Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

Purpose: While fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy regimens are recommended second-line treatment for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), there have been no studies comparing different regimens head-to-head. Materials and Methods: We performed individual patient-level meta-analysis based on data from the intention-to-treat population of the phase 2b NIFTY trial (liposomal irinotecan [nal-IRI] plus fluorouracil and leucovorin [5-FU/LV] vs. 5-FU/LV; NCT03542508) and the phase 2 FIReFOX trial (modified oxaliplatin plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFOX] vs. modified irinotecan plus 5-FU/LV [mFOLFIRI]; NCT03464968). Pairwise log-rank tests and multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling with shared frailty to account for the trial's effect were used to compare overall survival (OS) between regimens. Results: A total of 277 patients were included. The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group (n=88) showed significantly better OS compared to the mFOLFOX group (n=49, pairwise log-rank, p=0.02), and mFOLFIRI group (n=50, p=0.03). Multivariable analysis showed consistent trends in OS with adjusted hazard ratios of 1.39 (mFOLFOX vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 2.07; p=0.11) and 1.36 (mFOLFIRI vs. nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV: 95% CI, 0.92 to 2.03; p=0.13), respectively. Compared to the 5-FU/LV group, the mFOLFOX group and the mFOLFIRI group did not show differences in terms of OS (pairwise log-rank p=0.83 and p=0.58, respectively). The nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV group experienced more frequent diarrhea, while the mFOLFOX group experienced peripheral neuropathy. Conclusion Nal-IRI plus 5-FU/LV showed favorable survival outcomes compared to mFOLFOX, mFOLFIRI, or 5-FU/LV. The safety profiles of these regimens should be considered along with efficacy.

Purpose: This study aimed to report the results from an early-phase study of rivoceranib, an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor highly selective for vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2, in patients with advanced solid tumors. Materials and Methods: In this open-label, single-arm, dose-escalating, multicenter three-part phase 1/2a trial, patients had advanced solid tumors refractory to conventional therapy. Part 1 evaluated the safety and pharmacokinetics of five ascending once-daily doses of rivoceranib from 81 mg to 685 mg. Part 2 evaluated the safety and antitumor activity of once-daily rivoceranib 685 mg. Part 3 was conducted later, due to lack of maximum tolerated dose determination in part 1, to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of once-daily rivoceranib 805 mg in patients with unresectable or advanced gastric cancer. Results: A total of 61 patients were enrolled in parts 1 (n=25), 2 (n=30), and 3 (n=6). In parts 1 and 2, patients were white (45.5%) or Asian (54.5%), and 65.6% were male. The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events were hypertension (32.7%), hyponatremia (10.9%), and hypophosphatemia (10.9%). The objective response rate (ORR) was 15.2%. In part 3, dose-limiting toxicities occurred in two out of six patients: grade 3 febrile neutropenia decreased appetite, and fatigue. The ORR was 33%. Conclusion The recommended phase 2 dose of rivoceranib was determined to be 685 mg once daily, which showed adequate efficacy with a manageable safety profile (NCT01497704 and NCT02711969).

Purpose: Clinical outcomes of surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy have not been investigated for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC), despite well-established outcomes in borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC). This study aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with LAPC who underwent curative resection following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma between January 2017 and December 2020. Results: Among 1,358 patients, 260 underwent surgery following neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Among 356 LAPC patients, 98 (27.5%) and 147 (35.1%) of 418 BRPC patients underwent surgery after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Compared to resectable pancreatic cancer (resectable PC) with upfront surgery, both LAPC and BRPC exhibited higher rates of venous resection (28.6% vs. 49.0% vs. 4.0%), arterial resection (30.6% vs. 6.8% vs. 0.5%) and greater estimated blood loss (260.5 vs. 213.1 vs. 70.4 mL). However, hospital stay, readmission rates, and postoperative pancreatic fistula rates (grade B or C) did not differ significantly between LAPC, BRPC, and resectable PC. Overall and relapse-free survival did not differ significantly between LAPC and BRPC patients. The median overall survival was 37.3 months for LAPC and 37.0 months for BRPC. The median relapse-free survival was 22.7 months for LAPC and 26.0 months for BRPC. Conclusion Overall survival time and postoperative complications in LAPC patients who underwent curative resection following neoadjuvant chemotherapy showed similar results to those of BRPC patients. Further research is needed to identify specific sub-populations of LAPC patients who benefit most from conversion surgery and to minimize postoperative complications.

Purpose: This study aimed to identify clinical and radiologic characteristics that could predict response to atezolizumab-bevacizumab combination therapy in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Materials and Methods: This single-center retrospective study included 108 advanced HCC patients with intrahepatic lesions who were treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab. Two radiologists independently analyzed imaging characteristics of the index tumor on pretreatment computed tomography. Predictive factors associated with progressive disease (PD) at the best response based on Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, ver. 1.1 were evaluated using logistic regression analysis. Progression-free survival (PFS) was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Results: Of 108 patients with a median PFS of 15 weeks, 40 (37.0%) had PD during treatment. Factors associated with PD included the presence of extrahepatic metastases (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19 to 14.35; p=0.03), the infiltrative appearance of the tumor (aOR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.05 to 8.93; p=0.04), and the absence of arterial-phase hyperenhancement (APHE) (aOR, 6.34; 95% CI, 2.18 to 18.47; p < 0.001). Patients with two or more of these factors had a PD of 66.7% and a median PFS of 8 weeks, indicating a significantly worse outcome compared to the patients with one or no of these factors. Conclusion In patients with advanced HCC treated with atezolizumab-bevacizumab treatment, the absence of APHE, infiltrative appearance of the intrahepatic tumor, and presence of extrahepatic metastases were associated with poor response and survival. Evaluation of early response may be necessary in patients with these factors.

