Tom Giannaris

Bio: Tom Giannaris is an academic researcher from Bayer. The author has contributed to research in topics: Hepatocellular carcinoma & Sorafenib. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 8412 citations.

Sorafenib in Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Abstract: 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.

Efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients in the Asia-Pacific region with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a phase III randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Abstract: Summary Background Most cases of hepatocellular carcinoma occur in the Asia-Pacific region, where chronic hepatitis B infection is an important aetiological factor. Assessing the efficacy and safety of new therapeutic options in an Asia-Pacific population is thus important. We did a multinational phase III, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in patients from the Asia-Pacific region with advanced (unresectable or metastatic) hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods Between Sept 20, 2005, and Jan 31, 2007, patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who had not received previous systemic therapy and had Child-Pugh liver function class A, were randomly assigned to receive either oral sorafenib (400 mg) or placebo twice daily in 6-week cycles, with efficacy measured at the end of each 6-week period. Eligible patients were stratified by the presence or absence of macroscopic vascular invasion or extrahepatic spread (or both), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and geographical region. Randomisation was done centrally and in a 2:1 ratio by means of an interactive voice-response system. There was no predefined primary endpoint; overall survival, time to progression (TTP), time to symptomatic progression (TTSP), disease control rate (DCR), and safety were assessed. Efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00492752. Findings 271 patients from 23 centres in China, South Korea, and Taiwan were enrolled in the study. Of these, 226 patients were randomly assigned to the experimental group (n=150) or to the placebo group (n=76). Median overall survival was 6·5 months (95% CI 5·56–7·56) in patients treated with sorafenib, compared with 4·2 months (3·75–5·46) in those who received placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·68 [95% CI 0·50–0·93]; p=0·014). Median TTP was 2·8 months (2·63–3·58) in the sorafenib group compared with 1·4 months (1·35–1·55) in the placebo group (HR 0·57 [0·42–0·79]; p=0·0005). The most frequently reported grade 3/4 drug-related adverse events in the 149 assessable patients treated with sorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR; 16 patients [10·7%]), diarrhoea (nine patients [6·0%]), and fatigue (five patients [3·4%]). The most common adverse events resulting in dose reductions were HFSR (17 patients [11·4%]) and diarrhoea (11 patients [7·4%]); these adverse events rarely led to discontinuation. Interpretation Sorafenib is effective for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in patients from the Asia-Pacific region, and is well tolerated. Taken together with data from the Sorafenib Hepatocellular Carcinoma Assessment Randomised Protocol (SHARP) trial, sorafenib seems to be an appropriate option for the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Funding Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals and Onyx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Modified RECIST (mRECIST) Assessment for Hepatocellular Carcinoma

Abstract: The endpoint in cancer research is overall survival. Nonetheless, other potential surrogate endpoints, such as response rate and time to progression, are currently used. Measurement of response rate in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has become a controversial issue. The World Health Organization (WHO) criteria underestimate the actual response rate; thus, they were amended in 2000 by a panel of experts convened by the European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) to take into account treatment-induced tumor necrosis. Applying these guidelines, there was an association between response rate and outcome prediction. More recently, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) guideline was proposed as a method for measuring treatment response based on tumor shrinkage, which is a valuable measure of antitumor activity of cytotoxic drugs. This method was initially adopted by regulatory agencies, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for drug approval. However, anatomic tumor response metrics can be misleading when applied to molecular-targeted therapies or locoregional therapies in HCC. In 2008, a group of experts convened by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD) developed a set of guidelines aimed at providing a common framework for the design of clinical trials in HCC and adapted the concept of viable tumor-tumoral tissue showing uptake in arterial phase of contrast-enhanced radiologic imaging techniques-to formally amend RECIST. These amendments conformed the AASLD-JNCI (Journal of the National Cancer Institute) guidelines and are summarized and clarified in the current article. They are referred to herein as the modified RECIST assessment (mRECIST). Further studies are needed to confirm the accuracy of this measurement compared with conventional gold standards such as pathologic studies of explanted livers.

From RECIST to PERCIST: Evolving Considerations for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors

Abstract: The purpose of this article is to review the status and limitations of anatomic tumor response metrics including the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), and RECIST 1.1. This article also reviews qualitative and quantitative approaches to metabolic tumor response assessment with 18 F-FDG PET and proposes a draft framework for PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST), version 1.0. Methods: PubMed searches, including searches for the terms RECIST, positron, WHO, FDG, cancer (including specific types), treatment response, region of interest, and derivative references, were performed. Abstracts and articles judged most relevant to the goals of this report were reviewed with emphasis on limitations and strengths of the anatomic and PET approaches to treatment response assessment. On the basis of these data and the authors’ experience, draft criteria were formulated for PET tumor response to treatment. Results: Approximately 3,000 potentially relevant references were screened. Anatomic imaging alone using standard WHO, RECIST, and RECIST 1.1 criteria is widely applied but still has