Changes over time in the course of advanced pancreatic cancer treatment with systemic chemotherapy: a pooled analysis of five clinical trials from two decades of the German AIO study group.

BACKGROUND: Over the past two decades, our group has conducted five multicenter trials focusing on first-line systemic therapy for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. The current pooled analysis was designed to evaluate prognosis over time and the impact of clinical characteristics on survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data were derived from five prospective, controlled, multicenter trials conducted by the 'Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie' (AIO): 'Gem/Cis', 'Ro96', 'RC57', 'ACCEPT' and 'RASH', which recruited patients between December 1997 and January 2017. RESULTS: Overall, 912 patients were included. The median overall survival (OS) for all assessable patients was 7.1 months. OS significantly improved over time, with a median OS of 8.6 months for patients treated from 2012 to 2017 compared with 7.0 months from 1997 to 2006 [hazard ratio (HR) 1.06; P < 0.004]. Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (HR 1.48; P < 0.001), use of second-line treatment (HR 1.51; P < 0.001), and Union for International Cancer Control (UICC) stage (III versus IV) (HR 1.34, P = 0.002) had a significant impact on OS. By contrast, no influence of age and gender on OS was detectable. Comparing combination therapy with single-agent chemotherapy did not demonstrate a survival benefit, nor did regimens containing epidermal growth factor receptor-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (EGFR-TKIs) such as afatinib or erlotinib, compared with chemotherapy-only arms. Patients with early-onset pancreatic cancer (age at study entry of ≤50 years, n = 102) had a similar OS compared with those >50 years (7.1 versus 7.0 months; HR 1.13; P = 0.273). The use of a platinum-containing regimen was not associated with better outcomes in patients with early-onset pancreatic cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Within this selected group of patients treated within prospective clinical trials, survival has shown improvement over two decades. This effect is likely attributable to the availability of more effective combination therapies and treatment lines, rather than to any specific regimen, such as those containing EGFR-TKIs. In addition, concerning age and sex subgroups, the dataset did not provide evidence for distinct clinical behavior.

Geriatric assessment and the variance of treatment recommendations in geriatric patients with gastrointestinal cancer-a study in AIO oncologists.

BACKGROUND: Geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended to detect vulnerabilities for elderly cancer patients. To assess whether results of GA actually influence the treatment recommendations, we conducted a case vignette-based study in medical oncologists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy oncologists gave their medical treatment recommendations for a maximum of 4 out of 10 gastrointestinal cancer patients in three steps: (i) based on tumor findings alone to simulate the guideline recommendation for a '50-year-old standard patient without comorbidities'; (ii) for the same situation in elderly patients (median age 77.5 years) according to the comorbidities, laboratory values and a short video simulating the clinical consultation; and (iii) after the results of a full GA including interpretation aid [Barthel Index, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS), Geriatric 8 (G8), Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS), Mini Mental Status Examination (MMSE), Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA), Timed Get Up and Go (TGUG), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), stair climb test]. RESULTS: Data on 164 treatment recommendations were analyzed. The recommendations had a significantly higher variance for elderly patients than for 'standard' patients (944 versus 602, P < 0.0001) indicating a lower agreement between oncologists. Knowledge on GA had marginal influence on the treatment recommendation or its variance (944 versus 940, P = 0.92). There was no statistically significant influence of the working place or the years of experience in oncology on the variance of recommendations. The geriatric tools were rated approximately two times higher as being 'meaningful' (53%) and 'useful for the presented cases' (49%) than they were 'used in clinical practice' (19%). The most commonly used geriatric tool in patient care was the MNA (30%). CONCLUSIONS: The higher variance of treatment recommendations indicates that it is less likely for elderly patients to get the optimal recommendation. Although the proposed therapeutic regimen varied higher in elderly patients and the oncologists rated the GA results as 'useful', the GA results did not influence the individual recommendations or its variance. Continuing education on GA and research on implementation into clinical practice are needed.

Perioperative or only adjuvant gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel for resectable pancreatic cancer (NEONAX)-a randomized phase II trial of the AIO pancreatic cancer group.

