Search

Background: Northern England has been experiencing a persistent rise in the number of primary liver cancers, largely driven by an increasing incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) secondary to alcohol-related liver disease and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Here we review the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on primary liver cancer services and patients in our region., Objective: To assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with newly diagnosed liver cancer in our region., Design: We prospectively audited our service for the first year of the pandemic (March 2020-February 2021), comparing mode of presentation, disease stage, treatments and outcomes to a retrospective observational consecutive cohort immediately prepandemic (March 2019-February 2020)., Results: We observed a marked decrease in HCC referrals compared with previous years, falling from 190 confirmed new cases to 120 (37%). Symptomatic became the the most common mode of presentation, with fewer tumours detected by surveillance or incidentally (% surveillance/incidental/symptomatic; 34/42/24 prepandemic vs 27/33/40 in the pandemic, p=0.013). HCC tumour size was larger in the pandemic year (60±4.6 mm vs 48±2.6 mm, p=0.017), with a higher incidence of spontaneous tumour haemorrhage. The number of new cases of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) fell only slightly, with symptomatic presentation typical. Patients received treatment appropriate for their cancer stage, with waiting times shorter for patients with HCC and unchanged for patients with ICC. Survival was associated with stage both before and during the pandemic. 9% acquired COVID-19 infection., Conclusion: The pandemic-associated reduction in referred patients in our region was attributed to the disruption of routine healthcare. For those referred, treatments and survival were appropriate for their stage at presentation. Non-referred or missing patients are expected to present with more advanced disease, with poorer outcomes. While protective measures are necessary during the pandemic, we recommend routine healthcare services continue, with patients encouraged to engage., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin and 5-FU or capecitabine (ECF/X) chemotherapy is recognised as a standard of care for patients with resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma; however, there is limited evidence regarding its use in older patients. The aims of this study were to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of perioperative ECX chemotherapy in patients aged ≥70 years-old (group 1) compared with a younger population (group 2), and to assess differences in the histology of these groups., Methods: 212 patients in our centre were treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for potentially resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma between February 2009 and January 2014. Seventy patients (33.0%) were aged ≥70 years-old and 142 (67.0%) patients were aged under 70 years-old., Results: In group 1, 57 (81.4%) of patients underwent intended radical oesophagectomy or gastrectomy compared with 106 (74.6%) in group 2 (p = 0.271). The median overall survival was 35.3 months in group 1 and 30.1 months in group 2, respectively (p = 0.281). The rates of grade 3 to 4 non-haematological toxicity in groups 1 and 2 were 38.6% and 26.8%, respectively (p = 0.079). There was no difference in groups 1 and 2 regarding: pT stage, tumour grade, circumferential resection margin involvement, tumour regression grade, vascular invasion, lymphatic invasion and perineural invasion. 74.4% patients in group 2 were node-positive following chemotherapy and surgery compared with 48% in group 1 (p = 0.0015)., Discussion: Selected older adults with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma treated with perioperative ECX chemotherapy have similar overall survival and likelihood of having radical surgery as younger patients., (Crown Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Erlotinib is an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has shown a significant but only marginally improved median overall survival when combined with gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. Vandetanib is a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR2, RET, and EGFR, all of which are in involved in the pathogenesis of pancreatic cancer. We investigated the clinical efficacy of vandetanib when used in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer., Methods: The Vandetanib in Pancreatic Cancer (ViP) trial was a phase 2 double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial in previously untreated adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas confirmed by cytology or histology. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0-2 and a documented life expectancy of at least 3 months. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vandetanib plus gemcitabine (vandetanib group) or placebo plus gemcitabine (placebo group) according to pre-generated sequences produced on the principle of randomly permuted blocks with variable block sizes of two and four. Patients were stratified at randomisation by disease stage and ECOG performance status. All patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 as a 30-min intravenous infusion, weekly, for 7 weeks followed by a 1-week break, followed by a cycle of 3 weeks of treatment with a 1-week break, until disease progression, and either oral vandetanib 300 mg per day once daily or matching placebo. