Regional hyperthermia with cisplatin added to gemcitabine versus gemcitabine in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: The HEAT randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Regional hyperthermia (RHT) with cisplatin added to gemcitabine showed efficacy in gemcitabine-pre-treated patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. We conducted a randomised clinical trial to investigate RHT with cisplatin added to gemcitabine (GPH) compared with gemcitabine (G) in the adjuvant setting of resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: This randomised, multicentre, open-label trial randomly assigned patients to either GPH (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on day 1, 15 and cisplatin 25 mg/m2 with RHT on day 2, 3 and 15,16) or to G (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on day 1,8,15), four-weekly over six cycles. Disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary end-point. Secondary end-points included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS: A total of 117 eligible patients (median age, 63 years) were randomly allocated to treatment (57 GPH; 60 G). With a follow-up time of 56.6 months, the median DFS was 12.7 compared to 11.2 months for GPH and G, respectively (p = 0.394). Median post-recurrence survival was significantly prolonged in the GPH-group (15.3 versus 9.8 months; p = 0.031). Median OS reached 33.2 versus 25.2 months (p = 0.099) with 5-year survival rates of 28.4% versus 18.7%. Excluding eight patients who received additional capecitabine in the G-arm (investigators choice), median OS favoured GPH (p = 0.052). Adverse events CTCAE (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) grade ≥3 occurred in 61.5% (GPH) versus 63.6% (G) of patients. Two patients in the G-group died because of treatment-related toxic effects. CONCLUSIONS: The randomised controlled Hyperthermia European Adjuvant Trial study failed to demonstrate a significant difference in DFS. However, it suggests a difference in post-recurrence survival and a trend for improved OS. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, number NCT01077427.

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.

Long-term observation of gastric patients with positive immunocytochemistry of peritoneal washing.

Prognosis in gastric cancer patients is highly dependent on the tumor stage at presentation. Surgery still remains the main therapeutic option in gastric cancer patients. However, the efficacy of this treatment may be substantially limited by the risk of peritoneal dissemination. The introduction of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) may affect the long-term outcomes in this group of patients, but high morbidity associated with this procedure provides the rationale to identify the correct population of patients for HIPEC. The aim of the study was to evaluate a long-term prognostic value of peritoneal washing immunocytochemistry as a prognostic factor in patients with gastric cancer. This is a prospective, long-term analysis of patients who underwent peritoneal lavage with immunocytochemistry assessment in the Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology, in Warsaw, Poland. Between January 2002 and November 2004, a total of 157 patients with histologically confirmed gastric cancer were enrolled in the study. Laparotomy and intra-operative peritoneal lavage for immunocytochemistry examination were performed prior to gastrectomy. All patients were followed up with endpoints of cancer recurrence and mortality. Positive peritoneal washing immunocytochemistry was associated with clinical staging of gastric cancer, overall survival, and progression-free survival. It is an independent poor outcome prognostic factor.

Pharmacodynamic Biomarkers Predictive of Survival Benefit with Lenvatinib in Unresectable Hepatocellular Carcinoma: From the Phase III REFLECT Study.

PURPOSE: In REFLECT, lenvatinib demonstrated an effect on overall survival (OS) by confirmation of noninferiority to sorafenib in unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. This analysis assessed correlations between serum or tissue biomarkers and efficacy outcomes from REFLECT. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Serum biomarkers (VEGF, ANG2, FGF19, FGF21, and FGF23) were measured by ELISA. Gene expression in tumor tissues was measured by the nCounter PanCancer Pathways Panel. Pharmacodynamic changes in serum biomarker levels from baseline, and associations of clinical outcomes with baseline biomarker levels, were evaluated. RESULTS: Four hundred and seven patients were included in the serum analysis set (lenvatinib n = 279, sorafenib n = 128); 58 patients were included in the gene-expression analysis set (lenvatinib n = 34, sorafenib n = 24). Both treatments were associated with increases in VEGF; only lenvatinib was associated with increases in FGF19 and FGF23 at all time points. Lenvatinib-treated responders had greater increases in FGF19 and FGF23 versus nonresponders at cycle 4, day 1 (FGF19: 55.2% vs. 18.3%, P = 0.014; FGF23: 48.4% vs. 16.4%, P = 0.0022, respectively). Higher baseline VEGF, ANG2, and FGF21 correlated with shorter OS in both treatment groups. OS was longer for lenvatinib than sorafenib [median, 10.9 vs. 6.8 months, respectively; HR, 0.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.85; P-interaction = 0.0397] with higher baseline FGF21. In tumor tissue biomarker analysis, VEGF/FGF-enriched groups showed improved OS with lenvatinib versus the intermediate VEGF/FGF group (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16-0.91; P = 0.0253). CONCLUSIONS: Higher baseline levels of VEGF, FGF21, and ANG2 may be prognostic for shorter OS. Higher baseline FGF21 may be predictive for longer OS with lenvatinib compared with sorafenib, but this needs confirmation.

Guidelines of the Association of Polish Surgeons and the Polish Society of Surgical Oncology on the accreditation of healthcare centers providing cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for primary and secondary peritoneal cancers.

Surgical interventions in patients with peritoneal metastases combined with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and systemic treatment are becoming more common and, when applied to selected patient groups, they reach 5-year survival rates of 32-52%. Good clinical outcomes require experienced and well-equipped healthcare centers, experienced surgical team and adequate patient qualification process. As a result of the discussion on the need for evaluation of quality of care and treatment outcomes and at the request of the Peritoneal Cancer Section of the Polish Society of Surgical Oncology, accreditation standards have been developed and the Accreditation Committee has been established for healthcare centers providing cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC for the management of primary and secondary peritoneal cancers.

Target specific compound identification using a support vector machine.

In many cases at the beginning of an HTS-campaign, some information about active molecules is already available. Often known active compounds (such as substrate analogues, natural products, inhibitors of a related protein or ligands published by a pharmaceutical company) are identified in low-throughput validation studies of the biochemical target. In this study we evaluate the effectiveness of a support vector machine applied for those compounds and used to classify a collection with unknown activity. This approach was aimed at reducing the number of compounds to be tested against the given target. Our method predicts the biological activity of chemical compounds based on only the atom pairs (AP) two dimensional topological descriptors. The supervised support vector machine (SVM) method herein is trained on compounds from the MDL drug data report (MDDR) known to be active for specific protein target. For detailed analysis, five different biological targets were selected including cyclooxygenase-2, dihydrofolate reductase, thrombin, HIV-reverse transcriptase and antagonists of the estrogen receptor. The accuracy of compound identification was estimated using the recall and precision values. The sensitivities for all protein targets exceeded 80% and the classification performance reached 100% for selected targets. In another application of the method, we addressed the absence of an initial set of active compounds for a selected protein target at the beginning of an HTS-campaign. In such a case, virtual high-throughput screening (vHTS) is usually applied by using a flexible docking procedure. However, the vHTS experiment typically contains a large percentage of false positives that should be verified by costly and time-consuming experimental follow-up assays. The subsequent use of our machine learning method was found to improve the speed (since the docking procedure was not required for all compounds from the database) and also the accuracy of the HTS hit lists (the enrichment factor).