Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The 10-year overall survival with adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy after resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLMs) was 61% in clinical trials from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. A pilot study was performed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy in patients with resectable CRLMs. Study Design A phase II study was performed in two centers in The Netherlands. Patients with resectable CRLM without extrahepatic disease were eligible. All patients underwent complete resection and/or ablation of CRLMs and pump implantation. Safety was determined by the 90-day HAIP-related postoperative complications from the day of pump placement (Clavien–Dindo classification, grade III or higher) and feasibility by the successful administration of the first cycle of HAIP chemotherapy. Results A total of 20 patients, with a median age of 57 years (interquartile range [IQR] 51–64) were included. Grade III or higher HAIP-related postoperative complications were found in two patients (10%), both of whom had a reoperation (without laparotomy) to replace a pump with a slow flow rate or to reposition a flipped pump. No arterial bleeding, arterial dissection, arterial thrombosis, extrahepatic perfusion, pump pocket hematoma, or pump pocket infections were found within 90 days after surgery. After a median of 43 days (IQR 29–52) following surgery, all patients received the first dose of HAIP chemotherapy, which was completed uneventfully in all patients. Conclusion Pump implantation is safe, and administration of HAIP chemotherapy is feasible, in patients with resectable CRLMs, after training of a dedicated multidisciplinary team.

IntroductionStandard premedication for paclitaxel-based chemotherapy includes dexamethasone and an histamine 1-antagonist to prevent hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs). However, the pharmacological rationale for dexamethasone is limited, and its use is associated with adverse effects such as hyperglycaemia, insomnia and immunodeficiency, negatively impacting health-related quality of life (HRQoL). No clear link has been established between dexamethasone dose, administration route and HSR incidence. Previous studies suggest that discontinuing dexamethasone beyond the second administration does not increase HSR risk. Despite this, dexamethasone remains standard practice. This trial evaluates whether complete omission of dexamethasone as paclitaxel premedication is non-inferior to the standard regimen in preventing clinically relevant HSRs (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade≥3).MethodsThe DEXASTOP trial is a prospective, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority study conducted in four hospitals in the Netherlands. 500 adult patients receiving paclitaxel-based chemotherapy for any solid tumour indication will be randomised 1:1 to receive either standard premedication with dexamethasone or an experimental regimen without dexamethasone for up to five paclitaxel administrations. The primary endpoint is the incidence of clinically relevant HSRs (CTCAE grade≥3). Secondary endpoints include the incidence and severity of all-grade HSRs, the number of paclitaxel administrations before the first HSR, dexamethasone-related adverse events, HRQoL and cost-effectiveness from a healthcare and societal perspective.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Erasmus Medical Centre Ethics Committee (reference MEC-2024-0030, protocol version 3, May 2024). Study findings will be published open access in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international meetings. Results will be shared with patients, healthcare professionals and the public. Positive outcomes will be implemented in clinical practice, and trial data will be submitted to the EU Clinical Trials Information System for public access.Trial registration numberNCT06118710.

ContextThe pathogenesis of tyrosine kinase inhibitor-induced thyroid hormone (TH) alterations are still a matter of debate.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to determine the effects of sorafenib on TH levels in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to evaluate possible mechanisms.DesignWe performed a prospective cohort study between 2009 and 2016.SettingThis study was conducted at a tertiary referral center.PatientsThis study included 57 consecutive patients with HCC who were treated with sorafenib.Main Outcome MeasureThyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and free thyroxine (FT4) levels were measured every 6 weeks, and extensive thyroid function tests (TFTs) were measured before treatment (t0), after 6 weeks (t6), and at the end of therapy. The effect of sorafenib on TH transport by monocarboxylate transporter (MCT)8 or MCT10 was tested in transfected COS1 cells.ResultsFour patients (7%) developed thyroiditis. Among the other patients, 30% had elevation of TSH or FT4 above the normal range. Overall, between t0 and t6, mean TSH increased from 1.28 to 1.57 mU/L (P < 0.001) and mean FT4 from 18.4 to 21.2 pmol/L (P < 0.001). Simultaneously, the serum triiodothyronine (T3)/reverse triiodothyronine ratio and the (T3/thyroxine) ×100 ratio decreased. Sorafenib decreased cellular T3 uptake by MCT8 and to a lesser extent by MCT10.ConclusionsThese in vivo data suggest that sorafenib affects TFTs on multiple levels. Our in vitro experiments suggest a possible role of sorafenib-induced inhibition of T3 transport into the cell by MCT8 and MCT10.Sorafenib-induced changes in thyroid function tests are mediated at several levels in vivo. In vitro experiments show inhibition of T3 transport into the cell by MCT8 and MCT10.

