Neoadjuvant Nivolumab Plus Ipilimumab and Adjuvant Nivolumab in Localized Deficient Mismatch Repair/Microsatellite Instability-High Gastric or Esophagogastric Junction Adenocarcinoma: The GERCOR NEONIPIGA Phase II Study.

PURPOSE: In patients with resectable gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma, surgery plus perioperative platinum-based chemotherapy is the standard of care. Perioperative chemotherapy remains debatable for gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR)/microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H). PATIENTS AND METHODS: NEONIPIGA (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04006262) phase II study evaluated neoadjuvant nivolumab 240 mg once every two weeks ×6 and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every six weeks ×2, followed by surgery and adjuvant nivolumab 480 mg once every four weeks (nine injections) in patients with locally advanced resectable dMMR/MSI-H, clinical (c) tumor (T)2-T4 node (N)x metastasis (M)0 gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma. The primary end point was a pathological complete response (pCR) rate. RESULTS: Between October 2019 and June 2021, 32 patients with dMMR/MSI-H gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma were enrolled. The median age was 65.5 years (range, 40-80). Clinical stages were cT2-T3N0 (n = 9), cT2-T3N1 (n = 22), and cT3N1M1 (n = 1, wrongly included). With a median follow-up of 14.9 months (95% CI, 10.6 to 17.6), 32 patients received neoadjuvant immunotherapy (27 patients completed all cycles). Neoadjuvant therapy-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in six patients (19%). Twenty-nine patients underwent surgery; three did not have surgery and had complete endoscopic response with tumor-free biopsies and a normal computed tomography scan (two refused surgery and one had metastasis at inclusion). The rate of surgical morbidity (Clavien-Dindo classification) was 55% (one postoperative death occurred). All 29 patients had an R0 resection, and 17 (58.6%; 90% CI, 41.8 to 74.1) had pCR (pathological T0N0). Becker tumor regression grades 1a, 1b, 2, and 3 were observed in 17 patients, three (including two pathological T0N1), two, and seven patients, respectively. Of the 29 patients with surgery, 23 received adjuvant nivolumab. At database lock, no patient had relapse and one died without relapse. CONCLUSION: Nivolumab and ipilimumab-based neoadjuvant therapy is feasible and associated with no unexpected toxicity and a high pCR rate in patients with dMMR/MSI-H resectable gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma.

Targeting the Tumor Microenvironment through mTOR Inhibition and Chemotherapy as Induction Therapy for Locally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma: The CAPRA Study.

Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) regulates cellular functions by integrating intracellular signals and signals from the tumor microenvironment (TME). The PI3K-AKT-mTOR pathway is activated in 70% of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and associated with poor prognosis. This phase I-II study investigated the effect of mTOR inhibition using weekly everolimus (30 mg for dose level 1, 50 mg for dose level 2) combined with weekly induction chemotherapy (AUC2 carboplatin and 60 mg/m2 paclitaxel) in treatment-naïve patients with locally advanced T3-4/N0-3 HNSCC. Patients received 9 weekly cycles before chemoradiotherapy. Objectives were safety and antitumor activity along with tissue and blood molecular biomarkers. A total of 50 patients were enrolled. Among 41 evaluable patients treated at the recommended dose of 50 mg everolimus weekly, tolerance was good and overall response rate was 75.6%, including 20 major responses (≥50% reduction in tumor size). A significant decrease in expression of p-S6K (p-value: 0.007) and Ki67 (p-value: 0.01) was observed in post-treatment tumor tissue. Pro-immunogenic cytokine release (Th1 cytokines IFN-γ, IL-2, and TNF-ß) was observed in the peripheral blood. The combination of everolimus and chemotherapy in HNSCC was safe and achieved major tumor responses. This strategy favorably impacts the TME and might be combined with immunotherapeutic agents.