BACKGROUND: Data on perioperative chemotherapy in resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (rPDAC) are limited. NEONAX examined perioperative or adjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in rPDAC (National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria). PATIENTS AND METHODS: NEONAX is a prospective, randomized phase II trial with two independent experimental arms. One hundred twenty-seven rPDAC patients in 22 German centers were randomized 1 : 1 to perioperative (two pre-operative and four post-operative cycles, arm A) or adjuvant (six cycles, arm B) gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. RESULTS: The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) at 18 months in the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population [R0/R1-resected patients who started neoadjuvant chemotherapy (CTX) (A) or adjuvant CTX (B)]. The pre-defined DFS rate of 55% at 18 months was not reached in both arms [A: 33.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18.5% to 48.1%), B: 41.4% (95% CI 20.7% to 62.0%)]. Ninety percent of patients in arm A completed neoadjuvant treatment, and 42% of patients in arm B started adjuvant chemotherapy. R0 resection rate was 88% (arm A) and 67% (arm B), respectively. Median overall survival (mOS) (ITT population) as a secondary endpoint was 25.5 months (95% CI 19.7-29.7 months) in arm A and 16.7 months (95% CI 11.6-22.2 months) in the upfront surgery arm. This difference corresponds to a median DFS (mDFS) (ITT) of 11.5 months (95% CI 8.8-14.5 months) in arm A and 5.9 months (95% CI 3.6-11.5 months) in arm B. Treatment was safe and well tolerable in both arms. CONCLUSIONS: The primary endpoint, DFS rate of 55% at 18 months (mITT population), was not reached in either arm of the trial and numerically favored the upfront surgery arm B. mOS (ITT population), a secondary endpoint, numerically favored the neoadjuvant arm A [25.5 months (95% CI 19.7-29.7months); arm B 16.7 months (95% CI 11.6-22.2 months)]. There was a difference in chemotherapy exposure with 90% of patients in arm A completing pre-operative chemotherapy and 58% of patients starting adjuvant chemotherapy in arm B. Neoadjuvant/perioperative treatment is a novel option for patients with resectable PDAC. However, the optimal treatment regimen has yet to be defined. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02047513) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT 2013-005559-34).

Study protocol of the FIRE-8 (AIO-KRK/YMO-0519) trial: a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter phase II trial investigating the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil plus panitumumab versus trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Initial systemic therapy for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is usually based on two- or three-drug chemotherapy regimens with fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine), oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan, combined with either anti-VEGF (bevacizumab) or, for RAS wild-type (WT) tumors, anti-EGFR antibodies (panitumumab or cetuximab). Recommendations for patients who are not eligible for intensive combination therapies are limited and include fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab or single agent anti-EGFR antibody treatment. The use of a monochemotherapy concept of trifluridine/ tipiracil in combination with monoclonal antibodies is not approved for first-line therapy, yet. Results from the phase II TASCO trial evaluating trifluridine/ tipiracil plus bevacicumab in first-line treatment of mCRC patients and from the phase I/II APOLLON trial investigating trifluridine/ tipiracil plus panitumumab in pre-treated mCRC patients suggest favourable activity and tolerability of these new therapeutic approaches. METHODS: FIRE-8 ( NCT05007132 ) is a prospective, randomized, open-label, multicenter phase II study which aims to evaluate the efficacy of first-line treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil (35 mg/m2 body surface area (BSA), orally twice daily on days 1-5 and 8-12, q28 days) plus either the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab (6 mg/kg body weight, intravenously on day 1 and 15, q28 days) [arm A] or (as control arm) the anti-VEGF antibody bevacizumab (5 mg/kg body weight, intravenously on day 1 and 15, q28 days) [arm B] in RAS WT mCRC patients. The primary objective is to demonstrate an improved objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST 1.1 from 30% (control arm) to 55% with panitumumab. With a power of 80% and a two-sided significance level of 0.05, 138 evaluable patients are needed. Given an estimated drop-out rate of 10%, 153 patients will be enrolled. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil plus panitumumab in first-line treatment of RAS WT mCRC patients. The administration of anti-EGFR antibodies rather than anti-VEGF antibodies in combination with trifluridine/tipiracil may result in an increased initial efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT) 2019-004223-20 . Registered October 22, 2019, ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05007132 . Registered on August 12, 2021.

