Hôpital Beaujon

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

BACKGROUND: Lu)-Dotatate in patients with advanced, progressive, somatostatin-receptor-positive midgut neuroendocrine tumors. METHODS: Lu-Dotatate group) or octreotide LAR alone (113 patients) administered intramuscularly at a dose of 60 mg every 4 weeks (control group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, safety, and the side-effect profile. The final analysis of overall survival will be conducted in the future as specified in the protocol; a prespecified interim analysis of overall survival was conducted and is reported here. RESULTS: Lu-Dotatate group as compared with no patients in the control group, with no evidence of renal toxic effects during the observed time frame. CONCLUSIONS: Lu-Dotatate group. (Funded by Advanced Accelerator Applications; NETTER-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01578239 ; EudraCT number 2011-005049-11 .).

BACKGROUND: Treatment with pegylated interferon (peginterferon) and ribavirin for 48 weeks is more effective than conventional interferon and ribavirin in patients with chronic hepatitis C. OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of 24 or 48 weeks of treatment with peginterferon-alpha2a plus a low or standard dose of ribavirin. DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind trial. SETTING: 99 international centers. PATIENTS: 1311 patients with chronic hepatitis C. INTERVENTION: Peginterferon-alpha2a, 180 microg/wk, for 24 or 48 weeks plus a low-dose (800 mg/d) or standard weight-based dose (1000 or 1200 mg/d) of ribavirin. MEASUREMENT: Sustained virologic response: undetectable HCV RNA concentration at the end of treatment and during 12 to 24 weeks of follow-up. RESULTS: Overall and in patients infected with HCV genotype 1, 48 weeks of treatment was statistically superior to 24 weeks and standard-dose ribavirin was statistically superior to low-dose ribavirin. In patients with HCV genotype 1, absolute differences in sustained virologic response rates between 48 and 24 weeks of treatment were 11.2% (95% CI, 3.6% to 18.9%) and 11.9% (CI, 4.7% to 18.9%), respectively, between standard- and low-dose ribavirin. Sustained virologic response rates for peginterferon-alpha2a and standard-dose ribavirin for 48 weeks were 63% (CI, 59% to 68%) overall and 52% (CI, 46% to 58%) in patients with HCV genotype 1. In patients with HCV genotypes 2 or 3, the sustained virologic response rates in the 4 treatment groups were not statistically significantly different. CONCLUSION: Treatment with peginterferon-alpha2a and ribavirin may be individualized by genotype. Patients with HCV genotype 1 require treatment for 48 weeks and a standard dose of ribavirin; those with HCV genotypes 2 or 3 seem to be adequately treated with a low dose of ribavirin for 24 weeks.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) leads to longer overall survival than gemcitabine therapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen with gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 493 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to receive a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen (oxaliplatin [85 mg per square meter of body-surface area], irinotecan [180 mg per square meter, reduced to 150 mg per square meter after a protocol-specified safety analysis], leucovorin [400 mg per square meter], and fluorouracil [2400 mg per square meter] every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks. The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival and safety. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, the median disease-free survival was 21.6 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 12.8 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for cancer-related event, second cancer, or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.73; P<0.001). The disease-free survival rate at 3 years was 39.7% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 21.4% in the gemcitabine group. The median overall survival was 54.4 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 35.0 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86; P=0.003). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 63.4% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 48.6% in the gemcitabine group. Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 75.9% of the patients in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and in 52.9% of those in the gemcitabine group. One patient in the gemcitabine group died from toxic effects (interstitial pneumonitis). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant therapy with a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen led to significantly longer survival than gemcitabine among patients with resected pancreatic cancer, at the expense of a higher incidence of toxic effects. (Funded by R&D Unicancer and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01526135 ; EudraCT number, 2011-002026-52 .).