Background/Aims: Sorafenib is the standard of care in the management of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The purpose of this study was to investigate the characteristics, treatment patterns and outcomes of sorafenib among HCC patients in South Korea. Methods: This population-based retrospective, single-arm, observational study used the Korean National Health Insurance database to identify patients with HCC who received sorafenib between July 1, 2008, and December 31, 2014. A total of 9,923 patients were recruited in this study. Results: Among 9,923 patients, 6,669 patients (68.2%) received loco-regional therapy prior to sorafenib, and 1,565 patients (15.8%) received combination therapy with concomitant sorafenib;2,591 patients (26.1%) received rescue therapy after sorafenib, and transarterial chemoembolization was the most common modality applied in 1,498 patients (15.1%). A total of 3,591 patients underwent rescue therapy after sorafenib, and the median overall survival was 14.5 months compared to 4.6 months in 7,332 patients who received supportive care after sorafenib. The mean duration of sorafenib administration in all patients was 105.7 days; 7,023 patients (70.8%) received an initial dose of 600 to 800 mg. The longest survival was shown in patients who received the recommended dose of 800 mg, subsequently reduced to 400 mg (15.0 months). The second longest survival was demonstrated in patients with a starting dose of 800 mg, followed by a dose reduction to 400–600 mg (9.6 months). Conclusions Real-life data show that the efficacy of sorafenib seems similar to that observed in clinical trials, suggesting that appropriate subsequent therapy after sorafenib might prolong patient survival.

Purpose: The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy following curative-intent surgery in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients who had received neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX is unclear. This study aimed to assess the survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in this patient population. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study included 218 patients with localized non-metastatic PDAC who received neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and underwent curative-intent surgery (R0 or R1) between January 2017 and December 2020. The association of adjuvant chemotherapy with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was evaluated in overall patients and in the propensity score matched (PSM) cohort. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to the pathology-proven lymph node status. Results: Adjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 149 patients (68.3%). In the overall cohort, the adjuvant chemotherapy group had significantly improved DFS and OS compared to the observation group (DFS: median, 13.8 months [95% confidence interval (CI), 11.0 to 19.1] vs. 8.2 months [95% CI, 6.5 to 12.0]; p < 0.001; and OS: median, 38.0 months [95% CI, 32.2 to not assessable] vs. 25.7 months [95% CI, 18.3 to not assessable]; p=0.005). In the PSM cohort of 57 matched pairs of patients, DFS and OS were better in the adjuvant chemotherapy group than in the observation group (p < 0.001 and p=0.038, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, adjuvant chemotherapy was a significant favorable prognostic factor (vs. observation; DFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.71; p < 0.001]; OS: HR, 0.45 [95% CI, 0.29 to 0.71; p < 0.001]). Conclusion Among PDAC patients who underwent surgery following neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX, adjuvant chemotherapy may be associated with improved survival. Randomized studies should be conducted to validate this finding.

Purpose: There are no reliable biomarkers to guide treatment for patients with borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (BRPC) in the neoadjuvant setting. We used plasma circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) sequencing to search biomarkers for patients with BRPC receiving neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX in our phase 2 clinical trial (NCT02749136). Materials and Methods: Among the 44 patients enrolled in the trial, patients with plasma ctDNA sequencing at baseline or post-operation were included in this analysis. Plasma cell-free DNA isolation and sequencing were performed using the Guardant 360 assay. Detection of genomic alterations, including DNA damage repair (DDR) genes, were examined for correlations with survival. Results: Among the 44 patients, 28 patients had ctDNA sequencing data qualified for the analysis and were included in this study. Among the 25 patients with baseline plasma ctDNA data, 10 patients (40%) had alterations of DDR genes detected at baseline, inclu-ding ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2 and MLH1, and showed significantly better progression-free survival than those without such DDR gene alterations detected (median, 26.6 vs. 13.5 months; log-rank p=0.004). Patients with somatic KRAS mutations detected at baseline (n=6) had significantly worse overall survival (median, 8.5 months vs. not applicable; log-rank p=0.003) than those without. Among 13 patients with post-operative plasma ctDNA data, eight patients (61.5%) had detectable somatic alterations. Conclusion Detection of DDR gene mutations from plasma ctDNA at baseline was associated with better survival outcomes of pati-ents with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX and may be a prognostic biomarker.

Neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) are a group of malignancies arising from neuroendocrine cells and frequently originate in the gastrointestinal tract and pancreas. Although curative resection is the main treatment for localized disease, systemic therapy is needed for relapsed or metastatic/unresectable gastroenteropancreatic NETs (GEP-NETs). Although there are several NET treatment guidelines from various countries, the geographical discrepancies between patient clinical characteristics, the regulatory approval status for therapeutic agents, and medical practices necessitate specific guidelines for Korean patients. We here provide a consensus review of the diagnosis, staging and systemic treatment of Korean GEP-NET patients. Systemic therapy options and the current Korean expert consensus on these treatments, including somatostatin analogs, targeted therapies such as everolimus and sunitinib, peptide receptor radionuclide treatments, and cytotoxic chemotherapies are addressed.