Ramucirumab after sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and increased α-fetoprotein concentrations (REACH-2): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and increased α-fetoprotein concentrations have poor prognosis. We aimed to establish the efficacy of ramucirumab in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma and α-fetoprotein concentrations of 400 ng/mL or higher. METHODS: REACH-2 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 92 hospitals, clinics, and medical centres in 20 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically or cytologically confirmed hepatocellular carcinoma, or diagnosed cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C disease, Child-Pugh class A liver disease, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance statuses of 0 or 1, α-fetoprotein concentrations of 400 ng/mL or greater, and had previously received first-line sorafenib. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) via an interactive web response system with a computer-generated random sequence to 8 mg/kg intravenous ramucirumab every 2 weeks or placebo. All patients received best supportive care. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, proportion of patients achieving an objective response, time to radiographic progression, safety, time to deterioration in scores on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Hepatobiliary Symptom Index 8 (FHSI-8), and time to deterioration in ECOG performance status. We also pooled individual patient data from REACH-2 with data from REACH (NCT01140347) for patients with α-fetoprotein concentrations of 400 ng/mL or greater. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat, whereas safety analyses were done in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02435433. FINDINGS: Between July 26, 2015, and Aug 30, 2017, 292 patients were randomly assigned, 197 to the ramucirumab group and 95 to the placebo group. At a median follow-up of 7·6 months (IQR 4·0-12·5), median overall survival (8·5 months [95% CI 7·0-10·6] vs 7·3 months [5·4-9·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·710 [95% CI 0·531-0·949]; p=0·0199) and progression-free survival (2·8 months [2·8-4·1] vs 1·6 months [1·5-2·7]; 0·452 [0·339-0·603]; p<0·0001) were significantly improved in the ramucirumab group compared with the placebo group. The proportion of patients with an objective response did not differ significantly between groups (nine [5%] of 197 vs one [1%] of 95; p=0·1697). Median time to deterioration in FHSI-8 total scores (3·7 months [95% CI 2·8-4·4] vs 2·8 months [1·6-2·9]; HR 0·799 [95% CI 0·545-1·171]; p=0·238) and ECOG performance statuses (HR 1·082 [95% CI 0·639-1·832]; p=0·77) did not differ between groups. Grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of patients in either group were hypertension (25 [13%] in the ramucirumab group vs five [5%] in the placebo group), hyponatraemia (11 [6%] vs 0) and increased aspartate aminotransferase (six [3%] vs five [5%]). Serious adverse events of any grade and cause occurred in 68 (35%) patients in the ramucirumab group and 28 (29%) patients in the placebo group. Three patients in the ramucirumab group died from treatment-emergent adverse events that were judged to be related to study treatment (one had acute kidney injury, one had hepatorenal syndrome, and one had renal failure). INTERPRETATION: REACH-2 met its primary endpoint, showing improved overall survival for ramucirumab compared with placebo in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and α-fetoprotein concentrations of at least 400 ng/mL who had previously received sorafenib. Ramucirumab was well tolerated, with a manageable safety profile. To our knowledge, REACH-2 is the first positive phase 3 trial done in a biomarker-selected patient population with hepatocellular carcinoma. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.

