Laetitia Fartoux

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.

The Lille model: A new tool for therapeutic strategy in patients with severe alcoholic hepatitis treated with steroids†

Early identification of patients with severe (discriminant function ≥ 32) alcoholic hepatitis (AH) not responding to corticosteroids is crucial. We generated a specific prognostic model (Lille model) to identify candidates early on for alternative therapies. Three hundred twenty patients with AH prospectively treated by corticosteroids were included in the development cohort and 118 in its validation. Baseline data and a change in bilirubin at day 7 were tested. The model was generated by logistic regression. The model combining six reproducible variables (age, renal insufficiency, albumin, prothrombin time, bilirubin, and evolution of bilirubin at day 7) was highly predictive of death at 6 months (P < 0.000001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve of the Lille model was 0.89 ± 0.02, higher than the Child‐Pugh (0.62 ± 0.04, P < 0.00001) or Maddrey scores (0.66 ± 0.04, P < 0.00001). In the validation cohort, its AUROC was 0.85 ± 0.04, still higher than the other models, including MELD (0.72 ± 0.05, P = 0.01) and Glasgow scores (0.67 ± 0.05, P = 0.0008). Patients above the ideal cutoff of 0.45 showed a marked decrease in 6‐month survival as compared with others: 25% ± 3.8% versus 85% ± 2.5%, P < 0.0001. This cutoff was able to identify approximately 75% of the observed deaths. Conclusion: In the largest cohort to date of patients with severe AH, we demonstrate that the term “nonresponder” can now be extended to patients with a Lille score above 0.45, which corresponds to 40% of cases. Early identification of subjects with substantial risk of death according to the Lille model will improve management of patients suffering from severe AH and will aid in the design of future studies for alternative therapies. (HEPATOLOGY 2007.)

Impact of steatosis on progression of fibrosis in patients with mild hepatitis C.

In patients with mild hepatitis C, the usefulness of antiviral therapy is subject of debate, as a low risk for progression of fibrosis is assumed. Several studies have shown that steatosis is a strong and independent predictor of the severity as well as the progression of fibrosis in chronic hepatitis C. Therefore, this study assessed the impact of steatosis on the progression of fibrosis between paired liver biopsies in untreated patients with mild hepatitis on index biopsy. One hundred thirty‐five untreated patients (mean age, 38 years; M/F sex ratio, 1.43) with one known risk factor of infection (68 transfusions, 67 injecting drug use) had 2 liver biopsies after a median interval of 61 months (18‐158). All had METAVIR score of A1F1 or lower at first liver biopsy. Unequivocal progression of fibrosis was considered if patients had a fibrosis score of 3 or 4 at the second liver biopsy. The probability of progression of fibrosis was estimated by using the Kaplan‐Meier method. During follow‐up, progression of fibrosis occurred in 21 patients (16%) after a median delay of 65 months. Cumulative probabilities of the progression of fibrosis at 4 and 6 years were 5.2% and 19.8%, respectively. In multivariate analysis, steatosis was the only independent factor predictive of progression of fibrosis (RR, 4.8; CI, 1.3‐18.3). Probability of progression of fibrosis was significantly related to the percentage of hepatocytes with steatosis. In conclusion, steatosis is a major determinant of the progression of fibrosis in mild hepatitis C, regardless of the genotype. Our results argue for antiviral treatment in the subgroup of patients with mild hepatitis and steatosis. (HEPATOLOGY 2005;41:82–87.)

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin with or without cetuximab in advanced biliary-tract cancer (BINGO): a randomised, open-label, non-comparative phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND Gemcitabine plus a platinum-based agent (eg, cisplatin or oxaliplatin) is the standard of care for advanced biliary cancers. We investigated the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary cancers. METHODS In this non-comparative, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial, we recruited patients with locally advanced (non-resectable) or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder carcinoma, or ampullary carcinoma and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1 from 18 hospitals across France and Germany. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally with a minimisation procedure to first-line treatment with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) and oxaliplatin (100 mg/m(2)) with or without cetuximab (500 mg/m(2)), repeated every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by centre, primary site of disease, disease stage, and previous treatment with curative intent or adjuvant therapy. Investigators who assessed treatment response were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were progression-free at 4 months, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00552149. FINDINGS Between Oct 10, 2007, and Dec 18, 2009, 76 patients were assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab and 74 to chemotherapy alone. 48 (63%; 95% CI 52-74) patients assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab and 40 (54%; 43-65) assigned to chemotherapy alone were progression-free at 4 months. Median progression-free survival was 6·1 months (95% CI 5·1-7·6) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 5·5 months (3·7-6·6) in the chemotherapy alone group. Median overall survival was 11·0 months (9·1-13·7) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 12·4 months (8·6-16·0) in the chemotherapy alone group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were peripheral neuropathy (in 18 [24%] of 76 patients who received chemotherapy plus cetuximab vs ten [15%] of 68 who received chemotherapy alone), neutropenia (17 [22%] vs 11 [16%]), and increased aminotransferase concentrations (17 [22%] vs ten [15%]). 70 serious adverse events were reported in 39 (51%) of 76 patients who received chemotherapy plus cetuximab (34 events in 19 [25%] patients were treatment-related), whereas 41 serious adverse events were reported in 25 (35%) of 71 patients who received chemotherapy alone (20 events in 12 [17%] patients were treatment-related). One patient died of atypical pneumonia related to treatment in the chemotherapy alone group. INTERPRETATION The addition of cetuximab to gemcitabine and oxaliplatin did not seem to enhance the activity of chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary cancer, although it was well tolerated. Gemcitabine and platinum-based combination should remain the standard treatment option. FUNDING Institut National du Cancer, Merck Serono.

Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1 Receptor Inhibition Induces a Resistance Mechanism via the Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor/HER3/AKT Signaling Pathway: Rational Basis for Cotargeting Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1 Receptor and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor in Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Purpose: The insulin-like growth factor (IGF) signaling axis is frequently dysregulated in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Therefore, we investigated whether the specific targeting of the IGF type 1 receptor (IGF-1R) might represent a new therapeutic approach for this tumor. Experimental Design: Total and phosphorylated levels of IGF-1R were measured in 21 paired samples of human HCCs and adjacent nontumoral livers using ELISA. The antineoplastic potency of a novel anti–IGF-1R antibody, AVE1642, was examined in five human hepatoma cell lines. Results: Overexpression of IGF-1R was detected in 33% of HCCs and increased activation of IGF-1R was observed in 52% of tumors. AVE1642 alone had moderate inhibitory effects on cell viability. However, its combination with gefitinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, induced supra-additive effects in all cell lines that were associated with cell cycle blockage and inhibition of AKT phosphorylation. The combination of AVE1642 with rapamycin also induced a synergistic reduction of viability and of AKT phosphorylation. Of marked interest, AVE1642 alone up-regulated the phosphorylated and total levels of HER3, the main partner of EGFR, and AVE1642-induced phosphorylation of HER3 was prevented by gefitinib. Moreover, the down-regulation of HER3 expression with siRNA reduced AKT phosphorylation and increased cell sensitivity to AVE1642. Conclusions: These findings indicate that hepatoma cells overcome IGF-1R inhibition through HER3 activation in an EGFR-dependent mechanism, and that HER3 represents a critical mediator in acquired resistance to anti-IGF-1R therapy. These results provide a strong rational for targeting simultaneously EGFR and IGF-1R in clinical trials for HCC]. (Clin Cancer Res 2009;15(17):5445–56)

Gemcitabine Plus Oxaliplatin (GEMOX) Combined With Cetuximab in Patients With Progressive Advanced Stage Hepatocellular Carcinoma : Results of a Multicenter Phase 2 Study

The authors conducted a phase 2 trial of the antiepidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody cetuximab in combination with the gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin (GEMOX) regimen in patients with documented progressive hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Detection of Hepatocellular Carcinoma with PET/CT: A Prospective Comparison of 18F-Fluorocholine and 18F-FDG in Patients with Cirrhosis or Chronic Liver Disease

This prospective study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of 18F-fluorocholine and 18F-FDG for detecting and staging hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic liver disease and suspected liver nodules. Methods: Whole-body PET/CT was performed in a random order at 10 min after injection of 4 MBq of 18F-fluorocholine per kilogram and at 1 h after injection of 5 MBq of 18F-FDG per kilogram. PET/CT results were read in a masked manner by 2 specialists, and diagnostic performance was assessed from the results of consensus masked reading. Those focal lesions appearing with increased or decreased activity, compared with background, on 18F-fluorocholine PET/CT were considered positive for malignancy. The standard of truth was determined on a per-site basis using data from a histologic examination and a follow-up period of more than 6 mo; on a per-patient basis, the Barcelona criteria were also accepted as a proof of HCC in 5 patients. Results: Eighty-one patients were recruited; standard of truth was determined in 59 cases. HCC was diagnosed in 34 patients. Therefore, sensitivity was 88% for 18F-fluorocholine and 68% for 18F-FDG (P = 0.07), and in 70 sites, sensitivity was 84% for 18F-fluorocholine, significantly better than the 67% for 18F-FDG (P = 0.01). Of the 11 patients with well-differentiated HCC, 6 had a positive result with 18F-fluorocholine alone, whereas 18F-FDG was never positive alone; corresponding site-based sensitivity was 94% for 18F-fluorocholine and 59% for 18F-FDG (P = 0.001). The detection rate of 18 sites corresponding to other malignancies was 78% for 18F-fluorocholine and 89% for 18F-FDG. In nonmalignant sites, 18F-fluorocholine appeared less specific than 18F-FDG (62% vs. 91% P < 0.01) because of uptake by focal nodular hyperplasia. Conclusion: 18F-fluorocholine was significantly more sensitive than 18F-FDG at detecting HCC, in particular in well-differentiated forms. In contrast, 18F-FDG appeared somewhat more sensitive at detecting other malignancies and was negative in focal nodular hyperplasia. Thus 18F-fluorocholine appears to be a useful PET/CT tracer for the detection and surveillance of HCC; however, performing PET/CT with both radiopharmaceuticals seems to be the best option.

