Junji Furuse

The Incidence and Epidemiology of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Global and Regional Perspective

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related death worldwide, and the burden of this devastating cancer is expected to increase further in coming years. The collection and analysis of epidemiologic HCC data will play a critical role in guiding future disease prevention strategies and optimizing patient management. Previous epidemiologic studies have highlighted striking global variations in the incidence of HCC, which is particularly high in much of east Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, and lower, but on the increase, in North America and most of Europe. This variation appears to be related to the complex etiology of HCC, with different risk factors, primarily infection with hepatitis B or hepatitis C virus, responsible for driving HCC incidence rates in different regions. Although previous studies have contributed considerably to the knowledge of HCC epidemiology, there are limitations associated with the currently available data, which arise from studies performed at different times in the past, using varying methodologies, and with diverse patient populations. A new and global approach to the study of HCC epidemiology is required if HCC disease prevention and treatment strategies are to be adequately directed and supported in coming years.

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.

Phase III study of sorafenib after transarterial chemoembolisation in Japanese and Korean patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma

BACKGROUND In Japan and South Korea, transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) is an important locoregional treatment for patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, has been shown effective and safe in patients with advanced HCC. This phase III trial assessed the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in Japanese and Korean patients with unresectable HCC who responded to TACE. METHODS Patients (n=458) with unresectable HCC, Child-Pugh class A cirrhosis and ≥25% tumour necrosis/shrinkage 1-3 months after 1 or 2 TACE sessions were randomised 1:1 to sorafenib 400mg bid or placebo and treated until progression/recurrence or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end-point was time to progression/recurrence (TTP). Secondary end-point was overall survival (OS). FINDINGS Baseline characteristics in the two groups were similar; >50% of patients started sorafenib>9 weeks after TACE. Median TTP in the sorafenib and placebo groups was 5.4 and 3.7 months, respectively (hazard ratio (HR), 0.87; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-1.09; P=0.252). HR (sorafenib/placebo) for OS was 1.06 (95% CI, 0.69-1.64; P=0.790). Median daily dose of sorafenib was 386 mg, with 73% of patients having dose reductions and 91% having dose interruptions. Median administration of sorafenib and placebo was 17.1 and 20.1 weeks, respectively. No unexpected adverse events were observed. INTERPRETATION This trial, conducted prior to the reporting of registrational phase III trials, found that sorafenib did not significantly prolong TTP in patients who responded to TACE. This may have been due to delays in starting sorafenib after TACE and/or low daily sorafenib doses.

Gemcitabine alone or in combination with cisplatin in patients with biliary tract cancer: a comparative multicentre study in Japan.

Background:A British randomised study of gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) combination showed promising results in biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients. In our study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of this combination compared with gemcitabine alone (G) in Japanese BTC patients.Methods:Overall, 84 advanced BTC patients were randomised to either cisplatin 25 mg m−2 plus gemcitabine 1000 mg m−2 on days 1, 8 of a 21-day cycle (GC-arm), or single-agent gemcitabine 1000 mg m−2 on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle (G-arm). Treatments were repeated for at least 12 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred, up to a maximum of 48 weeks.Results:A total of 83 patients were included in the analysis. For the GC and G-arms, respectively, the 1-year survival rate was 39.0 vs 31.0%, median survival time 11.2 vs 7.7 months, median progression-free survival time 5.8 vs 3.7 months and overall response rate 19.5 vs 11.9%. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities (GC-arm/G-arm) were neutropenia (56.1%/38.1%), thrombocytopenia (39.0%/7.1%), leukopenia (29.3%/19.0%), haemoglobin decrease (36.6%/16.7%) and γ-GTP increase (29.3%/35.7%).Conclusions:Gemcitabine plus cisplatin combination therapy was found to be effective and well tolerated, suggesting that it could also be a standard regimen for Japanese patients.

