Sentinel lymph node biopsy versus axillary lymph node dissection in breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy with one to two metastatic sentinel lymph nodes: sub-analysis of the SINODAR-ONE multicentre randomized clinical trial and reopening of enrolment.

BACKGROUND: The initial results of the SINODAR-ONE randomized clinical trial reported that patients with T1-2 breast cancer and one to two macrometastatic sentinel lymph nodes treated with breast-conserving surgery, sentinel lymph node biopsy only, and adjuvant therapy did not present worse 3-year survival, regional recurrence, or distant recurrence rates compared with those treated with axillary lymph node dissection. To extend the recommendation of axillary lymph node dissection omission even in patients treated with mastectomy, a sub-analysis of the SINODAR-ONE trial is presented here. METHODS: Patients with T1-2 breast cancer and no more than two metastatic sentinel lymph nodes undergoing mastectomy were analysed. After sentinel lymph node biopsy, patients were randomly assigned to receive either axillary lymph node dissection followed by adjuvant treatment (standard arm) or adjuvant treatment alone (experimental arm). The primary endpoint was overall survival. The secondary endpoint was recurrence-free survival. RESULTS: A total of 218 patients were treated with mastectomy; 111 were randomly assigned to the axillary lymph node dissection group and 107 to the sentinel lymph node biopsy-only group. At a median follow-up of 33.0 months, there were three deaths (two deaths in the axillary lymph node dissection group and one death in the sentinel lymph node biopsy-only group). There were five recurrences in each treatment arm. No axillary lymph node recurrence was observed. The 5-year overall survival rates were 97.8 and 98.7 per cent in the axillary lymph node dissection treatment arm and the sentinel lymph node biopsy-only treatment arm, respectively (P = 0.597). The 5-year recurrence-free survival rates were 95.7 and 94.1 per cent in the axillary lymph node dissection treatment arm and the sentinel lymph node biopsy treatment arm, respectively (P = 0.821). CONCLUSION: In patients with T1-2 breast cancer and one to two macrometastatic sentinel lymph nodes treated with mastectomy, the overall survival and recurrence-free survival rates of patients treated with sentinel lymph node biopsy only were not inferior to those treated with axillary lymph node dissection. To strengthen the conclusion of the trial, the enrolment of patients treated with mastectomy was reopened as a single-arm experimental study. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05160324 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Fluorouracil and dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer (GIM2): end-of-study results from a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous analyses of the GIM (Gruppo Italiano Mammella) 2 study showed that addition of fluorouracil to epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel in patients with node-positive early breast cancer does not improve outcome, whereas dose-dense chemotherapy induces a significant improvement in both disease-free survival and overall survival as compared with a standard schedule. Here, we present long-term results of the study. METHODS: In this 2 × 2 factorial, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients aged 18-70 years with operable, node-positive, breast cancer with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 from 81 hospitals in Italy. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1:1) to one of the four following study groups: four cycles of standard-interval intravenous EC (epirubicin 90 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2) on day 1 every 3 weeks, followed by four cycles of intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) on day 1 every 3 weeks (q3EC-P group); four cycles of intravenous FEC (fluorouracil 600 mg/m2, epirubicin 90 mg/m2, and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2) on day 1 every 3 weeks, followed by four cycles of intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) on day 1 every 3 weeks (q3FEC-P group); dose-dense EC-P regimen, with the same doses and drugs as the q3EC-P group but administered every 2 weeks (q2EC-P group); and the dose-dense FEC-P regimen, with the same doses and drugs as the q3FEC-P group but given every 2 weeks (q2FEC-P). Randomisation, with stratification by centre, with permuted blocks of size 12, was done with a centralised, interactive, internet-based system that randomly generated the treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, comparing different chemotherapy schedule (dose-dense vs standard-dose intervals) and regimen (FEC-P vs EC-P). Safety population included all patients that received at least one dose of any study drug according to the treatment received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00433420, and is now closed. FINDINGS: Between April 24, 2003, and July 3, 2006, 2091 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 545 to q3EC-P, 544 to q3FEC-P, 502 to q2EC-P, and 500 to q2FEC-P. 88 patients were enrolled in centres providing only standard interval schedule and were assigned only to q3FEC-P and q3EC-P; thus, 2091 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis for the comparison of EC-P (1047 patients) versus FEC-P (1044 patients) and 2003 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis for the comparison of dose-dense (1002 patients) versus standard interval analysis (1001 patients). After a median follow-up of 15·1 years (IQR 8·4-16·3), median disease-free survival was not significantly different between FEC-P and EC-P groups (17·09 years [95% CI 15·51-not reached] vs not reached [17·54-not reached]; unadjusted hazard ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·98-1·29]; log-rank p=0·11). Median disease-free survival was significantly higher in the dose-dense interval group than the standard-interval group (not reached [95% CI 17·45-not reached] vs 16·52 [14·24-17·54]; 0·77 [95% CI 0·67-0·89]; p=0·0004). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (200 [37%] of 536 patients in the q3EC-P group vs 257 [48%] of 533 in the q3FEC-P group vs 50 [10%] of 496 q2EC-P vs 97 [20%] of 492) and alopecia (238 [44%] vs 249 [47%] vs 228 [46%] vs 235 [48%]). During extended follow-up, no further grade 3-4 adverse events or deaths related to toxic-effects were reported. Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in nine (2%) patients in the q3EC-P group, seven (1%) in the q3FEC-P group, nine (2%) in the q2EC-P group, and nine (2%) in the q2FEC-P group. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Updated results from the GIM2 study support that optimal adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk early breast cancer should not include fluorouracil and should use a dose-dense schedule. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pharmacia, Dompè Biotec Italy, Italian Ministry of Health, Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro, and Alliance Against Cancer.

Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (AtezoTRIBE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have not shown clinical benefit to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who had proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) or microsatellite stable (MSS) tumours in previous studies. Both an active combination chemotherapy (FOLFOXIRI; fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) and bevacizumab seem able to increase the immunogenicity of pMMR or MSS tumours. We aimed to provide preliminary evidence of benefit from the addition of the anti-PD-L1 agent atezolizumab to first-line FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: AtezoTRIBE was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study of patients (aged 18-70 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status of 0-2 and aged 71-75 years with an ECOG performance status of 0) with histologically confirmed, unresectable, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer and adequate organ function, who were recruited from 22 oncology centres in Italy. Patients were stratified according to centre, ECOG performance status, primary tumour site, and previous adjuvant therapy. A randomisation system incorporating a minimisation algorithm randomly assigned (1:2) patients via a masked web-based allocation procedure to two groups: the control group received first-line FOLFOXIRI (intravenous 165 mg/m2 irinotecan, 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin, 200 mg/m2 leucovorin, and 3200 mg/m2 fluorouracil as a 48 h infusion) plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg intravenously), and the atezolizumab group received the same regimen plus atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously). Combination treatments were administered up to eight 14-day cycles followed by maintenance with fluorouracil and leucovorin plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab, according to randomisation group, until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, or consent withdrawal. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed by the intention-to-treat principle. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. The study recruitment is completed. The trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03721653. FINDINGS: Between Nov 30, 2018, and Feb 26, 2020, 218 patients were randomly assigned and received treatment (73 in the control group and 145 in the atezolizumab group). At the data cutoff (Aug 1, 2021), median follow-up was 19·9 months (IQR 17·3-23·9). Median progression-free survival was 13·1 months (80% CI 12·5-13·8) in the atezolizumab group and 11·5 months (10·0-12·6) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·69 [80% CI 0·56-0·85]; p=0·012; adjusted HR 0·70 [80% CI 0·57-0·87]; log-rank test p=0·018). The most frequent all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (59 [42%] of 142 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 26 [36%] of 72 patients in the control group), diarrhoea (21 [15%] vs nine [13%]), and febrile neutropenia (14 [10%] vs seven [10%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 39 (27%) patients in the atezolizumab group and in 19 (26%) patients in the control group. Two (1%) treatment-related deaths (due to acute myocardial infarction and bronchopulmonary haemorrhage) were reported in the atezolizumab group; none were reported in the control group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of atezolizumab to first-line FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is safe and improved progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: GONO Foundation, ARCO Foundation, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and Roche.

Intravenous methylprednisolone pulses in hospitalised patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia: a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

RATIONALE: Pulse glucocorticoid therapy is used in hyperinflammation related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We evaluated the efficacy and safety of pulse intravenous methylprednisolone in addition to standard treatment in COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 304 hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia were randomised to receive 1 g of methylprednisolone intravenously for three consecutive days or placebo in addition to standard dexamethasone. The primary outcome was the duration of patient hospitalisation, calculated as the time interval between randomisation and hospital discharge without the need for supplementary oxygen. The key secondary outcomes were survival free from invasive ventilation with orotracheal intubation and overall survival. RESULTS: Overall, 112 (75.4%) out of 151 patients in the pulse methylprednisolone arm and 111 (75.2%) of 150 in the placebo arm were discharged from hospital without oxygen within 30 days from randomisation. Median time to discharge was similar in both groups (15 days, 95% CI 13.0-17.0 days and 16 days, 95% CI 13.8-18.2 days, respectively; hazard ratio (HR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.71-1.20; p=0.528). No significant differences between pulse methylprednisolone and placebo arms were observed in terms of admission to intensive care unit with orotracheal intubation or death (20.0% versus 16.1%; HR 1.26, 95% CI 0.74-2.16; p=0.176) or overall mortality (10.0% versus 12.2%; HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.42-1.64; p=0.584). Serious adverse events occurred with similar frequency in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Methylprenisolone pulse therapy added to dexamethasone was not of benefit in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia.