BACKGROUND: The multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib has shown activity against pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in preclinical models and phase 1 and 2 trials. METHODS: We conducted a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of sunitinib in patients with advanced, well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. All patients had Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-defined disease progression documented within 12 months before baseline. A total of 171 patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive best supportive care with either sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg per day or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival; secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: The study was discontinued early, after the independent data and safety monitoring committee observed more serious adverse events and deaths in the placebo group as well as a difference in progression-free survival favoring sunitinib. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the sunitinib group as compared with 5.5 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.66; P<0.001). A Cox proportional-hazards analysis of progression-free survival according to baseline characteristics favored sunitinib in all subgroups studied. The objective response rate was 9.3% in the sunitinib group versus 0% in the placebo group. At the data cutoff point, 9 deaths were reported in the sunitinib group (10%) versus 21 deaths in the placebo group (25%) (hazard ratio for death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.89; P=0.02). The most frequent adverse events in the sunitinib group were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, asthenia, and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous daily administration of sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and the objective response rate as compared with placebo among patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00428597.).

BACKGROUND: In phase 2 trials, telaprevir, a hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 protease inhibitor, in combination with peginterferon-ribavirin, as compared with peginterferon-ribavirin alone, has shown improved efficacy, with potential for shortening the duration of treatment in a majority of patients.&#13;\nMETHODS: In this international, phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned 1088 patients with HCV genotype 1 infection who had not received previous treatment for the infection to one of three groups: a group receiving telaprevir combined with peginterferon alfa-2a and ribavirin for 12 weeks (T12PR group), followed by peginterferon-ribavirin alone for 12 weeks if HCV RNA was undetectable at weeks 4 and 12 or for 36 weeks if HCV RNA was detectable at either time point; a group receiving telaprevir with peginterferon-ribavirin for 8 weeks and placebo with peginterferon-ribavirin for 4 weeks (T8PR group), followed by 12 or 36 weeks of peginterferon-ribavirin on the basis of the same HCV RNA criteria; or a group receiving placebo with peginterferon-ribavirin for 12 weeks, followed by 36 weeks of peginterferon-ribavirin (PR group). The primary end point was the proportion of patients who had undetectable plasma HCV RNA 24 weeks after the last planned dose of study treatment (sustained virologic response).&#13;\nRESULTS: Significantly more patients in the T12PR or T8PR group than in the PR group had a sustained virologic response (75% and 69%, respectively, vs. 44%; P&lt;0.001 for the comparison of the T12PR or T8PR group with the PR group). A total of 58% of the patients treated with telaprevir were eligible to receive 24 weeks of total treatment. Anemia, gastrointestinal side effects, and skin rashes occurred at a higher incidence among patients receiving telaprevir than among those receiving peginterferon-ribavirin alone. The overall rate of discontinuation of the treatment regimen owing to adverse events was 10% in the T12PR and T8PR groups and 7% in the PR group.&#13;\nCONCLUSIONS: Telaprevir with peginterferon-ribavirin, as compared with peginterferon-ribavirin alone, was associated with significantly improved rates of sustained virologic response in patients with HCV genotype 1 infection who had not received previous treatment, with only 24 weeks of therapy administered in the majority of patients

Fibrosis is a common endpoint of clinical trials in chronic hepatitis C, and liver biopsy remains the gold standard for fibrosis evaluation. However, variability in the distribution of fibrosis within the liver is a potential limitation. Our aim was to assess the heterogeneity of liver fibrosis and its influence on the accuracy of assessment of fibrosis with liver biopsy. Surgical samples of livers from patients with chronic hepatitis C were studied. Measurement of fibrosis was performed on the whole section by using both image analysis and METAVIR score (reference value). From the digitized image of the whole section, virtual biopsy specimens of increasing length were produced. Fibrosis was assessed independently on each individual virtual biopsy specimen. Results were compared with the reference value according to the length of the biopsy specimen. By using image analysis, the coefficient of variation of fibrosis measurement with 15-mm long biopsy specimens was 55%; and for biopsy specimens of 25-mm length it was 45%. By using the METAVIR scoring system, 65% of biopsies 15 mm in length were categorized correctly according to the reference value. This increased to 75% for a 25-mm liver biopsy specimen without any substantial benefit for longer biopsy specimens. Sampling variability of fibrosis is a significant limitation in the assessment of fibrosis with liver biopsy. In conclusion, this study suggests that a length of at least 25 mm is necessary to evaluate fibrosis accurately with a semiquantitative score. Sampling variability becomes a major limitation when using more accurate methods such as automated image analysis.

