First-line nab-paclitaxel plus carboplatin for patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Final results of the NEPTUN study.

Real-world data on the first-line treatment of patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are still limited. The NEPTUN study evaluated effectiveness and safety of first-line nab-paclitaxel (Abraxane) plus carboplatin (nab-P/C) in patients with advanced NSCLC in routine clinical practice in Germany. Patients included in our study were aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC and with decision for first-line nab-P/C in routine clinical practice. Primary objective was 6-month progression-free survival rate (PFS6), secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. From 2016 to 2019, 408 patients from 75 sites were enrolled. PFS6 was 39.5% (95% CI: 34.2-44.8), median PFS was 5.1 months (95% CI: 4.6-5.6), ORR was 42.9% (95% CI: 37.7-48.2). Median OS was 10.5 months (95% CI: 9.2-11.6). In subgroup analyses, median OS for squamous vs non-squamous histology was 11.5 months (95% CI: 9.2-13.8) vs 9.8 months (95% CI: 8.1-11.3) and for patients aged ≥70 vs <70 years median OS was 12.4 months (95% CI: 9.8-15.1) vs 9.6 months (95% CI: 7.7-11.1). Adverse events (AEs) related to nab-paclitaxel were reported in 247 (66.4%) patients, while carboplatin-related AEs were documented in 224 (60.2%) patients. Most frequently related AEs were leukopenia (22.3%) for nab-paclitaxel and anemia (20.2%) for carboplatin. Nab-P/C-related deaths were reported in 2 (0.5%) patients (sepsis and neutropenic sepsis). No new or unexpected safety signals emerged. These results support the effectiveness and safety of first-line nab-P/C in patients with advanced NSCLC reported in the pivotal trial and highlight the clinical value of this regimen in the real-world setting.

Standard diametric versus volumetric early tumor shrinkage as a predictor of survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: subgroup findings of the randomized, open-label phase III trial FIRE-3 / AIO KRK-0306.

OBJECTIVES: Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) quantifies the objective response at the first assessment during systemic treatment. In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), ETS gains relevance as an early available surrogate for patient survival. The aim of this study was to increase the predictive accuracy of ETS by using semi-automated volumetry instead of standard diametric measurements. METHODS: Diametric and volumetric ETS were retrospectively calculated in 253 mCRC patients who received 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) combined with either cetuximab or bevacizumab. The association of diametric and volumetric ETS with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was compared. RESULTS: Continuous diametric and volumetric ETS predicted survival similarly regarding concordance indices (p > .05). In receiver operating characteristics, a volumetric threshold of 45% optimally identified short-term survivors. For patients with volumetric ETS ≥ 45% (vs < 45%), median OS was longer (32.5 vs 19.0 months, p < .001) and the risk of death reduced for the first and second year (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.25, p < .001, and HR = 0.39, p < .001). Patients with ETS ≥ 45% had a reduced risk of progressive disease only for the first 6 months (HR = 0.26, p < .001). These survival times and risks were comparable to those of diametric ETS ≥ 20% (vs < 20%). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of ETS in predicting survival was not increased by volumetric instead of diametric measurements. Continuous diametric and volumetric ETS similarly predicted survival, regardless of whether patients received cetuximab or bevacizumab. A volumetric ETS threshold of 45% and a diametric ETS threshold of 20% equally identified short-term survivors. KEY POINTS: • ETS based on volumetric measurements did not predict survival more accurately than ETS based on standard diametric measurements. • Continuous diametric and volumetric ETS predicted survival similarly in patients receiving FOLFIRI with cetuximab or bevacizumab. • A volumetric ETS threshold of 45% and a diametric ETS threshold of 20% equally identified short-term survivors.

Early weight loss is an independent risk factor for shorter survival and increased side effects in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing first-line treatment within the randomized Phase III trial FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306).

Body weight loss is frequently regarded as negatively related to outcomes in patients with malignancies. This retrospective analysis of the FIRE-3 study evaluated the evolution of body weight in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). FIRE-3 evaluated first-line FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) plus cetuximab or bevacizumab in mCRC patients with RAS-WT tumors (ie, wild-type in KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). The prognostic and predictive relevance of early weight loss (EWL) regarding patient outcomes and treatment side effects were evaluated. Retrospective data on body weight during first 6 months of treatment were evaluated (N = 326). To correlate with efficacy endpoints and treatment side effects, patients were grouped according to clinically significant EWL ≥5% and <5% at Month 3. Age constituted the only significant predictor of EWL following a linear relationship with the corresponding log odds ratio (P = .016). EWL was significantly associated with the incident frequencies of diarrhea, edema, fatigue, nausea and vomiting. Further, a multivariate analysis revealed EWL to be an independent negative prognostic factor for overall survival (32.4 vs 21.1 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13-2.38; P = .0098) and progression-free survival (11.8 vs 9.0 months; HR: 1.72; 95% CI = 1.18-2.5; P = .0048). In conclusion, EWL during systemic treatment against mCRC is significantly associated with patient age. Patients exhibiting EWL had worse survival and higher frequencies of adverse events. Early preventative measures targeted at weight maintenance should be evaluated, especially in elderly patients being at highest risk of EWL.

Efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab vs FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in 1st-line treatment of older patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: an analysis of the randomised trial FIRE-3.

BACKGROUND: The evidence on the efficacy of anticancer therapy is limited in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This retrospective analysis of phase III FIRE-3 trial assesses the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab according to the patients' age and sidedness of primary tumour. METHODS: The study endpoints overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between younger (<65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients, followed by stratification according to primary tumour sidedness. ORR was compared using Fisher´s exact test, OS and PFS were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariate Cox regression analyses assessed hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for OS and PFS. RESULTS: Overall, older patients with RAS WT tumours had a significantly shorter OS when compared to younger patients (25.9 months vs 29.3 months, HR 1.29; P = 0.02). Also the proportion of right-sided tumours was significantly greater in older patients (27.1% vs 17.9%; P = 0.029). Secondary resection rates were numerically higher in younger patients (25.4% vs. 17.6%, P = 0.068) than in older patients. This was primarily seen in the Cetuximab arm, where older patients underwent less likely resection (13.1% vs. 26%; P = 0.02). Older patients with left-sided tumours showed only a trend towards greater efficacy of cetuximab (HR 0.86; P = 0.38). In patients with right-sided primary tumours, older patients did not appear to benefit from cetuximab in contrast to younger patients (≥65 years: 16.6 months vs 23.6 months, HR 1.1; P = 0.87; <65 years: 21.9 months vs 16.4 months HR 1.5; P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: In FIRE-3, OS was generally shorter in older patients in comparison to younger patients. This could be explained by the overrepresentation of right-sided tumours and a lower secondary resection rate in older patients. The efficacy of targeted therapy was dependent on tumour sidedness in older patients with RAS WT mCRC. CLINICAL TRIAL: FIRE-3 (NCT00433927).

Mutational profiles of metastatic colorectal cancer treated with FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab before and after secondary resection (AIO KRK 0306; FIRE-3).

Secondary resection of metastases is recommended in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Data describing changes in mutational profiles of corresponding primary tumor and metastatic tissue after conversion treatment are limited. Next generation sequencing was performed in formalin-fixed mCRC samples from patients of the FIRE-3 trial (FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab) before treatment start (baseline) and after secondary resection of metastases (post baseline). Changes of mutational profiles and tumor mutational burden (TMB) were assessed within a post-hoc analysis. Median overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR) were compared between treatment arms. Paired tumor samples were obtained from 25 patients (19 RAS wild-type, 6 RAS mutant by pyrosequencing). ORR (92.0% vs 58.0%) and OS (60.8 vs 35.4 months, hazard ratio = 0.39 [95% CI 0.14-1.12], P = .08) were higher for patients receiving cetuximab. After conversion therapy, 56 alterations (42 in the cetuximab and 14 in the bevacizumab arm) were newly observed in 18 patients (9 each treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab). Gains (n = 21) and losses (n = 21) of alterations occurred during cetuximab-based treatment, while mainly gains of alterations occurred during bevacizumab (n = 10). Three of nine patients treated with cetuximab that presented a change of mutational profiles, developed resistance to cetuximab. Mutational profiles were largely comparable before and after treatment with anti-VEGF or anti-EGFR directed monoclonal antibodies after secondary resection. Mutations associated with resistance to anti-EGFR antibodies were observed in only one-third of patients.

Quality of life and outcome of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine: Real-life results from the prospective QOLIXANE trial of the Platform for Outcome, Quality of Life and Translational Research on Pancreatic Cancer registry.