Preservation of Axillary Lymph Nodes Compared with Complete Dissection in T1-2 Breast Cancer Patients Presenting One or Two Metastatic Sentinel Lymph Nodes: The SINODAR-ONE Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: The SINODAR-ONE trial is a prospective noninferiority multicenter randomized study aimed at assessing the role of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in patients undergoing either breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy for T1-2 breast cancer (BC) and presenting one or two macrometastatic sentinel lymph nodes (SLNs). The endpoints were to evaluate whether SLN biopsy (SLNB) only was associated with worsening of the prognosis compared with ALND in terms of overall survival (OS) and relapse. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to either removal of ≥ 10 axillary level I/II non-SLNs followed by adjuvant therapy (standard arm) or no further axillary treatment (experimental arm). RESULTS: The trial started in April 2015 and ceased in April 2020, involving 889 patients. Median follow-up was 34.0 months. There were eight deaths (ALND, 4; SNLB only, 4), with 5-year cumulative mortality of 5.8% and 2.1% in the standard and experimental arm, respectively (p = 0.984). There were 26 recurrences (ALND 11; SNLB only, 15), with 5-year cumulative incidence of recurrence of 6.9% and 3.3% in the standard and experimental arm, respectively (p = 0.444). Only one axillary lymph node recurrence was observed in each arm. The 5-year OS rates were 98.9% and 98.8%, in the ALND and SNLB-only arm, respectively (p = 0.936). CONCLUSIONS: The 3-year survival and relapse rates of T1-2 BC patients with one or two macrometastatic SLNs treated with SLNB only, and adjuvant therapy, were not inferior to those of patients treated with ALND. These results do not support the use of routine ALND.

Gemcitabine with or without ramucirumab as second-line treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma (RAMES): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a preclinical rationale for inhibiting angiogenesis in mesothelioma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the anti-VEGFR-2 antibody ramucirumab combined with gemcitabine in patients with pretreated malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: RAMES was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial done at 26 hospitals in Italy. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and histologically proven malignant pleural mesothelioma progressing during or after first-line treatment with pemetrexed plus platinum. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks plus either intravenous placebo (gemcitabine plus placebo group) or ramucirumab 10 mg/kg (gemcitabine plus ramucirumab group) on day 1 every 3 weeks, until tumour progression or unacceptable toxicity. Central randomisation was done according to a minimisation algorithm method, associated with a random element using the following stratification factors: ECOG performance status, age, histology, and first-line time-to-progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured from the date of randomisation to the date of death from any cause. Efficacy analyses were assessed in all patients who had been correctly randomised and received their allocated treatment, and safety analyses were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03560973, and with EudraCT, 2016-001132-36. FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2016, and July 30, 2018, of 165 patients enrolled 161 were correctly assigned and received either gemcitabine plus placebo (n=81) or gemcitabine plus ramucirumab (n=80). At database lock (March 8, 2020), with a median follow-up of 21·9 months (IQR 17·7-28·5), overall survival was longer in the ramucirumab group (HR 0·71, 70% CI 0·59-0·85; p=0·028). Median overall survival was 13·8 months (70% CI 12·7-14·4) in the gemcitabine plus ramucirumab group and 7·5 months (6·9-8·9) in the gemcitabine plus placebo group. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 35 (44%) of 80 patients in the gemcitabine plus ramucirumab group and 24 (30%) of 81 in the gemcitabine plus placebo group. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (16 [20%] for gemcitabine plus ramucirumab vs ten [12%] for gemcitabine plus placebo) and hypertension (five [6%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in five (6%) in the gemcitabine plus ramucirumab group and in four (5%) patients in the gemcitabine plus placebo group; the most common was thromboembolism (three [4%] for gemcitabine plus ramucirumab vs two [2%] for gemcitabine plus placebo). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Ramucirumab plus gemcitabine significantly improved overall survival after first-line standard chemotherapy, with a favourable safety profile. This combination could be a new option in this setting. FUNDING: Eli Lilly Italy. TRANSLATION: For the Italian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

