Ann-Lii Cheng

Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND Most cases of hepatocellular carcinoma occur in the Asia-Pacific region, where chronic hepatitis B infection is an important aetiological factor. Assessing the efficacy and safety of new therapeutic options in an Asia-Pacific population is thus important. We did a multinational phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients from the Asia-Pacific region with advanced (unresectable or metastatic) hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS Between Sept 20, 2005, and Jan 31, 2007, patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who had not received previous systemic therapy and had Child-Pugh liver function class A, were randomly assigned to receive either oral sorafenib (400 mg) or placebo twice daily in 6-week cycles, with efficacy measured at the end of each 6-week period. Eligible patients were stratified by the presence or absence of macroscopic vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (or both), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and geographical region. Randomisation was done centrally and in a 2:1 ratio by means of an interactive voice-response system. There was no predefined primary endpoint; overall survival, time to progression (TTP), time to symptomatic progression (TTSP), disease control rate (DCR), and safety were assessed. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00492752. FINDINGS 271 patients from 23 centres in China, South Korea, and Taiwan were enrolled in the study. Of these, 226 patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group (n=150) or to the placebo group (n=76). Median overall survival was 6.5 months (95% CI 5.56-7.56) in patients treated with sorafenib, compared with 4.2 months (3.75-5.46) in those who received placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0.68 [95% CI 0.50-0.93]; p=0.014). Median TTP was 2.8 months (2.63-3.58) in the sorafenib group compared with 1.4 months (1.35-1.55) in the placebo group (HR 0.57 [0.42-0.79]; p=0.0005). The most frequently reported grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events in the 149 assessable patients treated with sorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR; 16 patients [10.7%]), diarrhoea (nine patients [6.0%]), and fatigue (five patients [3.4%]). The most common adverse events resulting in dose reductions were HFSR (17 patients [11.4%]) and diarrhoea (11 patients [7.4%]); these adverse events rarely led to discontinuation. INTERPRETATION Sorafenib is effective for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in patients from the Asia-Pacific region, and is well tolerated. Taken together with data from the Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomised Protocol (SHARP) trial, sorafenib seems to be an appropriate option for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver consensus recommendations on hepatocellular carcinoma

IntroductionThe Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL) convened an international working party on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in December 2008 to develop consensus recommendations.MethodsThe working party consisted of expert hepatologist, hepatobiliary surgeon, radiologist, and oncologist from Asian-Pacific region, who were requested to make drafts prior to the consensus meeting held at Bali, Indonesia on 4 December 2008. The quality of existing evidence and strength of recommendations were ranked from 1 (highest) to 5 (lowest) and from A (strongest) to D (weakest), respectively, according to the Oxford system of evidence-based approach for developing the consensus statements.ResultsParticipants of the consensus meeting assessed the quality of cited studies and assigned grades to the recommendation statements. Finalized recommendations were presented at the fourth APASL single topic conference on viral-related HCC at Bali, Indonesia and approved by the participants of the conference.

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

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

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.

Sunitinib Versus Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer: Results of a Randomized Phase III Trial

PURPOSE Open-label, phase III trial evaluating whether sunitinib was superior or equivalent to sorafenib in hepatocellular cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were stratified and randomly assigned to receive sunitinib 37.5 mg once per day or sorafenib 400 mg twice per day. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). RESULTS Early trial termination occurred for futility and safety reasons. A total of 1,074 patients were randomly assigned to the study (sunitinib arm, n = 530; sorafenib arm, n = 544). For sunitinib and sorafenib, respectively, median OS was 7.9 versus 10.2 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.30; one-sided P = .9990; two-sided P = .0014); median progression-free survival (PFS; 3.6 v 3.0 months; HR, 1.13; one-sided P = .8785; two-sided P = .2286) and time to progression (TTP; 4.1 v 3.8 months; HR, 1.13; one-sided P = .8312; two-sided P = .3082) were comparable. Median OS was similar among Asian (7.7 v 8.8 months; HR, 1.21; one-sided P = .9829) and hepatitis B-infected patients (7.6 v 8.0 months; HR, 1.10; one-sided P = .8286), but was shorter with sunitinib in hepatitis C-infected patients (9.2 v 17.6 months; HR, 1.52; one-sided P = .9835). Sunitinib was associated with more frequent and severe adverse events (AEs) than sorafenib. Common grade 3/4 AEs were thrombocytopenia (29.7%) and neutropenia (25.7%) for sunitinib; hand-foot syndrome (21.2%) for sorafenib. Discontinuations owing to AEs were similar (sunitinib, 13.3%; sorafenib, 12.7%). CONCLUSION OS with sunitinib was not superior or equivalent but was significantly inferior to sorafenib. OS was comparable in Asian and hepatitis B-infected patients. OS was superior in hepatitis C-infected patients who received sorafenib. Sunitinib-treated patients reported more frequent and severe toxicity.

