First-line systemic treatment strategies in patients with initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases (CAIRO5): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 study from the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group.

BACKGROUND: Patients with initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases might qualify for local treatment with curative intent after reducing the tumour size by induction systemic treatment. We aimed to compare the currently most active induction regimens. METHODS: In this open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 study (CAIRO5), patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, known RAS/BRAFV600E mutation status, WHO performance status of 0-1, and initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases were enrolled at 46 Dutch and one Belgian secondary and tertiary centres. Resectability or unresectability of colorectal cancer liver metastases was assessed centrally by an expert panel of liver surgeons and radiologists, at baseline and every 2 months thereafter by predefined criteria. Randomisation was done centrally with the minimisation technique via a masked web-based allocation procedure. Patients with right-sided primary tumour site or RAS or BRAFV600E mutated tumours were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (group A) or FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (group B). Patients with left-sided and RAS and BRAFV600E wild-type tumours were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (group C) or FOLFOX or FOLFIRI plus panitumumab (group D), every 14 days for up to 12 cycles. Patients were stratified by resectability of colorectal cancer liver metastases, serum lactate dehydrogenase concentration, choice of irinotecan versus oxaliplatin, and BRAFV600E mutation status (for groups A and B). Bevacizumab was administered intravenously at 5 mg/kg. Panitumumab was administered intravenously at 6 mg/kg. FOLFIRI consisted of intravenous infusion of irinotecan at 180 mg/m2 with folinic acid at 400 mg/m2, followed by bolus fluorouracil at 400 mg/m2 intravenously, followed by continuous infusion of fluorouracil at 2400 mg/m2. FOLFOX consisted of oxaliplatin at 85 mg/m2 intravenously together with the same schedule of folinic acid and fluorouracil as in FOLFIRI. FOLFOXIRI consisted of irinotecan at 165 mg/m2 intravenously, followed by intravenous infusion of oxaliplatin at 85 mg/m2 with folinic acid at 400 mg/m2, followed by continuous infusion of fluorouracil at 3200 mg/m2. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome was progression-free survival, analysed on a modified intention-to-treat basis, excluding patients who withdrew consent before starting study treatment or violated major entry criteria (no metastatic colorectal cancer, or previous liver surgery for colorectal cancer liver metastases). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02162563, and accrual is complete. FINDINGS: Between Nov 13, 2014, and Jan 31, 2022, 530 patients (327 [62%] male and 203 [38%] female; median age 62 years [IQR 54-69]) were randomly assigned: 148 (28%) patients to group A, 146 (28%) patients to group B, 118 (22%) patients to group C, and 118 (22%) patients to group D. Groups C and D were prematurely closed for futility. 521 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (147 in group A, 144 in group B, 114 in group C, and 116 in group D). The median follow-up at the time of this analysis was 51·1 months (95% CI 47·7-53·1) in groups A and B and 49·9 months (44·5-52·5) in in groups C and D. Median progression-free survival was 9·0 months (95% CI 7·7-10·5) in group A versus 10·6 months (9·9-12·1) in group B (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·76 [95% CI 0·60-0·98]; p=0·032), and 10·8 months (95% CI 9·9-12·6) in group C versus 10·4 months (9·8-13·0) in group D (stratified HR 1·11 [95% CI 0·84-1·48]; p=0·46). The most frequent grade 3-4 events in groups A and B were neutropenia (19 [13%] patients in group A vs 57 [40%] in group B; p<0·0001), hypertension (21 [14%] vs 20 [14%]; p=1·00), and diarrhoea (five [3%] vs 28 [19%]; p<0·0001), and in groups C and D were neutropenia (29 [25%] vs 24 [21%]; p=0·44), skin toxicity (one [1%] vs 29 [25%]; p<0·0001), hypertension (20 [18%] vs eight [7%]; p=0·016), and diarrhoea (five [4%] vs 18 [16%]; p=0·0072). Serious adverse events occurred in 46 (31%) patients in group A, 75 (52%) patients in group B, 41 (36%) patients in group C, and 49 (42%) patients in group D. Seven treatment-related deaths were reported in group B (two due to multiorgan failure, and one each due to sepsis, pneumonia, portal vein thrombosis, septic shock and liver failure, and sudden death), one in group C (multiorgan failure), and three in group D (cardiac arrest, pulmonary embolism, and abdominal sepsis). INTERPRETATION: In patients with initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases, FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab was the preferred treatment in patients with a right-sided or RAS or BRAFV600E mutated primary tumour. In patients with a left-sided and RAS and BRAFV600E wild-type tumour, the addition of panitumumab to FOLFOX or FOLFIRI showed no clinical benefit over bevacizumab, but was associated with more toxicity. FUNDING: Roche and Amgen.