PURPOSE Pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity and safety in the phase II KEYNOTE-224 trial in previously treated patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). KEYNOTE-240 evaluated the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS This randomized, double-blind, phase III study was conducted at 119 medical centers in 27 countries. Eligible patients with advanced HCC, previously treated with sorafenib, were randomly assigned at a two-to-one ratio to receive pembrolizumab plus best supportive care (BSC) or placebo plus BSC. Primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS; one-sided significance thresholds, P = .0174 [final analysis] and P = .002 [first interim analysis], respectively). Safety was assessed in all patients who received ≥ 1 dose of study drug. RESULTS Between May 31, 2016, and November 23, 2017, 413 patients were randomly assigned. As of January 2, 2019, median follow-up was 13.8 months for pembrolizumab and 10.6 months for placebo. Median OS was 13.9 months (95% CI, 11.6 to 16.0 months) for pembrolizumab versus 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 13.5 months) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR], 0.781; 95% CI, 0.611 to 0.998; P = .0238). Median PFS for pembrolizumab was 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.5 to 4.1 months) for placebo at the first interim analysis (HR, 0.775; 95% CI, 0.609 to 0.987; P = .0186) and 3.0 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 4.1 months) versus 2.8 months (95% CI, 1.6 to 3.0 months) at final analysis (HR, 0.718; 95% CI, 0.570 to 0.904; P = .0022). Grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 147 (52.7%) and 62 patients (46.3%) for pembrolizumab versus placebo; those that were treatment related occurred in 52 (18.6%) and 10 patients (7.5%), respectively. No hepatitis C or B flares were identified. CONCLUSION In this study, OS and PFS did not reach statistical significance per specified criteria. The results are consistent with those of KEYNOTE-224, supporting a favorable risk-to-benefit ratio for pembrolizumab in this population.

Survivals of two series of CLL patients (99 from a retrospective series and 196 from a prospective series) were studied separately. The three main staging systems (Rai, Binet, Rundles) agreed well, but as far as survival is concerned, too many stages are defined. The authors performed a Cox multivariate analysis of survival in order to isolate important prognostic factors at diagnosis and to use them to build a simple three-stage classification. Thrombopenia and anemia appeared as the most important risk factors. Among the nonanemic and nonthrombopenic patients, the number of involved areas was clearly related to prognosis in the authors' two series. This study allowed the authors to propose a new classification in three prognostic groups. Group C: anemia (Hb less than 10 g) and/or thrombopenia (platelets less than 100,000/mm3); about 15% of the patients; median of 2 years. Group B: no anemia, no thrombopenia, three or more involved areas (counting as one each of the following: axillary, cervical, inguinal, lymph nodes, whether unilateral or bilateral, spleen and liver); about 30% of patients; median of 7 years. Group A: no anemia, no thrombopenia, less than three involved areas; about 55% of patients; the survival of this group does not seem different from that of the French population of the same age and sex distribution. This three-stage classification only requires clinical examination and routine hemogram, has a good prognostic value which was confirmed on the series of Montserrat and Rozman (146 patients), and should therefore be helpful in planning new clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: In phase 2 studies, treatment with the all-oral combination of the nucleotide polymerase inhibitor sofosbuvir and the NS5A inhibitor ledipasvir resulted in high rates of sustained virologic response among previously untreated patients with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 infection. METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, open-label study involving previously untreated patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to receive ledipasvir and sofosbuvir in a fixed-dose combination tablet once daily for 12 weeks, ledipasvir-sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for 12 weeks, ledipasvir-sofosbuvir for 24 weeks, or ledipasvir-sofosbuvir plus ribavirin for 24 weeks. The primary end point was a sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after the end of therapy. RESULTS: Of the 865 patients who underwent randomization and were treated, 16% had cirrhosis, 12% were black, and 67% had HCV genotype 1a infection. The rates of sustained virologic response were 99% (95% confidence interval [CI], 96 to 100) in the group that received 12 weeks of ledipasvir-sofosbuvir; 97% (95% CI, 94 to 99) in the group that received 12 weeks of ledipasvir-sofosbuvir plus ribavirin; 98% (95% CI, 95 to 99) in the group that received 24 weeks of ledipasvir-sofosbuvir; and 99% (95% CI, 97 to 100) in the group that received 24 weeks of ledipasvir-sofosbuvir plus ribavirin. No patient in either 12-week group discontinued ledipasvir-sofosbuvir owing to an adverse event. The most common adverse events were fatigue, headache, insomnia, and nausea. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily ledipasvir-sofosbuvir with or without ribavirin for 12 or 24 weeks was highly effective in previously untreated patients with HCV genotype 1 infection. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; ION-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT01701401.).

