No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

<b><i>Background:</i></b> Primary liver cancer, around 90% are hepatocellular carcinoma in China, is the fourth most common malignancy and the second leading cause of tumor-related death, thereby posing a significant threat to the life and health of the Chinese people. <b><i>Summary:</i></b> Since the publication of <i>Guidelines for Diagnosis and Treatment of Primary Liver Cancer (2017 Edition)</i> in 2018, additional high-quality evidence has emerged with relevance to the diagnosis, staging, and treatment of liver cancer in and outside China that requires the guidelines to be updated. The new edition <i>(2019 Edition)</i> was written by more than 70 experts in the field of liver cancer in China. They reflect the real-world situation in China regarding diagnosing and treating liver cancer in recent years. <b><i>Key Messages:</i></b> Most importantly, the new guidelines were endorsed and promulgated by the Bureau of Medical Administration of the National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China in December 2019.

BACKGROUNDFirst-line chemotherapy for advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma results in poor outcomes. The monoclonal antibody nivolumab has shown an overall survival benefit over chemotherapy in previously treated patients with advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma. METHODSIn this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned adults with previously untreated, unresectable advanced, recurrent, or metastatic esophageal squamouscell carcinoma in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive nivolumab plus chemotherapy, nivolumab plus the monoclonal antibody ipilimumab, or chemotherapy. The primary end points were overall survival and progression-free survival, as determined by blinded independent central review. Hierarchical testing was performed first in patients with tumor-cell programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression of 1% or greater and then in the overall population (all randomly assigned patients). RESULTSA total of 970 patients underwent randomization. At a 13-month minimum followup, overall survival was significantly longer with nivolumab plus chemotherapy than with chemotherapy alone, both among patients with tumor-cell PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater (median, 15.4 vs. 9.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.54; 99.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.37 to 0.80; P<0.001) and in the overall population (median, 13.2 vs. 10.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.74; 99.1% CI, 0.58 to 0.96; P = 0.002). Overall survival was also significantly longer with nivolumab plus ipilimumab than with chemotherapy among patients with tumor-cell PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater (median, 13.7 vs. 9.1 months; hazard ratio, 0.64; 98.6% CI, 0.46 to 0.90; P = 0.001) and in the overall population (median, 12.7 vs. 10.7 months; hazard ratio, 0.78; 98.2% CI, 0.62 to 0.98; P = 0.01). Among patients with tumor-cell PD-L1 expression of 1% or greater, a significant progression-free survival benefit was also seen with nivolumab plus chemotherapy over chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.65; 98.5% CI, 0.46 to 0.92; P = 0.002) but not with nivolumab plus ipilimumab as compared with chemotherapy. The incidence of treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 was 47% with nivolumab plus chemotherapy, 32% with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, and 36% with chemotherapy alone. CONCLUSIONSBoth first-line treatment with nivolumab plus chemotherapy and first-line treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer overall survival than chemotherapy alone in patients with advanced esophageal squamous-cell carcinoma, with no new safety signals identified. (Funded by Bristol Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 648 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03143153.

Presenting unified treatments of current aspects of experimental fluid mechanics at a level useful to graduate students, researchers, and practicing engineers, this series serves the research community by consolidating widespread and often scattered knowledge. The books and monographs are equally suitable for learning and reference, and relevant topics are experimental techniques whose mastery requires a knowledge that can conveniently be contained in a book, as well as topics in fluid dynamics where understanding is based largely, though not necessarily exclusively, upon experiments. Thus, the books may contain up to one-third theory, and each one is a complete, integrated discourse, as opposed to a group of essays on selected sub-topics, with an editor or principal author responsible for unifying the conceptual content.

There exist differences in the epidemiological characteristics, clinicopathological features, tumor biological characteristics, treatment patterns, and drug selections between gastric cancer patients from the Eastern and Western countries. The Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology (CSCO) has organized a panel of senior experts specializing in all sub‐specialties of gastric cancer to compile a clinical guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer since 2016 and renews it annually. Taking into account regional differences, giving full consideration to the accessibility of diagnosis and treatment resources, these experts have conducted expert consensus judgment on relevant evidence and made various grades of recommendations for the clinical diagnosis and treatment of gastric cancer to reflect the value of cancer treatment and meeting health economic indexes in China. The 2021 CSCO Clinical Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer covers the diagnosis, treatment, follow‐up, and screening of gastric cancer. Based on the 2020 version of the CSCO Chinese Gastric Cancer guidelines, this updated guideline integrates the results of major clinical studies from China and overseas for the past year, focused on the inclusion of research data from the Chinese population for more personalized and clinically relevant recommendations. For the comprehensive treatment of non‐metastatic gastric cancer, attentions were paid to neoadjuvant treatment. The value of perioperative chemotherapy is gradually becoming clearer and its recommendation level has been updated. For the comprehensive treatment of metastatic gastric cancer, recommendations for immunotherapy were included, and immune checkpoint inhibitors from third‐line to the first‐line of treatment for different patient groups with detailed notes are provided.

IMPORTANCE Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) have limited effective and tolerable treatment options.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral fruquintinib, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) inhibitor, as third-line or later therapy in patients with metastatic CRC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS FRESCO (Fruquintinib Efficacy and Safety in 3+ LineColorectal Cancer Patients) was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter (28 hospitals in China), phase 3 clinical trial. From December 2014 to May 2016, screening took place among 519 patients aged 18 to 75 years who had metastatic CRC that progressed after at least 2 lines of chemotherapy but had not received VEGFR inhibitor therapy; 416 met the eligibility criteria and were stratified by prior anti-VEGF therapy and K-ras status. The final date of follow-up was January 17, 2017.INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive either fruquintinib, 5 mg (n = 278) or placebo (n = 138) orally, once daily for 21 days, followed by 7 days off in 28-day cycles, until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or study withdrawal. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary end point was overall survival. Key secondary efficacy endpoints were progression-free survival (time from randomization to disease progression or death), objective response rate (confirmed complete or partial response), and disease control rate (complete or partial response, or stable disease recorded Ն8 weeks postrandomization). Duration of response was also assessed. Safety outcomes included treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTSOf the 416 randomized patients (mean age, 54.6 years; 161 [38.7%] women), 404 (97.1%) completed the trial. Median overall survival was significantly prolonged with fruquintinib compared with placebo (9.3 months [95% CI, 8.2-10.5] vs 6.6 months [95% CI, 5.9-8.1]); hazard ratio (HR) for death, 0.65 (95% CI, 0.51-0.83; P < .001). Median progression-free survival was also significantly increased with fruquintinib (3.7 months [95% CI, 3.7-4.6] vs 1.8 months [95% CI, 1.8-1.8] months); HR for progression or death, 0.26 (95% CI, 0.21 to 0.34; P < .001). Grades 3 and 4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 61.2% (170) of patients who received fruquintinib and 19.7% ( 27) who received placebo. Serious adverse events were reported by 15.5% (43) of patients in the fruquintinib group and 5.8% (8) in the placebo group, with 14.4% (40) of fruquintinib-treated and 5.1% (7) of placebo-treated patients requiring hospitalization.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among Chinese patients with metastatic CRC who had tumor progression following at least 2 prior chemotherapy regimens, oral fruquintinib compared with placebo resulted in a statistically significant increase in overall survival. Further research is needed to assess efficacy outside of China.