Immediate surgery compared with short-course neoadjuvant gemcitabine plus capecitabine, FOLFIRINOX, or chemoradiotherapy in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (ESPAC5): a four-arm, multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have relatively low resection rates and poor survival despite the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. The aim of our study was to establish the feasibility and efficacy of three different types of short-course neoadjuvant therapy compared with immediate surgery. METHODS: ESPAC5 (formerly known as ESPAC-5f) was a multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial done in 16 pancreatic centres in two countries (UK and Germany). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, biopsy proven pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic head, and were staged as having a borderline resectable tumour by contrast-enhanced CT criteria following central review. Participants were randomly assigned by means of minimisation to one of four groups: immediate surgery; neoadjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15, and oral capecitabine 830 mg/m2 twice a day on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle for two cycles); neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, folinic acid given according to local practice, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus injection on days 1 and 15 followed by 2400 mg/m2 46 h intravenous infusion given on days 1 and 15, repeated every 2 weeks for four cycles); or neoadjuvant capecitabine-based chemoradiation (total dose 50·4 Gy in 28 daily fractions over 5·5 weeks [1·8 Gy per fraction, Monday to Friday] with capecitabine 830 mg/m2 twice daily [Monday to Friday] throughout radiotherapy). Patients underwent restaging contrast-enhanced CT at 4-6 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy and underwent surgical exploration if the tumour was still at least borderline resectable. All patients who had their tumour resected received adjuvant therapy at the oncologist's discretion. Primary endpoints were recruitment rate and resection rate. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 89500674, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2014, and Dec 20, 2018, from 478 patients screened, 90 were randomly assigned to a group (33 to immediate surgery, 20 to gemcitabine plus capecitabine, 20 to FOLFIRINOX, and 17 to capecitabine-based chemoradiation); four patients were excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis (one in the capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy withdrew consent before starting therapy and three [two in the immediate surgery group and one in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group] were found to be ineligible after randomisation). 44 (80%) of 55 patients completed neoadjuvant therapy. The recruitment rate was 25·92 patients per year from 16 sites; 21 (68%) of 31 patients in the immediate surgery and 30 (55%) of 55 patients in the combined neoadjuvant therapy groups underwent resection (p=0·33). R0 resection was achieved in three (14%) of 21 patients in the immediate surgery group and seven (23%) of 30 in the neoadjuvant therapy groups combined (p=0·49). Surgical complications were observed in 29 (43%) of 68 patients who underwent surgery; no patients died within 30 days. 46 (84%) of 55 patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy were available for restaging. Six (13%) of 46 had a partial response. Median follow-up time was 12·2 months (95% CI 12·0-12·4). 1-year overall survival was 39% (95% CI 24-61) for immediate surgery, 78% (60-100) for gemcitabine plus capecitabine, 84% (70-100) for FOLFIRINOX, and 60% (37-97) for capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy (p=0·0028). 1-year disease-free survival from surgery was 33% (95% CI 19-58) for immediate surgery and 59% (46-74) for the combined neoadjuvant therapies (hazard ratio 0·53 [95% CI 0·28-0·98], p=0·016). Three patients reported local disease recurrence (two in the immediate surgery group and one in the FOLFIRINOX group). 78 (91%) patients were included in the safety set and assessed for toxicity events. 19 (24%) of 78 patients reported a grade 3 or worse adverse event (two [7%] of 28 patients in the immediate surgery group and 17 [34%] of 50 patients in the neoadjuvant therapy groups combined), the most common of which were neutropenia, infection, and hyperglycaemia. INTERPRETATION: Recruitment was challenging. There was no significant difference in resection rates between patients who underwent immediate surgery and those who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Short-course (8 week) neoadjuvant therapy had a significant survival benefit compared with immediate surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with either gemcitabine plus capecitabine or FOLFIRINOX had the best survival compared with immediate surgery. These findings support the use of short-course neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Baseline Interleukin-6 and -8 predict response and survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated with sorafenib monotherapy: an exploratory post hoc analysis of the SORAMIC trial.