FOLFOXIRI-Bevacizumab or FOLFOX-Panitumumab in Patients with Left-Sided RAS/BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Propensity Score-Based Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Doublets plus anti-epidermal growth factor receptors (EGFRs) are the preferred upfront option for patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Initial therapy with FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab is superior to doublets plus bevacizumab independently from primary tumor sidedness and RAS/BRAF status. No randomized comparison between FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab versus doublets plus anti-EGFRs is available in left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We selected patients with left-sided RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC treated with first-line FOLFOX-panitumumab or FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab in five randomized trials: Valentino, TRIBE, TRIBE2, STEAM, and CHARTA. A propensity score-based analysis was performed to compare FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab with FOLFOX-panitumumab. RESULTS: A total of 185 patients received FOLFOX-panitumumab and 132 received FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were 13.3 and 33.1 months in the FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab group compared with 11.4 and 30.3 months in the FOLFOX-panitumumab group (propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for PFS, 0.82; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-1.04; p = .11; propensity score-adjusted HR for OS, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.59-1.08; p = .14). No significant differences in overall response rate and disease control rate were observed. A statistically nonsignificant difference in favor of FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab was observed for OS after secondary resection of metastases. Chemotherapy-related adverse events were more frequent in the FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab group, with specific regard to grade 3 and 4 neutropenia (48% vs. 26%, adjusted p = .001). CONCLUSION: Although randomized comparison is lacking, both FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab and FOLFOX-panitumumab are valuable treatment options in left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A propensity score-based analysis of five trials was performed to compare FOLFOX-panitumumab versus FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab in left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). No significant differences were observed, but FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab achieved numerically superior survival outcomes versus FOLFOX-panitumumab. Chemotherapy-related adverse events were more frequent in the FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab group. These observations suggest that although doublet chemotherapy plus anti-EGFRs remains the preferred treatment in patients with left-sided RAS/BRAF wild-type mCRC, FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab is a valuable option able to provide similar, if not better, outcomes at the price of a moderate increase in toxicity and may be adopted based on patients' preference and potential impact on quality of life.

Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab and reintroduction after progression versus mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (TRIBE2): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The triplet FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab showed improved outcomes for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, compared with FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab. However, the actual benefit of the upfront exposure to the three cytotoxic drugs compared with a preplanned sequential strategy of doublets was not clear, and neither was the feasibility or efficacy of therapies after disease progression. We aimed to compare a preplanned strategy of upfront FOLFOXIRI followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression versus a sequence of mFOLFOX6 (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) and FOLFIRI doublets, in combination with bevacizumab. METHODS: TRIBE2 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised study of patients aged 18-75 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2, with unresectable, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, recruited from 58 Italian oncology units. Patients were stratified according to centre, ECOG performance status, primary tumour location, and previous adjuvant chemotherapy. A randomisation system incorporating a minimisation algorithm was used to randomly assign patients (1:1) via a masked web-based allocation procedure to two different treatment strategies. In the control group, patients received first-line mFOLFOX6 (85 mg/m2 of intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg intravenously over 30 min) followed by FOLFIRI (180 mg/m2 of intravenous irinotecan over 120 min concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin; 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab after disease progression. In the experimental group, patients received FOLFOXIRI (165 mg/m2 of intravenous irinotecan over 60 min; 85 mg/m2 intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 3200 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression. Combination treatments were repeated every 14 days for up to eight cycles followed by fluorouracil and leucovorin (at the same dose administered at the last induction cycle) plus bevacizumab maintenance until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, or consent withdrawal. Patients and investigators were not masked. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival 2, defined as the time from randomisation to disease progression on any treatment given after first disease progression, or death, analysed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. Study recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02339116. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2015, and May 15, 2017, 679 patients were randomly assigned and received treatment (340 in the control group and 339 in the experimental group). At data cut-off (July 30, 2019) median follow-up was 35·9 months (IQR 30·1-41·4). Median progression-free survival 2 was 19·2 months (95% CI 17·3-21·4) in the experimental group and 16·4 months (15·1-17·5) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74, 95% CI 0·63-0·88; p=0·0005). During the first-line treatment, the most frequent of all-cause grade 3-4 events were diarrhoea (57 [17%] vs 18 [5%]), neutropenia (168 [50%] vs 71 [21%]), and arterial hypertension (25 [7%] vs 35 [10%]) in the experimental group compared with the control group. Serious adverse events occurred in 84 (25%) patients in the experimental group and in 56 (17%) patients in the control group. Eight treatment-related deaths were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions, two intestinal perforations, two sepsis, one myocardial infarction, and one bleeding) and four in the control group (two occlusions, one perforation, and one pulmonary embolism). After first disease progression, no substantial differences in the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported between the control and experimental groups, with the exception of neurotoxicity, which was only reported in the experimental group (six [5%] of 132 patients). Serious adverse events after disease progression occurred in 20 (15%) patients in the experimental group and 25 (12%) in the control group. Three treatment-related deaths after first disease progression were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions and one sepsis) and four in the control group (one intestinal occlusion, one intestinal perforation, one cerebrovascular event, and one sepsis). INTERPRETATION: Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression seems to be a preferable therapeutic strategy to sequential administration of chemotherapy doublets, in combination with bevacizumab, for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer selected according to the study criteria. FUNDING: The GONO Cooperative Group, the ARCO Foundation, and F Hoffmann-La Roche.