Afatinib plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer: The randomised, open-label phase II ACCEPT study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie with an integrated analysis of the 'burden of therapy' method.

BACKGROUND: Targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor pathway remains controversial in pancreatic cancer. Afatinib is an oral irreversible ErbB family blocker approved in non-small-cell lung cancer. This open-label, multicenter, randomised phase II trial evaluated gemcitabine plus afatinib (Gem/afatinib) versus gemcitabine (Gem) alone as first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomised in a 2:1 ratio to either Gem (1000 mg/m2 weekly for three weeks followed by one week of rest, repeated every four weeks) and afatinib (40 mg orally once daily) or Gem alone. Overall survival (OS) was the primary study end-point. The novel BOTh©™ methodology was implemented to derive a quantitative estimate for the 'Burden of Therapy/Toxicity' (BOTh) for each patient on every day during the clinical study. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen patients from 25 centres were randomised, 79 patients for Gem/afatinib and 40 for Gem. Median OS was 7.3 months in the Gem/afatinib arm versus 7.4 months in the Gem-alone arm (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.06, p = 0.80). Median progression-free survival was identical in both arms (3.9 months versus 3.9 months, HR: 0.85, p = 0.43). Adverse events were more frequent in the Gem/afatinib arm, especially diarrhoea (71% vs. 13%) and skin rash (65% vs. 5%). The BOTh©™ analysis revealed a significantly higher burden of toxicity in the combination arm (p = 0.0005). CONCLUSION: The addition of afatinib to Gem did not improve treatment efficacy and was more toxic. The BOTh©™ methodology allowed a detailed insight into the course of treatment-related adverse events over the study period. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01728818) and Eudra-CT (2011-004063-77).

R0 resection following chemo (radio)therapy improves survival of primary inoperable pancreatic cancer patients. Interim results of the German randomized CONKO-007± trial.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy is the standard in patients with initially nonmetastatic unresectable pancreatic cancer. Additional surgery is in discussion. The CONKO-007 multicenter randomized trial examines the value of radiotherapy. Our interim analysis showed a significant effect of surgery, which may be relevant to clinical practice. METHODS: One hundred eighty patients received induction chemotherapy (gemcitabine or FOLFIRINOX). Patients without tumor progression were randomized to either chemotherapy alone or to concurrent chemoradiotherapy. At the end of therapy, a panel of five independent pancreatic surgeons judged the resectability of the tumor. RESULTS: Following induction chemotherapy, 126/180 patients (70.0%) were randomized to further treatment. Following study treatment, 36/126 patients (28.5%) underwent surgery; (R0: 25/126 [19.8%]; R1/R2/Rx [n = 11/126; 6.1%]). Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were significantly better for patients with R0 resected tumors (median DFS and OS: 16.6 months and 26.5 months, respectively) than for nonoperated patients (median DFS and OS: 11.9 months and 16.5 months, respectively; p = 0.003). In the 25 patients with R0 resected tumors before treatment, only 6/113 (5.3%) of the recommendations of the panel surgeons recommended R0 resectability, compared with 17/48 (35.4%) after treatment (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Tumor resectability of pancreatic cancer staged as unresectable at primary diagnosis should be reassessed after neoadjuvant treatment. The patient should undergo surgery if a resectability is reached, as this significantly improves their prognosis.

Dynamics in treatment response and disease progression of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with focus on BRAF status and primary tumor location: analysis of untreated RAS-wild-type mCRC patients receiving FOLFOXIRI either with or without panitumumab in the VOLFI trial (AIO KRK0109).