PURPOSE: To explore the potential correlation between baseline interleukin (IL) values and overall survival or objective response in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) receiving sorafenib. METHODS: A subset of patients with HCC undergoing sorafenib monotherapy within a prospective multicenter phase II trial (SORAMIC, sorafenib treatment alone vs. combined with Y90 radioembolization) underwent baseline IL-6 and IL-8 assessment before treatment initiation. In this exploratory post hoc analysis, the best cut-off points for baseline IL-6 and IL-8 values predicting overall survival (OS) were evaluated, as well as correlation with the objective response. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients (43 male) with a median OS of 13.8 months were analyzed. Cut-off values of 8.58 and 57.9 pg/mL most effectively predicted overall survival for IL-6 and IL-8, respectively. Patients with high IL-6 (HR, 4.1 [1.9-8.9], p < 0.001) and IL-8 (HR, 2.4 [1.2-4.7], p = 0.009) had significantly shorter overall survival than patients with low IL values. Multivariate analysis confirmed IL-6 (HR, 2.99 [1.22-7.3], p = 0.017) and IL-8 (HR, 2.19 [1.02-4.7], p = 0.044) as independent predictors of OS. Baseline IL-6 and IL-8 with respective cut-off values predicted objective response rates according to mRECIST in a subset of 42 patients with follow-up imaging available (IL-6, 46.6% vs. 19.2%, p = 0.007; IL-8, 50.0% vs. 17.4%, p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: IL-6 and IL-8 baseline values predicted outcomes of sorafenib-treated patients in this well-characterized prospective cohort of the SORAMIC trial. We suggest that the respective cut-off values might serve for validation in larger cohorts, potentially offering guidance for improved patient selection.

Upregulation of C/EBPα Inhibits Suppressive Activity of Myeloid Cells and Potentiates Antitumor Response in Mice and Patients with Cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the mechanisms of how therapeutic upregulation of the transcription factor, CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein alpha (C/EBPα), prevents tumor progression in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and in different mouse tumor models. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We conducted a phase I trial in 36 patients with HCC (NCT02716012) who received sorafenib as part of their standard care, and were given therapeutic C/EBPα small activating RNA (saRNA; MTL-CEBPA) as either neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment. In the preclinical setting, the effects of MTL-CEBPA were assessed in several mouse models, including BNL-1ME liver cancer, Lewis lung carcinoma (LLC), and colon adenocarcinoma (MC38). RESULTS: MTL-CEBPA treatment caused radiologic regression of tumors in 26.7% of HCC patients with an underlying viral etiology with 3 complete responders. MTL-CEBPA treatment in those patients caused a marked decrease in peripheral blood monocytic myeloid-derived suppressor cell (M-MDSC) numbers and an overall reduction in the numbers of protumoral M2 tumor-associated macrophages (TAM). Gene and protein analysis of patient leukocytes following treatment showed CEBPA activation affected regulation of factors involved in immune-suppressive activity. To corroborate this observation, treatment of all the mouse tumor models with MTL-CEBPA led to a reversal in the suppressive activity of M-MDSCs and TAMs, but not polymorphonuclear MDSCs (PMN-MDSC). The antitumor effects of MTL-CEBPA in these tumor models showed dependency on T cells. This was accentuated when MTL-CEBPA was combined with checkpoint inhibitors or with PMN-MDSC-targeted immunotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: This report demonstrates that therapeutic upregulation of the transcription factor C/EBPα causes inactivation of immune-suppressive myeloid cells with potent antitumor responses across different tumor models and in cancer patients. MTL-CEBPA is currently being investigated in combination with pembrolizumab in a phase I/Ib multicenter clinical study (NCT04105335).

Tumor burden and liver function in HCC patient selection for selective internal radiation therapy: SARAH post-hoc study.

