Dexamethasone-sparing on days 2-4 with combined palonosetron, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and olanzapine in cisplatin: a randomized phase III trial (SPARED Trial).

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with sparing on days 2-4 in cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with malignant solid tumors who were treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m²) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either DEX on days 1-4 (Arm D4) or DEX on day 1 (Arm D1) plus palonosetron, NK-1 RA, and olanzapine (5 mg). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the delayed (24-120 h) phase. The non-inferiority margin was set at -15%. RESULTS: A total of 281 patients were enrolled, 278 of whom were randomly assigned to Arm D4 (n = 139) or Arm D1 (n = 139). In 274 patients were included in the efficacy analysis, the rates of delayed CR in Arms D4 and D1 were 79.7% and 75.0%, respectively (risk difference -4.1%; 95% CI -14.1%-6.0%, P = 0.023). However, patients in Arm D1 had significantly lower total control rates during the delayed and overall phases, and more frequent nausea and appetite loss. There were no significant between-arm differences in the quality of life. CONCLUSION: DEX-sparing is an alternative option for patients receiving cisplatin; however, this revised administration schedule should be applied on an individual basis after a comprehensive evaluation. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NUMBER: UMIN000032269.

Phase III study of bilayer sustained-release tramadol tablets in patients with cancer pain: a double-blind parallel-group, non-inferiority study with immediate-release tramadol capsules as an active comparator.

PURPOSE: We investigated whether twice-daily administration of a bilayer tablet formulation of tramadol (35% immediate-release [IR] and 65% sustained-release) is as effective as four-times-daily IR tramadol capsules for managing cancer pain. METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, active-comparator, non-inferiority study enrolled opioid-naïve patients using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or acetaminophen (paracetamol) to manage cancer pain and self-reported pain (mean value over 3 days ≥ 25 mm on a 100-mm visual analog scale [VAS]). Patients were randomized to either bilayer tablets or IR capsules for 14 days. The starting dose was 100 mg/day and could be escalated to 300 mg/day. The primary endpoint was the change in VAS (averaged over 3 days) for pain at rest from baseline to end of treatment/discontinuation. RESULTS: Overall, 251 patients were randomized. The baseline mean VAS at rest was 47.67 mm (range: 25.6-82.7 mm). In the full analysis set, the adjusted mean change in VAS was - 22.07 and - 19.08 mm in the bilayer tablet (n = 124) and IR capsule (n = 120) groups, respectively. The adjusted mean difference was - 2.99 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] - 7.96 to 1.99 mm). The upper 95% CI was less than the predefined non-inferiority margin of 7.5 mm. Other efficacy outcomes were similar in both groups. Adverse events were reported for 97/126 (77.0%) and 101/125 (80.8%) patients in the bilayer tablet and IR capsule groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Twice-daily administration of bilayer tramadol tablets was as effective as four-times-daily administration of IR capsules regarding the improvement in pain VAS, with comparable safety outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: JapicCTI-184143/jRCT2080224082 (October 5, 2018).

Immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced refractory polyarthritis rapidly improved by sarilumab and monitoring with joint ultrasonography: A case report.

