Application and Impact of Antiviral Therapy for Patients with HBV-Related Hepatocellular Carcinoma Receiving Sorafenib and Lenvatinib Treatment.

Overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has improved in the era of multi-line sequential therapy. The application of antiviral therapy and its impact on survival for patients with HBV-related HCC needs to be reassessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the application and impact of antiviral therapy on survival for patients with HBV-related HCC receiving tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy. Patients with advanced HBV-related HCC treated with sorafenib or lenvatinib as first-line therapy with (n = 377) and without (n = 182) nucleos(t)ide analogue (NUC) therapy were retrospectively enrolled. Prognostic factors of OS were evaluated. Secular trends in the increased application of NUC therapy and improved survival were observed in the last decade. The HBV reactivation rate in patients without NUC therapy was 6.6%. By multivariate analysis, baseline low HBV viral load, achieving undetectable HBV DNA after TKI therapy, and ability to receive second-line therapy were found to be independent predictors of OS. In subgroup patients with NUC therapy, starting NUC before TKI was associated with a better OS. In conclusion, the application of antiviral therapy for patients with HBV-related HCC receiving TKI therapy has increased over time. Achieving complete virological suppression may contribute to a better OS in patients with advanced HBV-related HCC.

Anti-PD-1 combined sorafenib versus anti-PD-1 alone in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular cell carcinoma: a propensity score-matching study.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) plays a role in the tumor microenvironment. Sorafenib, which inhibits the VEGF pathway, has an immune-modulation function but lacks substantial clinical data. This study aims to explore the efficacy of anti-PD-1 combined sorafenib in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: HCC patients who underwent anti-PD-1 treatment at Taipei Veterans General Hospital (Taipei, Taiwan) between January 2016 and February 2019 were reviewed. The efficacy was compared between groups after propensity-score matching. RESULTS: There were 173 HCC patients receiving anti-PD-1. After excluding unsuitable cases, 140 patients were analyzed, of which 58 received combination therapy and 82 received anti-PD-1 alone. The combination therapy had a trend of higher CR rate (8.6% vs. 4.9%, ns.), ORR (22.4% vs. 19.5%, ns.) and significantly higher DCR (69.0% vs. 37.8%, p < 0.05) comparing to anti-PD-1 alone. After matching, combination group achieved longer progression-free survival (3.87 vs. 2.43 months, p < 0.05) and overall survival (not reached vs. 7.17 months, p < 0.05) than anti-PD-1 alone, without higher grade 3/4 AE (10.3% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.73). The tumor response varied among different metastatic sites, with high responses in adrenal glands, peritoneum and lungs. The more AFP declined (> 10, > 50 and > 66%), the higher the ORR (70, 80 and 92%) and CR rates (30, 35 and 58%) were achieved at day 28. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to demonstrate the combination of anti-PD-1 and sorafenib had better efficacy and survival benefit. A prospective randomized study is needed to confirm this finding.

Pre-sarcopenia determines post-progression outcomes in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after sorafenib failure.

Many second-line therapies are recently approved for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), in whom protein malnutrition is prevalent that would affect treatment outcomes. In this study, we aimed to investigate the role of pre-sarcopenia and muscle restoration in patients with sorafenib-failed advanced HCC. From August 2012 to March 2017, 385 patients who developed radiology-proven HCC progression after sorafenib treatment were enrolled in the study. Pre-sarcopenia is defined as transverse psoas muscle thickness per body height < 16.8 mm/m, which was prevalent (64.7%) in our patients. Age > 60 years, female gender, and body mass index < 22 kg/m2 were independent predictors to the development of pre-sarcopenia. Patients with muscle depletion had significantly worse post-progression survival (PPS) compared with their counterparts (median PPS: 3.8 vs. 5.8 months, p = 0.003), particularly in those with intermediate liver reserves (Child-Pugh class B or Albumin-bilirubin grade 2). Besides, pre-sarcopenia independently predicted post-progression mortality in sorafenib-failed HCC (hazard ratio: 1.340, p = 0.012). In patients who developed pre-sarcopenia before sorafenib treatment, muscle restoration was associated with a longer PPS compared with their counterparts (6.3 vs. 3.6 months, p = 0.043). In conclusion, pre-sarcopenia independently determined the outcomes of sorafenib-failed HCC. Nutrition support to restore muscle mass would prolong survival for higher-risk patients.

Nivolumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Sorafenib-experienced Asian cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Nivolumab, an immune checkpoint inhibitor, is approved in several countries to treat sorafenib-experienced patients with HCC, based on results from the CheckMate 040 study (NCT01658878). Marked differences exist in HCC clinical presentation, aetiology, treatment patterns and outcomes across regions. This analysis assessed the safety and efficacy of nivolumab in the Asian cohort of CheckMate 040. METHODS: CheckMate 040 is an international, multicentre, open-label, phase I/II study of nivolumab in adults with advanced HCC, regardless of aetiology, not amenable to curative resection or local treatment and with/without previous sorafenib treatment. This analysis included all sorafenib-experienced patients in the intent-to-treat (ITT) overall population and Asian cohort. The analysis cut-off date was March 2018. RESULTS: There were 182 and 85 patients in the ITT population and Asian cohort, respectively. In both populations, most patients were older than 60 years, had BCLC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer) Stage C disease, and had received previous systemic therapy. A higher percentage of Asian patients had HBV infections, extrahepatic metastases and prior therapies. Median follow-up was 31.6 and 31.3 months for the ITT and Asian patients, respectively. Objective response rates were 14% and 15% in the ITT population and Asian cohort, respectively. In the Asian cohort, patients with HBV, HCV or those who were uninfected had objective response rates of 13%, 14% and 21%, respectively. The median duration of response was longer in the ITT (19.4 months) vs. Asian patients (9.7 months). Median overall survival was similar between the ITT (15.1 months) and Asian patients (14.9 months), and unaffected by aetiology in Asian patients. The nivolumab safety profile was similar and manageable across both populations. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab safety and efficacy are comparable between sorafenib-experienced ITT and Asian patients. LAY SUMMARY: The CheckMate 040 study evaluated the safety and efficacy of nivolumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who were refractory to previous sorafenib treatment or chemotherapy. This subanalysis of the data showed that treatment responses and safety in patients in Asia were similar to those of the overall treatment population, providing support for nivolumab as a treatment option for these patients. Clinical trial number: NCT01658878.

Validation of the albumin-bilirubin grade-based integrated model as a predictor for sorafenib-failed hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sorafenib is the standard treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) but is challenging after treatment failure. Appropriate criteria for enrolling patients into second-line trials are still limited. In this study, we aimed to establish more objective criteria based on Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade to select patients with better post-progression survival (PPS) for second-line treatment. METHODS: Consecutive 404 advanced HCC patients receiving sorafenib were retrospectively enrolled. All patients were in Child-Pugh class A and BCLC stage C with either portal vein invasion or extrahepatic metastasis at the beginning of sorafenib treatment. Radiological evaluation based on mRECIST criteria and clinical assessments with compliance were performed on schedule. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 5.8 months, 310 patients developed progressive disease (PD) and 350 deaths occurred. The PD patients were randomized into derivation and validation cohorts by a 1:1 ratio. The independent predictors of poor PPS in derivation cohort were ALBI grade 3 at PD (hazard ratio [HR]=3.24, P = .002), new extrahepatic lesions (NEH) (HR=1.75, P = .011), and early PD within 4 months (HR=1.88, P = .037). ALBI-PD criteria were proposed by incorporating these three risk factors. In the validation cohort, PPS could be independently predicted by presence of early PD, NEH as well as ALBI grade 3 at PD. Patients within ALBI-PD criteria had significant longer median PPS than those beyond it even in Child-Pugh A (9.7 vs 4.9 months, P = .005) subpopulations. CONCLUSIONS: The ALBI-PD criteria can differentiate PPS and stratify the patients with advanced HCC for the second-line trials or salvage therapy.

