Quality of life assessment of cabozantinib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma in the CELESTIAL trial

BACKGROUND: The CELESTIAL trial (NCT01908426) demonstrated overall survival benefit for cabozantinib versus placebo in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC) who had received prior sorafenib treatment. This analysis of CELESTIAL compared the impact of cabozantinib versus placebo on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Health status was assessed using the EuroQol five-dimension five-level (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire over the 800-day follow-up period. EQ-5D-5L health states were mapped to health utility scores using reference values for the UK population. Quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were calculated for each treatment group as the area under the curve for the plot of health utility score over time. The between-treatment group difference in restricted mean QALYs was calculated by generalized linear models and adjusted for baseline differences. A difference of 0.08 in health utility score (or in QALY) was deemed a minimally important difference and to be clinically significant. RESULTS: At week 5, the difference in mean health utility score between cabozantinib and placebo was -0.097 (95% confidence interval [95% CI]: -0.126, -0.067; p ≤ 0.001). Between-group differences in health utility scores diminished over time and were generally non-significant. The cabozantinib group accrued more QALYs than the placebo group over follow-up. Differences in mean QALYs (cabozantinib minus placebo) were statistically and clinically significant, ranging from +0.092 (95% CI: 0.016, 0.169) to +0.185 (95% CI: 0.126, 0.243) in favour of cabozantinib, depending on the reference value set used. CONCLUSIONS: These HRQoL findings support a positive benefit-risk profile for cabozantinib in previously treated patients with aHCC

Expanding indication of padeliporfin (WST11) vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy: results of prostate cancer Latin-American multicenter study

OBJECTIVES: To explore the proportion of patients with higher risk localized prostate cancer (PCa) that would become safely biopsy negative 12 months after non-thermal focal therapy with padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (VTP). METHODS: Multicenter study in a scenario of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≤20ng/ml and variable PCa target volumes Gleason pattern 3 or low-volume secondary Gleason pattern 4, all patients received VTP, consisting of intravenous 4mg/kg padeliporfin activated by light-diffusing fibers in the prostate. The prostate was biopsied at baseline, months 6 and 12, PSA, patient-reported functional outcomes and quality of life (QoL) questionnaires were recorded at baseline, months 3, 6, and 12 and adverse events (AE) throughout the study. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat population (n=81), the proportion of patients with negative biopsies at month 12 was 74% (60/81 patients; 95% CI: 63.1%,83.2%). In the per-protocol population, the proportion was 79% (58/73 patients; 95% CI: 68.4%,88.0%). Questionnaire results indicated a slight improvement in urinary function and limited deterioration in sexual function. No difference in QoL was observed over time. A total of 42/81 (52%) patients reported mild or moderate and 4 of 81 (4.9%) experienced serious AE, all resolved without sequelae. No phototoxicity, cardiovascular event, fistula or prolonged urinary incontinence, secondary cancer or death was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the efficacy, safety, and QoL associated with padeliporfin focal treatment for low/intermediate risk localized PCa

Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy versus active surveillance in men with low-risk prostate cancer (CLIN1001 PCM301): an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy, a novel tissue-preserving treatment for low-risk prostate cancer, has shown favourable safety and efficacy results in single-arm phase 1 and 2 studies. We compared this treatment with the standard of care, active surveillance, in men with low-risk prostate cancer in a phase 3 trial. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial was done in 47 European university centres and community hospitals. Men with low-risk, localised prostate cancer (Gleason pattern 3) who had received no previous treatment were randomly assigned (1:1) to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy (4 mg/kg padeliporfin intravenously over 10 min and optical fibres inserted into the prostate to cover the desired treatment zone and subsequent activation by laser light 753 nm with a fixed power of 150 mW/cm for 22 min 15 s) or active surveillance. Randomisation was done by a web-based allocation system stratified by centre with balanced blocks of two or four patients. Best practice for active surveillance at the time of study design was followed (ie, biopsy at 12-month intervals and prostate-specific antigen measurement and digital rectal examination at 3-month intervals). The co-primary endpoints were treatment failure (histological progression of cancer from low to moderate or high risk or death during 24 months' follow-up) and absence of definite cancer (absence of any histology result definitely positive for cancer at month 24). Analysis was by intention to treat. Treatment was open-label, but investigators assessing primary efficacy outcomes were masked to treatment allocation. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01310894. FINDINGS: Between March 8, 2011, and April 30, 2013, we randomly assigned 206 patients to vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy and 207 patients to active surveillance. Median follow-up was 24 months (IQR 24-25). The proportion of participants who had disease progression at month 24 was 58 (28%) of 206 in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group compared with 120 (58%) of 207 in the active surveillance group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·34, 95% CI 0·24-0·46; p<0·0001). 101 (49%) men in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group had a negative prostate biopsy result at 24 months post treatment compared with 28 (14%) men in the active surveillance group (adjusted risk ratio 3·67, 95% CI 2·53-5·33; p<0·0001). Vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy was well tolerated. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were prostatitis (three [2%] in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group vs one [<1%] in the active surveillance group), acute urinary retention (three [2%] vs one [<1%]) and erectile dysfunction (two [1%] vs three [1%]). The most common serious adverse event in the vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy group was retention of urine (15 patients; severe in three); this event resolved within 2 months in all patients. The most common serious adverse event in the active surveillance group was myocardial infarction (three patients). INTERPRETATION: Padeliporfin vascular-targeted photodynamic therapy is a safe, effective treatment for low-risk, localised prostate cancer. This treatment might allow more men to consider a tissue-preserving approach and defer or avoid radical therapy. FUNDING: Steba Biotech