Efficacy and Safety of FOLFIRI Regimen in Elderly Versus Nonelderly Patients with Metastatic Colorectal or Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Irinotecan-based chemotherapy is a standard backbone of therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) or gastric cancer (GC). However, there is still a paucity of information concerning the efficacy and safety of irinotecan-based regimens in elderly patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using the patient cohort (n = 1,545) from the UGT1A1 genotype study, we compared the efficacy and safety between elderly and nonelderly patients with metastatic CRC (n = 934) or GC (n = 611) who received first- or second-line FOLFIRI (irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) chemotherapy. RESULTS: Despite lower relative dose intensity in elderly patients, progression-free survival and overall survival were similar between elderly (age ≥70 years) and nonelderly (<70 years) patients in the CRC cohort (hazard ratio [HR], 1.117; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.927-1.345; p = .244, and HR, 0.989; 95% CI, 0.774-1.264; p = .931, respectively) and the GC cohort (HR, 1.093; 95% CI, 0.854-1.400; p = .479, and HR, 1.188; 95% CI, 0.891-1.585; p = .241, respectively). In both cohorts, febrile neutropenia (22.1% vs. 14.6% in CRC cohort and 35.2% vs. 22.5% in GC cohort) and asthenia (grade 3: 8.4% vs. 1.7% in CRC cohort and 5.5% vs. 2.9% in GC cohort) were more frequent in elderly patients. In the CRC cohort, mucositis and anorexia were more frequent in elderly patients. In the GC cohort, nausea and vomiting were less frequent in elderly patients. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of the FOLFIRI regimen was similar between elderly and nonelderly patients in both the CRC and the GC cohorts. However, special attention should be paid to elderly patients because of increased risk for febrile neutropenia and asthenia. The Oncologist 2017;22:293-303 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The efficacy of FOLFIRI (irinotecan, leucovorin, and 5-fluorouracil) chemotherapy in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer or gastric cancer was similar to that in nonelderly patients. However, special attention should be paid to elderly patients because of the increased risk for febrile neutropenia and asthenia. These data suggest that the FOLFIRI regimen could be considered as a standard backbone of therapy in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer or gastric cancer and that the clinical decision between doublet and singlet chemotherapy may not be based solely on age. However, the data require further assessment of frailty and performance status.

Attitudes toward participating in Phase I clinical trials: an investigation with patient-family-physician triads.

OBJECTIVE: Phase I oncology trials have raised concerns that patients' 'unrealistic' optimism could compromise the validity of informed consent, and that patients often participate in trials to conform to physicians' or family members' recommendations. We aimed to determine whether patients or families-given the same information of risk-benefit profile-are more likely to participate in Phase I trials than their physicians and whether people in family or physician situations are more likely to recommend trial participation to patients than they would want for themselves as patients. METHODS: We conducted a hypothetical vignette study with a patient-caregiver-oncologist. Three groups-725 patient-caregiver pairs recruited by 134 oncologists-were asked to assume three different roles as patients, caregivers and physicians and provided a scenario of a hypothetical patient with treatment-resistant cancer. They were asked questions regarding their intention to participate in or to recommend a Phase I clinical trial. RESULTS: Acceptance rates of the trial were as follows: (a) in the patients' role: patients (54.1), caregivers (62.3) and physicians (63.4%); (b) in the caregivers' role: 55.6, 64.7 and 70.9%; (c) in the physicians' role: 66.1, 70.8 and 76.1%. Patients or caregivers were not more positive to the trial than physicians. All three groups showed more positive attitudes toward the clinical trial when they assumed the role of caregiver or physician than that of patient. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and caregivers seem to make as reasonable decisions as physicians; patients seem to take family members' or physicians' recommendation as their legitimate roles rather than as undue pressure.

Pre-treatment blood inflammatory markers as predictors of systemic infection during induction chemotherapy: results of an exploratory study in patients with acute myeloid leukemia.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the role of C-reactive protein (CRP) and ferritin blood levels in predicting the incidence of systemic infection among adult patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treated with induction chemotherapy. METHODS: Adult patients with newly diagnosed AML who were initially treated with conventional 3 + 7 induction chemotherapy within 5 days of their diagnosis were included. Patients with previous cytotoxic chemotherapy <3 years, acute promyelocytic leukemia diagnosis, human immunodeficiency virus infection, or significant systemic infection at the time of diagnosis were excluded. Patients were treated with an institutional policy of substantial identity with negligible differences regarding supportive care. RESULTS: Among 110 patients (median age 54.5 years), 39 infectious events in 38 patients were reported, along with 21 episodes of infectious treatment-related mortality (TRM; 19.1%). Elevated pre-treatment CRP (p = 0.032) and ferritin (p = 0.002) were related to the incidence of systemic infection. The degree of increase of blood CRP and ferritin level was correlated with the extent of leukocytosis. However, patients with elevated inflammatory markers above normal range had increased risk of infection irrespective of whether they had leukocytosis or not, suggesting that expansion of leukemic blast is another factor affecting the elevation of the markers independent to infection propensity and therefore the magnitude of the elevation does not quantitatively predict the risk of infection. CONCLUSIONS: Modest elevation of baseline blood inflammatory markers above the normal range could be an indicator for predicting the incidence of systemic infection in patients with AML.

