mFOLFOX6 versus mFOLFOX6 + aflibercept as neoadjuvant treatment in MRI-defined T3-rectal cancer: a randomized phase-II-trial of the German Rectal Cancer Study Group (CAO/ARO/AIO 0214).

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is an option for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer at low risk for local recurrence. This randomized phase II trial investigated whether the addition of aflibercept to modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6) could improve the rates of centrally confirmed pathological complete remissions (pCR) and (disease-free) survival in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-staged cT3 rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with rectal cancer fulfilling the following criteria were included: lower border of tumor >5 cm and <16 cm from anal verge; circumferential resection margin >2 mm and T3-tumor with a maximum infiltration of 10 mm, as determined by MRI. Patients were randomized 1 : 2 to six cycles mFOLFOX6 ± aflibercept. Surgery was scheduled 4 weeks after chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was the rate of centrally confirmed pCR. The study was designed to detect an improvement of pCR from 10% to 27% (power 80%, type I error 20%). RESULTS: A total of 119 randomized patients started treatment (39 patients mFOLFOX6, arm A, and 80 mFOLFOX + aflibercept, arm B). The incidence of all grade adverse events was similar in both arms, however, adverse events grade ≥3 were more than twice as high in the experimental arm due to hypertension. Surgical complications were comparable. Aflibercept did not improve the pCR rate (arm A 26% versus arm B 19%, P = 0.47) and more patients in arm B had node positivity. With a median follow-up of 40.1 months, the 4-year disease-free survival was 83% in arm A and 85% in arm B (P = 0.82). Only two patients in arm A and one patient in arm B developed local recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and MRI-defined low risk of local recurrence, neoadjuvant mFOLFOX6 + aflibercept was feasible and did not compromise surgery. Survival data were favorable in both arms, but pCR rates were not increased by the addition of aflibercept.

Dermatology-related quality-of-life outcomes in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with fluorouracil and folinic acid with or without panitumumab (Pmab) maintenance after FOLFOX + Pmab induction: a prespecified secondary analysis of the phase II randomized PanaMa (AIO KRK 0212) trial.

BACKGROUND: The key endpoints for the assessment of the effect of maintenance therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are survival and quality-of-life outcomes. We aimed to compare dermatology-related quality of life (DRQOL) in patients with RAS wild-type (wt) mCRC treated with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) + panitumumab (Pmab) versus FU/FA alone as maintenance therapy after folinic acid, fluorouracil and oxaliplatin + Pmab induction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The phase II randomized PanaMa (AIO KRK 0212; NCT01991873) trial included 387 patients at 70 community/academic sites in Germany. For this prespecified secondary analysis, DRQOL outcomes were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (FACT-EGFRI), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and Skindex-16 questionnaires at every second cycle of therapy until disease progression/death. RESULTS: At least one DRQOL questionnaire was completed by a total of 310/377 (82%) patients who received induction therapy, and by 216/248 (87%) patients who were randomized and received maintenance therapy. Patients who experienced skin toxicity according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) during induction therapy had significantly worse DRQOL according to all three measures, compared to those who did not [i.e. Skindex-16, mean difference at cycle 2 -12.87; 95% confidence interval (CI) -20.01 to -5.73; P < 0.001]. During maintenance therapy, significantly improved recovery was observed in all DRQOL measures for patients receiving FU/FA, compared to those receiving additional Pmab (i.e. Skindex-16, mean difference at cycle 6 -16.53; 95% CI -22.68 to -10.38; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of a phase II randomized clinical trial, patient-reported DRQOL outcomes correlated with skin toxicity according to NCI-CTCAE during induction therapy. Maintenance therapy with FU/FA + Pmab was associated with deteriorated DRQOL versus FU/FA alone in patients with RAS wt mCRC.

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.

Capecitabine-associated hand-foot-skin reaction is an independent clinical predictor of improved survival in patients with colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hand-foot-skin reaction (HFSR) is an adverse event frequently observed during treatment with capecitabine (cape). In the present analysis, we sought to evaluate the potential association of HFSR and survival in German patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and locally advanced rectal cancer treated with cape in clinical trials. METHODS: Patients of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Internistische Onkologie (AIO) KRK-0104 and the Mannheim rectal cancer trial were evaluated. HFSR was graded according to NCI-CTC criteria in both trials. Time to first occurrence of HFSR was described per cycle and HFSR developing during cycles 1 and 2 was defined as 'early HFSR'. Baseline characteristics between the patient groups with or without HFSR were compared using Mann-Whitney-U, Fisher's exact or χ(2)-test, as appropriate. Haematological and non-haematological toxicities observed in both groups were compared using Fisher's exact test. Progression-free (PFS) or disease-free (DFS) as well as overall survival (OS) data from both trials were pooled and the HFSR group was compared with the non-HFSR using Kaplan-Meier analysis. RESULTS: A total of 374 patients were included, of whom 29.3% developed any HFSR. Of these, 51% had early HFSR. Baseline characteristics were comparable between both HFSR groups concerning age, gender, ECOG performance status and UICC stage. On multivariate analysis none of these factors had influence on the occurrence of HFSR. The percentage of all-grade (and grade 3-4) haematological toxicities did not differ between both the groups. By contrast, patients exhibiting HFSR had a significantly higher rate of all-grade (but not grade 3-4) diarrhoea, stomatitis/mucositis and fatigue (P<0.01, respectively). Patients with HFSR had improved PFS/DFS (29.0 vs 11.4 months; P=0.015, HR 0.69) and OS (75.8 vs 41.0 months; P=0.001, HR=0.56). Within the HFSR group, PFS/DFS and OS were comparable between patients with early vs late HFSR. INTERPRETATION: The present analysis provides evidence for the association of HFSR and survival in patients with colorectal cancer. Baseline characteristics, with the exception of UICC stage, older age and ECOG performance status, and the time of occurrence of HFSR had no impact on survival. Patients with HFSR had a higher probability of developing any-grade gastrointestinal toxicity and fatigue while no correlation with haematological toxicity was found.