Radioembolization versus chemoembolization for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare clinically relevant outcomes following transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) and transarterial radioembolization (TARE) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using only prospective randomized clinical trials as a source of information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A meta-analysis was performed to compare the efficacy of TARE and TACE in treating patients with unresectable HCC. Only prospective randomized trials were included in the quantitative analysis. Overall and progression-free survival, disease control rate, and transplantation rate were the variables under analysis. RESULTS: Overall survival at 1 year was similar between the two treatment groups (OR =1.31, 95% CI: 0.56-3.04, P=0.53). Progression-free survival at 1 year was also not statistically different between the two treatments (OR =0.23, 95% CI: 0.02-2.45, P=0.22). Although a higher proportion of patients underwent transplantation in the TARE group (30% vs 20.8%), this difference was not statistically significant (OR =0.68, 95% CI: 0.23-2.01; P=0.49). CONCLUSION: TARE and TACE provide similar outcomes in unresectable HCC. The role of TARE should be explored in selected patient subpopulations in future clinical trials

Profile of lenvatinib in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: design, development, potential place in therapy and network meta-analysis of hepatitis B and hepatitis C in all Phase III trials

Purpose: Sorafenib is the only approved drug in first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Recently, the Phase III REFLECT trial proved lenvatinib not inferior to sorafenib, potentially establishing a new standard of care in this setting. The study showed that both have similar overall survivals, yet with longer time to progression for lenvatinib. Currently, the selection of one or other is not based on clinical or biological parameters for this reason we performed a network meta-analysis and we also analyzed the REFLECT trial and its implications in the current and future clinical practice. Materials and methods: We performed the meta-analysis according to the Prisma statement recommendations. HR was the measure of association for time to progression and overall survival. The pooled analysis of HR was performed using a random effect model, fixing a 5% error as index of statistical significance. Results: For HBV-positive patients, there was a clear trend in favor of lenvatinib over sorafenib (HR 0.82 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.60\u20131.15). For HCV-positive no differences between lenvatinib and sorafenib were observed (HR 0.91 95% CrI 0.41\u20132.01). The data showed that lenvatinib could be the best drug for HBV-positive patients in 59% of cases compared to only 1% of patients treated with sorafenib. Conclusion: The identification of clinical or biological markers that could predict response or resistance to treatments is needed to guide treatment decision. This network meta-analysis demonstrates that the etiology is a good candidate and this result should be validated in a specific trial.Purpose: Sorafenib is the only approved drug in first-line treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma. Recently, the Phase III REFLECT trial proved lenvatinib not inferior to sorafenib, potentially establishing a new standard of care in this setting. The study showed that both have similar overall survivals, yet with longer time to progression for lenvatinib. Currently, the selection of one or other is not based on clinical or biological parameters for this reason we performed a network meta-analysis and we also analyzed the REFLECT trial and its implications in the current and future clinical practice.Materials and methods: We performed the meta-analysis according to the Prisma statement recommendations. HR was the measure of association for time to progression and overall survival. The pooled analysis of HR was performed using a random effect model, fixing a 5% error as index of statistical significance.Results: For HBV-positive patients, there was a clear trend in favor of lenvatinib over sorafenib (HR 0.82 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.60-1.15). For HCV-positive no differences between lenvatinib and sorafenib were observed (HR 0.91 95% CrI 0.41-2.01). The data showed that lenvatinib could be the best drug for HBV-positive patients in 59% of cases compared to only 1% of patients treated with sorafenib.Conclusion: The identification of clinical or biological markers that could predict response or resistance to treatments is needed to guide treatment decision. This network meta-analysis demonstrates that the etiology is a good candidate and this result should be validated in a specific trial

Metronomic capecitabine versus best supportive care as second-line treatment in hepatocellular carcinoma: A retrospective study

Preliminary studies suggest that capecitabine may be safe and effective in HCC patients. The aim of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of metronomic capecitabine as second-line treatment. This multicentric study retrospectively analyzed data of HCC patients unresponsive or intolerant to sorafenib treatment with metronomic capecitabine or best supportive care (BSC).Median progression free survival was 3.1 months in patients treated with capecitabine (95%CI: 2.7-3.5). Median overall survival was 12.0 months (95% CI: 10.7-15.8) in patients receiving capecitabine, while 9.0 months (95% CI: 6.5-13.9) in patients receiving BSC. The result of univariate unweighted Cox regression model shows a 46% reduction in death risk for patients on capecitabine (95%CI: 0.357-0.829; p=0.005) compared to patients receiving BSC alone. After weighting for potential confounders, death risk remained essentially unaltered (45%; 95%CI: 0.354-0.883; p = 0.013). Metronomic capecitabine seems a safe second-line treatment for HCC patients in terms of management of adverse events, showing a potential anti-tumour activity which needs further evaluation in phase III studies