EFFECT: a randomized phase II study of efficacy and impact on function of two doses of nab-paclitaxel as first-line treatment in older women with advanced breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available regarding the use of nab-paclitaxel in older patients with breast cancer. A weekly schedule is recommended, but there is a paucity of evidence regarding the optimal dose. We evaluated the efficacy of two different doses of weekly nab-paclitaxel, with a specific focus on their corresponding impact on patient function, in order to address the lack of data specifically relating to the older population. METHODS: EFFECT is an open-label, phase II trial wherein 160 women with advanced breast cancer aged ≥ 65 years were enrolled from 15 institutions within Italy. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/m2 (arm A) or 125 mg/m2 (arm B) on days 1, 8, and 15 on a 28-day cycle, as first-line treatment for advanced disease. The primary endpoint was event-free survival (EFS), wherein an event was defined as disease progression (PD), functional decline (FD), or death. In each arm, the null hypothesis that the median EFS would be ≤ 7 months was tested against a one-sided alternative according to the Brookmeyer Crowley test. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 32.6 months, 140 events were observed in 158 evaluable patients. Median EFS was 8.2 months (90% CI, 5.9-8.9; p = 0.188) in arm A vs 8.3 months (90% CI, 6.2-9.7, p = 0.078) in arm B. Progression-free survival, overall survival, and response rates were similar in both groups. A higher percentage of dose reductions and discontinuations due to adverse events (AEs) was noted in arm B. The most frequently reported non-haematological AEs were fatigue (grade [G] 2-3 toxicity occurrence in arm A vs B, 43% and 51%, respectively) and peripheral neuropathy (G2-3 arm A vs B, 19% and 38%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Pre-specified outcomes were similar in both treatment arms. However, 100 mg/m2 was significantly better tolerated with fewer neurotoxicity-related events, representing a more feasible dose to be recommended for older patients with advanced disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT, 2012-002707-18 . Registered on June 4, 2012. NIH ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02783222 . Retrospectively registered on May 26, 2016.

Phase 2 study of NAB-paclitaxel in SensiTivE and refractory relapsed small cell lung cancer (SCLC) (NABSTER TRIAL).

BACKGROUND: Despite sensitivity to first-line chemotherapy, most small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) patients relapse. In this setting, topotecan demonstrated modest activity with significant toxicity. Paclitaxel was also active. This study was designed to evaluate activity and safety of nab-paclitaxel in relapsed SCLC. METHODS: In this multicentre prospective Phase 2 trial, patients with refractory or sensitive SCLC progressed to first-line platinum-based chemotherapy received nab-paclitaxel 100 mg/smq on days 1, 8, 15 every 4 weeks up to six cycles, progressive disease or intolerable toxicity. Primary endpoint was investigator-assessed objective tumour response. Secondary endpoints were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of the 68 patients treated, partial response was 8% in the refractory cohort and 14% in the sensitive cohort. Most common toxicities of any grade were fatigue (54%), anaemia (38%), neutropenia (29%), leukopenia (26%) and diarrhoea (21%). Median PFS was similar in both refractory (1.8 months) and sensitive cohorts (1.9 months), while median OS was longer in sensitive one (6.6 versus 3.6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Although nab-paclitaxel has shown some modest anti-tumour activity in relapsed SCLC, associated with a favourable toxicity profile, the primary end-point of the study was not met. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial registration number is ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03219762.

AtezoTRIBE: a randomised phase II study of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab alone or in combination with atezolizumab as initial therapy for patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) reported remarkable achievements in several solid tumours. However, in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) promising results are limited to patients with deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-high) tumours due to their immune-enriched microenvironment. Combining cytotoxic agents and bevacizumab in mCRC with proficient mismatch repair/microsatellite stability (pMMR/MSS) could make ICIs efficacious by increasing the exposure of neoantigens, especially with highly active chemotherapy regimens, inducing immunogenic cell death, increasing the tumoral infiltration of CD8+ T-cells and reducing tumour-associated myeloid-derived suppressor cells. VEGF-blockade also plays an immunomodulatory role by inhibiting the expansion of T regulatory lymphocytes. Consistently with this rationale, a phase Ib study combined the anti-PDL-1 atezolizumab with FOLFOX/bevacizumab as first-line treatment of mCRC, irrespective of microsatellite status, and reported interesting activity and efficacy results, without safety concerns. Phase III trials led to identify FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as an upfront therapeutic option in selected mCRC patients. Drawing from these considerations, the combination of atezolizumab with an intensified upfront treatment (FOLFOXIRI) and bevacizumab could be worthy of investigation. METHODS: AtezoTRIBE is a prospective, open label, phase II, comparative trial in which initially unresectable and previously untreated mCRC patients, irrespective of microsatellite status, are randomized in a 1:2 ratio to receive up to 8 cycles of FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab alone or in combination with atezolizumab, followed by maintenance with bevacizumab plus 5-fluoruracil/leucovorin with or without atezolizumab according to treatment arm until disease progression. The primary endpoint is PFS. Assuming a median PFS of 12 months for standard arm, 201 patients should be randomized in a 1:2 ratio to detect a hazard ratio of 0.66 in favour of the experimental arm. A safety run-in phase including the first 6 patients enrolled in the FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab/atezolizumab arm was planned, and no unexpected adverse events or severe toxicities were highlighted by the Safety Monitoring Committee. DISCUSSION: The AtezoTRIBE study aims at assessing whether the addition of atezolizumab to an intensified chemotherapy plus bevacizumab might be an efficacious upfront strategy for the treatment of mCRC, irrespective of the microsatellite status. TRIAL REGISTRATION: AtezoTRIBE is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03721653 ), October 26th, 2018 and at EUDRACT (2017-000977-35), Februray 28th, 2017.

