Richard Letourneau

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.

Randomized Phase III Study of Exatecan and Gemcitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Untreated Advanced Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE Exatecan mesylate is a hexacyclic, water-soluble, topoisomerase-1 inhibitor. Exatecan has single-agent and combination activity with gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer. A multicenter, randomized, phase III trial comparing exatecan plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer was conducted. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligibility criteria included Karnofsky performance status > or = 60%, locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, and no prior chemotherapy. Radiation alone for locally advanced disease was permitted. Patients were randomly assigned on a 1:1 basis. For the exatecan plus gemcitabine arm, exatecan 2.0 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 were administered on days 1 and 8, every 3 weeks. Gemcitabine alone was dosed at 1,000 mg/m2 up to 7 weeks in the first cycle, then once a week for the first 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle. Tumor assessment was performed every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. An intent-to-treat analysis was used. RESULTS From August 2001 to January 2003, 349 patients were randomly assigned, 175 to exatecan plus gemcitabine and 174 to gemcitabine alone. Twenty-four patients (6.9%) were not treated. The median survival time was 6.7 months for exatecan plus gemcitabine and 6.2 months for gemcitabine alone (P = .52). One complete response (CR; < 1%) and 11 partial responses (PRs; 6.3%) were observed in the exatecan plus gemcitabine treatment group, and one CR (< 1%) and eight PRs (4.6%) were observed in the gemcitabine-alone group. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were higher for the exatecan plus gemcitabine arm versus the gemcitabine alone arm; neutropenia (30% v 15%) and thrombocytopenia (15% v 4%). CONCLUSION Exatecan plus gemcitabine was not superior to gemcitabine alone with respect to overall survival in the first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Efficacy of gemcitabine plus axitinib compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: an open-label randomised phase II study

BACKGROUND Axitinib (AG-013736) is a potent and selective oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors 1, 2, and 3, which have an important role in pancreatic cancer. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of gemcitabine plus axitinib versus gemcitabine alone. METHODS Between January and August, 2006, 103 patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic pancreatic cancer were randomly assigned in a two to one ratio to receive gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) plus axitinib 5 mg twice daily (n=69) or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) alone (n=34) by a centralised registration system. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00219557. FINDINGS All randomised patients were included in the efficacy analyses. Median overall survival was longer with gemcitabine plus axitinib than with gemcitabine alone (6.9 [95% CI 5.3-10.1] months vs 5.6 [3.9-8.8] months). The hazard ratio for survival with gemcitabine plus axitinib versus with gemcitabine alone, adjusted for stratification factors, was 0.71 (95% CI 0.44-1.13). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were fatigue (15 [22%] patients in the gemcitabine plus axitinib group vs one [3%] in the gemcitabine alone group), abdominal pain (eight [12%] vs five [16%]), and asthenia (eight [12%] vs one [3%]). INTERPRETATION Gemcitabine plus axitinib showed a similar safety profile to gemcitabine alone; the small, non-statistically significant gain in overall survival needs to be assessed in a randomised phase III trial.

Transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt before abdominal surgery in cirrhotic patients: A retrospective, comparative study

Surgery in cirrhotic patients is associated with high morbidity and mortality related to portal hypertension and liver insufficiency. Therefore, preoperative portal decompression is a logical approach to facilitate abdominal surgery and hopefully to improve postoperative survival. The present study evaluated the clinical outcomes of 18 patients (mean age 58 years) with cirrhosis (seven alcoholics and 11 nonalcoholics) who underwent transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement before antrectomy (n=5), colectomy (n=10), small-bowel resection (n=1), pancreatectomy (n=1) and nephrectomy (n=1). TIPS was performed a mean (+/-SD) of 72+/-21 days before surgery and induced a marked mean decrease in portohepatic gradient from 21.4+/-3.9 mmHg to 8.4+/-3.4 mmHg. Cirrhotic patients (n=17) who underwent elective abdominal surgery without preoperative TIPS placement were used as the control group. Both groups were matched for age, etiology of cirrhosis, indications for surgery, type of surgery and coagulation parameters. The mean Pugh score was significantly higher in the TIPS group (7.7 versus 6.2). No significant differences were observed for operative blood loss, postoperative complications, duration of hospitalization and one-month (83% versus 88%) or one-year (54% versus 63%) cumulative survival rate. Analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model showed that neither TIPS placement nor preoperative Pugh score were independent predictors for survival. The present study suggests that preoperative TIPS placement does not improve postoperative evolution after abdominal surgery in cirrhotic patients with good or moderately impaired liver function.

