Phase II trial of domatinostat (4SC-202) in combination with avelumab in patients with previously treated advanced mismatch repair proficient oesophagogastric and colorectal adenocarcinoma: EMERGE.

BACKGROUND: Most oesophagogastric adenocarcinomas (OGAs) and colorectal cancers (CRCs) are mismatch repair proficient (MMRp), responding poorly to immune checkpoint inhibition. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of domatinostat (histone deacetylase inhibitor) plus avelumab (anti-PD-L1 antibody) in patients with previously treated inoperable, advanced/metastatic MMRp OGA and CRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were evaluated in a multicentre, open-label dose escalation/dose expansion phase II trial. In the escalation phase, patients received escalating doses of domatinostat [100 mg once daily (OD), 200 mg OD, 200 mg twice daily (BD)] orally for 14 days followed by continuous dosing plus avelumab 10 mg/kg administered intravenously 2-weekly (2qw) to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). The trial expansion phase evaluated the best objective response rate (ORR) during 6 months by RECIST version 1.1 using a Simon two-stage optimal design with 2/9 and 1/10 responses required to proceed to stage 2 in the OGA and CRC cohorts, respectively. RESULTS: Patients (n = 40) were registered between February 2019 and October 2021. Patients in the dose escalation phase (n = 12) were evaluated to confirm the RP2D of domatinostat 200 mg BD plus avelumab 10 mg/kg. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed. Twenty-one patients were treated at the RP2D, 19 (9 OGA and 10 CRC) were assessable for the best ORR; 2 patients with CRC did not receive combination treatment and were not assessable for the primary endpoint analysis. Six patients were evaluated in the dose escalation and expansion phases. In the OGA cohort, the best ORR was 22.2% (95% one-sided confidence interval lower bound 4.1) and the median duration of disease control was 11.3 months (range 9.9-12.7 months). No responses were observed in the CRC cohort. No treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were reported at the RP2D. CONCLUSIONS: Responses in the OGA cohort met the criteria to expand to stage 2 of recruitment with an acceptable safety profile. There was insufficient signal in the CRC cohort to progress to stage 2. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03812796 (registered 23rd January 2019).

Beyond Teenage and Young Adult Cancer Care: Care Experiences of Patients Aged 25-39 Years Old in the UK National Health Service.

AIMS: Adolescents and young adults aged 15-39 years with cancer face unique medical, practical and psychosocial issues. In the UK, principal treatment centres and programmes have been designed to care for teenage and young adult patients aged 13-24 years in an age-appropriate manner. However, for young adults (YAs) aged 25-39 years with cancer, little access to age-specific support is available. The aim of this study was to examine this possible gap by qualitatively exploring YA care experiences, involving patients as research partners in the analysis to ensure robust results. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a phenomenological qualitative study with YAs diagnosed with any cancer type between ages 25 and 39 years old in the last 5 years. Participants took part in interviews or focus groups and data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Results were shaped in an iterative process with the initial coders and four YA patients who did not participate in the study to improve the rigor of the results. RESULTS: Sixty-five YAs with a range of tumour types participated. We identified seven themes and 13 subthemes. YAs found navigating the healthcare system difficult and commonly experienced prolonged diagnostic pathways. Participants felt under-informed about clinical details and the long-term implications of side-effects on daily life. YAs found online resources overwhelming but also a source of information and treatment support. Some patients regretted not discussing fertility before cancer treatment or felt uninformed or rushed when making fertility preservation decisions. A lack of age-tailored content or age-specific groups deterred YAs from accessing psychological support and rehabilitation services. CONCLUSIONS: YAs with cancer may miss some benefits provided to teenagers and young adults in age-tailored cancer services. Improving services for YAs in adult settings should focus on provision of age-specific information and access to existing relevant support.

Ibrutinib in combination with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine for first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: phase III RESOLVE study.