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome measure was overall survival (defined as the difference in time between randomisation and death from any cause or the censor date) in the intention-to-treat population. This trial has been completed and the final results are reported. The study is registered at EudraCT, number 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN96397434., Findings: Patients were screened and enrolled between Oct 24, 2011, and Oct 7, 2013. Of 381 patients screened, 142 eligible patients were randomly assigned to treatment (72 to the vandetanib group and 70 to the placebo group). At database lock on July 15, 2015, at a median follow-up of 24·9 months (IQR 24·3 to not attainable), 131 patients had died: 70 (97%) of 72 in the vandetanib group and 61 (87%) of 70 in the placebo group. The median overall survival was 8·83 months (95% CI 7·11-11·58) in the vandetanib group and 8·95 months (6·55-11·74) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·21, 80·8% CI 0·95-1·53; log rank χ 2 1df 1·1, p=0·303). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [49%] of 72 patients in the vandetanib group vs 22 [31%] of 70 in the placebo group), thrombocytopenia (20 [28%] vs 16 [23%]), hypertension (nine [13%] vs 11 [16%]), leucopenia (12 [17%] vs 13 [19%]), and fatigue (17 [24%] vs 15 [21%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study., Interpretation: The addition of vandetanib to gemcitabine monotherapy did not improve overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors might still have potential in the treatment of pancreatic cancer but further development requires the identification of biomarkers to specifically identify responsive cancer subtypes., Funding: Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of sequential or simultaneous telomerase vaccination (GV1001) in combination with chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer., Methods: TeloVac was a three-group, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. We recruited patients from 51 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were treatment naive, aged older than 18 years, with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy with sequential GV1001 (sequential chemoimmunotherapy), or chemotherapy with concurrent GV1001 (concurrent chemoimmunotherapy). Treatments were allocated with equal probability by means of computer-generated random permuted blocks of sizes 3 and 6 in equal proportion. Chemotherapy included six cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2), 30 min intravenous infusion, at days 1, 8, and 15) and capecitabine (830 mg/m(2) orally twice daily for 21 days, repeated every 28 days). Sequential chemoimmunotherapy included two cycles of combination chemotherapy, then an intradermal lower abdominal injection of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; 75 μg) and GV1001 (0·56 mg; days 1, 3, and 5, once on weeks 2-4, and six monthly thereafter). Concurrent chemoimmunotherapy included giving GV1001 from the start of chemotherapy with GM-CSF as an adjuvant. The primary endpoint was overall survival; analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN4382138., Findings: The first patient was randomly assigned to treatment on March 29, 2007, and the trial was terminated on March 27, 2011. Of 1572 patients screened, 1062 were randomly assigned to treatment (358 patients were allocated to the chemotherapy group, 350 to the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 354 to the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). We recorded 772 deaths; the 290 patients still alive were followed up for a median of 6·0 months (IQR 2·4-12·2). Median overall survival was not significantly different in the chemotherapy group than in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group (7·9 months [95% CI 7·1-8·8] vs 6·9 months [6·4-7·6]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·19, 98·25% CI 0·97-1·48, p=0·05), or in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group (8·4 months [95% CI 7·3-9·7], HR 1·05, 98·25% CI 0·85-1·29, p=0·64; overall log-rank of χ(2)2df=4·3; p=0·11). The commonest grade 3-4 toxic effects were neutropenia (68 [19%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 58 [17%] patients in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 79 [22%] patients in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group; fatigue (27 [8%] in the chemotherapy group, 35 [10%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 44 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group); and pain (34 [9%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 39 [11%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 41 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group)., Interpretation: Adding GV1001 vaccination to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival. New strategies to enhance the immune response effect of telomerase vaccination during chemotherapy are required for clinical efficacy., Funding: Cancer Research UK and KAEL-GemVax., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We report two cases of presumed radiation-induced brachial plexus neuropathy in patients with lymphoma who were treated with standard mantle radiotherapy to a dose of 40 Gy in 20 fractions. Radiation-induced brachial plexopathy has not previously been reported following mantle irradiation at this dose. Both patients received chemotherapy in relapse. We postulate three possible causes: enhanced radiation sensitivity; an interaction between the chemotherapy and the radiotherapy; or an increased dose in axilla owing to a smaller separation at that point.

We report an unusually short lived and asymptomatic episode of severe cisplatin-induced renal tubular salt wasting in a fit 41-year-old patient with malignant teratoma. This was associated with polyuria but no significant hyponatraemia. Full recovery occurred because of early pick up, emphasizing the need for careful fluid balance monitoring of patients receiving cisplatin chemotherapy.