Author
Thomas Yau
Other affiliations: Boston Medical Center, Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong, Queen Mary Hospital ...read more
Bio: Thomas Yau is an academic researcher from University of Hong Kong. The author has contributed to research in topics: Sorafenib & Hepatocellular carcinoma. The author has an hindex of 43, co-authored 204 publications receiving 9039 citations. Previous affiliations of Thomas Yau include Boston Medical Center & Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, University of Hong Kong.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
University of Navarra1, University of Hong Kong2, Kindai University3, National Taiwan University4, Seoul National University Hospital5, Goethe University Frankfurt6, University of Michigan7, Royal Free Hospital8, Asan Medical Center9, The Chinese University of Hong Kong10, Johns Hopkins University11, Bristol-Myers Squibb12, Chartered Institute of Management Accountants13
TL;DR: Durable objective responses show the potential of nivolumab for treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, and safety and tolerability for the escalation phase and objective response rate were primary endpoints.
2,908 citations
University of California, Los Angeles1, University of Ulsan2, Kindai University3, Samsung Medical Center4, Taipei Veterans General Hospital5, Chiba University6, Pontifical Catholic University of Chile7, The Chinese University of Hong Kong8, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre9, Merck & Co.10, Harvard University11, National Taiwan University12
TL;DR: The results are consistent with those of KEYNOTE-224, supporting a favorable risk-to-benefit ratio for pembrolizumab in this population, and one-sided significance thresholds for OS and PFS did not reach statistical significance per specified criteria.
Abstract: PURPOSEPembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and safety in the phase II KEYNOTE-224 trial in previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). KEYNOTE-240 evaluated ...
1,056 citations
University of Hong Kong1, Asan Medical Center2, Seoul National University3, University of Southern California4, Humanitas University5, University of Navarra6, Kindai University7, Memorial Hospital of South Bend8, Hospital General Universitario Gregorio Marañón9, University of Bologna10, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre11, Georgetown University Medical Center12, Emory University13, Samsung Medical Center14, Bristol-Myers Squibb15, National Taiwan University16
TL;DR: The manageable safety profile and promising response rates observed in this study support further investigation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab as a treatment option for this patient population.
Abstract: Importance Most patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are diagnosed with advanced disease not eligible for potentially curative therapies; therefore, new treatment options are needed. Combining nivolumab with ipilimumab may improve clinical outcomes compared with nivolumab monotherapy. Objective To assess efficacy and safety of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with advanced HCC who were previously treated with sorafenib. Design, Setting, and Participants CheckMate 040 is a multicenter, open-label, multicohort, phase 1/2 study. In the nivolumab plus ipilimumab cohort, patients were randomized between January 4 and September 26, 2016. Treatment group information was blinded after randomization. Median follow-up was 30.7 months. Data cutoff for this analysis was January 2019. Patients were recruited at 31 centers in 10 countries/territories in Asia, Europe, and North America. Eligible patients had advanced HCC (with/without hepatitis B or C) previously treated with sorafenib. A total of 148 patients were randomized (50 to arm A and 49 each to arms B and C). Interventions Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to either nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg, administered every 3 weeks (4 doses), followed by nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (arm A); nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg, administered every 3 weeks (4 doses), followed by nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks (arm B); or nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks (arm C). Main Outcomes and Measures Coprimary end points were safety, tolerability, and objective response rate. Duration of response was also measured (investigator assessed with the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors v1.1). Results Of 148 total participants, 120 were male (81%). Median (IQR) age was 60 (52.5-66.5). At data cutoff (January 2019), the median follow-up was 30.7 months (IQR, 29.9-34.7). Investigator-assessed objective response rate was 32% (95% CI, 20%-47%) in arm A, 27% (95% CI, 15%-41%) in arm B, and 29% (95% CI, 17%-43%) in arm C. Median (range) duration of response was not reached (8.3-33.7+) in arm A and was 15.2 months (4.2-29.9+) in arm B and 21.7 months (2.8-32.7+) in arm C. Any-grade treatment-related adverse events were reported in 46 of 49 patients (94%) in arm A, 35 of 49 patients (71%) in arm B, and 38 of 48 patients (79%) in arm C; there was 1 treatment-related death (arm A; grade 5 pneumonitis). Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial, nivolumab plus ipilimumab had manageable safety, promising objective response rate, and durable responses. The arm A regimen (4 doses nivolumab 1 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks then nivolumab 240 mg every 2 weeks) received accelerated approval in the US based on the results of this study. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT01658878
581 citations
TL;DR: The Hong Kong Liver Cancer (HKLC) classification had significantly better ability than the BCLC system to distinguish between patients with specific overall survival times and identified subsets of BCLCs intermediate- and advanced-stage patients for more aggressive treatments than what were recommended by the B CLC system, which improved survival outcomes.
553 citations
Fudan University1, Sun Yat-sen University2, University of Hong Kong3, The Chinese University of Hong Kong4, Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital5, Harbin Medical University6, Peking Union Medical College7, Shanghai Jiao Tong University8, National Taiwan University9, Sichuan University10, Cho Ray Hospital11, Taipei Veterans General Hospital12, Guangdong General Hospital13, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals14, University of Ulsan15
TL;DR: This phase 3 trial is the second to show an overall survival benefit with regorafenib compared with placebo in patients with treatment-refractory metastatic metastatic colorectal cancer, substantiating the role of regorAFenib.
