Fluoropyrimidine type, patient age, tumour sidedness and mutation status as determinants of benefit in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with EGFR monoclonal antibodies: individual patient data pooled analysis of randomised trials from the ARCAD database.

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are used as predictive biomarkers to select therapy with EGFR monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Other factors may be significant determinants of benefit. METHODS: Individual patient data from randomised trials with a head-to-head comparison between EGFR mAb versus no EGFR mAb (chemotherapy alone or best supportive care) in mCRC, across all lines of therapy, were pooled. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between groups. Treatment effects within the predefined KRAS biomarker subsets were estimated by adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj) and 95% confidence interval (CI). EGFR mAb efficacy was measured within the KRAS wild-type subgroup according to BRAF and NRAS mutation status. In both KRAS wild-type and mutant subgroups, additional factors that could impact EGFR mAb efficacy were explored including the type of chemotherapy, line of therapy, age, sex, tumour sidedness and site of metastasis. RESULTS: 5675 patients from 8 studies were included, all with known mCRC KRAS mutation status. OS (HRadj 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.98, p = 0.01) and PFS benefit (HRadj 0.73, 95% CI 0.68-0.79, p < 0.001) from EGFR mAbs was observed in the KRAS wild-type group. PFS benefit was seen in patients treated with fluorouracil (HRadj 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.82) but not with capecitabine-containing regimens (HRadj 1.04, 95% CI 0.86-1.26) (pinteraction = 0.002). Sidedness also interacted with EGFR mAb efficacy, with survival benefit restricted to left-sided disease (pinteraction = 0.038). PFS benefits differed according to age, with benefits greater in those under 70 (pinteraction = 0.001). The survival benefit was not demonstrated in those patients with mutations found in the KRAS, NRAS or BRAF genes. The presence of liver metastases interacted with EGFR mAb efficacy in patients with KRAS mutant mCRC (pinteraction = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The benefit provided by EGFR mAbs in KRAS WT mCRC is associated with left-sided primary tumour location, younger patient age and absence of NRAS or BRAF mutations. Survival benefit is observed with fluorouracil but not capecitabine. Exploratory results support further research in KRAS mutant mCRC without liver metastases.

Leucovorin and Fluorouracil With or Without Oxaliplatin as First-Line Treatment in Advanced Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: In a previous study of treatment for advanced colorectal cancer, the LV5FU2 regimen, comprising leucovorin (LV) plus bolus and infusional fluorouracil (5FU) every 2 weeks, was superior to the standard North Central Cancer Treatment Group/Mayo Clinic 5-day bolus 5FU/LV regimen. This phase III study investigated the effect of combining oxaliplatin with LV5FU2, with progression-free survival as the primary end point. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred twenty previously untreated patients with measurable disease were randomized to receive a 2-hour infusion of LV (200 mg/m2/d) followed by a 5FU bolus (400 mg/m2/d) and 22-hour infusion (600 mg/m2/d) for 2 consecutive days every 2 weeks, either alone or together with oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 as a 2-hour infusion on day 1. RESULTS: Patients allocated to oxaliplatin plus LV5FU2 had significantly longer progression-free survival (median, 9.0 v 6.2 months; P = .0003) and better response rate (50.7% v 22.3%; P = .0001) when compared with the control arm. The improvement in overall survival did not reach significance (median, 16.2 v 14.7 months; P = .12). LV5FU2 plus oxaliplatin gave higher frequencies of National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria grade 3/4 neutropenia (41.7% v 5.3% of patients), grade 3/4 diarrhea (11.9% v 5.3%), and grade 3 neurosensory toxicity (18.2% v 0%), but this did not result in impairment of quality of life (QoL). Survival without disease progression or deterioration in global health status was longer in patients allocated to oxaliplatin treatment (P = .004). CONCLUSION: The LV5FU2-oxaliplatin combination seems beneficial as first-line therapy in advanced colorectal cancer, demonstrating a prolonged progression-free survival with acceptable tolerability and maintenance of QoL.