Treatment of post liver transplantation bile duct stricture with self-expandable metallic stent

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to report our experience using self-expandable covered metallic stents (Wallstent) to treat different types of biliary strictures after orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). PATIENTS AND METHODS Between January 1999 and July 2004, 222 OLTs were performed with choledocho-choledochostomy (CC) bile duct reconstruction. An anastomotic biliary stricture was diagnosed and treated by endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) or percutaneous procedures in 100 patients (45%). The group of 21 patients (mean age 57.0+/-5.6 years) that were eventually treated with a biliary Wallstent was studied retrospectively. RESULTS Significant persistent proximal or anastomotic strictures were diagnosed in 4 and 17 patients, respectively. A Wallstent was inserted by ERCP or through a percutaneous route in 18 and 3 patients, respectively. The mean interval between diagnosis and Wallstent insertion was 179.7+/-292.8 (0-1113) days. The mean total number of procedures required per patient was 7.4+/-5.5. The mean stent primary patency duration was 10.8+/-7.8 (0.9-25.1) months with a 24-month primary patency rate of 26% at a mean follow-up time of 37.8+/-17.2 months. A hepatico-jejunostomy was performed in five patients (24%). Two patients (10%) underwent retransplantation for diffuse ischemic cholangitis or chronic rejection. The overall complication rate was 4%. CONCLUSION Treatment of post-transplant biliary stenosis using a Wallstent is a valuable option for delaying or avoiding surgery in up to 70% of patients. Proximal stenosis can be treated in the same manner in selected patients with major comorbidities.

Is intra-operative ultrasound still useful for the detection of a hepatic tumour in the era of modern pre-operative imaging?

BACKGROUND The current role of intra-operative ultrasound (IOUS) is questioned because of recent progress in medical imaging. The aim of the present study was to determine the accuracy of IOUS in the detection of a hepatic tumour (HT) compared with a pre-operative multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) scan and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). METHODS This retrospective study included 418 patients evaluated using an 8-slice MDCT scan (SCAN8), 64-slice MDCT scan (SCAN64) and MRI alone or combined with a computed tomography (CT) scan. The pathological result was used as a gold standard. RESULTS Correlation rates for the number of detected lesions compared with pathology results were 0.627 for SCAN8, 0.785 for SCAN64, 0.657 for MRI and 0.913 for IOUS. Compared with pathology, the rate of concordance was significantly higher with IOUS (0.871) than with SCAN8 (0.736; P=0.011), SCAN64 (0.792; P<0.001) and MRI (0.742; P<0.001). IOUS was responsible for a change in operative strategy in 16.5% of patients. Surgery was extended in 12.4%, limited in 1.7% and abandoned in 2.4%. CONCLUSIONS Compared with cross-sectional pre-operative imaging, IOUS is still superior for the detection of HT and the planning of surgery. IOUS remains recommended as a routine procedure in patients having a hepatic resection in the era of modern pre-operative imaging.

Hypertrophy of the non-embolized liver after chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NC(+)) and portal vein embolization (PVE) enables curative resection in more patients with colorectal-liver metastases (CRLM). However, after NC(+), structural alterations have been reported with the risk of post-operative hepatic failure. We undertook to determine if NC(+) toxicity limits future remnant liver (FRL) hypertrophy after PVE. METHODS PVE was performed in 20 patients, 13 (65%) of whom previously received a mean FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil + leucovorin + irinotecan) regimen (NC(+)) of 6.6 cycles. The seven remaining patients served as the control group without NC (NC(-)). RESULTS CRLM were bilateral in 69% (NC(+)) and 57% (NC(-)), and synchronous in 84% (NC(+)) and 14% (NC(-)). The FRL hypertrophy rate was 54.1% (NC(+)) and 43.7% (NC(-)) (P= 0.3). CRLM were unresectable in four of our 20 patients, i.e. group NC(+): one insufficient FRL hypertrophy and one severe steatosis; and group NC(-): two tumoral progressions. In both groups, the operative parameters were comparable except for pedicular clamping: 8 (NC(+)) and 36 min (NC(-)), respectively (P < 0.05). Also, the surgical outcome rate and hospital stay were comparable. No significant pathological difference was observed between the two groups. No mortality occurred in either group. CONCLUSION In view of our limited experience, we conclude that hypertrophy of the non-embolized liver (FRL) is not altered after FOLFIRI-based NC.