PURPOSE: In mCRC, disease dynamics may play a critical role in the understanding of long-term outcome. We evaluated depth of response (DpR), time to DpR, and post-DpR survival as relevant endpoints. METHODS: We analyzed DpR by central review of computer tomography images (change from baseline to smallest tumor diameter), early tumor shrinkage (≥ 20% reduction in tumor diameter at first reassessment), time to DpR (study randomization to DpR-image), post-DpR progression-free survival (pPFS = DpR-image to tumor progression or death), and post-DpR overall survival (pOS = DpR-image to death) with special focus on BRAF status in 66 patients and primary tumor site in 86 patients treated within the VOLFI-trial, respectively. RESULTS: BRAF wild-type (BRAF-WT) compared to BRAF mutant (BRAF-MT) patients had greater DpR (- 57.6% vs. - 40.8%, p = 0.013) with a comparable time to DpR [4.0 (95% CI 3.1-4.4) vs. 3.9 (95% CI 2.5-5.5) months; p = 0.8852]. pPFS was 6.5 (95% CI 4.9-8.0) versus 2.6 (95% CI 1.2-4.0) months in favor of BRAF-WT patients (HR 0.24 (95% CI 0.11-0.53); p < 0.001). This transferred into a significant difference in pOS [33.6 (95% CI 26.0-41.3) vs. 5.4 (95% CI 5.0-5.9) months; HR 0.27 (95% CI 0.13-0.55); p < 0.001]. Similar observations were made for patients stratified for primary tumor site. CONCLUSIONS: BRAF-MT patients derive a less profound treatment response compared to BRAF-WT patients. The difference in outcome according to BRAF status is evident after achievement of DpR with BRAF-MT patients hardly deriving any further disease control beyond DpR. Our observations hint towards an aggressive tumor evolution in BRAF-MT tumors, which may already be molecularly detectable at the time of DpR.

Consensus in determining the resectability of locally progressed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma - results of the Conko-007 multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: One critical step in the therapy of patients with localized pancreatic cancer is the determination of local resectability. The decision between primary surgery versus upfront local or systemic cancer therapy seems especially to differ between pancreatic cancer centers. In our cohort study, we analyzed the independent judgement of resectability of five experienced high volume pancreatic surgeons in 200 consecutive patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Pretherapeutic CT or MRI scans of 200 consecutive patients with borderline resectable or locally advanced pancreatic cancer were evaluated by 5 independent pancreatic surgeons. Resectability and the degree of abutment of the tumor to the venous and arterial structures adjacent to the pancreas were reported. Interrater reliability and dispersion indices were compared. RESULTS: One hundred ninety-four CT scans and 6 MRI scans were evaluated and all parameters were evaluated by all surgeons in 133 (66.5%) cases. Low agreement was observed for tumor infiltration of venous structures (κ = 0.265 and κ = 0.285) while good agreement was achieved for the abutment of the tumor to arterial structures (interrater reliability celiac trunk κ = 0.708 P < 0.001). In patients with vascular tumor contact indicating locally advanced disease, surgeons highly agreed on unresectability, but in patients with vascular tumor abutment consistent with borderline resectable disease, the judgement of resectability was less uniform (dispersion index locally advanced vs. borderline resectable p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Excellent agreement between surgeons exists in determining the presence of arterial abutment and locally advanced pancreatic cancer. The determination of resectability in borderline resectable patients is influenced by additional subjective factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT:2009-014476-21 (2013-02-22) and NCT01827553 (2013-04-09).

Health-related quality of life in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving maintenance olaparib.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer often have a detriment in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In the randomized, double-blind, phase III POLO trial progression-free survival was significantly longer with maintenance olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, than placebo in patients with a germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm) and metastatic pancreatic cancer whose disease had not progressed during first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The prespecified HRQoL evaluation is reported here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive maintenance olaparib (300 mg b.i.d.; tablets) or placebo. HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item module at baseline, every 4 weeks until disease progression, at discontinuation, and 30 days after last dose. Scores ranged from 0 to 100; a ≥10-point change or difference between arms was considered clinically meaningful. Adjusted mean change from baseline was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures. Time to sustained clinically meaningful deterioration (TSCMD) was analysed using a log-rank test. RESULTS: Of 154 randomized patients, 89 of 92 olaparib-arm and 58 of 62 placebo-arm patients were included in HRQoL analyses. The adjusted mean change in Global Health Status (GHS) score from baseline was <10 points in both arms and there was no significant between-group difference [-2.47; 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.27, 2.33; P = 0.31]. Analysis of physical functioning scores showed a significant between-group difference (-4.45 points; 95% CI -8.75, -0.16; P = 0.04). There was no difference in TSCMD for olaparib versus placebo for GHS [P = 0.25; hazard ratio (HR) 0.72; 95% CI 0.41, 1.27] or physical functioning (P = 0.32; HR 1.38; 95% CI 0.73, 2.63). CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL was preserved with maintenance olaparib treatment with no clinically meaningful difference compared with placebo. These results support the observed efficacy benefit of maintenance olaparib in patients with a gBRCAm and metastatic pancreatic cancer. CLINCALTRIALS.GOV NUMBER: NCT02184195.