MODUL cohort 2: an adaptable, randomized, signal-seeking trial of fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab maintenance therapy for BRAFwt metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: MODUL is an adaptable, signal-seeking trial designed to test novel agents in predefined patient subgroups in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with measurable, unresectable, previously untreated mCRC received induction with ≤8 cycles of FOLFOX + bevacizumab followed by randomization to maintenance treatment comprising control [fluoropyrimidine (FP)/bevacizumab: 5-fluorouracil 1600-2400 mg/m2 46-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion day 1 q2 weeks plus leucovorin 400 mg/m2 2-h infusion i.v. day 1 q2 weeks or capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 b.i.d. orally days 1-14 every 21 days; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg 15-30-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks] or experimental treatment in one of four biomarker-driven cohorts. In patients with BRAF wild-type (BRAFwt) tumors (cohort 2), experimental treatment was FP/bevacizumab + atezolizumab (800 mg 60-min i.v. infusion q2 weeks). Primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS; intent-to-treat population). Enrollment is complete; efficacy and safety findings from cohort 2 are presented. RESULTS: Four hundred and forty-five patients with BRAFwt mCRC were randomized (2 : 1) to maintenance in cohort 2. At a median follow-up of 10.5 months, PFS outcome hypothesis was not met [hazard ratio (HR) 0.92; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72-1.17; P = 0.48]; overall survival (OS) was immature. At a median follow-up of 20.3 months (2-year survival follow-up), PFS benefit was also not met (HR 0.95; 95% CI 0.77-1.18; P = 0.666); OS HR with nearly two-thirds of patients with events was 0.83 (95% CI 0.65-1.05; P = 0.117). No new safety signals were identified. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) for experimental versus control arms were hypertension (6.1% versus 4.2%), diarrhea (3.1% versus 2.1%), and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (1.0% versus 2.5%). Four patients experienced TEAEs with fatal outcome, two were study treatment-related: hepatic failure (experimental arm) and large intestine perforation (control arm; bevacizumab-related). CONCLUSIONS: Adding atezolizumab to FP/bevacizumab as first-line maintenance treatment after FOLFOX + bevacizumab induction for BRAFwt mCRC did not improve efficacy outcomes.

Evaluation of the change of outcomes over a 10-year period in patients with stage III colon cancer: pooled analysis of 6501 patients treated with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin in the ACCENT database.

BACKGROUND: Since 2004, adjuvant 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX or FLOX) have been the standard of care for patients with resected colon cancer. Herein we examine the change of outcomes over a 10-year period in patients with stage III colon cancer who received this regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from the ACCENT database was used to compare the outcomes in older (1998-2003) and newer (2004-2009) treatment eras for patients with stage III colon cancer who received adjuvant FOLFOX or FLOX. The outcomes were compared between the two groups by the multivariate Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for age, sex, performance score, T stage, N stage, tumor sidedness, and histological grade. RESULTS: A total of 6501 patients with stage III colon cancer who received adjuvant FOLFOX or FLOX in six randomized trials were included in the analysis. Patients enrolled in the new era group experienced statistically significant improvement in time to recurrence [3-year rate, 76.1% versus 73.0%; adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj) = 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92), P = 0.0008], disease-free survival (DFS) [3-year rate, 74.7% versus 72.3%; HRadj = 0.88 (0.79-0.98), P = 0.024], survival after recurrence (SAR) [median time, 27.0 versus 17.7 months; HRadj = 0.65 (0.57-0.74), P < 0.0001], and overall survival (OS) [5-year rate, 80.9% versus 75.7%; HRadj = 0.78 (0.69-0.88), P < 0.0001]. The improved outcomes remained in patients diagnosed at 45 years of age or older, low-risk patients (T1-3 and N1), left colon, mismatch repair proficient (pMMR), BRAF, and KRAS wild-type tumors. CONCLUSION: Improved outcomes were observed in patients with stage III colon cancer enrolled in clinical trials who received adjuvant FOLFOX/FLOX therapy in 2004 or later compared with patients in the older era. Prolonged SAR calls for revalidation of 3-year DFS as the surrogate endpoint of OS in adjuvant clinical trials and reevaluation of optimal follow-up of OS to confirm the trial findings based on the DFS endpoints. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBERS: NCT00079274; NCT00096278; NCT00004931; NCT00275210; NCT00265811; NCT00112918.

Bevacizumab as adjuvant treatment of colon cancer: updated results from the S-AVANT phase III study by the GERCOR Group.