AIMS: Large randomized trials have shown that beta-blockers reduce mortality and hospital admissions in patients with heart failure. The effects of beta-blockers in elderly patients with a broad range of left ventricular ejection fraction are uncertain. The SENIORS study was performed to assess effects of the beta-blocker, nebivolol, in patients >/=70 years, regardless of ejection fraction. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned 2128 patients aged >/=70 years with a history of heart failure (hospital admission for heart failure within the previous year or known ejection fraction </=35%), 1067 to nebivolol (titrated from 1.25 mg once daily to 10 mg once daily), and 1061 to placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of all cause mortality or cardiovascular hospital admission (time to first event). Analysis was by intention to treat. Mean duration of follow-up was 21 months. Mean age was 76 years (SD 4.7), 37% were female, mean ejection fraction was 36% (with 35% having ejection fraction >35%), and 68% had a prior history of coronary heart disease. The mean maintenance dose of nebivolol was 7.7 mg and of placebo 8.5 mg. The primary outcome occurred in 332 patients (31.1%) on nebivolol compared with 375 (35.3%) on placebo [hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% CI 0.74-0.99; P=0.039]. There was no significant influence of age, gender, or ejection fraction on the effect of nebivolol on the primary outcome. Death (all causes) occurred in 169 (15.8%) on nebivolol and 192 (18.1%) on placebo (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.71-1.08; P=0.21). CONCLUSION: Nebivolol, a beta-blocker with vasodilating properties, is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for heart failure in the elderly.

BACKGROUND: Nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) is a progressive liver disease with no approved treatment. Resmetirom is an oral, liver-directed, thyroid hormone receptor beta-selective agonist in development for the treatment of NASH with liver fibrosis. METHODS: We are conducting an ongoing phase 3 trial involving adults with biopsy-confirmed NASH and a fibrosis stage of F1B, F2, or F3 (stages range from F0 [no fibrosis] to F4 [cirrhosis]). Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive once-daily resmetirom at a dose of 80 mg or 100 mg or placebo. The two primary end points at week 52 were NASH resolution (including a reduction in the nonalcoholic fatty liver disease [NAFLD] activity score by ≥2 points; scores range from 0 to 8, with higher scores indicating more severe disease) with no worsening of fibrosis, and an improvement (reduction) in fibrosis by at least one stage with no worsening of the NAFLD activity score. RESULTS: Overall, 966 patients formed the primary analysis population (322 in the 80-mg resmetirom group, 323 in the 100-mg resmetirom group, and 321 in the placebo group). NASH resolution with no worsening of fibrosis was achieved in 25.9% of the patients in the 80-mg resmetirom group and 29.9% of those in the 100-mg resmetirom group, as compared with 9.7% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). Fibrosis improvement by at least one stage with no worsening of the NAFLD activity score was achieved in 24.2% of the patients in the 80-mg resmetirom group and 25.9% of those in the 100-mg resmetirom group, as compared with 14.2% of those in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). The change in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels from baseline to week 24 was -13.6% in the 80-mg resmetirom group and -16.3% in the 100-mg resmetirom group, as compared with 0.1% in the placebo group (P<0.001 for both comparisons with placebo). Diarrhea and nausea were more frequent with resmetirom than with placebo. The incidence of serious adverse events was similar across trial groups: 10.9% in the 80-mg resmetirom group, 12.7% in the 100-mg resmetirom group, and 11.5% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Both the 80-mg dose and the 100-mg dose of resmetirom were superior to placebo with respect to NASH resolution and improvement in liver fibrosis by at least one stage. (Funded by Madrigal Pharmaceuticals; MAESTRO-NASH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03900429.).

BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic infection with hepatitis C virus (HCV) genotype 1 who do not have a sustained response to therapy with peginterferon-ribavirin, outcomes after retreatment are suboptimal. Boceprevir, a protease inhibitor that binds to the HCV nonstructural 3 (NS3) active site, has been suggested as an additional treatment. METHODS: To assess the effect of the combination of boceprevir and peginterferon-ribavirin for retreatment of patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection, we randomly assigned patients (in a 1:2:2 ratio) to one of three groups. In all three groups, peginterferon alfa-2b and ribavirin were administered for 4 weeks (the lead-in period). Subsequently, group 1 (control group) received placebo plus peginterferon-ribavirin for 44 weeks; group 2 received boceprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin for 32 weeks, and patients with a detectable HCV RNA level at week 8 received placebo plus peginterferon-ribavirin for an additional 12 weeks; and group 3 received boceprevir plus peginterferon-ribavirin for 44 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 403 patients were treated. The rate of sustained virologic response was significantly higher in the two boceprevir groups (group 2, 59%; group 3, 66%) than in the control group (21%, P<0.001). Among patients with an undetectable HCV RNA level at week 8, the rate of sustained virologic response was 86% after 32 weeks of triple therapy and 88% after 44 weeks of triple therapy. Among the 102 patients with a decrease in the HCV RNA level of less than 1 log(10) IU per milliliter at treatment week 4, the rates of sustained virologic response were 0%, 33%, and 34% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Anemia was significantly more common in the boceprevir groups than in the control group, and erythropoietin was administered in 41 to 46% of boceprevir-treated patients and 21% of controls. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of boceprevir to peginterferon-ribavirin resulted in significantly higher rates of sustained virologic response in previously treated patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection, as compared with peginterferon-ribavirin alone. (Funded by Schering-Plough [now Merck]; HCV RESPOND-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00708500.).

The need for standards in the management of patients with endocrine tumors of the digestive system prompted the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society (ENETS) to organize a first Consensus Conference, which was held in Frascati (Rome) and was based on the recently published ENETS guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of digestive neuroendocrine tumors (NET). Here, we report the tumor-node-metastasis proposal for foregut NETs of the stomach, duodenum, and pancreas that was designed, discussed, and consensually approved at this conference. In addition, we report the proposal for a working formulation for the grading of digestive NETs based on mitotic count and Ki-67 index. This proposal, which needs to be validated, is meant to help clinicians in the stratification, treatment, and follow-up of patients.

