Explore the vast range of titles available.

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 (90Y) resin microspheres in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. 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 90Y-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. 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 [<1%] vs 12 [6%]). 19 deaths in the SIRT group and 12 in the sorafenib group were deemed to be treatment related. 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. Sirtex Medical Inc.

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. 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/m2 oxaliplatin infusion over 2 h, L-leucovorin 175 mg or D,L-leucovorin 350 mg infusion over 2 h, and 400 mg/m2 bolus fluorouracil followed by a 2400 mg/m2 continuous fluorouracil infusion over 46 h). In SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-Global, FOLFOX chemotherapy was modified FOLFOX6 (85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin infusion over 2 h, 200 mg leucovorin, and 400 mg/m2 bolus fluorouracil followed by a 2400 mg/m2 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). 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. 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. Bobby Moore Fund of Cancer Research UK, Sirtex Medical.

Palliative treatment options for painful hepatic cancer can be restricted due to patients eventually becoming refractory to standard treatment. The aim of this study was to determine whether radiotherapy improves hepatic pain from cancer. In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial (CCTG HE1) done in nine cancer centres across Canada, we included patients aged 18 years or older with hepatocellular carcinoma or liver metastases, who were refractory to standard treatment, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–3, with life expectancy of more than 3 months, and pain or discomfort at its worst in the past 24 hours on the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) of at least 4 out of 10, which was stable for up to 7 days before randomisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), via a minimisation method after stratification by centre and type of cancer (hepatocellular carcinoma vs liver metastases), to single-fraction radiotherapy (8 Gy) to the liver with 8 mg ondansetron (or equivalent) orally and 4 mg dexamethasone orally given 1–2 h before radiotherapy plus best supportive care (including non-opioid or opioid analgesia, or dexamethasone, or a combination of these) or best supportive care alone. The primary endpoint was improvement in patient-reported liver cancer pain or discomfort of at least 2 points on worst pain intensity on the BPI at 1 month after randomisation. All patients with both baseline and 1-month assessments were included in the primary endpoint analysis. Safety was assessed in all patients randomly assigned to treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02511522, and is complete. Between July 25, 2015, and June 2, 2022, 66 patients were screened and randomly assigned to radiotherapy plus best supportive care (n=33) or best supportive care (n=33). Median age was 65 years (IQR 57–72), 37 (56%) of 66 patients were male, 29 (44%) were female, 43 (65%) had liver metastases, and 23 (35%) had hepatocellular carcinoma (data on race and ethnicity were not collected). As of data cutoff (Sept 8, 2022), median follow-up was 3·2 months (95% CI 3·0–3·4). 24 (73%) of 33 in the radiotherapy plus best supportive care group and 18 (55%) of 33 in the best supportive care only group completed baseline and 1-month assessments. An improvement in hepatic pain of at least 2 points in worst pain intensity on the BPI at 1 month was seen in 16 (67%) of 24 patients in the radiotherapy plus best supportive care group versus four (22%) of 18 patients in the best supportive care group (p=0·0042). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events within 1 month after randomisation were abdominal pain (three [9%] of 33 in the radiotherapy group vs one [3%] of 33 in best supportive care group) and ascites (two [6%] vs one [3%]). No serious adverse events or treatment-related deaths were observed. Single-fraction radiotherapy plus best supportive care improved pain compared with best supportive care alone in patients with liver cancer, and could be considered a standard palliative treatment. Canadian Cancer Society.