BACKGROUND: The bevacizumab-Avastin® adjuVANT (AVANT) study did not meet its primary end point of improving disease-free survival (DFS) with the addition of bevacizumab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in stage III colon cancer (CC). We report here the long-term survival results (S-AVANT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with curatively resected stage III CC were randomly assigned to FOLFOX4, FOLFOX4-bevacizumab, or XELOX-bevacizumab. RESULTS: A total of 2867 patients were randomized: FOLFOX4: n = 955, FOLFOX4-bevacizumab: n = 960, XELOX-bevacizumab: n = 952. With a median of 6.73 years follow-up (interquartile range 5.51-10.54), 672 patients died, of whom 198 (20.7%), 250 (26.0%), and 224 (23.5%) were in the FOLFOX4, FOLFOX4-bevacizumab, and XELOX-bevacizumab arms, respectively. The 10-year overall survival (OS) rates were 74.6%, 67.2%, and 69.9%, (P = 0.003) and 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) rates were 73.2%, 68.5%, and 71.0% (P = 0.174), respectively. OS and DFS hazard ratios were 1.29 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.55; P = 0.008] and 1.16 (95% CI 0.99-1.37; P = 0.063) for FOLFOX4-bevacizumab versus FOLFOX4 and 1.15 (95% CI 0.95-1.39; P = 0.147) and 1.1 (95% CI 0.93-1.29; P = 0.269) for XELOX-bevacizumab versus FOLFOX4, respectively. CC-related deaths (n = 542) occurred in 157 (79.3%) patients receiving FOLFOX4, 205 (82.0%) receiving FOLFOX4-bevacizumab, and 180 (80.4%) receiving XELOX-bevacizumab (P = 0.764), while non-CC-related deaths occurred in 41 (20.7%), 45 (18.0%), and 44 (19.6%) patients, respectively. Cardiovascular-related and sudden deaths during treatment or follow-up were reported in 13 (6.6%), 17 (6.8%), and 14 (6.3%) patients, in the FOLFOX4, FOLFOX4-bevacizuamb, and XELOX-bevacizumab arms, respectively (P = 0.789). Treatment arm, sex, age, histological differentiation, performance status, T/ N stages, and localization of primary tumor were independent prognostic factors of OS in stage III. CONCLUSIONS: S-AVANT confirms the initial AVANT report. No benefit of the bevacizumab addition to FOLFOX4 adjuvant therapy in patients with stage III CC was observed in terms of DFS with a negative effect in OS, without increase in non-CC related deaths. CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFICATION: NCT00112918.

Prognosis of microsatellite instability and/or mismatch repair deficiency stage III colon cancer patients after disease recurrence following adjuvant treatment: results of an ACCENT pooled analysis of seven studies.

BACKGROUND: Microsatellite instable/deficient mismatch repair (MSI/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancers have been reported to have a poor prognosis. Frequent co-occurrence of MSI/dMMR and BRAFV600E complicates the association. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage III colon cancer (CC) from seven adjuvant studies with available data for disease recurrence and MMR and BRAFV600E status were analyzed. The primary end point was survival after recurrence (SAR). Associations of markers with SAR were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, gender, performance status, T stage, N stage, primary tumor location, grade, KRAS status, and timing of recurrence. RESULTS: Among 2630 patients with cancer recurrence (1491 men [56.7%], mean age, 58.5 [19-85] years), multivariable analysis revealed that patients with MSI/dMMR tumors had significantly longer SAR than did patients with microsatellite stable/proficient MMR tumors (MSS/pMMR) (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.82; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.69-0.98; P = 0.029). This finding remained when looking at patients treated with standard oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy regimens only (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58-1.00; P = 0.048). Same trends for SAR were observed when analyzing MSI/dMMR versus MSS/pMMR tumor subgroups lacking BRAFV600E (aHR, 0.84; P = 0.10) or those harboring BRAFV600E (aHR, 0.88; P = 0.43), without reaching statistical significance. Furthermore, SAR was significantly shorter in tumors with BRAFV600E versus those lacking this mutation (aHR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.73-2.46; P < 0.0001), even in the subgroup of MSI/dMMR tumors (aHR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.67-4.21; P < 0.0001). Other factors associated with a shorter SAR were as follows: older age, male gender, T4/N2, proximal primary tumor location, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, and early recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In stage III CC patients recurring after adjuvant chemotherapy, and before the era of immunotherapy, the MSI/dMMR phenotype was associated with a better SAR compared with MSS/pMMR. BRAFV600E mutation was a poor prognostic factor for both MSI/dMMR and MSS/pMMR patients. TRIAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: NCT00079274, NCT00265811, NCT00004931, NCT00004931, NCT00026273, NCT00096278, NCT00112918.

Prognostic value of primary tumour resection in synchronous metastatic colorectal cancer: Individual patient data analysis of first-line randomised trials from the ARCAD database.