Aim: To determine whether a liver tumor burden ≤25% and well-preserved liver function (albumin-bilirubin grade 1) are appropriate criteria for identifying patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma who may benefit from selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) using 90yttrium resin microspheres versus sorafenib. Patients & methods: Post-hoc analysis of patients in the intention-to-treat population of the SARAH trial (SIRT vs sorafenib) with ≤25% tumor burden and albumin-bilirubin grade 1. Primary end point: overall survival. Results: Median overall survival was 21.9 months (95% CI: 15.2-32.5, n = 37) with SIRT and 17.0 months (11.6-20.8, n = 48) with sorafenib (hazard ratios: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.44-1.21; p = 0.22). Conclusion: A combination of good liver function and low tumor burden may be relevant for selection of hepatocellular carcinoma patients for SIRT.

The Impact of Positive Resection Margins on Survival and Recurrence Following Resection and Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma.

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: Local and distant disease recurrence are frequently observed following pancreatic cancer resection, but an improved understanding of resection margin assessment is required to aid tailored therapies. METHODS: Analyses were carried out to assess the association between clinical characteristics and margin involvement as well as the effects of individual margin involvement on site of recurrence and overall and recurrence-free survival using individual patient data from the European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-3 randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: There were 1151 patients, of whom 505 (43.9%) had an R1 resection. The median and 95% confidence interval (CI) overall survival was 24.9 (22.9-27.2) months for 646 (56.1%) patients with resection margin negative (R0 >1 mm) tumors, 25.4 (21.6-30.4) months for 146 (12.7%) patients with R1<1 mm positive resection margins, and 18.7 (17.2-21.1) months for 359 (31.2%) patients with R1-direct positive margins (P < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, overall R1-direct tumor margins, poor tumor differentiation, positive lymph node status, WHO performance status ≥1, maximum tumor size, and R1-direct posterior resection margin were all independently significantly associated with reduced overall and recurrence-free survival. Competing risks analysis showed that overall R1-direct positive resection margin status, positive lymph node status, WHO performance status 1, and R1-direct positive superior mesenteric/medial margin resection status were all significantly associated with local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: R1-direct resections were associated with significantly reduced overall and recurrence-free survival following pancreatic cancer resection. Resection margin involvement was also associated with an increased risk for local recurrence.

Cytoplasmic HuR Status Predicts Disease-free Survival in Resected Pancreatic Cancer: A Post-hoc Analysis From the International Phase III ESPAC-3 Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: We tested cytoplasmic HuR (cHuR) as a predictive marker for response to chemotherapy by examining tumor samples from the international European Study Group of Pancreatic Cancer-3 trial, in which patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) received either gemcitabine (GEM) or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) adjuvant monotherapy. BACKGROUND: Previous studies have implicated the mRNA-binding protein, HuR (ELAVL1), as a predictive marker for PDA treatment response in the adjuvant setting. These studies were, however, based on small cohorts of patients outside of a clinical trial, or a clinical trial in which patients received multimodality therapy with concomitant radiation. METHODS: Tissue samples from 379 patients with PDA enrolled in the European Study Group of Pancreatic Cancer-3 trial were immunolabeled with an anti-HuR antibody and scored for cHuR expression. Patients were dichotomized into groups of high versus low cHuR expression. RESULTS: There was no association between cHuR expression and prognosis in the overall cohort [disease-free survival (DFS), P = 0.44; overall survival, P = 0.41). Median DFS for patients with high cHuR was significantly greater for patients treated with 5-FU compared to GEM [20.1 months, confidence interval (CI): 8.3-36.4 vs 10.9 months, CI: 7.5-14.2; P = 0.04]. Median DFS was similar between the treatment arms in patients with low cHuR (5-FU, 12.8 months, CI: 10.6-14.6 vs GEM, 12.9 months, CI: 11.2-15.4). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with high cHuR-expressing tumors may benefit from 5-FU-based adjuvant therapy as compared to GEM, whereas those patients with low cHuR appear to have no survival advantage with GEM compared with 5-FU. Further studies are needed to validate HuR as a biomarker in both future monotherapy and multiagent regimens.

