Background No effective systemic therapy exists for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. A preliminary study suggested that sorafenib, an oral multikinase inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, the platelet-derived growth factor receptor, and Raf may be effective in hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods In this multicenter, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 602 patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma who had not received previous systemic treatment to receive either sorafenib (at a dose of 400 mg twice daily) or placebo. Primary outcomes were overall survival and the time to symptomatic progression. Secondary outcomes included the time to radiologic progression and safety. Results At the second planned interim analysis, 321 deaths had occurred, and the study was stopped. Median overall survival was 10.7 months in the sorafenib group and 7.9 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the sorafenib group, 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.87; P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the two groups in the median time to symptomatic progression (4.1 months vs. 4.9 months, respectively, P=0.77). The median time to radiologic progression was 5.5 months in the sorafenib group and 2.8 months in the placebo group (P<0.001). Seven patients in the sorafenib group (2%) and two patients in the placebo group (1%) had a partial response; no patients had a complete response. Diarrhea, weight loss, hand-foot skin reaction, and hypophosphatemia were more frequent in the sorafenib group. Conclusions In patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, median survival and the time to radiologic progression were nearly 3 months longer for patients treated with sorafenib than for those given placebo.

/pdf/sorafenib-in-advanced-hepatocellular-carcinoma-3xdq9sbovw.pdf

Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Background
Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty.

Objectives
To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions.

Search methods
For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008).

Selection criteria
We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were:

A) 'choice made' attributes;

B) 'decision-making process' attributes.

Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model.

Main results
This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each.

Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies).

A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes:

Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13).

B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes:

Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in:

a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18);

b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and

c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18).

Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice.

C) Secondary outcomes

Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable.

The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive.

Authors' conclusions
There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values.

New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

/pdf/decision-aids-for-people-facing-health-treatment-or-1j1706q17l.pdf

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

CA : A Cancer Journal for Clinicians

Background Interferon alfa is widely used for metastatic renal-cell carcinoma but has limited efficacy and tolerability. Temsirolimus, a specific inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin kinase, may benefit patients with this disease. Methods In this multicenter, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 626 patients with previously untreated, poor-prognosis metastatic renal-cell carcinoma to receive 25 mg of intravenous temsirolimus weekly, 3 million U of interferon alfa (with an increase to 18 million U) subcutaneously three times weekly, or combination therapy with 15 mg of temsirolimus weekly plus 6 million U of interferon alfa three times weekly. The primary end point was overall survival in comparisons of the temsirolimus group and the combination-therapy group with the interferon group. Results Patients who received temsirolimus alone had longer overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.92; P=0.008) and progression-free survival (P<0.001) than did patie...

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa066838

Temsirolimus, interferon alfa, or both for advanced renal-cell carcinoma.

https://rihuc.huc.min-saude.pt/bitstream/10400.4/1818/1/renal%20cell%20carcinoma.pdf

EAU Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: 2014 Update

Although early stage disease detection and treatment options for clear cell renal cell cancer (ccRCC) improved in recent years, prognosis of patients with late stage ccRCC remains poor, mostly due to development of tyrosine kinase inhibitors and mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors resistance followed by disease progression. Cancer stem cells (ccRCC-CSC) model has focused a significant attention in recent years as a potential explanation for the tumor heterogeneity, drug resistance, disease recurrence and metastasis of ccRCC and other cancers. Cancer stem cells have been proposed to be responsible for tumor initiation, repopulation and growth that cause patients to succumb to renal cancer. Precise identification of ccRCC-CSC populations and definition of hierarchy of cells within ccRCC tumor including tumor initiating cells and tumor progenitor cells will facilitate accurate characterization of drug targets and ultimately contribute to more personalized and effective care. This mini-review discusses the potential strategies to inhibit the signaling pathways underlying stemness in an effort to treat renal cancer. Mechanism that could be exploited as a therapeutic target against drug resistant ccRCC-CSCs is summarized.

Renal Cell Carcinoma Cancer Stem Cells as Therapeutic Targets

Ovarian cancer remains to be a real challenge in spite of considerable progress in many areas of modern medicine. The use of genetic testing for detecting mutations of the BRCA genes has been offering clinical scrutiny between mutated versions of the BRCA genes and higher risk of both breast and ovarian cancer. A population survey is a method of choice to find out more efficient screening management in order to identify cancer patients who further will be treated effectively early. A review of literature on surgical PBSO (prophylactic bilateral salpingooophorectomy) in the BRCA genes mutations carriers with focus on preventive results against morbidity of ovarian cancer has been presented in the article.

/pdf/surgical-treatment-in-ovarian-cancer-prevention-in-carriers-1lkc7dh38o.pdf

[Surgical treatment in ovarian cancer prevention in carriers of the BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation].

Since its early development, the vascular endothelial growth factors (VEGFRs) inhibitor pazopanib showed both activity and tolerability in patients with metastatic RCC (mRCC) (Hurwitz et al., 2009), results which were subsequently confirmed in the following studies. A phase II study was at first designed as a randomized discontinuation study, but lately revised to an open-label study based on week 12 response rate (RR) of 38% in the first 60 patients. Thus, the primary end-point was changed from progressive disease rate at 16 weeks post-randomization to RR (Hutson et al., 2010). Overall RR was 35%, median duration of response was 68 weeks, and median progression-free survival (PFS) was 52 weeks (Hutson et al., 2010).