Triplet combination of durvalumab, tremelimumab, and paclitaxel in biliary tract carcinomas: Safety run-in results of the randomized IMMUNOBIL PRODIGE 57 phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: The IMMUNOBIL PRODIGE 57 trial is a non-comparative randomized phase II study assessing the efficacy and safety of the durvalumab (an anti-PD-L1) and tremelimumab (an anti-CTLA4) combination with or without weekly paclitaxel in patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma (BTC) after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. Taxanes have already been safely combined with immune checkpoint inhibitors in other tumors. We report results of the 20-patient safety run-in. METHODS: Patients received durvalumab (1500 mg at day 1 [D1] of each cycle)/tremelimumab (75 mg at D1 for 4 cycles; Arm A) or durvalumab/tremelimumab with paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 at D1, D8, D15; Arm B) every 28 days. RESULTS: Twenty patients were enrolled (Arm A/B: 10/10). There were no dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in Arm A. Six DLTs were observed in five patients (50%) in Arm B, meeting a stopping rule for the trial inclusions. DLTs included three serious anaphylactic reactions (with one cardiac arrest), two enterocolitis, and one infectious pneumopathy with septic shock. There were no patients with history of personal or familial auto-immune disease. CONCLUSION: The safety run-in part of IMMUNOBIL PRODIGE 57 raised concerns regarding co-administration of paclitaxel with durvalumab and tremelimumab in BTC, with an unexpected increase in anaphylactic adverse events. Phase II of the study will only evaluate the durvalumab and tremelimumab combination arm. CLINICALTRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT03704480.

Impact of the IDEA Collaboration Study Results on Clinical Practice in France for Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer: A National GERCOR - PRODIGE Survey.

BACKGROUND: The IDEA collaboration showed that the type and duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer (CC) could be adjusted according to the schedule of chemotherapy and the level of risk. We aimed at evaluating the implementation of IDEA's results in real-life practice for stage III CC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: All clinicians registered in the French oncology cooperative groups GERCOR, FFCD, and UNICANCER GI mailing lists were invited to participate to an online anonymized nationwide survey from January 30, 2019 to March 31, 2019. Proportions were compared using the χ2 test. RESULTS: A total of 213 physicians answered the survey. Of these, 173 (81%) considered that 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy was the new standard of care for low-risk (pT1-3/N1) stage III CC, and 99% considered that 6 months remained the standard of care for high-risk (pT4 and/or pN2) stage III CC. In patients under 70 years, capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) for 3 months was prescribed by 74% of the participants in low-risk CC, whereas 6 months of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) was preferred for high-risk CC in 94% of cases. For patients over 70 years with good performance status and no comorbidities, 172 (81%) physicians prescribed oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for low-risk CC (3 months, 144 of 172%; 88%), and 200 (94%) physicians prescribed oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk CC (6 months, 199 of 200%; 99.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The IDEA results have been practice-changing as French physicians have implemented 3 months of CAPOX for patients with low-risk stage III CC, substituting from 6 months of FOLFOX, which remains the preferred regimen for high-risk patients.

RECIST and iRECIST criteria for the evaluation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer: the GERCOR NIPICOL phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are highly effective in patients with microsatellite instability/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1 criteria may underestimate response to ICIs due to the pseudoprogression phenomenon. The GERCOR NIPICOL phase II study aimed to evaluate the frequency of pseudoprogressions in patients with MSI/dMMR mCRC treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab. METHODS: Patients with MSI/dMMR mCRC previously treated with fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan with/without targeted therapies received nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four cycles then nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks until progression or a maximum of 20 cycles. Computed tomography scan tumor assessments were done every 6 weeks for 24 weeks and then every 12 weeks. The primary endpoint was disease control rate at 12 weeks according to RECIST 1.1 and iRECIST by central review. RESULTS: Of 57 patients included between December 2017 and November 2018, 48.0% received ≥3 prior lines of chemotherapy, 18.0% had BRAFV600E mutation, and 56.0% had Lynch syndrome-related cancer. Seven patients (12.0%) discontinued treatment due to adverse events; one died due to a treatment-related adverse event. The disease control rate (DCR) at 12 weeks was 86.0% with RECIST 1.1% and 87.7% with iRECIST. Two pseudoprogressions (3.5%) were observed, at week 6 and at week 36, representing 18% of patients with disease progression per RECIST 1.1 criteria. With a median follow-up of 18.4 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were not reached. The 12-month PFS rate was 72.9% with RECIST 1.1% and 76.5% with iRECIST. The 12-month OS rate was 84%. Overall response rate was 59.7% with both criteria. RAS/BRAF status, sidedness, Lynch syndrome, and other baseline parameters were not associated with PFS. CONCLUSION: Pseudoprogression is rare in patients with MSI/dMMR mCRC treated with nivolumab and ipilimumab. This combined ICI therapy confirms impressive DCR and survival outcomes in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03350126.