Efficacy of gemcitabine plus erlotinib in rash-positive patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer selected according to eligibility for FOLFIRINOX: A prospective phase II study of the 'Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie'.

INTRODUCTION: In metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) treatment, erlotinib is known to be more effective in patients developing skin rash. Treatment with the FOLFIRINOX regimen is only performed in fit patients following defined inclusion criteria. The present study investigates the efficacy of gemcitabine plus erlotinib (gem/erlotinib) in rash-positive patients fit for FOLFIRINOX. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For this prospective phase II study, 150 patients were recruited in 20 centres. All patients received gem/erlotinib for 4 weeks (run-in phase); the subsequent treatment was determined by the development of skin rash: patients with rash grades 1-4 continued with gem/erlotinib, rash-negative patients were switched to FOLFIRINOX. Primary study end-point was to achieve a 1-year survival rate in rash-positive patients ≥40%. RESULTS: Ninety patients were deemed positive for skin rash by the end of the run-in phase, showing a 1-year survival rate of 40.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 29.8-50.9). Median overall survival (OS) was 10.1 months, progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.8 months and overall response rate (ORR) was 23.3%. Patients switched to FOLFIRINOX (n = 27) had a 1-year survival rate of 48.1% (95% CI 28.7-68.1), a median OS of 10.9 months, a median PFS of 6.6 months and an ORR of 33.3%. Rash-negative patients had a lower quality of life at baseline but seemed to experience an improved control of pain during FOLFIRINOX. CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment with gem/erlotinib was effective in fit, rash-positive mPDAC patients achieving a 1-year survival rate comparable to previous reports for FOLFIRINOX. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT0172948) and Eudra-CT (2011-005471-17).

Treatment recommendations within the leeway of clinical guidelines: A qualitative interview study on oncologists' clinical deliberation.

BACKGROUND: Recommending the optimal treatment for an individual patient requires a well-balanced consideration of various medical, social and ethical factors. The interplay of these factors, interpretation of the patient's situation and understanding of the existing clinical guidelines can lead to divergent therapy recommendations, depending on the attending physician. Gaining a better understanding of the individual process of medical decision-making and the differences occurring will support the delivery of optimal individualized care within the clinical setting. METHODS: A case vignette of a 64-year-old patient with locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma was discussed with oncologists in 14 qualitative, semi-structured interviews at two academic institutions. Relevant factors that emerged were ranked by the participants using the Q card sorting method. Qualitative data analysis and descriptive statistics were performed. RESULTS: Oncologists recommend different therapeutic approaches within the leeway of the relevant clinical guidelines. One group of participants endorses a rather aggressive and potentially curative approach with a combination chemotherapy following the FOLFIRINOX protocol to provide the patient with the best chances of resectability. The second group suggests a milder chemotherapy approach with gemcitabine, highlighting the palliative approach and the patient's quality of life. Clinical guidelines are generally seen as an important point of reference, but are complicated to apply in highly individual cases. CONCLUSION: The physician's individual assessment of factors, such as biological age, general condition or prognosis, plays a decisive role in treatment recommendations, particularly in those cases which are not fully covered by guidelines. Judgment and discretion remain crucial in clinical decision-making and cannot and should not be fully ruled out by evidence-based guidelines. Therefore, a more comprehensive reflection on the interaction between evidence-based medicine and the physician's estimation of each individual case is desirable. Knowledge of existing barriers can enhance the implementation of guidelines, for example, through medical education.