BACKGROUND: First-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) includes nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine. Ibrutinib, a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, exhibits antitumor activity through tumor microenvironment modulation. The safety and efficacy of first-line ibrutinib plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine treatment in patients with PDAC were evaluated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: RESOLVE (NCT02436668) was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients (histologically-confirmed PDAC; stage IV diagnosis ≥6 weeks of randomization; Karnofsky performance score ≥70) were randomized to once-daily oral ibrutinib (560 mg) or placebo plus nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2). Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); overall response rate and safety were assessed. RESULTS: In total, 424 patients were randomized (ibrutinib arm, n = 211; placebo arm, n = 213). Baseline characteristics were balanced across arms. After a median follow-up of 25 months, there was no significant difference in OS between ibrutinib plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine versus placebo plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (median of 9.7 versus 10.8 months; P = 0.3225). PFS was shorter for ibrutinib plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine compared with placebo plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (median 5.3 versus 6.0 months; P < 0.0001). Overall response rates were 29% and 42%, respectively (P = 0.0058). Patients in the ibrutinib arm had less time on treatment and received lower cumulative doses for all agents compared with the placebo arm. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events for ibrutinib versus placebo arms included neutropenia (24% versus 35%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (17% versus 8%), and anemia (16% versus 17%). Primary reasons for any treatment discontinuation were disease progression and adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Ibrutinib plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine did not improve OS or PFS for patients with PDAC. Safety was consistent with known profiles for these agents.

Third line treatment of advanced oesophagogastric cancer: A critical review of current evidence and evolving trends.

There is increasing evidence that treatment beyond second line provides significant survival benefit for selected advanced oesophageal and gastric adenocarcinoma patients, and important randomised controlled trials of both chemotherapy, targeted therapy and immunotherapy have recently been reported in this space. Despite this growing evidence base there are presently no formal guidelines for third line treatment available to clinicians, and as these agents move into routine clinical practice patient selection and rational sequencing of treatment will become an increasingly relevant clinical challenge. This review critically appraises the current evidence base for third line treatment and discusses patient selection, potential predictive biomarkers and future directions for third line treatment in this challenging condition.

Investigating the feasibility of tumour molecular profiling in gastrointestinal malignancies in routine clinical practice.

Background: Targeted capture sequencing can potentially facilitate precision medicine, but the feasibility of this approach in gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies is unknown. Patients and methods: The FOrMAT (Feasibility of a Molecular Characterisation Approach to Treatment) study was a feasibility study enrolling patients with advanced GI malignancies from February 2014 to November 2015. Targeted capture sequencing (mainly using archival formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded diagnostic/resection samples) was carried out to detect mutations, copy number variations and translocations in up to 46 genes which had prognostic/predictive significance or were targets in current/upcoming clinical trials. Results: Of the 222 patients recruited, 215 patients (96.8%) had available tissue samples, 125 patients (56.3%) had ≥16 genes successfully sequenced and 136 patients (61.2%) had ≥1 genes successfully sequenced. Sample characteristics influenced the proportion of successfully sequenced samples, e.g. tumour type (colorectal 70.9%, biliary 52.6%, oesophagogastric 50.7%, pancreas 27.3%, P = 0.002), tumour cellularity (high versus low: 78.3% versus 13.3%, P ≤ 0.001), tumour content (high versus low: 78.6% versus 27.3%, P = 0.001) and type of sample (resection versus biopsy: 82.4% versus 47.6%, P ≤ 0.001). Currently, actionable alterations were detected in 90 (40.5%) of the 222 patients recruited (66% of the 136 patients sequenced) and 2 patients subsequently received a targeted therapy. The most frequently detected currently actionable alterations were mutations in KRAS, BRAF, TP53 and PIK3CA. For the 205 patients with archival samples, the median time to obtain sequencing results was 18.9 weeks, including a median of 4.9 weeks for sample retrieval and 5.1 weeks for sequencing. Conclusions: Targeted sequencing detected actionable alterations in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded samples, but tissue characteristics are of critical importance in determining sequencing success. Routine molecular profiling of GI tumours outside of clinical trials is not an effective use of healthcare resources unless more targeted drugs become available. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02112357.