RATIONALE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have shown efficacy for the treatment of various kinds of malignant tumors. However, ICIs can cause immune-related adverse events, such as arthritis. Nevertheless, the treatment of ICI-induced arthritis has not been established yet. Here we report a case of ICI-induced polyarthritis successfully treated using sarilumab and monitored using joint ultrasonography. PATIENT CONCERNS: A 61-year-old man presented with polyarthritis. He had been treated with nivolumab for recurrent renal cell carcinoma 11 months before. He developed ICI-induced nephritis (proteinuria and elevated serum creatinine) 3 months before, which resolved after discontinuing nivolumab for 1 month. Two months after resuming nivolumab, he developed polyarthralgia and joint swelling, which were suspected to be associated with nivolumab administration, and hence we discontinued nivolumab again. Laboratory tests revealed elevated C-reactive protein level and erythrocyte sedimentation rate, but were negative for rheumatoid factor and anti-cyclic citrullinated peptide antibody. Joint ultrasonography revealed active synovitis in several joints, but a joint X-ray revealed no bone erosion. DIAGNOSES: We diagnosed polyarthritis as ICI-induced arthritis because the findings were not typical of rheumatoid arthritis (no bone erosion and seronegativity) and the patient had already developed other immune-related adverse events (ICI-induced nephritis). INTERVENTIONS: After discontinuation of nivolumab, we started treatment with 15 mg daily prednisolone and 1000 mg daily sulfasalazine, although it was ineffective. Hence, we initiated 200 mg biweekly sarilumab. OUTCOMES: Following sarilumab administration, polyarthritis improved rapidly, and joint ultrasonography confirmed the rapid improvement of synovitis. Hence, we tapered off the glucocorticoid treatment. No recurrence of renal cell carcinoma was noted for 2 years after the initiation of sarilumab despite no anti-tumor therapy. LESSONS: Sarilumab may serve as a good treatment option for treating refractory ICI-induced polyarthritis. Joint ultrasonography may contribute to the evaluation of ICI-induced polyarthritis and monitoring the effects of treatments.

Study protocol for SPARED trial: randomised non-inferiority phase III trial comparing dexamethasone on day 1 with dexamethasone on days 1-4, combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, palonosetron and olanzapine (5 mg) in patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Dexamethasone (DEX) is administered for multiple days to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting for patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC); however, its notorious side effects have been widely reported. Although our multicentre randomised double-blind comparative study verified non-inferiority of sparing DEX after day 2 of chemotherapy when combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) and palonosetron (Palo) for patients receiving HEC regimen, DEX sparing was not non-inferior in patients receiving cisplatin (CDDP)-based HEC regimens in subgroup analysis. Recently, the efficacy of the addition of olanzapine (OLZ) to standard triple antiemetic therapy on HEC has been demonstrated by several phase III trials. This study aims to confirm non-inferiority of DEX sparing when it is combined with NK-1RA, Palo and OLZ in patients receiving CDDP-based HEC regimens. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a randomised, double-blind, phase III trial. Patients who are scheduled to receive CDDP ≥50 mg/m2 as initial chemotherapy are eligible. Patients are randomly assigned to receive either DEX on days 1-4 or DEX on day 1 combined with NK1-RA, Palo and OLZ (5 mg). The primary endpoint is complete response (CR) rate, defined as no emesis and no rescue medications during the delayed phase (24-120 hours post-CDDP administration). The non-inferiority margin is set at -15.0%. We assume that CR rates would be 75% in both arms. Two hundred and sixty-two patients are required for at least 80% power to confirm non-inferiority at a one-sided significance level of 2.5%. After considering the possibility of attrition, we set our final required sample size of 280. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The institutional review board approved the study protocol at each of the participating centres. The trial result will be presented at international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000032269.

The Japanese Breast Cancer Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for systemic treatment of breast cancer, 2018 edition.

PURPOSE: We present the English version of The Japanese Breast Cancer Society (JBCS) Clinical Practice Guidelines for systemic treatment of breast cancer, 2018 edition. METHODS: The JBCS formed a task force to update the JBCS Clinical Practice Guidelines, 2015 edition, according to Minds Handbook for Clinical Practice Guideline Development 2014. First, we set multiple outcomes for each clinical question (CQ). Next, quantitative or qualitative systematic review was conducted for each of the multiple outcomes, and the strength of recommendation for the CQ was taken into consideration during meetings, with the aim of finding a balance between benefit and harm. Finalized recommendations from each session were confirmed through discussion and voting at the recommendation decision meeting. RESULTS: The recommendations, the strength of recommendation and the strength of evidence were determined based on systemic literature reviews and the meta-analyses for each CQ. CONCLUSION: The JBCS updated the Clinical Practice Guidelines for systemic treatment of breast cancer.

