Irinotecan hydrochloride liposome HR070803 in combination with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma following prior gemcitabine-based therapy (PAN-HEROIC-1): a phase 3 trial.

Liposomal irinotecan has shown promising antitumor activity in patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who have undergone prior gemcitabine-based therapies. This randomized, double-blind, parallel-controlled, multicenter phase 3 study (NCT05074589) assessed the efficacy and safety of liposomal irinotecan HR070803 combined with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin (LV) in this patient population. Patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic PDAC who had previously received gemcitabine-based therapies were randomized 1:1 to receive either HR070803 (60 mg/m2 anhydrous irinotecan hydrochloride, equal to 56.5 mg/m2 free base) or placebo, both in combination with 5-FU (2000 mg/m2) and LV (200 mg/m2), all given intravenously every two weeks. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS). A total of 298 patients were enrolled and received HR070803 plus 5-FU/LV (HR070803 group, n = 149) or placebo plus 5-FU/LV (placebo group, n = 149). Median OS was significantly improved in the HR070803 group compared to the placebo group (7.4 months [95% CI 6.1-8.4] versus 5.0 months [95% CI 4.3-6.0]; HR 0.63 [95% CI 0.48-0.84]; two-sided p = 0.0019). The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse events in the HR070803 group were increased gamma-glutamyltransferase (19.0% versus 11.6% in placebo group) and decreased neutrophil count (12.9% versus 0 in placebo group). No treatment-related deaths occurred in the HR070803 group, while the placebo group reported one treatment-related death (abdominal infection). HR070803 in combination with 5-FU/LV has shown promising efficacy and manageable safety in advanced or metastatic PDAC in the second-line setting, representing a potential option in this patient population.

Sequential vs. concurrent systemic therapies in combination with FOLFOX-HAIC for locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a single-center, real-world cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Tri-combination therapy based on hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) of infusion fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-HAIC) plus immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) and tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) for the locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients have been proven effective. However, whether it was best for these HCC patients to start with the most potent therapeutic pattern was still under debate. This retrospective study evaluated the efficacy and safety of FOLFOX-HAIC combined with systemic therapies in the patterns of sequential and concurrent schedules. METHODS: This real-world study included 117 unresectable HCC patients who initially received either FOLFOX-HAIC monotherapy (HAIC group, n = 44) or concurrent ICIs and TKIs (ConHAIC group, n = 73) from March 2020 and June 2022, during the period of FOLFOX-HAIC monotherapy in HAIC group, patients in the HAIC group (n = 30) experienced progressive disease (PD) would have their treatment pattern converted from the FOLFOX-HAIC monotherapy to the combination of FOLFOX-HAIC plus ICIs and TKIs sequentially (SeqHAIC group). The progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), as primary outcomes, were compared between patients in the SeqHAIC and ConHAIC groups. RESULTS: The median follow-up time of the SeqHAIC group was 24.92 months (95% CI, 12.74-37.09 months) and of the ConHAIC group was 17.87 months (95% CI, 16.85-18.89 months) and no significant difference was observed in both PFS (HR, 1.572; 95% CI, 0.848-2.916; p = 0.151) and OS (HR, 1.212; 95% CI, 0.574-2.561; p = 0.614) between the SeqHAIC and the ConHAIC groups. As for the tumor responses, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding tumor responses, overall response rates (p = 0.658) and disease control rates (p = 0.641) were 50.0%, 45.2%, and 83.3%, 89.0% for the SeqHAIC and the ConHAIC groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study revealed that sequential systemic ICIs and TKIs in combination with FOLFOX-HAIC provides similar long-term prognosis and better tolerability compared to concurrent therapy for locally advanced HCC patients. Prospective studies with a larger sample size and longer follow-up are required to validate these findings.

Efficacy of hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy in patients with primary liver cancer with portal vein tumor thrombosis: a comparative analysis of different perfusion chemotherapeutic regimens.