Outcome according to KRAS-, NRAS- and BRAF-mutation as well as KRAS mutation variants: pooled analysis of five randomized trials in metastatic colorectal cancer by the AIO colorectal cancer study group.

BACKGROUND: To explore the impact of KRAS, NRAS and BRAF mutations as well as KRAS mutation variants in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving first-line therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1239 patients from five randomized trials (FIRE-1, FIRE-3, AIOKRK0207, AIOKRK0604, RO91) were included into the analysis. Outcome was evaluated by the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank tests and Cox models. RESULTS: In 664 tumors, no mutation was detected, 462 tumors were diagnosed with KRAS-, 39 patients with NRAS- and 74 patients with BRAF-mutation. Mutations in KRAS were associated with inferior progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) [multivariate hazard ratio (HR) for PFS: 1.20 (1.02-1.42), P = 0.03; multivariate HR for OS: 1.41 (1.17-1.70), P < 0.001]. BRAF mutation was also associated with inferior PFS [multivariate HR: 2.19 (1.59-3.02), P < 0.001] and OS [multivariate HR: 2.99 (2.10-4.25), P < 0.001]. Among specific KRAS mutation variants, the KRAS G12C-variant (n = 28) correlated with inferior OS compared with unmutated tumors [multivariate HR 2.26 (1.25-4.1), P = 0.001]. A similar trend for OS was seen in the KRAS G13D-variant [n = 71, multivariate HR 1.46 (0.96-2.22), P = 0.10]. More frequent KRAS exon 2 variants like G12D [n = 152, multivariate HR 1.17 (0.86-1.6), P = 0.81] and G12V [n = 92, multivariate HR 1.27 (0.87-1.86), P = 0.57] did not have significant impact on OS. CONCLUSION: Mutations in KRAS and BRAF were associated with inferior PFS and OS of mCRC patients compared with patients with non-mutated tumors. KRAS exon 2 mutation variants were associated with heterogeneous outcome compared with unmutated tumors with KRAS G12C and G13D (trend) being associated with rather poor survival.

[ASCO-update 2015 - highlights of the 51. meeting of the american society of clinical oncology/ASCO 2015]. / ASCO-Update 2015 - Neuigkeiten vom 51. Meeting der American Society of Clinical Oncology/ASCO 2015.

The field of gastrointestinal oncology is rapidly developing, on the one hand through the identification of novel molecular targets and therapeutic principles, on the other hand through the establishment and improvement of multidisciplinary treatment strategies. The following manuscript summarizes the most important trial results of the ASCO Meeting 2015 for gastrointestinal cancers. Besides trials on perioperative treatment of esophageal-, pancreatic- and colon cancer, we will present impressive data on new therapeutic strategies such as immunotherapy in gastric-, liver and microsatellite instable colorectal cancer. The trials will be put into context by the authors.

[Clinically relevant, gender-specific differences in colorectal carcinoma (CRC)]. / Klinisch relevante, geschlechtsspezifische Unterschiede beim kolorektalen Karzinom (KRK).

The incidence of colorectal cancer worldwide is higher in men. Risk factors like smoking, overweight, or dietary exposures cannot explain this gender difference. In the pathogenesis of colorectal carcinoma, estrogen seems to play an important protective role. Estrogen may reduce the risk of developing colon cancer in premenopausal women. The expression of estrogen receptor ß in healthy colon is significantly decreased in the development of colon cancer. The role of estrogen in pathogenic pathways is most likely protective or might serve as a tumor suppressor. However, the exact role of estrogen in the carcinogenesis of colorectal cancer still remains unclear. Furthermore, tumor localization depends on age and gender. Therefore, in postmenopausal women there is a shift to predominantly right-sided cancers. Here, a link between tumor localization and MSI-H (microsatellite-high) status can be assumed. There are virtually no prospective randomised trials in adjuvant or palliative therapy of patients with colorectal cancer. Earlier data from registries point to a better post-operative survival of women, while men seem to benefit more from adjuvant therapy. Potentially, there may be a role of an increased toxicity to 5-FU in women. In the palliative setting, there are also only few gender-specific analyses. Women with right-sided colon cancers show a significant worse response and survival under an anti-EGFR antibody treatment compared with men and left-sided cancers. A focus on gender-specific differences should be incorporated more often in future randomised trials.

