Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma treated effectively with irinotecan via hepatic arterial infusion followed by proton beam therapy

Clinical outcomes and toxicities of proton radiotherapy for gastrointestinal neoplasms: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Proton beam radiotherapy (PBT) is frequently shown to be dosimetrically superior to photon radiotherapy (RT), though supporting data for clinical benefit are severely limited. Because of the potential for toxicity reduction in gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies, we systematically reviewed the literature on clinical outcomes (survival/toxicity) of PBT.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, abstracts from meetings of the American Society for Radiation Oncology, Particle Therapy Co-Operative Group, and American Society of Clinical Oncology was conducted for publications from 2000-2015. Thirty-eight original investigations were analyzed.

RESULTS

Although results of PBT are not directly comparable to historical data, outcomes roughly mirror previous data, generally with reduced toxicities for PBT in some neoplasms. For esophageal cancer, PBT is associated with reduced toxicities, postoperative complications, and hospital stay as compared to photon radiation, while achieving comparable local control (LC) and overall survival (OS). In pancreatic cancer, numerical survival for resected/unresected cases is also similar to existing photon data, whereas grade ≥3 nausea/emesis and post-operative complications are numerically lower than those reported with photon RT. The strongest data in support of PBT for HCC comes from phase II trials demonstrating very low toxicities, and a phase III trial of PBT versus transarterial chemoembolization demonstrating trends towards improved LC and progression-free survival (PFS) with PBT, along with fewer post-treatment hospitalizations. Survival and toxicity data for cholangiocarcinoma, liver metastases, and retroperitoneal sarcoma are also roughly equivalent to historical photon controls. There are two small reports for gastric cancer and three for anorectal cancer; these are not addressed further.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited quality (and quantity) of data hamper direct comparisons and conclusions. However, the available data, despite the inherent caveats and limitations, suggest that PBT offers the potential to achieve significant reduction in treatment-related toxicities without compromising survival or LC for multiple GI malignancies. Several randomized comparative trials are underway that will provide more definitive answers.

A phase I study of continuous hepatic arterial infusion of Irinotecan in patients with locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma

PURPOSE

Aim of this phase I study was to identify the maximum tolerated dose and dose limiting toxicity of continuous infusion of Irinotecan through a port-a-cath placed in the hepatic artery in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and cirrhosis to explore new strategies in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. Response rate and time-to-progression were analysed.

METHODS

Irinotecan was delivered as a five-day continuous infusion every 21 days, with increases of 2.5mg/m(2)/day every three patients, starting from 7.5mg/m(2)/day. Dose limiting toxicity corresponded to one patient in each triplet developing G4 haematological or G3 non-haematological toxicity, confirmed in two triplets. Twenty-eight patients (17 Child-Pugh A, 11 B) received treatment and tumour response was assessed after three courses completed by 22 patients.

RESULTS

Dose limiting toxicity was G3 diarrhoea in two patients, reached at 27.5mg/m(2)/day and the recommended dose was set at 25mg/m(2)/day. Nineteen of 30 patients experienced adverse events related to porth-a-cath placement and one died from liver ischemia and sepsis. Median time-to-progression was 11.3 months.

CONCLUSION

Intrarterial infusion of Irinotecan is feasible in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma on cirrhosis at a recommended dose of 25mg/m(2)/day, with no major adverse drug-related events, but with some concerns about the insertion and management of the intra-arterial device.