A Case of Giant Cell Hepatitis Recurring after Liver Transplantation and Treated with Ribavirin

A patient who underwent orthotopic liver transplantation for giant cell hepatitis with cirrhosis and in whom giant cell hepatitis recurred twice after orthotopic liver transplantation is reported. He was treated with ribavirin with an excellent result. The literature on this subject is reviewed. This observation clearly confirms the efficacy of ribavirin for the treatment of giant cell hepatitis, thus providing evidence for its viral origin.

Reuse of liver graft from a brain dead recipient.

Abstract:  Background:  Brain death in fulminant hepatic failure (FHF) is a rare occurrence after successful orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Reuse of the liver graft may be considered. We report a successful OLT using such an organ in a 62‐yr‐old man with hematochromatosis‐related cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma.

693PNAB-PACLITAXEL (NAB-P) PLUS GEMCITABINE (GEM) VS GEM ALONE FOR PATIENTS (PTS) WITH METASTATIC PANCREATIC CANCER (PC): SUBGROUP ANALYSES OF THE MPACT TRIAL BASED ON THE PRESENCE OF LIVER METASTASES (LMS) AND NUMBER OF METASTATIC SITES

ABSTRACT Aim: Metastatic PC is associated with one of the worst prognoses among all the types of solid tumors. The presence of LMs and multiple sites of metastasis are factors associated with poorer prognosis. In the MPACT trial, nab-P + Gem demonstrated superior overall survival (OS, primary endpoint) vs Gem alone as first-line treatment for metastatic PC (Table). We report the efficacy and safety of nab-P + Gem vs Gem alone based on the presence of LMs and the number of metastatic sites. Methods: Previously untreated pts (N = 861) with metastatic PC were randomized 1:1 (stratified by performance status, region, and the presence of LMs) to receive nab-P 125 mg/m2 + Gem 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle or Gem alone 1000 mg/m2 weekly for 7 weeks followed by 1 week of rest (cycle 1) and then days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day cycle (cycle ≥ 2). Results: Treatment arms were well balanced with respect to LMs and the number of metastatic sites: 84% of pts had LMs and 79% had 2 or 3 metastatic sites. In pts with LMs, median OS was significantly longer with nab-P + Gem vs Gem alone (Table). Similar trends were seen for PFS (5.4 vs 3.6 mo; HR 0.65; P Patient Population n Median OS, mo nab-P + Gem Gem nab-P + Gem Gem HR P Value ITT 431 430 8.5 6.7 0.72 Subgroups With LMs 365 360 8.3 5.9 0.69 No. of metastatic sites 1 33 21 13.5 9.0 0.41 0.021 2 202 206 8.3 7.1 0.75 0.015 3 136 140 8.0 5.9 0.79 0.093 > 3 60 63 8.6 5.0 0.50 0.001 Conclusions: In the MPACT trial, nab-P + Gem demonstrated longer OS vs Gem alone in the ITT population. The results for pts with LMs and in subgroups defined by the number of metastatic sites were consistent with the ITT findings. No new safety signals were observed. Disclosure: C. Weekes: has received honoraria for advisory board participation in the past 3 years from Celgene F. Parnis: servied on the advisory board for Specialised Therapeutics; A. Santoro: is a consultant/advisor to Celgene; A. Romano, D. McGovern and D. Penenberg: is an employee of Celgene and owns stock; D.D. Von Hoff: is a consultant/advisory for Celgene and receives honoraria from them. He also receives research funding from TGen Clinical Research Service. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.