The Role of Anti-Angiogenics in Pre-Treated Metastatic BRAF-Mutant Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis

: Background. FOLFOXIRI plus Bevacizumab is one of the most frequently used first-line treatments for patients with BRAF-mutant colorectal cancer (CRC), while second-line treatment requires extensive further research. In this pooled analysis, we evaluate the impact of anti-angiogenics in patients with pre-treated BRAF-mutant CRC. Methods. We monitored patients in randomized, controlled studies who had advanced CRC and were undergoing second-line chemotherapy in addition to utilizing Bevacizumab, Ramucirumab or Aflibercept treatments. These data were pooled together with the data and results of BRAF-mutant patients enrolled in two phase III trials (TRIBE and TRIBE-2 study), who had been treated with second-line treatment both with or without Bevacizumab. Overall survival (OS), in relation to BRAF mutational status, was the primary focus. Results. Pooled analysis included 129 patients. Anti-angiogenics were found to have a significant advantage over the placebo in terms of OS (HR 0.50, 95%CI 0.29-0.85) (p = 0.01). Conclusions. Our pooled analysis confirms the efficacy of anti-angiogenics in pre-treated BRAF-mutant CRC, establishing the combination of chemotherapy plus Bevacizumab or Ramucirumab or Aflibercept as a valid treatment option

Effects of metformin on clinical outcome in diabetic patients with advanced HCC receiving sorafenib

Background and objective: Several studies have reported an association between type 2 diabetes mellitus and hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Data from several retrospective studies and meta-analyses have highlighted a reduction of about 50% in the risk of developing HCC in cirrhotic patients treated with metformin for diabetes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the different outcomes of patients who received or did not receive metformin during treatment with sorafenib.Methods: We analyzed 93 patients consecutively treated with sorafenib. Forty-two (45.2%) patients were diabetic, of whom 31 were on metformin. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test.Results: The concomitant use of sorafenib and metformin was associated with a median PFS of 2.6 months (95% CI 1.9-3.3) compared to 5.0 months (95% CI 2.5-8.2) for patients receiving sorafenib alone (p = 0.029). The median OS of patients treated with the combination was 10.4 months (95% CI 3.9-14.4) compared to 15.1 months (95% CI 11.7-17.8) for those who were not given metformin (p = 0.014).Conclusions: Our findings could be the result of increased tumor aggressiveness and resistance to sorafenib in metformin-treated patients

TRIBE-2: A phase III, randomized, open-label, strategy trial in unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer patients by the GONO group

Background: Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab is a standard first-line treatment for unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Different chemotherapy backbones may be chosen, including one to three drugs, based on patients' general conditions and comorbidities, treatments' objectives, and disease characteristics. TRIBE trial demonstrated a significant advantage in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival for FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. Based on recent evidence, the de-intensification of the upfront regimen after 4-6 months of treatment is nowadays regarded as a valuable option. Moreover, the prolonged inhibition of angiogenesis, and in particular the continuation of bevacizumab beyond the evidence of disease progression, is an efficacious strategy in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Methods/design: TRIBE-2 is a prospective, open-label, multicentric phase III randomized trial in which unresectable and previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer patients are randomized to receive first-line FOLFOX plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab after disease progression or FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab followed by the re-introduction of the same regimen after disease progression. The primary endpoint is to compare the efficacy of the two proposed treatment strategies in terms of Progression Free Survival 2. Discussion: The TRIBE-2 study aims at answering the question whether the upfront use of FOLFOXIRI improves the clinical outcome of metastatic colorectal cancer patients, when compared with the pre-planned, sequential use of oxaliplatin-based and irinotecan-based doublets. Both proposed treatment strategies are designed to exploit the effectiveness of the prolonged inhibition of angiogenesis, alternating short (up to 4 months) induction periods and less intensive maintenance phases. Trial registration: TRIBE2 is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02339116. January 12, 2015. TRIBE-2 is registered at EUDRACT 2014-004436-19, October 10, 2014

