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.

Patient-reported outcomes with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (IMbrave150): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patients' experience of cancer treatment is important. We aimed to evaluate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the IMbrave150 trial, which has already shown significant overall survival and progression-free survival benefits with this combination therapy. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial in 111 hospitals and cancer centres across 17 countries or regions. We included patients aged 18 years or older with systemic, treatment-naive, histologically, cytologically, or clinically confirmed unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, with disease that was not amenable to curative surgical or locoregional therapies, or progressive disease after surgical or locoregional therapies. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1; using permuted block randomisation [blocks of six], stratified by geographical region; macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic spread, or both; baseline alpha-fetoprotein concentration; and ECOG performance status) to receive 1200 mg atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg bevacizumab intravenously once every 3 weeks or 400 mg sorafenib orally twice a day, until loss of clinical benefit or unacceptable toxicity. The independent review facility for tumour assessment was masked to the treatment allocation. Previously reported coprimary endpoints were overall survival and independently assessed progression-free survival per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1. Prespecified secondary and exploratory analyses descriptively evaluated treatment effects on patient-reported quality of life, functioning, and disease symptoms per the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality-of-life questionnaire for cancer (QLQ-C30) and quality-of-life questionnaire for hepatocellular carcinoma (QLQ-HCC18). Time to confirmed deterioration of PROs was analysed in the intention-to-treat population; all other analyses were done in the PRO-evaluable population (patients who had a baseline PRO assessment and at least one assessment after baseline). The trial is ongoing; enrolment is closed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03434379. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2018, and Jan 30, 2019, 725 patients were screened and 501 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n=336) or sorafenib (n=165). 309 patients in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 145 patients in the sorafenib group were included in the PRO-evaluable population. At data cutoff (Aug 29, 2019) the median follow-up was 8·6 months (IQR 6·2-10·8). EORTC QLQ-C30 completion rates were 90% or greater for 23 of 24 treatment cycles in both groups (range 88-100% in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group and 80-100% in the sorafenib group). EORTC QLQ-HCC18 completion rates were 90% or greater for 20 of 24 cycles in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab group (range 88-100%) and 21 of 24 cycles in the sorafenib group (range 89-100%). Compared with sorafenib, atezolizumab plus bevacizumab reduced the risk of deterioration on all EORTC QLQ-C30 generic cancer symptom scales that were prespecified for analysis (appetite loss [hazard ratio (HR) 0·57, 95% CI 0·40-0·81], diarrhoea [0·23, 0·16-0·34], fatigue [0·61, 0·46-0·81], pain [0·46, 0·34-0·62]), and two of three EORTC QLQ-HCC18 disease-specific symptom scales that were prespecified for analysis (fatigue [0·60, 0·45-0·80] and pain [0·65, 0·46-0·92], but not jaundice [0·76, 0·55-1·07]). At day 1 of treatment cycle five (after which attrition in the sorafenib group was more than 50%), the mean EORTC QLQ-C30 score changes from baseline in the atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus sorafenib groups were: -3·29 (SD 17·56) versus -5·83 (20·63) for quality of life, -4·02 (19·42) versus -9·76 (21·33) for role functioning, and -3·77 (12·82) versus -7·60 (15·54) for physical functioning. INTERPRETATION: Prespecified analyses of PRO data showed clinically meaningful benefits in terms of patient-reported quality of life, functioning, and disease symptoms with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab compared with sorafenib, strengthening the combination therapy's positive benefit-risk profile versus that of sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech.

Second-line cabozantinib after sorafenib treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a subgroup analysis of the phase 3 CELESTIAL trial.