Phase I/II Study of Weekly Oraxol for the Second-Line Treatment of Patients With Metastatic or Recurrent Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oraxol consists of paclitaxel and HM30181A, a P-glycoprotein inhibitor, to increase the oral bioavailability of paclitaxel. This phase I/II study (HM-OXL-201) was conducted to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of Oraxol. In addition, we investigated the efficacy and safety of Oraxol as second-line chemotherapy for metastatic or recurrent gastric cancer (GC). METHODS: In the phase I component, paclitaxel was orally administered at escalating doses (90, 120, or 150 mg/m(2) per day) with a fixed dose (15 mg/day) of HM30181A. Oraxol was administrated 6 times per cycle (days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16) every 4 weeks. In the phase II component, the efficacy and safety of Oraxol were evaluated. RESULTS: In the phase I component, the MTD could not be determined. Based on toxicity and pharmacokinetic data, the RP2D of oral paclitaxel was determined to be 150 mg/m(2). In the phase II component, 4 of 43 patients (9.3%) achieved partial responses. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.6 and 10.7 months, respectively. Toxicity profiles were favorable, and the most common drug-related adverse events (grade ≥3) were neutropenia and diarrhea. CONCLUSION: Oraxol exhibited modest efficacy and favorable toxicity profiles as second-line chemotherapy for GC.

A randomized study of the efficacy and safety of transdermal granisetron in the control of nausea and vomiting induced by moderately emetogenic chemotherapy in Korean patients.

BACKGROUND: The granisetron transdermal system (GTS) showed non-inferior efficacy to oral granisetron to control chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) during multiday chemotherapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of GTS with that of intravenous and oral granisetron in Korean patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy (MEC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 276 patients were randomized into GTS (n = 139, one patch on days 1-4) or control group (n = 137, intravenous on day 1 and oral on days 2-4). The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients achieving complete response (CR) from chemotherapy initiation until 24 h after the final administration. RESULTS: Out of 234 patients (112 in GTS and 122 in control group) included in the per protocol analysis, 97.9 % had gastrointestinal cancer and 76.9 % received 3-day chemotherapy. The GTS showed non-inferior efficacy achieving CR in 75.0 % of the patients; 74.6 % of the patients in the control group achieved CR (95 % confidence interval -10.73 to 11.55 %). The CR rate did not change after subgroup analyses by sex, age, and chemotherapy naivety and analysis per day and overall days of treatment. The GTS group showed sustained CR from day 1 to day 4. Patients' satisfaction, assessed using Functional Living Index-Emesis (FLI-E), showed no difference. Both treatments were well tolerated and safe. CONCLUSION: The GTS showed non-inferior efficacy to intravenous and oral granisetron. The safety, tolerability, and FLI-E scores of the GTS were comparable to those of control group. The GTS offers a convenient alternative option for relieving CINV in patients receiving MEC.

Adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for gastric cancer after D2 gastrectomy (CLASSIC): 5-year follow-up of an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The CLASSIC trial was done to compare adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin versus observation after D2 gastrectomy for patients with stage II or III gastric cancer. The planned interim analysis of CLASSIC (median follow-up 34 months) showed that adjuvant capecitabine plus oxaliplatin significantly improved disease-free survival, the primary endpoint, compared with observation after D2 gastrectomy. We report the 5-year follow-up data from the trial. METHODS: CLASSIC was a phase 3, randomised, open-label study done at 35 cancer centres, medical centres, and hospitals in China, South Korea, and Taiwan. Patients with stage II-IIIB gastric cancer who underwent curative D2 gastrectomy were randomly assigned (1:1) after surgery to receive adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin (eight 3-week cycles of oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 plus intravenous oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1) for 6 months or observation alone. Randomisation was stratified by country and disease stage with a permuted block (size four) design. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome was 3-year disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This analysis presents the final preplanned assessment of outcomes after 5 years. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00411229. FINDINGS: We enrolled 1035 patients: 520 were randomly assigned to adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin, and 515 to observation. Median follow-up for this analysis in the intention-to-treat population was 62·4 months (IQR 54-70). 139 (27%) patients had disease-free survival events in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 203 (39%) patients in the observation group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·58, 95% CI 0·47-0·72; p<0·0001). Estimated 5-year disease-free survival was 68% (95% CI 63-73) in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 53% (47-58) in the observation alone group. By the clinical cutoff date, 103 patients (20%) had died in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 141 patients (27%) in the observation group (stratified HR 0·66, 95% CI 0·51-0·85; p=0·0015). Estimated 5-year overall survival was 78% (95% CI 74-82) in the adjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin group versus 69% (64-73) in the observation group. Adverse event data were not collected after the primary analysis. INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant treatment with capecitabine plus oxaliplatin after D2 gastrectomy should be considered for patients with operable stage II or III gastric cancer. FUNDING: F Hoffmann La-Roche and Sanofi.

