Frailty as Tested by Gait Speed is an Independent Risk Factor for Cirrhosis Complications that Require Hospitalization.

OBJECTIVES: Frailty is a known risk factor for major life-threatening liver transplant complications, deaths, and waitlist attrition. Whether frailty indicates risk for adverse outcomes in cirrhosis short of lethality is not well defined. We hypothesized that clinical measurements of frailty using gait speed and grip strength would indicate the risk of subsequent hospitalization for the complications of cirrhosis. METHODS: We assessed frailty as gait speed and grip strength in a 1-year prospective study of 373 cirrhotic patients evaluated for or awaiting liver transplantation. We determined its association with the outcome of subsequent hospital days/100 days at risk for 7 major complications of cirrhosis. We tested potential covariate influences of Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) and Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) scores, age, sex, height, depression, narcotic use, vitamin D deficiency, and hepatocellular carcinoma using multivariable modeling. RESULTS: Patients experienced 2.14 hospital days/100 days at risk, or 7.81 days/year. Frailty measured by gait speed was a strong risk factor for hospitalization for all cirrhosis complications. Each 0.1 m/s gait speed decrease was associated with 22% greater hospital days (P<0.001). Grip strength showed a similar but nonsignificant association. Gait speed remained independently significant when adjusted for MELD, CTP, and other covariates. At hospital costs of $4,000/day, patients with normal 1 m/s gait speed spent 6.2 days and $24,800/year; patients with 0.5 m/s speed spent 21.2 days and $84,800/year; and patients with 0.25 m/s speed spent 40.2 days and $160,800/year. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty as measured by gait speed is an independent and potentially modifiable risk factor for cirrhosis complications requiring hospitalization. The potential clinical value of frailty measurements to help define such risk merits broader evaluation.

The gap between clinically assessed physical performance and objective physical activity in liver transplant candidates.

Frailty with sarcopenia in cirrhosis causes liver transplant wait-list attrition and deaths. Regular physical activity is needed to protect patients with cirrhosis from frailty. We subjectively assess physical performance in selecting patients for transplant listing, but we do not know whether clinical assessments reflect the extent of activity patients actually perform. To investigate this question, 53 wait-listed patients self-assessed their performance of ordinary physical tasks using the Rosow-Breslau survey, and clinicians assessed their physical performance status with the Karnofsky index. We compared these assessments with actual activity measured using an accelerometer/thermal sensing armband worn from 4 to 7 days. We found that their measured activity was among the lowest reported in chronic disease, similar to that of patients with advanced chronic pulmonary disease or renal failure. Their percentages of waking hours spent in sedentary, light, and moderate-vigorous activity were 75.9% ± 18.9%, 18.9% ± 14.3%, and 4.9% ± 6.9%, respectively. Higher mean sedentary and lower mean moderate-vigorous activity was significantly associated with 9 wait-list deaths (P = 0.004). Compared with a range of 7000-13,000 steps/day in healthy adults, patients' mean steps/day were 3164 ± 2842. Both their activity percentage and step data were typical of other severely inactive populations. Neither their Rosow-Breslau scores (mean 2.3 ± 0.8, maximum 3.0) nor their Karnofsky scores (mean 79 ± 12, maximum 100) suggested major impairment or showed a correlation with patients' actual physical performance. In conclusion, physical activity in patients with cirrhosis wait-listed for transplantation is highly sedentary. Self-assessments and provider assessments of physical activity do not reliably indicate actual performance. Whether the gap between assessed and actual performance may be favorably modified by interventions to improve activity and ameliorate frailty merits further study. Liver Transplantation 22 1324-1332 2016 AASLD.

Plasma from chronic liver disease subjects exhibit differential ability to generate thrombin.

Liver fibrosis in chronic liver disease (CLD) results in complex alterations in procoagulant and anticoagulant proteins. Although an elevated international normalized ratio (INR) is a prominent feature of progressive fibrosis, the utility of the INR to accurately reflect the net effect of these changes on the coagulation system is uncertain. In subjects with CLD, elevated INRs have been observed in both bleeding and thrombotic complications, suggesting limitations of the INR in characterizing the coagulation status. Unlike the INR, which is preferentially sensitive to the extrinsic pathway, the direct measurement of thrombin generation better captures the global coagulation cascade. We conducted a pilot study measuring the INR, chromogenic factor X and thrombin generation in CLD subjects and compared them with control subjects and subjects on warfarin anticoagulation. We observed a large interquartile range in thrombin generation among compensated CLD subjects across a narrow INR range, suggesting that the INR is a suboptimal surrogate measure of thrombin generation in CLD subjects.