BACKGROUND: Portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) commonly occurs in patients with primary liver cancer (PLC). Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is a treatment for patients with PLC and PVTT. Some studies have shown that combining TACE therapy with hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) might improve the survival rate of PLC patients with PVTT. However, few studies have compared the different regimens of PLC with PVTT. We aimed to compare the differences between the oxaliplatin + raltetrexed regimen and FOLFOX regimen. METHODS: We divided the 248 patients into two groups. There were 60 patients in the oxaliplatin + ratitetrexed group and 74 patients in the FOLFOX group. The primary endpoints were OS and PFS. The secondary endpoints were ORR and adverse events. We used SPSS software, the Kaplan-Meier method, the t test, and the rank sum test to compare the differences between the two groups. RESULTS: The median OS was 10.82 months in the oxaliplatin + raltitrexed group and 8.67 months in the FOLFOX group. The median PFS time was greater in the oxaliplatin + raltitrexed group (10.0 months) than that in the FOLFOX group (7.1 months). The ORR was greater in the oxaliplatin + raltitrexed group than that in the FOLFOX group (18.3% vs. 13.5%; P = 0.445). The DCR in the oxaliplatin + raltitrexed group was higher than that in the FOLFOX group (70.0% vs. 64.8%; P = 0.529). However, in the subgroup analysis, the difference between them was more significant in the type II PVTT subgroup. The OS was 12.08 months in the oxaliplatin + raltitrexed group and 7.26 months in the FOLFOX group (P = 0.008). The PFS was 11.68 months in the oxaliplatin + raltitrexed group and 6.26 months in the FOLFOX group (P = 0.014). In the right branch of type II PVTT, the OS was 13.54 months in the oxaliplatin + raltitrexed group and 6.89 months in the FOLFOX group (P = 0.015), and the PFS was 13.35 months in the oxaliplatin + raltitrexed group and 6.27 months in the FOLFOX group (P = 0.030). The incidence of adverse reactions was similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the FOLFOX regimen, the oxaliplatin + raltitrexed chemoembolization regimen had longer OS, PFS time and ORR and DCR and it was safe and tolerable.

Phase 1b study of first-line fuzuloparib combined with modified FOLFIRINOX followed by fuzuloparib maintenance monotherapy in pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy remains the standard first-line treatment for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but with limited efficacy. We aimed to explore the feasibility of adding the PARP inhibitor fuzuloparib to mFOLFIRINOX in the locally advanced/metastatic (LA/M) setting. METHODS: This was the dose-escalation and -expansion, phase 1b portion of a phase 1b/2 study. Patients were given oral fuzuloparib at escalating doses starting at 30 mg twice daily (BID) plus intravenous mFOLFIRINOX q2w for 8-12 cycles, followed by maintenance fuzuloparib at 150 mg BID. Cohorts at the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) and lower dose of fuzuloparib were expanded. Primary endpoints were dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), MTD, and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D). RESULTS: As of data cutoff on Jan 15, 2023, 39 patients were recruited. 12 patients were enrolled during dose escalation (30 mg [n = 4]; 60 mg [n = 6]; 100 mg [n = 2]). DLT occurred in 1 patient in 60 mg cohort and 1 patient in 100 mg cohort. 60 mg BID was determined to be the MTD, and then 60 and 30 mg cohorts were expanded to 22 and 15 patients, respectively. The most common grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events were hematologic toxicities. Efficacy in 60 mg cohort seemed to be most favorable, with an objective response rate of 50.0% (95% CI, 26.0-74.0) and disease control rate of 94.4% (95% CI, 72.7-99.9). CONCLUSIONS: First-line fuzuloparib plus mFOLFIRINOX followed by maintenance fuzuloparib was generally safe and showed encouraging anti-tumor activity in patients with LA/M pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The RP2D of fuzuloparib combination was 60 mg BID. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04228601.

Clinico-biological factors predicting the benefit of the LV5FU2 maintenance strategy as a first-line therapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Predictive markers of LV5FU2 maintenance benefit after first-line induction with FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer are necessary to select patients who will not be harmed by this strategy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We focused on patients who received 12 cycles of FOLFIRINOX (arm A, N = 88) or 8 cycles of FOLFIRINOX followed by LV5FU2 maintenance in controlled patients (arm B, N = 91) from the PRODIGE-35 trial. Prognostic factors and predictors of efficiency were identified by using Cox regression. Median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and time to deterioration of quality of life (TTD-QoL) were evaluated. RESULTS: Poor independent prognostic factors were primary tumor in place, age <65 years and the presence of liver metastases for PFS, a baseline neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥5 and CA19.9 ≥500 UI/L for OS, independent of the treatment arm. Patients with one metastatic site had a longer PFS in arm A, whereas patients with ≥2 metastatic sites had a longer PFS in arm B. We also identified predictors of OS and TTD-QoL in arm B but these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Except for patients with one metastatic site who benefited more from 12 cycles of FOLFIRINOX, a maintenance strategy with LV5FU2 should be widely offered to mPC patients whose survival and QoL are preserved after 4 months of FOLFIRINOX. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02352337).

Biomarker-stratified first-line treatment of right-sided metastatic colon cancer with interdisciplinary collaboration in the IVOPAK II trial.

