Ramucirumab versus placebo as second-line treatment in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib (REACH): A randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial
Zhu A.X.,Harvard University |
Park J.O.,Sungkyunkwan University |
Ryoo B.-Y.,University of Ulsan |
Yen C.-J.,National Cheng Kung University |
And 16 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2015
Background: VEGF and VEGF receptor-2-mediated angiogenesis contribute to hepatocellular carcinoma pathogenesis. Ramucirumab is a recombinant IgG1 monoclonal antibody and VEGF receptor-2 antagonist. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ramucirumab in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma following first-line therapy with sorafenib. Methods: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 trial (REACH), patients were enrolled from 154 centres in 27 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had hepatocellular carcinoma with Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage C disease or stage B disease that was refractory or not amenable to locoregional therapy, had Child-Pugh A liver disease, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, had previously received sorafenib (stopped because of progression or intolerance), and had adequate haematological and biochemical parameters. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo every 2 weeks, plus best supportive care, until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or death. Randomisation was stratified by geographic region and cause of liver disease with a stratified permuted block method. Patients, medical staff, investigators, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01140347. Findings: Between Nov 4, 2010, and April 18, 2013, 565 patients were enrolled, of whom 283 were assigned to ramucirumab and 282 were assigned to placebo. Median overall survival for the ramucirumab group was 9·2 months (95% CI 8·0-10·6) versus 7·6 months (6·0-9·3) for the placebo group (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·72-1·05]; p=0·14). Grade 3 or greater adverse events occurring in 5% or more of patients in either treatment group were ascites (13 [5%] of 277 patients treated with ramucirumab vs 11 [4%] of 276 patients treated with placebo), hypertension (34 [12%] vs ten [4%]), asthenia (14 [5%] vs five [2%]), malignant neoplasm progression (18 [6%] vs 11 [4%]), increased aspartate aminotransferase concentration (15 [5%] vs 23 [8%]), thrombocytopenia (13 [5%] vs one [<1%]), hyperbilirubinaemia (three [1%] vs 13 [5%]), and increased blood bilirubin (five [2%] vs 14 [5%]). The most frequently reported (≥1%) treatment-emergent serious adverse event of any grade or grade 3 or more was malignant neoplasm progression. Interpretation: Second-line treatment with ramucirumab did not significantly improve survival over placebo in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. No new safety signals were noted in eligible patients and the safety profile is manageable. Funding: Eli Lilly and Co. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. Source
Wang-Gillam A.,University of Washington |
Li C.-P.,Taipei Veterans General Hospital |
Bodoky G.,St. Laszlo Teaching Hospital |
Dean A.,St. John of God Hospital |
And 18 more authors.
The Lancet | Year: 2016
Background Nanoliposomal irinotecan showed activity in a phase 2 study in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapies. We assessed the effect of nanoliposomal irinotecan alone or combined with fluorouracil and folinic acid in a phase 3 trial in this population. Methods We did a global, phase 3, randomised, open-label trial at 76 sites in 14 countries. Eligible patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive web response system at a central location to receive either nanoliposomal irinotecan monotherapy (120 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, equivalent to 100 mg/m2 of irinotecan base) or fluorouracil and folinic acid. A third arm consisting of nanoliposomal irinotecan (80 mg/m2, equivalent to 70 mg/m2 of irinotecan base) with fluorouracil and folinic acid every 2 weeks was added later (1:1:1), in a protocol amendment. Randomisation was stratified by baseline albumin, Karnofsky performance status, and ethnic origin. Treatment was continued until disease progression or intolerable toxic effects. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The primary analysis was planned after 305 events. Safety was assessed in all patients who had received study drug. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01494506. Findings Between Jan 11, 2012, and Sept 11, 2013, 417 patients were randomly assigned either nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid (n=117), nanoliposomal irinotecan monotherapy (n=151), or fluorouracil and folinic acid (n=149). After 313 events, median overall survival in patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid was 6·1 months (95% CI 4·8-8·9) vs 4·2 months (3·3-5·3) with fluorouracil and folinic acid (hazard ratio 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·012). Median overall survival did not differ between patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan monotherapy and those allocated fluorouracil and folinic acid (4·9 months [4·2-5·6] vs 4·2 months [3·6-4·9]; 0·99, 0·77-1·28; p=0·94). The grade 3 or 4 adverse events that occurred most frequently in the 117 patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid were neutropenia (32 [27%]), diarrhoea (15 [13%]), vomiting (13 [11%]), and fatigue (16 [14%]). Interpretation Nanoliposomal irinotecan in combination with fluorouracil and folinic acid extends survival with a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who previously received gemcitabine-based therapy. This agent represents a new treatment option for this population. Funding Merrimack Pharmaceuticals. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. Source
Castera L.,Bordeaux University Hospital Center |
Foucher J.,Bordeaux University Hospital Center |
Bernard P.-H.,Hopital Saint Andre |
Carvalho F.,Bordeaux University Hospital Center |
And 4 more authors.