Pazopanib was registered based on a global randomized, placebo-controlled, phase III trial. Of the 435 patients enrolled, 233 (54%) were treatment-naive, while 202 (46%) were pre-treated with cytokines. Pazopanib significantly prolonged PFS in overall study population [median PFS: 9.2 vs. 4.2 months, hazard ratio (HR): 0.46, 95% CI: 0.34–0.62, p < 0.0001], in the cytokine-pretreated subpopulation, as well as in the treatment-naive subpopulation (median PFS: 11.1 vs. 2.8 months, HR: 0.40, 95% CI: 0.27–0.60, p < 0.0001), compared to placebo (Sternberg et al., 2010). Furthermore, the objective response rate (ORR) was 30% with pazopanib with a median duration of response longer than 1 year. None clinically important difference in quality of life for pazopanib vs. placebo was observed in the safety analysis (Sternberg et al., 2010).

More recently, the phase III COMPARZ study directly compared pazopanib with sunitinib in a non-inferiority study (Escudier et al., 2014). Pazopanib was non-inferior to sunitinib in terms of PFS (HR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.90–1.22—predefined upper bound of the 95% CI < 1.25), and similar in OS (HR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.76–1.08; Motzer et al., 2013); ORR was higher for pazopanib, as compared to sunitinib (31 vs. 25%, p = 0.03; Motzer et al., 2013). In terms of safety, pazopanib-treated patients experienced less fatigue, fewer side effects, including soreness of hand/foot and mouth/throat, and were more satisfied with treatment than those who received sunitinib (Motzer et al., 2013; Table ​Table1).1). Less fatigue and better overall quality of life were the most common reasons that justified the preference of pazopanib vs. sunitinib (70 vs. 22%, p < 0.01) in the PISCES study, a cross-over, double blind trial which specifically assessed the innovative endpoint of patients' preference (Escudier et al., 2014).

Table 1

Comparison of baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes and adverse events in pivotal studies.

/pdf/pazopanib-in-patients-with-clear-cell-renal-cell-carcinoma-3oiok4dfjk.pdf

Pazopanib in Patients with Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Seeking the Right Patient.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal types of malignant solid tumor and is typically associated with a poor prognosis. The majority of patients are diagnosed with advanced-stage disease, therefore, the median survival period is <6 months. Recently, a number of basic research projects and clinical trials were undertaken with the aim of improving treatment outcomes in pancreatic cancer; however, only one agent, erlotinib, passed the clinical trials. Erlotinib is an inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor, which when overexpressed in cancer, promotes angiogenesis, cell proliferation and inhibits apoptosis. The US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency approved erlotinib in combination with gemcitabine for the first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. To the best of our knowledge, the current study is the first to report a case of pancreatic cancer treated with this regimen alone to achieve a complete response (CR). A 40-year-old male with a medical history of chronic pancreatitis and hypertension was diagnosed with medically inoperable adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. Following palliative surgery, the patient began palliative gemcitabine and erlotinib chemotherapy. After three months, this treatment strategy resulted in a CR, as determined by imaging studies. Therapy was discontinued after 14 months due to the development of peritoneal metastases and the patient was referred for treatment with the folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan and oxaliplatin regimen. A CR is rarely reported in pancreatic cancer, however, a treatment strategy of gemcitabine and erlotinib may induce rapid regression of advanced-stage disease.

/pdf/prolonged-complete-response-following-gemcitabine-erlotinib-4zmtgan8mx.pdf

Prolonged complete response following gemcitabine-erlotinib combined therapy in advanced pancreatic cancer

Due to its high incidence and poor prognosis, gastric cancer is an important health problem worldwide. The only possible curative treatment is to remove the primary tumor at an early stage of the disease. However, at diagnosis, most patients have unresectable or metastatic disease. Relapse in patients after primary surgery is frequent. In these patients, the aim of treatment is to extend the duration of survival and to improve quality of life and this accomplished by systemic therapies. Regimens containing fluoropyrimidine and platinum agents, in combination with trastuzumab in patients with overexpression of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2), are recommended as the first-line treatment. Unfortunately, all patients develop progressive disease, but at least half of them are eligible for further treatment. This article presents current possibilities and near-future developments of chemotherapy and molecular targeted-therapy in patients with advanced gastric cancer after failure of prior regimens containing fluoropyrimidine and platinum.

Cezary Szczylik

Papers

Renal Cell Carcinoma Cancer Stem Cells as Therapeutic Targets

[Surgical treatment in ovarian cancer prevention in carriers of the BRCA1/BRCA2 mutation].

Pazopanib in Patients with Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Seeking the Right Patient.

Prolonged complete response following gemcitabine-erlotinib combined therapy in advanced pancreatic cancer

Second-line Treatment of Advanced Gastric Cancer: Current Options and Future Perspectives.