Prognostic value of neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio in advanced oesophago-gastric cancer: exploratory analysis of the REAL-2 trial.

BACKGROUND: The REAL-2 trial demonstrated that capecitabine and oxaliplatin were effective alternatives to fluorouracil and cisplatin, respectively, when used in triplet chemotherapy regimens for previously untreated oesophago-gastric cancer. The aim of the current analysis was to evaluate the prognostic value of the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in the REAL-2 cohort. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A post hoc exploratory analysis was carried out on REAL-2 patients with the available absolute neutrophil count and absolute lymphocyte count. A high NLR was defined using a cut-off value of >3.0. The NLR was then correlated with clinical outcomes including overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate. Survival curves were generated using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparison between groups was carried out using Cox regression. RESULTS: Data were available in 908 of the 1002 REAL-2 participants. Of these, 516 (56.8%) were deemed to have a high NLR. In univariate analysis, high NLR was associated with a hazard ratio (HR) for OS of 1.73 (1.50-2.00), P < 0.001, compared with low NLR, equating to median OS values of 9.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 8.0-9.6] and 12.7 months (95% CI 10.8-14.4), respectively. The NLR remained highly significant for OS (P < 0.001) in a multivariate model including performance status, age, disease extent, presence of liver metastases and presence of peritoneal metastases. For PFS, high NLR was associated with an HR of 1.63 (1.41-1.87), P < 0.001, compared with low NLR in univariate analysis. No significant interaction was found between NLR status and treatment arm, 13% of all patients with low NLR achieving survival beyond 24 months compared with only 6% of patients with high NLR (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that high NLR status had a significant negative prognostic effect in the REAL-2 trial population. Based on the multivariate analysis, this effect was independent of other known prognostic factors.

Treatment of colorectal cancer in older patients: International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) consensus recommendations 2013.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in Europe and worldwide, with the peak incidence in patients >70 years of age. However, as the treatment algorithms for the treatment of patients with CRC become ever more complex, it is clear that a significant percentage of older CRC patients (>70 years) are being less than optimally treated. This document provides a summary of an International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) task force meeting convened in Paris in 2013 to update the existing expert recommendations for the treatment of older (geriatric) CRC patients published in 2009 and includes overviews of the recent data on epidemiology, geriatric assessment as it relates to surgery and oncology, and the ability of older CRC patients to tolerate surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, treatment of their metastatic disease including palliative chemotherapy with and without the use of the biologics, and finally the use of adjuvant and palliative radiotherapy in the treatment of older rectal cancer patients. An overview of each area was presented by one of the task force experts and comments invited from other task force members.

The combination of a chemotherapy doublet (gemcitabine and capecitabine) with a biological doublet (bevacizumab and erlotinib) in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. The results of a phase I/II study.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical data support the combined inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathways in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. Following a dose finding phase I study the efficacy and toxicity of a four-drug regimen utilising the cytotoxic doublet of gemcitabine and capecitabine (GemCap), with the biological doublet of erlotinib and bevacizumab were further assessed in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase II expansion cohort, patients with chemonaive locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer received gemcitabine (1000mg/m(2) D1, 8, 15), capecitabine (1400mg/m(2) D1-21), erlotinib (100mg daily) and bevacizumab (5mg/kg D1, 15) every 28days. The primary endpoint was radiological response rate by response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST). Computed tomography (CT) assessment was performed every 8weeks. Consolidation radiotherapy was considered in locally advanced patients following six cycles of treatment. RESULTS: In total 44 patients (phases I & II) were recruited. The median cycles delivered were 6 (range 1-16). Confirmed radiological responses were seen in 23% (95% confidence interval (CI): 11-38%) of patients. The median progression-free and overall survival for the entire cohort was 8.4 and 12.6months, respectively. In patients with metastatic disease the median overall survival was 10.1months. Common grade 3/4 toxicities were; neutropenia 52%, lethargy 32%, diarrhoea 18% and hand-foot syndrome 18%. CONCLUSION: The combination of gemcitabine, capecitabine, erlotinib and bevacizumab was feasible with a manageable toxicity profile and demonstrated encouraging efficacy data in a good performance status population.

