Rivaroxaban Versus Low-molecular-weight Heparin for Venous Thromboembolism in Advanced Upper Gastrointestinal Tract and Hepatopancreatobiliary Cancer.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulants for cancer-associated venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients with active cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study included patients with advanced unresectable/metastatic upper gastrointestinal (GI) or hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) cancers with high risks of VTE and bleeding. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted in potential bleeding factors between the rivaroxaban (n=105) and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (n=69) groups. Rivaroxaban exhibited similar risk of recurrent/aggravated VTE compared with LMWH (p=0.625) but increased risk of major bleeding (17.4% vs. 7.6%; p=0.072), clinically relevant bleeding (31.9% vs. 14.3%; p=0.019), and total bleeding (40.6% vs. 19%; p=0.010). The multivariate analysis regarded rivaroxaban as a significant factor for major bleeding (p=0.043) and clinically relevant bleeding (p=0.043). CONCLUSION: Rivaroxaban exhibits comparable efficacy but increases bleeding risks compared with LMWH in patients with active unresectable/metastatic upper GI tract or HPB cancers, requiring extra caution of higher major bleeding risks.

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.

Sorafenib dose escalation in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: Although sorafenib has shown survival benefits in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), many patients require discontinuation or dose reduction due to adverse events (AEs). We applied a dose escalation scheme to increase patient compliance and avoid AEs. METHODS: Of 267 HCC patients treated with first-line sorafenib, 25 at increased risk of AEs, including those with advanced liver cirrhosis, a history of liver transplantation, or cytopenia, received the dose escalation scheme. They started on a reduced dose of sorafenib which increased to the standard dosage according to tolerance in each patient. We analyzed the efficacy and safety of the dose escalation scheme. RESULTS: Patients with risk factors showed a lower disease control rate, shorter survival, and more frequently grade 3/4 AEs. Among patients presenting risk factors, the dose scheme did not affect the efficacy of sorafenib or survival, but reduced the incidence of grade 3/4 AEs. Rates of sorafenib discontinuation and dose reduction related to AEs were also lower in the dose escalation group. Dose escalation to the standard dose of sorafenib was achieved in 16 of the 25 patients in the dose escalation group (64.0%). After 2 weeks, the dose intensity of sorafenib did not differ between the two dose schemes. CONCLUSIONS: The sorafenib dose escalation scheme may increase patient compliance and tolerance to prolonged treatment, thus enhancing the efficacy of sorafenib in patients at high risk of AEs or with poor tolerance. Further prospective analyses are needed to determine the usefulness of the dose escalation scheme.

Adjuvant chemotherapy with or without pelvic radiotherapy after simultaneous surgical resection of rectal cancer with liver metastases: analysis of prognosis and patterns of recurrence.

PURPOSE: To investigate the outcomes of adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) after simultaneous surgical resection in rectal cancer patients with liver metastases (LM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and eight patients receiving total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer and surgical resection for LM were reviewed. Forty-eight patients received adjuvant CRT, and 60 were administered CT alone. Recurrence patterns and prognosis were analyzed. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) rates were compared between the CRT and CT groups. The inverse probability of the treatment-weighted (IPTW) method based on the propensity score was used to adjust for selection bias between the two groups. RESULTS: At a median follow-up period of 47.7 months, 77 (71.3%) patients had developed recurrences. The majority of recurrences (68.8%) occurred in distant organs. By contrast, the local recurrence rate was only 4.7%. Median DFS and OS were not significantly different between the CRT and CT groups. After applying the IPTW method, we observed no significant differences in terms of DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.347; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.759-2.392; p = 0.309) and OS (HR, 1.413; CI, 0.752-2.653; p = 0.282). Multivariate analyses showed that unilobar distribution of LM and normal preoperative carcinoembryonic antigen level (<6 mg/mL) were significantly associated with longer DFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS: The local recurrence rate after simultaneous resection of rectal cancer with LM was relatively low. DFS and OS rates were not different between the adjuvant CRT and CT groups. Adjuvant CRT may have a limited role in this setting. Further prospective randomized studies are required to evaluate optimal adjuvant treatment in these patients.

