No abstract

BackgroundDoxorubicin Transdrug (DT), a nanoformulation of doxorubicin, was demonstrated to overcome the chemoresistance of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in preclinical models. Its efficacy and safety were thus investigated in phase I and randomised phase II trials in unresectable HCC.Patients and methodsPhase I was a single dose of DT through the hepatic intra-arterial (HIA) route, dose-escalating 3+3 trial, evaluating five-dose levels from 10 to 40 mg/m2 with maximal tolerated dose (MTD) as primary endpoint. The multicentre phase II trial randomly assigned (2:1 ratio) patients to receive either 30 mg/m2 of DT through HIA route every 4 weeks for up to three courses or best standard of care (BSC). Progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 3 months was the primary endpoint. Overall survival (OS) and disease control rate (DCR) were secondary endpoints.ResultsIn phase I, haematological and respiratory limited toxicities were reported at 35 and 40 mg/m2, giving MTD at 30 mg/m2. Partial response rate was 10%, and stable disease 70%. Phase II was discontinued due to three severe acute respiratory distress events in the DT group while 17 patients had received 30 mg/m2 DT and 11 BSC. At 3 months, PFS was 64% (95% CI 31 to 89) vs 75% (95% CI 35 to 97), and DCR 35% vs 27% in DT and BSC, respectively (p=NS). Median OS was 32.6 months (95% CI 8.2 to 34.1) in DT group and 15 months (95% CI 8.0 to 18.8) in BSC group (p<0.05).ConclusionDT increased OS in unresectable HCC but induced severe respiratory distress. Efficacy data deserve further investigation using a safer dosing and schedule regimen.Trial registration numberEUDRACT 2006-004088-77; Results.

In patients treated in a real-life setting, adherence to therapy, SVR rates, predictive factors of SVR and safety results were close to those observed in randomized trials. A high SVR in G1 naive patients with no fibrosis warrants further study and might suggest earlier treatment.

ForewordThis consensus conference followed the rules developed by the French Agence Nationale pour le Développement de l'Evaluation Médicale (ANDEM). Briefly, this required an organising committee, a working group whose task was to make a comprehensive critical review of the literature before the conference was held, a panel of experts, and a jury. The conference was held over two days and included (a) a public session with presentations by experts working in areas relevant to the consensus questions, (b) questions and statements from conference attendees, and (c) deliberation by the jury, followed by the drafting of conclusions and recommendations.

No abstract