Survival after cytoreductive surgery for peritoneal metastases in colorectal cancer patients: Does a history of resected liver metastases worsen the prognosis?

BACKGROUND: Nowadays, resection of two (liver and peritoneum) concomitant colorectal cancer metastatic sites is no longer contraindicated. However, the oncologic outcomes of resecting peritoneal metastases (PM) occurring more than six months after resection of liver metastases (LM) are unknown. AIM: The aim of this study was to compare patients with complete cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with or without a history of previous liver resection (LR). METHODS: Analysis from a prospective database of 74 patients with metachronous PM treated with CRS between 2010 and 2020. RESULTS: All patients had PM metachronous to primary, 64 patients underwent CRS alone (CRSa) and 10 CRS more than six months after LR (LR-CRS). There was no statistical difference between the groups for clinical or therapeutic characteristics. There were more signet ring cell/mucinous adenocarcinomas in the CRSa group than in the LR-CRS group (19% vs. 0%, p = 0.049). The median peritoneal cancer index (PCI) was 4 and 6 (p = 0.749) in the LR-CRS and CRSa groups, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were not statistically different between the two groups with 43.6 and 13 months for the CRSa group and 31.1 months and 9.4 months for LR-CRS. Advanced age was an independent negative prognostic factor for OS and high PCI was limit significant. No prognostic factor for DFS was found. CONCLUSIONS: LR before CRS has no major prognostic impact. Resection of iterative liver and peritoneum metastases can achieve long-term survival.

Intra-abdominal recurrence from colorectal carcinoma: Differences and similarities between local and peritoneal recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Peritoneal recurrences from colo-rectal cancer can be isolated (PR) or associated with local recurrences (LR). The purpose of this study was to analyze patterns and outcomes of LR and PR. METHODS: Analyze from a prospective database of 108 patients treated with CCS plus HIPEC at two cancer centers between 2008 and 2015. RESULTS: The population was divided into an LPR group (presence of LR with or without PR, n = 56) and a PR group (isolated PR, n = 52). The patients characteristics (age, sex, Charlson score, PCI) or perioperative treatments were comparable between the groups. The median number of resected organs for tumor involvement (respectively, 2 vs 1; p < 0.001), the percentage of patients with metastatic lymph nodes (LN+) from the resected specimen (respectively, 25% vs 7%; p = 0.016) and the mortality rate (respectively, 9% vs 0%; p = 0.023) were significantly higher in the LPR group. After a median follow-up of 32 (1-108) months, median overall survival was comparable between the two groups (respectively, 46 vs 42 months; p = 0.262). CONCLUSIONS: LR is associated with a higher incidence of organ invasion, LN involvement (25%) and postoperative mortality. Optimal surgical resection of LR with systematic lymphadenectomy of invaded organs seems mandatory.

Hepatocellular carcinoma macroscopic gross appearance on imaging: predictor of outcome after transarterial chemoembolization in a real-life multicenter French cohort.

BACKGROUND: Conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE) with lipiodol is widely performed in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) unsuitable for curative treatment. Additional tumor parameters such as HCC macroscopic appearance based on imaging might be helpful for transarterial chemoembolization prognostication and management. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 405 patients with HCC who underwent cTACE between 2008 and 2016 from a real-life multicenter French cohort were retrospectively reviewed. Tumors were classified into two macroscopic types according to HCC gross appearance on imaging: nodular versus non-nodular. The study population was stratified into two groups: derivation and validation cohorts. Independent prognostic factors of survival based on multivariate cox regression models were determined and then assessed in the validation set. Thereafter, time to progression (TTP) and radiological response rate were investigated for each prognostic factors of survival. RESULTS: Median overall survival (OS) was 35 months for Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage A, 22 months for BCLC stage B and 12 months for BCLC stage C patients (P < 0.0001). The corresponding TTP for these patients was 12 (7-17) months, 5 (3-6) months and 1.2 (1.2-3) months (P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis revealed that tumors size and number, non-nodular type, alpha-fetoprotein, aspartate aminotransferase serum levels and impairment of performance status-1 were independent predictors of survival among the study groups. Non-nodular type was the most powerful factor that influences OS, TTP and radiological response rate for the recommended transarterial chemoembolization candidates. TTP was consistent with OS within each stage. CONCLUSION: HCC macroscopic appearance on imaging is a determinant predictor of outcome after cTACE in a real-life multicenter cohort.

FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine as Adjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) leads to longer overall survival than gemcitabine therapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen with gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 493 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to receive a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen (oxaliplatin [85 mg per square meter of body-surface area], irinotecan [180 mg per square meter, reduced to 150 mg per square meter after a protocol-specified safety analysis], leucovorin [400 mg per square meter], and fluorouracil [2400 mg per square meter] every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks. The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival and safety. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, the median disease-free survival was 21.6 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 12.8 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for cancer-related event, second cancer, or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.73; P<0.001). The disease-free survival rate at 3 years was 39.7% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 21.4% in the gemcitabine group. The median overall survival was 54.4 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 35.0 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86; P=0.003). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 63.4% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 48.6% in the gemcitabine group. Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 75.9% of the patients in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and in 52.9% of those in the gemcitabine group. One patient in the gemcitabine group died from toxic effects (interstitial pneumonitis). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant therapy with a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen led to significantly longer survival than gemcitabine among patients with resected pancreatic cancer, at the expense of a higher incidence of toxic effects. (Funded by R&D Unicancer and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01526135 ; EudraCT number, 2011-002026-52 .).

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.

Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is the recommended treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of sorafenib to that of selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) with yttrium-90 (90Y) resin microspheres in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: SARAH was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial done at 25 centres specialising in liver diseases in France. Patients were eligible if they were aged at least 18 years with a life expectancy greater than 3 months, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, Child-Pugh liver function class A or B score of 7 or lower, and locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC] stage C), or new hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for surgical resection, liver transplantation, or thermal ablation after a previously cured hepatocellular carcinoma (cured by surgery or thermoablative therapy), or hepatocellular carcinoma with two unsuccessful rounds of transarterial chemoembolisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a permutated block method with block sizes two and four to receive continuous oral sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or SIRT with 90Y-loaded resin microspheres 2-5 weeks after randomisation. Patients were stratified according to randomising centre, ECOG performance status, previous transarterial chemoembolisation, and presence of macroscopic vascular invasion. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of sorafenib or underwent at least one of the SIRT work-up exams. This study has been completed and the final results are reported here. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01482442. FINDINGS: Between Dec 5, 2011, and March 12, 2015, 467 patients were randomly assigned; after eight patients withdrew consent, 237 were assigned to SIRT and 222 to sorafenib. In the SIRT group, 53 (22%) of 237 patients did not receive SIRT; 26 (49%) of these 53 patients were treated with sorafenib. Median follow-up was 27·9 months (IQR 21·9-33·6) in the SIRT group and 28·1 months (20·0-35·3) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 8·0 months (95% CI 6·7-9·9) in the SIRT group versus 9·9 months (8·7-11·4) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% CI 0·94-1·41] for SIRT vs sorafenib; p=0·18). In the safety population, at least one serious adverse event was reported in 174 (77%) of 226 patients in the SIRT group and in 176 (82%) of 216 in the sorafenib group. The most frequent grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (20 [9%] vs 41 [19%]), liver dysfunction (25 [11%] vs 27 [13%]), increased laboratory liver values (20 [9%] vs 16 [7%]), haematological abnormalities (23 [10%] vs 30 [14%]), diarrhoea (three [1%] vs 30 [14%]), abdominal pain (six [3%] vs 14 [6%]), increased creatinine (four [2%] vs 12 [6%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (one [<1%] vs 12 [6%]). 19 deaths in the SIRT group and 12 in the sorafenib group were deemed to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: In patients with locally advanced or intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma after unsuccessful transarterial chemoembolisation, overall survival did not significantly differ between the two groups. Quality of life and tolerance might help when choosing between the two treatments. FUNDING: Sirtex Medical Inc.

Treatment of Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma in Elderly Patients over 75 Years of Age: A Retrospective Series of 129 Patients.

PURPOSE: To better know the presentation and outcome of pancreatic adenocarcinoma in patients above 75 years of age. METHOD: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with a pancreatic adenocarcinoma seen in the Comprehensive Cancer Center of Marseille between January 2002 and January 2012 was used. RESULTS: During these 10 years, 129 patients older than 75 years of age were seen, 61 females and 68 males, median age 78. At diagnosis, the tumor was metastatic in 45%. First line treatments were: surgical resection in 22 cases, radio-chemotherapy in 20 cases (1 operated on later), systemic chemotherapy in 59 cases, and best supportive care alone in 28 cases. Resection was possible in 19 cases and was R0 in 17; post-operative mortality was 0%, and half received adjuvant chemotherapy. Median overall survival was 43 months with a 2-year overall survival of 64%. For locally advanced tumor, 16 received best supportive care and 33 a specific treatment (20 cases of radio-chemotherapy). Median overall survival was 9.1 months and 2-year overall, survival was 6.1%. Among the 58 metastatic patients, 79% received systemic chemotherapy (most by gemcitabine); tolerance was correct in half. Median overall survival was 4.7 months, with a 2-year overall survival of 5.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Surgery of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is feasible and safe in elderly patients with good outcomes. In advanced and metastatic patients, the outcome is poor despite a correct tolerance of systemic chemotherapy. Randomized trials specially designed for this population are urgently needed.

