Search

Abstract Immune checkpoint inhibitors targeting PD-1/L1 have modest efficacy in hepatocellular carcinoma as single agents. Targeting membranous phosphatidylserine may induce pro-inflammatory and -immune stimulating effects that enhance immunotherapy activity. This hypothesis was tested in a single-arm phase 2 trial evaluating frontline bavituximab, a phosphatidylserine targeting antibody, plus pembrolizumab (anti-PD-1) in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (NCT03519997). The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective response rate among evaluable patients, and secondary end points included progression-free survival, incidence of adverse events, overall survival, and duration of response. Among 28 evaluable patients, the confirmed response rate was 32.1%, which met the pre-specified endpoint, and the median progression-free survival was 6.3 months (95% CI, 1.3–11.3 months). Treatment related-adverse events of any grade occurred in 45.7% of patients, with grade 3 or greater adverse events in 14.3% of patients. Adverse events of any cause were observed in 33 patients (94.3%), with grade 3 or greater adverse events in 11 patients (31.4%). Prespecified exploratory analyses of baseline tumor specimens showed that a depletion of B cells, and the presence of fibrotic tissue and expression of immune checkpoints in stroma was associated with tumor response. These results suggest that targeting phosphatidylserine may lead to synergistic effects with PD-1 blockade without increasing toxicity rates, and future studies on this therapeutic strategy may be guided by biomarkers characterizing the pre-treatment tumor microenvironment.

Abstract Background Lenvatinib is a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor that is being tested in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors to treat advanced gastric cancer; however, little data exists regarding the efficacy of lenvatinib monotherapy. Patient-derived xenografts (PDX) are established by engrafting human tumors into immunodeficient mice. The generation of PDXs may be hampered by growth of lymphomas. In this study, we compared the use of mice with different degrees of immunodeficiency to establish PDXs from a diverse cohort of Western gastric cancer patients. We then tested the efficacy of lenvatinib in this system. Methods PDXs were established by implanting gastric cancer tissue into NOD.Cg-Prkdc scid Il2rg tm1Wjl /SzJ (NSG) or Foxn1 nu (nude) mice. Tumors from multiple passages from each PDX line were compared histologically and transcriptomically. PDX-bearing mice were randomized to receive the drug delivery vehicle or lenvatinib. After 21 days, the percent tumor volume change (%Δvtumor) was calculated. Results 23 PDX models were established from Black, non-Hispanic White, Hispanic, and Asian gastric cancer patients. The engraftment rate was 17% (23/139). Tumors implanted into NSG (16%; 18/115) and nude (21%; 5/24) mice had a similar engraftment rate. The rate of lymphoma formation in nude mice (0%; 0/24) was lower than in NSG mice (20%; 23/115; p

Professional society guidelines recommend semiannual screening for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with cirrhosis; however, studies suggest underuse of screening in clinical practice. Our study’s aim was to characterize reasons for HCC screening underuse among patients with cirrhosis. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with cirrhosis diagnosed with HCC in two large health systems from 2011 to 2019. We classified screening receipt as consistent, inconsistent, or no screening in the year before HCC diagnosis. We categorized reasons for screening underuse as a potential failure at each of the following steps required for HCC screening: receipt of regular outpatient care, recognition of liver disease, recognition of cirrhosis, screening orders in patients with cirrhosis, and adherence to screening ultrasound appointments. Among 1,014 patients with cirrhosis with HCC, only 377 (37.2%) had regular outpatient care in the year before HCC presentation. Consistent screening was observed in 93 (24.7%) patients under regular outpatient care, whereas 161 (42.7%) had inconsistent screening and 123 (32.6%) no screening. We found screening underuse related to failures at each step in the screening process, although nearly half (49.6%) were due to lack of screening orders in patients with known cirrhosis. Conclusion: The most common reasons for HCC screening underuse in patients with cirrhosis are lack of regular outpatient care and lack of screening orders in those with known cirrhosis, highlighting the need for interventions targeted at these steps to increase HCC screening use.

