BACKGROUND:The efficacy and safety of transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) plus lenvatinib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and portal vein tumor thrombus (PVTT) have not been evaluated. METHODS: In this open-label, single-center, randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04127396), participants with previously untreated HCC and type I-IV PVTT were randomized 1:1 to receive TACE plus lenvatinib (arm L; orally once daily, 12 mg for body weight ≥60 kg or 8 mg for body weight <60 kg) or TACE plus sorafenib (arm S; 400 mg orally twice daily in 28-day cycles). The primary end point was time-to-progression (TTP; time from randomization to disease progression) and secondary end points included objective response rate and toxicity. Prognostic factors were evaluated using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Between December 30, 2018 and May 31, 2020, 64 patients were randomized (arm L, n = 32; arm S, n = 32); most patients had type I/II PVTT (71.9%), and the median target tumor diameter was 9.8 cm (range, 3.8-21.8). After a median follow-up of 16.1 months, patients in arm L had a higher median TTP (4.7 vs 3.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.55; 95% CI, 0.32-0.95; P = .029) and objective response rate (53.1% vs 25.0%, P = .039) versus arm S. Multivariable analysis showed that TACE plus lenvatinib was significantly associated with higher TTP versus TACE plus sorafenib (HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.28-0.90; P = .021). Comparable safety profiles were observed in arms L and S. CONCLUSIONS: TACE plus lenvatinib was safe, well tolerated, and had favorable efficacy versus TACE plus sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC with PVTT and large tumor burden. Cancer 2021;127:3782-3793.

No abstract

Objective The main aim of this study was to evaluate a combined fasting blood glucose based dosage self-titration setting and decision supported telephone coaching intervention on glycemic control and diabetes self-management skills, compared to the conventional care. Methods A 12-week, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial was conducted on adults with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) primarily treated with basal insulin. After randomization, the intervention group (IG, n = 426) received a basal insulin self-titration decision support intervention administered by the Diabetes Specialty Nurses while the control group (CG, n = 423) received conventional care for 12 weeks, both included five telephone interviews. The primary efficacy endpoint was the effect of intervention on glycemic control, measured as the change in glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) from baseline to Week 12 (after intervention) compared to the control group. Other endpoints included comparisons of the effects of intervention on fasting plasma glucose (FPG), postprandial plasma glucose (PPG), body weight, Michigan diabetes knowledge test (MDKT), diabetes empowerment scale-short Form (DES-DSF), and summary of diabetes self-care activities (SDSCA). Changes in the primary and secondary outcomes were compared using the t -test for continuous variables with a normal distribution and χ 2 -test for categorical variables. Results The IG showed more improvements on mean HbA1c, compared to the CG (−2.8% vs −1.8%), so did the FPG, PPG, MDKT, DES-DSF and SDSCA (all P<0.01) after the 12-week follow up. Though the final mean insulin dose in the IG was higher than the CG at the end of the study (0.32 U/kg vs 0.28 U/kg), the changes of body weight were similar between the two groups (0.46kg vs 0.40kg, P=0.246), and the proportion of patients with hypoglycemia events during the whole trial were similar (20.65% vs 17.73%, P=0.279). Conclusion Decision supporting of basal insulin glargine self-titration assisted by Diabetes Specialty Nurses is effective and safe in patients with T2DM. Decision supported telephone coaching intervention offers ongoing encouragement, guidance, and determination of relevant sources of decisional conflict, facilitating adjusting the insulin dose.

No abstract