Phase I dose-finding study of sorafenib in combination with capecitabine and cisplatin as a first-line treatment in patients with advanced gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: To define maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), and preliminary efficacy of sorafenib plus capecitabine/cisplatin in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients. METHODS: Four dose-level combinations were tested in a standard 3 + 3 dose escalation design. Level 1: sorafenib 400 mg/d, capecitabine 1,600 mg/m(2)/d, cisplatin 80 mg/m(2). Level 2: sorafenib 800 mg/d, capecitabine 1,600 mg/m(2)/d, cisplatin 80 mg/m(2). Level 3: sorafenib 800 mg/d, capecitabine 2,000 mg/m(2)/d, cisplatin 80 mg/m(2). Level 1A: sorafenib 800 mg/d, capecitabine 1,600 mg/m(2)/d, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2). RESULTS: There were 1 DLT at Level 2, and 2 DLTs at Level 3 (Level 3 was MTD). Since the relative dose intensity (RDI) of sorafenib and capecitabine could not be maintained at Level 2, Level 1A was newly investigated. As no DLT was observed and RDI remained above 80%, Level 1A is the recommended dose for the next clinical trial. Objective response rate was 62.5% (10 of 16 patients, 95% CI; 38.8-86.2%). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 10.0 months (95% CI; 7.4-13.8) and 14.7 months (95% CI; 12.0-20.0), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib 400 mg bid daily, capecitabine 800 mg/m(2) bid (days 1-14), and cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) (day 1) is recommended for further development in AGC.

Sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma according to Child-Pugh class of liver function.

PURPOSE: We compared the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with Child-Pugh (CP) class B and CP class A. METHODS: Clinical data from 267 patients with HCC who had been treated with sorafenib were reviewed. Patients were grouped according to CP score (5-6, 7, and 8-9), and their tumor response, tolerance, and survival were assessed. RESULTS: Median patient age was 55 years, and 87.6% were men. Gender, HCC etiology, and extrahepatic metastasis did not differ according to CP score. Of the 225 evaluable patients, 4 achieved partial response and 121 achieved stable disease, making the disease control rate 46.8%. DCR was higher in patients with CP A than CP B score, but did not differ between those with CP scores of 7 and 8-9. The incidence rates of grade 3/4 toxicities did not differ according to CP score. Many patients with CP score 8-9 (26.3%) had to stop sorafenib due to cirrhosis-related complications. At a median follow-up of 15.6 months, the median time to progression and overall survival of all patients were 2.6 and 7.9 months, respectively. OS was greater in patients with CP score 5-6 than in patients with CP scores of 7 or 8-9. CONCLUSIONS: Sorafenib efficacy and survival outcomes were worse in patients with CP B function. Patients with a CP score of 7 had the same incidence of adverse events and cirrhosis-related complications as those with CP A liver function, suggesting that the former can be included in clinical trials of new agents.

Postoperative chemoradiotherapy for extrahepatic bile duct cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and to identify the prognostic factors that influence survival in patients with extrahepatic bile duct cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively analyzed the data from 101 patients with extrahepatic bile duct cancer who had undergone postoperative concurrent chemoradiotherapy using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy. Of the 101 patients, 52 (51%) had undergone complete resection (R0 resection) and 49 (49%) had microscopic or macroscopic residual tumors (R1 or R2 resection). The median radiation dose was 50 Gy. Also, 85 patients (84%) underwent concurrent chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil. RESULTS: The median follow-up period was 47 months for the surviving patients. The 5-year overall survival rate was 34% for all patients. A comparison between patients with R0 and R1 resection indicated no significant difference in the 5-year overall survival (44% vs. 33%, p=.2779), progression-free survival (35% vs. 22%, p=.3107), or locoregional progression-free survival (75% vs. 63%, p=.2784) rates. An analysis of the first failure site in the 89 patients with R0 or R1 resection indicated isolated locoregional recurrence in 7 patients. Elevated postoperative carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level was an independent prognostic factor for overall survival (p=.001) and progression-free survival (p=.033). A total of 3 patients developed Grade 3 or greater late toxicity. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy using three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy appears to improve locoregional control and survival in extrahepatic bile duct cancer patients with R1 resection. The postoperative carbohydrate antigen 19-9 level might be a useful prognostic marker to select patients for more intensified adjuvant therapy.