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.     

Cec and You Shall Find: Cecal Perforation in a Patient with COVID-19

Digestive Diseases and Sciences -     

Low bone mineral density in ambulatory persons with cerebral palsy? A systematic review

Purpose: Non-ambulatory persons with cerebral palsy are prone to low bone mineral density. In ambulatory persons with cerebral palsy, bone mineral density deficits are expected to be small or absent, but a consensus conclusion is lacking. In this systematic review bone mineral density in ambulatory persons with cerebral palsy (Gross Motor Function Classification Scales I–III) was studied.

Materials and methods: Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched. According to international guidelines, low bone mineral density was defined as Z-score?≤??2.0. In addition, we focused on Z-score?≤??1.0 because this may indicate a tendency towards low bone mineral density.

Results: We included 16 studies, comprising 465 patients aged 1–65?years. Moderate and conflicting evidence for low bone mineral density (Z-score?≤??2.0) was found for several body parts (total proximal femur, total body, distal femur, lumbar spine) in children with Gross Motor Function Classification Scales II and III. We found no evidence for low bone mineral density in children with Gross Motor Function Classification Scale I or adults, although there was a tendency towards low bone mineral density (Z-score?≤??1.0) for several body parts.

Conclusions: Although more high-quality research is needed, results indicate that deficits in bone mineral density are not restricted to non-ambulatory people with cerebral palsy.

• Implications for Rehabilitation

• Although more high-quality research is needed, including adults and fracture risk assessment, the current study indicates that deficits in bone mineral density are not restricted to non-ambulatory people with CP.

• Health care professionals should be aware that optimal nutrition, supplements on indication, and an active lifestyle, preferably with weight-bearing activities, are important in ambulatory people with CP, also from a bone quality point-of-view.

• If indicated, medication and fall prevention training should be prescribed.

     

Esophageal foreign body causing direct aortic injury.

Foreign bodies in the esophagus are uncommon causes of esophageal perforation. Many nonperforating cases are successfully managed by flexible gastroscopy. However, complicated foreign bodies such as those that result in esophageal perforation and vascular injury are best managed surgically. Gastroscopy remains the primary method of diagnosis. A case of a 59-year-old woman who developed retrosternal and intrascapular pain, odynophagia and hematemesis after eating fish is reported. Flexible gastroscopy showed arterial bleeding from the midthoracic esophagus. Computed tomography scan localized a 3 cm fish bone perforating the esophagus with surrounding hematoma. An aortogram did not reveal an actively bleeding aortoesophageal fistula. The fish bone was surgically removed and the patient recovered with no postoperative complications. This case illustrates the importance of early consideration for surgical intervention when confronted with a brisk arterial bleed from the esophagus with suggestive history of foreign body ingestion.