[Colorectal Carcinoma with Suspected Lynch Syndrome: A Multidisciplinary Algorithm]. / Kolorektales Karzinom bei V. a. Lynch-Syndrom: ein interdisziplinärer Algorithmus.

Lynch syndrome is the most frequent hereditary cancer syndrome, accounting for approximately 3-5 % of all colorectal cancers. In addition, it is the most frequent predisposing hereditary cause of endometrial cancer and is also associated with gastric cancer, ovarian cancer, cancer of the urinary tract as well as several other cancers. In clinical practise Lynch syndrome is frequently not detected and many clinicians admit uncertainties regarding diagnostic procedures. Also, counselling of patients is considered difficult regarding therapeutic - especially prophylactic surgical and chemopreventive options and recommendations. Based on a review of available literature we discuss optimized strategies for improved detection of suspected Lynch syndrome patients. The aim of this review is to establish a clinical algorithm of how to proceed on a diagnostic level and to discuss surgical options at the time of a colorectal cancer. In order to identify patients with Lynch syndrome, family history should be ascertained and evaluated in regards to fulfilment of the Amsterdam-II- and/or the revised Bethesda criteria. Subsequently immunohistochemical staining for the mismatch-repair-genes, BRAF testing for MLH1 loss of expression, as well as testing for microsatellite instability in some, followed by genetic counselling and mutation analysis when indicated, is recommended. Pathological identification of suspected Lynch syndrome is readily feasible and straightforward. However, the need of performing these analyses in the tumor biopsy at the time of (gastroenterological) diagnosis of CRC neoplasia is essential, in order to offer patients the option of a prophylactically extended surgery and - as recommended in the German S3 guidelines - to discuss the option of a merely prophylactical hysterectomy and oophorectomy (if postmenopausal) in women. Close cooperation between gastroenterologists, pathologists and surgeons is warranted, so that patients may benefit from options of extended or prophylactically extended surgery at the time of diagnosis of a colorectal primary. Patients nowadays must be involved in informed decision-making regarding prophylactic or extended prophylactic surgery at the time of a colorectal primary. To date, however, limitations in daily clinical practise, the failure to assess family history and the lack of awareness of this important hereditary syndrome is the major asset leading to severe underdiagnosis and putting to risk the indexpatients themselves and their families to (metachronous) CRC and the associated extracolonic cancers. If at all tumors of patients fulfilling Bethesda criteria will be analysed for MSI in the surgical specimen and therefore Lynch syndrome patients are not given the opportunity to opt for extended surgery. In clinical experience the postoperative MSI-analysis is inconsistently performed - even if the Bethesda criteria are fulfilled - and in case of suspected Lynch syndrome genetically counselling is not consistently recommended. Therefore affected cancer patients are left unaware of their increased genetic risk and in average 3 high-risk gene carriers per family miss the opportunity to actively engage in the recommended screening program.

Prognostic value of microsatellite instability and p53 expression in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of MSI-H and p53 overexpression in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine-based first line chemotherapy. METHODS: Tumour samples were retrospectively obtained from 229 patients from a prospective randomised phase III trial of the AIO colorectal study group, comparing CAPOX and FUFOX in mCRC. Immunohistochemistry of p53 and MMR proteins as well as microsatellite analysis were performed. RESULTS: The incidence of MSI-H and p53 overexpression was 7.9 % and 65.4 %, respectively. MSI-H status was not correlated with ORR, PFS and OS. We observed a trend to lower DCR for MSI-H tumours (65 % vs. 85 %, p = 0.055). p53 overexpression was not correlated with DCR, ORR and PFS. The median OS of patients with tumors with p53 overexpression was significantly longer compared to tumors withhout p53 overexpression (19.6 vs. 15.8 months; p = 0.05). The post-progression survival (PPS) of p53-positive patients undergoing 2nd and/or 3rd line chemotherapy with irinotecan and/or cetuximab was significantly longer compared to p53-negative patients. CONCLUSION: MSI-H tumours tend to have lower disease control rates when treated with an oxaliplatin/fluoropyrmidin combination. mCRC patients with p53 overexpression undergoing an irinotecan containing second- or third-line chemotherapy after oxaliplatin failure have a significantly longer post-progression survival compared to patients without p53 overexpression. To validate the clinical impact of p53 in patients with mCRC treated with irinotecan- and/or cetuximab further studies are needed.