Abstract: Summary Background In the international randomised phase 3 CORRECT trial (NCT01103323), regorafenib significantly improved overall survival versus placebo in patients with treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Of the 760 patients in CORRECT, 111 were Asian (mostly Japanese). This phase 3 trial was done to assess regorafenib in a broader population of Asian patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer than was studied in CORRECT. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done in 25 hospitals in mainland China, Hong Kong, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam, we recruited Asian patients aged 18 years or older with progressive metastatic colorectal cancer who had received at least two previous treatment lines or were unable to tolerate standard treatments. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, life expectancy of at least 3 months, and adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function, without other uncontrolled medical disorders. We randomly allocated patients (2:1; with a computer-generated unicentric randomisation list [prepared by the study funder] and interactive voice response system; block size of six; stratified by metastatic site [single vs multiple organs] and time from diagnosis of metastatic disease [ vs ≥18 months]) to receive oral regorafenib 160 mg once daily or placebo on days 1–21 of each 28 day cycle; patients in both groups were also to receive best supportive care. Participants, investigators, and the study funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, and we analysed data on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01584830. Findings Between April 29, 2012, and Feb 6, 2013, we screened 243 patients and randomly assigned 204 patients to receive either regorafenib (136 [67%]) or placebo (68 [33%]). After a median follow-up of 7·4 months (IQR 4·3–12·2), overall survival was significantly better with regorafenib than it was with placebo (hazard ratio 0·55, 95% CI 0·40–0·77, one-sided p=0·00016; median overall survival 8·8 months [95% CI 7·3–9·8] in the regorafenib group vs 6·3 months [4·8–7·6] in the placebo group). Drug-related adverse events occurred in 132 (97%) of 136 regorafenib recipients and 31 (46%) of 68 placebo recipients. The most frequent grade 3 or higher regorafenib-related adverse events were hand–foot skin reaction (22 [16%] of 136 patients in the regorafenib group vs none in the placebo group), hypertension (15 [11%] vs two [3%] of 68 patients in the placebo group), hyperbilirubinaemia (nine [7%] vs one [1%]), hypophosphataemia (nine [7%] vs none), alanine aminotransferase concentration increases (nine [7%] vs none), aspartate aminotransferase concentration increases (eight [6%] vs none), lipase concentration increases (six [4%] vs one [1%]), and maculopapular rash (six [4%] vs none). Drug-related serious adverse events occurred in 12 (9%) patients in the regorafenib group and three (4%) in the placebo group. Interpretation This phase 3 trial is the second to show an overall survival benefit with regorafenib compared with placebo in patients with treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, substantiating the role of regorafenib as an important treatment option for patients whose disease has progressed after standard treatments. In this trial, preceding standard treatments did not necessarily include targeted treatments. Adverse events were generally consistent with the known safety profile of regorafenib in this setting. Funding Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.
536 citations
Cited by
More filters
University of Colorado Boulder1, Harvard University2, Mayo Clinic3, Boston University4, University of Pennsylvania5, University of Pittsburgh6, University of Siena7, University Health Network8, Institut Gustave Roussy9, Oregon Health & Science University10, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center11, Duke University12, University of Cincinnati13, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center14, MedStar Washington Hospital Center15
TL;DR: Evidence-based recommendations are developed to inform clinical decision-making in the management of thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer and represent, in the authors' opinion, contemporary optimal care for patients with these disorders.
Abstract: Background: Thyroid nodules are a common clinical problem, and differentiated thyroid cancer is becoming increasingly prevalent. Since the American Thyroid Association's (ATA's) guidelines for the management of these disorders were revised in 2009, significant scientific advances have occurred in the field. The aim of these guidelines is to inform clinicians, patients, researchers, and health policy makers on published evidence relating to the diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. Methods: The specific clinical questions addressed in these guidelines were based on prior versions of the guidelines, stakeholder input, and input of task force members. Task force panel members were educated on knowledge synthesis methods, including electronic database searching, review and selection of relevant citations, and critical appraisal of selected studies. Published English language articles on adults were eligible for inclusion. The American College of Physicians Guideline Gr...
10,501 citations
TL;DR: The following Clinical Practice Guidelines will give up-to-date advice for the clinical management of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma, as well as providing an in-depth review of all the relevant data leading to the conclusions herein.
7,851 citations
TL;DR: It is suggested that metastasis can be portrayed as a two-phase process: the first phase involves the physical translocation of a cancer cell to a distant organ, whereas the second encompasses the ability of the cancer cellto develop into a metastatic lesion at that distant site.
Abstract: Metastasis causes most cancer deaths, yet this process remains one of the most enigmatic aspects of the disease. Building on new mechanistic insights emerging from recent research, we offer our perspective on the metastatic process and reflect on possible paths of future exploration. We suggest that metastasis can be portrayed as a two-phase process: The first phase involves the physical translocation of a cancer cell to a distant organ, whereas the second encompasses the ability of the cancer cell to develop into a metastatic lesion at that distant site. Although much remains to be learned about the second phase, we feel that an understanding of the first phase is now within sight, due in part to a better understanding of how cancer cell behavior can be modified by a cell-biological program called the epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition.
3,993 citations
TL;DR: New-generation combinatorial therapies may overcome resistance mechanisms to immune checkpoint therapy, and evidence points to alterations that converge on the antigen presentation and interferon-γ signaling pathways.
Abstract: The release of negative regulators of immune activation (immune checkpoints) that limit antitumor responses has resulted in unprecedented rates of long-lasting tumor responses in patients with a variety of cancers. This can be achieved by antibodies blocking the cytotoxic T lymphocyte–associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) or the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) pathway, either alone or in combination. The main premise for inducing an immune response is the preexistence of antitumor T cells that were limited by specific immune checkpoints. Most patients who have tumor responses maintain long-lasting disease control, yet one-third of patients relapse. Mechanisms of acquired resistance are currently poorly understood, but evidence points to alterations that converge on the antigen presentation and interferon-γ signaling pathways. New-generation combinatorial therapies may overcome resistance mechanisms to immune checkpoint therapy.
3,736 citations