DPYD genotype-guided dose individualisation of fluoropyrimidine therapy in patients with cancer: a prospective safety analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidine treatment can result in severe toxicity in up to 30% of patients and is often the result of reduced activity of the key metabolic enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD), mostly caused by genetic variants in the gene encoding DPD (DPYD). We assessed the effect of prospective screening for the four most relevant DPYD variants (DPYD*2A [rs3918290, c.1905+1G>A, IVS14+1G>A], c.2846A>T [rs67376798, D949V], c.1679T>G [rs55886062, DPYD*13, I560S], and c.1236G>A [rs56038477, E412E, in haplotype B3]) on patient safety and subsequent DPYD genotype-guided dose individualisation in daily clinical care. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, safety analysis in 17 hospitals in the Netherlands, the study population consisted of adult patients (≥18 years) with cancer who were intended to start on a fluoropyrimidine-based anticancer therapy (capecitabine or fluorouracil as single agent or in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents or radiotherapy). Patients with all tumour types for which fluoropyrimidine-based therapy was considered in their best interest were eligible. We did prospective genotyping for DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G, and c.1236G>A. Heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers received an initial dose reduction of 25% (c.2846A>T and c.1236G>A) or 50% (DPYD*2A and c.1679T>G), and DPYD wild-type patients were treated according to the current standard of care. The primary endpoint of the study was the frequency of severe (National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4.03 grade ≥3) overall fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity across the entire treatment duration. We compared toxicity incidence between DPYD variant allele carriers and DPYD wild-type patients on an intention-to-treat basis, and relative risks (RRs) for severe toxicity were compared between the current study and a historical cohort of DPYD variant allele carriers treated with full dose fluoropyrimidine-based therapy (derived from a previously published meta-analysis). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02324452, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2015, and Dec 21, 2017, we enrolled 1181 patients. 78 patients were considered non-evaluable, because they were retrospectively identified as not meeting inclusion criteria, did not start fluoropyrimidine-based treatment, or were homozygous or compound heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers. Of 1103 evaluable patients, 85 (8%) were heterozygous DPYD variant allele carriers, and 1018 (92%) were DPYD wild-type patients. Overall, fluoropyrimidine-related severe toxicity was higher in DPYD variant carriers (33 [39%] of 85 patients) than in wild-type patients (231 [23%] of 1018 patients; p=0·0013). The RR for severe fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity was 1·31 (95% CI 0·63-2·73) for genotype-guided dosing compared with 2·87 (2·14-3·86) in the historical cohort for DPYD*2A carriers, no toxicity compared with 4·30 (2·10-8·80) in c.1679T>G carriers, 2·00 (1·19-3·34) compared with 3·11 (2·25-4·28) for c.2846A>T carriers, and 1·69 (1·18-2·42) compared with 1·72 (1·22-2·42) for c.1236G>A carriers. INTERPRETATION: Prospective DPYD genotyping was feasible in routine clinical practice, and DPYD genotype-based dose reductions improved patient safety of fluoropyrimidine treatment. For DPYD*2A and c.1679T>G carriers, a 50% initial dose reduction was adequate. For c.1236G>A and c.2846A>T carriers, a larger dose reduction of 50% (instead of 25%) requires investigation. Since fluoropyrimidines are among the most commonly used anticancer agents, these findings suggest that implementation of DPYD genotype-guided individualised dosing should be a new standard of care. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society.

Survival of Patients With Cancer With DPYD Variant Alleles and Dose-Individualized Fluoropyrimidine Therapy-A Matched-Pair Analysis.