Randomized, open-label phase 2 study comparing frontline dovitinib versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

UNLABELLED: Angiogenesis inhibition by the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and platelet-derived growth factor receptor (PDGFR) inhibitor sorafenib provides survival benefit in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC); however, angiogenic escape from sorafenib may occur due to angiogenesis-associated fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) pathway activation. In addition to VEGFR and PDGFR, dovitinib inhibits FGFR. Frontline oral dovitinib (500 mg/day, 5 days on, 2 days off; n = 82) versus sorafenib (400 mg twice daily; n = 83) was evaluated in an open-label, randomized phase 2 study of Asian-Pacific patients with advanced HCC. The primary and key secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and time to tumor progression (TTP) as determined by a local investigator, respectively. Patients included in the study were ineligible for surgical and/or locoregional therapies or had disease progression after receiving these therapies. The median OS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 8.0 (6.6-9.1) months for dovitinib and 8.4 (5.4-11.3) months for sorafenib. The median TTP (95% CI) per investigator assessment was 4.1 (2.8-4.2) months and 4.1 (2.8-4.3) months for dovitinib and sorafenib, respectively. Common any-cause adverse events included diarrhea (62%), decreased appetite (43%), nausea (41%), vomiting (41%), fatigue (35%), rash (34%), and pyrexia (30%) for dovitinib and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (66%) and decreased appetite (31%) for sorafenib. Subgroup analysis revealed a significantly higher median OS for patients in the dovitinib arm who had baseline plasma soluble VEGFR1 (sVEGFR1) and hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) below median levels versus at or above the median levels (median OS [95% CI]: sVEGFR1, 11.2 [9.0-13.8] and 5.7 [4.3-7.0] months, respectively [P = .0002]; HGF, 11.2 [8.9-13.8] and 5.9 [5.0-7.6] months, respectively [P = 0.0002]). CONCLUSION: Dovitinib was well tolerated, but activity was not greater than sorafenib as a frontline systemic therapy for HCC. Based on these data, no subsequent phase 3 study has been planned. (Hepatology 2016;64:774-784).

Determinants of survival after sorafenib failure in patients with BCLC-C hepatocellular carcinoma in real-world practice.

Sorafenib may improve progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). However, the survival benefit is short lived and survivals after progressive disease (PD) have not been well characterized. This study aimed to evaluate the survival predictors of OS and postprogression survival (PPS) in advanced HCC patients receiving sorafenib treatment. Consecutive 149 HCC patients receiving sorafenib under National Health Insurance were retrospectively enrolled. All patients fulfilled the reimbursement criteria: Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C HCC with macroscopic vascular invasion or extrahepatic metastasis (Mets), and Child-Pugh class A. Radiologic assessment was performed at a 2-month interval using modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Patients who maintained Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group ≤2 and Child-Pugh class A at PD were assumed to be candidates for second-line treatment. During the median follow-up period of 7.5 months (range, 1.1-18.5), PD developed in 120 (80.5%) patients and 96 (64.4%) deaths occurred. The median PFS, OS, and PPS were 2.5, 8.0, and 4.6 months, respectively. In general, patients with Mets only had better OS and PPS than those with portal vein invasion. Independent predictors of OS include baseline performance status (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.956), tumor size (HR = 1.597), alpha-fetoprotein (HR = 1.869), discontinuation of sorafenib due to liver function deterioration (LD) (HR = 6.142), or concurrent PD and LD (HR = 2.661) and PD within 4 months (HR = 5.164). Independent predictors of PPS include deteriorated performance status (HR = 7.680), deteriorated liver functions (HR = 5.603), bilirubin (HR = 2.114), early PD (HR = 6.109), and new extrahepatic lesion (HR = 1.804). In 46 candidates for second-line trials, development of new extrahepatic lesion independently predicts poorer PPS (HR = 3.669). In conclusion performance status, liver functions, early disease progression, and progression pattern are important determinants of survival after sorafenib failure. These factors should be considered in clinical practice and second-line trial designs for patients with sorafenib failure.

The combination of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization and sorafenib is well tolerated and effective in Asian patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: final results of the START trial.