Sorafenib-treated patients display a substantial variation in the incidence of toxicity. We aimed to investigate the association of genetic polymorphisms with observed toxicity on sorafenib. We genotyped 114 patients that were treated with sorafenib at the Erasmus MC Cancer Institute, the Netherlands, for SLCO1B1, SLCO1B3, ABCC2, ABCG2, UGT1A1 and UGT1A9. The UGT1A1 (rs8175347) polymorphism was associated with hyperbilirubinemia and treatment interruption. Polymorphisms in SLCO1B1 (rs2306283, rs4149056) were associated with diarrhea and thrombocytopenia, respectively. None of the investigated polymorphisms was associated with overall or progression-free survival in hepatocellular cancer patients. Polymorphisms in SLCO1B1 and UGT1A1 are associated with several different sorafenib side effects.

Background: Data from previous work suggests that there is no correlation between systemic (plasma) paclitaxel exposure and efficacy in patients treated for esophageal cancer. In this trial, we investigated ATP-binding cassette efflux transporter expression and intratumoral pharmacokinetics of paclitaxel to identify changes which could be a first sign of chemoresistance. Methods: Patients with esophageal cancer treated with paclitaxel and carboplatin (± concomitant radiotherapy) were included. During the first and last cycle of weekly paclitaxel, blood samples and biopsies of esophageal mucosa and tumor tissue were taken. Changes in paclitaxel exposure and expression of ABCB1 (P-glycoprotein) over time were studied in both tumor tissue and normal appearing esophageal mucosa. Results: ABCB1 was significantly higher expressed in tumor tissue compared to esophageal tissue, during both the first and last cycle of paclitaxel (cycle 1: p < 0.01; cycle 5/6: p = 0.01). Interestingly, ABCB1 expression was significantly higher in adenocarcinoma than in squamous cell carcinoma ( p < 0.01). During the first cycle, a trend towards a higher intratumoral paclitaxel concentration was observed compared to the esophageal mucosa concentration (RD:43%; 95%CI: −3% to 111% p = 0.07). Intratumoral and plasma paclitaxel concentrations were significantly correlated during the first cycle (AUC 0–48 h : r = 0.72; p < 0.01). Conclusion: Higher ABCB1 expression in tumor tissue, and differences between histological tumor types might partly explain why tumors respond differently to systemic treatment. Resistance by altered intratumoral paclitaxel concentrations could not be demonstrated because the majority of the biopsies taken at the last cycle of paclitaxel did contain a low amount of tumor cells or no tumor.

Many patients have advanced esophageal cancer at diagnosis. However, the most optimal treatment has not been identified. Therefore, we evaluated a weekly regimen of carboplatin (area under the curve (AUC)) of 4 and paclitaxel at 100 mg/m2 as an induction or palliative treatment. All patients with advanced (gastro)esophageal cancer treated with this regimen between 2002–2018 were included. Exclusion criteria were previous radiotherapy or treatment elsewhere. Data on toxicity, response, and survival were collected. Analyses were performed in two groups: induction (iCT) or palliative chemotherapy (pCT). Median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated with the Kaplan–Meier method. A total of 291 patients was included (iCT: 122; pCT: 169). Most patients had T3 carcinoma (iCT: 54%; pCT: 66%) and stage IV disease (iCT: 42%; pCT: 91%). A toxicity grade ≥3 occurred mainly as hematological toxicity (iCT: 71%; pCT: 73%) and gastrointestinal toxicity (iCT: 3%; pCT: 5%). Response rates were 48% (iCT) and 44% (pCT). Esophagectomy or definitive chemoradiotherapy followed in 42% of iCT, resulting in a PFS of 22.1 months (interquartile range (IQR): 12.4–114.2) and OS of 26.8 months (IQR: 15.4–91.7). For pCT, PFS was 8.2 months (IQR: 5.1–14.5) and OS 10.9 months (IQR: 6.5–18.3). This retrospective cohort study demonstrated that weekly carboplatin (AUC4) and paclitaxel (100 mg/m2) is a well-tolerated and effective induction or palliative treatment regimen for patients with locally advanced or metastatic disease. Future research should directly compare this treatment regimen with other first-line treatment options to determine its true value for clinical practice.

