Background/Objectives: Systemic treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has rapidly advanced, with immune checkpoint inhibitors now the preferred first-line option. However, with multiple agents available and no established treatment sequence, selecting the most suitable second-line (2L) therapy remains challenging. While sorafenib is frequently chosen for 2L treatment, comprehensive data supporting its use is limited. This study evaluates the effectiveness of sorafenib as 2L therapy and factors influencing outcomes following first-line treatment failure in advanced HCC patients. Methods: This is a retrospective, multicenter study, including 81 patients with unresectable HCC from 12 European centers who received sorafenib as 2L treatment. Median overall survival (mOS), median progression-free survival (mPFS), radiological response to treatment, and toxicity were evaluated. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to identify potential predictors of clinical benefit. Results: In this cohort, some patients were treated with 2L sorafenib mOS for 7.4 months (95% CI: 6.6–13.6) and other patients were treated with mPFS for 3.7 months (95% CI: 3.0–4.8). Multivariable analysis revealed the best median OS for patients with CP A and AFP levels < 400 ng/mL (15.5 months). Adverse events (AE) of grade ≥ 3 were reported in 59.4% of patients. Conclusions: In this real-world cohort of European patients with unresectable HCC, the outcome of sorafenib treatment in the 2L setting was comparable to that of the other established 2L treatment options in patients with preserved liver function and good performance status. This study contributes to the understanding of the role of sorafenib in the 2L setting and underscores the need for further research to identify predictive factors for response and survival in order to optimize treatment algorithms for advanced HCC.

Einleitung Seit 2019 ist das FLOT4 Schema der neue perioperative Chemotherapiestandard für Patienten mit lokal fortgeschrittenem AEG-Tumor und Magenkarzinom. Ob sich die Daten der FLOT4-Studie auch in einem unselektierten Patientenkollektiv reproduzieren lassen, ist bisher nur unzureichend untersucht.

Einleitung Das extrahepatische Cholangiokarzinom (eCCA) ist noch immer ein Malignom mit schlechter Prognose. Die leitliniengerechte palliative Therapie besteht aus endobiliärem Stenting und systemischer Chemotherapie (SC). Endobiliäre tumorablative Techniken wie photodynamischer Therapie (ePDT) und Radiofrequenzablation (eRFA) haben bereits gute Verträglichkeit und positive Effekte auf das Patientenüberleben gezeigt.

Background and aimsExtrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (eCCA) remains a malignancy with a dismal prognosis. The first-line standard of care includes systemic chemotherapy (SC) and biliary drainage through stenting. Endobiliary ablative techniques, such as photodynamic therapy (ePDT) and radio-frequency ablation (eRFA), have demonstrated feasibility and favorable survival data. This study aimed to compare the oncologic outcome in patients treated with SC and concomitant eRFA or ePDT.MethodAll patients with eCCA were evaluated for study inclusion. Sixty-three patients receiving a combination of SC and at least one endobiliary treatment were retrospectively compared.ResultsPatients were stratified into three groups: SC + ePDT (n = 22), SC + eRFA (n = 28), and SC + ePDT + eRFA (n = 13). The median overall survival (OS) of the whole cohort was 14.2 months with no statistically significant difference between the three therapy groups but a trend to better survival for the group receiving ePDT as well as eRFA, during SC (ePDT + SC, 12.7 months; eRFA + SC, 13.8 months; ePDT + eRFA + SC, 20.2 months; p = 0.112). The multivariate Cox regression and subgroup analysis highlighted the beneficial effect of eRFA on OS. Overall, combined therapy was well tolerated. Only cholangitis occurred more often in the SC + eRFA group.ConclusionAdditional endobiliary ablative therapies in combination with SC were feasible. Both modalities, eRFA and ePDT, showed a similar benefit in terms of survival. Interestingly, patients receiving both regimes showed the best OS indicating a possible synergism between both ablative therapeutic techniques.

Background:Prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer is still extremely poor. First-line palliative therapies with FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel have been established in the last decade. In the second-line, 5-FU/LV in combination with nanoliposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) after gemcitabine has been shown to be effective. However, the use of nal-IRI as third-line therapy after FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine-based chemotherapies is still controversial. In this study, we report about the use of 5-FU/LV + nal-IRI in a daily practice and analyze whether nal-IRI is an option as third-line therapy after FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel.Methods:This is a single center retrospective analysis of patients with irresectable pancreatic cancer who were treated with 5-FU/LV and nal-IRI from 2017 to 2021 as second- or third-line palliative treatment. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity were analyzed, and multivariate analysis was used to identify independent prognostic factors.Results:Twenty-nine patients receiving 5-FU/LV and nal-IRI were included in the analysis. The majority of patients (n=19) received 5-FU/nal-IRI as third-line therapy after pre-exposition to FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. Median OS and PFS were 9.33 months (95% CI: 3.37, 15.30) and 2.90 months (95% CI: 1.64, 4.16), respectively. Furthermore, patients receiving nal-IRI + 5-FU/LV as third-line treatment also showed some benefits, with no OS difference compared to second-line patients (9.33 vs. 10.27 months; HR: 1.85; 95% CI: 0.64, 5.41; P=0.253). Adverse effects were similar to reported trials.Conclusions:In our study, the use of 5-FU/nal-IRI in unselected patients with advanced pancreatic cancer showed similar OS, PFS and tolerance as randomized prospective phase II/III trials. Interestingly, the use of 5-FU/nal-IRI seemed to be beneficial in third-line therapy, despite a pre-exposure to non-liposomal irinotecan.

Fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel (FLOT) regimen has shown strong efficacy as perioperative therapy for patients with locally advanced gastric (GC) and gastroesophageal (AEG) carcinoma. In the palliative situation, FLOT is recommended only for young fit patients. Data of efficacy and tolerability of FLOT in elderly patients are scarce and controversial. Thus, this study aimed to provide real-life experience of elderly patients with GC and AEG treated with FLOT as first-line palliative chemotherapy. Patients with advanced or metastatic GC or AEG and treated with FLOT as first-line palliative therapy between 2010 and 2021 were analyzed. Patients were grouped into < 65 years old (n = 35) and ≥ 65 years old (n = 22) groups. Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), feasibility and toxicity were analyzed. The median OS was 10.4 months with no significant difference between both groups (HR 0.86; 95

Einleitung Aktueller First-Line-Standard in der Palliation des irresektablen extrahepatischen Cholangiokarzinoms (eCCA) ist die systemische Chemotherapie (CT) mit Gemcitabin und einem Platinderivat, sowie die Optimierung der biliären Drainage mittels Stentimplantation. Zusätzlich steht als endoskopisches lokalablatives Verfahren neben der photodynamischen Therapie auch die endobiliäre Radiofrequenzablation (eRFA) zur Behandlung der malignen Gallengangsstrikturen zur Verfügung.