A Patient with Nivolumab-related Fulminant Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus whose Serum C-peptide Level Was Preserved at the Initial Detection of Hyperglycemia.

A 77-year-old-man with renal cell carcinoma who was undergoing nivolumab treatment visited our department due to hyperglycemia; his plasma glucose level was 379 mg/dL. Although his serum C-peptide immunoreactivity (CPR) level was preserved (5.92 ng/mL), we suspected an onset of fulminant type 1 diabetes mellitus (FT1DM) and immediately started insulin therapy. His CPR levels gradually decreased and were depleted within 1 week. We later discovered that the patient's casual CPR level had been abnormally high (11.78 ng/mL) 2 weeks before his admission. Hence, the possibility of FT1DM in hyperglycemic patients undergoing nivolumab treatment should not be excluded, even with a preserved CPR level.

Anthracycline could be essential for triple-negative breast cancer: A randomised phase II study by the Kanagawa Breast Oncology Group (KBOG) 1101.

BACKGROUND: It is important to determine whether anthracycline-containing regimens or taxane-containing regimens are more effective in individual patients. The present study compared the efficacy of six cycles of docetaxel and cyclophosphamide (TC6) with that of three cycles of 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel (FEC-D) in Japanese patients with hormone receptor (HR)-negative breast cancer (BC) to identify subtypes requiring anthracycline treatment. METHODS: The study included 103 patients with operable HR-negative BC. Of these patients 53 received FEC-D and 50 received TC6. The primary endpoint was pathological complete response (pCR). The secondary endpoints were safety, breast-conserving surgery, disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). The predictive factors for each regimen were evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 103 patients, 97 completed the study (FEC-D, 50 patients; TC6, 47 patients). The pCR rate was higher with FEC-D (36%) than with TC6 (25.5%); however, the difference was not significant (P = 0.265). TC6 was safer than FEC-D, as the adverse events with docetaxel in the FEC-D regimen were similar to those with the TC6 regimen. Among patients with basal BC, the pCR rate was significantly higher with FEC-D (42.9%) than with TC6 (13.6%; P = 0.033). Among patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), the DFS and OS were significantly better with FEC-D than with TC6 (P = 0.016 and P = 0.034, respectively). CONCLUSION: TC6 was not as effective as FEC-D for treating HR-negative BC, as TC6 was not sufficient to treat TNBC, particularly the basal subtype. Our findings suggest that anthracyclines are better treatment options than taxanes for basal BC.

Subgroup analysis of efficacy and safety of orantinib in combination with TACE in Japanese HCC patients in a randomized phase III trial (ORIENTAL).

A randomized, phase III trial of orantinib in combination with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) did not prolong overall survival (OS) over placebo (ORIENTAL study). A subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of orantinib in Japanese patients enrolled in the ORIENTAL study. The data of Japanese patients from this study were analyzed. The overall survival (OS), time to progression (TTP), and time to TACE failure (TTTF) were compared between orantinib and placebo arms using stratified log-rank test. Since TTTF in patients with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B (BCLC-B) showed favor outcome in this study, the OS and TTTF according to BCLC staging system were also analyzed. The subgroup analysis consisted of 219 and 213 patients in the orantinib and placebo arms. Median OS was 32.5 vs 33.0 months (p = 0.906), median TTP was 4.7 vs 3.1 months (p = 0.011), and median TTTF was 25.3 vs 18.2 months (p = 0.160) in the orantinib and placebo groups, respectively. Patients with BCLC-B in the orantinib and placebo groups showed a median OS of 33.7 and 30.1 months, respectively (p = 0.260), while the corresponding median TTTF were 25.3 and 14.0 months (p = 0.125). The Japanese population safety profile was similar to all over population in the ORIENTAL study. No significant differences were observed in the OS and TTTF though the TTP was significantly improved in the orantinib arm. The OS and TTTF showed a tendency to be prolonged following orantinib treatment of Japanese HCC patients with BCLC-B in the ORIENTAL study.