Click-Chemistry-Mediated Synthesis of Selective Melanocortin Receptor 4 Agonists.

The melanocortin receptor 4 (MC4R) subtype of the melanocortin receptor family is a target for therapeutics to ameliorate metabolic dysfunction. Endogenous MC4R agonists possess a critical pharmacophore (HFRW), and cyclization of peptide agonists often enhances potency. Thus, 17 cyclized peptides were synthesized by solid phase click chemistry to develop novel, potent, selective MC4R agonists. Using cAMP measurements and a transcriptional reporter assay, we observed that several constrained agonists generated by a cycloaddition reaction displayed high selectivity (223- to 467-fold) toward MC4R over MC3R and MC5R receptor subtypes without compromising agonist potency. Significant variation was also observed between the EC50 values for the two assays, with robust levels of reporter expression measured at lower concentrations than those effecting appreciable increases in cAMP levels for the majority of the compounds tested. Collectively, we characterized significant elements that modulate the activity of the core pharmacophore for MC4R and provide a rationale for careful assay selection for agonist screening.

Sorafenib in combination with transarterial chemoembolisation in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (TACE 2): a randomised placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is the standard of care for patients with intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma, while the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib improves survival in patients with advanced disease. We aimed to determine whether TACE with sorafenib improves progression-free survival versus TACE with placebo. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial (TACE 2) in 20 hospitals in the UK for patients with unresectable, liver-confined hepatocellular carcinoma. Patients were eligible if they were at least aged 18 years, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or less, and had Child-Pugh A liver disease. Patients were randomised 1:1 by computerised minimisation algorithm to continuous oral sorafenib (400 mg twice-daily) or matching placebo combined with TACE using drug-eluting beads (DEB-TACE), which was given via the hepatic artery 2-5 weeks after randomisation and according to radiological response and patient tolerance thereafter. Patients were stratified according to randomising centre and serum α-fetoprotein concentration (<400 ng/mL and ≥400 ng/mL). Only the trial coordinator was unmasked to treatment allocation before patient progression during the study. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival defined as the interval between randomisation and progression according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors version 1.1 (RECIST v1.1) or death due to any cause, and was analysed by intention-to-treat. Safety was analysed by intention-to-treat. The trial has been completed and the final results are reported. The trial is registered at EudraCT, number 2008-005073-36, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN93375053. FINDINGS: Between Nov 4, 2010, and Dec 7, 2015, the trial enrolled 399 patients and was terminated after a planned interim futility analysis. 86 patients failed screening and 313 remaining patients were randomly assigned: 157 to sorafenib and 156 to placebo. The median daily dose was 660 mg (IQR 389·2-800·0) sorafenib versus 800 mg (758·2-800·0) placebo, and median duration of therapy was 120·0 days (IQR 43·0-266·0) for sorafenib versus 162·0 days (70·0-323·5) for placebo. There was no evidence of difference in progression-free survival between the sorafenib group and the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·99 [95% CI 0·77-1·27], p=0·94); median progression-free survival was 238·0 days (95% CI 221·0-281·0) in the sorafenib group and 235·0 days (209·0-322·0) in the placebo group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (29 [18%] of 157 patients in the sorafenib group vs 21 [13%] of 156 patients in the placebo group), abdominal pain (20 [13%] vs 12 [8%]), diarrhoea (16 [10%] vs four [3%]), gastrointestinal disorders (18 [11%] vs 12 [8%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (12 [8%] and none). At least one serious adverse event was reported in 65 (41%) of 157 patients in the sorafenib group and 50 (32%) of 156 in the placebo group, and 181 serious adverse events were reported in total, 95 (52%) in the sorafenib group and 86 (48%) in the placebo group. Three deaths occurred in each group that were attributed to DEB-TACE. Four deaths were attributed to study drug; three in the sorafenib group and one in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of sorafenib to DEB-TACE does not improve progression-free survival in European patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Alternative systemic therapies need to be assessed in combination with TACE to improve patient outcomes. FUNDING: Bayer PLC and BTG PLC.