Few data exist on health-related quality of life (QoL) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) receiving first-line chemotherapy (Awad L ZE, Mesbah M Boston, MA. Applying survival data methodology to analyze quality of life data, in Mesbah M, Cole BF, Ting Lee M-L (eds): Statistical Methods for Quality of Life Studies: Design, Measurements and Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002). The QOLIXANE study is a prospective, noninterventional, multicenter substudy of the Platform for Outcome, Quality of Life and Translational Research on Pancreatic Cancer (PARAGON) registry, which evaluated QoL in patients with mPC receiving first-line gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy in real-life setting. QoL was prospectively measured via EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires at baseline and every month thereafter. Therapy and efficacy parameters were prospectively collected. Main objectives were the rate of patients without deterioration of Global Health Status/QoL (GHS/QoL) at 3 and 6 months. Six hundred patients were enrolled in 95 German study sites. Median progression-free survival was 5.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2-6.3). Median overall survival (OS) was 8.9 months (95% CI, 7.9-10.2), while median time to deterioration of GHS/QoL was 4.7 months (95% CI, 4.0-5.6). With a baseline GHS/QoL score of 46 (SD, 22.8), baseline QoL of the patients was severely impaired, in most cases due to loss in role functioning and fatigue. In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, 61% and 41% of patients had maintained GHS/QoL after 3 and 6 months, respectively. However, in the QoL response analysis, 35% and 19% of patients had maintained (improved or stable) GHS/QoL after 3 and 6 months, respectively, while 14% and 9% had deteriorated GHS/QoL with the remaining patients being nonevaluable. In the Cox regression analysis, GHS/QoL scores strongly predicted survival with a hazard ratio of 0.86 (P < .0001). Patients with mPC have poor QoL at baseline that deteriorates within a median of 4.7 months. Treatment with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel is associated with maintained QoL in relevant proportions of patients. However, overall, results remain poor, reflecting the aggressive nature of the disease.

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab for advanced colorectal cancer: final survival and per-protocol analysis of FIRE-3, a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab plus FOLFIRI improved overall survival compared with bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI in KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in FIRE-3, but no corresponding benefit was found for progression-free survival. This analysis aimed to determine whether cetuximab improves response and survival versus bevacizumab among response-evaluable patients receiving first-line FOLFIRI for RAS wild-type mCRC and the effect of primary tumour side on outcomes. METHODS: The intent-to-treat population included 593 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type mCRC. Further testing identified 400 patients with extended RAS wild-type disease; of these, 352 (88%) who received ≥3 cycles of therapy and had ≥1 post-baseline scan were evaluable for response and constituted the per-protocol population (169 cetuximab and 183 bevacizumab). Patients received 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) with either weekly cetuximab or biweekly bevacizumab given on day 1 of each 14-day cycle until response, progression or toxicity occurred. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) in the per-protocol population. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The effect of primary tumour location was evaluated. RESULTS: Median OS in the RAS wild-type population was 31 vs 26 months in the cetuximab and bevacizumab groups, respectively (HR 0.76, P = 0.012). In the per-protocol population, outcomes favoured cetuximab for ORR (77% vs 65%, P = 0.014) and median OS (33 vs 26 months, HR 0.75, P = 0.011), while PFS was comparable between groups. The advantage of cetuximab over bevacizumab occurred only in patients with left-sided primary tumours. CONCLUSIONS: FOLFIRI plus cetuximab resulted in a significantly higher ORR and longer OS compared to FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab among patients with left-sided tumours. The superior response associated with cetuximab may particularly benefit patients with symptomatic tumours or borderline-resectable metastases. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00433927.

Perioperative chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel versus fluorouracil or capecitabine plus cisplatin and epirubicin for locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4): a randomised, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel-based chemotherapy is effective in metastatic gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. This study reports on the safety and efficacy of the docetaxel-based triplet FLOT (fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel) as a perioperative therapy for patients with locally advanced, resectable tumours. METHODS: In this controlled, open-label, phase 2/3 trial, we randomly assigned 716 patients with histologically-confirmed advanced clinical stage cT2 or higher or nodal positive stage (cN+), or both, resectable tumours, with no evidence of distant metastases, via central interactive web-based-response system, to receive either three pre-operative and three postoperative 3-week cycles of 50 mg/m2 epirubicin and 60 mg/m2 cisplatin on day 1 plus either 200 mg/m2 fluorouracil as continuous intravenous infusion or 1250 mg/m2 capecitabine orally on days 1 to 21 (ECF/ECX; control group) or four preoperative and four postoperative 2-week cycles of 50 mg/m2 docetaxel, 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin, 200 mg/m2 leucovorin and 2600 mg/m2 fluorouracil as 24-h infusion on day 1 (FLOT; experimental group). The primary outcome of the trial was overall survival (superiority) analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01216644. FINDINGS: Between Aug 8, 2010, and Feb 10, 2015, 716 patients were randomly assigned to treatment in 38 German hospitals or with practice-based oncologists. 360 patients were assigned to ECF/ECX and 356 patients to FLOT. Overall survival was increased in the FLOT group compared with the ECF/ECX group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·77; 95% confidence interval [CI; 0.63 to 0·94]; median overall survival, 50 months [38·33 to not reached] vs 35 months [27·35 to 46·26]). The number of patients with related serious adverse events (including those occurring during hospital stay for surgery) was similar in the two groups (96 [27%] in the ECF/ECX group vs 97 [27%] in the FLOT group), as was the number of toxic deaths (two [<1%] in both groups). Hospitalisation for toxicity occurred in 94 patients (26%) in the ECF/ECX group and 89 patients (25%) in the FLOT group. INTERPRETATION: In locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, perioperative FLOT improved overall survival compared with perioperative ECF/ECX. FUNDING: The German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe), Sanofi-Aventis, Chugai, and Stiftung Leben mit Krebs Foundation.

