Takaaki Ikari

Adjuvant treatments for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma

Hepatocellular carcinoma often recurs even after curative resection. Although some encouraging data showing improvements in recurrence-free times have been reported with the use of intraarterial 131I-lipiodol infusion, retinoids, interferon, or immunotherapy after hepatectomy, there is no consensus regarding standard adjuvant therapy for resectable hepatocellular carcinoma. A novel target agent, sorafenib, which has recently become a standard of care for advanced disease, may also be promising in an adjuvant setting to prevent early recurrence after curative surgery. In future trials, it will be important to identify appropriate target populations for each type of adjuvant approach; that is, an agent with definitive antitumor activity for high-risk patients, and one that shows chemoprevention for low-risk patients.

Efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus S-1 in pancreatic cancer: a pooled analysis of individual patient data

Background:Three randomised trials (GEST, JACCRO PC-01, and GEMSAP) were conducted to evaluate the efficacy of gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) vs gemcitabine alone in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). In this pooled analysis, the efficacy and safety of GS vs gemcitabine were evaluated.Methods:Additional follow-up was conducted and survival data were updated in each study. A total of 770 patients (gemcitabine 389; GS 381) were included in the pooled analysis. The efficacy and safety data were analysed according to disease extent: locally advanced PC (LAPC) or metastatic PC (MPC).Results:There were 738 (95.8%) overall survival events. In patients with LAPC (n=193), the median survival was 11.83 months for gemcitabine and 16.41 months for GS (hazard ratio (HR)=0.708; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.527–0.951; P=0.0220). In patients with MPC (n=577), the median survival was 8.02 months for gemcitabine and 9.43 months for GS (HR=0.872; 95% CI, 0.738–1.032; P=0.1102). The rate of grade 3/4 toxicity (rash and thrombocytopenia in LAPC; rash, diarrhoea, vomiting, and neutropaenia in MPC) was significantly higher for GS than for gemcitabine.Conclusions:Gemcitabine plus S-1 is a viable treatment alternative to gemcitabine, which is one of the standard treatments in patients with LAPC.

Analysis of prognostic factors in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer treated with gemcitabine or gemcitabine and S-1 chemotherapy using individual patient data from three randomized studies.

223 Background: Both gemcitabine (GEM) and S-1, an oral fluoropyrimidine, are shown efficacy for advanced and resected pancreatic cancer (PC). However PC has one of the poorest outcomes in various cancers. In this pooled analysis, the prognostic factors in locally advanced and metastatic PC were evaluated using individual patient data from three randomized studies (Phase III: GEST, randomized phase II: JACCRO PC-01 and GEMSAP). Methods: Patients (pts) were treated with GEM alone or GEM and S-1 (GS) chemotherapy for advanced PC. Evaluated prognostic factors were standard laboratory data, tumor marker (CA19-9, CEA), clinical and pathological indices and treatment related outcomes e.g. efficacy and safety. To identify the optimal cutoff value to divide continuous data into binomial data, maximized log likelihood value for the model were evaluated and the validity of the model was evaluated by the martingale residuals. The Cox proportional hazards model was performed for overall survival. Results: 770 pts wer...