BACKGROUND: Current treatments for chronic hepatitis B are suboptimal. In the search for improved therapies, we compared the efficacy and safety of pegylated interferon alfa plus lamivudine, pegylated interferon alfa without lamivudine, and lamivudine alone for the treatment of hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg)-positive chronic hepatitis B. METHODS: A total of 814 patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B received either peginterferon alfa-2a (180 microg once weekly) plus oral placebo, peginterferon alfa-2a plus lamivudine (100 mg daily), or lamivudine alone. The majority of patients in the study were Asian (87 percent). Most patients were infected with hepatitis B virus (HBV) genotype B or C. Patients were treated for 48 weeks and followed for an additional 24 weeks. RESULTS: After 24 weeks of follow-up, significantly more patients who received peginterferon alfa-2a monotherapy or peginterferon alfa-2a plus lamivudine than those who received lamivudine monotherapy had HBeAg seroconversion (32 percent vs. 19 percent [P<0.001] and 27 percent vs. 19 percent [P=0.02], respectively) or HBV DNA levels below 100,000 copies per milliliter (32 percent vs. 22 percent [P=0.01] and 34 percent vs. 22 percent [P=0.003], respectively). Sixteen patients receiving peginterferon alfa-2a (alone or in combination) had hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) seroconversion, as compared with 0 in the group receiving lamivudine alone (P=0.001). The most common adverse events were those known to occur with therapies based on interferon alfa. Serious adverse events occurred in 4 percent, 6 percent, and 2 percent of patients receiving peginterferon alfa-2a monotherapy, combination therapy, and lamivudine monotherapy, respectively. Two patients receiving lamivudine monotherapy had irreversible liver failure after the cessation of treatment--one underwent liver transplantation, and the other died. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B, peginterferon alfa-2a offers superior efficacy over lamivudine, on the basis of HBeAg seroconversion, HBV DNA suppression, and HBsAg seroconversion.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the current world position on laparoscopic liver surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Multiple series have reported on the safety and efficacy of laparoscopic liver surgery. Small and medium sized procedures have become commonplace in many centers, while major laparoscopic liver resections have been performed with efficacy and safety equaling open surgery in highly specialized centers. Although the field has begun to expand rapidly, no consensus meeting has been convened to discuss the evolving field of laparoscopic liver surgery. METHODS: On November 7 to 8, 2008, 45 experts in hepatobiliary surgery were invited to participate in a consensus conference convened in Louisville, KY, US. In addition, over 300 attendees were present from 5 continents. The conference was divided into sessions, with 2 moderators assigned to each, so as to stimulate discussion and highlight controversies. The format of the meeting varied from formal presentation of experiential data to expert opinion debates. Written and video records of the presentations were produced. Specific areas of discussion included indications for surgery, patient selection, surgical techniques, complications, patient safety, and surgeon training. RESULTS: The consensus conference used the terms pure laparoscopy, hand-assisted laparoscopy, and the hybrid technique to define laparoscopic liver procedures. Currently acceptable indications for laparoscopic liver resection are patients with solitary lesions, 5 cm or less, located in liver segments 2 to 6. The laparoscopic approach to left lateral sectionectomy should be considered standard practice. Although all types of liver resection can be performed laparoscopically, major liver resections (eg, right or left hepatectomies) should be reserved for experienced surgeons facile with more advanced laparoscopic hepatic resections. Conversion should be performed for difficult resections requiring extended operating times, and for patient safety, and should be considered prudent surgical practice rather than failure. In emergent situations, efforts should be made to control bleeding before converting to a formal open approach. Utilization of a hand assist or hybrid technique may be faster, safer, and more efficacious. Indications for surgery for benign hepatic lesions should not be widened simply because the surgery can be done laparoscopically. Although data presented on colorectal metastases did not reveal an adverse effect of the laparoscopic approach on oncological outcomes in terms of margins or survival, adequacy of margins and ability to detect occult lesions are concerns. The pure laparoscopic technique of left lateral sectionectomy was used for adult to child donation while the hybrid approach has been the only one reported to date in the case of adult to adult right lobe donation. Laparoscopic liver surgery has not been tested by controlled trials for efficacy or safety. A prospective randomized trial appears to be logistically prohibitive; however, an international registry should be initiated to document the role and safety of laparoscopic liver resection. CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic liver surgery is a safe and effective approach to the management of surgical liver disease in the hands of trained surgeons with experience in hepatobiliary and laparoscopic surgery. National and international societies, as well as governing boards, should become involved in the goal of establishing training standards and credentialing, to ensure consistent standards and clinical outcomes.

Liver fibrosis is the main predictor of the progression of chronic hepatitis C, and its assessment by liver biopsy (LB) can help determine therapy. However, biopsy is an invasive procedure with several limitations. A new, noninvasive medical device based on transient elastography has been designed to measure liver stiffness. The aim of this study was to investigate the use of liver stiffness measurement (LSM) in the evaluation of liver fibrosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C. We prospectively enrolled 327 patients with chronic hepatitis C in a multicenter study. Patients underwent LB and LSM. METAVIR liver fibrosis stages were assessed on biopsy specimens by 2 pathologists. LSM was performed by transient elastography. Efficiency of LSM and optimal cutoff values for fibrosis stage assessment were determined by a receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis and cross-validated by the jack-knife method. LSM was well correlated with fibrosis stage (Kendall correlation coefficient: 0.55; P < .0001). The areas under ROC curves were 0.79 (95% CI, 0.73-0.84) for F > or =2, 0.91 (0.87-0.96) for F > or =3, and 0.97 (0.93-1) for F=4; for larger biopsies, these values were, respectively, 0.81, 0.95, and 0.99. Optimal stiffness cutoff values of 8.7 and 14.5 kPa showed F > or =2 and F=4, respectively. In conclusion, noninvasive assessment of liver stiffness with transient elastography appears as a reliable tool to detect significant fibrosis or cirrhosis in patients with chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Lung-protective ventilation with the use of low tidal volumes and positive end-expiratory pressure is considered best practice in the care of many critically ill patients. However, its role in anesthetized patients undergoing major surgery is not known. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial, we randomly assigned 400 adults at intermediate to high risk of pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery to either nonprotective mechanical ventilation or a strategy of lung-protective ventilation. The primary outcome was a composite of major pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications occurring within the first 7 days after surgery. RESULTS: The two intervention groups had similar characteristics at baseline. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 21 of 200 patients (10.5%) assigned to lung-protective ventilation, as compared with 55 of 200 (27.5%) assigned to nonprotective ventilation (relative risk, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24 to 0.68; P=0.001). Over the 7-day postoperative period, 10 patients (5.0%) assigned to lung-protective ventilation required noninvasive ventilation or intubation for acute respiratory failure, as compared with 34 (17.0%) assigned to nonprotective ventilation (relative risk, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.61; P=0.001). The length of the hospital stay was shorter among patients receiving lung-protective ventilation than among those receiving nonprotective ventilation (mean difference, -2.45 days; 95% CI, -4.17 to -0.72; P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with a practice of nonprotective mechanical ventilation, the use of a lung-protective ventilation strategy in intermediate-risk and high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery was associated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced health care utilization. (IMPROVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01282996.).