Indication for primary tumour resection (PTR) in asymptomatic metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients is unclear. Previous retrospective analyses suggest a survival benefit for patients who underwent PTR. The aim was to evaluate the prognostic value of PTR in patients with synchronous mCRC by analysis of recent large RCTs including systemic therapy with modern targeted agents. Individual patient data (IPD) of 3423 patients enrolled into 8 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with first-line systemic therapy in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were analysed. The number of patients with unresected synchronous mCRC, resected synchronous mCRC and metachronous mCRC was 710 (21%), 1705 (50%) and 1008 (29%), respectively. Adjusting for age, gender, performance status (PS) and prior chemotherapy, the unresected group had a significantly worse median overall survival (16.4 m) compared with the synchronous resected (22.2 m; hazard ratio [HR] 1.60, 95% CI 1.43-1.78) and metachronous (22.4 m; HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.58-2.07) groups. Similarly, median progression-free survival was significantly worse for the unresected group compared with the synchronous resected (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.19-1.44) and metachronous (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.30-1.66) groups. In a multivariate analysis, the observed associations remained significant. This largest IPD analysis of mCRC trials to date demonstrates an improved survival in synchronous mCRC patients after PTR. These results may be subject to bias since reasons for (non)resection were not available. Until results of ongoing RCTs are available, both upfront PTR followed by systemic treatment and upfront systemic treatment are considered appropriate treatment strategies.

How health-related quality of life assessment should be used in advanced colorectal cancer clinical trials.

Traditionally, the efficacy of cancer treatment in patients with advance or metastatic disease in clinical studies has been studied using overall survival and more recently tumor-based end points such as progression-free survival, measurements of response to treatment. However, these seem not to be the relevant clinical end points in current situation if such end points were no validated as surrogate of overall survival to demonstrate the clinical efficacy. Appropriate, meaningful, primary patient-oriented and patient-reported end points that adequately measure the effects of new therapeutic interventions are then crucial for the advancement of clinical research in metastatic colorectal cancer to complement the results of tumor-based end points. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is effectively an evaluation of quality of life and its relationship with health over time. HRQoL includes the patient report at least of the way a disease or its treatment affects its physical, emotional and social well-being. Over the past few years, several phase III trials in a variety of solid cancers have assessed the incremental value of HRQoL in addition to the traditional end points of tumor response and survival results. HRQoL could provide not only complementary clinical data to the primary outcomes, but also more precise predictive and prognostic value. This end point is useful for both clinicians and patients in order to achieve the dogma of precision medicine. The present article examines the use of HRQoL in phase III metastatic colorectal cancer clinical trials, outlines the importance of HRQoL assessment methods, analysis, and results presentation. Moreover, it discusses the relevance of including HRQoL as a primary/co-primary end point to support the progression-free survival results and to assess efficacy of treatment in the advanced disease setting.

A need to simplify informed consent documents in cancer clinical trials. A position paper of the ARCAD Group.

Background: In respect of the principle of autonomy and the right of self-determination, obtaining an informed consent of potential participants before their inclusion in a study is a fundamental ethical obligation. The variations in national laws, regulations, and cultures contribute to complex informed consent documents for patients participating in clinical trials. Currently, only few ethics committees seem willing to address the complexity and the length of these documents and to request investigators and sponsors to revise them in a way to make them understandable for potential participants. The purpose of this work is to focus on the written information in the informed consent documentation for drug development clinical trials and suggests (i) to distinguish between necessary and not essential information, (ii) to define the optimal format allowing the best legibility of those documents. Methods: The Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Group, an international scientific committee involving oncologists from all over the world, addressed these issues and developed and uniformly accepted a simplified informed consent documentation for future clinical research. Results: A simplified form of informed consent with the leading part of 1200-1800 words containing all of the key information necessary to meet ethical and regulatory requirements and 'relevant supportive information appendix' of 2000-3000 words is provided. Conclusions: This position paper, on the basis of the ARCAD Group experts discussions, proposes our informed consent model and the rationale for its content.

Understanding c-MET signalling in squamous cell carcinoma of the head & neck.