Multi-center clinical evaluation of streptozocin-based chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in Japan: focus on weekly regimens and monotherapy.

PURPOSE: Streptozocin (STZ) is a key agent for treating advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNET). Most STZ regimens for pNET are daily and also include 5-fluorouracil (5FU), whereas STZ monotherapy and weekly regimens have also been applied in daily practice in Japan. The present study aimed to evaluate responses to weekly regimens and to STZ monotherapy, and to identify a predictive marker of a response to STZ. METHODS: Clinical data regarding STZ-based chemotherapy for pNET were collected between 2015 and 2017 at 25 facilities. We analyzed the effects, safety, progression-free survival (PFS), and factors that correlate with responses to STZ. RESULTS: The overall objective response rate (ORR) of 110 patients who underwent STZ-based chemotherapy (monotherapy, 81.8%; weekly regimen 46.4%) was 21.8%, and PFS was 9.8 months. The ORR of weekly vs. daily regimens was 21.6 vs. 22.0% (P = 1.000), and that of monotherapy vs. combination therapy was 21.1 vs. 25.0% (P = 0.766). A Ki67 proliferation index (Ki67) of > 5% was a predictive marker of a response to STZ (P = 0.017), whereas regimen type, mono- or combination therapy, treatment line and liver tumor burden were not associated with responses. The frequencies of Grade ≥ 3 nausea and hematological adverse events were significantly lower for monotherapy than combination therapy (P = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: The effects of weekly STZ monotherapy on pNET are comparable to those previously reported and the toxicity profile was acceptable. Ki67 > 5% was the sole predictive marker of an objective response.

Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blinded Phase III Study Comparing Dexamethasone on Day 1 With Dexamethasone on Days 1 to 3 With Combined Neurokinin-1 Receptor Antagonist and Palonosetron in High-Emetogenic Chemotherapy.

Purpose We evaluated the noninferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with sparing on days 2 and 3, combined with neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist (NK1-RA) and palonosetron (Palo) compared with the 3-day use of DEX in highly-emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Patients and Methods Patients who were scheduled to receive HEC (cisplatin ≥ 50 mg/m2 or anthracycline plus cyclophosphamide) were randomly assigned to receive either DEX on days 1 to 3 (Arm D3) or DEX on day 1 and placebo on days 2 and 3 (Arm D1) combined with NK1-RA and Palo. The primary end point was complete response (CR), defined as no emesis and no rescue medications during the overall (0 to 120 h) phase. The noninferiority margin was set at -15.0% (Arm D1 - Arm D3). Results A total of 396 patients-196 and 200 patients in Arms D3 and D1, respectively-were evaluated. CR rates during the overall period were 46.9% for Arm D3 and 44.0% for Arm D1 (95% CI, -12.6% to 6.8%; P = .007). CR rates during the acute (0 to 24 h) phase were 63.3% and 64.5% for Arms D3 and D1, respectively (95% CI, -8.1% to 10.6%; P < .001), and they were 56.6% and 51.5%, respectively, during the delayed (24 to 120 h) phase (95% CI, -14.8% to 4.6%; P = .023). Hot flushes and tremors were observed more frequently as DEX-related adverse events on days 4 and 5 in Arm D3, whereas anorexia, depression, and fatigue were observed more frequently on days 2 and 3 in Arm D1. As an indication of quality of life, global health status was similar in both arms. Conclusion Antiemetic DEX administration on days 2 and 3 can be spared when combined with NK1-RA and Palo in HEC.

