Julien Taieb

Bio: Julien Taieb is an academic researcher from University of Paris. The author has contributed to research in topics: Colorectal cancer & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 50, co-authored 409 publications receiving 8679 citations. Previous affiliations of Julien Taieb include Paris Descartes University & French Institute of Health and Medical Research.

Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background Sorafenib is the recommended treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of sorafenib to that of selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) with yttrium-90 ( 90 Y) resin microspheres in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods SARAH was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial done at 25 centres specialising in liver diseases in France. Patients were eligible if they were aged at least 18 years with a life expectancy greater than 3 months, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, Child-Pugh liver function class A or B score of 7 or lower, and locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC] stage C), or new hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for surgical resection, liver transplantation, or thermal ablation after a previously cured hepatocellular carcinoma (cured by surgery or thermoablative therapy), or hepatocellular carcinoma with two unsuccessful rounds of transarterial chemoembolisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a permutated block method with block sizes two and four to receive continuous oral sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or SIRT with 90 Y-loaded resin microspheres 2–5 weeks after randomisation. Patients were stratified according to randomising centre, ECOG performance status, previous transarterial chemoembolisation, and presence of macroscopic vascular invasion. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of sorafenib or underwent at least one of the SIRT work-up exams. This study has been completed and the final results are reported here. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01482442. Findings Between Dec 5, 2011, and March 12, 2015, 467 patients were randomly assigned; after eight patients withdrew consent, 237 were assigned to SIRT and 222 to sorafenib. In the SIRT group, 53 (22%) of 237 patients did not receive SIRT; 26 (49%) of these 53 patients were treated with sorafenib. Median follow-up was 27·9 months (IQR 21·9–33·6) in the SIRT group and 28·1 months (20·0–35·3) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 8·0 months (95% CI 6·7–9·9) in the SIRT group versus 9·9 months (8·7–11·4) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% CI 0·94–1·41] for SIRT vs sorafenib; p=0·18). In the safety population, at least one serious adverse event was reported in 174 (77%) of 226 patients in the SIRT group and in 176 (82%) of 216 in the sorafenib group. The most frequent grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (20 [9%] vs 41 [19%]), liver dysfunction (25 [11%] vs 27 [13%]), increased laboratory liver values (20 [9%] vs 16 [7%]), haematological abnormalities (23 [10%] vs 30 [14%]), diarrhoea (three [1%] vs 30 [14%]), abdominal pain (six [3%] vs 14 [6%]), increased creatinine (four [2%] vs 12 [6%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (one [ vs 12 [6%]). 19 deaths in the SIRT group and 12 in the sorafenib group were deemed to be treatment related. Interpretation In patients with locally advanced or intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma after unsuccessful transarterial chemoembolisation, overall survival did not significantly differ between the two groups. Quality of life and tolerance might help when choosing between the two treatments. Funding Sirtex Medical Inc.

Angiogenesis and immunity: a bidirectional link potentially relevant for the monitoring of antiangiogenic therapy and the development of novel therapeutic combination with immunotherapy

