Evolution of parenteral nutrition practices in a comprehensive cancer center: Comparative audits.

INTRODUCTION: Malnutrition affects 20% to 70% of oncology patients depending on the patient's age, type and stage of cancer. Two audits were carried out in 2016 and 2019 to evaluate the practice of Parenteral Nutrition (PN). METHODS: Records of adult medical inpatients who received PN between January 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019 were retrospectively analysed. Twenty criteria were defined. We conducted a statistical analysis to compare the two audit data. RESULTS: Between January 1, 2018 and April 30, 2019, 86 hospitalizations with a PN prescription were analysed. Of the 69 patients, 66% were female, the mean and median age was 60 years. These were most often medical oncology patients in palliative care. Gynecological and digestive tumors were the two main tumor localization. Bowel obstruction and palliative care management were the two main reasons for hospitalization. Nutritional assessment, amount of energy prescribed, monitoring, and duration of PN remain with poor results. CONCLUSION: Our study seems to show improvements in the relevance of PN indications, the prescription, and monitoring in patients due to the computerization of prescription and training of professionals. PN remains often prescribed in exclusive palliative situations. We need to continue our improvements, particularly for the initial clinical and biological assessment, and the monitoring. It requires a referral team to improve management of patients treated with PN.

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.

Phase 2 trial comparing sorafenib, pravastatin, their combination or supportive care in HCC with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: There is limited data regarding the role for systemic treatment in patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma with Child-Pugh B cirrhosis. METHODS: PRODIGE 21 was a multicentric prospective non-comparative randomized trial. Patients were randomized to receive sorafenib (Arm A), pravastatin (Arm B), sorafenib-pravastatin (Arm C) combination, or best supportive care (Arm D). Primary endpoint was time to progression (TTP), secondary endpoints included safety and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 160 patients were randomized and 157 patients were included in the final analysis. 86% of patients were BCLC C and 55% had macrovascular invasion. The safety profiles of the drugs were as expected. Median TTP was 3.5, 2.8, 2.0 and 2.2 months in arms A, B, C and D, respectively, but analysis was limited by the number of patients deceased without radiological progression (59%). Median OS was similar between the four arms: 3.8 [95% CI: 2.4-6.5], 3.1 [95% CI: 1.9-4.3], 4.0 [95% CI: 3.2-5.5] and 3.5 months [95% CI: 2.2-5.4] in arms A, B, C and D, respectively. Median OS was 4.0 months [95% CI: 3.3-5.5] for patients treated with sorafenib, vs 2.9 months [95% CI: 2.2-3.9] for patients not treated with sorafenib. In patients with ALBI grade 1/2, median OS was 6.1 months [95% CI: 3.8-8.3] in patients treated with sorafenib vs 3.1 months [95% CI: 1.9-4.8] for patients not treated with sorafenib. CONCLUSION: In the overall Child-Pugh B population, neither sorafenib nor pravastatin seemed to provide benefit. In the ALBI grade 1/2 sub-population, our trial suggests potential benefit of sorafenib. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was referenced in clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01357486).

Improved survival prediction and comparison of prognostic models for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib.

BACKGROUND: The 'Prediction Of Survival in Advanced Sorafenib-treated HCC' (PROSASH) model addressed the heterogeneous survival of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with sorafenib in clinical trials but requires validation in daily clinical practice. This study aimed to validate, compare and optimize this model for survival prediction. METHODS: Patients treated with sorafenib for HCC at five tertiary European centres were retrospectively staged according to the PROSASH model. In addition, the optimized PROSASH-II model was developed using the data of four centres (training set) and tested in an independent dataset. These models for overall survival (OS) were then compared with existing prognostic models. RESULTS: The PROSASH model was validated in 445 patients, showing clear differences between the four risk groups (OS 16.9-4.6 months). A total of 920 patients (n = 615 in training set, n = 305 in validation set) were available to develop PROSASH-II. This optimized model incorporated fewer and less subjective parameters: the serum albumin, bilirubin and alpha-foetoprotein, and macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread and largest tumour size on imaging. Both PROSASH and PROSASH-II showed improved discrimination (C-index 0.62 and 0.63, respectively) compared with existing prognostic scores (C-index ≤0.59). CONCLUSIONS: In HCC patients treated with sorafenib, individualized prediction of survival and risk group stratification using baseline prognostic and predictive parameters with the PROSASH model was validated. The refined PROSASH-II model performed at least as good with fewer and more objective parameters. PROSASH-II can be used as a tool for tailored treatment of HCC in daily practice and to define pre-planned subgroups for future studies.

