ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Small bowel adenocarcinoma is a rare cancer, and the role of adjuvant chemotherapy for localized disease is still debated. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study included all consecutive patients who underwent curative surgical resection for localized small bowel adenocarcinoma between 1996 and 2019 from 3 French cohort studies. Prognostic and predictive factors of adjuvant chemotherapy efficacy were analyzed for disease-free survival and overall survival. The inverse probability of treatment weighting method was applied in the Cox regression model using the propensity score derived from multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 354 patients were included: median age, 63.5 years; duodenum location, 53.5%; and tumor stage I, II, and III in 31 (8.7%), 144 (40.7%), and 179 (50.6%) patients, respectively. The adjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 0 (0%), 66 (48.5%), and 143 (80.3%) patients with stage I, II, and III, respectively (P < .0001). In the subgroup analysis by inverse probability of treatment weighting method, a statistically significant disease-free survival and overall survival benefit in favor of adjuvant chemotherapy was observed in high-risk stage II (T4 and/or <8 lymph nodes examined) and III (T4 and/or N2) but not for low-risk stage II (T3 and ≥8 lymph nodes examined) and III (T1-3/N1) tumors (Pinteraction < .05). Furthermore, tumor location in jejunum and ileum was also a statistically significant predictive factor of response to adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III tumors (Pinteraction < .05). CONCLUSION: In localized small bowel adenocarcinoma, adjuvant chemotherapy seems to provide a statistically significant survival benefit for high-risk stage II and III tumors and for jejunum and ileum tumor locations.
Subject(s)
Adenocarcinoma , Intestine, Small , Humans , Middle Aged , Adenocarcinoma/drug therapy , Adenocarcinoma/surgery , Adenocarcinoma/pathology , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant , Intestine, Small/pathology , Intestine, Small/surgery , Neoplasm Staging , Prognosis , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
Background: Chemoradiotherapy alone is the standard treatment for locally advanced squamous cell anal carcinoma (SCAC). However, up to 50% of patients will experience recurrence; thus, there is a need for new treatments to improve outcomes. Modified docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil (mDCF) is a treatment option for first-line metastatic SCAC, having shown efficacy in the Epitopes-HPV01 and -02 trials (NCT01845779 and NCT02402842). mDCF treatment also plays a role in the modulation of anti-tumor immunity, suggesting it may be a good combination partner for immunotherapy in patients with SCAC. Anti-programmed death protein-1 (PD-1) immunotherapy has been shown to be effective in metastatic SCAC. We therefore designed the INTERACT-ION study to assess the combination of mDCF with ezabenlimab (BI 754091), an anti-PD-1 antibody, followed by chemoradiotherapy, in patients with Stage III SCAC. Methods: INTERACT-ION is a pivotal, open-label, single-arm phase II study in patients with treatment-naïve Stage III SCAC. Patients will receive induction treatment with mDCF (docetaxel 40 mg/m2 and cisplatin 40 mg/m2 on Day 1, 5-fluorouracil 1200 mg/m2/day for 2 days) every 2 weeks for 4 cycles and ezabenlimab (240 mg given intravenously) every 3 weeks for 3 cycles. In the absence of disease progression at 2 months, two additional cycles of mDCF and one additional cycle of ezabenlimab will be administered. Patients with radiological objective response, pathological complete/near-complete response and biological complete response will then receive an involved-node radiotherapy with intensity-modulated radiation therapy and concurrent chemotherapy, followed by ezabenlimab alone for seven cycles. All other patients will receive standard chemoradiotherapy. The primary endpoint is the clinical complete response rate 10 months after the first cycle of mDCF plus ezabenlimab. Major secondary endpoints are major pathological response and biological complete response after induction treatment. An extensive ancillary biomarker study in tumor tissue and peripheral blood will also be conducted. Discussion: The addition of immunotherapy to chemotherapy is an area of active interest in metastatic anal cancer. This pivotal study will evaluate this combination in the locally advanced setting. Ancillary biomarker studies will contribute to the understanding of predictors of response or resistance to treatment. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04719988, identifier NCT04719988.
ABSTRACT
AIMS: To assess the interest of induction chemotherapy (ICT) intensification before chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Charts of patients treated between February 2010 and November 2016 with consolidation capecitabin based-CRT were retrospectively reviewed in this bicentric study. Patients who underwent Gemcitabine as ICT (Group G) were compared to patients treated with intensive ICT (group I). Primary objectives were progression-free survival (PFS), defined as the time from the first day of ICT to progression or last follow-up, and Time without treatment (TWT), as the time from the last day of CRT to progression. RESULTS: Patients' characteristics were balanced between group I (Folforinox: n = 24; GemOx: n = 6) and group G (n = 16) including mean age (63.7 vs 68.1 years), and performance status (PS 0-1 :90% vs 93.7%). Median PFS (17.8 months vs 12 months; p = 0.02) and TWT (7.4 months vs 2.5 months p = 0.01) were statistically better in group I vs group G. These results remained statistically and clinically significant by comparing Folfirinox subgroup to Gemcitabine. A trend to a better median overall survival was observed in group I (20.4 months) vs group G (18.3 months; p = 0.07). After adjusting for ICT duration, PS, and CA19.9 level, ICT intensification remains independently prognostic. Toxicity profile was in accordance with Literature. CONCLUSION: This study shows ICT intensification before CRT is an interesting approach in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Further studies are needed to confirm these results, and to assess the specific role of CRT in this setting.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Yield of Endocuff-assisted colonoscopy (EAC) compared with standard colonoscopy is conflicting in terms of adenoma detection rate (ADR). A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) appears necessary. METHODS: PubMed and Google Scholar were searched in December 2017.âAbstracts from Digestive Disease Week and United European Gastroenterology Week meetings were also searched to 2017.âAll RCTs comparing EAC with standard colonoscopy were included. Analysis was conducted by using the Mantel-Haenszel models. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 test. RESULTS: Of the 265 articles reviewed, 12 RCTs were included, with a total of 8376 patients (EAC group 4225; standard colonoscopy group 4151). In the meta-analysis, ADR was significantly increased in the EAC group vs. the standard colonoscopy group (41.3â% vs. 34.2â%; risk ratio [RR]â=â1.20, 95â% confidence interval [CI] 1.06 to 1.36; Pâ=â0.003; I2â=â79â%), especially for operators with low-to-moderate ADRs (<â35â%): RRâ=â1.51, 95â%CI 1.35 to 1.69; Pâ<â0.001; I2â=â43â%). In contrast, this benefit was not reached for operators with high ADRs (>â45â%): RRâ=â1.01, 95â%CI 0.93 to 1.09; Pâ=â0.87; I2â=â0.0â%). The mean number of adenomas per patient tended to be higher with EAC (mean differenceâ=â0.11 adenomas/patient, 95â%CIâ-â0.17 to 0.38). Similar results were shown for polyp detection rates (61.6â% vs. 51.4â%; RRâ=â1.20, 95â%CI 1.06 to 1.36; Pâ=â0.004). Use of the Endocuff did not impact the cecal intubation rate (95.1â% vs. 95.7â%; Pâ=â0.08), or the procedure time compared with standard colonoscopy. Adverse events related to Endocuff were rare and exclusively mild mucosal erosion (4.0â%; 95â%CI 2.0â% to 8.0â%). CONCLUSION: With moderate-quality evidence, this study showed an improvement in ADR with EAC without major adverse events, especially for operators with low-to-moderate ADRs.