Combination gemcitabine plus S-1 versus gemcitabine plus cisplatin for advanced/recurrent biliary tract cancer: the FUGA-BT (JCOG1113) randomized phase III clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) is the standard treatment of advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC); however, it causes nausea, vomiting, and anorexia, and requires hydration. Gemcitabine plus S-1 (GS) reportedly has equal to, or better, efficacy and an acceptable toxicity profile. We aimed to confirm the non-inferiority of GS to GC for patients with advanced/recurrent BTC in terms of overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We undertook a phase III randomized trial in 33 institutions in Japan. Eligibility criteria included chemotherapy-naïve patients with recurrent or unresectable BTC, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status of 0 - 1, and adequate organ function. The calculated sample size was 350 with a one-sided α of 5%, a power of 80%, and non-inferiority margin hazard ratio (HR) of 1.155. The primary end point was OS, while the secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), adverse events (AEs), and clinically significant AEs defined as grade ≥2 fatigue, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, oral mucositis, or diarrhea. RESULTS: Between May 2013 and March 2016, 354 patients were enrolled. GS was found to be non-inferior to GC [median OS: 13.4 months with GC and 15.1 months with GS, HR, 0.945; 90% confidence interval (CI), 0.78-1.15; P = 0.046 for non-inferiority]. The median PFS was 5.8 months with GC and 6.8 months with GS (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.70-1.07). The RR was 32.4% with GC and 29.8% with GS. Both treatments were generally well-tolerated. Clinically significant AEs were observed in 35.1% of patients in the GC arm and 29.9% in the GS arm. CONCLUSIONS: GS, which does not require hydration, should be considered a new, convenient standard of care option for patients with advanced/recurrent BTC. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: This trial has been registered with the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm), number UMIN000010667.

Upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis related to central venous port systems implanted in cancer patients.

The purpose of the current study was to evaluate the incidence and course of upper-extremity deep vein thrombosis (UEDVT) related to an implanted central venous port (CV-port) system in cancer patients. From July 2007 to July 2008, 92 consecutive patients who underwent implantation of a CV-port for chemotherapy for colorectal cancer were prospectively enrolled in the study. All patients were examined at prescribed intervals by ultrasonography (US) to estimate the incidence of catheter-related venous thrombosis. We categorised ultrasound diagnosis into three types: Type 0, no thrombus; Type I, thrombi around catheter without obstruction of venous flow; Type II: thrombi with obstruction of venous flow. Upon initial ultrasound examination, 25 cases (27%) were categorised as Type 0, 64 (70%) as Type I and III (3%) as Type II. Of the 64 Type-I cases, 4 cases worsened to Type II within a month, and 3 others (including 1 patient who developed pulmonary embolism) became Type II after 1 month. Of the other Type-I cases, 12 cases improved to Type 0 and 45 cases remained Type I. All 10 patients categorised as Type II underwent anticoagulant therapy and resumed their chemotherapy without exacerbations of thrombosis. In cancer patients undergoing long-term chemotherapy, there is an unexpectedly high prevalence of catheter-related UEDVT, which can be detected by ultrasound at an early stage after implantation of a CV-port. Given that cancer patients with UEDVT may have worse outcomes than those without, clinicians should consider careful monitoring for UEDVT and introducing anticoagulant therapy.

Application of percutaneous ultrasound-guided treatment for ultrasonically invisible hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma using microbubble contrast agent.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the localization of ultrasonically invisible hypervascular lesions in the liver to facilitate percutaneous ultrasound-guided treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty patients with 47 ultrasonically invisible hypervascular lesions (5-20mm) diagnosed on contrast-enhanced computed tomography were enrolled in the retrospective study. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with Levovist was performed to localize the lesions both in the early phase and liver-specific phase. Diagnosis of was confirmed by percutaneous needle biopsy where feasible, and on the basis of on treatment outcomes or changes in computed tomography findings in those not amenable to biopsy. RESULTS: Thirty-two lesions were diagnosed as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Contrast-enhanced ultrasound localized hepatocellular carcinoma in 24/32 (75%) lesions, the mean diameter (15.1+/-4.9mm), as measured using computed tomography, being significantly larger than that of the remaining eight lesions (10.5+/-2.1mm). Ultrasound-guided treatment was performed in 19 of the 24 lesions, and transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) was applied for the other five lesions because of difficult percutaneous access. Five of the eight non-visualised lesions were treated by transarterial chemoembolization, and the other three by surgical resection. The beneficial effect of CEUS was significantly greater when the reason for poor initial visualisation was the coarse liver architecture (17/17) than when it was due to adverse location (seven of 15, p<0.005). Fifteen of the CT-detected hypervascular lesions were considered to represent false positives for HCC, based on their behaviour during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound with Levovist facilitates the application of percutaneous ultrasound-guided treatment by improving localization of ultrasonically invisible hypervascular hepatocellular carcinomas in the liver.