Treatment outcomes of chemotherapy between unresectable and recurrent biliary tract cancer

Aggressive resection of metachronous triple biliary cancer

Radical resection of recurrent cholangiocellular carcinoma (CCC) is rare. To date, only two patients have been reported to undergo major hepatectomy twice after pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) for metachronous CCC. This report describes a patient who underwent three metachronous radical resections of CCC with curative intent, consisting of PD followed by two hepatectomies, for cancer of the middle bile duct. A 60 year old male, who had undergone a distal gastrectomy for duodenal ulcer perforation in 23 years ago, underwent PD (Honjo method) for middle bile duct cancer (papillary adenocarcinoma) in 20 years ago at another hospital. In 12 years ago, he was referred to our hospital for further examinations of hepatic tumors and was diagnosed with CCC (S6, solitary, 4 cm). He underwent S6 subsegmentectomy of the liver. Pathological examination revealed a poorly differentiated CCC, considered a second primary cancer. In 6 years ago, subsequent follow up as an outpatient revealed repeated cholangitis, with CT showing a hilar mass caused by obstructive jaundice. He was diagnosed with a hilar cholangioma, and underwent hepatectomy and hepaticojejunostomy, which were safe despite surgical difficulties caused by severe adhesions and re-anastomosis. Pathological examination showed a well-differentiated CCC, considered the third primary cancer. The lung metastasis was revealed in 28 months after the last operation, however he has survived after partial lung resection without further metastasis. J. Med. Invest. 64: 299-304, August, 2017.

Phase II study of fixed dose-rate gemcitabine plus S-1 as a second-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer

PURPOSE

Gemcitabine plus platinum is considered standard first-line chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. However, no standard second-line therapy has been established for this disease. According to reports, S-1 exerts anti-tumor effects on advanced biliary tract cancer and gemcitabine is more effective via fixed dose-rate administration. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of a combination of fixed dose-rate gemcitabine and S-1 after failure of gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus cisplatin therapy.

METHODS

This single-arm phase II study (clinical trial number: UMIN000005918) set the response rate as the primary endpoint and used a MiniMax two-stage design with a null hypothesis < 7% and alternative hypothesis ≥ 25%. Thirty-five patients were needed to yield a power of 90% and α value of 0.05. Patients received gemcitabine (1000 mg/m², div, 100-min period, day 1) and S-1 (40 mg/m² twice daily, oral, days 1-7), every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable adverse events were observed.

RESULTS

Forty-one patients were enrolled, and 3 of 23 first-stage patients responded. The overall response rate was 9.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.7-19.2%]. The median overall and progression-free survival were 7.0 [95% CI: 5.3-8.6] and 2.6 months (95% CI: 1.6-3.5), respectively. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were leukopenia (19.5%), neutropenia (19.5%), anemia (14.6%), thrombocytopenia (7.3%), and anorexia (4.8%).

CONCLUSION

Second-line fixed dose-rate gemcitabine plus S-1 was not sufficiently effective and tolerable in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer refractory to gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus cisplatin.

Gemcitabine and S-1 versus gemcitabine and cisplatin treatment in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer: a multicenter retrospective study

Objective This study aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of the combination therapy of gemcitabine and S-1 (GS) versus gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). Methods In this multicenter retrospective cohort study, a total of 212 patients with advanced BTC receiving GS (n = 125) or GC (n = 87) between July 2006 and August 2015 were analyzed. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective tumor response, and safety. Results Patient characteristics were well balanced between the two groups, except for tumor size (the baseline sum of the largest diameter of the tumor: 6.3 cm in the GS group vs. 8.6 cm in the GC group, p = 0.01). Although the response rate was higher in the GS group than in the GC group (28.8% vs. 10.3%, p = 0.01), the median PFS and OS were comparable between the two groups (PFS of 5.6 vs. 7.6 months, p = 0.74; OS of 12.4 vs. 9.2 months, p = 0.20, respectively). Stomatitis and skin rash were more frequently observed in the GS group, whereas anemia, thrombocytopenia, nausea, and renal toxicity were more commonly observed in the GC group. Conclusion This study demonstrates that GS and GC are similar with regard to their safety and efficacy in patients with advanced BTC. GS could serve as an alternative treatment for advanced BTC as a first-line chemotherapy.