A student leadership model for promoting educational programs in organ donation and transplantation.

The global organ shortage is the strongest factor for the increase in transplant wait time and deaths on waitlists. Here we describe a model for involving high school students in education research around organ donation and transplantation and capitalize on the strength of a pre-existing educational program offered by the local organ procurement organization (OPO). While training in education research at Cleveland Clinic, a high school student embarked on a collaborative project with the local OPO. The project involved evaluating three educational programs, selecting the most appropriate program for administration at her school, coordinating with the student's school administration and teachers, administering an assessment tool for the effectiveness of the program, and analyzing the results. The local OPO program that was selected for implementation consisted of a video presentation entitled "Share your life, share your decision" prepared by the United States Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), lectures by invited speakers and an educational assessment (pre- and post-education). The assessment survey included 3 multiple choice and 7 true/false questions. Compared to the over 2500 programs administered in the last 5 years by the local OPO, this program had a higher volume of participation (n = 353 compared to an average of 150 students/day). Students correctly classified transplantation status of more organ and tissues post-education (P < .0001 for both). For 5 out of the 7 true/false questions, students correctly answered questions more frequently post-education (P ≤ .002 for all). This experience included for the first time a formal assessment of the program which will be utilized to address targeted areas for specific improvements. This student collaborative model of involving students in organ donation and transplantation related education research has the potential to promote and maximize the effectiveness of educational programs targeting their peers.

A dose escalation study of gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin in combination with imatinib for gemcitabine-refractory advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Targeting platelet-derived growth factor receptor-ß (PDGFR-ß) is a potential strategy to reduce tumour-related interstitial fluid pressure, enhance cytotoxic drug uptake and reduce chemoresistance. This study aimed to define safe doses of gemcitabine plus oxaliplatin when combined with imatinib (potent PDGFR-ß inhibitor) in patients with advanced gemcitabine-refractory pancreatic cancer (PC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using a 3 + 3 dose escalation design, patients of performance status zero or one were entered into five sequential dose levels (DLs) of gemcitabine [day 1, from 400 (DL1) to 1000 mg/m(2) (DL4)] and oxaliplatin [day 2, 85 (DL1-4) and 100 mg/m(2) (DL5)] two weekly. Imatinib 400 mg od was given for 7 days (day minus 2-5) each cycle. RESULTS: Twenty-seven patients received 168 cycles in total. Median age was 61 years (44-74 years). Dose-limiting toxicities occurred in two of two patients at DL5 (G4 thrombocytopenia, G3 lethargy), defined as the maximum tolerated dose and one of six patients at DL4 (G3 lethargy). DL4 was expanded. There were 2 of 27 partial responses and 14 of 27 stable disease [disease control 52%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 32% to 71%]. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 4.6 (95% CI 2.1-7.0) and 5.6 months (95% CI 2.5-8.7), respectively. CONCLUSION: In gemcitabine-refractory PC, gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) and oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2)) can be safely combined with imatinib given on a 7 days on and 7 days off intermittent schedule.