Nutrition and physical activity professional education in gastrointestinal oncology: a national multidisciplinary survey.

OBJECTIVES: Sarcopenia, present in more than 50% of digestive oncology patients, has a negative impact on clinical outcomes. Nutrition and adapted physical activity are two major interventions for the management of sarcopenia. However, young hepato-gastroenterologists, oncologists and surgeons in France have limited awareness on these topics. We aimed to evaluate the need for training programmes of physicians (residents and senior doctors) involved in digestive oncology on nutrition and adapted physical activity. METHODS: A 42-question survey was developed, by a working group of clinicians, dieticians and adapted physical activity teachers, to assess five areas related to demographics of respondents, nutrition practices, nutrition training, adapted physical activity practices and adapted physical activity training. The national survey was undertaken between April and July of 2019. RESULTS: 230 physicians participated in the survey; 34% were hepato-gastroenterologists, 31% were oncologists, 23% were surgeons and 40% were residents. Sixty-one per cent of participants had received training in nutrition and only 21% in adapted physical activity. Ninety per cent of the physicians expressed their desire for more effective training on these two topics. Disparities in clinical practices were observed between hepato-gastroenterologists, oncologists and surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: More initial and continuing training on nutrition and adapted physical activity is needed for French physicians in the current digestive oncology clinical practice.

[Localized MSI/dMMR gastric cancer patients, perioperative immunotherapy instead of chemotherapy: The GERCOR NEONIPIGA phase II study is opened to recruitment]. / Patients atteints d'un cancer gastrique localisé MSI/dMMR, pas de chimiothérapie mais une immunothérapie périopératoire : l'essai de phase II GERCOR NEONIPIGA vient d'être ouvert au recrutement.

INTRODUCTION: Perioperative chemotherapy is the standard strategy for localized gastric cancers. Nevertheless, this strategy seems to be inefficient, if not deleterious, for patients with tumors harboring microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR), a tumor phenotype predictive for the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICKi). AIM: The GERCOR NEONIPIGA single-arm phase II study (NCT04006262; EUDRACT 2018-004712-22) aims at evaluating the efficacy of a peri-operative strategy with nivolumab and ipilimumab in neoadjuvant setting, then nivolumab alone after surgery for patients with resectable MSI/dMMR gastric cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Main inclusion criteria are: gastric and oesogastric junction adenocarcinoma (GOA), T2-T4, all N stage and M0, MSI/dMMR. Patients will be treated with nivolumab 240mg Q2W, 6 infusions, and ipilimumab 1mg/kg Q6W, 2 infusions in neoadjuvant setting. Following surgery, patients with TRG 1-2-3 (Mandard tumor regression grade), acceptable tolerance of neoadjuvant treatment and postoperative ECOG performance status 0-1, will be treated with adjuvant nivolumab 480mg Q4W, 9 infusions. RESULTS: The primary endpoint is pathological complete response rate (pCR-R). Based on a Fleming design, with α=5% and ß=20%, 27 patients have to be evaluated (H0=5%; H1=20%). Secondary endpoints include disease-free survival, overall survival and safety. CONCLUSION: This study is planned to include 32 patients to evaluate the pCR-R with the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab in neoadjuvant setting for MSI/dMMR localized GOA. The MSI/MMR status should be systematically assessed on diagnostic biopsies of all GOA. If it meets its primary endpoint, the GERCOR NEONIPIGA study might mark a turning point in the management of localized MSI/dMMR GOA patients.

