RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Most patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) treated with FOLFIRINOX experience adverse events requiring dose reduction. We aimed to assess the association between relative dose intensity (RDI) and disease control in a European setting. METHODS: We retrospectively included patients with advanced PA treated with three or more cycles of FOLFIRINOX between 2011 and 2018 in six French centers. We computed the cumulative single-agent RDI (csRDI) before the first reassessment for each FOLFIRINOX agent (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, 5FU bolus, and 5FU intravenous infusion) and the cumulative multi-drug RDI (cmRDI) of their combination. The association between RDI and disease control or objective response at first reassessment was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression models controlling for performance status, liver metastases, and center. RESULTS: We included 243 patients. Median csRDIs were 81%, 79%, 75%, and 85% for oxaliplatin, irinotecan, 5FU bolus, and 5FU intravenous infusion, respectively. Median cmRDI was 80%. None of the RDIs was significantly associated with disease control or objective response. Including RDI in a clinical model did not improve its ability to predict disease control; the area under the curve was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73-0.85) with RDI versus 0.78 (95% CI: 0.72-0.85) without. Similar results were observed for the objective response. CONCLUSION: Pragmatic dose adjustments of FOLFIRINOX should be made by oncologists without considering a loss of effect.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To identify easily available predictive factors of response to cetuximab-irinotecan in patients with irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of patients treated with cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) in week 1, 250 mg/m(2) in subsequent weeks) plus irinotecan (180 mg/m(2) every 2 weeks). We assessed demographic data, prior response to chemotherapy, number of metastatic sites, disease and metastatic disease durations, irinotecan-free interval and tumoral immunohistochemical epidermal growth factor receptor status. RESULTS: We analyzed 311 patients. Objective response rate under cetuximab-irinotecan was 26%. In univariate analysis, prior response to irinotecan, presence of only 1 metastatic site, disease duration, metastatic disease duration and irinotecan-free interval equal or above median (24, 18 and 1.8 months, respectively) were predictive of response to cetuximab-irinotecan. Multivariate analysis confirmed independent predictive value of prior response to irinotecan, number of metastatic sites and disease duration. CONCLUSION: Prior response to irinotecan, number of metastatic sites and disease duration may contribute to better select patients suitable for cetuximab-irinotecan therapy.