A phase I study of sunitinib in combination with FOLFIRI in patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of sunitinib, a multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor, combined with FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m2 given over 90 min i.v. and l-leucovorin 200 mg/m2 given over 120 min on day 1, followed by 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus and then 2400 mg/m2 infused over 46 h) in untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicentre, phase I, open-label, dose-finding trial, FOLFIRI was administered every 2 weeks. Two sunitinib regimens were explored: Schedule 4/2 (4 weeks on, 2 weeks off; 37.5 and 50 mg/day) and continuous daily dosing (CDD; 37.5 and 25 mg/day). Dose-limiting toxic toxicities (DLTs) were evaluated during weeks 1-6. Efficacy was a secondary objective. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were enrolled. The 37.5 mg/day Schedule 4/2 cohort had zero of six DLTs, was expanded by 15 patients and declared the MTD. The MTD was exceeded at all other sunitinib doses and schedules; DLTs included febrile neutropenia (n=1), grade 4 neutropenia (n=4) and grade 3 deep vein thrombosis with grade 4 neutropenia (n=1). At the MTD, non-haematologic grade 3/4 adverse events with a frequency of >10% were diarrhoea, vomiting and lethargy, and the objective response rate was 57.9% (95% confidence interval 33.5-79.7). CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of sunitinib combined with FOLFIRI in chemotherapy-naive mCRC was 37.5 mg/day on Schedule 4/2. CDD of sunitinib at 37.5 or 25 mg/day plus FOLFIRI was not feasible.

Trastuzumab beyond progression in HER2-positive advanced breast cancer: the Royal Marsden experience.

BACKGROUND: Recent UK clinical guidance advises against continuing trastuzumab (T) beyond disease progression (PD) in the absence of brain metastases in patients with HER-2 positive (+ve) advanced breast cancer .We have retrospectively evaluated the outcome of patients with HER-2+ve locally advanced (LA) or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who continued T beyond PD, treated in our unit. METHODS: All HER-2+ve patients on our prospectively maintained database with LA or MBC who received T beyond PD after adjuvant or one line of T for advanced disease were assessed for response and outcome. From the timepoint of T continuation beyond PD, we calculated the overall disease control rate, time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen patients with HER-2+ve LA or MBC treated with T beyond PD were identified. The main site of disease was visceral in 84 (74%) patients. Seventy-six (66%) had one line of chemotherapy before continuation of T beyond PD and 21 (19%) had two or more. Post-progression, 66 (58%) received T combined with chemotherapy. Of the 93 (82%) patients with documented clinical or radiological response evaluation, 67 (59%) were considered as having stable disease or better. The median TTP was 24 weeks (95% CI: 21-28) and the median OS was 19 months (95% CI: 12-24). CONCLUSION: Our results from an unselected group of patients provide additional evidence that continuation of T beyond PD is of clinical benefit.

Matuzumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) compared with epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine alone as first-line treatment in patients with advanced oesophago-gastric cancer: a randomised, multicentre open-label phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical data showed promising antitumour activity with feasible tolerability for matuzumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy in untreated advanced oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy of matuzumab plus ECX versus ECX alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised open-label phase II study, 72 patients with metastatic OG cancer were randomly assigned to either 800 mg matuzumab weekly plus epirubicin 50 mg/m², cisplatin 60 mg/m² on day 1 and capecitabine 1250 mg/m² daily in a 21-day cycle (ECX) or the same ECX regimen alone. The primary end point was objective response. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), quality of life, safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Following random assignment, 35 patients (median age 59 years) received ECX/matuzumab and 36 patients (median age 64 years) ECX. The addition of matuzumab to ECX did not improve objective response: 31% for ECX/matuzumab [95% confidence interval (CI) 17-49] compared with 58% for the ECX arm (95% CI 41-74) P = 0.994 (one sided). There was no significant difference in median PFS: 4.8 months (95% CI 2.9-8.1) for ECX/matuzumab versus 7.1 months (95% CI 4.4-8.5) for ECX, or in median OS: 9.4 months (95% CI 7.5-16.2), compared with 12.2 months (95% CI 9.8-13.8 months). Grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicity was observed in 27 and 25 patients in the ECX/matuzumab and ECX groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Matuzumab 800 mg weekly combined with ECX chemotherapy does not increase response or survival for patients with advanced OG cancer. Therefore, ECX/matuzumab should not be examined further in phase III trials.

A phase II trial of preoperative chemotherapy with epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine for patients with localised gastro-oesophageal junctional adenocarcinoma.