Anemia as a useful biomarker in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with R-CHOP immunochemotherapy.

The aim of the current study is to evaluate the prognostic value of anemia, an easily estimable parameter in patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone (R-CHOP) immunochemotherapy. A total of 157 patients with newly diagnosed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with ≥1 cycle of R-CHOP were included. Hemoglobin level without red cell transfusion within 7 days of initiation of treatment was chosen as a parameter of baseline cancer-induced anemia. To investigate the clinical significance of chemotherapy-induced anemia and its recovery after completion of treatment, 87 patients in complete remission for ≥6 months from the time of the last cycle of R-CHOP were grouped and analyzed separately. Patients with a cancer-induced anemia of hemoglobin <10 g/dL showed inferior event-free and disease-free survival compared to those with hemoglobin ≥10 g/dL. This finding was observed irrespective of the status of pre-treatment bone marrow involvement. In multivariate analysis, hemoglobin <10 g/dL was found to be an international prognostic index-independent prognostic factor. Risk of relapse was significantly higher for patients who were still anemic at 6 months after R-CHOP, compared to those who achieved complete recovery from chemotherapy-induced anemia within 6 months.

A phase II open-label randomized multicenter trial of TSU-68 in combination with S-1 and oxaliplatin versus S-1 in combination with oxaliplatin in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide. The combination of oxaliplatin-based treatments (oxaliplatin plus infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin [FOLFOX] or oxaliplatin plus capecitabine [CapeOX]) and bevacizumab is a standard chemotherapy regimen for metastatic CRC (mCRC). However, several clinical studies that tested S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) indicate that SOX is also a treatment option for mCRC. TSU-68 is an oral compound that inhibits vascular endothelial growth factor receptor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor. The recommended dose of TSU-68 + SOX was previously determined in a phase I study of mCRC patients. The goal of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy of TSU-68 in combination with SOX. METHODS: This open-label multicenter randomized phase II trial was performed in Korea. Treatment-naive mCRC patients with a performance status of 0 or 1 were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either TSU-68 + SOX or SOX alone. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 105 patients (TSU-68 + SOX, 52 patients; SOX alone, 53 patients) were randomized. The median PFS was 7.0 months in the TSU-68 + SOX group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.057) and 7.2 months in the SOX group (p = 0.8401). The most frequent grade 3 and 4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia (9.6 % [TSU-68 + SOX] vs. 26.4 % [SOX]), neutropenia (13.5 % [TSU-68 + SOX] vs. 15.1 % [SOX]), and anemia (3.8 % [TSU-68 + SOX] vs. 13.2 % [SOX]). We observed a difference between the 2 groups for all grades of anemia (15.4 % [TSU-68 + SOX] vs. 32.1 % [SOX]), diarrhea (30.8 % [TSU-68 + SOX] vs. 47.2 % [SOX]), vomiting (50.0 % [TSU-68 + SOX] vs. 26.4 % [SOX]), and chromaturia (23.1 % [TSU-68 + SOX] vs. 0.0 % [SOX]). Analysis using a Cox proportional hazard model showed that baseline interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels were associated with a survival benefit of TSU-68 (p = 0.012). CONCLUSION: TSU-68 + SOX had a favorable safety profile. However, TSU-68 did not have a synergistic effect on the efficacy of SOX. The baseline serum IL-6 level could be a prognostic factor for TSU-68 efficacy.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 mutations in non-small-cell lung cancer and resistance to EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the predictive value of rare epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) exon 20 mutations in determining a patient's response to EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) treatment is unclear. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed data for NSCLC patients harboring EGFR exon 20 mutations from two hospitals in Korea. EGFR mutations were analyzed using directional sequencing. RESULTS: We identified eight patients carrying EGFR exon 20 mutations, seven of whom had insertional mutations. Three patients carried previously unreported insertional mutations. Among six patients who were treated with EGFR TKI, one showed stable disease and three showed primary resistance. Response evaluations were not performed for the other two patients because of their clinical deterioration. CONCLUSIONS: EGFR exon 20 insertional mutations, including three that were previously unreported, were associated with the poor response of patients to TKI treatment.