Prognostic factors for 60-day mortality in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): individual patient analysis of four randomised, controlled trials by the AIO colorectal cancer study group.

BACKGROUND: The 60 day mortality is an established parameter for chemotherapy-related safety in randomised trials for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Prognostic factors associated with 60-day mortality would be helpful to identify high-risk patients in advance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual baseline patient data from four randomised, controlled trials from the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO) study group were retrospectively analysed. Chemotherapy consisted of fluoropyrimidine (5-FU/capecitabine), irinotecan, oxaliplatin with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab. Prognostic factors were identified by univariate and multivariate logistic regression models in two cohorts: one limited to ECOG PS 0 and 1 and one including ECOG PS 2 patients. RESULTS: A total of 1377 patients were evaluated. The analysis of ECOG PS 0, 1 and 2 patients consisted of 898 patients where a total of 33 deaths within the first 60 days of treatment (3.7%) occurred. In multivariate analysis, 60-day mortality was significantly associated with ECOG PS 2 and high leucocyte count (white blood cell, WBC). Odds ratio was 6.28 for WBC and 12.92 for ECOG PS 2. Exclusion of ECOG PS 2 patients but inclusion of one trial limited to ECOG PS 0 and 1 patients resulted in 1302 assessable patients and 44 early deaths (3.4%). In both cohorts, around 50% of deaths were disease related. WBC was confirmed as a significant risk factor for early death (OR 7.60). A combined score using ECOG PS 2 and WBC ≥8.000/µl is able to identify high-risk patients with a sensitivity of 18% and specificity of 98%. CONCLUSIONS: In this large retrospective analysis of individual patient data, around 50% of early deaths were disease related. Elevated WBC was found strongly associated with increased 60-day mortality in first-line treatment of mCRC. The proposed AIO-60-Day-Mortality score serves as an additional trial exclusion criterion.

Capecitabine/irinotecan or capecitabine/oxaliplatin in combination with bevacizumab is effective and safe as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II study of the AIO colorectal study group.

BACKGROUND: This randomized phase II trial investigated the efficacy and safety of capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CapOx) plus bevacizumab and dose-modified capecitabine/irinotecan (mCapIri) plus bevacizumab as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg with oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2)/day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) bid/days 1-14 or with irinotecan 200 mg/m(2)/day 1 plus capecitabine 800 mg/m(2) bid/days 1-14 both every 21 days. The primary end point was 6 months progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 255 patients were enrolled. The intent-to-treat population comprised 247 patients (CapOx-bevacizumab: n = 127; mCapIri-bevacizumab: n = 120). The six-month PFS rates were 76% (95% CI, 69%-84%) and 84% (95% CI, 77%-90%). Median PFS and OS were 10.4 months (95% CI, 9.0-12.0) and 24.4 months (95% CI, 19.3-30.7) with CapOx-bevacizumab, and 12.1 months (95% CI, 10.8-13.2) and 25.5 months (95% CI, 21.0-31.0) with mCapIri-bevacizumab. Grade 3/4 diarrhea as predominant toxic effect occurred in 22% of patients with CapOx-bevacizumab and in 16% with mCapIri-bevacizumab. CONCLUSIONS: Both, CapOx-bevacizumab and mCapIri-bevacizumab, show promising activity and an excellent toxic effect profile. Efficacy is in the range of other bevacizumab-containing combination regimen although lower doses of irinotecan and capecitabine were selected for mCapIri.