Preoperative cisplatin/fluorouracil is used for the treatment of localised oesophageal carcinoma. This phase II study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of administering preoperative epirubicin/cisplatin/capecitabine (ECX). Patients with stage II or III oesophageal/gastro-oesophageal junctional adenocarcinoma from one institution received 4 cycles of ECX (epirubicin 50 mg m(-2) day 1, cisplatin 60 mg m(-2) day 1, capecitabine 625 mg m(-2) b.i.d. daily) followed by surgery. The primary end point was the pathological complete response (pCR) rate based on a Simon two-stage design. Secondary end points included overall and progression-free survival (OS/PFS). Thirty-four patients were recruited: median age 60 years (range 41-81), 91% male, 97% PS 0/1, 80% T3, 68% N1. Thirty-one patients completed four ECX cycles. Grade 3/4 toxicities >or=5% included neutropenia (62%), hand-foot syndrome (15%) and nausea/vomiting (9%). Thirteen out of 28 (46%) evaluable patients responded to chemotherapy by EUS (>or=30% reduction in maximal tumour thickness). Twenty-six out of 34 (76%) patients underwent resection (R0=73%, R1=27%). Post-operatively, two patients died within 60 days of surgery. The pCR rate was 5.9% (95% CI 0-14%) in the intent-to-treat population. According to the statistical design, this prompted early study termination. However, with a median follow-up of 34 months the median OS and 1- and 2-year survival rates were 17 months, 67 and 39% respectively. Median PFS was 13 months. Of the 14 relapsed patients, 10 presented with distant metastases. Preoperative ECX is feasible and well tolerated. Although associated with a low pCR rate, survival with ECX was comparable with published studies suggesting that pCR may not correlate with satisfactory outcome from preoperative chemotherapy for localised oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Meta-analyses of chemotherapy for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer: results of secondary end points analyses.

In advanced pancreatic cancer, level one evidence has established a significant survival advantage with chemotherapy, compared to best supportive care. The treatment-associated toxicity needs to be evaluated. This study examines the secondary outcome measures for chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer using meta-analyses. A systematic review was undertaken employing Cochrane methodology, with search of databases, conference proceedings and trial registers. The secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS)/time to progression (TTP) (summarised using the hazard ratio (HR)), response rate and toxicity (summarised using relative risk). There was no significant advantage of 5FU combinations vs 5FU alone for TTP (HR=1.02; 95% CI=0.85-1.23) and toxicity. Progression-free survival (HR 0.78; CI 0.70-0.88), TTP (HR=0.85; 95% CI=0.72-0.99) and overall response rate (RR=0.56; 95% CI=0.46-0.68) were significantly better for gemcitabine combination chemotherapy, but offset by the greater grade 3/4 toxicity thrombocytopenia (RR=1.94; 95% CI=1.32-2.84), leucopenia (RR=1.46; 95% CI=1.15-1.86), neutropenia (RR=1.48; 95% CI=1.07-2.05), nausea (RR=1.77; 95% CI=1.37-2.29), vomiting (RR=1.64; 95% CI=1.24-2.16) and diarrhoea (RR=2.73; 95% CI=1.87-3.98). There is no significant advantage on secondary end point analyses for administering 5FU in combination over 5FU alone. There is improved PFS/TTP and response rate, with gemcitabine-based combinations, although this comes with greater toxicity.

Phase I study of epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine plus matuzumab in previously untreated patients with advanced oesophagogastric cancer.