Axitinib plus gemcitabine versus placebo plus gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: a double-blind randomised phase 3 study

BACKGROUND Axitinib is a potent, selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1, 2, and 3. A randomised phase 2 trial of gemcitabine with or without axitinib in advanced pancreatic cancer suggested increased overall survival in axitinib-treated patients. On the basis of these results, we aimed to assess the effect of treatment with gemcitabine plus axitinib on overall survival in a phase 3 trial. METHODS In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, eligible patients had metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma, no uncontrolled hypertension or venous thrombosis, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 or 1. Patients, stratified by disease extent (metastatic vs locally advanced), were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days plus either axitinib or placebo. Axitinib or placebo were administered orally with food at a starting dose of 5 mg twice a day, which could be dose-titrated up to 10 mg twice daily if well tolerated. A centralised randomisation procedure was used to assign patients to each treatment group, with randomised permuted blocks within strata. Patients, investigators, and the trial sponsor were masked to treatment assignments. The primary endpoint was overall survival. All efficacy analyses were done in all patients assigned to treatment groups for whom data were available; safety and treatment administration and compliance assessments were based on treatment received. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00471146. FINDINGS Between July 27, 2007, and Oct 31, 2008, 632 patients were enrolled and assigned to treatment groups (316 axitinib, 316 placebo). At an interim analysis in January, 2009, the independent data monitoring committee concluded that the futility boundary had been crossed. Median overall survival was 8·5 months (95% CI 6·9-9·5) for gemcitabine plus axitinib (n=314, data missing for two patients) and 8·3 months (6·9-10·3) for gemcitabine plus placebo (n=316; hazard ratio 1·014, 95% CI 0·786-1·309; one-sided p=0·5436). The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events for gemcitabine plus axitinib and gemcitabine plus placebo were hypertension (20 [7%] and 5 [2%] events, respectively), abdominal pain (20 [7%] and 17 [6%]), fatigue (27 [9%] and 21 [7%]), and anorexia (19 [6%] and 11 [4%]). INTERPRETATION The addition of axitinib to gemcitabine does not improve overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. These results add to increasing evidence that targeting of VEGF signalling is an ineffective strategy in this disease. FUNDING Pfizer.

Effect of Everolimus on Survival in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Failure of Sorafenib The EVOLVE-1 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Aside from the multikinase inhibitor sorafenib, there are no effective systemic therapies for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. OBJECTIVE To assess the efficacy of everolimus in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma for whom sorafenib treatment failed. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS EVOLVE-1 was a randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study conducted among 546 adults with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C hepatocellular carcinoma and Child-Pugh A liver function whose disease progressed during or after sorafenib or who were intolerant of sorafenib. Patients were enrolled from 17 countries between May 2010 and March 2012. Randomization was stratified by region (Asia vs rest of world) and macrovascular invasion (present vs absent). INTERVENTIONS Everolimus, 7.5 mg/d, or matching placebo, both given in combination with best supportive care and continued until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. Per the 2:1 randomization scheme, 362 patients were randomized to the everolimus group and 184 patients to the placebo group. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points included time to progression and the disease control rate (the percentage of patients with a best overall response of complete or partial response or stable disease). RESULTS No significant difference in overall survival was seen between treatment groups, with 303 deaths (83.7%) in the everolimus group and 151 deaths (82.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.05; 95% CI, 0.86-1.27; P = .68; median overall survival, 7.6 months with everolimus, 7.3 months with placebo). Median time to progression with everolimus and placebo was 3.0 months and 2.6 months, respectively (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.15), and disease control rate was 56.1% and 45.1%, respectively (P = .01). The most common grade 3/4 adverse events for everolimus vs placebo were anemia (7.8% vs 3.3%, respectively), asthenia (7.8% vs 5.5%, respectively), and decreased appetite (6.1% vs 0.5%, respectively). No patients experienced hepatitis C viral flare. Based on central laboratory results, hepatitis B viral reactivation was experienced by 39 patients (29 everolimus, 10 placebo); all cases were asymptomatic, but 3 everolimus recipients discontinued therapy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Everolimus did not improve overall survival in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma whose disease progressed during or after receiving sorafenib or who were intolerant of sorafenib. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01035229.