Patients with right-sided metastatic colon carcinoma have a significantly worse prognosis than those with left-sided colorectal cancer (CRC), regardless of treatment. The aim of the prospective IVOPAK II study was to implement an interdisciplinary guideline-conform personalized CRC palliative therapy of metastatic colorectal carcinoma and to improve the overall survival (OS) by multidisciplinary approach via secondary metastatic resection. We present the efficacy data of first-line treatment and the benefit of interdisciplinary collaboration of right-sided metastatic colon carcinoma patients: n  = 25. RAS mutation: n  = 20 (80%): received systemic first-line treatment: FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. All-RAS-wildtype: n  = 5 (20%): received systemic first-line treatment: FOLFIRI plus cetuximab. Last date evaluation: 31 January 2024. Median age: 59.6 years (range 42-71), men/women: 14/11. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) index: 0/1/2 : 11/10/4. Evaluable for response: n  = 25. Complete response: n  = 0, partial response: n  = 14 (56%), stable disease: n  = 8 (32%), progressive disease: n  = 3 (12%), early tumor shrinkage: n  = 13 (52%), estimates progression-free survival: 13 months (95% CI 8-17 months), estimated OS: 48 months (95% CI 25-71 months), median follow-up: 26 months (1-61 months), no evidence of disease: n  = 4 (16%). A chemotherapy doublette regimen with FOLFIRI plus a biological as first-line treatment shows promising efficacy and secondary metastatic resection after interdisciplinary discussion was associated with a survival benefit in right-sided metastatic colon carcinoma.

First-line Chemotherapy in Combination With Oral Recombinant Methioninase and a Low-methionine Diet for a Stage IV Inoperable Pancreatic-Cancer Patient Resulted in 40% Tumor Reduction and an 86% CA19-9 Biomarker Decrease.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis with a 5-year survival rate of less than 5% among patients with distant metastasis, a figure that has not improved over many decades. Only 10 to 20% patients are candidates for curative surgery at presentation due to the aggressive nature and asymptomatic progression of pancreatic cancer. Although first-line chemotherapy, such as FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine + nab paclitaxel, improved the median survival from 8.5 to 11.1 months, more effective treatments are immediately needed. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of methionine restriction with oral rMETase (o-rMETase) and a low-methionine diet combined with first-line chemotherapy on a patient with stage IV metastatic pancreatic cancer. CASE REPORT: A 63-year-old female was diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic cancer in October 2023. The patient started FOLFIRINOX as first-line chemotherapy in combination with methionine restriction, which comprised o-rMETase 250 units twice a day and a low-methionine diet. The patient was monitored using computed tomography and CA19-9 blood tests. After five months from the start of combination therapy, the size of the primary tumor decreased by 40% along with liver-metastasis regression. The CA19-9 blood marker decreased by 86%. The patient sustains a high performance status and continues the combination therapy without severe side effects. CONCLUSION: Methionine restriction consisting of o-rMETase and a low-methionine diet, in combination with first-line chemotherapy, was highly effective in a patient with inoperable stage IV pancreatic cancer.

Germline BRCA1-Mutated Synchronous and Metachronous Pancreatic Acinar Cell Carcinoma With Long-Term Survival.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic acinar cell carcinoma (PACC) is a rare pancreatic neoplasm. Recently, molecular analysis revealed that PACC shows a high frequency of the BRCA1/2 mutation and is likely to be considered a cancer associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC). Hereditary cancers, including HBOC, are characterized by multifocal and/or metachronous tumors. However, no case reports exist of germline BRCA1-mutated synchronous and metachronous PACC. CASE: A 58-year-old man was diagnosed with synchronous and metachronous PACC at the age of 56 and underwent two surgeries. Ten months after the second surgery, the patient developed multiple liver metastases. Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel therapy was administered as first-line chemotherapy. After seven cycles, computed tomography examination revealed progressive disease (PD). Therefore, modified FOLFIRINOX (mFFX) was administered as second- line chemotherapy. After 19 cycles of mFFX, comprehensive cancer genomic profiling (CGP) identified a BRCA1 pathogenic variant that was confirmed to be germline origin. Accordingly, we treated the patient with olaparib; however, he was diagnosed with PD after 4 months. He subsequently died 5 years and 9 months after the initial surgery, and 3 years and 10 months after chemotherapy. Based on the genetic data of the patients, his family members received genetic counseling followed by cascade testing. Consequently, the same gBRCA1 pathogenic variant was detected in the son and his surveillance for HBOC-related cancers was initiated. CONCLUSION: We diagnosed a 58-year-old man with a synchronous and metachronous PACC with germline BRCA1 pathogenic variant. Considering that PACC is likely to have BRCA1/2 mutations responsible for HBOC, we need to be aware of the possible presence of multifocal and/or metachronous tumors in patients with PACC. Additionally, patients with PACC should undergo genetic examinations, which would be beneficial in determining treatment strategies and health care for blood relatives.

[Long-Term Survival of a Case with Peritoneal Dissemination from Appendiceal Goblet Cell Carcinoid Treated with Systemic Chemotherapy].