Orantinib versus placebo combined with transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (ORIENTAL): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Orantinib is an oral multi-kinase inhibitor. This study was done to evaluate the efficacy of orantinib combined with conventional transcatheter arterial chemoembolisation (cTACE) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study was done at 75 sites in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan. Patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma, no extra-hepatic tumour spread, and Child-Pugh score of 6 or less were randomly assigned (1:1) by interactive web response system using a computer-generated sequence to receive orantinib or placebo, within 28 days of cTACE. Randomisation was stratified by region, Child-Pugh score (5 vs 6), alpha fetoprotein concentrations (<400 ng/mL vs ≥400 ng/mL), and size of the largest lesion (≤50 mm vs >50 mm). Orantinib at 200 mg, twice per day, or placebo was given orally until TACE failure or unacceptable toxicity. The patients, investigators, and study personnel were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the full analysis set (patients who had received at least one dose of study drug). This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01465464, and has been terminated. FINDINGS: Between Dec 10, 2010, and Nov 21, 2013, 889 patients were randomly assigned to receive either orantinib (445 patients; 444 treated) or placebo (444 patients; all treated). The study was ended at interim analysis for futility evaluation. Median follow-up was 17·3 months (IQR 11·3-26·4). There was no improvement in overall survival with orantinib compared with placebo (median 31·1 months [95% CI 26·5-34·5] vs 32·3 months [28·4-not reached]; hazard ratio 1·090, 95% CI 0·878-1·352; p=0·435). The main adverse events in the orantinib group were oedema, ascites, and elevation of aspartate and alanine aminotransferases. The most frequent adverse events of grade 3 or worse in the orantinib group included elevated aspartate aminotransferase (189 [43%] patients in the oratinib group, 161 [36%] patients in the placebo group), elevated alanine aminotransferase (150 [34%] patients in the oratinib group, 132 (30%) patients in the placebo group), and hypertension (47 [11%] patients in the oratinib group, 39 [9%] patients in the placebo group). Serious adverse events were reported in 200 (45%) patients in the orantinib group and 134 (30%) patients in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Orantinib combined with cTACE did not improve overall survival in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING: Taiho Pharmaceutical.

Management of Breast Cancer in Adjuvant Chemotherapy Settings in the Kanagawa Breast Oncology Group.

OBJECTIVE: Many different options for adjuvant chemotherapy are recommended in guidelines for the treatment of breast cancer. Therapeutic strategies vary among physicians. The major goals for this project were to gain a better understanding of how biomarkers are integrated into practice and how physicians select adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: We assembled a questionnaire with 23 example scenarios of breast cancer cases, including 6 items relevant to postoperative adjuvant therapy. During October-November 2012, the questionnaire was submitted to 131 physicians engaged in breast cancer treatment in Kanagawa Prefecture, Japan. RESULTS: Forty-eight physicians responded to the questionnaire, 46 of whom provided valid responses. Their responses revealed a notable lack of consensus regarding therapeutic choices. We analyzed 6 scenarios relevant to postoperative adjuvant therapy. In general, the selection of postoperative adjuvant therapy appeared to be based on hormone sensitivity, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) expression, lymph node metastasis, tumor size, histological/nuclear grade, vascular/lymphatic system invasion, Ki67 level, Oncotype DX score, and the patient's age. CONCLUSION: Given the varied therapeutic choices that we observed, clinical research is needed to provide appropriate, unified therapeutic strategies.

Randomized phase II study of nab-paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Weekly administration of nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) has been shown to be a safe and effective treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in clinical studies. We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase II study to compare the efficacy and safety of weekly nab-paclitaxel and docetaxel in Japanese patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative MBC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Patients were randomized to receive nab-paclitaxel (150 mg/m2 nab-paclitaxel once per week for 3 of 4 weeks; n = 100) or docetaxel (75 mg/m2 docetaxel every 3 weeks; n = 100). The median PFS by independent radiologist assessment was 9.8 months (90% confidence interval [CI]: 8.5-11.2) for nab-paclitaxel and 11.2 months (90% CI: 8.4-13.8) for docetaxel (hazard ratio: 1.25, P = 0.363), and the median overall survival was 42.4 months and 34.0 months, respectively. The overall response rate was 56.1% for nab-paclitaxel and 52.5% for docetaxel. Adverse events in both treatment arms were similar to previous reports. Neutropenia was the most common adverse event in both arms, with 35.0% of patients in the nab-paclitaxel arm and 89.0% in the docetaxel arm experiencing grade 4 neutropenia. Grade 3 peripheral sensory neuropathy occurred in 22.0% of patients in the nab-paclitaxel and 5.0% in the docetaxel arm. In this study, although weekly nab-paclitaxel 150 mg/m2 did not show superiority in PFS compared with docetaxel, efficacy outcomes were similar in patients treated with weekly nab-paclitaxel and docetaxel.