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a post-hoc analysis of tumour dynamics in the final RAS wild-type subgroup of this randomised open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: FIRE-3 compared first-line 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The same study also reported an exploratory analysis of a subgroup of patients with tumours that were wild-type at other RAS genes (KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). We report here efficacy results for the FIRE-3 final RAS (KRAS/NRAS, exons 2-4) wild-type subgroup. Moreover, new metrics of tumour dynamics were explored during a centralised radiological review to investigate how FOLFIRI plus cetuximab conferred overall survival benefit in the absence of differences in investigator-assessed objective responses and progression-free survival. METHODS: FIRE-3 was a randomised phase 3 trial comparing FOLFIRI plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary endpoint of the FIRE-3 study was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 in the intention-to-treat population. A centralised radiological review of CT scans was done in a post-hoc analysis to assess objective response according to RECIST 1.1, early tumour shrinkage, depth of response, duration of response, and time to response in the final RAS wild-type subgroup. Comparisons between treatment groups with respect to objective response rate and early tumour shrinkage were made using Fisher's exact test (two-sided), while differences in depth of response were investigated with a two-sided Wilcoxon test. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433927. FINDINGS: In the final RAS wild-type population (n=400), median overall survival was better in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group than the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group (33·1 months [95% CI 24·5-39·4] vs 25·0 months [23·0-28·1]; hazard ratio 0·70 [0·54-0·90]; p=0·0059), although investigator-assessed objective response and progression-free survival were comparable between treatment groups. Centralised radiological review of CT-assessable patients (n=330) showed that the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (113 of 157, 72·0% [95% CI 64·3-78·8] vs 97 of 173, 56·1% [48·3-63·6]; p=0·0029), frequency of early tumour shrinkage (107 of 157, 68·2% [60·3-75·4] vs 85 of 173, 49·1% [41·5-56·8]; p=0·0005), and median depth of response (-48·9% [-54·3 to -42·0] vs -32·3% [-38·2 to -29·2]; p<0·0001) were significantly better in extended RAS wild-type patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus those receiving FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. No differences in duration of response and time to response were observed between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: This analysis provides a new framework that connects alternative metrics of response to overall survival. Superior response-related outcome parameters, such as early tumour shrinkage and depth of response, obtained by centralised radiological review correlated with the overall survival benefit conferred by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the extended RAS wild-type subgroup. FUNDING: Merck KGaA and Pfizer.

Sunitinib added to FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI in patients with chemorefractory advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or lower esophagus: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase II AIO trial with serum biomarker program.

BACKGROUND: As a multi-targeted anti-angiogenic receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) inhibitor sunitinib (SUN) has been established for renal cancer and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. In advanced refractory esophagogastric cancer patients, monotherapy with SUN was associated with good tolerability but limited tumor response. METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase II clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of SUN as an adjunct to second and third-line FOLFIRI (NCT01020630). Patients were randomized to receive 6-week cycles including FOLFIRI plus sodium folinate (Na-FOLFIRI) once every two weeks and SUN or placebo (PL) continuously for four weeks followed by a 2-week rest period. The primary study endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Preplanned serum analyses of VEGF-A, VEGF-D, VEGFR2 and SDF-1α were performed retrospectively. RESULTS: Overall, 91 patients were randomized, 45 in each group (one patient withdrew). The main grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia and leucopenia, observed in 56 %/20 % and 27 %/16 % for FOLFIRI + SUN/FOLFIRI + PL, respectively. Median PFS was similar, 3.5 vs. 3.3 months (hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95 % CI 0.70-1.74, P = 0.66) for FOLFIRI + SUN vs. FOLFIRI + PL, respectively. For FOLFIRI + SUN, a trend towards longer median overall survival (OS) compared with placebo was observed (10.4 vs. 8.9 months, HR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.50-1.34, one-sided P = 0.21). In subgroup serum analyses, significant changes in VEGF-A (P = 0.017), VEGFR2 (P = 0.012) and VEGF-D (P < 0.001) serum levels were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Although sunitinib combined with FOLFIRI did not improve PFS and response in chemotherapy-resistant gastric cancer, a trend towards better OS was observed. Further biomarker-driven studies with other anti-angiogenic RTK inhibitors are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered prospectively in the NCT Clinical Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) under NCT01020630 on November 23, 2009 after approval by the leading ethics committee of the Medical Association of Rhineland-Palatinate, Mainz, in coordination with the participating ethics committees (see Additional file 2) on September 16, 2009.