A 64-year-old man complained of lower abdominal pain and vomiting. The CT scan showed adhesional ileus; therefore, small bowel resection procedure was performed. Histological findings showed signet-ring cell carcinoma and poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma. We performed ileocecal resection as an additional surgery. The operative findings revealed peritoneal nodules. The histological findings suggested goblet cell carcinoid with peritoneal dissemination. mFOLFOX+bevacizumab was administered, and no progression was observed for 30 months after the surgery. Appendiceal goblet cell carcinoid is rare and its prognosis is poor. Here, we report a case of appendiceal GCC that achieved a relatively long-term survival despite peritoneal dissemination.

Transarterial (chemo)embolisation versus systemic chemotherapy for colorectal cancer liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The liver is affected by two groups of malignant tumours: primary liver cancers and liver metastases. Liver metastases are significantly more common than primary liver cancer, and five-year survival after radical surgical treatment of liver metastases ranges from 28% to 50%, depending on primary cancer site. However, R0 resection (resection for cure) is not feasible in most people; therefore, other treatments have to be considered in the case of non-resectability. One possible option is based on the concept that the blood supply to hepatic tumours originates predominantly from the hepatic artery. Transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) of the peripheral branches of the hepatic artery can be achieved by administering a chemotherapeutic drug followed by vascular occlusive agents and can lead to selective necrosis of the cancer tissue while leaving normal liver parenchyma virtually unaffected. The entire procedure can be performed without infusion of chemotherapy and is then called bland transarterial embolisation (TAE). These procedures are usually applied over a few sessions. Another possible treatment option is systemic chemotherapy which, in the case of colorectal cancer metastases, is most commonly performed using FOLFOX (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) and FOLFIRI (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan) regimens applied in multiple sessions over a long period of time. These therapies disrupt the cell cycle, leading to death of rapidly dividing malignant cells. Current guidelines determine the role of TAE and TACE as non-curative treatment options applicable in people with liver-only or liver-dominant metastatic disease that is unresectable or non-ablatable, and in people who have failed systemic chemotherapy. Regarding the treatment modalities in people with colorectal cancer liver metastases, we found no systematic reviews comparing the efficacy of TAE or TACE versus systemic chemotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of transarterial embolisation (TAE) or transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) compared with systemic chemotherapy in people with liver-dominant unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and three additional databases up to 4 April 2024. We also searched two trials registers and the European Medicines Agency database and checked reference lists of retrieved publications. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised clinical trials assessing beneficial and harmful effects of TAE or TACE versus systemic chemotherapy in adults (aged 18 years or older) with colorectal cancer liver metastases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality; overall survival (time to mortality); and any adverse events or complications. Our secondary outcomes were cancer mortality; health-related quality of life; progression-free survival; proportion of participants dying or surviving with progression of the disease; time to progression of liver metastases; recurrence of liver metastases; and tumour response measures (complete response, partial response, stable disease, and progressive disease). For the purpose of the review and to perform necessary analyses, whenever possible, we converted survival rates to mortality rates, as this was our primary outcome. For the analysis of dichotomous outcomes, we used the risk ratio (RR); for continuous outcomes, we used the mean difference; and for time to event outcomes, we calculated hazard ratios (HRs), all with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the standardised mean difference with 95% CIs when the trials used different instruments. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. We based our conclusions on outcomes analysed at the longest follow-up. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials with 118 participants randomised to TACE versus 120 participants to systemic chemotherapy. Four participants were excluded; one due to disease progression prior to treatment and three due to decline in health. The trials reported data on one or more outcomes. Two trials were performed in China and one in Italy. The trials differed in terms of embolisation techniques and chemotherapeutic agents. Follow-up ranged from 12 months to 50 months. TACE may reduce mortality at longest follow-up (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.94; 3 trials, 234 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. TACE may have little to no effect on overall survival (time to mortality) (HR 0.61, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.01; 1 trial, 70 participants; very low-certainty evidence), any adverse events or complications (3 trials, 234 participants; very low-certainty evidence), health-related quality of life (2 trials, 154 participants; very low-certainty evidence), progression-free survival (1 trial, 70 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and tumour response measures (presented as the overall response rate) (RR 1.81, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.96; 3 trials, 234 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain. No trials reported cancer mortality, proportion of participants dying or surviving with progression of the disease, and recurrence of liver metastases. We found no trials comparing the effects of TAE versus systemic chemotherapy in people with colorectal cancer liver metastases. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence regarding effectiveness of TACE versus systemic chemotherapy in people with colorectal cancer liver metastases is of very low certainty and is based on three trials. Our confidence in the results is limited due to the risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision. It is very uncertain whether TACE confers benefits with regard to reduction in mortality, overall survival (time to mortality), reduction in adverse events or complications, improvement in health-related quality of life, improvement in progression-free survival, and tumour response measures (presented as the overall response rate). Data on cancer mortality, proportion of participants dying or surviving with progression of the disease, and recurrence of liver metastases are lacking. We found no trials assessing TAE versus systemic chemotherapy. More randomised clinical trials are needed to strengthen the body of evidence and provide insight into the benefits and harms of TACE or TAE in comparison with systemic chemotherapy in people with liver metastases from colorectal cancer.