In Thailand, individuals with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) who develop portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) have a restricted treatment option because to the extent of the disease, poor underlying liver function, and non-coverage of immuno/targeted therapy. Radiotherapy (RT) plays an increasingly important function in these patients. To investigate the feasibility, efficacy, and adverse event rates, we performed a retrospective analysis of patients with HCC with PVTT who underwent 3-dimensional conformal radiation (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation (IMRT), volumetric-modulated radiotherapy (VMAT), and stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in a single-institution. To examine clinical results in terms of overall survival (OS), local control (LC), response of primary tumor and PVTT, hepatic and gastrointestinal adverse reaction, and prognosis variables for OS and LC. Between July 2007 and August 2019, non-metastatic HCC with PVTT patients treated with RT were retrospectively reviewed and evaluated. The analysis included data from 160 patients. The mean age of the patients was 60.8 years ((95% CI 58.2-62.0). The median diameter of the tumor was 7.7 cm (range: 1-24.5). 85 (54.5%) individuals had PVTT in the main or first branch. At 1.8-10 Gy per fraction, the mean biologically effective dose (BED) as α/β ratio of 10 was 49.6 (95% CI 46.7-52.5) Gy10. The median survival time was 8.3 (95% CI 6.1-10.3) months. Survival rates at one and two years were 39.6% and 17.1%, respectively. Estimated incidence of local failure using competing risk analysis were 24% and 60% at 1 and 2 years, respectively. The overall response rate was 74%, with an 18.5 percent complete response rate. In multivariate analysis, tumor size, overall response, and radiation dose were all significant prognostic variables for OS. Hepatic unfavorable events of grade 3 and 4 were for 14.1% of the total. There was no occurrences of grade 3-4 gastrointestinal toxicity, either acute or late. Additionally, there were no treatment-related mortality. Advanced RT is regarded as a safe and effective therapeutic option for HCC with PVTT. Overall survival was clearly related to tumor size, radiation dose, and tumor/PVTT response. Individuals with BED 56 Gy10 had significantly better overall survival than patients with BED 56 Gy10. A prospective randomized trial is required to validate these outcomes in order to corroborate these findings.

Background Therapeutic options for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in individual patients can be limited by tumor and location, liver dysfunction and comorbidities. Many patients with early-stage HCC do not receive curative-intent therapies. Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) has emerged as an effective, non-invasive HCC treatment option, however, randomized evidence for SABR in the first line setting is lacking. Methods Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) 21.07 SOCRATES-HCC is a phase II, prospective, randomised trial comparing SABR to other current standard of care therapies for patients with a solitary HCC ≤ 8 cm, ineligible for surgical resection or transplantation. The study is divided into 2 cohorts. Cohort 1 will compromise 118 patients with tumors ≤ 3 cm eligible for thermal ablation randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to thermal ablation or SABR. Cohort 2 will comprise 100 patients with tumors > 3 cm up to 8 cm in size, or tumors ≤ 3 cm ineligible for thermal ablation, randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to SABR or best other standard of care therapy including transarterial therapies. The primary objective is to determine whether SABR results in superior freedom from local progression (FFLP) at 2 years compared to thermal ablation in cohort 1 and compared to best standard of care therapy in cohort 2. Secondary endpoints include progression free survival, overall survival, adverse events, patient reported outcomes and health economic analyses. Discussion The SOCRATES-HCC study will provide the first randomized, multicentre evaluation of the efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness of SABR versus other standard of care therapies in the first line treatment of unresectable, early-stage HCC. It is a broad, multicentre collaboration between hepatology, interventional radiology and radiation oncology groups around Australia, coordinated by TROG Cancer Research. Trial registration anzctr.org.au, ACTRN12621001444875, registered 21 October 2021.