This phase II, investigator-initiated, prospective single-arm multinational study (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT00990860) evaluated sorafenib in combination with doxorubicin-based transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) in patients with intermediate-stage, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Patients with histologically or clinically diagnosed HCC received TACE with interrupted dosing of sorafenib (sorafenib discontinued for 3 days before and 4-7 days after TACE). TACE/sorafenib cycles were repeated every 6-8 weeks. Primary and secondary objectives were, respectively: to evaluate the safety and tolerability of TACE combined with sorafenib, and also their efficacy. The full analysis set comprised 192 patients (mean age 56.1 years). Most were male (87.0%), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score 0 (81.8%), Child-Pugh A (91.8%) and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage B (81.5%); 81.2% had chronic hepatitis B. Combined TACE/sorafenib was well tolerated, with only 8.1% of patients discontinuing owing to adverse events (AEs). The most common grade ≥3 AEs were palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (15.1%) and decreased platelet count (10.9%). Serious AEs (SAEs) occurred in 52 patients during the study; however, only four were considered related to sorafenib. A mean of 2.7 TACE cycles were administered and 52.6% of patients achieved complete response in target lesions; 16.8% achieved partial response, and 5.8% had progression of disease as their best response, evaluated by modified RECIST. Median progression-free survival and time to progression were 384 and 415 days, respectively, and the estimated 3-year overall survival was 86.1%. This study suggests that the combination of TACE and sorafenib is well tolerated and efficacious; the interrupted sorafenib dosing schedule may have contributed to a considerably lower AE profile than observed in other combination trials.

MS-20, a chemotherapeutical adjuvant, reduces chemo-associated fatigue and appetite loss in cancer patients.

A small pilot study of the fermented soybean extract MicrSoy-20(MS-20) demonstrated its ability to restore chemotherapy-induced immunosuppression and improve quality of life (QoL). This randomized, cross-over, comparative trial was conducted to confirm the effects of MS-20 on QoL and to understand its underlying mechanism when used in conjunction with chemotherapy. One hundred forty-three patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy were randomly assigned to 2 groups. Group 1 was administered MS-20 for 1 wk followed by 3 wk of concomitant MS-20 plus chemotherapy. Group 2 was administered chemotherapy for 3 wk. QoL was assessed by the EORTC/QLQ-C30 questionnaire and visual analogue scales (VAS). Changes in immunological parameters and antioxidant profiles were also examined. Significant increases were observed in EORTC/QLQ-C30 scores for physical (4.45, P = 0.023) and social (3.99, P = 0.023) functioning in Group 1 patients compared to Group 2 patients. VAS scores for fatigue and appetite loss significantly improved with MS-20 treatment (P < 0.001). Group 1 patients exhibited smaller decreases in peripheral blood mononuclear cells compared to Group 2 patients (P = 0.026). Other immunological parameters, antioxidant, and safety profiles were not significantly different between treatment groups. Addition of MS-20 as an adjuvant to chemotherapy can be effective in improving QoL for cancer patients.

Phase II multicentered study of low-dose everolimus plus cisplatin and weekly 24-hour infusion of high-dose 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin as first-line treatment for patients with advanced gastric cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This phase II trial investigates the efficacy and safety of low-dose everolimus in combination with cisplatin-fluorouracil chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer. METHODS: Eligible patients with chemotherapy-naïve advanced gastric cancer received low-dose everolimus (10 mg p.o. on days 1, 8 and 15) plus cisplatin and a weekly 24-hour infusion of high-dose 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (HDFL) chemotherapy (cisplatin 35 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion for 24 h on days 1 and 8, 5-fluorouracil 2,000 mg/m(2) and leucovorin 300 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion for 24 h on days 1, 8 and 15) every 28 days. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0. RESULTS: Forty patients (19 men; 21 women; median age, 54.1 years; range, 33.7-73.3 years) received a median of 6 (range, 1-30; 95% CI, 4.9-8.0) cycles of study treatment. The ORR was 52.5% (21 confirmed partial response). The median progression-free survival and overall survival were 6.9 (95% CI, 4.9-8.4) and 10.5 (95% CI, 8.6-12.3) months, respectively. Most adverse events were mild. CONCLUSION: Adding low-dose everolimus to cisplatin-HDFL chemotherapy failed to increase the ORR as in a preplanned statistical assumption but may prolong progression-free survival in treatment-naïve advanced gastric cancer patients.

