No abstract

<b><i>Background and Aims:</i></b> Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) exhibit significant clinical activity in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study explored whether tumor response to ICIs in HCC varies among different organs. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> We reviewed the data of patients with advanced HCC who had received ICIs. Patients with measurable diseases were enrolled. Organ-specific response criteria, adapted from RECIST 1.1 and immune-related RECIST, were used to evaluate the objective response to ICIs in tumors located in the liver, lung, lymph node, and other intra-abdominal sites. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Of the 75 enrolled patients with advanced HCC, 51 and 11 patients had chronic hepatitis B virus and chronic hepatitis C virus infection, respectively. Regarding ICI treatment, 58, 1, and 16 patients had undergone anti-PD-1/anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody (mAb) alone, anti-CTLA4 mAb alone, and anti-PD-1 mAb plus anti-CTLA4 mAb, respectively; 20 and 55 patients had received ICIs as first-line or ≥second-line therapy. The overall objective response rate (ORR) was 28.0%. In total, 58, 34, 19, and 18 patients had measurable hepatic tumors and lung, lymph node, and other intra-abdominal metastases, and the corresponding organ-specific ORRs were 22.4, 41.2, 26.3, and 38.9%, respectively. Of the 39 patients who had both hepatic and extrahepatic tumors, 12 had disease control in extrahepatic tumors while progressive disease (PD) in hepatic tumors, whereas only 4 exhibited disease control in hepatic tumors while PD in extrahepatic tumors (<i>p</i> = 0.046, McNemar test). Of the 16 patients with only evaluable tumors in the liver and lungs at baseline, 8 had disease control in the lungs while PD in the liver, and none experienced disease control in the liver while PD in the lungs (<i>p</i> = 0.005). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> The hepatic tumors of HCC may be less responsive to ICIs than extrahepatic lesions. Lung metastases responded most favorably to ICIs. The mechanisms underlying this differential response to ICIs warrant further investigation.

BackgroundInpatient palliative care is important for patients with terminal pancreatic cancer. However, the differences between inpatient palliative care and acute hospital care for inpatients with pancreatic cancer have not been explored in a population-based study.MethodsThis population-based nationwide study was conducted using data from the Taiwan National Health Insurance database to analyze the differences between inpatient palliative care and acute hospital care for inpatients with pancreatic cancer. We identified 854 patients with terminal pancreatic cancer, who had received in-hospital end-of-life care between January 2003 and December 2006. These patients were then sub-divided and matched 1:1 (using propensity score matching) according to whether they received inpatient palliative care (n = 276) or acute hospital care (n = 276). These groups were subsequently compared to evaluate any differences in the use of aggressive procedures, prescribed medications, and medical costs.ResultsInpatient palliative care was typically provided by family physicians (39 %) and oncologists (25 %), while acute hospital care was typically provided by oncologists (29 %) and gastroenterologists (24 %). The inpatient palliative care group used natural opium alkaloids significantly more frequently than the acute hospital care group (84.4 % vs. 56.5 %, respectively; P < 0.001). The inpatient palliative care group also had shorter hospital stays (10.6 ± 11.1 days vs. 20.6 ± 16.3 days, respectively; P < 0.001), fewer aggressive procedures, and lower medical costs (both, P < 0.005).ConclusionsCompared to patients in acute hospital wards, patients with pancreatic cancer in inpatient palliative care units received more frequent pain control treatments, underwent fewer aggressive procedures, and incurred lower medical costs. Therefore, inpatient palliative care should be considered a viable option for patients with terminal pancreatic cancer.

ObjectiveTo analyze the efficacy of gemcitabine with or without erlotinib for pancreatic cancer, and to determine the predictive role of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and KRAS mutations in these patients.MethodsThis was a single-center, randomized, open-label, prospective trial. Eighty-eight chemotherapy-naïve metastatic pancreatic cancer patients were randomized for treatment with gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus erlotinib. EGFR and KRAS mutations were analyzed, respectively. The primary endpoint was the disease control rate.ResultsDisease control rate (64% vs. 25%; P < 0.001), progression-free survival (median 3.8 vs. 2.4 months; P < 0.001), and overall survival (median 7.2 vs. 4.4 months; P < 0.001) were better in the gemcitabine plus erlotinib group than in the gemcitabine alone group. In the gemcitabine plus erlotinib group, disease control (85% vs. 33%; P = 0.001), progression-free survival (median 5.9 vs. 2.4 months; P = 0.004), and overall survival (median 8.7 vs. 6.0 months; P = 0.044) were better in patients with EGFR mutations than in those without EGFR mutations. KRAS mutation was not associated with treatment response or survival.ConclusionsGemcitabine plus erlotinib is more effective than gemcitabine alone for treating metastatic pancreatic cancer patients, especially those with EGFR mutations. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01608841.

No abstract