Background Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is an established local treatment method for patients with hepatic oligometastasis or oligoprogression. Liver metastases often occur in close proximity to radiosensitive organs at risk (OARs). This limits the possibility to apply sufficiently high doses needed for optimal local control. Online MR-guided radiotherapy (oMRgRT) is expected to hold potential to improve hepatic SBRT by offering superior soft-tissue contrast for enhanced target identification as well as the benefit of gating and daily real-time adaptive treatment. The MAESTRO trial therefore aims to assess the potential advantages of adaptive, gated MR-guided SBRT compared to conventional SBRT at a standard linac using an ITV (internal target volume) approach. Methods This trial is conducted as a prospective, randomized, three-armed phase II study in 82 patients with hepatic metastases (solid malignant tumor, 1–3 hepatic metastases confirmed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), maximum diameter of each metastasis ≤ 5 cm (in case of 3 metastases: sum of diameters ≤ 12 cm), age ≥ 18 years, Karnofsky Performance Score ≥ 60%). If a biologically effective dose (BED) ≥ 100 Gy (α/β = 10 Gy) is feasible based on ITV-based planning, patients will be randomized to either MRgRT or ITV-based SBRT. If a lesion cannot be treated with a BED ≥ 100 Gy, the patient will be treated with MRgRT at the highest possible dose. Primary endpoint is the non-inferiority of MRgRT at the MRIdian Linac® system compared to ITV-based SBRT regarding hepatobiliary and gastrointestinal toxicity CTCAE III or higher. Secondary outcomes investigated are local, locoregional (intrahepatic) and distant tumor control, progression-free survival, overall survival, possible increase of BED using MRgRT if the BED is limited with ITV-based SBRT, treatment-related toxicity, quality of life, dosimetric parameters of radiotherapy plans as well as morphological and functional changes in MRI. Potential prognostic biomarkers will also be evaluated. Discussion MRgRT is known to be both highly cost- and labor-intensive. The MAESTRO trial aims to provide randomized, higher-level evidence for the dosimetric and possible consecutive clinical benefit of MR-guided, on-table adaptive and gated SBRT for dose escalation in critically located hepatic metastases adjacent to radiosensitive OARs. Trial registration The study has been prospectively registered on August 30th, 2021: Clinicaltrials.gov, “Magnetic Resonance-guided Adaptive Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Hepatic Metastases (MAESTRO)”, NCT05027711.

Background: This multi-centre phase II clinical trial is the first prospective evaluation of radioembolisation of patients with colorectal liver metastases (mCRC) who failed previous oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based systemic chemotherapy regimens. Methods: Eligible patients had adequate hepatic, haemopoietic and renal function, and an absence of major hepatic vascular anomalies and hepato-pulmonary shunting. Gastroduodenal and right gastric arteries were embolised before hepatic arterial administration of yttrium-90 resin microspheres (median activity, 1.7 GBq; range, 0.9–2.2). Results: Of 50 eligible patients, 38 (76%) had received ⩾4 lines of chemotherapy. Most presented with synchronous disease (72%), >4 hepatic metastases (58%), 25–50% replacement of total liver volume (60%) and bilateral spread (70%). Early and intermediate (>48 h) WHO G1–2 adverse events (mostly fever and pain) were observed in 16 and 22% of patients respectively. Two died due to renal failure at 40 days or liver failure at 60 days respectively. By intention-to-treat analysis using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, 1 patient (2%) had a complete response, 11 (22%) partial response, 12 (24%) stable disease, 22 (44%) progressive disease; 4 (8%) were non-evaluable. Median overall survival was 12.6 months (95% CI, 7.0–18.3); 2-year survival was 19.6%. Conclusion: Radioembolisation produced meaningful response and disease stabilisation in patients with advanced, unresectable and chemorefractory mCRC.

Background Lutetium-177-DOTA-octreotate ( 177 Lu-DOTATATE) significantly increases survival and response rates in patients with grade I and grade II neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). However, survival and response rates are significantly lower in patients with bulky liver metastases. Increasing the tumor-absorbed dose in liver metastases may improve response to 177 Lu-DOTATATE. The LUTIA (Lutetium Intra-Arterial) study aims to increase the tumor-absorbed dose in liver metastases by intra-arterial (IA) administration of 177 Lu-DOTATATE, compared to conventional intravenous (IV) administration. Methods A multicenter, within-patient randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 26 patients with progressive, liver-dominant, unresectable grade I or grade II NET will be conducted. Patients with bilobar bulky disease will be randomly allocated to receive IA treatment into either the left or the right hepatic artery. Using this approach, one liver lobe will be treated intra-arterially (first-pass effect), while the contralateral lobe will receive an intravenous treatment as a second-pass effect. The primary endpoint of this study is the difference in tumor-to-non-tumor ratio of 177 Lu-DOTATATE uptake between the two liver lobes on post-treatment SPECT/CT (IA versus IV). Secondary endpoints include absorbed dose in both liver lobes, tumor response, dose-response relationship, toxicity, uptake in extrahepatic lesions, and renal uptake. Discussion This multicenter, within-patient RCT will investigate whether IA administration of 177 Lu-DOTATATE results in a higher activity concentration in liver metastases compared to IV administration. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03590119 . Registered on 17 July 2018.