Clinical outcomes after palbociclib with or without endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer enrolled in the TREnd trial.

Currently, there is limited data regarding the effectiveness of standard subsequent line therapies such as endocrine therapy, chemotherapy, or targeted agents after progression on CDK4/6 inhibitor-based regimens. This paper describes time-to-treatment failure beyond progression on palbociclib or palbociclib+endocrine therapy in patients enrolled in the phase II, multicenter TREnd trial. Our results indicate that there is limited benefit from post-palbociclib treatment, regardless of the type of therapy received. A small population of long responders were identified who demonstrated ongoing benefit from a subsequent line of endocrine therapy after progression to palbociclib-based regimens. A translational research program is ongoing on this population of outliers.

Cytidine deaminase enzymatic activity is a prognostic biomarker in gemcitabine/platinum-treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a prospective validation study.

BACKGROUND: Cytidine deaminase (CDA) plays a crucial role in the degradation of gemcitabine. In our previous retrospective study, CDA enzymatic activity was the strongest prognostic biomarker of the activity and efficacy of platinum/gemcitabine combinations. The aim of this prospective study was to validate the prognostic role of CDA activity in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. METHODS: A total of 124 untreated patients received standard doses of platinum/gemcitabine. CDA activity was baseline measured in plasma samples by spectrophotometric assay. RESULTS: Using the median CDA level as cut-off, in the patients with high versus low CDA activity the response rate was 25.0% (95% CI, 14.7-37.8) and 54.1% (95% CI, 40.8-66.9), P = 0.0013; the 6-month progression rate was 34.5% (95% CI, 22.6-46.6) and 54.1% (95% CI, 40.9-65.6), HR = 2.01 (95% CI, 1.32-3.06), P < 0.001; the 1-year survival rate was 23.3% (95% CI, 13.6-34.6) and 57.3% (95% CI, 43.9-68.6), HR = 2.20 (95% CI, 1.46-3.34), P = 0.0002, respectively. CDA activity resulted to be an independent prognostic factor for progression and survival at multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This study validated prospectively the prognostic role of the CDA activity and should prompt larger and adequately designed randomised prospective studies to establish the predictive impact of this test in improving the outcome of selected patients.

Phase II Study of Preoperative Treatment with External Radiotherapy Plus Panitumumab in Low-Risk, Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer (RaP Study/STAR-03).

BACKGROUND: Treatment with fluoropyrimidines and concomitant long-course external radiotherapy (RTE) is the standard of care in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) preoperative chemoradiation. A randomized phase II study (RaP/STAR-03) was conducted that aimed to evaluate the activity and safety of the monoclonal antibody anti-epidermal growth factor receptor panitumumab as a single agent in combination with radiotherapy in low-risk LARC preoperative treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients had adenocarcinoma of the mid-low rectum, cT3N- or cT2-T3N+, KRAS wild-type status, and negative circumferential radial margin. Panitumumab was administered concomitant to RTE. Rectal surgery was performed 6-8 weeks after the end of preoperative treatment. The adjuvant chemotherapy regimen was FOLFOX. The primary endpoint was the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. The sample size was calculated using Simon's two-stage design. A pCR of 16% was considered to qualify the experimental treatment for further testing. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were enrolled in 13 Italian centers from October 2012 to October 2015. Three panitumumab infusions were administered in 92 (93.4%) patients. The RTE compliance was median dose 50.4 Gy; ≥28 fractions in 82 (83.7%) patients. Surgical treatment was performed in 92 (93.9%) patients, and no severe intraoperative complications were observed. A pCR was observed in 10 (10.9%) patients (95% confidence interval, 4.72%-17.07%). Pathological downstaging occurred in 45 (45.9%) patients. Grade 3 toxicities were observed in 22 (22.3%) patients, and the common adverse events were skin rash in 16 (16.3%) patients. No grade 4 toxicities were reported. CONCLUSION: The pCR rate (our primary endpoint), at only 10.9%, did not reach the specified level considered suitable for further testing. However, the analysis showed a good toxicity profile and compliance to concomitant administration of panitumumab and RTE in preoperative treatment of LARC. The pCR evaluation in all wild-type RAS is ongoing. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The aim of the RaP/STAR-03 study was to evaluate the activity and safety of monoclonal antibody anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) panitumumab as a single agent without chemotherapy in low-risk, locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) preoperative treatment. Nevertheless, the use of panitumumab in combination with radiotherapy in preoperative treatment in patients with KRAS wild type and low-risk LARC did not reach the pathologic complete response primary endpoint. This study showed a good toxicity profile and compliance to combination treatment. Further analysis of NRAS and BRAF on tissue and circulating levels of the EGFR ligands and vascular factors (soluble vascular endothelial growth factor, E-selectin) may provide insight on the potential molecular pathways involved in the anti-EGFR response.