Abstract Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is the second leading cause of cancer‐related deaths worldwide. Once considered an experimental treatment with dismal survival rates, liver transplantation for HCC entered a new era with the establishment of the Milan criteria over 20 years ago. In the modern post‐Milan‐criteria era, 5‐year survival outcomes are now upwards of 70% in select patients. Liver transplantation (LT) is now considered the optimal treatment for patients with moderate to severe cirrhosis and HCC, and the rates of transplantation in the United States are continuing to rise. Several expanded selection criteria have been proposed for determining which patients with HCC should be candidates for undergoing LT with similar overall and recurrence‐free survival rates to patients within the Milan criteria. There is also a growing experience with downstaging of patients who fall outside conventional LT criteria at the time of HCC diagnosis with the goal of tumor shrinkage via locoregional therapies to become a candidate for transplantation. The aim of this review article is to characterize the various patient selection criteria for LT, discuss balancing organ stewardship with outcome measures in HCC patients, present evidence on the role of downstaging for large tumors, and explore future directions of LT for HCC.

We report the case of a 64-year-old white male who presented to his primary care physician with complaints of fatigue. Physical exam was unremarkable and laboratory studies revealed profound anemia, for which the patient received a transfusion. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy revealed a bleeding mass in the proximal stomach that was histologically determined to be malignant melanoma, with immunohistochemical staining demonstrating positivity for SOX10, S100, MART-1, and HMG-45. After an extensive dermatological exam no other primary lesion was identified. Whole body positron emission tomography (18-FDG-PET/CT) demonstrated pathologic uptake only in the area of the proximal stomach. For this reason, primary gastric melanoma was suspected in this patient. The patient underwent subtotal gastrectomy with mass excision followed by Roux-en-Y reconstruction. Very few cases of primary gastric melanoma have been reported. We report this case and present diagnostic criteria for primary non-cutaneous melanoma and discuss potential non-surgical therapies.

Normal hepatic arterial anatomy occurs in approximately 50–80% of cases; for the remaining cases, multiple variations have been described. Knowledge of these anomalies is especially important in hepatobiliary and pancreatic surgery in order to avoid unnecessary complications. We describe two cases of patients undergoing pancreatoduodenectomy for abnormalities in the head of the pancreas. Preoperative contrast-enhanced cross-sectional imaging demonstrated relevant, rare hepatic arterial variants: (1) a completely replaced hepatic arterial system with a gastroduodenal artery (GDA) arising directly from the celiac axis and (2) a replaced right hepatic artery originating from the superior mesenteric artery and traveling anterior to the pancreatic uncinate process and head. These findings were confirmed during pancreatoduodenectomy. Both of these variants have been rarely described with an incidence of

Introduction Although antibiotic prophylaxis is established in reducing postoperative surgical site infections (SSIs), the optimal antibiotic for prophylaxis in pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) remains unclear. The study objective is to evaluate if administration of piperacillin–tazobactam as antibiotic prophylaxis results in decreased 30-day SSI rate compared with cefoxitin in patients undergoing elective PD.Methods and analysis This study will be a multi-institution, double-arm, non-blinded randomised controlled superiority trial. Adults ≥18 years consented to undergo PD for all indications who present to institutions participating in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary (NSQIP HPB) Collaborative will be included. Data collection will use the NSQIP HPB Collaborative Surgical Clinical Reviewers. Patients will be randomised to either 1–2 g intravenous cefoxitin or 3.375–4.5 g intravenous piperacillin–tazobactam within 60 min of surgical incision. The primary outcome will be 30-day postoperative SSI rate following PD. Secondary outcomes will include 30-day postoperative mortality; specific postoperative complication rate; and unplanned reoperation, length of stay, and hospital readmission. A subset of patients will have bacterial isolates and sensitivities of intraoperative bile cultures and SSIs. Postoperative SSIs and secondary outcomes will be analysed using logistic regression models with the primary predictor as the randomised treatment group. Additional adjustment will be made for preoperative biliary stent presence. Additionally, bacterial cultures and isolates will be summarised by presence of bacterial species and antibiotic sensitivities.Ethics and dissemination This study is approved by the Institutional Review Board at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. This trial will evaluate the effect of piperacillin–tazobactam compared with cefoxitin as antibiotic prophylaxis on the hazard of postoperative SSIs. The results will be disseminated regardless of the effect of the intervention on study outcomes. The manuscript describing the effect of the intervention will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal when data collection and analyses are complete.Trial registration number NCT03269994.