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab and bevacizumab have both been shown to improve outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when added to chemotherapy regimens; however, their comparative effectiveness when partnered with first-line fluorouracil, folinic acid, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) is unknown. We aimed to compare these agents in patients with KRAS (exon 2) codon 12/13 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18-75 years with stage IV, histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, an estimated life expectancy of greater than 3 months, and adequate organ function, from centres in Germany and Austria. Patients were centrally randomised by fax (1:1) to FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (using permuted blocks of randomly varying size), stratified according to ECOG performance status, number of metastatic sites, white blood cell count, and alkaline phosphatase concentration. The primary endpoint was objective response analysed by intention to treat. The study has completed recruitment, but follow-up of participants is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433927. FINDINGS: Between Jan 23, 2007, and Sept 19, 2012, 592 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours were randomly assigned and received treatment (297 in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group and 295 in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group). 184 (62·0%, 95% CI 56·2-67·5) patients in the cetuximab group achieved an objective response compared with 171 (58·0%, 52·1-63·7) in the bevacizumab group (odds ratio 1·18, 95% CI 0·85-1·64; p=0·18). Median progression-free survival was 10·0 months (95% CI 8·8-10·8) in the cetuximab group and 10·3 months (9·8-11·3) in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·88-1·26; p=0·55); however, median overall survival was 28·7 months (95% CI 24·0-36·6) in the cetuximab group compared with 25·0 months (22·7-27·6) in the bevacizumab group (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·62-0·96; p=0·017). Safety profiles were consistent with the known side-effects of the study drugs. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both treatment groups were haematotoxicity (73 [25%] of 297 patients in the cetuximab group vs 62 [21%] of 295 patients in the bevacizumab group), skin reactions (77 [26%] vs six [2%]), and diarrhoea (34 [11%] vs 40 [14%]). INTERPRETATION: Although the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response did not significantly differ between the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab and FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab groups, the association with longer overall survival suggests that FOLFIRI plus cetuximab could be the preferred first-line regimen for patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: Merck KGaA.

Gemcitabine plus erlotinib followed by capecitabine versus capecitabine plus erlotinib followed by gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer: final results of a randomised phase 3 trial of the 'Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie' (AIO-PK0104).

OBJECTIVE: AIO-PK0104 investigated two treatment strategies in advanced pancreatic cancer (PC): a reference sequence of gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by 2nd-line capecitabine was compared with a reverse experimental sequence of capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine. METHODS: 281 patients with PC were randomly assigned to 1st-line treatment with either gemcitabine plus erlotinib or capecitabine plus erlotinib. In case of treatment failure (eg, disease progression or toxicity), patients were allocated to 2nd-line treatment with the comparator cytostatic drug without erlotinib. The primary study endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF) after 1st- and 2nd-line therapy (TTF2; non-inferiority design). KRAS exon 2 mutations were analysed in archival tumour tissue from 173 of the randomised patients. RESULTS: Of the 274 eligible patients, 43 had locally advanced and 231 had metastatic disease; 140 (51%) received 2nd-line chemotherapy. Median TTF2 was estimated with 4.2 months in both arms; median overall survival was 6.2 months with gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by capecitabine and 6.9 months with capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine, respectively (HR 1.02, p=0.90). TTF for 1st-line therapy (TTF1) was significantly prolonged with gemcitabine/erlotinib compared to capecitabine/erlotinib (3.2 vs 2.2 months; HR 0.69, p=0.0034). Skin rash was associated with both TTF2 (rash grade 0/1/2-4:2.9/4.3/6.7 months, p<0.0001) and survival (3.4/7.0/9.6 months, p<0.0001). Each arm showed a safe and manageable toxicity profile during 1st- and 2nd-line therapy. A KRAS wild-type status (52/173 patients, 30%) was associated with an improved overall survival (HR 1.68, p=0.005). CONCLUSION: Both treatment strategies are feasible and demonstrated comparable efficacy; KRAS may serve as biomarker in patients with advanced PC treated with erlotinib.