Clinical significance of Ki-67 and p53 expression in curatively resected non-small cell lung cancer.

The aim of this study is to explore the association of Ki-67 and p53 expression with prognosis in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients who underwent curative resection. We retrospectively identified 116 consecutive patients with stages I-III NSCLC who underwent curative resection at a single center from January 2007 to December 2012. Ki-67 and p53 expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry. Data on clinicopathologic features and survival were collected retrospectively. Ki-67 expression in 109 samples and p53 expression in 115 patients were analyzed. According to the results, 108 patients (99 %) showed at least some expression of Ki-67. The median Ki-67 expression level was 30 %. Positive p53 expression was observed in 91 (79 %) patients. Higher Ki-67 expression (>40 %) was significantly more frequent in male (26 vs. 4 % in female, p=0.002), ever-smoker (31 vs. 10 % in never-smoker, p=0.024), and non-adenocarcinoma (30 vs. 11 % of adenocarcinoma, p=0.012) patients. In univariable analysis, median disease-free survival (DFS) was shorter with higher Ki-67 expression (16.1 vs. 61.9 months in those with lower Ki-67 expression, p=0.005), and p53 expression did not show an association with DFS. Among 42 patients with stage I NSCLC who did not receive adjuvant chemotherapy, DFS was significantly worse in patients with higher Ki-67 expression (2-year DFS rate 57 vs. 88 %, p=0.018). In a Cox regression model, higher Ki-67 expression (>40 %) was a significant independent prognostic factor associated with poorer DFS (HR 2.9, 95 % CI 1.3-6.2) along with TNM stage and age. Higher Ki-67 expression (>40 %) showed an independent association with shorter DFS in NSCLC patients who underwent curative resection.

S-1 plus oxaliplatin versus capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: updated results from a phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: We report updated progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) data from a trial that compared capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapeOX) versus S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX) for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: This trial was a randomized, two-armed, non-inferiority phase 3 comparison of CapeOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1) versus SOX (S-1 40 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1). The primary end point was to show non-inferiority of SOX relative to CapeOX in terms of PFS. Thus, a follow-up exploratory analysis of PFS and OS was performed. RESULTS: The intention to treat (ITT) population was comprised of 340 patients (SOX arm: 168 and CapeOX arm: 172). The updated median PFS was 7.1 months (95% CI 6.4-8.0) in the SOX group and 6.3 months (95% CI 4.9-6.7) in the CapeOX group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [0.66-1.04], p = .10). The median OS was 19.0 months (95% CI 15.3-23.0) in the SOX group and 18.4 months (95% CI 14.1-20.7) in the CapeOX group (HR, 0.86 [0.68-1.08], p = .19). Subgroup analyses according to principal demographic factors such as sex, age, ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status, primary tumor location, measurability, previous adjuvant therapy, number of metastatic organs, and liver metastases showed no interaction between any of these characteristics and the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Updated survival analysis shows that SOX is similar to CapeOX, confirming the initial PFS analysis. Therefore, the SOX regimen could be an alternative first-line doublet chemotherapy strategy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00677443 and May 12 2008.

Bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in elderly patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (AVEX): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients are often under-represented in clinical trials of metastatic colorectal cancer. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab plus capecitabine compared with capecitabine alone in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: For this open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, patients aged 70 years and older with previously untreated, unresectable, metastatic colorectal cancer, who were not deemed to be candidates for oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based chemotherapy regimens, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio via an interactive voice-response system, stratified by performance status and geographical region. Treatment consisted of capecitabine (1000 mg/m(2) orally twice a day on days 1-14) alone or with bevacizumab (7·5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1), given every 3 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat population. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00484939. FINDINGS: From July 9, 2007, to Dec 14, 2010, 280 patients with a median age of 76 years (range 70-87) were recruited from 40 sites across ten countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either bevacizumab plus capecitabine (n=140) or capecitabine only (n=140). Progression-free survival was significantly longer with bevacizumab and capecitabine than with capecitabine alone (median 9·1 months [95% CI 7·3-11·4] vs 5·1 months [4·2-6·3]; hazard ratio 0·53 [0·41-0·69]; p<0·0001). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 53 (40%) patients in the combination group and 30 (22%) in the capecitabine group, and treatment-related serious adverse events in 19 (14%) and 11 (8%) patients. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events of special interest for bevacizumab or chemotherapy were hand-foot syndrome (21 [16%] vs nine [7%]), diarrhoea (nine [7%] vs nine [7%]), and venous thromboembolic events (11 [8%] vs six [4%]). Treatment-related deaths occurred in five patients in the combination group and four in the capecitabine group. The most common any-grade adverse event of special interest for bevacizumab was haemorrhage (34 [25%] vs nine [7%]). INTERPRETATION: The combination of bevacizumab and capecitabine is an effective and well-tolerated regimen for elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Comparison of characteristics of bacterial bloodstream infection between adult patients with allogeneic and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.

Although autologous and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) are fundamentally different procedures, a tailored approach to bacterial bloodstream infection (BSI) according to the type of HSCT has not yet been suggested. We evaluated the characteristics of BSI after HSCT, with a focus on comparison of BSIs between recipients of autologous HSCT (auto-HSCT) and allogeneic HSCT (allo-HSCT). Among 134 patients (59 received allo-HSCT and 75 received auto-HSCT) who underwent HSCT, BSIs were reported earlier in patients who underwent auto-HSCT, compared with those who underwent allo-HSCT (mean 12.1 ± 3.4 days versus 32.8 ± 27.1 days, P = .006). Among patients receiving allo-HSCT, postneutrophil-engraftment bacterial BSI showed an association with grade ≥ 2 acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). In patients who underwent auto-HSCT, results of multivariate analysis showed that not receiving prophylactic antibiotics (P = .004) and having elevated serum C-reactive protein (P = .034) were risk factors of BSI. Elevated CRP (P = .01) and acute GVHD ≥ grade 2 (P = .002) were independent risk factors in patients who underwent allo-HSCT. Those differences originated mainly from the impact of acute GVHD-related postengraftment BSIs of patients who underwent allo-HSCT. To establish the best defense strategy against BSI, the distinctive natures of bacterial BSI after HSCT between auto-HSCT and allo-HSCT should be considered.

Prognostic role of serum lactate dehydrogenase beyond initial diagnosis: a retrospective analysis of patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) level is a well-known prognostic factor in patients with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; however, its role beyond initial diagnosis has not yet been defined. METHODS: This study was conducted as a retrospective analysis of patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) treated with R-CHOP21, who had undergone regular checks for LDH during immunochemotherapy (n = 119) and during the posttreatment follow-up period after complete remission (CR; n = 100). The 119 patients were classified into 4 groups according to their baseline and change in LDH level during treatment, and an analysis of tumor response and survival was performed. The value of LDH as a predictor for relapse was evaluated among the patients with regular follow-up visits after achieving CR. RESULTS: An increased LDH level during immunochemotherapy had no impact on tumor response or survival, and only the LDH status 'before' treatment was a prognostic marker. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of serum LDH for detecting relapse after CR were 47.4, 86.5, 9.3 and 98.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The measurement of LDH level beyond initial diagnosis has no clear benefit in predicting disease progression or relapse in patients with DLBCL treated with R-CHOP21.

Bone marrow involvement is predictive of infusion-related reaction during rituximab administration in patients with B cell lymphoma.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate risk factors for infusion-related reaction (IRR) following rituximab administration in patients with B cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with newly diagnosed B cell lymphoma who have received rituximab-included immunochemotherapy with appropriate premedication and commonly used schedule of infusion rate. IRRs were graded by review of the patients' electronic medical record according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.0. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-nine patients were included in the analysis and most of the patients (150; 88.8 %) had diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Thirty-six patients (21.3 %) had any grade of IRRs: 23 patients were grade (G) 1 (13.6 %), 13 had ≥G2 IRRs (7.7 %), and only 4 had ≥G3 IRRs (2.4 %). All except one patient had IRR during the first cycle and only two had repetitive IRR thereafter. Bone marrow (BM) involvement was the strongest risk factor for IRR in multivariable analysis (odds ratio 4.06, 95 % confidence interval 1.67-9.89; p = 0.002). A subgroup analysis confined to patients with DLBCL showed very similar results when compared with the entire population, and patients with DLBCL who had ≥G2 IRR showed shorter event-free and overall survival when compared to those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: BM involvement is predictive of occurrence of IRR during rituximab administration in patients with B cell lymphoma. More intensive premedication and careful observation for IRR during rituximab administration are required for patients with B cell lymphoma who have BM involvement.

