Phase I Study of Lenalidomide and Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

LESSONS LEARNED: Combination therapies in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma can be associated with overlapping toxicity and are therefore poorly tolerated.Using sorafenib at the maximum tolerated dose can lead to a higher incidence of toxicities. Consequently, combination studies might evaluate sorafenib at alternative schedules or doses to improve tolerance, recognizing this could affect sorafenib efficacy.Although this combination was poorly tolerated, it does not exclude further evaluation of new-generation immunomodulator drugs or immune checkpoint inhibitors in the hope of optimizing tolerance and safety. BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is the standard treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and to date, no combination therapy has demonstrated superior survival compared with sorafenib alone. The immunosuppressive microenvironment in HCC is a negative predictor for survival. Lenalidomide is an immunomodulator and antiangiogenic agent, with limited single-agent efficacy in HCC. Based on these data, we designed a phase I study of sorafenib plus lenalidomide to determine the safety and preliminary antitumor activity of this combination. METHODS: This was an open-label, phase I study with a 3+3 dose escalation/de-escalation design. The starting dose of sorafenib was 400 mg p.o. b.i.d. and of lenalidomide was 15 mg p.o. daily with a planned dose escalation by 5 mg per cohort up to 25 mg daily. Dose de-escalation was planned to a sorafenib dose of 400 mg p.o. daily combined with two doses of lenalidomide: 10 mg p.o. daily for a 28-day cycle (cohort 1) and 10 mg p.o. daily for a 21- or 28-day cycle (cohort 2). Patients with cirrhosis, a Child-Pugh score of A-B7, and no previous systemic therapy were eligible. RESULTS: Five patients were enrolled. Their median age was 56 years (range 39-61), and the ECOG status was 0-2. Four patients were treated at dose level (DL) 1. Because of the poor tolerance to the combination associated with grade 2 toxicities, one more patient was treated at DL -1. No dose-limiting toxicity was observed as specified per protocol. The most common toxicities were nausea, anorexia, pruritus, elevated liver enzymes, and elevated bilirubin. Three patients experienced one or more of the following grade 3 toxicities: fatigue (DL 1), increased bilirubin (DL 1), skin desquamation (DL -1), and elevated transaminase levels (DL 1). The median duration of therapy was 1 cycle (range 1-3). All patients discontinued the study, 4 because of progressive disease and 1 by patient preference. The best confirmed response was progressive disease. The median progression-free survival was 1.0 month (95% confidence interval 0.9-2.8), and the median overall survival was 5.9 months (95% confidence interval 3.68-23.4). CONCLUSION: In our small study, the combination of lenalidomide and sorafenib was poorly tolerated and showed no clinical activity. Although the study was closed early because of toxicity concerns, future studies assessing combinations of sorafenib with new-generation immunomodulator drugs or other immunomodulatory agents, should consider lower starting doses of sorafenib to avoid excessive toxicity.

Integration of Palliative Care Into Comprehensive Cancer Treatment at Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital in Western Kenya.

PURPOSE: The prognosis for the majority of patients with cancer in Kenya is poor, with most patients presenting with advanced disease. In addition, many patients are unable to afford the optimal therapies required. Therefore, palliative care is an essential part of comprehensive cancer care. This study reviews the implementation of a palliative care service based at the Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital in Eldoret, Kenya, and describes the current scope and challenges of providing palliative care services in an East African tertiary public referral hospital. METHODS: This is a review of the palliative care clinical services at the only tertiary public referral hospital in western Kenya from January 2012 through September 2014. Palliative care team members documented each patient's encounter on standardized palliative care assessment forms; data were then entered into the Academic Model Providing Access to Health Care (AMPATH)-Oncology database. Interviews were also conducted to identify current challenges and opportunities for program improvement. RESULTS: This study documents the implementation of a palliative care service line in Eldoret, Kenya. Barriers to providing optimal palliative cancer care include distance to pharmacies that stock opioids, limited selection of opioid preparations, education of health care workers in palliative care, access to palliative chemoradiation, and limited availability of outpatient and inpatient hospice services. CONCLUSION: Palliative care services in Eldoret, Kenya, have become a key component of its comprehensive cancer treatment program.

Phase 1 pharmacogenetic and pharmacodynamic study of sorafenib with concurrent radiation therapy and gemcitabine in locally advanced unresectable pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: To define the safety, efficacy, and pharmacogenetic and pharmacodynamic effects of sorafenib with gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) intravenously weekly × 3 every 4 weeks per cycle for 1 cycle before CRT and continued for up to 4 cycles after CRT. Weekly gemcitabine 600 mg/m(2) intravenously was given during concurrent intensity modulated radiation therapy of 50 Gy to gross tumor volume in 25 fractions. Sorafenib was dosed orally 400 mg twice daily until progression, except during CRT when it was escalated from 200 mg to 400 mg daily, and 400 mg twice daily. The maximum tolerated dose cohort was expanded to 15 patients. Correlative studies included dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and angiogenesis genes polymorphisms (VEGF-A and VEGF-R2 single nucleotide polymorphisms). RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicity occurred during induction gemcitabine/sorafenib followed by concurrent CRT. The most common grade 3/4 toxicities were fatigue, hematologic, and gastrointestinal. The maximum tolerated dose was sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. The median progression-free survival and overall survival for 25 evaluable patients were 10.6 and 12.6 months, respectively. The median overall survival for patients with VEGF-A -2578 AA, -1498 CC, and -1154 AA versus alternate genotypes was 21.6 versus 14.7 months. Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI demonstrated higher baseline K(trans) in responding patients. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent sorafenib with CRT had modest clinical activity with increased gastrointestinal toxicity in localized unresectable pancreatic cancer. Select VEGF-A/VEGF-R2 genotypes were associated with favorable survival.

Antitumor effects of 5-fluorouracil on human colon cancer cell lines: antagonism by levamisole.

BACKGROUND: The addition of levamisole (Lev) to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) for the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer has been shown to improve 5-year survival in patients. The mechanism of action of Lev remains unknown. Because we showed little in vitro immunological effect of Lev, we asked whether Lev, alone or in combination with 5-FU, had antitumor activity in vitro. METHODS: Proliferation of COLO-205 and HT-29 colon cancer cells incubated for 2 to 3 days in Lev and 5-FU was measured in 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium colorimetric assays. Cell cycle analysis was performed by treating tumor cells for 6, 24, and 48 h with Lev and 5-FU, staining cells with propidium iodide, and measuring DNA content by flow cytometry. RESULTS: The addition of Lev to 5-FU did not reduce proliferation below that of 5-FU alone. The inhibitory concentration 50% (IC(50)) for 5-FU was 3.2 x 10(-6) M for COLO-205 and 1.3 x 10(-5) M for HT-29. An IC(50) was not reached for Lev, even at millimolar doses. DNA analysis of cells treated for 48 h revealed significant S-phase accumulation of both HT-29 (from 17% in control cells to 36% in treated cells) and COLO-205 (from 35% in control cells to 59% in treated cells) cell lines at micromolar 5-FU concentrations. In contrast, Lev alone did not affect cell cycle distribution for either cell line. The addition of Lev to 5-FU not only did not augment, but inhibited, the effects of 5-FU. CONCLUSIONS: Levamisole has no direct cytotoxic effect and no additive or synergistic cytotoxic effect when combined with 5-FU on two colon cancer cell lines. Either the observed clinical effects of Lev treatment occur through an as yet unknown mechanism, require longer treatment periods in vitro to become evident, or the results of clinical trials showing its effectiveness should be carefully reexamined.