Abstract: The immune system regulates angiogenesis in cancer with both pro- and antiangiogenic activities. The induction of angiogenesis is mediated by tumor-associated macrophages and myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSC) which produce proinflammatory cytokines, endothelial growth factors (VEGF, bFGF…), and protease (MMP9) implicated in neoangiogenesis. Some cytokines (IL-6, IL-17…) activated Stat3 which also led to the production of VEGF and bFGF. In contrast, other cytokines (IFN, IL-12, IL-21, and IL-27) display an antiangiogenic activity. Recently, it has been shown that some antiangiogenic molecules alleviates immunosuppression associated with cancer by decreasing immunosuppressive cells (MDSC, regulatory T cells), immunosuppressive cytokines (IL-10, TGFβ), and inhibitory molecules on T cells (PD-1). Some of these broad effects may result from the ability of some antiangiogenic molecules, especially cytokines to inhibit the Stat3 transcription factor. The association often observed between angiogenesis and immunosuppression may be related to hypoxia which induces both neoangiogenesis via activation of HIF-1 and VEGF and favors the intratumor recruitment and differentiation of regulatory T cells and MDSC. Preliminary studies suggest that modulation of immune markers (intratumoral MDSC and IL-8, peripheral regulatory T cells…) may predict clinical response to antiangiogenic therapy. In preclinical models, a synergy has been observed between antiangiogenic molecules and immunotherapy which may be explained by an improvement of immune status in tumor-bearing mice after antiangiogenic therapy. In preclinical models, antiangiogenic molecules promoted intratumor trafficking of effector cells, enhance endogenous anti-tumor response, and synergyzed with immunotherapy protocols to cure established murine tumors. All these results warrant the development of clinical trials combining antiangiogenic drugs and immunotherapy.

SIRFLOX: Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing First-Line mFOLFOX6 (Plus or Minus Bevacizumab) Versus mFOLFOX6 (Plus or Minus Bevacizumab) Plus Selective Internal Radiation Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Abstract: PurposeSIRFLOX was a randomized, multicenter trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) using yttrium-90 resin microspheres to standard fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)–based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer.Patients and MethodsChemotherapy-naive patients with liver metastases plus or minus limited extrahepatic metastases were randomly assigned to receive either modified FOLFOX (mFOLFOX6; control) or mFOLFOX6 plus SIRT (SIRT) plus or minus bevacizumab. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) at any site as assessed by independent centralized radiology review blinded to study arm.ResultsBetween October 2006 and April 2013, 530 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (control, 263; SIRT, 267). Median PFS at any site was 10.2 v 10.7 months in control versus SIRT (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.12; P = .43). Median PFS in the liver by competing risk analysi...

First-line selective internal radiotherapy plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global): a combined analysis of three multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trials

Abstract: Summary Background Data suggest selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) in third-line or subsequent therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer has clinical benefit in patients with colorectal liver metastases with liver-dominant disease after chemotherapy. The FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global randomised studies evaluated the efficacy of combining first-line chemotherapy with SIRT using yttrium-90 resin microspheres in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with liver metastases. The studies were designed for combined analysis of overall survival. Methods FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global were randomised, phase 3 trials done in hospitals and specialist liver centres in 14 countries worldwide (Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, Portugal, South Korea, Singapore, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA). Chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (WHO performance status 0 or 1) with liver metastases not suitable for curative resection or ablation were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (FOLFOX: leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) or FOLFOX plus single treatment SIRT concurrent with cycle 1 or 2 of chemotherapy. In FOXFIRE, FOLFOX chemotherapy was OxMdG (oxaliplatin modified de Gramont chemotherapy; 85 mg/m 2 oxaliplatin infusion over 2 h, L-leucovorin 175 mg or D,L-leucovorin 350 mg infusion over 2 h, and 400 mg/m 2 bolus fluorouracil followed by a 2400 mg/m 2 continuous fluorouracil infusion over 46 h). In SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-Global, FOLFOX chemotherapy was modified FOLFOX6 (85 mg/m 2 oxaliplatin infusion over 2 h, 200 mg leucovorin, and 400 mg/m 2 bolus fluorouracil followed by a 2400 mg/m 2 continuous fluorouracil infusion over 46 h). Randomisation was done by central minimisation with four factors: presence of extrahepatic metastases, tumour involvement of the liver, planned use of a biological agent, and investigational centre. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, using a two-stage meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data. All three trials have completed 2 years of follow-up. FOXFIRE is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83867919. SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-Global are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00724503 (SIRFLOX) and NCT01721954 (FOXFIRE-Global). Findings Between Oct 11, 2006, and Dec 23, 2014, 549 patients were randomly assigned to FOLFOX alone and 554 patients were assigned FOLFOX plus SIRT. Median follow-up was 43·3 months (IQR 31·6–58·4). There were 411 (75%) deaths in 549 patients in the FOLFOX alone group and 433 (78%) deaths in 554 patients in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group. There was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·90–1·19; p=0·61). The median survival time in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group was 22·6 months (95% CI 21·0–24·5) compared with 23·3 months (21·8–24·7) in the FOLFOX alone group. In the safety population containing patients who received at least one dose of study treatment, as treated, the most common grade 3–4 adverse event was neutropenia (137 [24%] of 571 patients receiving FOLFOX alone vs 186 (37%) of 507 patients receiving FOLFOX plus SIRT). Serious adverse events of any grade occurred in 244 (43%) of 571 patients receiving FOLFOX alone and 274 (54%) of 507 patients receiving FOLFOX plus SIRT. 10 patients in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group and 11 patients in the FOLFOX alone group died due to an adverse event; eight treatment-related deaths occurred in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group and three treatment-related deaths occurred in the FOLFOX alone group. Interpretation Addition of SIRT to first-line FOLFOX chemotherapy for patients with liver-only and liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve overall survival compared with that for FOLFOX alone. Therefore, early use of SIRT in combination with chemotherapy in unselected patients with metastatic colorectal cancer cannot be recommended. To further define the role of SIRT in metastatic colorectal cancer, careful patient selection and studies investigating the role of SIRT as consolidation therapy after chemotherapy are needed. Funding Bobby Moore Fund of Cancer Research UK, Sirtex Medical.