Treatment of intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)-closely associated with liver cirrhosis and, in fact, the main cause of death in patients with such disease-is now recognized as one of the most-prevalent and lethal neoplasms worldwide. Prognosis and allocation of the multiple available treatment options for patients with HCC are influenced not only by tumour stage, but also by the degree of liver-function impairment. Therefore, accurate assessment and classification of disease is important for patient management. According to the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) algorithm, intermediate-stage HCC is defined as extensive multifocal disease without vascular invasion in patients with preserved liver function and absence of cancer-related symptoms; in this context, transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is considered the standard treatment. The use of drug-eluting beads has enabled standardization of this procedure, resulting in higher reproducibility and tolerability of the treatment. Nevertheless, not all patients with intermediate-stage HCC are good candidates for TACE and, for such patients in whom TACE is not appropriate or has failed, other treatments can be considered, including sorafenib. Radioembolization is a promising alternative that deserves further prospective studies. Herein, we review the current approaches used to accurately stratify patients with intermediate-stage HCC and subsequently allocate the most-appropriate treatments. The key developments in therapeutic strategies are also discussed.

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.

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

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

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

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

Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: subanalyses of a phase III trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) Assessment Randomized Protocol (SHARP) trial demonstrated that sorafenib improves overall survival and is safe for patients with advanced HCC. In this trial, 602 patients with well-preserved liver function (>95% Child-Pugh A) were randomized to receive either sorafenib 400mg or matching placebo orally b.i.d. on a continuous basis. Because HCC is a heterogeneous disease, baseline patient characteristics may affect individual responses to treatment. In a comprehensive series of exploratory subgroup analyses, data from the SHARP trial were analyzed to discern if baseline patient characteristics influenced the efficacy and safety of sorafenib. METHODS: Five subgroup domains were assessed: disease etiology, tumor burden, performance status, tumor stage, and prior therapy. Overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), disease control rate (DCR), and safety were assessed for subgroups within each domain. RESULTS: Subgroup analyses showed that sorafenib consistently improved median OS compared with placebo, as reflected by hazard ratios (HRs) of 0.50-0.85, similar to the complete cohort (HR=0.69). Sorafenib also consistently improved median TTP (HR, 0.40-0.64), except in HBV-positive patients (HR, 1.03), and DCR. Results are limited by small patient numbers in some subsets. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events included diarrhea, hand-foot skin reaction, and fatigue; the incidence of which did not differ appreciably among subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory subgroup analyses showed that sorafenib consistently improved median OS and DCR compared with placebo in patients with advanced HCC, irrespective of disease etiology, baseline tumor burden, performance status, tumor stage, and prior therapy.

Heterogeneity of patients with intermediate (BCLC B) Hepatocellular Carcinoma: proposal for a subclassification to facilitate treatment decisions.

The intermediate stage of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) comprises a highly heterogeneous patient population and therefore poses unique challenges for therapeutic management, different from the early and advanced stages. Patients classified as having intermediate HCC by the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system present with varying tumor burden and liver function. Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is currently recommended as the standard of care in this setting, but there is considerable variation in the clinical benefit patients derive from this treatment.In April 2012, a panel of experts convened to discuss unresolved issues surrounding the application of current guidelines when managing patients with intermediate HCC. The meeting explored the applicability of a subclassification system for intermediate HCC patients to tailor therapeutic interventions based on the evidence available to date and expert opinion. The present report summarizes the proposal of the expert panel: four substages of intermediate HCC patients, B1 to B4.

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.

Clubbing and hypertrophic osteoarthropathy in two patients taking long-term bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: The authors report two cases of young patients who developed clubbing and hypertrophic osteoarthropathy in one case or lung diffusion disorder in the second, after a long-term use of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in a palliative setting of metastatic colorectal cancer. DISCUSSION: We propose that patients on long-term bevacizumab be examined for clubbing and undergo respiratory function tests and that this would be studied prospectively before beginning trials in evaluating this monoclonal antibody given for 2 years in an adjuvant setting.