Combination of neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOX compared with adjuvant chemotherapy in management of locally advanced rectal cancers: a randomized trial of a promising therapeutic approach.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a significant malignancy with widespread implications. Despite progress in surgical interventions for rectal cancer, improvements in overall prognosis remain disproportionate. Standard preoperative chemoradiation, while established as the standard treatment for the majority of rectal cancers, exhibits limited effectiveness in enhancing disease-free survival (DFS) and mitigating distant metastases, particularly in cases of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). METHODS: This randomised clinical trial assessed 286 patients with LARC in two paralleled groups. Group A underwent six courses of neoadjuvant MFOLFOX chemotherapy, chemoradiation, surgery, and six adjuvant chemotherapy cycles. Group B received concurrent chemoradiation, surgery, and twelve adjuvant chemotherapy cycles. Patient evaluations were achieved at multiple stages of treatment and follow-up. RESULTS: Group A had significantly lower local recurrence (11.64%) than Group B (21.74%, P = 0.025). The distant metastasis rate in Group A (8.90%) was lower than in Group B (20.29%) but was not significant (p = 0.143). More patients in Group A experienced downstaging (80.82% vs. 60.87%, p < 0.001). Specifically, 72.60% demonstrated downstaging of tumour invasion and 54.79% downstaging of lymph node involvement, compared to 57.25% and 41.30% in Group B (p = 0.009 and p = 0.025, respectively) as well as higher pCR rate (26.03% vs. 15.25%, p = 0.030) and three-year DFS rate (82.19% vs. 71.01%, p = 0.035) in group A compare to group B. CONCLUSION: This innovative strategy for LARC showed promising results with lower local recurrence and higher rates of downstaging and pCR. Treatment side effects were similar in both groups but less frequent in Group A. Anaemia was the most common haematological side effect (A: 58%, B: 68%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy was the most common non-haematological complication (A: 63%, B: 64%). These findings suggest this regimen could be a valuable therapeutic approach for LARC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered on 2023-12-08 within the IRCT.IR database under the number IRCT20210308050628N1.

Clinical Analysis of the Efficacy and Safety of Different Neoadjuvant Strategies in the Treatment of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, we retrospectively analysed the efficacy and safety of three treatment models, namely, short-course radiotherapy sequential XELOX chemotherapy, neoadjuvant mFOLFOX6 concurrent radiotherapy and long-course concurrent radiotherapy with total mesorectal excision (TME) after treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer with high-risk factors. METHODS: We collected clinical data on 177 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (cT3-4 and/or cN+) who were treated at the Department of Abdominal Oncology of the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Guizhou Medical University from December 2017 to December 2022. All patients were associated with 2-3 risk factors [T4b, N2, Extramural Vascular Invasion (EMVI), Mesorectal Fascia (MRF) positivity], positive lateral lymph nodes. Among them, there were 45 cases in the short course radiotherapy sequential XELOX chemotherapy group (RT + XELOX group); 64 cases in the neoadjuvant mFOLFOX6 concurrent radiotherapy group (mFOLFOX6 + CRT group); and 68 cases in the long course concurrent radiotherapy group (CRT group). The RT + XELOX group and mFOLFOX6 + CRT group completed radiotherapy and 4 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, respectively, and then rested for 1-2 weeks before TME surgery; the CRT group completed concurrent radiotherapy and then rested for 6-8 weeks before TME surgery.Adjuvant chemotherapy was conducted after surgery in each of the three groups: 2 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy with XELOX regimen in the RT + XELOX group, 4-6 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy with mFOLFOX6 in the mFOLFOX6 + CRT group, and 8-12 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy with mFOLFOX6 in the CRT group.The pathological complete response rate (pCR rate), tumour downstage rate, tumour complete resection rate (R0 resection rate), local recurrence rate, distant metastasis rate, overall survival rate, incidence of adverse reactions, surgical complications and completion rate of perioperative systemic chemotherapy were compared among patients in the three groups of cases after TME. RESULTS: The pCR rate (21.95% vs 17.24% vs 5.00%, p = 0.034) and and tumour downstage rate (78.05% vs 68.97% vs 53.33%, p = 0.029) were higher in the RT + XELOX group and mFOLFOX6 + CRT group compared to the CRT group. The RT + XELOX group had a lower 3-year distant metastasis rate (14.63% vs 36.67%, p = 0.048) and improved 3-year overall survival (76.57% vs 48.56%, p < 0.001) compared to the CRT group. There was no significant reduction in the 3-year distant metastasis rate in the mFOLFOX6 + CRT group versus the CRT group (27.59% vs 36.67%, p = 0.719), and the 3-year overall survival was similar (51.23% vs 48.56%, p = 0.35). Multi-logistic regression analysis and stratified analysis showed that patients in the RT + XELOX group and mFOLFOX6 + CRT group were more likely to achieve pCR than the CRT group (RT + XELOX group: OR 7.3, 95% CI [2.6-20.8], p < 0.001; mFOLFOX6 + CRT group OR 2.9, 95% CI [1.1-7.9], p = 0.036). The completion rates of perioperative systemic chemotherapy in the RT + XELOX, mFOLFOX6 + CRT, and CRT groups were 82.93% vs. 84.48% vs. 61.67% (χ2=9.95, p = 0.007), respectively. And there were significant differences in grade 3-4 leukopenia and thrombocytopenia (incidence of leukopenia: 15.50% vs. 7.81% vs. 1.47%, p = 0.045; incidence of thrombocytopenia: 13.33% vs 7.81% vs 1.47%, p = 0.027). There was no significant difference in the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative complications among the three groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: RT + XELOX group and mFOLFOX6 + CRT group significantly improved the near-term outcome (e.g., pCR rate) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer with high-risk factors compared with CRT group. The RT + XELOX group also reduced the 3-year distant metastasis rate, increased the 3-year overall survival rate, and did not increase the incidence of perioperative surgical complications. It provides an effective means for the comprehensive treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer and has important clinical guidance and application value.