Brivanib versus sorafenib as first-line therapy in patients with unresectable, advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: results from the randomized phase III BRISK-FL study.

PURPOSE: Brivanib is a dual inhibitor of vascular-endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor receptors that are implicated in the pathogenesis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Our multinational, randomized, double-blind, phase III trial compared brivanib with sorafenib as first-line treatment for HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Advanced HCC patients who had no prior systemic therapy were randomly assigned (ratio, 1:1) to receive sorafenib 400 mg twice daily orally (n = 578) or brivanib 800 mg once daily orally (n = 577). Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR) based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST), and safety. RESULTS: The primary end point of OS noninferiority for brivanib versus sorafenib in the per-protocol population (n = 1,150) was not met (hazard ratio [HR], 1.06; 95.8% CI, 0.93 to 1.22), based on the prespecified margin (upper CI limit for HR ≤ 1.08). Median OS was 9.9 months for sorafenib and 9.5 months for brivanib. TTP, ORR, and DCR were similar between the study arms. Most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events for sorafenib and brivanib were hyponatremia (9% and 23%, respectively), AST elevation (17% and 14%), fatigue (7% and 15%), hand-foot-skin reaction (15% and 2%), and hypertension (5% and 13%). Discontinuation as a result of adverse events was 33% for sorafenib and 43% for brivanib; rates for dose reduction were 50% and 49%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study did not meet its primary end point of OS noninferiority for brivanib versus sorafenib. However, both agents had similar antitumor activity, based on secondary efficacy end points. Brivanib had an acceptable safety profile, but was less well-tolerated than sorafenib.

Brivanib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who were intolerant to sorafenib or for whom sorafenib failed: results from the randomized phase III BRISK-PS study.

PURPOSE: Brivanib is a selective dual inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and fibroblast growth factor receptors implicated in tumorigenesis and angiogenesis in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). An unmet medical need persists for patients with HCC whose tumors do not respond to sorafenib or who cannot tolerate it. This multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial assessed brivanib in patients with HCC who had been treated with sorafenib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 395 patients with advanced HCC who progressed on/after or were intolerant to sorafenib were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive brivanib 800 mg orally once per day plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), objective response rate (ORR), and disease control rate based on modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) and safety. RESULTS: Median OS was 9.4 months for brivanib and 8.2 months for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95.8% CI, 0.69 to 1.15; P = .3307). Adjusting treatment effect for baseline prognostic factors yielded an OS HR of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.04; P = .1044). Exploratory analyses showed a median time to progression of 4.2 months for brivanib and 2.7 months for placebo (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.76; P < .001), and an mRECIST ORR of 10% for brivanib and 2% for placebo (odds ratio, 5.72). Study discontinuation due to treatment-related adverse events (AEs) occurred in 61 brivanib patients (23%) and nine placebo patients (7%). The most frequent treatment-related grade 3 to 4 AEs for brivanib included hypertension (17%), fatigue (13%), hyponatremia (11%), and decreased appetite (10%). CONCLUSION: In patients with HCC who had been treated with sorafenib, brivanib did not significantly improve OS. The observed benefit in the secondary outcomes of TTP and ORR warrants further investigation.

Consensus recommendations and review by an International Expert Panel on Interventions in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (EPOIHCC).

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) presents with a high burden of disease in East Asian countries. Intermediate-stage HCC as defined by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system poses a clinical challenge as it includes a heterogeneous population of patients that can vary widely in terms of tumour burden, liver function and disease aetiology. Intermediate HCC patients often have unsatisfactory clinical outcomes with repeated transarterial chemoembolization (TACE, due to non-response of the target tumour or the development of further metastasis indicating progressive disease. In September 2011, an Expert Panel Opinion on Interventions in Hepatocellular Carcinoma (EPOIHCC) was convened in HK in an attempt to provide a consensus on the practice of TACE. To that end, current clinical practice throughout Asia was reviewed in detail including safety and efficacy data on TACE alone as well as in combination with targeted systemic therapies. This review summarises the evidence discussed at the meeting and provides expert recommendation regarding the available therapeutic options for unresectable intermediate stage HCC. A key consensus of the Expert Panel was that in order to improve patient outcomes and long-term survival, the possibility of using TACE in combination with targeted agents given systemically should be explored. While the currently available clinical data is promising, the expected completion of several pivotal phase II and III RCTs will provide further evidence in support of the rationale for combination therapy regimens.