RECIST and CHOI criteria in the evaluation of tumor response in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with regorafenib, a prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the objective response rate (ORR) at 2 months of treatment with regorafenib according to RECIST 1.1, Choi, and modified Choi (mChoi) criteria in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Baseline and 2-month contrast-enhanced computed-tomography (CECT) scans of 55 patients with mCRC, prospectively enrolled in phase II TEXCAN trial, were centrally assessed. The primary endpoint was 2-month ORR by RECIST 1.1, Choi, and mChoi criteria. Final outcome was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of 55 patients included in this study (Intention-to-treat [ITT1] population), 35 had CECT at 2 months (ITT2 population). According to RECIST 1.1 criteria, 20 (57%) patients were SD and 15 were PD (43%) in the ITT2 population. According to Choi criteria, 18 (51%) patients were responders and 17 (48%) were non-responders. Median OS was 5.3 months (95% CI 3.7-8.6) in the ITT1 population and 8.9 months (95% CI 5.1-12.6) in the ITT2 population. In the ITT2 population, median OS was 16 months (95% CI 6.6-17.5) in SD patients (n = 20) and 4.6 months (95% CI 3.3-5.8) in PD patients (n = 15), according to RECIST 1.1 criteria (HR = 6.48). Median OS was 7.9 months (95% CI 4.2-17.5) in responders (n = 18) and 9.9 months (95% CI 3.7-NA) in non-responders (n = 17) according to Choi criteria (HR = 1.06). All patients except one were classified as non-responders with mChoi criteria. CONCLUSION: At 2 months, unlike RECIST 1.1, Choi and mChoi criteria could not identify mCRC patients with regorafenib survival benefit. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02699073.Registered March 4, 2016, Retrospectively registered.

FOLFIRI3-aflibercept in previously treated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the modified FOLFIRI3-aflibercept as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter cohort, evaluating the efficacy and safety of the association of aflibercept with FOLFIRI3 (day 1: aflibercept 4 mg/kg, folinic acid 400 mg/m2, irinotecan 90 mg/m2, 5-fluorouracil infusion 2400 mg/m2 per 46 h; day 3: irinotecan 90 mg/m2) in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints were disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: Among 74 patients treated in four French centers, nine were excluded due to prior use of aflibercept (n = 3), more than one prior treatment line in irinotecan-naïve patients (n = 3), and inadequate liver function (n = 3). In the "irinotecan-naïve" patients (n = 30), ORR was 43.3% and DCR was 76.7%. Median PFS and OS were 11.3 mo (95%CI: 6.1-29.0) and 17.0 mo (95%CI: 13.0-17.3), respectively. The most common (> 5%) grade 3-4 adverse events were diarrhea (37.9%), neutropenia (14.3%), stomatitis and anemia (10.4%), and hypertension (6.7%). In the "pre-exposed irinotecan" patients (n = 35), 20 (57.1%) received ≥ 2 prior lines of treatment. ORR was 34.3% and DCR was 60.0%. Median PFS and OS were 5.7 mo (95%CI: 3.9-10.4) and 14.3 mo (95%CI: 12.8-19.5), respectively. CONCLUSION: Minimally modified FOLFIRI has improvement dramatically the FOLFIRI3-aflibercept efficacy, whatever prior use of irinotecan. A prospective randomized trial is warranted to compare FOLFIRI-aflibercept to FOLFIRI3-aflibercept.

Time to Definitive Health-Related Quality of Life Score Deterioration in Patients with Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated with FOLFOX4 versus Sequential Dose-Dense FOLFOX7 followed by FOLFIRI: The MIROX Randomized Phase III Trial.