BACKGROUND: In preclinical and phase 2 studies, adefovir dipivoxil demonstrated potent activity against hepatitis B virus (HBV), including lamivudine-resistant strains. METHODS: We randomly assigned 515 patients with chronic hepatitis B who were positive for hepatitis B e antigen (HBeAg) to receive 10 mg of adefovir dipivoxil (172 patients), 30 mg of adefovir dipivoxil (173), or placebo (170) daily for 48 weeks. The primary end point was histologic improvement in the 10-mg group as compared with the placebo group. RESULTS: After 48 weeks of treatment, significantly more patients who received 10 mg or 30 mg of adefovir dipivoxil per day than who received placebo had histologic improvement (53 percent [P<0.001], 59 percent [P<0.001], and 25 percent, respectively), a reduction in serum HBV DNA levels (by a median of 3.52 [P<0.001], 4.76 [P<0.001], and 0.55 log copies per milliliter, respectively), undetectable levels (fewer than 400 copies per milliliter) of serum HBV DNA (21 percent [P<0.001], 39 percent [P<0.001], and 0 percent, respectively), normalization of alanine aminotransferase levels (48 percent [P<0.001], 55 percent [P<0.001], and 16 percent, respectively), and HBeAg seroconversion (12 percent [P=0.049], 14 percent [P=0.01], and 6 percent, respectively). No adefovir-associated resistance mutations were identified in the HBV DNA polymerase gene. The safety profile of the 10-mg dose of adefovir dipivoxil was similar to that of placebo; however, there was a higher frequency of adverse events and renal laboratory abnormalities in the group given 30 mg of adefovir dipivoxil per day. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HBeAg-positive chronic hepatitis B, 48 weeks of 10 mg or 30 mg of adefovir dipivoxil per day resulted in histologic liver improvement, reduced serum HBV DNA and alanine aminotransferase levels, and increased the rates of HBeAg seroconversion. The 10-mg dose has a favorable risk-benefit profile for long-term treatment. No adefovir-associated resistance mutations were identified in the HBV DNA polymerase gene.

The use of laparoscopy for liver surgery is increasing rapidly. The Second International Consensus Conference on Laparoscopic Liver Resections (LLR) was held in Morioka, Japan, from October 4 to 6, 2014 to evaluate the current status of laparoscopic liver surgery and to provide recommendations to aid its future development. Seventeen questions were addressed. The first 7 questions focused on outcomes that reflect the benefits and risks of LLR. These questions were addressed using the Zurich-Danish consensus conference model in which the literature and expert opinion were weighed by a 9-member jury, who evaluated LLR outcomes using GRADE and a list of comparators. The jury also graded LLRs by the Balliol Classification of IDEAL. The jury concluded that MINOR LLRs had become standard practice (IDEAL 3) and that MAJOR liver resections were still innovative procedures in the exploration phase (IDEAL 2b). Continued cautious introduction of MAJOR LLRs was recommended. All of the evidence available for scrutiny was of LOW quality by GRADE, which prompted the recommendation for higher quality evaluative studies. The last 10 questions focused on technical questions and the recommendations were based on literature review and expert panel opinion. Recommendations were made regarding preoperative evaluation, bleeding controls, transection methods, anatomic approaches, and equipment. Both experts and jury recognized the need for a formal structure of education for those interested in performing major laparoscopic LLR because of the steep learning curve.