Preliminary results of the Phase 1 Lip-Re I clinical trial: biodistribution and dosimetry assessments in hepatocellular carcinoma patients treated with 188Re-SSS Lipiodol radioembolization.

PURPOSE: This study sought to provide preliminary results on the biodistribution and dosimetry following intra-arterial liver injection of 188Re-SSS Lipiodol on hepatocellular carcinoma patients included in the Phase I Lip-Re 1 study. METHODS: Results of the first six patients included are reported. Analysis of the 188Re-SSS Lipiodol biodistribution was based on planar scintigraphic and tomoscintigraphic (SPECT) studies performed at 1, 6, 24, 48, and 72 h post-administration. Quantification in blood, urine, and stool samples was performed. Determination of the tumour to non-tumour uptake ratio (T/NT) was calculated. Absorbed doses to target organs and tumours were evaluated using the MIRD formalism. RESULTS: The mean injected activity of 188Re-SSS Lipiodol was 1645 ± 361 MBq. Uptakes were seen in the liver (tumour and healthy liver) and the lungs only. All these uptakes were stable over time. A mean 1.4 ± 0.7% of 188Re-SSS Lipiodol administered was detected in serum samples at 6 h, declining rapidly thereafter. On average, 1.5 ± 1.6% of administered activity was eliminated in urine and feces over 72 h. Overall, 90.7 ± 1.6% of detected activity on SPECT studies was found in the liver (74.9 ± 1.8% in tumours and 19.1 ± 1.7% in the healthy liver) and 9.3 ± 1.6% in the lungs (5.7 ± 1.1% in right and 3.7 ± 0.5% in left lungs). Mean doses absorbed were 7.9 ± 3.7Gy to the whole liver, 42.7 ± 34.0Gy to the tumours, 10.2 ± 3.7Gy to the healthy liver, and 1.5 ± 1.2Gy to the lungs. Four patients had stable disease on CT scans at 2 months. The first patient with rapidly progressive disease died at 1 month, most probably of massive tumour progression. Due to this early death and using a conservative approach, the trial independent evaluation committee decided to consider this event as a treatment-related toxicity. CONCLUSION: 188Re-SSS Lipiodol has a favorable biodistribution profile concerning radioembolization, with the highest in-vivo stability among all radiolabeled Lipiodol compounds reported to date. These preliminary results must be further confirmed while completing this Phase I Lip Re1 study.

Modified FOLFIRINOX versus CisGem first-line chemotherapy for locally advanced non resectable or metastatic biliary tract cancer (AMEBICA)-PRODIGE 38: Study protocol for a randomized controlled multicenter phase II/III study.

INTRODUCTION: Combination of cisplatine and Gemcitabine (CisGem) is the reference 1st line Chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary cancer. FOLFIRINOX demonstrated an overall survival superiority when compared to gemcitabine in 1st line for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Because of similarities between pancreatic and biliary cancers, we proposed a randomized trial comparing mFOLFIRINOX and CisGEm. AIM: PRODIGE38-AMEBICA is a phase II/III trial evaluating efficacy of modifed FOLFIRINOX (D1 bolus removed) or CisGEm on patients with locally advanced non resectable or metastatic biliary tract cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Main inclusion criteria are histologically or cytologically proven biliary tract tumor (intra or extra hepatic or hilar or gallbladder carcinoma), measurable disease (metastases and/or primary tumor), Bilirubin <1,5 N and transaminases <5 N. The randomization (ratio 1:1) will be stratified on center, stage of the disease, tumor localization and previous adjuvant treatment. The Phase II trial has an objective of 73% patients alive and without progression at 6 months for Folfirinox (versus 59% for Gemcis). 128 additional patients should be added in the phase III trial with an objective of overall survival improvement of 4 months in favor of mFOLFIRINOX. CONCLUSION: The study is opened in France (EudraCT no.: 2015-002282-35). All the patients (188) of the phase II part are currently randomized.

