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

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

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.

Educational pathways of childhood cancer survivors-a parental cohort.

PURPOSE: Using the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), we examined the educational and vocational pathways of two comparable, parental cohorts: childhood cancer survivors (CCS) and their siblings. Both cohorts had previously entered parenthood. The aim of the study was to elucidate whether childhood cancer and treatment affect the educational pathways chosen by parents who are former patients. METHODS: We analysed data that was collected from childhood cancer survivors and their siblings regarding their offspring's health within the FeCt Multicentre Offspring Study (conducted 2013-2016). We evaluated and compared the professional pathways of (i) all participating survivors and all participating siblings and those of (ii) survivors and their biological siblings. RESULTS: Overall information on parental gender, age, and education were available from 1077 survivors and 246 siblings (group (i)). The majority of participants were female with a mean age of 35.2 (survivor) and 37.9 (sibling) years at time of survey. For subgroup (ii), analysis information was available on 191 survivors and 210 siblings. Fathers achieved university degrees significantly more often than mothers (p = 0.003 (i), p < 0.001 (ii)). The distribution of professional education was not significantly different between cancer survivors and siblings in either cohort (i) or (ii). CONCLUSIONS: Regarding our research on the educational and vocational trajectory of CCS, patients can be reassured that family planning and vocational education are well compatible. Inequalities regarding gender-specific educational pathways remain to be addressed. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: CCS should monitor their fertility status regularly and, if necessary, cryopreserve germ cells or tissue in order to optimize their family planning. Educational opportunities should be pursued as desired and with confidence. Local as well as European aftercare programs can assist with family planning and education.

Impact of sex on the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus fluorouracil and folinic acid versus fluorouracil and folinic acid alone as maintenance therapy in RAS WT metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Subgroup analysis of the PanaMa-study (AIO-KRK-0212).

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are usually conducted irrespective of sex. Sex-associated differences relating to safety and efficacy in the treatment of mCRC, however, are gaining interest. METHODS: PanaMa investigated the efficacy of panitumumab (Pmab) plus fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) versus FU/FA alone after induction therapy with six cycles of FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab in patients with RAS wild-type mCRC. In this post hoc analysis, the study population was stratified for sex. Evaluated efficacy endpoints during maintenance treatment were progression-free survival (PFS, primary endpoint of the trial), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate during maintenance therapy. Safety endpoints were rates of any grade and grade 3/4 adverse events during maintenance therapy. RESULTS: In total, 165 male and 83 female patients were randomized and treated. Male and female patients showed numerically better objective response rates with Pmab, without reaching statistical significance. Male patients derived a significant benefit from the addition of Pmab to maintenance treatment with regard to PFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.88; P = 0.006] that was not observed in female patients (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.53-1.35; P = 0.491). The better PFS for male patients treated with Pmab did not translate into improved OS (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.55-1.30; P = 0.452). Female patients showed numerically improved OS when treated with Pmab. There was no difference in the total of grade ≥3 adverse events during maintenance regarding sex (P = 0.791). Female patients, however, had a higher rate of any grade nausea, diarrhea and stomatitis. CONCLUSIONS: In the PanaMa trial, the addition of Pmab to maintenance treatment of RAS wild-type mCRC with FU/FA improved the outcome in terms of the primary endpoint (PFS) particularly in male patients. Female patients did not show the same benefit while experiencing higher rates of adverse events. Our results support the development of sex-specific protocols.