Liposomal irinotecan (HR070803) in combination with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with advanced solid tumors: a phase 1b dose-escalation and expansion study.

This phase 1b study aimed to evaluate the dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetics, and preliminary efficacy of HR070803, a novel nanoliposomal formulation of irinotecan, in combination with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin in patients with pretreated advanced solid tumors. This study consisted of dose-escalation and expansion stages. Dose escalation was performed with a traditional 3 + 3 design; patients received intravenous infusion of HR070803 from 60 to 80 mg/m2, followed by leucovorin (200 mg/m2) and 5-fluorouracil (2000 mg/m2) every 2 weeks. In the expansion stage, patients received treatments at selected tolerable dose. Fifteen patients received treatments at 60 mg/m2 (n = 12) and 80 mg/m2 (n = 3). DLTs occurred in 2 patients at 80 mg/m2 (grade 2 neutropenia that resulted in a dose delay of ≥ 7 days, n = 1; grade 3 febrile neutropenia, n = 1). The MTD was determined to be 60 mg/m2. The most frequent HR070803related adverse events included anorexia, leukopenia, neutropenia, nausea, fatigue, and diarrhea. SN-38, the active metabolite of irinotecan, exhibited lower maximum plasma concentrations and a prolonged terminal half-life when irinotecan was administered via nanoliposome compared to conventional injection. Overall, 4 patients achieved a partial response (confirmed, n = 2), and 9 had stable disease. The MTD of HR070803 was 60 mg/m2 when infused with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin. Nanoliposomal encapsulation modified the pharmacokinetics of irinotecan and SN-38. HR070803 with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin demonstrated a manageable safety profile and promising antitumor efficacy in advanced solid tumors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05086848. Retrospectively registered on Oct. 12, 2021.

Early tumor shrinkage as a prognostic predictor in chemotherapy-naïve patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with modified FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel combination therapy: An exploratory analysis of JCOG1407.

BACKGROUND: Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) is a prognostic predictor for patients treated with chemotherapy in colorectal cancer, although scarce studies evaluated its potential in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). In this exploratory analysis of JCOG1407, a randomized phase II study comparing modified 5-fluorouracil, levofolinate, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFIRINOX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP), we evaluated whether ETS can predict prognosis of patients with LAPC. METHODS: Of the 126 patients enrolled in JCOG1407, 112 with measurable lesions were included in this study. ETS was defined as a ≥20 % reduction in tumor diameter compared with baseline at the initial imaging assessment 6-10 weeks after initiating chemotherapy. Patients were divided into the ETS (achieved ETS) and non-ETS (failed to achieve ETS) groups based on their ETS status. The impact of ETS on overall survival (OS) was compared using multivariable Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen of 55 (25.5 %) and 24 of 57 (42.1 %) patients in the mFOLFIRINOX and GnP arms, respectively, achieved ETS. In the overall population, mFOLFIRINOX arm, and GnP arm, the median OS in the ETS and non-ETS groups was 27.1 and 20.4, 29.8 and 20.6, and 24.1 and 20.4, months, respectively. The adjusted hazard ratios of OS for the ETS group in the overall population, mFOLFIRINOX arm, and GnP arm were 0.451 (95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.270-0.754), 0.371 (95 % CI: 0.149-0.926), and 0.508 (95 % CI: 0.255-1.004), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ETS may be a prognostic predictor in chemotherapy-naïve patients with LAPC treated with mFOLFIRINOX or GnP.