Randomized Phase III Study of Gemcitabine Plus S-1, S-1 Alone, or Gemcitabine Alone in Patients With Locally Advanced and Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer in Japan and Taiwan: GEST Study

PURPOSE The present phase III study was designed to investigate the noninferiority of S-1 alone and superiority of gemcitabine plus S-1 compared with gemcitabine alone with respect to overall survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS The participants were chemotherapy-naive patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients were randomly assigned to receive only gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle), only S-1 (80, 100, or 120 mg/d according to body-surface area on days 1 through 28 of a 42-day cycle), or gemcitabine plus S-1 (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus S-1 60, 80, or 100 mg/d according to body-surface area on days 1 through 14 of a 21-day cycle). RESULTS In the total of 834 enrolled patients, median overall survival was 8.8 months in the gemcitabine group, 9.7 months in the S-1 group, and 10.1 months in the gemcitabine plus S-1 group. The noninferiority of S-1 to gemcitabine was demonstrated (hazard ratio, 0.96; 97.5% CI, 0.78 to 1.18; P < .001 for noninferiority), whereas the superiority of gemcitabine plus S-1 was not (hazard ratio, 0.88; 97.5% CI, 0.71 to 1.08; P = .15). All treatments were generally well tolerated, although hematologic and GI toxicities were more severe in the gemcitabine plus S-1 group than in the gemcitabine group. CONCLUSION Monotherapy with S-1 demonstrated noninferiority to gemcitabine in overall survival with good tolerability and presents a convenient oral alternative for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer.

CLINICAL STUDIES WITH CURCUMIN

Curcumin has long been expected to be a therapeutic or preventive agent for several major human diseases because of its antioxidative, anti-inflammatory, and anticancerous effects. In phase I clinical studies, curcumin with doses up to 3600-8000 mg daily for 4 months did not result in discernible toxicities except mild nausea and diarrhea. The pharmacokinetic studies of curcumin indicated in general a low bioavailability of curcumin following oral application. Nevertheless, the pharmacologically active concentration of curcumin could be achieved in colorectal tissue in patients taking curcumin orally and might also be achievable in tissues such as skin and oral mucosa, which are directly exposed to the drugs applied locally or topically. The effect of curcumin was studied in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory eye diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, chronic pancreatitis, psoriasis, hyperlipidemia, and cancers. Although the preliminary results did support the efficacy of curcumin in these diseases, the data to date are all preliminary and not conclusive. It is imperative that well-designed clinical trials, supported by better formulations of curcumin or novel routes of administration, be conducted in the near future.

Safety and efficacy of sunitinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: an open-label, multicentre, phase II study

BACKGROUND Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) tumour spread is partly dependent on neoangiogenesis. In this open-label, multicentre, phase II trial done in Europe and Asia, sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine-kinase inhibitor with anti-angiogenic properties, was assessed in patients with advanced unresectable HCC. METHODS Between February and July, 2006, eligible patients were enrolled and treated with repeated cycles of oral sunitinib (50 mg/day for 4 weeks, followed by 2 weeks off treatment). The primary endpoint of this Simon two-stage phase II trial was objective response rate according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) criteria, with an expected response rate of 15%. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00247676. FINDINGS Of 37 patients enrolled, one (2.7%) patient experienced a confirmed partial response, giving an overall objective response rate of 2.7% (95% CI 0.1-14.2); on the basis of this, the trial did not proceed to the second stage. 13 (35%) of 37 patients achieved stable disease for over 3 months. Commonly observed grade 3 and 4 adverse events included thrombocytopenia (14 of 37; 37.8%), neutropenia (nine of 37; 24.3%), asthenia (five of 37; 13.5%), hand-foot syndrome (four of 37; 10.8%), and anaemia (four of 37; 10.8%). There were four deaths among the 37 patients (10.8%) that were possibly related to treatment. INTERPRETATION Sunitinib showed pronounced toxicities at a dose of 50 mg/day in patients with unresectable HCC. The response rate was low, and the study did not meet the primary endpoint based on RECIST criteria. FUNDING Pfizer Oncology.