To evaluate the safety, tolerability, efficacy, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the humanised antiepidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody matuzumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) in patients as first-line treatment for advanced oesophagogastric cancer that express epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). This was a phase I dose escalation study of matuzumab at 400 and 800 mg weekly and 1200 mg every 3 weeks combined with ECX (epirubicin 50 mg m(-2), cisplatin 60 mg m(-2) on day 1 and capecitabine 1000 mg m(-2) daily). Patients were treated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or for a maximum of eight cycles. Twenty-one patients were treated with matuzumab at three different dose levels (DLs) combined with ECX. The main dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was grade 3 lethargy at 1200 mg matuzumab every 3 weeks and thus 800 mg matuzumab weekly was the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). Other common toxicities included rash, nausea, stomatitis and diarrhoea. Pharmacokinetic evaluation demonstrated that the coadministration of ECX did not alter the exposure of matuzumab. Pharmacodynamic studies on skin biopsies demonstrated inhibition of the EGFR pathway. Objective response rates of 65% (95% confidence interval (CI): 43-82), disease stabilisation of 25% (95% CI: 11-47) and a disease control rate (CR + PR + SD) of 90% were achieved overall. The MTD of matuzumab in combination with ECX was 800 mg weekly, and at this DL it was well-tolerated and showed encouraging antitumour activity. At the doses evaluated in serial skin biopsies, matuzumab decreased phosphorylation of EGFR and MAPK, and increased phosphorylation of STAT-3.

Systematic review, including meta-analyses, on the management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer using radiation/combined modality therapy.

There is no consensus on the management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer, with either chemotherapy or combined modality approaches being employed (Maheshwari and Moser, 2005). No published meta-analysis (Fung et al, 2003; Banu et al, 2005; Liang, 2005; Bria et al, 2006; Milella et al, 2006) has included randomised controlled trials employing radiation therapy. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the following: (i) chemoradiation followed by chemotherapy (combined modality therapy) vs best supportive care (ii) radiotherapy vs chemoradiation (iii) radiotherapy vs combined modality therapy (iv) chemotherapy vs combined modality therapy (v) 5FU-based combined modality treatment vs another-agent-based combined modality therapy. Relevant randomised controlled trials were identified by searching databases, trial registers and conference proceedings. The primary end point was overall survival and secondary end points were progression-free survival/time-to-progression, response rate and adverse events. Survival data were summarised using hazard ratio (HR) and response-rate/adverse-event data with relative risk. Eleven trials involving 794 patients met the inclusion criteria. Length of survival with chemoradiation was increased compared with radiotherapy alone (two trials, 168 patients, HR 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-0.94), but chemoradiation followed by chemotherapy did not lead to a survival advantage over chemotherapy alone (two trials, 134 patients, HR 0.79; CI 0.32-1.95). Meta-analyses could not be performed for the other comparisons. A survival benefit was demonstrated for chemoradiation over radiotherapy alone. Chemoradiation followed by chemotherapy did not demonstrate any survival advantage over chemotherapy alone, but important clinical differences cannot be ruled out due to the wide CI.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab/irinotecan vs active/best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who have failed previous chemotherapy treatment.

The treatment of colorectal cancer is rapidly becoming a significant financial burden to health-care systems within economically developed nations. A current challenge for oncologists and health-care payers is to integrate new, often high-cost, biologic therapies into clinical practice. Inherent to this process is the consideration of cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus irinotecan with an appropriate comparator from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. This economic evaluation is a trial-based study of cetuximab vs active/best supportive care. Effectiveness estimates for the treatment groups were modelled from key clinical trials. Cunningham et al (2004) compared cetuximab/irinotecan with cetuximab monotherapy; Cunningham et al (1998) compared irinotecan monotherapy in a second-line setting with supportive care. Modelling was necessary owing to an absence of head-to-head clinical trial data of cetuximab/irinotecan vs current standard care. Costs were calculated for the study drugs received, associated administration, palliative chemotherapy for patients in the standard care arm and other nonchemotherapy resources. The discounted life-expectancy of patients treated with cetuximab/irinotecan was 0.91 life-years, and 0.47 discounted life-years for patients receiving active/best supportive care. Patients treated with cetuximab/irinotecan accumulated mean additional costs of 18 901 pounds per patient relative to the comparator arm, with 11 802 pounds attributable to cetuximab. The incremental cost per life-year gained with cetuximab/irinotecan therapy compared with active/best supportive care was 42 975 pounds . The incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year gained was 57 608 pounds . The incremental cost per life-year gained for cetuximab/irinotecan is relatively high compared with other health-care interventions. However, this result should be considered in the context of a number of factors specific to the treated patient population.