Phase II study of irinotecan and cetuximab given every 2 weeks as second-line therapy for advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Irinotecan and weekly cetuximab (I+C) is a standard second-line regimen for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study investigated the safety and efficacy of every 2 weeks I+C in patients with mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mCRC refractory to first-line fluoropyrimidine/oxaliplatin regimens and not previously treated with I+C were eligible. Response rate (RR) was the primary endpoint. Cetuximab 500 mg/m(2) and irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) were administered intravenously (I.V.) on day 1 every 2 weeks. RESULTS: Patient characteristics (n = 31): male (n = 17), median age 62; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) ≤1 (n = 30), and PS = 2 (n = 1). Median number of cycles = 3 (range, 1-22). I+C doses were modified in 18 and 12 patients, respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events: acneiform rash (n = 6); neutropenia (n = 6); and diarrhea (n = 5); there was one grade 5 respiratory failure, possibly related to therapy. Two patients had a partial response, 11 had stable disease, and 18 had progressive disease resulting in an overall RR of 6% and disease control rate of 41.9%. Median overall survival (OS) was 9.3 months (95% CI, 5.1-15), and time to progression (TTP) was 2.4 months (95% CI, 1.3-4.6). K-ras and BRAF mutations were detected in 39% and 9%, respectively, of the patients tested. There was a trend toward longer TTP among patients with wild-type K-ras and BRAF (2.6 vs. 1.7 months; P = 0.16), and OS was significantly longer in those patients (14.1 vs. 5.5 months; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The RR and TTP were lower than expected and may reflect the reduced dose intensity due to toxicities. While the OS was consistent with previous publications, the efficacy of this combination was not demonstrated.

A phase I/II study of capecitabine given on a week on/week off schedule combined with bevacizumab and oxaliplatin for patients with untreated advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: A week on/week off capecitabine schedule with oxaliplatin/bevacizumab was evaluated in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty patients were required. The projected median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12 months (81% power, 1-sided level 0.1 log-rank test). Capecitabine dose was 2500 mg/m(2)/day on days 1-7 (n = 11) and was increased to 3000 mg/m(2)/day (n = 29) in combination with oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2)) and bevacizumab (5 mg/kg). Cycles were repeated every 2 weeks. RESULTS: Patient characteristics included Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0 (n = 24) or 1 (n = 15); median age of 62 years (range, 38-81 years). Median cycles administered were 7 (range, 125), corresponding to 3.5 months' treatment duration. Pertinent grade 3/4 toxicities seen were diarrhea (18%), hand-foot syndrome (10%), and peripheral neuropathy (10%). Bowel perforation in 1 patient (3%) and 1 death due to a cerebral hemorrhage (3%) were noted. Response rate (RR) was 38% (1 complete and 14 partial responses). Median PFS was 8.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.7-10.2 months). Median overall survival was 17.2 months (95% CI, 10.4-24.2 months). CONCLUSION: The first US experience of capecitabine to our knowledge (3000 mg/m(2) on days 1-7) in combination with oxaliplatin/bevacizumab in mCRC does not appear to have advantages compared with current standard first-line mCRC treatment regimens.

A phase II study of weekly docetaxel in combination with capecitabine in advanced gastric and gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas.