A revisit of prophylactic lamivudine for chemotherapy‐associated hepatitis B reactivation in non‐Hodgkin's lymphoma: A randomized trial

Lamivudine is effective to control hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation in HBV‐carrying cancer patients who undergo chemotherapy, but the optimal treatment protocol remains undetermined. In this study, HBV carriers with newly diagnosed non‐Hodgkins lymphoma (NHL) who underwent chemotherapy were randomized to either prophylactic (P) or therapeutic (T) lamivudine treatment groups. Group P patients started lamivudine from day 1 of the first course of chemotherapy and continued treatment until 2 months after completion of chemotherapy. Group T patients received chemotherapy alone and started lamivudine treatment only if serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels elevated to greater than 1.5‐fold of the upper normal limit (ULN). The primary endpoint was incidence of HBV reactivation during the 12 months after starting chemotherapy. During chemotherapy, fewer group P patients had HBV reactivation (11.5% versus 56%, P = 0.001), HBV‐related hepatitis (7.7% versus 48%, P = 0.001), or severe hepatitis (ALT more than 10‐fold ULN) (0 versus 36%, P < 0.001). No hepatitis‐related deaths occurred during protocol treatment. Prophylactic lamivudine use was the only independent predictor of HBV reactivation. After completion of chemotherapy, the incidence of HBV reactivation did not differ between the 2 groups. Two patients, both in group P, died of HBV reactivation–related hepatitis, 173 and 182 days, respectively, after completion of protocol treatment. When compared with an equivalent group of lamivudine‐naïve lymphoma patients who underwent chemotherapy, therapeutic use of lamivudine neither reduced the severity of HBV‐related hepatitis nor changed the patterns of HBV reactivation. Conclusion: Prophylactic lamivudine use, but not therapeutic use, reduces the incidence and severity of chemotherapy‐related HBV reactivation in NHL patients. (HEPATOLOGY 2008;47:844–853.)

Specific EGFR Mutations Predict Treatment Outcome of Stage IIIB/IV Patients With Chemotherapy-Naive Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer Receiving First-Line Gefitinib Monotherapy

PURPOSE To explore predictive factors for time to treatment failure (TTF) in chemotherapy-naive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving gefitinib treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS We designed a phase II study to test gefitinib antitumor efficacy in advanced-stage, chemotherapy-naive NSCLC patients. Patients were treated with gefitinib 250 mg/d. Tumor assessments were performed every 2 months. Responding or stable patients were treated until progression or unacceptable toxicity. All scans were reviewed independently. EGFR exons 18-21 sequence, K-ras exon 2 sequence, and MET gene copy numbers were examined in available samples. Clinical or molecular predictors of TTF were examined by multivariate analysis. RESULTS One hundred six patients were enrolled. Ninety patients had tumor samples for biomarker tests. Overall response rate was 50.9% (95% CI, 41.4% to 60.4%). Median TTF was 5.5 months, and median overall survival (OS) was 22.4 months. The response rate and median TTF of the patients with exon 19 deletion (n = 20) were 95.0% and 8.9 months, for exon 21 L858R mutation (n = 23) were 73.9% and 9.1 month, and for other types of EGFR mutations (N = 12) were 16.7% and 2.3 months, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the presence of EGFR deletion exon 19 or L858R EGFR mutations in adenocarcinoma patients predicted longer TTF. High copy number of MET seemed to correlate with shorter TTF in patients with gefitinib-sensitive activating EGFR mutations. CONCLUSION In this prospective study, EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutations in adenocarcinoma were the best predictors for longer TTF in stage IIIB/IV chemotherapy-naive NSCLC patients receiving first-line gefitinib monotherapy.