Real Life Study of Lenvatinib Therapy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: RELEVANT Study

Introduction: In the REFLECT trial, lenvatinib was found to be noninferior compared to sorafenib in terms of overall survival. Here, we analyze the effects of lenvatinib in the real-life experience of several centers across the world and identify clinical factors that could be significantly associated with survival outcomes. Methods: The study population was derived from retrospectively collected data of HCC patients treated with lenvatinib. The overall cohort included western and eastern populations from 23 center in five countries. Results: We included 1,325 patients with HCC and treated with lenvatinib in our analysis. Median OS was 16.1 months. Overall response rate was 38.5%. Multivariate analysis for OS highlighted that HBsAg positive, NLR >3, and AST >38 were independently associated with poor prognosis in all models. Conversely, NAFLD/NASH-related etiology was independently associated with good prognosis. Median progression-free survival was 6.3 months. Multivariate analysis for progression-free survival revealed that NAFLD/NASH, BCLC, NLR, and AST were independent prognostic factors for progression-free survival. A proportion of 75.2% of patients suffered from at least one adverse effect during the study period. Multivariate analysis exhibited the appearance of decreased appetite grade ≥2 versus grade 0-1 as an independent prognostic factor for worse progression-free survival. 924 patients of 1,325 progressed during lenvatinib (69.7%), and 827 of them had a follow-up over 2 months from the beginning of second-line treatment. From first-line therapy, the longest median OS was obtained with the sequence lenvatinib and immunotherapy (47.0 months), followed by TACE (24.7 months), ramucirumab (21.2 months), sorafenib (15.7 months), regorafenib (12.7 months), and best supportive care (10.8 months). Conclusions: Our study confirms in a large and global population of patients with advanced HCC, not candidates for locoregional treatment the OS reported in the registration study and a high response rate with lenvatinib

Sequential therapies after atezolizumab plus bevacizumab or lenvatinib first-line treatments in hepatocellular carcinoma patients

Introduction: The aim of this retrospective proof-of-concept study was to compare different second-line treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and progressive disease (PD) after first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab.Materials and methods: A total of 1381 patients had PD at first-line therapy. 917 patients received lenvatinib as first-line treatment, and 464 patients atezolizumab plus bevacizumab as first-line.Results: 49.6% of PD patients received a second-line therapy without any statistical difference in overall survival (OS) between lenvatinib (20.6 months) and atezolizumab plus bev-acizumab first-line (15.7 months; p = 0.12; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.80). After lenvatinib first-line, there wasn't any statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p = 0.27; sorafenib HR: 1; immunotherapy HR: 0.69; other therapies HR: 0.85). Patients who under-went trans-arterial chemo-embolization (TACE) had a significative longer OS than patients who received sorafenib (24.7 versus 15.8 months, p < 0.01; HR = 0.64). After atezolizumab plus bevacizumab first-line, there was a statistical difference between second-line therapy subgroups (p < 0.01; sorafenib HR: 1; lenvatinib HR: 0.50; cabozantinib HR: 1.29; other therapies HR: 0.54). Patients who received lenvatinib (17.0 months) and those who under-went TACE (15.9 months) had a significative longer OS than patients treated with sorafenib (14.2 months; respectively, p = 0.01; HR = 0.45, and p < 0.05; HR = 0.46).Conclusion: Approximately half of patients receiving first-line lenvatinib or atezolizumab plus bevacizumab access second-line treatment. Our data suggest that in patients progressed to atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is lenvatinib, while in patients progressed to lenvatinib, the systemic therapy able to achieve the longest survival is immunotherapy

Proceedings of the Fifth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics CLiC-it 2018

On behalf of the Program Committee, a very warm welcome to the Fifth Italian Conference on Computational Linguistics (CLiC-­‐it 2018). This edition of the conference is held in Torino. The conference is locally organised by the University of Torino and hosted into its prestigious main lecture hall “Cavallerizza Reale”. The CLiC-­‐it conference series is an initiative of the Italian Association for Computational Linguistics (AILC) which, after five years of activity, has clearly established itself as the premier national forum for research and development in the fields of Computational Linguistics and Natural Language Processing, where leading researchers and practitioners from academia and industry meet to share their research results, experiences, and challenges