Neoadjuvant treatment of mid-to-lower rectal cancer with oxaliplatin plus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in combination with radiotherapy: a Korean single center phase II study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant chemoradiation with oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in advanced mid-to-lower rectal cancer. METHODS: This was a single-arm, open-label phase II study conducted between August 2008 and August 2010. Thirty-one patients (n = 31) with clinical stage T3/T4 or lymph node positive rectal adenocarcinoma located in the middle or lower rectum without metastasis were enrolled onto the study. Data were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were enrolled into the study. Six patients (19.4%) experienced grade 3 diarrhea. Grade 2 nausea and vomiting occurred in 5 and 2 patients, respectively. Severe neurotoxicity was not observed. Grade 1 sensory neuropathy occurred in 10 patients (32.3%). Sphincter-saving surgery was performed in 29 patients (93.5%). The mean distance of the tumor from the anal verge was 4.9 cm. Anastomotic leakage occurred in 4 of 29 (13.8%) patients. The circumferential resection margin was involved in 2 patients (6.5%). Overall, 23 patients (77.4%) responded to treatment. The complete pathologic response (ypCR) rate was 12.9%. There was no death secondary to toxicity, and the mean follow-up time was 12.3 months. CONCLUSION: The overall toxicity of oxaliplatin and continuous 5-FU/leucovorin infusion in combination with radiation was well tolerated. Neoadjuvant chemoradiation for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer was associated with higher rates of sphincter preservation and downstaging, but did not significantly increase ypCR. The impact of this neoadjuvant chemoradiation regimen on survival will be determined by longer follow-up studies.

S-1 plus oxaliplatin versus capecitabine plus oxaliplatin for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CapeOX) is one of the reference doublet cytotoxic chemotherapy treatments for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of CapeOX with that of S-1 plus oxaliplatin (SOX), a promising alternative treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, randomised phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients (1:1) from 11 institutions in South Korea to receive either CapeOX (capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1) or SOX (S-1 40 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1). Treatment was repeated every 3 weeks and continued for as many as nine cycles of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy, except in instances of disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or a patient's refusal. Maintenance chemotherapy with S-1 or capecitabine was allowed after discontinuation of oxaliplatin. Randomisation was done with a computer-generated sequence (stratified by primary sites, previous adjuvant or neoadjuvant treatment, and the presence of measurable lesions). The primary endpoint was to show non-inferiority of SOX relative to CapeOX in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). The primary analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00677443. FINDINGS: Between May 14, 2008, and Sept 23, 2009, we randomly assigned 168 patients to receive SOX and 172 to receive CapeOX. Median PFS was 8·5 months (95% CI 7·6-9·3) in the SOX group and 6·7 months (6·2-7·1) in the CapeOX group (hazard ratio, 0·79 [95% CI 0·60-1·04]; p(non-inferiority)<0·0001, p(log-rank)=0·09). The upper limit of the CI was below the predefined margin of 1·43, showing the non-inferiority of SOX to CapeOX. We recorded a higher incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia (49 [29%] vs 24 [15%]), thrombocytopenia (37 [22%] vs 11 [7%]), and diarrhoea (16 [10%] vs seven [4%]) in the SOX group than in the CapeOX group. The frequency of any grade of hand-foot syndrome was greater in the CapeOX group than it was in the SOX group (51 [31%] vs 23 [14%]). INTERPRETATION: The SOX regimen could be an alternative first-line doublet chemotherapy strategy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Further investigation is needed to explore its potential when used together with other targeted agents or as adjuvant chemotherapy. FUNDING: Korea Healthcare Technology Research and Development Project, Ministry of Health and Welfare, South Korea.