Medium-term Follow-up of Vascular-targeted Photodynamic Therapy of Localized Prostate Cancer Using TOOKAD Soluble WST-11 (Phase II Trials)

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To assess the medium-term tumor control in patients with localized prostate cancer (PCa) treated with vascular-targeted photodynamic (VTP) therapy with TOOKAD Soluble WST11 (VTP) and to assess the medium-term tolerability of the treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, AND INTERVENTION: During the clinical phase II studies, 68 patients were treated with VTP under optimal treatment conditions (WST11 at 4mg/kg, light energy at 200J/cm, and a light density index ≥1) and have been included in a 3.5-yr follow-up. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Post-interventional visits were scheduled every 6 mo and conducted as per local standard practice in each study center. Cancer-free status was assessed by means of prostate-specific antigen kinetics, multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and/or prostate biopsies. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: At the end of the 3.5-yr follow-up, overall successful focal ablation was achieved for 51 patients (75%). Cancer was identified in the untreated lobe in 17 patients (25%). In total, 34 patients (50%) were cancer-free in both the prostate lobes. In case of recurrent/persistent malignancy, the Gleason score remained consistent or changed at the maximum by one point (upgrading by 1 Gleason point to 3+4 for eight patients and 4+3 for two patients). There were 64 related adverse events (AEs): 48% were Clavien grade I, 47% were grade II, and 5% were grade III. There were no Clavien grade IV and V AEs. Limitations included small sample size and heterogeneity in the follow-up for some centers. CONCLUSIONS: VTP is a safe and efficient treatment and represents an alternative option for localized low-risk PCa management over the medium term. Precise diagnostic methods and imaging tools are thereby essential requirements to ensure safe and complete targeted therapy. PATIENT SUMMARY: In this report, we looked at the medium-term outcomes of focal photodynamic therapy for early-stage prostate cancer. We found that this form of treatment is efficient and might have the potential to become a therapeutic option for low-risk cancer. Effectiveness depends on precise diagnostic methods, such as magnetic resonance imaging and accurate biopsy

Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome in the elderly: clinical and electrophysiological findings

SummaryBackgroundScreening for Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome is recommended in children and young adults. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and electrophysiological characteristics of patent WPW syndrome in subjects ≥60 years of age.MethodsFour-hundred and fifty-nine consecutive patients with WPW syndrome, aged 8–80 years, were recruited; 32 (7%) of these patients were ≥60 years of age. The clinical, electrophysiological and therapeutic data for these patients were evaluated.ResultsSixteen men and 16 women, aged 60–81 years (67±4.5), were admitted for resuscitated sudden death (1), rapid atrial fibrillation (4), syncope (4), or junctional tachycardia (13); 10 patients were asymptomatic (10). Left lateral bundles of Kent were detected more frequently in patients over 60 years (56%) than in those < 60 years of age (40.5%). Reciprocal tachycardia was induced in 58% of subjects <60 years of age and 53% of those ≥60 years old (difference not significant); atrial fibrillation was more frequent in subjects ≥ 60 years of age (37.5%vs. 19%) (p<0.05). The incidence of malignant forms of WPW syndrome was identical in older and younger subjects. Ablation of the accessory pathway was indicated 18 times; effective ablation of a left bundle of Kent required a second intervention more often in patients ≥60 years of age (22%vs. 5%) (p<0.05).ConclusionWPW syndrome is not uncommon in subjects over 60 years of age (7%). Left lateral accessory pathways, that have similar conduction properties to those in much younger subjects, are common. Ablation of the bundle of Kent is often difficult but is indicated in symptomatic subjects or those with more serious forms of WPW syndrome