemoembolization was performed after first- or second-line systemic therapy (11-12 months) than after third- to fifth-line therapies (6 months) (P = .03). Presence of extrahepatic metastases did not adversely affect survival (P = .48). CONCLUSIONS: Chemoembolization provided local disease control of hepatic metastases after 43% of treatment cycles. Median survival was 27 months overall, and 11 months when initiated for salvage after failure of second-line systemic therapy.

Phase II study of sorafenib in combination with docetaxel and cisplatin in the treatment of metastatic or advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: ECOG 5203.

PURPOSE: The combination of sorafenib with chemotherapy is well-tolerated and is associated with encouraging response rates in several malignances. Both docetaxel and cisplatin are active in gastric cancer. A phase II study was conducted to determine the efficacy and toxicity of combined sorafenib, docetaxel, and cisplatin in patients with metastatic or advanced adenocarcinoma of stomach or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-four chemotherapy-naïve patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1, of whom 80% had metastatic disease and two thirds had poorly differentiated gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma, were enrolled. The treatment regimen was sorafenib 400 mg orally twice a day for 21 days, docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1, repeated every 21 days. The primary end point was response rate to the combination. Toxicity, overall survival, and progression-free survival were assessed as secondary end points. RESULTS: Eighteen of the 44 eligible and treated patients showed partial responses (41%; 90% CI, 28% to 54%). The median progression-free survival was 5.8 months (90% CI, 5.4 to 7.4 months). The median overall survival was 13.6 months (90% CI, 8.6 to 16.1 month). The major toxicity of this regimen was neutropenia, which reached grade 3 to 4 in 64% of patients. One patient experienced hemorrhage at the tumor site. CONCLUSION: The combination of sorafenib, docetaxel, and cisplatin has an encouraging efficacy profile with tolerable toxicity. Additional studies of sorafenib with chemotherapy are warranted in gastric cancer.

Evolution of capecitabine dosing in colorectal cancer.

Fluoropyrimidines remain the cornerstone of chemotherapy regimens in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), even with the availability of newer cytotoxic and targeted biologic agents (eg, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab). Though 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) can be administered via bolus or infusional schedules, the intermittent infusional schedule has been a mainstay of fluoropyrimidine-based regimens. This strategy, however, requires the insertion of central venous catheters and infusion pumps, which represent major inconveniences for patients and are associated with an increased risk for complications. Capecitabine is an orally administered fluoropyrimidine carbamate that is absorbed intact from the gastrointestinal tract and becomes metabolically activated to 5-FU within the tumor. Orally administered chemotherapy gives patients greater flexibility and independence and, as a result, may improve compliance and lower overall healthcare costs. Several randomized phase III studies have demonstrated the efficacy and safety of capecitabine in mCRC, whether used as monotherapy or in combination with oxaliplatin. However, dosing has been the subject of considerable debate, and there is evidence that dosing differs among clinical practices in Europe, Asia, and North America. The optimal dose and dosing schedule of capecitabine might require individualization based on specific patient factors, such as presence of comorbid illnesses, renal function, use of other prescription and nonprescription drugs, herbal and/ or nutritional supplements, and the development of adverse events. Guidelines for capecitabine dose modification/ interruption have been developed, and they should be used when trying to optimize oral fluoropyrimidine therapy for patients with mCRC.

Adjuvant therapy of colon cancer.

Although surgical resection is still the only curative maneuver in the treatment of colon cancer, efforts of the past decades have proved that systemic chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting definitely improves the curative rate for those patients with localized colon cancer. The combination of the 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) remains the reference treatment. However, the advantage of infusional 5-FU/LV with oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) as adjuvant treatment may change the paradigm soon. Capecitabine may be considered as an alternative to 5-FU/LV in the adjuvant therapy of stage III colon cancer. The clinical benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for localized node negative (stage II) disease is definite but small, even though there is yet no universal consensus. Novel molecular and biologic-oriented agents are being studied. Further analysis and definition of prognostic and predictive markers may allow future adjuvant therapy to be individualized.

Concurrent RT with 5-FU/epirubicin and cisplatin or irinotecan for locally advanced upper GI adenocarcinoma.

From the results of recent studies, it is likely that multimodality therapy with chemotherapy and radiation treatment may improve the overall outcome of locally advanced upper gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies, including esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, and biliary tract carcinomas. However, more effective, more optimal, and less toxic chemotherapy regimen(s) with concomitant radiotherapy are needed beyond the concurrent continuous-infusion fluorouracil (5-FU) with radiation that is commonly applied in general practice. Epirubicin (Ellence), cisplatin, and irinotecan (Camptosar) are all active cytotoxic chemotherapy agents in upper GI cancers. Two phase I studies were designed to test the tolerability of the combination of radiotherapy with infusional 5-FU, epirubicin, and cisplatin (ECF) or 5-FU, irinotecan, and epirubicin (EIF) in the treatment of locally advanced upper GI malignancies.

Chemotherapy for colorectal cancer.

With effective chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment, the survival benefit is clearly achieved for certain (stage III) colorectal cancer patients, though there still exist many unsettled issues including the controversies in the treatment of stage II disease. Advances in the development of a new generation of cytotoxic agents in the past several years have allowed us to move forward from the "fluorouracil-only era" in the treatment of advanced/metastatic colorectal cancer. It is still not very clear how best to minimize toxicity without compromising efficacy of the combination therapy with newer agents, or how to maximize the benefit of chemotherapy (concurrent versus sequential). There are many current ongoing clinical trials designed to address these issues. With better understanding of the signal transduction and molecular biology characteristics of colorectal cancer, and the development of biologic and molecular target agents, the outcomes of patients with colorectal cancer will be improved further. Future clinical trials should be focused on optimizing and individualizing therapy for patients based on their molecular profiles to achieve maximal clinical benefit.