Prior studies have demonstrated an organic anion transporter 6 (OAT6)-mediated accumulation of sorafenib in keratinocytes. The OAT6 inhibitor probenecid decreases sorafenib uptake in skin and might, therefore, decrease sorafenib-induced cutaneous adverse events. Here, the influence of probenecid on sorafenib pharmacokinetics and toxicity was investigated. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed in 16 patients on steady-state sorafenib treatment at days 1 and 15 of the study. Patients received sorafenib (200–800 mg daily) in combination with probenecid (500 mg two times daily (b.i.d.)) on days 2–15. This study was designed to determine bioequivalence with geometric mean Area under the curve from zero to twelve hours (AUC0–12 h) as primary endpoint. During concomitant probenecid, sorafenib plasma AUC0–12 h decreased by 27% (90% CI: −38% to −14%; P < 0.01). Furthermore, peak and trough levels of sorafenib, as well as sorafenib concentrations in skin, decreased to a similar extent in the presence of probenecid. The metabolic ratio of sorafenib-glucuronide to parent drug increased (+29%) in the presence of probenecid. A decrease in systemic sorafenib concentrations during probenecid administration seems to have influenced cutaneous concentrations. Since sorafenib-glucuronide concentrations increased compared with sorafenib and sorafenib-N-oxide, probenecid may have interrupted enterohepatic circulation of sorafenib by inhibition of the organic anion transporting polypeptides 1B1 (OATP1B1). Sorafenib treatment with probenecid is, therefore, not bioequivalent to sorafenib monotherapy. A clear effect of probenecid on sorafenib toxicity could not be identified in this study.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) recurrence after liver transplantation occurs in approximately 20% of patients. Most of these patients use immunosuppressant drugs. Meanwhile, patients with HCC recurrence are frequently treated with the small molecule kinase inhibitor (SMKI) sorafenib. However, sorafenib and many immunosuppressants are substrates of the same enzymatic pathways (e.g., CYP3A4), which may potentially result in altered SMKI or immunosuppressant plasma levels. Therefore, we investigated changes in drug exposure of both sorafenib and immunosuppressants over time in four patients with systemic immunosuppressant and sorafenib treatment after HCC recurrence. In this study, sorafenib exposure declined over time during combined treatment with immunosuppressants, while two patients also experienced declining tacrolimus plasma levels. Importantly, patients were unable to increase the sorafenib dose higher than 200 mg b.i.d. without experiencing significant toxicity. We recommend to treat patients using both sorafenib and immunosuppressants with a sorafenib starting dose of 200 mg b.i.d.

Changes in body composition are associated with chemotherapy-related toxicities and effectiveness of treatment. It is hypothesized that the pharmacokinetics (PK) of chemotherapeutics may depend on body composition. The effects of body composition on the variability of paclitaxel PK were studied in patients with esophageal cancer. Skeletal muscle index (SMI), visceral adipose tissue (VAT), and skeletal muscle density (SMD) were measured at the third lumbar vertebra on computed tomography (CT) scans performed before treatment. Paclitaxel PK data were collected from a prospective study performed between May 2004 and January 2014. Non-linear mixed-effects modeling was used to fit paclitaxel PK profiles and evaluate the covariates body surface area (BSA), SMI, VAT, and SMD using a significance threshold of p < 0.001. Paclitaxel was administered to 184 patients in a dose range of 50 to 175 mg/m2. Median BSA was 1.98 m2 (range of 1.4 to 2.8 m2). SMI, VAT, and SMD were not superior to BSA in predicting paclitaxel PK. The additive value of SMI, VAT, and SMD to BSA was also negligible. We did not find evidence that paclitaxel dosing could be further optimized by correcting for SMI, VAT, or SMD.

Chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA), a side effect with high impact, can be prevented by cooling the scalp during the administration of some cytotoxic drugs. However, the effects of this prolonged scalp cooling on the pharmacokinetics of chemotherapy have never been investigated. In this study, we compared the pharmacokinetics of the widely used chemotherapeutic agent paclitaxel (weekly dose of 80–100 mg/m2) in female patients with solid tumors using concomitant scalp cooling (n = 14) or not (n = 24). Blood samples were collected in all patients for pharmacokinetic analyses up to 6 h after one course of paclitaxel administration. The primary endpoint was the clearance (L/h) of paclitaxel. Paclitaxel clearance—expressed as relative difference in geometric means—was 6.8% (90% CI: −16.7% to 4.4%) lower when paclitaxel was administered with concomitant scalp cooling versus paclitaxel infusions without scalp cooling. Within the subgroup of patients using scalp cooling, paclitaxel clearance was not statistically significantly different between patients with CIA (alopecia grade 1 or 2) and those without CIA. Hence, scalp cooling did not negatively influence the clearance of paclitaxel treatment.