Systemic therapy for intermediate and advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Sorafenib and beyond.

The hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treatment landscape changed a decade ago, with sorafenib demonstrating survival benefit in the first-line setting and becoming the first systemic therapy to be approved for HCC. More recently, regorafenib and nivolumab have received approval in the second-line setting after sorafenib, with further positive phase 3 studies emerging in the first line (lenvatinib non-inferior to sorafenib) and second line versus placebo (cabozantinib and ramucirumab). A key recommendation in the management of patients receiving sorafenib is to promote close communication between the patient and the physician so that adverse events (AEs) are detected early and severe AEs can be prevented. Sorafenib-related AEs have been identified as clinical biomarkers for sorafenib efficacy. Healthcare professionals have become more efficient in managing AEs, identifying patients who are likely to benefit from treatment, and assessing response to treatment, resulting in a trend towards increased overall survival in the sorafenib arms of clinical studies. The rapidly changing treatment landscape due to the emergence of new treatment options (sorafenib and lenvatinib equally effective in first line; regorafenib, cabozantinib, and ramucirumab showing OS benefit in second line with nivolumab approved by the FDA based on response rate) underscores the importance of re-assessing the role of the first approved systemic agent in HCC, sorafenib.

A multicentre comparison between Child Pugh and Albumin-Bilirubin scores in patients treated with sorafenib for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Albumin-Bilirubin (ALBI) grade was proposed as an objective means to evaluate liver function in patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC). ALBI grade 1 vs 2 were proposed as stratification factors within the Child Pugh (CP) A class. However, the original publication did not provide comparison with the subclassification by points (5-15) within the CP classification. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data from patients treated with sorafenib for HCC from 17 centres in United Kingdom and France. Overall survival (OS) was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method and a Cox regression model. Discriminatory abilities of the classifications were assessed with the log likelihood ratio, Harrell's C statistics and Akaike information criterion. RESULTS: Data from 1019 patients were collected, of which 905 could be assessed for both scores. 92% of ALBI grade 1 were CP A5 while ALBI 2 included a broad range of CP scores of which 44% were CP A6. Median OS was 10.2, 7.0 and 3.6 months for CP scores A5, A6 and >A6, respectively (P < 0.001), Hazard Ratio (HR) = 1.60 (95%CI: 1.35-1.89, P < 0.001) for A6 vs A5. Median OS was 10.9, 6.6 and 3.0 months for ALBI grade 1, 2 and 3, respectively (P < 0.001), HR = 1.68 (1.43-1.97, P < 0.001) for grade 2 vs 1. Discriminatory abilities of CP and ALBI were similar in the CP A population, but better for CP in the overall population. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings support the use CP class A as an inclusion criterion, and ALBI as a stratification factor in trials of systemic therapy.

Selective internal radiation therapy compared with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma with portal vein thrombosis.

PURPOSE: Tumoural portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a major prognostic factor in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The efficacy of sorafenib, the only treatment approved at an advanced stage, is limited. Based on previous data, selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT), or (90)Y radioembolization, seems an interesting option. We aimed to compare both treatments in this population. METHODS: We retrospectively compared patients treated in two centres for HCC with tumoural PVT. We compared overall survival (OS) between patients treated with SIRT and patients treated with sorafenib. Analyses were performed before and after 1:1 matching with a propensity score for controlling indication bias, using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 151 patients were analysed, 34 patients treated with SIRT and 117 patients treated with sorafenib only. In the whole population, SIRT was associated with a higher median OS as compared with sorafenib: 18.8 vs 6.5 months (log-rank p < 0.001). There was an imbalance of baseline characteristics between patients treated by SIRT and sorafenib, which justified patient matching with use of a propensity score: 24 patients treated with SIRT could be matched with 24 patients treated with sorafenib. OS was estimated with a median of 26.2 vs 8.7 months in patients treated with SIRT vs sorafenib, respectively (log-rank p = 0.054). Before and after patient matching, the adjusted hazard ratio related to treatment by SIRT was estimated at 0.62 [95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.39-0.97] (p = 0.037) and 0.40 (95 % CI 0.19-0.82) (p = 0.013), respectively. CONCLUSION: SIRT seems more effective than sorafenib in patients presenting with HCC and tumoural PVT. This hypothesis is being tested in prospective randomized trials.