PURPOSE: We previously showed that a sequential chemotherapy with dose-dense oxaliplatin (FOLFOX7) and irinotecan (FOLFIRI; irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) is not superior to FOLFOX4 in patients at advanced stage of colorectal cancer with liver metastases. Here we aimed to determine whether time to health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score definitive deterioration (TUDD) differs by study arm. METHODS: HRQoL was evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 at baseline and every 4 cycles until the end of the study or death. Functional scale, symptom scale, global health status, and financial difficulties were analyzed. The TUDD was defined as the time interval between randomization and the first decrease in HRQoL score ≥ 5-point with no further improvement in HRQoL score ≥ 5 points or any further HRQoL data. TUDD was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and the long-rank test. Cox regression analyses were used to identify HRQoL items influencing TUDD. Sensitivity analyses were done using a multiple imputation method and different definitions of TUDD. RESULTS: Of the 284 patients, 171 (60.2%) completed HRQoL questionnaires. Cox multivariate analysis showed no statistically significant difference in TUDD for most of the QLQ-C30 scales between treatments. Patients with dyspnea and those without symptoms at baseline had a significantly longer TUDD when there was a delay >12 months between diagnosis of the primary tumor and metastases (HR 0.48 [0.26-0.89]) and when there was diarrhea (HR 0.59 [0.36-0.96]), respectively. CONCLUSION: This study shows that TUDD does not differ significantly according to type of treatment. The TUDD method produces meaningful longitudinal HRQoL results that may facilitate effective clinical decision making in patients with mCRC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00268398.

Could baseline health-related quality of life (QoL) predict overall survival in metastatic colorectal cancer? The results of the GERCOR OPTIMOX 1 study.

BACKGROUND: Health-related quality of life (QoL) has prognostic value in many cancers. A recent study found that the performance of prognostic systems for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were improvable. We evaluated the independent prognostic value of QoL for overall survival (OS) and its ability to improve two prognostic systems'performance (Köhne and GERCOR models) for patients with mCRC. METHODS: The EQ-5D questionnaire was self-completed before randomization in the OPTIMOX1, a phase III trial comparing two strategies of FOLFOX chemotherapy which included 620 previously untreated mCRC patients recruited from January 2000 to June 2002 from 56 institutions in five countries. The improvement in models' performance (after addition of QoL) was studied with Harrell's C-index and the net reclassification improvement. RESULTS: Of the 620 patients, 249 (40%) completed QoL datasets. The Köhne model could be improved by LDH, mobility and pain/discomfort; the C-index rose from 0.54 to 0.67. The associated NRI for 12-month death was 0.23 [0.05; 0.46]. Mobility and pain/discomfort could be added to the GERCOR model: the C-index varied from 0.63 to 0.68. The NRI for 12 months death was 0.35 [0.12; 0.44]. CONCLUSIONS: Mobility and pain dimensions of EQ5D are independent prognostic factors and could be useful for staging and treatment assignment of mCRC patients. Presented at the 2011 ASCO Annual Meeting (#3632).

[Use of complementary medicine by cancer patients in a French oncology department]. / Utilisation de médecine complémentaire chez les patients atteints de cancer dans un service de cancérologie français.

The aims of this study was to estimate and describe the reasons of use of complementary medicine in patients with a cancer treated in a French oncology department. An anonymous questionnaire was proposed to patients during treatment or follow-up in an oncology department. It was a descriptive study over 207 questionnaires. Over 195 analysable questionnaires, 34% of patients were using complementary medicine. Homeopathy (42%), plants (27%) and vitamins (18%) were the main substances used. Acupuncture (22%) and massages (15%) were the most significant techniques. No specific profile of user was observed. The main reason of using complementary medicine was not curing cancer but reducing side effects of the conventional treatment (66%). More than a half of the users of complementary medicine were not revealing their habits to their oncologist because the question was not raised in consultation. One third of cancer patients are using complementary medicine during the treatment of their disease. Complementary medicine must benefit, as well as conventional medicine, of scientific studies. The purpose of these studies should be evaluating potential benefits, toxicity and interactions with the conventional treatment in order the oncologist could warned the users. This warning could improve the confidence relationship between the oncologist and his patient.