Gene expression-based chemical genomics identifies heat-shock protein 90 inhibitors as potential therapeutic drugs in cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is an aggressive tumor with a poor prognosis. There is no standard therapy for CCA, and novel drugs for treating refractory CCA need to be identified. METHODS: The authors hypothesized that, if a drug could reverse the gene expression signature of CCA, then it may inhibit the carcinogenesis of CCA and, hence, would be a potential therapeutic agent. Thus, the gene expression signatures from patients with CCA were queried using the bioinformatic method Connectivity Map, resulting in the enrichment of heat-shock protein 90 (HSP90) inhibitors with therapeutic potentials. RESULTS: Two HSP90 inhibitors, 17-AAG (tanespimycin) and the synthetic diarylisoxazole amide resorcinol NVP-AUY922, demonstrated potent antiproliferative activity in in vitro studies. In a thioacetamide-induced animal model, NVP-AUY922 also had antitumor activity and resulted in objective tumor regression. In addition, NVP-AUY922 reduced the expression of client oncoproteins involved in CCA oncogenesis and inhibited downstream proteins of both the phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase catalytic subunit α/v-akt murine thymoma viral oncogene homolog 1 protein kinase (PIK3/AKT) pathway and the v-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene/mitogen-activated protein kinase (KRAS/MAPK) pathway. CONCLUSIONS: Preclinical data from the current study suggest that NVP-AUY922 may be an effective treatment option for patients with CCA.

Interim analysis of START: Study in Asia of the combination of TACE (transcatheter arterial chemoembolization) with sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma trial.

Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) represents a first-line noncurative therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, has been shown to be effective and safe monotherapy in patients with advanced HCC and the current study reports the interim results of a prospective Phase II, open label, trial investigating the safety and efficacy of the combination of sorafenib and conventional TACE in patients from the Asia-Pacific region with intermediate HCC. Patients with histologically or clinically diagnosed HCC were treated with conventional TACE followed by sorafenib 4 to 7 days later. TACE was performed by selective transarterial chemotherapy in the vessels feeding the tumor with an emulsion of lipiodol (5-20 ml) and doxorubicin (30-60 mg) followed by embolization with absorbable particles (gel foam). TACE/sorafenib cycles were repeated every 6-8 weeks. Primary objectives were to evaluate the safety and tolerability, in addition to the efficacy of TACE combined with sorafenib for HCC. A total of 147 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis and received at least one dose of sorafenib. Gastrointestinal AEs were reported by 62.6% of patients while 57.8% reported skin AEs although most were mild to moderate. The mean number of cycles undertaken was 2.1 and 63.3% of patients achieved either partial response or stable disease. Clinically, the disease control rate was 91.2% while the overall response rate was calculated as 52.4%. Our study shows that concurrent sorafenib and TACE therapy is safe and effective with no unexpected side effects.