Gemcitabine and Oxaliplatin, but Not Sorafenib or Paclitaxel, Have a Synergistic Effect with Yttrium-90 in Reducing Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Cholangiocarcinoma Cell Line Viability.

Synergy between yttrium-90 (90Y) and antineoplastic drugs was investigated. Viability of HepaRG (hepatocellular carcinoma) and HuCCT1 (cholangiocarcinoma) cells was studied through a tetrazolium dye reduction assay. A combination index (CI) was calculated, with CI < 1 denoting synergy and CI > 1 denoting antagonism. In HepaRG cells, gemcitabine showed synergy with 90Y (CI = 0.70 [95% confidence interval = 0.65-0.75]), whereas oxaliplatin (CI = 1.15 [1.08-1.21]), paclitaxel (CI = 1.26 [1.15-1.37]), and sorafenib (CI = 1.77 [1.65-1.89]) showed antagonism. In HuCCT1 cells, gemcitabine (CI = 0.54 [0.50-0.58]) and oxaliplatin (CI = 0.86 [0.82-0.90]) showed synergy with 90Y, whereas paclitaxel (CI = 1.18 [1.09-1.27]) and sorafenib (CI = 1.21 [1.12-1.30]) showed antagonism. These results suggest that gemcitabine and oxaliplatin should be tested in combination with 90Y radioembolization for treatment of liver cancer.

In vitro demonstration of synergy/additivity between (188)rhenium and sorafenib on hepatoma lines: preliminary results.

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma is generally diagnosed at advanced stages, for which only palliative treatments are possible by intra-arterial route or by targeted therapies. Among these treatments, metabolic radiotherapy using (90)-yttrium or (188)Re and sorafenib are two options adopted in monotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We address the question of a possible synergy arising from the combination of these two treatments. Two primary malignant hepatoma cell lines, N1S1 (murine HCC) and HepG2 (human hepatoblastoma) were treated in media containing increasing concentrations of sorafenib with/without (188)Re to assess the cellular toxicities of each treatment alone and in combination. The combination index method was used to look for synergy or additivity. RESULTS: A synergistic advantage of a treatment combining (188)Re and sorafenib is shown in vitro on hepatoma cell lines. CONCLUSION: This combined approach is promising and now needs to be confirmed by more complex in vitro models integrating the tumoral stroma, as well as by in vivo studies.

Comparison of tumor response by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and modified RECIST in patients treated with sorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A significant improvement in overall survival (OS) was demonstrated in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who received sorafenib (Sor) in the Sorafenib HCC Assessment Randomized Protocol (SHARP) study, in contrast to a response rate (RR) of 2% assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). Modified RECIST (mRECIST) were developed to assess the response in patients with HCC, based on measurement of viable tumor with arterial enhancement on a computed tomography (CT) scan. In the current study, mRECIST were evaluated and were compared with RECIST in patients who received Sor for advanced HCC. METHODS: The authors retrospectively analyzed 53 patients who received Sor for advanced HCC. Patients must to have undergone a 4-phase CT scan before treatment and repeatedly thereafter. CT scans were analyzed using RECIST 1.1 and mRECIST. RESULTS: The rates of objective response (OR), stable disease (SD), and progressive disease (PD) were 2%, 79%, and 19%, respectively, according to RECIST and 23%, 57%, and 21%, respectively, according to mRECIST (P < .001). Patients who achieved an OR according to mRECIST had a longer OS than nonresponding patients with SD or PD (median OS, 18 months and 8 months, respectively; P = .013). In the 42 patients who achieved SD according to RECIST, OS differed depending on tumor response according to mRECIST, with a median OS of 17 months, 10 months, and 4 months for patients who achieved an OR (n = 11), SD (n = 29), and PD (n = 2), respectively (P = .016). CONCLUSIONS: The current series validated mRECIST in patients who received Sor for advanced HCC. The majority of patients who had SD according to RECIST had a different prognosis according to mRECIST. The results indicated that, for patients with HCC, mRECIST should be used for the standard assessment of treatment efficacy, particularly in patients who are receiving antiangiogenic drugs.