Subcutaneous rituximab in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma and follicular lymphoma: Final results of the non-interventional study MabSCale.

BACKGROUND: Rituximab has become a standard treatment for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy of rituximab in combination with standard chemotherapies in the treatment of follicular lymphoma (FL) and diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) patients. This non-interventional study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of subcutaneous (SC) rituximab in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Adult patients with previously untreated CD20 positive DLBCL or FL who received rituximab SC and chemotherapy as first-line treatment were observed between 07/2014 and 07/2019 at 99 institutions in Germany. Primary endpoint was the (unconfirmed) complete remission (CR/CRu) rate. Primary outcome was analyzed inferentially; other variables were evaluated descriptively. RESULTS: Overall 583 patients (247 FL; 336 DLBCL) were evaluated. CR/CRu rates were 51.4% (95% CI: 45.2; 57.6) in the FL set and 48.5% (95% CI: 43.2; 53.8) in the DLBCL set. Regarding progression-free survival in the FL group, the probability of being event-free was 94.2% in the first year and 86.2% in the second year. An overall response was achieved in 85.8% (FL) and 85.4% patients (DLBCL). Patient satisfaction at the end of study with the time saving simplification of the SC vs. intravenous route was 98% for FL and 97% for DLBCL. 45.3% of FL and 47.0% of DLBCL patients experienced an adverse event of grade ≥3. Serious adverse events of grade ≥3 occurred in 27.9% FL and 32.4% DLBCL patients, with the highest incidences for leucopenia, anemia, nausea, and fatigue. No new safety signals were detected. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirmed the effectiveness and safety of rituximab SC in both the FL and the DLBCL group. Satisfaction of patients and nurses with SC administration was high.

Usage of Complementary and Alternative Methods, Lifestyle, and Psychological Variables in Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND/AIM: People who are undergoing cancer treatment often ask themselves what they can do in addition to conventional medical therapy with regard to nutrition, activity, and complementary methods. However, we know little about the motivation why people opt for one or the other measure. The aim of this study was therefore to examine the extent of physical activity (PA), healthy nutrition, and the use of complementary methods in relation to both demographic and psychological data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was used to collect data on demographic data, resilience, coherence, self-efficacy, spirituality, satisfaction, and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) behavior, PA, and diet. Between March and July 2021, data from 446 patients were collected. Regression models and correlation analyzes were used to examine the associations between CAM use, diet and PA with the other variables surveyed. RESULTS: CAM usage could only be predicted based on the patient's spirituality. Women used CAM more often and ate more healthily. Healthy eating was also related to younger age, shorter medical history, resilience, satisfaction, and coherence. In addition, the results showed that daily PA was related to the level of resilience, spirituality, and self-efficacy. CONCLUSION: Which people or why patients use CAM remains a question to be further investigated. Our data suggest that CAM seeks to address similar needs that others find in spirituality. In order to promote a healthy diet and PA in cancer patients in the future, various psychological variables seem conceivable. Resilience stands out, which is related to an overall healthier lifestyle.

Health-related quality of life in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with fluorouracil and folinic acid with or without panitumumab as maintenance therapy: a prespecified secondary analysis of the PanaMa (AIO KRK 0212) trial.

BACKGROUND: The PanaMa trial demonstrated significant benefit in progression-free survival with the addition of panitumumab (Pmab) to fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) as maintenance therapy following first-line induction therapy with FOLFOX/Pmab in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Here, we report health-related quality of life (HRQOL) analyses from the PanaMa trial. METHODS: HRQOL outcomes were evaluated using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) at every cycle of therapy until disease progression/death. HRQOL outcomes were mean and individual changes in EORTC QLQ-C30 from baselines (before induction therapy and before maintenance therapy) to each cycle of treatment. Comparative analyses were performed by randomisation status and treatment arm for induction- and maintenance-therapy, respectively. The trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01991873). RESULTS: At least one HRQOL questionnaire was completed by a total of 349/377 (93%) patients who received induction therapy, and by 237/248 (96%) patients who were randomised and received maintenance therapy. During induction therapy, most HRQOL dimensions remained stable or showed improvement, while appetite loss and diarrhoea significantly deteriorated. During maintenance therapy, HRQOL dimensions remained stable, while those that deteriorated during induction therapy showed significant improvement, without significant differences between the treatment arms. CONCLUSION: Maintenance therapy improves HRQOL dimensions that initially deteriorated during induction therapy while stabilising HRQOL in other dimensions. The addition of Pmab to FU/FA as maintenance therapy in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer prolongs progression-free survival without negative impact on HRQOL.