OBJECTIVE: Docetaxel and capecitabine are active agents in advanced gastric and gastroesophageal (GE) carcinomas. This multi-institutional phase II trial evaluates the combination of docetaxel and capecitabine as first- or second-line treatment in patients with advanced gastric and GE adenocarcinomas. METHODS: Patients who had received 1 or no prior chemotherapy regimens were eligible. The chemotherapy regimen consisted of a 21-day cycle with docetaxel 30 mg/m(2) administered on days 1 and 8 and capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) administered twice daily on days 1-14. The primary end point of the study was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled in the study; 39 received treatment and were evaluable for response and toxicity. The median patient age was 61 years (range 21-84); 8 patients had received prior chemotherapy in the advanced or metastatic setting. Grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 15 patients (38%), including diarrhea in 5 patients (13%) and hand-foot syndrome in 5 patients (13%). The overall response rate was 32% [95% confidence interval (CI) 16.7-51.4]. The median time to progression and OS were 3.4 months (95% CI 2.7-5.8) and 10.7 months (95% CI 6.1-12.1), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The regimen of docetaxel and capecitabine is a well-tolerated, easily administered and active outpatient regimen for advanced gastric and GE adenocarcinoma.

Phase II study of docetaxel and gefitinib as second-line therapy in gemcitabine pretreated patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: There is no standard second-line therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). We evaluated the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor gefitinib and docetaxel in a phase II study following gemcitabine failure. METHODS: EGFR overexpression was not required. The initial docetaxel dose was 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 21 days. Due to febrile neutropenia in 8 of the first 18 patients, the dose was reduced to 60 mg/m(2). Gefitinib, 250 mg/day orally, was given continuously. RESULTS: Forty-one patients received treatment and were evaluable. Febrile neutropenia was seen in 11 patients (27%), with most events occurring at the docetaxel dose of 75 mg/m(2) (8 of 18 patients). Common treatment-related grade 3/4 toxicities were: fatigue (7%), nausea (7%), diarrhea (5%) and vomiting (2%). There was 1 partial response and stable disease in 19 patients. Time to progression was 1.8 months and median survival was 4.5 months (95% CI 2.9-5.7). CONCLUSION: The tolerability and feasibility of second-line therapy for APC was demonstrated. The combination of gefitinib and docetaxel showed evidence of limited efficacy.

A phase I/II study of a MUC1 peptide pulsed autologous dendritic cell vaccine as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic and biliary tumors.

Pancreatic and biliary cancers are relatively resistant to chemotherapy and radiation and may therefore provide an opportunity for testing the potential of immunotherapy. MUC1 is an epithelial cell glycoprotein that is highly overexpressed and aberrantly glycosylated in many adenocarcinomas, including pancreatic tumors, providing a tumor specific antigen and target. We performed a Phase I/II clinical trial of a MUC1 peptide-loaded DC vaccine in 12 pancreatic and biliary cancer patients following resection of their primary tumors. The primary endpoints were vaccine toxicity and immunogenicity and the secondary endpoint was clinical outcome. The vaccine was well tolerated and no toxicity was observed. Three patients had pre-existing MUC1 antibody responses that remained stable post vaccination. MUC1-specific T cell responses were difficult to evaluate due to increases in activity of all CD8 and CD4 T cells following each vaccination. Prior to vaccination, patients entered onto this trial had a significantly higher percentage of FoxP3+CD4+ T cells compared to age matched healthy controls. The percentage of these cells also increased transiently following each injection, returning to baseline or below before the next injection. Vaccinated patients have been followed for over four years and four of the twelve patients are alive, all without evidence of recurrence. Study of the immune parameters in long-term survivors several years after vaccination may yield the sought after immune correlates of clinical responses that analysis of immune responses shortly after vaccination has not revealed.

Phase II study of rubitecan, an oral camptothecin in patients with advanced colorectal cancer who have failed previous 5-fluorouracil based chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Rubitecan (RFS-2000, 9NC, Orathecin) is an orally bioavailable camptothecin analogue, with evidence of preclinical activity in colon cancer cell lines. We evaluated oral rubitecan (5 days on, 2 days rest per week) on a continuous schedule, in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC), who progressed after 5-fluorouracil based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND RESULTS: Fourteen eligible patients were treated with rubitecan at 1.5 mg/m2/day on a 5 day/week continuous schedule. Therapy was well tolerated with most adverse events in the mild to moderate category. Grade 3/4 toxicity consisting of anemia, diarrhea and elevated bilirubin was seen in 4 patients. No responses were seen in 13 evaluable patients. Overall median survival (95% confidence interval) was 10.1 (range 3.1-12.6) months, and median time to progression was 2.1 months. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of rubitecan was well tolerated, but this schedule does not appear to have clinical activity in patients with advanced previously treated CRC.