The PANDA study: a randomized phase II study of first-line FOLFOX plus panitumumab versus 5FU plus panitumumab in RAS and BRAF wild-type elderly metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available regarding the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer elderly patients with anti-EGFR agents in combination with chemotherapy. FOLFOX plus panitumumab is a standard first-line option for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Slight adjustments in chemo-dosage are commonly applied in clinical practice to elderly patients, but those modified schedules have never been prospectively tested. Clinical definition of elderly (≥70 years old) patients that may deserve a more or less intensive combination therapy is still debated. Several geriatric screening tools have been developed to predict survival and risk of toxicity from treatment. Among those, the G8 screening tool has been tested in cancer patients showing the strongest prognostic value for overall survival, while the CRASH score can stratify patients according to an estimated risk of treatment-related toxicities. METHODS: The PANDA study is a prospective, open-label, multicenter, randomized phase II trial of first-line therapy with panitumumab in combination with dose-adjusted FOLFOX or with 5-fluorouracil monotherapy, in previously untreated elderly patients (≥70 years) with RAS and BRAF wild-type unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. RAS and BRAF analyses are centralized. Geriatric assessment by means of G8 and CRASH score is planned at baseline and G8 will be re-evaluated at disease progression. The primary endpoint is duration of progression-free survival in both arms. Secondary endpoints include prospective evaluation of the prognostic role of G8 score and the correlation of CRASH risk categories with toxicity. DISCUSSION: The PANDA study aims at exploring safety and efficacy of panitumumab in combination with FOLFOX or with 5FU/LV in elderly patients affected by RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, to identify the most promising treatment strategy in this setting. Additionally, this is the first trial in which the prognostic role of the G8 score will be prospectively evaluated. Results of this study will drive further experimental developments for one or both combinations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PANDA is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02904031 , July 11, 2016. PANDA is registered at EudraCT-No.: 2015-003888-10, September 3, 2015.

Evaluation of candidemia and antifungal consumption in a large tertiary care Italian hospital over a 12-year period.

PURPOSE: An early adequate antifungal therapy based on the knowledge of local epidemiology can reduce the candidemia-attributable mortality and the length of hospitalization. We performed a retrospective study to analyze the epidemiology of candidemia and the antifungal consumption in our hospital. METHODS: We analyzed Candida spp. isolated from the blood, and their susceptibility profile from 2005 to 2016 in Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy. We also performed a stratified analysis by clinical setting where Candida spp. were isolated (Medical Wards, Surgery, Intensive Care Unit-ICU). Then, we retrospectively reviewed the annual consumption of antifungal agents and calculated the defined daily dosing for 10,000 hospital days. RESULTS: The rate of candidemia was higher in ICU than other settings and Candida albicans was the first cause of candidemia (61.2%). After adjustment for hospital days, the rate of C. albicans showed a statistically significant parabolic trend (p < 0.001), with a peak of incidence in 2010. After 2010, we observed a reduction of candidemia due to both C. albicans and non-albicans species. Between 2005 and 2015, we reported an increasing increased use of echinocandins. As far as resistance profile is concerned, only one Candida glabrata isolate was resistant to caspofungin (1.9%) and 30% of C. glabrata were resistant to fluconazole. CONCLUSIONS: Our data describe C. albicans as the first cause of candidemia in all the studied settings and the low rate of echinocandin resistance, despite their increased use over the study period. ICU was confirmed as the setting with the highest incidence of candidemia.