A randomized, phase III trial of capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: the AIO KRK 0110 trial/ML22011 trial.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized trials have indicated that combination chemotherapy applied in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) does not significantly improve overall survival when compared to the sequential use of cytotoxic agents (CAIRO, MRC Focus, FFCD 2000-05). The present study investigates the question whether this statement holds true also for bevacizumab-based first-line treatment including escalation- and de-escalation strategies. METHODS/DESIGN: The AIO KRK 0110/ML22011 trial is a two-arm, multicenter, open-label randomized phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of capecitabine plus bevacizumab (Cape-Bev) versus capecitabine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (CAPIRI-Bev) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-1, will be assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) bid for 14d (d1-14) plus bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (d1) q3w (Arm A) or capecitabine 800 mg/m(2) BID for 14d (d1-14), irinotecan 200 mg/m(2) (d1) and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (d1) q3w (Arm B). Patients included into this trial are required to consent to the analysis of tumour tissue and blood for translational investigations. In Arm A, treatment escalation from Cape-Bev to CAPIRI-Bev is recommended in case of progressive disease (PD). In Arm B, de-escalation from CAPIRI-Bev to Cape-Bev is possible after 6 months of treatment or in case of irinotecan-associated toxicity. Re-escalation to CAPIRI-Bev after PD is possible. The primary endpoint is time to failure of strategy (TFS). Secondary endpoints are overall response rate (ORR), overall survival, progression-free survival, safety and quality of life. CONCLUSION: The AIO KRK 0110 trial is designed for patients with disseminated, but asymptomatic mCRC who are not potential candidates for surgical resection of metastasis. Two bevacizumab-based strategies are compared: one starting as single-agent chemotherapy (Cape-Bev) allowing escalation to CAPIRI-Bev and another starting with combination chemotherapy (CAPIRI-Bev) and allowing de-escalation to Cape-Bev and subsequent re-escalation if necessary. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01249638 EudraCT-No.: 2009-013099-38.

Single-nucleotide variants, tumour mutational burden and microsatellite instability in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Next-generation sequencing results of the FIRE-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Molecular biomarkers and primary tumour sidedness guide treatment decisions in metastatic colorectal cancer. Comprehensive molecular profiling aims to identify targetable alterations and measure tumour mutational burden (TMB) to enable precision oncology. MATERIAL AND METHODS: FoundationOne® next-generation sequencing identified single-nucleotide variants (SNVs), copy number alterations, high TMB (TMB-H) and high-grade microsatellite instability (MSI-H) in patients treated in the FIRE-3 trial. Data were correlated with objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-three (49.6%) of 752 patients provided material for this analysis. Frequent SNVs included TP53, APC, KRAS, PIK3CA, BRAF, SMAD4 and FBXW7. KRAS, BRAF V600E and SMAD4 mutations were confirmed as prognostic biomarkers by logistic penalised regression for ORR. OS was significantly longer in patients with SMAD4 wild-type (WT) tumours than in those with SMAD4-mutated tumours (hazard ratio = 0.59 [95% confidence interval {CI} = 0.34-1.01], p = 0.05), with a higher probability of ORR [odds ratio, SMAD4 SNV versus WT = 0.32 [95% CI = 0.10-0.98], p = 0.05] when treated with cetuximab. MSI-H (30.0%, p = 0.03) and TMB-H (17.3%, p = 0.003) tumours were enriched by FBXW7 mutations. Numerically lower ORR, OS and PFS were observed in MSI-H tumours. CONCLUSIONS: RAS, BRAF V600E and SMAD4 mutations were identified as poor prognostic biomarkers in patients of the FIRE-3 trial, whereas improved outcome was observed for BRAF non-V600E mutation. SMAD4 mutation might provide predictive relevance for cetuximab efficacy. MSI-H tumours showed numerically lower ORR, OS and PFS.

Exploring the effect of primary tumor sidedness on therapeutic efficacy across treatment lines in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: analysis of FIRE-3 (AIOKRK0306).