mRECIST to predict survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: Analysis of two randomised phase II trials comparing nintedanib vs sorafenib.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) has been shown to be a poor surrogate for survival benefit with targeted therapy in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS: We investigated whether response evaluated using modified RECIST (mRECIST) predicted overall survival (OS) using data from two Phase II clinical trials. Analyses were conducted on pooled data from 188 patients with advanced HCC treated with nintedanib or sorafenib, of whom 180 were evaluable for response. Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier survival analyses were used to explore differences in OS between the responders and non-responders according to RECIST 1.0 and mRECIST criteria. Multivariate Cox proportional hazards models, including factors known to influence survival, were used to compare survival according to RECIST and mRECIST response. RESULTS: Discordance between RECIST and mRECIST evaluation was most common for assessment of partial response (12.2%) and stable disease (13.3%). OS was significantly longer in patients with response compared to patients without response-RECIST: hazard ratio (HR) 0.325 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.130-0.815), P=.0122; mRECIST: HR 0.544 (95% CI 0.335-0.881), P=.0122. HRs from the multivariate models used to evaluate response by RECIST or by mRECIST as predictors of OS approached significance for RECIST (0.40 [95% CI 0.16-1.01]; P=.053) and for mRECIST (0.62 [95% CI 0.38-1.01]; P=.053). CONCLUSIONS: Response according to RECIST or mRECIST is associated with improved survival and should be considered as a valid endpoint for use in HCC clinical trials.

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.

Optimal duration and timing of adjuvant chemotherapy after definitive surgery for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: ongoing lessons from the ESPAC-3 study.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant chemotherapy improves patient survival rates after resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but the optimal duration and time to initiate chemotherapy is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma treated within the international, phase III, European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer-3 (version 2) study were included if they had been randomly assigned to chemotherapy. Overall survival analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis, retaining patients in their randomized groups, and adjusting the overall treatment effect by known prognostic variables as well as the start time of chemotherapy. RESULTS: There were 985 patients, of whom 486 (49%) received gemcitabine and 499 (51%) received fluorouracil; 675 patients (68%) completed all six cycles of chemotherapy (full course) and 293 patients (30%) completed one to five cycles. Lymph node involvement, resection margins status, tumor differentiation, and completion of therapy were all shown by multivariable Cox regression to be independent survival factors. Overall survival favored patients who completed the full six courses of treatment versus those who did not (hazard ratio [HR], 0.516; 95% CI, 0.443 to 0.601; P < .001). Time to starting chemotherapy did not influence overall survival rates for the full study population (HR, 0.985; 95% CI, 0.956 to 1.015). Chemotherapy start time was an important survival factor only for the subgroup of patients who did not complete therapy, in favor of later treatment (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Completion of all six cycles of planned adjuvant chemotherapy rather than early initiation was an independent prognostic factor after resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. There seems to be no difference in outcome if chemotherapy is delayed up to 12 weeks, thus allowing adequate time for postoperative recovery.

