Search

PURPOSE This randomized, open-label trial compared the efficacy and safety of adjuvant nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine with those of gemcitabine for resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01964430 ). METHODS We assigned 866 treatment-naive patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) + gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2) or gemcitabine alone to one 30-40 infusion on days 1, 8, and 15 of six 28-day cycles. The primary end point was independently assessed disease-free survival (DFS). Additional end points included investigator-assessed DFS, overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS Two hundred eighty-seven of 432 patients and 310 of 434 patients completed nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine and gemcitabine treatment, respectively. At primary data cutoff (December 31, 2018; median follow-up, 38.5 [interquartile range [IQR], 33.8-43 months), the median independently assessed DFS was 19.4 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 18.8 months (gemcitabine; hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.729 to 1.063; P = .18). The median investigator-assessed DFS was 16.6 (IQR, 8.4-47.0) and 13.7 (IQR, 8.3-44.1) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.694 to 0.965; P = .02). The median OS (427 events; 68% mature) was 40.5 (IQR, 20.7 to not reached) and 36.2 (IQR, 17.7-53.3) months, respectively (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.680 to 0.996; P = .045). At a 16-month follow-up (cutoff, April 3, 2020; median follow-up, 51.4 months [IQR, 47.0-57.0]), the median OS (511 events; 81% mature) was 41.8 ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) versus 37.7 months (gemcitabine; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.687 to 0.973; P = .0232). At the 5-year follow-up (cutoff, April 9, 2021; median follow-up, 63.2 months [IQR, 60.1-68.7]), the median OS (555 events; 88% mature) was 41.8 versus 37.7 months, respectively (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.678 to 0.947; P = .0091). Eighty-six percent ( nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine) and 68% (gemcitabine) of patients experienced grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse events. Two patients per study arm died of treatment-emergent adverse events. CONCLUSION The primary end point (independently assessed DFS) was not met despite favorable OS seen with nab-paclitaxel + gemcitabine.

Peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) is an effective therapeutic option in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumor (NET). However, PRRT fails in about 15–30% of cases. Identification of biomarkers predicting the response to PRRT is essential for treatment tailoring. We aimed to evaluate the predictive and prognostic role of semiquantitative and volumetric parameters obtained from the 68Ga-DOTATOC PET/CT before therapy (bPET) and after two cycles of PRRT (iPET). A total of 46 patients were included in this retrospective analysis. The primary tumor was 78% gastroenteropancreatic (GEP), 13% broncho-pulmonary and 9% of unknown origin. 35 patients (76.1%) with stable disease or partial response after PRRT were classified as responders and 11 (23.9%) as non-responders. Logistic regression analysis identified that baseline total volume (bTV) was associated with therapy outcome (OR 1.17; 95%CI 1.02–1.32; p = 0.02). No significant association with PRRT response was observed for other variables. High bTV was confirmed as the only variable independently associated with OS (HR 12.76, 95%CI 1.53–107, p = 0.01). In conclusion, high bTV is a negative predictor for PRRT response and is associated with worse OS rates. Early iPET during PRRT apparently does not provide information useful to change the management of NET patients.

Background Sorafenib has shown survival benefits in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child-Pugh (CP) class A liver function. There are few prospective data on sorafenib in patients with HCC and CP class B. Patients and methods A consecutive prospective series of 300 patients with CP class A or B HCC were enrolled in a dual-phase trial to determine survival and safety data according to liver function (class A or B) in patients receiving oral sorafenib 800 mg daily. [Results of this study were presented in part at the ASCO 2012 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, 19–21 January 2012. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl 4): abstract 306.] Results Overall progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were 3.9, 4.1 and 9.1 months, respectively. For patients with CP class A versus B status, PFS was 4.3 versus 2.1 months, TTP was 4.2 versus 3.8 months and OS was 10.0 versus 3. 8 months. Extrahepatic spread was associated with worse outcomes but taken together with CP class, liver function played a greater role in reducing survival. Adverse events for the two CP groups were similar. Conclusion Although patients with HCC and CP class B liver function have poorer outcomes than those with CP class A function, data suggest that patients with CP class B liver function can tolerate treatment and may still benefit from sorafenib.

Purpose Aim of this phase I study was to identify the maximum tolerated dose and dose limiting toxicity of continuous infusion of Irinotecan through a port-a-cath placed in the hepatic artery in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis to explore new strategies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Response rate and time-to-progression were analysed. Methods Irinotecan was delivered as a five-day continuous infusion every 21 days, with increases of 2.5 mg/m 2 /day every three patients, starting from 7.5 mg/m 2 /day. Dose limiting toxicity corresponded to one patient in each triplet developing G4 haematological or G3 non-haematological toxicity, confirmed in two triplets. Twenty-eight patients (17 Child-Pugh A, 11 B) received treatment and tumour response was assessed after three courses completed by 22 patients. Results Dose limiting toxicity was G3 diarrhoea in two patients, reached at 27.5 mg/m 2 /day and the recommended dose was set at 25 mg/m 2 /day. Nineteen of 30 patients experienced adverse events related to porth-a-cath placement and one died from liver ischemia and sepsis. Median time-to-progression was 11.3 months. Conclusion Intrarterial infusion of Irinotecan is feasible in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis at a recommended dose of 25 mg/m 2 /day, with no major adverse drug-related events, but with some concerns about the insertion and management of the intra-arterial device.

We report the clinical history of a female affected by advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). The patient was treated with five subsequent therapeutic schedules (FOLFIRI, FOLFOXIRI, FOLFIRI, FOLFOX4, FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab) because of the progression of the disease. The sixth treatment was bevacizumab in combination with 5-fluorouracil and irinotecan (FOLFIRI). The CT scan and the FDG-PET/CT performed 3 months after the beginning of the treatment showed that some, even if not all, lesions had a reduction of both size and metabolic activity. After the second revaluation the disease progressed. This short report suggests that the response of CRC to antiangiogenetic therapy may also occur after several unsuccessful antineoplastic treatments. Different biological features may explain the nonhomogeneous objective response of the metastatic lesions. Molecular imaging techniques seem to be mandatory in the era of tailored therapy since it is useful to have an in vivo ‘biological picture’ of the neoplastic disease.