Phase I study of sorafenib in Japanese patients with hepatocellular carcinoma

Sorafenib is an orally active multikinase inhibitor that targets serine and threonine, and tyrosine kinases that are involved in tumor‐cell signal transduction and tumor angiogenesis. This phase I trial was conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and preliminary efficacy of sorafenib in Japanese patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with underlying liver dysfunction. Patients with unresectable HCC, Child–Pugh status A or B, and adequate organ functions were treated. A single dose of sorafenib was administered, followed by a 7‐day wash‐out period, after which patients received either sorafenib 200 mg (cohort 1) or 400 mg (cohort 2) twice daily. The PK were investigated after a single dose and during steady state. The efficacy was evaluated using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. A total of 27 patients were evaluated for PK, safety, and efficacy. Although both area under the concentration–time curve for 0–12 h and maximal concentration at steady state were slightly lower in Child–Pugh B patients than in Child–Pugh A patients, the difference was not considered to be clinically relevant. Common adverse drug events included elevated lipase, amylase, rash or desquamation, diarrhea, and hand–foot skin reaction. A dose‐limiting toxicity of hand–foot skin reaction was observed in one patient (cohort 2). Among the 24 patients evaluable for tumor response, one patient (4%) achieved a partial response, 20 (83%) had stable disease, and three (13%) had progressive disease. Sorafenib demonstrated a favorable tolerability and safety profile in Japanese HCC patients. Moreover, promising preliminary antitumor activity has been observed. Finally, there were no clinically relevant differences in PK between Child–Pugh A and B patients. (Cancer Sci 2008; 99: 159–165)

Phase I Trial of a Glypican-3–Derived Peptide Vaccine for Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Immunologic Evidence and Potential for Improving Overall Survival

Purpose: The carcinoembryonic antigen glypican-3 (GPC3) is an ideal target of anticancer immunotherapy against hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). In this nonrandomized, open-label, phase I clinical trial, we analyzed the safety and efficacy of GPC3 peptide vaccination in patients with advanced HCC. Experimental Design: Thirty-three patients with advanced HCC underwent GPC3 peptide vaccination (intradermal injections on days 1, 15, and 29 with dose escalation). The primary endpoint was the safety of GPC3 peptide vaccination. The secondary endpoints were immune response, as measured by IFN-γ ELISPOT assay, and the clinical outcomes tumor response, time to tumor progression, and overall survival (OS). Results: GPC3 vaccination was well-tolerated. One patient showed a partial response, and 19 patients showed stable disease 2 months after initiation of treatment. Four of the 19 patients with stable disease had tumor necrosis or regression that did not meet the criteria for a partial response. Levels of the tumor markers α-fetoprotein and/or des-γ-carboxy prothrombin temporarily decreased in nine patients. The GPC3 peptide vaccine induced a GPC3-specific CTL response in 30 patients. Furthermore, GPC3-specific CTL frequency after vaccination correlated with OS. OS was significantly longer in patients with high GPC3-specific CTL frequencies (N = 15) than in those with low frequencies (N = 18; P = 0.033). Conclusions: GPC3-derived peptide vaccination was well-tolerated, and measurable immune responses and antitumor efficacy were noted. This is the first study to show that peptide-specific CTL frequency can be a predictive marker of OS in patients with HCC receiving peptide vaccination. Clin Cancer Res; 18(13); 3686–96. ©2012 AACR.