Predicting Benefit From FOLFOXIRI Plus Bevacizumab in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patient outcomes may differ from randomized trial averages. We aimed to predict benefit from FOLFOXIRI versus infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI), both plus bevacizumab, in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: A Cox model with prespecified clinical, molecular, and laboratory variables was developed in 639 patients from the TRIBE2 trial for predicting 2-year mortality. Data from the CHARTA (n = 232), TRIBE1 (n = 504), and CAIRO5 (liver-only mCRC, n = 287) trials were used for external validation and heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) analysis. This involves categorizing patients into risk groups and assessing treatment effects across these groups. Performance was assessed by the C-index and calibration plots. The C-for-benefit was calculated to assess evidence for HTE. The c-for-benefit is specifically designed for HTE analysis. Like the commonly known c-statistic, it summarizes the discrimination of a model. Values over 0.5 indicate evidence for HTE. RESULTS: In TRIBE2, the overoptimism-corrected C-index was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.69). At external validation, the C-index was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.75), 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.72), and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.66), in CHARTA, TRIBE1, and CAIRO5, respectively. Calibration plots indicated slight underestimation of mortality. The c-for-benefit indicated evidence for HTE in CHARTA (0.56, 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.65), but not in TRIBE1 (0.49, 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.55) and CAIRO5 (0.40, 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.48). CONCLUSION: Although 2-year mortality could be reasonably estimated, the HTE analysis showed that clinically available variables did not reliably identify which patients with mCRC benefit from FOLFOXIRI versus FOLFOX/FOLFIRI, both plus bevacizumab, across the three studies.

Adjuvant Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) plus Docetaxel-Cisplatin-Fluorouracil (DCF) versus CRT plus Fluorouracil-Folinic Acid (FUFA) in Stage III Gastric Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the optimal management strategy in resectable gastric cancer. There is a debate about the efficacy of more aggressive CRT plus chemotherapy regimens in adjuvant setting. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of adjuvant CRT plus docetaxel-cisplatin-fluorouracil (DCF) versus CRT plus fluorouracil-folinic acid (FUFA) in stage III gastric cancer. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of stage III gastric cancer treated with adjuvant therapy after curative resection were analyzed. Patients' disease characteristics and impacts of the regimens on median disease-free survival (DFS) and median overall survival (OS) were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-one patients (102 in FUFA arm and 59 in DCF arm) with a median age of 56.0 (29-79) were evaluated. In the DCF arm, there were more renal toxicities (31.6% vs 6.4% P < 0.001), emergency department admissions (64.9% vs 23.7%, P < 0.001), and dose reductions/treatment modifications in the DCF arm (51.6% vs 37.2, P < 0.001). The median follow-up was 23 months (1-124) in the FUFA arm and 26.0 months (1-77) in the DCF arm. The median DFS was 25.0 months (%95 CI, 12.7-37.2) in the DCF arm and 17.0 months (%95 CI, 2.6-31.3) in the FUFA arm, P = 0.66. The median OS was 28.0 months (%95 CI, 17.0-38.9) in the DCF arm and 25.0 months (%95 CI, 11.9-36.0) in the FUFA arm, P = 0.70. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, when compared with FUFA regimen, more aggressive therapy with DCF was more toxic and did not improve OS in adjuvant setting of stage III gastric cancer.