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of primary tumor sidedness on outcome of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) across treatment lines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients of the FIRE-3 trial (initial FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab) were separately evaluated according to primary tumor site differentiating left-sided (LPT) from right-sided primary tumors (RPT). Efficacy (i.e. progression-free survival (PFS2nd) and overall survival (OS2nd) of second-line therapy) was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log rank test as well as Cox regression analyses. All analyses were also reported according to drug sequences. RESULTS: 411 of 592 patients (69%) with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumors received 2nd-line therapy has and had available information on primary tumor location, of those 309 patients (75%) presented with LPT. In patients with LPT, PFS2nd was markedly longer than in patients with RPT (6.0 months [95% CI 5.5-6.5] versus 3.8 months [95% CI 2.5-5.2], hazard ratio: 0.61 [95% CI 0.47-0.78], P<0.001). Differences in PFS2nd between study-arms were evident in patients with LPT, but not in patients with RPT (Cox model interaction test, P=0.12). Consistent observations were also made for OS2nd. CONCLUSION: This retrospective analysis of FIRE-3 indicates that efficacy of second-line therapy was significantly greater in patients with left-sided tumors as compared to right-sided tumors. This difference was driven by superior activity of second-line regimens of the initial cetuximab-arm as compared to the initial bevacizumab-arm in left-sided tumors. Our observations confirm the strong prognostic value of primary tumor location in second-line therapy of mCRC.

Phase III study of second-line chemotherapy for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with weekly compared with 3-weekly docetaxel.

PURPOSE: A phase III study to determine whether a weekly docetaxel schedule improves the therapeutic index compared with the classic 3-weekly schedule. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IIIB-IV non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were randomly assigned to docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks (3-weekly) and 35 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 (weekly) for < or = eight cycles. End points included survival (primary), toxicity, and response. RESULTS: Of 215 patients enrolled, 208 (103 in the 3-weekly arm and 105 in the weekly arm) were assessable for response. At baseline, 24.5% of patients (51 out of 208) had received prior paclitaxel therapy and 43.3% of patients (90 out of 208) had been progression-free for more than 3 months after first-line therapy. After 12 months' follow-up, median survival was 6.3 months (95% CI, 4.68 to 7.84 months) with 3-weekly docetaxel and 9.2 months (95% CI, 5.83 to 12.59 months) with weekly docetaxel (P = .07) after a median of four (range, one to eight) and two (range, one to eight) treatment cycles, respectively. Overall, response rates were 12.6% v 10.5% with 3-weekly versus weekly docetaxel. Significantly fewer patients reported grade 3 to 4 toxicities with weekly docetaxel versus 3-weekly docetaxel (P < or = .05). There were significantly lower rates of grade 3 to 4 anemia (P < or = .05), leucopenia (P < .0001), and neutropenia (P < or = .001) with weekly versus 3-weekly treatment. No grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia or mucositis was reported. CONCLUSION: Weekly docetaxel 35 mg/m2 demonstrated similar efficacy and better tolerability than standard 3-weekly docetaxel 75 mg/m2 and can be recommended as a feasible alternative second-line treatment option for patients with advanced NSCLC.

Randomized, multicenter, open-label phase II study of gemcitabine plus single-dose versus split-dose carboplatin in the treatment of patients with advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine/carboplatin is a convenient and effective treatment for advanced-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but modification of the schedule to diminish thrombocytopenia is worthwhile. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty-eight chemotherapy-naive patients with stage IIIB/IV NSCLC were randomized from 15 centers in Germany to receive gemcitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus carboplatin area under the curve 5 on day 1 (arm A) or carboplatin area under the curve 2.5 on days 1 and 8 (arm B), every 21 days for 4 cycles. RESULTS: The 2 arms (A vs. B) were well balanced with regard to patient baseline characteristics: stage IV 72.5% versus 69%, median Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 1 versus 1. The incidence of grade 3/4 hematologic toxicity was as follows (percentage of patients in arm A vs. B): leukopenia 37.5% versus 27% (P = 0.075), granulocytopenia 36% versus 36%, and thrombocytopenia 51% versus 35% (P = 0.017). Nonhematologic toxicity was modest and comparable with both schedules. The overall response rate was 46% versus 36% (P = 0.12), and 24% versus 42% had stable disease. Median progression-free survival (5.8 months vs. 6.1 months) and overall survival (11.7 months vs. 10.7 months) were not significantly different between arms A and B. CONCLUSION: Splitting the dose of carboplatin between days 1 and 8 on the same days as gemcitabine results in a significantly decreased incidence of severe thrombocytopenia, without compromising the activity of the combination.