OBJECTIVE: In the phase 3 CELESTIAL trial, cabozantinib improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo in patients with previously treated advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This subgroup analysis evaluated cabozantinib in patients who had received sorafenib as the only prior systemic therapy. METHODS: CELESTIAL randomised (2:1) patients with advanced HCC and Child-Pugh class A liver function to treatment with cabozantinib (60 mg daily) or placebo. Eligibility required prior treatment with sorafenib, and patients could have received ≤2 prior systemic regimens. The primary endpoint was OS. Outcomes in patients who had received sorafenib as the only prior therapy were analysed by duration of prior sorafenib (<3 months, 3 to <6 months and ≥6 months). RESULTS: Of patients who had received only prior sorafenib, 331 were randomised to cabozantinib and 164 to placebo; 136 patients had received sorafenib for <3 months, 141 for 3 to <6 months and 217 for ≥6 months. Cabozantinib improved OS relative to placebo in the overall second-line population who had received only prior sorafenib (median 11.3 vs 7.2 months; HR=0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.88). This improvement was maintained in analyses by prior sorafenib duration with longer duration generally corresponding to longer median OS-median OS 8.9 vs 6.9 months (HR=0.72, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.10) for prior sorafenib <3 months, 11.5 vs 6.5 months (HR=0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.00) for 3 to <6 months and 12.3 vs 9.2 months (HR=0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.16) for ≥6 months. Cabozantinib also improved PFS in all duration subgroups. Safety data were consistent with the overall study population. CONCLUSION: Cabozantinib improved efficacy outcomes versus placebo in the second-line population who had received only prior sorafenib irrespective of duration of prior sorafenib treatment, further supporting the utility of cabozantinib in the evolving treatment landscape of HCC. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT01908426.

Tumour-specific amplitude-modulated radiofrequency electromagnetic fields induce differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma via targeting Cav3.2 T-type voltage-gated calcium channels and Ca2+ influx.

BACKGROUND: Administration of amplitude modulated 27·12 MHz radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (AM RF EMF) by means of a spoon-shaped applicator placed on the patient's tongue is a newly approved treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The mechanism of action of tumour-specific AM RF EMF is largely unknown. METHODS: Whole body and organ-specific human dosimetry analyses were performed. Mice carrying human HCC xenografts were exposed to AM RF EMF using a small animal AM RF EMF exposure system replicating human dosimetry and exposure time. We performed histological analysis of tumours following exposure to AM RF EMF. Using an agnostic genomic approach, we characterized the mechanism of action of AM RF EMF. FINDINGS: Intrabuccal administration results in systemic delivery of athermal AM RF EMF from head to toe at levels lower than those generated by cell phones held close to the body. Tumour shrinkage results from differentiation of HCC cells into quiescent cells with spindle morphology. AM RF EMF targeted antiproliferative effects and cancer stem cell inhibiting effects are mediated by Ca2+ influx through Cav3·2 T-type voltage-gated calcium channels (CACNA1H) resulting in increased intracellular calcium concentration within HCC cells only. INTERPRETATION: Intrabuccally-administered AM RF EMF is a systemic therapy that selectively block the growth of HCC cells. AM RF EMF pronounced inhibitory effects on cancer stem cells may explain the exceptionally long responses observed in several patients with advanced HCC. FUND: Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Cancer Institute's Cancer Centre Support Grant award number P30CA012197 issued to the Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Centre (BP) and by funds from the Charles L. Spurr Professorship Fund (BP). DWG is supported by R01 AA016852 and P50 AA026117.

Sorafenib alone vs. sorafenib plus GEMOX as 1st-line treatment for advanced HCC: the phase II randomised PRODIGE 10 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib remains one major first-line therapeutic options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC), with modest efficacy. We investigated the addition of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) to sorafenib in aHCC patients. METHODS: Our multicentre phase II trial randomised aHCC first-line patients to sorafenib (400 mg BID) or sorafenib-GEMOX every 2 weeks (1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine; 100 mg/m2 oxaliplatin). Primary endpoint was the 4-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were randomised (sorafenib-GEMOX: n = 48; sorafenib: n = 46). Median age was 64 years, PS 0 (69%) or 1 (31%), 63% patients had cirrhosis, 29% portal vein thrombosis and 70% extra-hepatic disease. Median duration of sorafenib treatment was 4 months (1-51); median number of GEMOX cycles was 7 (1-16). The 4-month PFS rates were 64% and 61% in the sorafenib-GEMOX and sorafenib arms, respectively; median PFS and OS were 6.2 (95% CI: 3.8-6.8) and 13.5 (7.5-16.2) months, and 4.6 (3.9-6.2) months and 14.8 (12.2-22.2), respectively. The ORR/DCR were 9%/70% and 15%/77% in the sorafenib-GEMOX and sorafenib alone arms, respectively. Main toxicities were (sorafenib-GEMOX/sorafenib) neutropenia (23%/0), thrombocytopenia (33%/0), diarrhoea (18%/9), peripheral neuropathy (5%/0) and hand-foot syndrome (5%/18). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of GEMOX had an inpact on ORR and was well-tolerated as frontline systemic therapy. The benefit on PFS seems moderate; no subsequent study was planned.

Doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after sorafenib treatment failure (RELIVE): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cytotoxic chemotherapy is generally ineffective in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. We assessed the intravenous perfusion of doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in whom previous sorafenib therapy had failed. METHODS: We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 70 sites in 11 countries. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with one or more previous systemic therapies, including sorafenib, were randomly assigned to receive 30 mg/m2 doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles (30 mg/m2 group), 20 mg/m2 doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles (20 mg/m2 group), or standard care using a computer-generated randomisation list prepared by the funder and stratified by geographic region. Patients in the experimental groups received perfusion of the drug every 4 weeks and those in the control group received any systemic anticancer therapy (except sorafenib) as per investigator decision. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the population of patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01655693. FINDINGS: Between June 15, 2012, and Jan 27, 2017, 541 patients were screened, of whom 144 were excluded and 397 were randomly assigned to one of the groups (133 to the 30 mg/m2 group; 130 to the 20 mg/m2 group; and 134 to the control group). Median follow-up was 22·7 months (IQR 11·2-34·9). After pooling the doxorubicin groups for the efficacy analysis, median overall survival was 9·1 months (95% CI 8·1-10·4) in the pooled doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles group and 9·0 months (7·1-11·8) in the control group (HR 1·00 [95% CI 0·78-1·28], two-sided p=0·99). 227 (94%) of 242 patients who received doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles and 100 (75%) of 134 patients in the control group had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. The most common drug-related grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (25 [10%] of 242 treated with doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles and eight [6%] of 134 in the control group), asthenia (six [2%] and four [3%]), and thrombocytopenia (three [1%] and ten [7%]). Six (2%) patients treated with doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles and one (1%) of those in the control group were deemed by investigators to have had a drug-related death. Serious adverse events occurred in 74 (31%) patients who received doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles and 48 (36%) in the control group. INTERPRETATION: Doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles did not improve overall survival for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in whom previous sorafenib treatment had failed. FUNDING: Onxeo.

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.

Liver Transplantation After Neoadjuvant Sorafenib Therapy: Preliminary Experience and Literature Review.

OBJECTIVES: Neoadjuvant therapies before liver transplantation are a common practice in the management of hepatocellular carcinoma, either in the setting of down staging or as a bridge strategy but sorafenib has been little evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between 2011 and 2013, 212 LT were performed and we retrospectively reviewed the data on patients who had previously received sorafenib. RESULTS: Five patients were included. The daily sorafenib dose was 400 mg for a mean duration of 17 months before liver transplantation, and was found to be safe (1 severe asthenia). Three patients received sorafenib as bridge therapy after achieving stable tumor disease within the Milan criteria through transarterial chemoembolization or hepatectomy. None patient displayed any living hepatocellular carcinoma tissue after histological examination. The two remaining patients were treated with sorafenib for palliative purposes, and became eligible for transplant after down staging. No tumor recurrence was observed during the 27-month mean follow-up, whereas 2 patients died (multiorgan dysfunction and cerebral hemorrhage). Post-liver transplantation morbidity attributable to sorafenib was mild and secondary to scarring issues: biliary stenosis (n = 2) and evisceration (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: These few case reports suggest the potential interest and feasibility of controlled studies to assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in neoadjuvant setting for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Asleep Robot-Assisted Surgery for the Implantation of Subthalamic Electrodes Provides the Same Clinical Improvement and Therapeutic Window as Awake Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of not performing awake clinical evaluation during the robot-assisted implantation of subthalamic nucleus deep brain stimulation (STN-DBS) electrodes on the stimulation parameters and clinical outcomes in patients with Parkinson disease (PD). METHODS: A total of 23 patients with PD underwent robot-assisted surgery for the bilateral implantation of STN-DBS electrodes. Thirteen patients received general anesthesia (GA) and a limited intraoperative evaluation (side effects only), and the other 10 patients received local anesthesia (LA) and a full evaluation. The primary endpoint was the therapeutic window (TW), defined as the difference between the mean voltage threshold for motor improvement and the mean voltage threshold for side effects in the active contacts at 12 months after surgery. Motor scores were measured as well. RESULTS: The TW was similar in the LA and GA groups, with mean ± standard deviation values of 2.06 ± 0.53 V and 2.28 ± 0.99 V, respectively (P = 0.32). In the short term, the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) III score in the "off-drug, on-stim" condition fell to a similar extent in the LA and GA groups (by 40.3% and 49%, respectively; P = 0.336), as did the UPDRS III score in the "on-stim, on-drug" condition (by 57% and 70.7%, respectively; P = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS: Asleep, robot-assisted implantation of STN-DBS electrodes (with accurate identification of the STN and positioning of the DBS lead) produced the same motor results and TW as awake surgery.

Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no systemic treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) whose disease progresses during sorafenib treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients with HCC who have progressed during sorafenib treatment. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done at 152 sites in 21 countries, adults with HCC who tolerated sorafenib (≥400 mg/day for ≥20 of last 28 days of treatment), progressed on sorafenib, and had Child-Pugh A liver function were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) by a computer-generated randomisation list and interactive voice response system and stratified by geographical region, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic disease, and α-fetoprotein level to best supportive care plus oral regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily during weeks 1-3 of each 4-week cycle. Investigators, patients, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (defined as time from randomisation to death due to any cause) and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774344. FINDINGS: Between May 14, 2013, and Dec 31, 2015, 843 patients were screened, of whom 573 were enrolled and randomised (379 to regorafenib and 194 to placebo; population for efficacy analyses), and 567 initiated treatment (374 received regorafenib and 193 received placebo; population for safety analyses). Regorafenib improved overall survival with a hazard ratio of 0·63 (95% CI 0·50-0·79; one-sided p<0·0001); median survival was 10·6 months (95% CI 9·1-12·1) for regorafenib versus 7·8 months (6·3-8·8) for placebo. Adverse events were reported in all regorafenib recipients (374 [100%] of 374) and 179 (93%) of 193 placebo recipients. The most common clinically relevant grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent events were hypertension (57 patients [15%] in the regorafenib group vs nine patients [5%] in the placebo group), hand-foot skin reaction (47 patients [13%] vs one [1%]), fatigue (34 patients [9%] vs nine patients [5%]), and diarrhoea (12 patients [3%] vs no patients). Of the 88 deaths (grade 5 adverse events) reported during the study (50 patients [13%] assigned to regorafenib and 38 [20%] assigned to placebo), seven (2%) were considered by the investigator to be related to study drug in the regorafenib group and two (1%) in the placebo group, including two patients (1%) with hepatic failure in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Regorafenib is the only systemic treatment shown to provide survival benefit in HCC patients progressing on sorafenib treatment. Future trials should explore combinations of regorafenib with other systemic agents and third-line treatments for patients who fail or who do not tolerate the sequence of sorafenib and regorafenib. FUNDING: Bayer.

Comprehensive profiling and marker identification in non-volatile citrus oil residues by mass spectrometry and nuclear magnetic resonance.

The detailed characterization of cold-pressed lemon oils (CPLOs) is of great importance for the flavor and fragrance (F&F) industry. Since a control of authenticity by standard analytical techniques can be bypassed using elaborated adulterated oils to pretend a higher quality, a combination of advanced orthogonal methods has been developed. The present study describes a combined metabolomic approach based on UHPLC-TOF-MS profiling and (1)H NMR fingerprinting to highlight metabolite differences on a set of representative samples used in the F&F industry. A new protocol was set up and adapted to the use of CPLO residues. Multivariate analysis based on both fingerprinting methods showed significant chemical variations between Argentinian and Italian samples. Discriminating markers identified in mixtures belong to furocoumarins, flavonoids, terpenoids and fatty acids. Quantitative NMR revealed low citropten and high bergamottin content in Italian samples. The developed metabolomic approach applied to CPLO residues gives some new perspectives for authenticity assessment.

Differentiation of lemon essential oil based on volatile and non-volatile fractions with various analytical techniques: a metabolomic approach.

Due to the importance of citrus lemon oil for the industry, fast and reliable analytical methods that allow the authentication and/or classification of such oil, using the origin of production or extraction process, are necessary. To evaluate the potential of volatile and non-volatile fractions for classification purposes, volatile compounds of cold-pressed lemon oils were analyzed, using GC-FID/MS and FT-MIR, while the non-volatile residues were studied, using FT-MIR, (1)H-NMR and UHPLC-TOF-MS. 64 Lemon oil samples from Argentina, Spain and Italy were considered. Unsupervised and supervised multivariate analyses were sequentially performed on various data blocks obtained by the above techniques. Successful data treatments led to statistically significant models that discriminated and classified cold-pressed lemon oils according to their geographic origin, as well as their production processes. Studying the loadings allowed highlighting of important classes of discriminant variables that corresponded to putative or identified chemical functions and compounds.