Alliance A022104/NRG-GI010: The Janus Rectal Cancer Trial: a randomized phase II/III trial testing the efficacy of triplet versus doublet chemotherapy regarding clinical complete response and disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Recent data have demonstrated that in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), a total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) approach improves compliance with chemotherapy and increases rates of tumor response compared to neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) alone. They further indicate that the optimal sequencing of TNT involves consolidation (rather than induction) chemotherapy to optimize complete response rates. Data, largely from retrospective studies, have also shown that patients with clinical complete response (cCR) after TNT may be managed safely with the watch and wait approach (WW) instead of preemptive total mesorectal resection (TME). However, the optimal consolidation chemotherapy regimen to achieve cCR has not been established, and a randomized clinical trial has not robustly evaluated cCR as a primary endpoint. Collaborating with a multidisciplinary oncology team and patient groups, we designed this NCI-sponsored study of chemotherapy intensification to address these issues and to drive up cCR rates, to provide opportunity for organ preservation, improve quality of life for patients and improve survival outcomes. METHODS: In this NCI-sponsored multi-group randomized, seamless phase II/III trial (1:1), up to 760 patients with LARC, T4N0, any T with node positive disease (any T, N +) or T3N0 requiring abdominoperineal resection or coloanal anastomosis and distal margin within 12 cm of anal verge will be enrolled. Stratification factors include tumor stage (T4 vs T1-3), nodal stage (N + vs N0) and distance from anal verge (0-4; 4-8; 8-12 cm). Patients will be randomized to receive neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiation (LCRT) followed by consolidation doublet (mFOLFOX6 or CAPOX) or triplet chemotherapy (mFOLFIRINOX) for 3-4 months. LCRT in both arms involves 4500 cGy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks + 900 cGy boost in 5 fractions with a fluoropyrimidine (capecitabine preferred). Patients will undergo assessment 8-12 (± 4) weeks post-TNT completion. The primary endpoint for the phase II portion will compare cCR between treatment arms. A total number of 312 evaluable patients (156 per arm) will provide statistical power of 90.5% to detect a 17% increase in cCR rate, at a one-sided alpha = 0.048. The primary endpoint for the phase III portion will compare disease-free survival (DFS) between treatment arms. A total of 285 DFS events will provide 85% power to detect an effect size of hazard ratio 0.70 at a one-sided alpha of 0.025, requiring enrollment of 760 patients (380 per arm). Secondary objectives include time-to event outcomes (overall survival, organ preservation time and time to distant metastasis) and adverse event rates. Biospecimens including archival tumor tissue, plasma and buffy coat, and serial rectal MRIs will be collected for exploratory correlative research. This study, activated in late 2022, is open across the NCTN and had accrued 330 patients as of May 2024. Study support: U10CA180821, U10CA180882, U24 CA196171; https://acknowledgments.alliancefound.org . DISCUSSION: Building on data from modern day rectal cancer trials and patient input from national advocacy groups, we have designed The Janus Rectal Cancer Trial studying chemotherapy intensification via a consolidation chemotherapy approach with the intent to enhance cCR and DFS rates, increase organ preservation rates, and improve quality of life for patients with rectal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ID: NCT05610163; Support includes U10CA180868 (NRG) and U10CA180888 (SWOG).

Is There any Benefit of Addition of Neo-Adjuvant Chemotherapy (FOLFOX4) to Standard Preoperative Treatment of Rectal Cancer? A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) before surgical intervention represents a unique therapeutic approach for the management of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and has witnessed a notable rise in utilization within recent years. However, the efficacy and safety of this treatment remain subjects of ongoing debate and investigation. This randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the potential impact of administering induction chemotherapy (IC) before the conventional neoadjuvant concomitant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) in LARC patients. MATERIALS & METHODS: patients with resectable stage II-III LARC were randomly allocated to receive either biweekly 6 cycles of FOLFOX4 regimen as IC followed by CRT and total mesorectal excision (TME) (experimental group) or nCRT followed by TME (control group). The primary endpoint was the rate of pathological complete response (pCR). The secondary endpoints encompassed the evaluation of treatment-related adverse events as well as the assessment of survival outcomes. RESULTS: 67 patients were enrolled in this study (32 in the experimental group and 35 in the control group). The median age of the patients was 45 years. Stage IIIB was observed in 46.3% of the patients. The patients who underwent induction chemotherapy demonstrated a notably higher rate of achieving pCR in comparison to the control group (28.1% vs 8.6%; P=0.001). There were no statistically significant differences observed in terms of their toxicity profile and survival outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of induction chemotherapy utilizing the FOLFOX4 regimen has demonstrated a notable enhancement in the rate of pathological complete response. However, this improvement does not appear to translate into significant advancements in overall survival outcomes.

Intratumoral NKT cell accumulation promotes antitumor immunity in pancreatic cancer.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA) is a potentially lethal disease lacking effective treatments. Its immunosuppressive tumor microenvironment (TME) allows it to evade host immunosurveillance and limits response to immunotherapy. Here, using the mouse KRT19-deficient (sgKRT19-edited) PDA model, we find that intratumoral accumulation of natural killer T (NKT) cells is required to establish an immunologically active TME. Mechanistically, intratumoral NKT cells facilitate type I interferon (IFN) production to initiate an antitumor adaptive immune response, and orchestrate the intratumoral infiltration of T cells, dendritic cells, natural killer cells, and myeloid-derived suppressor cells. At the molecular level, NKT cells promote the production of type I IFN through the interaction of their CD40L with CD40 on myeloid cells. To evaluate the therapeutic potential of these observations, we find that administration of folinic acid to mice bearing PDA increases NKT cells in the TME and improves their response to anti-PD-1 antibody treatment. In conclusion, NKT cells have an essential role in the immune response to mouse PDA and are potential targets for immunotherapy.