Impressive efficacy of sorafenib in a patient with an hepatocellular carcinoma and a portal vein thrombosis associated with a metastatic ENT cancer.

Sorafenib, a new antiangiogenic and antiproliferative agent, is currently used for hepatocellular and renal cell carcinoma. We report here the case of a patient with two cancers, a locally advanced cancer of the piriform sinus and a hepatocellular carcinoma, who was given sorafenib. Tumor response of both cancers might suggest that sorafenib could be effective against head and neck cancer.

¹³¹I-labeled lipiodol-induced interstitial pneumonia: a series of 15 cases.

BACKGROUND: The drug (131)I-labeled lipiodol is used as internal radiotherapy for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. Although the drug was considered safe during preapproval studies, we observed several cases of interstitial pneumonia following its administration. METHODS: Cases were retrospectively identified through the drug safety unit database of Rennes University Hospital. RESULTS: From 1994 to 2009, interstitial pneumonia developed in 15 patients following (131)I-labeled lipiodol administration, with an estimated prevalence of 15.5 cases (95% CI, 7.7-23.2) per 1,000 treated patients. Mean age of the patients was 60 ± 8 years, and the male to female ratio was 6.5:1. All patients had cirrhosis, mainly related to long-term alcohol intoxication (n = 12). Most (n = 10) cases occurred after the second (131)I-labeled lipiodol injection. The median delay between last (131)I-labeled lipiodol administration and first respiratory symptoms was 30 days (interquartile range, 16.5-45 days). All patients presented with shortness of breath. Physical examination mostly revealed fever (n = 11) and bilateral crackles (n = 12). Chest CT scan showed bilateral ground-glass opacities (n = 8) with septal thickening, retraction, or both (n = 8). BAL (n = 7) was remarkable for increased neutrophils (n = 4) or CD8(+) T cell count (n = 3). Despite corticosteroids, 12 (80%) patients died, mostly of untractable respiratory failure (n = 9). Median delay between last (131)I-labeled lipiodol injection and death was 63 days (interquartile range, 34-129 days). CONCLUSIONS: Interstitial pneumonia may be a serious and not uncommon complication of (131)I-labeled lipiodol administration.

Automation of labelling of Lipiodol with high-activity generator-produced 188Re.

This work describes optimisation of the kit formulation for labelling of Lipiodol with high-activity generator-produced rhenium-188. Radiochemical purity (RCP) was 92.52±2.3% and extraction yield was 98.56±1.2%. The synthesis has been automated with a TADDEO module (Comecer) giving a mean final yield of 52.68±9.6%, and reducing radiation burden to the radiochemist by 80%. Radiolabelled Lipiodol ((188)Re-SSS/Lipiodol) is stable for at least 7 days (RCP=91.07±0.9%).

Increased Lipiodol uptake in hepatocellular carcinoma possibly due to increased membrane fluidity by dexamethasone and tamoxifen.

INTRODUCTION: Lipiodol is used as a vector for chemoembolization or internal radiotherapy in unresectable hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs). The aim of this study is to improve the tumoral uptake of Lipiodol by modulating membrane fluidizing agents to optimize the effectiveness of Lipiodol vectorized therapy. METHODS: The effect of dexamethasone and tamoxifen on membrane fluidity was studied in vitro by electron paramagnetic resonance applied to rat hepatocarcinoma cell line N1S1. The tumoral uptake of Lipiodol was studied in vivo on rats with HCC, which had been previously treated by dexamethasone and/or tamoxifen, after intra-arterial administration of (99m)Tc-SSS-Lipiodol. RESULTS: The two molecules studied here exhibit a fluidizing effect in vitro which appears dependent on time and dose, with a maximum fluidity obtained after 1 hr at concentrations of 20 µM for dexamethasone and 200 nM for tamoxifen. In vivo, while the use of dexamethasone or tamoxifen alone tends to lead to increased tumoral uptake of Lipiodol, this effect does not reach levels of significance. On the other hand, there is a significant increase in the tumoral uptake of (99m)Tc-SSS-Lipiodol in rats pretreated by both dexamethasone and tamoxifen, with a tumoral uptake (expressed in % of injected activity per g of tumor) of 13.57 ± 3.65% after treatment, as against 9.45 ± 4.44% without treatment (P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone and tamoxifen fluidify the N1S1 cells membrane, leading to an increase in the tumoral uptake of Lipiodol. These drugs could be combined with chemo-Lipiodol-embolization or radiolabeled Lipiodol, with a view to improving the effectiveness of HCCs therapy.