Variability in measuring the Ki-67 labeling index in patients with breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Luminal-type breast cancer is divided into types A and B, depending on the Ki-67 labeling index (LI). However, the area at which Ki-67 is measured and the choice of specimen greatly affects the results. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the Ki-67 LI variability using different measurement methods and specimens. We also evaluated how the chemotherapy indication changed for luminal-type breast cancer using the different measurements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Ki-67 levels in 87 patients with breast cancer were assessed, and the Ki-67 LI was calculated. Five measurement sites were randomly selected, including the most densely labeled areas (hot spots) in both core needle biopsy (CNB) and surgical specimens. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient of the CNB and surgical specimens was 0.91 and 0.95, respectively. If the hot spot was used, the correlation coefficient (CC) between the CNB and surgical specimens was 0.635. If the average score was used, the CC was 0.730. If the average score was used, the CNB specimens indicated that 49 patients had a high Ki-67 LI, and 48 patients had a high Ki-67 LI using surgical specimens. If the hot spot was used, 60 patients using the CNB specimens and 58 patients using the surgical specimens had a high Ki-67 LI. If the average score was used, 17 patients were identified as being in different groups, and if the hot spot was used, 16 patients were identified as being in different groups, depending on the specimens that were used. CONCLUSION: The results differed according to the method and specimen type that was used.

Serum p53 antibody in breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: The significance of the measurement of anti-p53 antibodies in serum remains undisclosed. The aim of this study was to assess anti-p53 antibodies in the serum of patients with breast cancer, and correlate these results with various clinicopathologic parameters. METHODS: We analyzed serum anti-p53 antibody levels in 124 patients with breast cancers and 7 patients with benign disease between April 2012 and March 2013, as well as levels of serum carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and cancer antigen (CA) 15-3. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 124 patients with breast cancer had an increased concentration of anti-p53 antibodies. By distribution of clinical stage, in stage 0-II the positive ratio of anti-p53 antibodies was significantly higher than that of CEA (p=0.03) and CA15-3 (p=0.01). There was a significant correlation between anti-p53 antibodies and family history (p=0.03). Triple-negative cancer also showed a significant correlation with anti-p53 antibodies (p=0.007). In patients with multiple and/or bilateral breast cancer, the level of anti-p53 was significantly higher than in unilateral breast cancer (62.5% vs 14.7%, p=0.004). CONCLUSION: Measurement of anti-p53 antibodies is useful for the prevention of oversight in the evaluation of multiple and/or bilateral breast cancer.

Phase I study on the safety, pharmacokinetic profile, and efficacy of the combination of TSU-68, an oral antiangiogenic agent, and S-1 in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate the recommended dose for the combination of TSU-68, a multiple-receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 and platelet-derived growth factor receptor-ß, and S-1, an oral fluoropyrimidine, in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) based on its associated dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) frequency. We also determined the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and efficacy of the combination treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients without any prior systemic therapy received 400 mg/day TSU-68 orally and 80 mg/day (level 1) or 100 mg/day (level 2) S-1 for 4 or 2 weeks followed by a 2- or 1-week rest period (groups A and B, respectively). According to the treatment, patients progressed from level 1B to level 2A, then level 2B. Safety and response rates were assessed. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled. Two patients at levels 1B and 2A but none at level 2B showed DLTs. The common adverse drug reactions were a decrease in hemoglobin levels, hypoalbuminemia, and anorexia, which were mild in severity (grades 1-2). PK data from levels 1B and 2A indicated that the area under the curve for TSU-68 and 5-fluorouracil was unlikely to be affected by the combination treatment. Response rate, disease control rate, median time to progression, and median overall survival were 27.8 %, 61.1 %, 5.3 months, and 12.8 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: The recommended dose for advanced HCC should be 400 mg/day TSU-68 and 100 mg/day S-1 for 4 weeks followed by 2-week rest.