Purpose Transarterial radioembolization (TARE) is a treatment for liver tumours based on injection of radioactive microspheres in the hepatic arterial system. It is crucial to achieve a maximum tumour dose for an optimal treatment response, while minimizing healthy liver dose to prevent toxicity. There is, however, no intraprocedural feedback on the dose distribution, as nuclear imaging can only be performed after treatment. As holmium-166 ( 166 Ho) microspheres can be quantified with MRI, we investigate the feasibility and safety of performing 166 Ho TARE within an MRI scanner and explore the potential of intraprocedural MRI-based dosimetry. Methods Six patients were treated with 166 Ho TARE in a hybrid operating room. Per injection position, a microcatheter was placed under angiography guidance, after which patients were transported to an adjacent 3-T MRI system. After MRI confirmation of unchanged catheter location, 166 Ho microspheres were injected in four fractions, consisting of 10%, 30%, 30% and 30% of the planned activity, alternated with holmium-sensitive MRI acquisition to assess the microsphere distribution. After the procedures, MRI-based dose maps were calculated from each intraprocedural image series using a dedicated dosimetry software package for 166 Ho TARE. Results Administration of 166 Ho microspheres within the MRI scanner was feasible in 9/11 (82%) injection positions. Intraprocedural holmium-sensitive MRI allowed for tumour dosimetry in 18/19 (95%) of treated tumours. Two CTCAE grade 3–4 toxicities were observed, and no adverse events were attributed to treatment in the MRI. Towards the last fraction, 4/18 tumours exhibited signs of saturation, while in 14/18 tumours, the microsphere uptake patterns did not deviate from the linear trend. Conclusion This study demonstrated feasibility and preliminary safety of a first in-human application of TARE within a clinical MRI system. Intraprocedural MRI-based dosimetry enabled dynamic insight in the microsphere distribution during TARE. This proof of concept yields unique possibilities to better understand microsphere distribution in vivo and to potentially optimize treatment efficacy through treatment personalization. Registration Clinicaltrials.gov, identifier NCT04269499, registered on February 13, 2020 (retrospectively registered).

Purpose To prospectively compare SIRT and DEB-TACE for treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods From 04/2010–07/2012, 24 patients with histologically proven unresectable N0, M0 HCCs were randomized 1:1 to receive SIRT or DEB-TACE. SIRT could be repeated once in case of recurrence; while, TACE was repeated every 6 weeks until no viable tumor tissue was detected by MRI or contraindications prohibited further treatment. Patients were followed-up by MRI every 3 months; the final evaluation was 05/2013. Results Both groups were comparable in demographics (SIRT: 8males/4females, mean age 72 ± 7 years; TACE: 10males/2females, mean age 71 ± 9 years), initial tumor load (1 patient ≥25 % in each group), and BCLC (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer) stage (SIRT: 12×B; TACE 1×A, 11×B). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 180 days for SIRT versus 216 days for TACE patients ( p  = 0.6193) with a median TTP of 371 days versus 336 days, respectively ( p  = 0.5764). Median OS was 592 days for SIRT versus 788 days for TACE patients ( p  = 0.9271). Seven patients died in each group. Causes of death were liver failure ( n  = 4 SIRT group), tumor progression ( n  = 4 TACE group), cardiovascular events, and inconclusive ( n  = 1 in each group). Conclusions No significant differences were found in median PFS, OS, and TTP. The lower rate of tumor progression in the SIRT group was nullified by a greater incidence of liver failure. This pilot study is the first prospective randomized trial comparing SIRT and TACE for treating HCC, and results can be used for sample size calculations of future studies.