c-MET is a membrane spanning receptor tyrosine kinase for hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) also termed scatter factor. Transmitting signals from mesenchymal to epithelial cells, the HGF/c-MET axis mediates a range of biological processes that stimulate proliferation, motility, invasiveness, morphogenesis, apoptosis, and angiogenesis. Aberrant c-MET signal transduction favours tumorigenesis with the acquisition of invasive and metastatic phenotypes. Biological functions of c-MET may strongly vary according to microenvironmental changes, which occur at different stages of tumorigenesis and include also HGF/c-MET activation in stromal cells. In this review, we focused on abnormalities in non-nasopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma of the head & neck. While the prevalence of c-MET mutations and amplifications ranges 0-25%, c-MET upregulation can be found in the majority of squamous head & neck carcinomas. Despite marked heterogeneity in published scoring methods, immunohistochemical overexpression of c-MET has been typically linked to advanced stages and associated with impaired survival and/or resistance to radiotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, and cetuximab. Experimental studies in cell lines and patient-derived xenografts using various c-MET antagonists (both as single-agents and in combination with cytotoxic and epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR]-directed agents) yielded promising results, albeit benefit in clinical trials remains to be demonstrated. Consequently, selecting more active agents and integrating them effectively in studies, which incorporate predictive biomarkers such as c-MET gene mutations, amplifications, and overexpression, remains challenging. Further investigations should increase emphasis on disentangling the role of tumour-stromal interactions and analyse their potential as modifiers of drug response.

Effects of preset sequential administrations of sunitinib and everolimus on tumour differentiation in Caki-1 renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib (VEGFR/PDGFR inhibitor) and everolimus (mTOR inhibitor) are both approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) as first-line and second-line therapy, respectively. In the clinics, sunitinib treatment is limited by the emergence of acquired resistance, leading to a switch to second-line treatment at progression, often based on everolimus. No data have been yet generated on programmed alternating sequential strategies combining alternative use of sunitinib and everolimus before progression. Such strategy is expected to delay the emergence of acquired resistance and improve tumour control. The aim of our study was to assess the changes in tumours induced by three different sequences administration of sunitinib and everolimus. METHODS: In human Caki-1 RCC xenograft model, sunitinib was alternated with everolimus every week, every 2 weeks, or every 3 weeks. Effects on necrosis, hypoxia, angiogenesis, and EMT status were assessed by immunohisochemistry and immunofluorescence. RESULTS: Sunitinib and everolimus programmed sequential regimens before progression yielded longer median time to tumour progression than sunitinib and everolimus monotherapies. In each group of treatment, tumour growth control was associated with inhibition of mTOR pathway and changes from a mesenchymal towards an epithelial phenotype, with a decrease in vimentin and an increase in E-cadherin expression. The sequential combinations of these two agents in a RCC mouse clinical trial induced antiangiogenic effects, leading to tumour necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, our study showed that alternate sequence of sunitinib and everolimus mitigated the development of mesenchymal phenotype compared with sunitinib as single agent.

FOLFOX4 versus sequential dose-dense FOLFOX7 followed by FOLFIRI in patients with resectable metastatic colorectal cancer (MIROX): a pragmatic approach to chemotherapy timing with perioperative or postoperative chemotherapy from an open-label, randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) chemotherapy is the current standard in patients with resectable metastases from colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to determine whether a sequential chemotherapy with dose-dense oxaliplatin (FOLFOX7) and irinotecan (FOLFIRI; irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) is superior to FOLFOX4. The chemotherapy timing was not imposed, and was perioperative or postoperative. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, phase III trial, patients with resectable or resected metastases were randomly assigned either to 12 cycles of FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2)) or 6 cycles of FOLFOX7 (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2)) followed by 6 cycles of FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m(2)). Randomization was done centrally, with stratification by chemotherapy timing, type of local treatment (surgery versus radiofrequency ablation with/without surgery), and Fong's prognostic score. The primary end point was 2-year disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: A total of 284 patients were randomized, 142 in each treatment group. Chemotherapy was perioperative in 168 (59.2%) patients and postoperative in 116 (40.8%) patients. Perioperative chemotherapy was preferentially proposed for synchronous metastases, whereas postoperative chemotherapy was more frequently used for metachronous metastases. Two-year DFS was 48.5% in the FOLFOX4 group and 50.0% in the FOLFOX7-FOLFIRI group. In the multivariable analysis, more than one metastasis [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.15] and synchronous metastases (HR = 1.63) were independent prognostic factors for shorter DFS. Five-year overall survival (OS) rate was 69.5% with FOLFOX4 versus 66.6% with FOLFOX7-FOLFIRI. CONCLUSIONS: FOLFOX7-FOLFIRI is not superior to FOLFOX4 in patients with resectable metastatic CRC. Five-year OS rates observed in both groups are the highest ever reported in this setting, possibly reflecting the pragmatic approach to chemotherapy timing. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT00268398.

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.

Association of adverse events and survival in colorectal cancer patients treated with adjuvant 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin: Is efficacy an impact of toxicity?