New perspectives on the long-term outcome of segmental colectomy for Crohn's colitis: an observational study on 200 patients.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Surgical management of Crohn's colitis represents one of the most complex situations in colorectal surgery. Segmental colectomy (SC) and total abdominal colectomy with ileorectal anastomosis (TAC-IRA) are the most common procedures, but there are few available data on their long-term outcome. The aim of the present study was to analyze the long-term outcome of patients who underwent segmental colectomy for Crohn's colitis, with regard to the risk for total abdominal colectomy. METHODS: In this observational, monocentric, retrospective analysis, we analyzed patients who received a segmental colectomy for Crohn's colitis at our institution. The database was updated by asking patients to complete a questionnaire by telephone or at the outpatient clinic. Only patients followed up at our Hospital were included. Patients were followed up by a specialized multidisciplinary team (IBD Unit). The primary endpoint was the interval between segmental colectomy and, when performed, total abdominal colectomy. RESULTS: Between 1973 and 2014, 200 patients underwent segmental colectomy for Crohn's colitis. The median follow-up was 13.5 years (interquartile range [IQR] 7.8-21.5). Overall, 62 patients (31%) had a surgical recurrence, of these, 42 (21%) received total abdominal colectomy. At multivariate analysis, the presence of ≥ 3 sites (HR = 2.47; 95% CI 1.22-5.00; p = 0.018) and perianal disease (HR = 3.23; 95% CI 1.29-8.07; p = 0.006) proved to be risk factors for total abdominal colectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The risk for surgical recurrence after SC for Crohn's colitis is acceptable. We recommend a bowel-sparing policy for the treatment of Crohn's colitis in any case in which the extent of the disease at the moment of surgery makes the conservative approach achievable.

Serum LDH predicts benefit from bevacizumab beyond progression in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Different antiangiogenics are currently indicated in the second-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), following a first-line bevacizumab-containing treatment. The magnitude of benefit is limited, but no predictors of benefit have been identified. METHODS: A total of 184 mCRC patients progressing to a first-line bevacizumab-containing treatment were randomised in the BEBYP study to continue or not the antiangiogenic in combination with a second-line chemotherapy. A subgroup analysis according to baseline serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels was carried out. RESULTS: A significant interaction effect between LDH levels and treatment was found in terms of progression-free survival (PFS; P=0.002). Although patients with low LDH levels achieved significant PFS benefit from the continuation of bevacizumab (HR: 0.39 (95% CI: 0.23-0.65)), patients with high levels did not (HR: 1.10 (95% CI: 0.74-1.64)). Consistent results were reported in overall survival (OS; P=0.075). CONCLUSIONS: As preclinical evidence suggests that serum LDH may be a marker of tumour angiogenesis activation, low levels may indicate that bevacizumab is still efficacious in inhibiting angiogenesis. Validation of present results in subgroup analyses of other randomised trials of second-line angiogenesis inhibitors is warranted.

Initial therapy with FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: A fluoropyrimidine plus irinotecan or oxaliplatin, combined with bevacizumab (a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor), is standard first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Before the introduction of bevacizumab, chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) showed superior efficacy as compared with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI). In a phase 2 study, FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab showed promising activity and an acceptable rate of adverse effects. METHODS: We randomly assigned 508 patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer to receive either FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (control group) or FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (experimental group). Up to 12 cycles of treatment were administered, followed by fluorouracil plus bevacizumab until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 12.1 months in the experimental group, as compared with 9.7 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.90; P=0.003). The objective response rate was 65% in the experimental group and 53% in the control group (P=0.006). Overall survival was longer, but not significantly so, in the experimental group (31.0 vs. 25.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.00; P=0.054). The incidences of grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity, stomatitis, diarrhea, and neutropenia were significantly higher in the experimental group. CONCLUSIONS: FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab, as compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab, improved the outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and increased the incidence of some adverse events. (Funded by the Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00719797.).

TRIBE-2: a phase III, randomized, open-label, strategy trial in unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer patients by the GONO group.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab is a standard first-line treatment for unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Different chemotherapy backbones may be chosen, including one to three drugs, based on patients' general conditions and comorbidities, treatments' objectives, and disease characteristics. TRIBE trial demonstrated a significant advantage in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival for FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. Based on recent evidence, the de-intensification of the upfront regimen after 4-6 months of treatment is nowadays regarded as a valuable option. Moreover, the prolonged inhibition of angiogenesis, and in particular the continuation of bevacizumab beyond the evidence of disease progression, is an efficacious strategy in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients. METHODS/DESIGN: TRIBE-2 is a prospective, open-label, multicentric phase III randomized trial in which unresectable and previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer patients are randomized to receive first-line FOLFOX plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab after disease progression or FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab followed by the re-introduction of the same regimen after disease progression. The primary endpoint is to compare the efficacy of the two proposed treatment strategies in terms of Progression Free Survival 2. DISCUSSION: The TRIBE-2 study aims at answering the question whether the upfront use of FOLFOXIRI improves the clinical outcome of metastatic colorectal cancer patients, when compared with the pre-planned, sequential use of oxaliplatin-based and irinotecan-based doublets. Both proposed treatment strategies are designed to exploit the effectiveness of the prolonged inhibition of angiogenesis, alternating short (up to 4 months) induction periods and less intensive maintenance phases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TRIBE2 is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02339116 . January 12, 2015. TRIBE-2 is registered at EUDRACT 2014-004436-19, October 10, 2014.