A Phase I Trial of Trametinib in Combination with Sorafenib in Patients with Advanced Hepatocellular Cancer

Lessons Learned

• The combination of trametinib and sorafenib has an acceptable safety profile, albeit at doses lower than approved for monotherapy.
• Maximum tolerated dose is trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice daily.
• The limited anticancer activity observed in this unselected patient population does not support further exploration of trametinib plus sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma.

BackgroundThe RAS/RAF/MEK/ERK signaling pathway is associated with proliferation and progression of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Preclinical data suggest that paradoxical activation of the MAPK pathway may be one of the resistance mechanisms of sorafenib; therefore, we evaluated trametinib plus sorafenib in HCC.MethodsThis was a phase I study with a 3+3 design in patients with treatment‐naïve advanced HCC. The primary objective was safety and tolerability. The secondary objective was clinical efficacy.ResultsA total of 17 patients were treated with three different doses of trametinib and sorafenib. Two patients experienced dose‐limiting toxicity, including grade 4 hypertension and grade 3 elevation of aspartate aminotransferase (AST)/alanine aminotransferase (ALT)/bilirubin over 7 days. Maximum tolerated dose was trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day. The most common grade 3/4 treatment‐related adverse events were elevated AST (37%) and hypertension (24%). Among 11 evaluable patients, 7 (63.6%) had stable disease with no objective response. The median progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 3.7 and 7.8 months, respectively. Phosphorylated‐ERK was evaluated as a pharmacodynamic marker, and sorafenib plus trametinib inhibited phosphorylated‐ERK up to 98.1% (median: 81.2%) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells.ConclusionTrametinib and sorafenib can be safely administered up to trametinib 1.5 mg daily and sorafenib 200 mg twice a day with limited anticancer activity in advanced HCC.     

Population Genetics Identifies Challenges in Analyzing Rare Variants

Geneticists have, for years, understood the nature of genome‐wide association studies using common genomic variants. Recently, however, focus has shifted to the analysis of rare variants. This presents potential problems for researchers, as rare variants do not always behave in the same way common variants do, sometimes rendering decades of solid intuition moot. In this paper, we present examples of the differences between common and rare variants. We show why one must be significantly more careful about the origin of rare variants, and how failing to do so can lead to highly inflated type I error. We then explain how to best avoid such concerns with careful understanding and study design. Additionally, we demonstrate that a seemingly low error rate in next‐generation sequencing can dramatically impact the false‐positive rate for rare variants. This is due to the fact that rare variants are, by definition, seen infrequently, making it hard to distinguish between errors and real variants. Compounding this problem is the fact that the proportion of errors is likely to get worse, not better, with increasing sample size. One cannot simply scale their way up in order to solve this problem. Understanding these potential pitfalls is a key step in successfully identifying true associations between rare variants and diseases.     

Coronary Artery Lumen Segmentation Using Location–Adaptive Threshold in Coronary Computed Tomographic Angiography: A Proof-of-Concept

ObjectiveTo compare the lumen parameters measured by the location-adaptive threshold method (LATM), in which the inter- and intra-scan attenuation variabilities of coronary computed tomographic angiography (CCTA) were corrected, and the scan-adaptive threshold method (SATM), in which only the inter-scan variability was corrected, with the reference standard measurement by intravascular ultrasonography (IVUS).Materials and MethodsThe Hounsfield unit (HU) values of whole voxels and the centerline in each of the cross-sections of the 22 target coronary artery segments were obtained from 15 patients between March 2009 and June 2010, in addition to the corresponding voxel size. Lumen volume was calculated mathematically as the voxel volume multiplied by the number of voxels with HU within a given range, defined as the lumen for each method, and compared with the IVUS-derived reference standard. Subgroup analysis of the lumen area was performed to investigate the effect of lumen size on the studied methods. Bland-Altman plots were used to evaluate the agreement between the measurements.ResultsLumen volumes measured by SATM was significantly smaller than that measured by IVUS (mean difference, 14.6 mm³; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.9–24.3 mm³); the lumen volumes measured by LATM and IVUS were not significantly different (mean difference, −0.7 mm³; 95% CI, −9.1–7.7 mm³). The lumen area measured by SATM was significantly smaller than that measured by LATM in the smaller lumen area group (mean of difference, 1.07 mm²; 95% CI, 0.89–1.25 mm²) but not in the larger lumen area group (mean of difference, −0.07 mm²; 95% CI, −0.22–0.08 mm²). In the smaller lumen group, the mean difference was lower in the Bland-Altman plot of IVUS and LATM (0.46 mm²; 95% CI, 0.27–0.65 mm²) than in that of IVUS and SATM (1.53 mm²; 95% CI, 1.27–1.79 mm²).ConclusionSATM underestimated the lumen parameters for computed lumen segmentation in CCTA, and this may be overcome by using LATM.