BACKGROUND: Adverse events associated with 5-fluorouracil (5FU) based adjuvant therapy in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients may predict survival. We studied whether haematological (leucopenia, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia) or non-haematological (mucositis, diarrhoea, nausea/vomiting, hand-foot syndrome or other toxicity) adverse events were associated with disease-free survival (DFS) or overall survival (OS) in a large patient material treated with 5-fluorouracil based adjuvant chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from two prospective randomised adjuvant trials were combined to achieve a dataset of 1033 radically operated stage II and III CRC patients treated with either monthly 5FU and leucovorin (LV) as bolus injections (Mayo or modified Mayo) or bi-monthly with bolus and continuous infusion (LV5FU2 or simplified LV5FU2). Toxicities were recorded at each treatment cycle according to NCI-C CTC (the Common Toxicity Criteria of the National Cancer Institute of Canada). The worst toxicity grade was taken into account. The median follow-up time of patients was 6.05 years. RESULTS: 47% of patients developed neutropenia, 54% nausea/vomiting and 43% mucositis. Any grade neutropenia was associated with improved DFS (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81), any grade nausea/vomiting with improved DFS (HR 0.79) and OS (HR 0.62) and mucositis with improved DFS (HR 0.74) and OS (HR 0.72). Patients experiencing no predefined toxicity had the worst outcome. CONCLUSION: Specific adverse events related to adjuvant fluorouracil chemotherapy are associated with improved DFS and OS in early stage CRC patients.

A randomized phase II study of PEP02 (MM-398), irinotecan or docetaxel as a second-line therapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: PEP02 is a novel highly stable liposomal nanocarrier formulation of irinotecan. This randomized phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of single agent PEP02 compared with irinotecan or docetaxel in the second-line treatment of advanced oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced/metastatic disease who had failed one prior chemotherapy regimen were randomly assigned to PEP02 120 mg/m(2), irinotecan 300 mg/m(2) or docetaxel (Taxotere) 75 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Simon's two-stage design was used and the ORR of interest was 20% (α = 0.05, type II error ß = 0.10, null hypothesis of ORR was 5%). RESULTS: Forty-four patients per arm received treatment, and 124 were assessable for response. The ORR statistical threshold for the first stage was reached in all arms. In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population, ORRs were 13.6% (6/44), 6.8% (3/44) and 15.9% (7/44) in the PEP02, irinotecan and docetaxel arms, respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were similar between the trial arms. Commonest grade 3-4 adverse event reported was diarrhoea in the PEP02 and irinotecan groups (27.3% versus 18.2%). CONCLUSION: The ORR associated with PEP02 was comparable with docetaxel and numerically greater than that of irinotecan. PEP02 warrants further evaluation in the advanced gastric cancer setting.

Panitumumab combined with irinotecan for patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapy: a GERCOR efficacy, tolerance, and translational molecular study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the combination of panitumumab and irinotecan in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, fluoropyrimidines-irinotecan and bevacizumab). PATIENTS AND METHODS: KRAS status was first determined locally but subsequent validation of KRAS status and additional screenings (rare KRAS, NRAS, BRAF mutations and EGFR copy number) were centrally assessed. Patients received panitumumab (6 mg/kg) and irinotecan (180 mg/m²) every 2 weeks. RESULTS: Sixty-five eligible patients were analyzed. The objective response rate (ORR) was 29.2% [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 18.2-40.3]. Median progression-free and overall survivals were 5.5 and 9.7 months, respectively. Most frequent grade 3/4 toxic effects were skin 32.3%, diarrhea 15.4% and neutropenia 12.3%. Tissue samples were available for 60 patients. For the confirmed KRAS wild-type population codon 12 or 13 mutation (n = 54), ORR was 35.2% (95% CI 22.4.1-47.9). Thirteen patients had a NRAS, a BRAF or a rare KRAS mutation, and no tumor response was observed in this subgroup when compared with 46.3% (95% CI 31.1-61.6) ORR in the subgroup of 41 patients with no identified mutation. CONCLUSION: Panitumumab and irinotecan is an active third-line regimen in a well-defined population based on biomarkers. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00655499.

Disseminated and circulating tumor cells in gastrointestinal oncology.

Circulating (CTCs) and disseminated tumor cells (DTCs) are two different steps in the metastatic process. Several recent techniques have allowed detection of these cells in patients, and have generated many results using different isolation techniques in small cohorts. Herein, we review the detection results and their clinical consequence in esophageal, gastric, pancreatic, colorectal, and liver carcinomas, and discuss their possible applications as new biomarkers.