Impact of IGF-1R/EGFR cross-talks on hepatoma cell sensitivity to gefitinib

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)‐ and type 1 insulin‐like growth factor receptor (IGF‐1R)‐dependent pathways are up‐regulated in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and cross‐talks between both pathways have been described in other systems. Gefitinib, a specific EGFR inhibitor, has shown to reduce significantly, although not completely, HCC formation in rat cirrhotic liver. Here, we investigated whether IGF‐1R‐dependent pathways may interfere with EGFR signalling in hepatoma cells and, if so, whether such cross‐talks may affect the antitumoral effect of gefitinib in these cells. We show that the proliferative action of IGF2 in HepG2 and Hep3B cells requires EGFR activation through the autocrine/paracrine release of amphiregulin. Thus, IGF2‐induced extracellular signal‐regulated kinase activity and DNA synthesis were inhibited by neutralizing antibodies against either EGFR or amphiregulin and by TAPI‐1, a pharmalogical inhibitor of tumor necrosis factor‐α converting enzyme, a sheddase of amphiregulin. Accordingly, IGF2 and EGF stimulating effects on cell proliferation were both strongly repressed by gefitinib. However, while gefitinib blocked Akt activation by EGF, it had no effect on Akt activation by IGF2 and did not cause apoptosis by its own. AG1024, a selective IGF‐1R inhibitor, induced apoptosis and this effect was potentiated by gefitinib. In conclusion, we show that in HCC cells IGF2/IGF‐1R activation triggers proliferative and survival signals through EGFR‐dependent and ‐independent mechanisms, respectively. The IGF2/IGF‐1R survival pathway may contribute to gefitinib resistance in these cells. Therefore, the inhibition of IGF2/IGF‐1R signalling could potentiate the anti‐tumoral effect of gefinitib in HCC.

Impact of insulin resistance on sustained response in HCV patients treated with pegylated interferon and ribavirin: A meta-analysis

BACKGROUND & AIMS Recent studies suggested that SVR rates might be lower in HCV patients with insulin resistance (IR) than in patients without IR, but the extent of the impact of IR on treatment response has not been established. We aimed to confirm the role of IR assessed by the homoeostasis model assessment (HOMA-IR) on SVR and to determine its magnitude. METHODS We performed meta-analysis of studies evaluating the impact of IR in HCV patients treated with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. RESULTS Fourteen studies involving 2732 patients were included. SVR was less frequent in patients with IR than in patients without IR (mean difference: -19.6%, 95% CI: -29.9% to -9.4%, p<0.001). In sensitivity analyses according to HCV-1 patients, patients with IR also less frequently attained a SVR than patients without IR (mean difference: -13.0%, 95% CI: -22.6% to -3.4%, p=0.008). In addition, the baseline HOMA-IR index was lower in responders than in non-responders (mean difference: -0.92, 95% CI: -1.53 to -0.32, p<0.001). In sensitivity analyses restricted to HCV-1 patients, the baseline HOMA-IR index remained lower in responders than in non-responders (mean difference: -0.63, 95% CI: -1.13 to -0.14, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS HCV patients with IR have a 20% lower SVR than patients without IR. The baseline HOMA-IR index is a major determinant of SVR.

Gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: A large multicenter AGEO study

BACKGROUND & AIMS The current standard treatment for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is sorafenib. This drug is effective but generally does not induce tumor shrinkage and other treatment options are still needed. METHODS This retrospective multicenter study included all consecutive patients with advanced HCC treated with gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) between 2001 and 2010. Survival curves were drawn with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate prognostic factors. RESULTS Two hundred four consecutive patients were treated with GEMOX (median age, 60 years; men, 86%; underlying cirrhosis, 76%). Grade 3-4 toxicity was observed in 44% of the patients (thrombocytopenia 24%, neutropenia 18%, diarrhea 14%, neurotoxicity 12%) leading to treatment discontinuation in 16% of the cases. The overall response and disease control rates were 22% (95% CI, 16-27) and 66% (95% CI, 59-72), respectively. No clinical or biological factors were associated with the treatment response, and 8.5% of the patients were subsequently eligible for curative-intent therapies after downstaging. Median PFS, TTP, and OS were 4.5 (95% CI, 4-6), 8 (95% CI, 6-11), and 11 months (95% CI, 9-14), respectively. In multivariate analysis, gender (p=0.03), underlying cirrhosis (p=0.01), CLIP score (p=0.03), and response to GEMOX (p<0.0001) were independently associated with OS. CONCLUSIONS This large study confirms that GEMOX is effective with manageable toxicity in patients with advanced HCC. Tumor responses permitted potentially curative treatment that was not initially feasible in a significant proportion of patients.