A multicenter phase II study of TSU-68, an oral multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in combination with docetaxel in metastatic breast cancer patients with anthracycline resistance.

BACKGROUND: TSU-68 is a novel multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitor that inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2, platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and fibroblast growth factor receptor. This open-label, non-comparative, multicenter phase II study evaluated TSU-68 in combination with docetaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer that had relapsed within 1 year despite prior treatment with an anthracycline-containing regimen. METHODS: TSU-68 was orally administered on days 1-21, and docetaxel was intravenously delivered on day 1. The regimen was repeated every 21 days. Primary endpoint was objective response rate according to the RECIST guidelines version 1.0. RESULTS: TSU-68 in combination with docetaxel produced objective responses in 21.1% and clinical benefits in 42.1% of the patients, respectively (1 complete response, 3 partial response, and 4 stable disease for at least 24 weeks, n = 19). Median time to progression was 148 days, and median overall survival was 579 days. The common adverse drug reactions were leukopenia, neutropenia, nail disorder, malaise, dysgeusia, alopecia, and edema. CONCLUSIONS: TSU-68 in combination with docetaxel showed a promising antitumor response with manageable toxicity in patients with anthracycline-resistant metastatic breast cancer. Further studies are warranted in a different population of breast cancer or other solid cancers.

[Efficacy and safety of cetuximab+irinotecan for unresectable advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer].

BACKGROUND: In July 2008, cetuximab treatment for unresectable advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer was approved in Japan, but there have been few reports on this therapy in Japan. PURPOSE: We retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of cetuximab(Cmab)+irinotecan(CPT-11)for unresectable advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer from October 2008 to April 2010 at 5 centers in the Kanagawa region. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The number of patients enrolled was 38, all of whom were treated after second-line therapy. RESULTS: The RR was 24%. DCR was 68%. TTF was 105 days and OS was 242 days. CONCLUSION: At 5 centers, Cmab+CPT-11 was an effective and safe treatment after second-line therapy.

A randomised phase II study of TSU-68 in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma treated by transarterial chemoembolisation.

BACKGROUND: TSU-68 is an antitumour drug that acts by inhibiting angiogenesis. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of TSU-68 in combination with transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) in patients with intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label phase II study, we randomised patients with HCC who had been treated with a single session of TACE to receive either 200mg TSU-68 twice daily or no medication. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 103 patients were enrolled. Median PFS was 157.0days (95% confidence interval [CI], 124.0-230.0days) in the TSU-68 group and 122.0days (95% CI, 73.0-170.0days) in the control group. The hazard ratio was 0.699 (95% CI, 0.450-1.088). Fatigue, elevated aspartate aminotransferase (AST), elevated alkaline phosphatase, oedema and anorexia were more frequent in the TSU-68 group than in the control group. The most frequent grade 3/4 adverse events were AST elevation (46% of patients in the TSU-68 group and 12% of controls) and alanine aminotransferase elevation (26% of patients in the TSU-68 group and 8% of controls). Two deaths, grade 5 hepatic failure and melena were noted in the TSU-68 group. CONCLUSION: This exploratory study shows a trend towards prolonged PFS with TSU-68 treatment after a single session of TACE, but this observation was not statistically significant. The two deaths were related to the study treatment. These results suggest that further examination of the study design is necessary to determine whether TSU-68 has any clinical benefits when combined with TACE.