Guidelines for the management of biliary tract and ampullary carcinomas: surgical treatment

The only curative treatment in biliary tract cancer is surgical treatment. Therefore, the suitability of curative resection should be investigated in the first place. In the presence of metastasis to the liver, lung, peritoneum, or distant lymph nodes, curative resection is not suitable. No definite consensus has been reached on local extension factors and curability. Measures of hepatic functional reserve in the jaundiced liver include future liver remnant volume and the indocyanine green (ICG) clearance test. Preoperative portal vein embolization may be considered in patients in whom right hepatectomy or more, or hepatectomy with a resection rate exceeding 50%–60% is planned. Postoperative complications and surgery-related mortality may be reduced with the use of portal vein embolization. Although hepatectomy and/or pancreaticoduodenectomy are preferable for the curative resection of bile duct cancer, extrahepatic bile duct resection alone is also considered in patients for whom it is judged that curative resection would be achieved after a strict diagnosis of its local extension. Also, combined caudate lobe resection is recommended for hilar cholangiocarcinoma. Because the prognosis of patients treated with combined portal vein resection is significantly better than that of unresected patients, combined portal vein resection may be carried out. Prognostic factors after resection for bile duct cancer include positive surgical margins, especially in the ductal stump; lymph node metastasis; perineural invasion; and combined vascular resection due to portal vein and/or hepatic artery invasion. For patients with suspected gallbladder cancer, laparoscopic cholecystectomy is not recommended, and open cholecystectomy should be performed as a rule. When gallbladder cancer invading the subserosal layer or deeper has been detected after simple cholecystectomy, additional resection should be considered. Prognostic factors after resection for gallbladder cancer include the depth of mural invasion; lymph node metastasis; extramural extension, especially into the hepatoduodenal ligament; perineural invasion; and the degree of curability. Pancreaticoduodenectomy is indicated for ampullary carcinoma, and limited operation is also indicated for carcinoma in adenoma. The prognostic factors after resection for ampullary carcinoma include lymph node metastasis, pancreatic invasion, and perineural invasion.

Phase II Study of Radiotherapy Employing Proton Beam for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

4024 Background: Proton beam radiotherapy (PRT) has an excellent depth-dose profile that can deliver high dose to the liver tumor without debilitating liver function compared to photon beam radiotherapy. It is reasonable to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PRT prospectively for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). METHODS Eligibility criteria for this study were: solitary HCC; neither surgery nor local ablation therapy were indicated; no ascites; age ≥20 years; Zubord performance status is 0∼2; no serious co-morbidities other than liver cirrhosis; written informed consent. Tumor close to the stomach or intestinal loop was not considered as a subject for this study. Clinical target volume (CTV) was defined as gross tumor volume plus 5 mm of lateral and cranio-caudal margin. PRT administering 76 GyE/20 fractions/5 weeks to the CTV was done using respiration-gated irradiation system (ReGIS) with 150∼190 MeV proton beam. Relative biological effectiveness of our proton beam was defined as 1.1. No patients received transarterial chemoembolization or local ablation in combination with PRT. RESULTS Thirty patients were enrolled between May 1999 and Feb. 2003. There were 20 male and 10 female with a median age of 70 years (range: 48∼87 years). Maximum tumor diameter ranged from 25 ∼ 82 mm (median 45 mm). All patients had liver cirrhosis of which the degree was Child class A in 9, B in 19, and C in 2. Acute reactions of PRT were well tolerated, and PRT were completed as planned in all patients. After a median follow-up period of 31 months (14∼54 months), only 1 patient experienced tumor recurrence within the CTV and 2-year actuarial local control rate was as 96% (95% confidence interval: 88%∼100%). Actuarial overall survival rate at 2 years was 64% (46∼83%). Pretreatment liver function that was evaluated with indocyanin green clearance at 15 minutes (ICG 15), and liver volume that received 30 GyE or more (V30) significantly correlated with overall survival. CONCLUSIONS Since PRT showed minimal acute toxicity and excellent tumor control within CTV, it is expected as one of the convincing non-surgical treatment options for HCC. ICG 15 and V30 were considered as useful indicators of patient prognosis. No significant financial relationships to disclose.