A phase II trial of biweekly oxaliplatin with simplified schedule of 48-h infusion of high-dose 5-fluorouracil and leucorvin for advanced biliary tract carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Advanced biliary tract carcinoma (BTC) is a dismal disease with no standard chemotherapy. We investigated efficacy and toxicity of biweekly oxaliplatin with 48-h infusion of 5-FU/LV in advanced BTC. METHODS: All patients had histologic confirmation of BTC, at least one measurable site of disease, and had received no prior chemotherapy. Patients were older than 20 years with ECOG performance scores (PS) of 0-2. Treatment involved 2-h infusion of oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2)) diluted in D5W 500 ml followed by 48-h infusion of 5-FU (3,000 mg/m(2)) and LV (100 mg/m(2)) biweekly. Response evaluation was based on RECIST criteria and was carried out every two courses of treatment; toxicity evaluation was based on NCI common toxicity criteria version 3.0. RESULTS: From August 2005 to December 2006, 34 chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced BTC were enrolled and 32 intention-to-treat patients were evaluated. Partial response was 18.8%, stable disease was 31.3%, resulting in a disease control rate of 50.0%. Median time to progression and survival was 3.7 and 7 months, respectively. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia 15.6% (5/32), stomatitis 9.4% (3/32), thrombocytopenia 6.3% (2/32), diarrhea 6.3% (2/32) and neuropathy 3.1% (1/32). No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSIONS: The biweekly OXA and 48-h infusion of 5-FU/LV in patients with advanced BTC showed tolerable and efficacy equivalent to other combination regimens treatment.

Postresectional adjuvant intraportal chemotherapy in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: The postresectional tumor recurrence rate is high in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Tumor portal venous invasion is the most important factor related to recurrence. Adjuvant intraportal infusion chemotherapy (IPIC) was used in HCC patients to improve the outcomes. METHODS: Between June 1998 and May 1999, 28 HCC patients (IPIC group) underwent postresectional IPIC daily for 2 days with 5-fluorouracil (650 mg/m(2)), leucovorin (45 mg/m(2)), doxorubicin (10 mg/m(2)), and cisplatin (20 mg/m(2)). Treatment was repeated every 3 weeks for six cycles. Patient outcomes were compared with those of 66 matched HCC patients (control group) who underwent hepatectomy without adjuvant therapy. RESULTS: The IPIC group received an average of 5.2 cycles of chemotherapy, starting 5 to 24 days after surgery. The most frequent IPIC-related adverse events were upper abdominal pain, vomiting, and myelosuppression. Five-year disease-free and overall survival rates for the IPIC group were 44.6% and 60.7%, respectively. Subgroup analysis of patients with tumor-node-metastasis stage I and II disease identified significantly lower recurrence rates for the IPIC group (33.3%) than the control group (65.0%; P = .025). For patients with stage I and II disease, 5-year disease-free and overall survival rates for the IPIC group (70.6% and 83.3%, respectively) were significantly higher than those of the control group (33.4% and 46.9%, respectively; P < .05). Patients with stage III disease do not benefit from IPIC. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative IPIC benefits HCC patients with tumor-node-metastasis stage I and II disease. The survival advantages demonstrated justify a selection of patients for future trials.

Phase I-II trial of weekly gemcitabine plus high-dose 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is a dismal disease. Few drugs, including gemcitabine and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), have notable antitumor effects against advanced pancreatic cancer. The purpose of the present study was to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of 5-FU and the efficacy and toxicity profile of weekly gemcitabine plus infusional 5-FU/leucovorin in advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Patients with histo-/cytologically confirmed, advanced pancreatic cancer were eligible. Treatment consisted of a 30-min infusion of gemcitabine (800 mg/m2), followed by a 24-h infusion of 5-FU and leucovorin (300 mg/m2) at day 1, day 8 and day 15 every 28 days, and was termed the GemFL24 regimen. The dose of 5-FU was escalated from 1600, 2000, to 2600 mg/m2 in the phase I study, and fixed MTD for subsequent enrolled patients. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled in the phase I study, and 24 in phase II. The MTD of 5-FU was 2000 mg/m2, with major dose-limiting toxicities being febrile neutropenia and delayed recovery from neutropenia. The dose intensity of gemcitabine of the 35 patients with 5-FU dosage set at MTD was 593 mg/m2 per week. In the entire series of 42 patients, myelosuppression was the main toxicity, with grade 3 neutropenia in eight patients, and grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia in six. On an intention-to-treat analysis, the overall and clinical benefit response rates were 22% and 46%, respectively; with median progression-free and overall survival of 4.1 and 6.9 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The GemFL24 regimen is a feasible and moderately active treatment with manageable toxicities for advanced pancreatic cancer, and could be a basis for further combination with other anticancer drugs.