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin with or without erlotinib in advanced biliary-tract cancer: a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Combination chemotherapy with gemcitabine and a platinum-based agent is regarded as a standard treatment for patients with advanced biliary-tract cancer. Results of phase 2 trials of single-agent erlotinib in biliary-tract cancer and of gemcitabine plus erlotinib in pancreatic cancer have shown modest benefits. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin plus erlotinib versus chemotherapy alone for advanced biliary-tract cancer. METHODS: In this open label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients (in a 1:1 ratio) with metastatic biliary-tract cancer (cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder cancer, or ampulla of Vater cancer) to receive either first-line treatment with chemotherapy alone (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on day 1 and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 2) or chemotherapy plus erlotinib (100 mg daily). Treatment was repeated every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects. Randomisation was done centrally (stratified by participating centre and presence of measurable lesion). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01149122. FINDINGS: 133 patients were randomly assigned to the chemotherapy alone group and 135 to the chemotherapy plus erlotinib group. The groups were balanced except for a higher proportion of patients with cholangiocarcinoma in the group given erlotinib than in the chemotherapy alone group (96 [71%] patients vs 84 [63%]). Median progression-free survival was 4·2 months (95% CI 2·7-5·7) in the chemotherapy alone group and 5·8 months (95% CI 4·6-7·0) in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·61-1·03; p=0·087). Significantly more patients had an objective response in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib group than in the chemotherapy alone group (40 patients vs 21 patients; p=0·005), but median overall survival was the same in both groups (9·5 months [95% CI 7·5-11·5] in the chemotherapy alone group and 9·5 months [7·6-11·4] in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib group; HR 0·93, 0·69-1·25; p=0·611). All-cause deaths within 30 days of random assignment occurred in one (1%) of the patients in the chemotherapy alone group and in four (3%) of those in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse event was febrile neutropenia (eight [6%] patients in the chemotherapy alone group and six [4%] in the chemotherapy plus erlotinib group). No patient died of treatment-related causes during the study. Subgroup analyses by primary site of disease showed that for patients with cholangiocarcinoma, the addition of erlotinib to chemotherapy significantly prolonged median progression-free survival (5·9 months [95% CI 4·7-7·1] for chemotherapy plus erlotinib vs 3·0 months [1·1-4·9] for chemotherapy alone; HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·53-1·00; p=0·049). INTERPRETATION: Although no significant difference in progression-free survival was noted between groups, the addition of erlotinib to gemcitabine and oxaliplatin showed antitumour activity and might be a treatment option for patients with cholangiocarcinoma. FUNDING: None.

Randomized phase II study of capecitabine plus cisplatin with or without sorafenib in patients with metastatic gastric cancer (STARGATE).

BACKGROUND: In this randomized phase II study, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of sorafenib in combination with capecitabine and cisplatin (XP) as first-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma were randomized (1:1) to receive either sorafenib plus XP (S + XP) or XP alone. In cases of disease progression in the XP arm, crossover to sorafenib alone was allowed. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). The secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), response rates, safety profiles, and biomarkers, and the response rates and PFS with secondline sorafenib alone after progression in the XP arm. RESULTS: Between Jan 2011 and Feb 2013, a total of 195 patients were accrued (97 in the S + XP arm and 98 in the XP alone arm). The overall response rate was 54% with S + XP, and 52% with XP alone (p = 0.83). With a median follow-up of 12.6 months (range, 0.1-29.2), the median PFS assessed by independent review was 5.6 months in the S + XP arm and 5.3 months in the XP arm (hazard ratio [HR] 0.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-1.27, p = 0.61). Overall survival was not different between the two arms (median 11.7 vs. 10.8 months; HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.31, p = 0.66). Frequencies of grade 3/4 toxicities were similar between the S + XP and XP alone arms, except for neutropenia (21% vs. 37%), anorexia (0% vs. 5%), and hand-foot skin reaction (7% vs. 1%). Among 51 patients who crossed over to sorafenib alone after disease progression in the XP arm, there was no objective response and their median PFS was 1.3 months (95% CI, 1.2-1.7). CONCLUSION: The addition of sorafenib to XP chemotherapy was safe but not more effective than XP alone for first-line treatment of metastatic gastric cancer.