Glioblastoma microvesicles transport RNA and proteins that promote tumour growth and provide diagnostic biomarkers

Abstract: Glioblastoma tumour cells release microvesicles (exosomes) containing mRNA, miRNA and angiogenic proteins. These microvesicles are taken up by normal host cells, such as brain microvascular endothelial cells. By incorporating an mRNA for a reporter protein into these microvesicles, we demonstrate that messages delivered by microvesicles are translated by recipient cells. These microvesicles are also enriched in angiogenic proteins and stimulate tubule formation by endothelial cells. Tumour-derived microvesicles therefore serve as a means of delivering genetic information and proteins to recipient cells in the tumour environment. Glioblastoma microvesicles also stimulated proliferation of a human glioma cell line, indicating a self-promoting aspect. Messenger RNA mutant/variants and miRNAs characteristic of gliomas could be detected in serum microvesicles of glioblastoma patients. The tumour-specific EGFRvIII was detected in serum microvesicles from 7 out of 25 glioblastoma patients. Thus, tumour-derived microvesicles may provide diagnostic information and aid in therapeutic decisions for cancer patients through a blood test.

Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map?

Abstract: There is confusion and misunderstanding about the concepts of knowledge translation, knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, research utilization, implementation, diffusion, and dissemination. We review the terms and definitions used to describe the concept of moving knowledge into action. We also offer a conceptual framework for thinking about the process and integrate the roles of knowledge creation and knowledge application. The implications of knowledge translation for continuing education in the health professions include the need to base continuing education on the best available knowledge, the use of educational and other transfer strategies that are known to be effective, and the value of learning about plannedaction theories to be better able to understand and influence change in practice settings.

Membrane vesicles as conveyors of immune responses

Abstract: In multicellular organisms, communication between cells mainly involves the secretion of proteins that then bind to receptors on neighbouring cells But another mode of intercellular communication - the release of membrane vesicles - has recently become the subject of increasing interest Membrane vesicles are complex structures composed of a lipid bilayer that contains transmembrane proteins and encloses soluble hydrophilic components derived from the cytosol of the donor cell These vesicles have been shown to affect the physiology of neighbouring recipient cells in various ways, from inducing intracellular signalling following binding to receptors to conferring new properties after the acquisition of new receptors, enzymes or even genetic material from the vesicles This Review focuses on the role of membrane vesicles, in particular exosomes, in the communication between immune cells, and between tumour and immune cells