Hepatology | Year: 2010
Liver stiffness measurement (LSM) based on transient elastography (TE, FibroScan) is gaining in popularity for noninvasive assessment of liver fibrosis. However, LSM has limitations, which have not yet been thoroughly evaluated. We prospectively investigated the frequency and determinants of LSM failure and unreliable results over a 5-year period, based on 13,369 examinations (134,239 shots). LSM failure was defined as zero valid shots, and unreliable examinations were defined as fewer than 10 valid shots, an interquartile range (IQR)/LSM greater than 30%, or a success rate less than 60%. LSM failure occurred in 3.1% of all examinations (4% at first examination [n 7261]) and was independently associated at first examination with body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m2 (odds ratio [OR], 7.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6-10.2; P 0.0001), operator experience fewer than 500 examinations (OR 2.5 [1.6-4.0]; P 0.0001); age greater than 52 years (OR 2.3 [1.6-3.2]; P0.0001), and type 2 diabetes (OR 1.6 [1.1-2.2]; P0.009). Unreliable results were obtained in a further 15.8% of cases (17% at first examination) and were independently associated at first examination with BMI greater than 30 kg/m2 (OR 3.3 [2.8-4.0]; P 0.0001), operator experience fewer than 500 examinations (OR 3.1 [2.4-3.9]; P 0.0001), age greater than 52 years (OR 1.8 [1.6-2.1]; P 0.0001), female sex (OR 1.4 [1.2-1.6], P 0.0001), hypertension (OR 1.3 [1.1-1.5]; P0.003), and type 2 diabetes (OR 1.2 [1.0-1.5]; P 0.05). When metabolic syndrome and waist circumference were taken into account in a subgroup of 2835 patients, waist circumference was the most important determinant of LSM failure and unreliable results. Conclusion: In our experience, liver stiffness measurements are uninterpretable in nearly one in five cases. The principal reasons are obesity, particularly increased waist circumference, and limited operator experience. These results emphasize the need for adequate operator training and for technological improvements in specific patient subpopulations. Copyright © 2010 by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. Source
Zerbib F.,Hopital Saint Andre
Hepato-Gastro | Year: 2013
Eosinophilic esophagitis should be considered in young patients presenting with chronic dysphagia and esophageal impaction without significant weight loss. Some endoscopic signs are very suggestive of the diagnosis: esophageal rings, exsudates, furrows, stenosis or esophageal narrowing. The diagnosis is confirmed by esophageal biopsies showing eosinophilic infiltration of the esophageal mucosa (>15 eosinophils/hpf). The relationships betweenéosinophilic esophagitis, gastro-esophageal reflux disease and response to proton pump inhibitors are complex and not fully understood. The first line therapy is topical steroids and iterative esophageal dilations of stenosis. Dietary elimination can provide both clinical and histological remission since one or several food allergens are involved in most patients. Source
Fizazi K.,Institute Gustave Roussy |
Faivre L.,Institute Gustave Roussy |
Lesaunier F.,Center Francois Baclesse |
Delva R.,Institute Of Cancerologie Of Louest |
And 21 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2015
Background: Early risk-stratified chemotherapy is a standard treatment for breast, colorectal, and lung cancers, but not for high-risk localised prostate cancer. Combined docetaxel and estramustine improves survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. We assessed the effects of combined docetaxel and estramustine on relapse in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. Methods: We did this randomised phase 3 trial at 26 hospitals in France. We enrolled patients with treatment-naive prostate cancer and at least one risk factor (ie, stage T3-T4 disease, Gleason score of ≥8, prostate-specific antigen concentration >20 ng/mL, or pathological node-positive). All patients underwent a staging pelvic lymph node dissection. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either androgen deprivation therapy (ADT; goserelin 10·8 mg every 3 months for 3 years) plus four cycles of docetaxel on day 2 at a dose of 70 mg/m2 and estramustine 10 mg/kg per day on days 1-5, every 3 weeks, or ADT only. The randomisation was done centrally by computer, stratified by risk factor. Local treatment was administered at 3 months. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was relapse-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Follow-up for other endpoints is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00055731. Findings: We randomly assigned 207 patients to the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group and 206 to the ADT only group. Median follow-up was 8·8 years (IQR 8·1-9·7). 88 (43%) of 207 patients in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group had an event (relapse or death) versus 111 (54%) of 206 in the ADT only group. 8-year relapse-free survival was 62% (95% CI 55-69) in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 50% (44-57) in the ADT only group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·71, 95% CI 0·54-0·94, p=0·017). Of patients who were treated with radiotherapy and had data available, 31 (21%) of 151 in the ADT plus docetaxel and estramustine group versus 26 (18%) of 143 in the ADT only group reported a grade 2 or higher long-term side-effect (p=0·61). We recorded no excess second cancers (26 [13%] of 207 vs 22 [11%] of 206; p=0·57), and there were no treatment-related deaths. Interpretation: Docetaxel-based chemotherapy improves relapse-free survival in patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer. Longer follow-up is needed to assess whether this benefit translates into improved metastasis-free survival and overall survival. Funding: Ligue Contre le Cancer, Sanofi-Aventis, AstraZeneca, Institut National du Cancer. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. Source