Ellis, Lee M.

PURPOSE: The current American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) fails to stratify patients adequately with respect to prognosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The ability of the currently proposed tumor (T) categories to effectively stratify the survival of 557 patients who underwent complete resection for HCC at four centers was examined. Independent predictors of survival were combined into a new staging system. RESULTS: Using the current AJCC T classification, patients with T1 and T2 tumors had similar 5-year survivals (P = .6). In addition, the survival of patients with multiple bilobar tumors (T4) matched that of T3 patients (P = .5). Independent predictors of death were major vascular invasion (P < .001), microvascular invasion (P = .001), severe fibrosis/cirrhosis of the host liver (P = .001), multiple tumors (P = .007), and tumor size greater than 5 cm (P = .01). Based on our results, a simplified stratification is proposed: (a) patients with a single tumor and no microvascular invasion, (b) patients with a single tumor and microvascular invasion or multiple tumors, none more than 5 cm, and (c) patients with either multiple tumors, any more than 5 cm, or tumor with major vascular invasion (P < .001). Severe fibrosis/cirrhosis had a negative impact on survival within all categories. The survival of patients with lymph node involvement matched that of patients with major vascular invasion (P = .3). CONCLUSION: The current AJCC staging system for HCC is unnecessarily complex. We propose a simplified model of stratification that is based on vascular invasion, tumor number, and tumor size and incorporates the effect of fibrosis on survival.

Abstract Anticancer drugs are combined in an effort to treat a heterogeneous tumor or to maximize the pharmacodynamic effect. The development of combination regimens, while desirable, poses unique challenges. These include the selection of agents for combination therapy that may lead to improved efficacy while maintaining acceptable toxicity, the design of clinical trials that provide informative results for individual agents and combinations, and logistic and regulatory challenges. The phase I trial is often the initial step in the clinical evaluation of a combination regimen. In view of the importance of combination regimens and the challenges associated with developing them, the Clinical Trial Design (CTD) Task Force of the National Cancer Institute Investigational Drug Steering Committee developed a set of recommendations for the phase I development of a combination regimen. The first two recommendations focus on the scientific rationale and development plans for the combination regimen; subsequent recommendations encompass clinical design aspects. The CTD Task Force recommends that selection of the proposed regimens be based on a biologic or pharmacologic rationale supported by clinical and/or robust and validated preclinical evidence, and accompanied by a plan for subsequent development of the combination. The design of the phase I clinical trial should take into consideration the potential pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions as well as overlapping toxicity. Depending on the specific hypothesized interaction, the primary endpoint may be dose optimization, pharmacokinetics, and/or pharmacodynamics (i.e., biomarker). Clin Cancer Res; 20(16); 4210–7. ©2014 AACR.