Pancreatic cancer hENT1 expression and survival from gemcitabine in patients from the ESPAC-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) levels in pancreatic adenocarcinoma may predict survival in patients who receive adjuvant gemcitabine after resection. METHODS: Microarrays from 434 patients randomized to chemotherapy in the ESPAC-3 trial (plus controls from ESPAC-1/3) were stained with the 10D7G2 anti-hENT1 antibody. Patients were classified as having high hENT1 expression if the mean H score for their cores was above the overall median H score (48). High and low hENT1-expressing groups were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Three hundred eighty patients (87.6%) and 1808 cores were suitable and included in the final analysis. Median overall survival for gemcitabine-treated patients (n = 176) was 23.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 18.3 to 26.0) months vs 23.5 (95% CI = 19.8 to 27.3) months for 176 patients treated with 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (χ(2) 1=0.24; P = .62). Median survival for patients treated with gemcitabine was 17.1 (95% CI = 14.3 to 23.8) months for those with low hENT1 expression vs 26.2 (95% CI = 21.2 to 31.4) months for those with high hENT1 expression (χ(2)1= 9.87; P = .002). For the 5-fluorouracil group, median survival was 25.6 (95% CI = 20.1 to 27.9) and 21.9 (95% CI = 16.0 to 28.3) months for those with low and high hENT1 expression, respectively (χ(2)1 = 0.83; P = .36). hENT1 levels were not predictive of survival for the 28 patients of the observation group (χ(2)1 = 0.37; P = .54). Multivariable analysis confirmed hENT1 expression as a predictive marker in gemcitabine-treated (Wald χ(2) = 9.16; P = .003) but not 5-fluorouracil-treated (Wald χ(2) = 1.22; P = .27) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Subject to prospective validation, gemcitabine should not be used for patients with low tumor hENT1 expression.

Impact of restricting access to high-cost medications for hepatocellular carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer death globally, and its incidence is increasing in the West, including the UK, with the increasing burden of chronic liver disease. Until recently, systemic treatment options for advanced disease were limited. However, randomized clinical trials have demonstrated that the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib prolongs survival in appropriately selected patients, and this drug has become the standard of care for patients with advanced HCC. However, a single-technology appraisal by the NICE recommended that the UK National Health Service should not fund sorafenib on the grounds of cost-effectiveness. A number of other novel agents and combinations are currently in clinical trials, the results of which may further expand the treatment options and indications for systemic therapy in HCC. This review discusses the impact of restricting access to high-cost medications for patients with HCC in the UK, and describes potential strategies and future directions that may improve the cost-effectiveness of such drugs. It also describes the potential impact, pending national guidance, of variations in local funding decision-making on patient outcomes.

Effect of adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid or gemcitabine vs observation on survival in patients with resected periampullary adenocarcinoma: the ESPAC-3 periampullary cancer randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Patients with periampullary adenocarcinomas undergo the same resectional surgery as that of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Although adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to have a survival benefit for pancreatic cancer, there have been no randomized trials for periampullary adenocarcinomas. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil or gemcitabine) provides improved overall survival following resection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-3 periampullary trial, an open-label, phase 3, randomized controlled trial (July 2000-May 2008) in 100 centers in Europe, Australia, Japan, and Canada. Of the 428 patients included in the primary analysis, 297 had ampullary, 96 had bile duct, and 35 had other cancers. INTERVENTIONS: One hundred forty-four patients were assigned to the observation group, 143 patients to receive 20 mg/m2 of folinic acid via intravenous bolus injection followed by 425 mg/m2 of fluorouracil via intravenous bolus injection administered 1 to 5 days every 28 days, and 141 patients to receive 1000 mg/m2 of intravenous infusion of gemcitabine once a week for 3 of every 4 weeks for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was overall survival with chemotherapy vs no chemotherapy; secondary measures were chemotherapy type, toxic effects, progression-free survival, and quality of life. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients (61%) in the observation group, 83 (58%) in the fluorouracil plus folinic acid group, and 73 (52%) in the gemcitabine group died. In the observation group, the median survival was 35.2 months (95%% CI, 27.2-43.0 months) and was 43.1 (95%, CI, 34.0-56.0) in the 2 chemotherapy groups (hazard ratio, 0.86; (95% CI, 0.66-1.11; χ2 = 1.33; P = .25). After adjusting for independent prognostic variables of age, bile duct cancer, poor tumor differentiation, and positive lymph nodes and after conducting multiple regression analysis, the hazard ratio for chemotherapy compared with observation was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.98; Wald χ2 = 4.53, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resected periampullary adenocarcinoma, adjuvant chemotherapy, compared with observation, was not associated with a significant survival benefit in the primary analysis; however, multivariable analysis adjusting for prognostic variables demonstrated a statistically significant survival benefit associated with adjuvant chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00058201.

Adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid vs gemcitabine following pancreatic cancer resection: a randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Adjuvant fluorouracil has been shown to be of benefit for patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Gemcitabine is known to be the most effective agent in advanced disease as well as an effective agent in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether fluorouracil or gemcitabine is superior in terms of overall survival as adjuvant treatment following resection of pancreatic cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-3 trial, an open-label, phase 3, randomized controlled trial conducted in 159 pancreatic cancer centers in Europe, Australasia, Japan, and Canada. Included in ESPAC-3 version 2 were 1088 patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had undergone cancer resection; patients were randomized between July 2000 and January 2007 and underwent at least 2 years of follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received either fluorouracil plus folinic acid (folinic acid, 20 mg/m(2), intravenous bolus injection, followed by fluorouracil, 425 mg/m(2) intravenous bolus injection given 1-5 days every 28 days) (n = 551) or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2) intravenous infusion once a week for 3 of every 4 weeks) (n = 537) for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measure was overall survival; secondary measures were toxicity, progression-free survival, and quality of life. RESULTS: Final analysis was carried out on an intention-to-treat basis after a median of 34.2 (interquartile range, 27.1-43.4) months' follow-up after 753 deaths (69%). Median survival was 23.0 (95% confidence interval [CI], 21.1-25.0) months for patients treated with fluorouracil plus folinic acid and 23.6 (95% CI, 21.4-26.4) months for those treated with gemcitabine (chi(1)(2) = 0.7; P = .39; hazard ratio, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.81-1.08]). Seventy-seven patients (14%) receiving fluorouracil plus folinic acid had 97 treatment-related serious adverse events, compared with 40 patients (7.5%) receiving gemcitabine, who had 52 events (P < .001). There were no significant differences in either progression-free survival or global quality-of-life scores between the treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Compared with the use of fluorouracil plus folinic acid, gemcitabine did not result in improved overall survival in patients with completely resected pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00058201.

Endocrine therapy and other targeted therapies for metastatic breast cancer.

The most important change in the treatment of advanced breast cancer that will emerge over the next 10 years is the shift from adjuvant tamoxifen to adjuvant aromatase inhibitors. This will mean an increasing proportion of tamoxifen-naive aromatase inhibitor-resistant breast cancer. Research of the most appropriate methods of optimizing remaining endocrine sensitivity in these patients is needed. The rapid expansion in the understanding of the molecular basis of breast cancer biology provides potential targets for novel therapies. Despite these pivotal developments, resistance to endocrine therapy remains a key limitation in the management of advanced breast cancer. Until recently, the only option following the development of resistance to an endocrine agent was to change endocrine therapy and, on exhaustion of endocrine sensitivity, to move to cytotoxic chemotherapy. Understanding of at least some of the mechanisms underlying the development of endocrine resistance is now emerging. We now have the tools that may allow us to both overcome resistance and restore sensitivity, or to pre-empt certain types of resistance from developing. These tools include the increasing array of signal transduction inhibitors in combination with standard endocrine agents. Correct clinical management strategy can be guided by preclinical modeling but can only be validated by carefully designed clinical trials. These will, at the very least, need to be conducted with correlative translational research elements that will track changes in tumors as resistance emerges and will allow us to select the most appropriate treatment strategy for individual patients. Amongst the myriad of promising drugs there will undoubtedly be some that fail to meet current hopes, but we can be optimistic that a handful will find a useful place in keeping advanced breast cancer at bay for longer than can be achieved at present. However, the holy grail of a cure is likely, in the medium term, to remain elusively at the end of the rainbow for most of these patients. Several other methods for the management of these patients are in development. These include strategies to overcome endocrine resistance and methods to target deregulated endocrine and growth factor signaling pathways using gene and immunotherapy approaches.