PURPOSE: DPYD-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing improves patient safety in carriers of DPYD variant alleles. However, the impact on treatment outcome in these patients is largely unknown. Therefore, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between DPYD variant carriers treated with a reduced dose and DPYD wild-type controls receiving a full fluoropyrimidine dose in a retrospective matched-pair survival analysis. METHODS: Data from a prospective multicenter study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02324452) in which DPYD variant carriers received a 25% (c.1236G>A and c.2846A>T) or 50% (DPYD*2A and c.1679T>G) reduced dose and data from DPYD variant carriers treated with a similarly reduced dose of fluoropyrimidines identified during routine clinical care were obtained. Each DPYD variant carrier was matched to three DPYD wild-type controls treated with a standard dose. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression. RESULTS: In total, 156 DPYD variant carriers and 775 DPYD wild-type controls were available for analysis. Sixty-one c.1236G>A, 25 DPYD*2A, 13 c.2846A>T, and-when pooled-93 DPYD variant carriers could each be matched to three unique DPYD wild-type controls. For pooled DPYD variant carriers, PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.51; P = .053) and OS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.75 to 1.51; P = .698) were not negatively affected by DPYD-guided dose individualization. In the subgroup analyses, a shorter PFS (HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.86; P = .007) was found in c.1236G>A variant carriers, whereas no differences were found for DPYD*2A and c.2846A>T carriers. CONCLUSION: In this exploratory analysis, DPYD-guided fluoropyrimidine dosing does not negatively affect PFS and OS in pooled DPYD variant carriers. Close monitoring with early dose modifications based on toxicity is recommended, especially for c.1236G>A carriers receiving a reduced starting dose.

A cost analysis of upfront DPYD genotype-guided dose individualisation in fluoropyrimidine-based anticancer therapy.

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidine therapy including capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil can result in severe treatment-related toxicity in up to 30% of patients. Toxicity is often related to reduced activity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, the main metabolic fluoropyrimidine enzyme, primarily caused by genetic DPYD polymorphisms. In a large prospective study, it was concluded that upfront DPYD-guided dose individualisation is able to improve safety of fluoropyrimidine-based therapy. In our current analysis, we evaluated whether this strategy is cost saving. METHODS: A cost-minimisation analysis from a health-care payer perspective was performed as part of the prospective clinical trial (NCT02324452) in which patients prior to start of fluoropyrimidine-based therapy were screened for the DPYD variants DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, c.1679T>G and c.1236G>A and received an initial dose reduction of 25% (c.2846A>T, c.1236G>A) or 50% (DPYD*2A, c.1679T>G). Data on treatment, toxicity, hospitalisation and other toxicity-related interventions were collected. The model compared prospective screening for these DPYD variants with no DPYD screening. One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were also performed. RESULTS: Expected total costs of the screening strategy were €2599 per patient compared with €2650 for non-screening, resulting in a net cost saving of €51 per patient. Results of the probabilistic sensitivity and one-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated that the screening strategy was very likely to be cost saving or worst case cost-neutral. CONCLUSIONS: Upfront DPYD-guided dose individualisation, improving patient safety, is cost saving or cost-neutral but is not expected to yield additional costs. These results endorse implementing DPYD screening before start of fluoropyrimidine treatment as standard of care.

Augmentation of Endoxifen Exposure in Tamoxifen-Treated Women Following SSRI Switch.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The anti-oestrogen tamoxifen requires metabolic activation to endoxifen by cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes, predominantly CYP2D6. Potent CYP2D6-inhibiting antidepressants can seriously disrupt tamoxifen metabolism, probably influencing the efficacy of tamoxifen. For this reason, paroxetine and fluoxetine are recommended not to be used with tamoxifen in breast cancer patients. We investigated the effects of switching potent CYP2D6-inhibiting antidepressants to weak CYP2D6-inhibiting antidepressants on the plasma pharmacokinetics of tamoxifen. METHODS: Ten breast cancer patients who were treated with tamoxifen in combination with a potent CYP2D6-inhibiting antidepressant (paroxetine or fluoxetine) for at least 4 weeks were enrolled. Under close supervision by a psychiatrist, patients were switched to treatment with escitalopram or venlafaxine (weak CYP2D6-inhibiting antidepressants). Before and after the switch, pharmacokinetic blood sampling was performed over 24 h. Pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using noncompartmental analysis. Adverse effects were recorded during the study. RESULTS: Endoxifen exposure was ~3-fold higher during escitalopram co-administration than during paroxetine or fluoxetine co-administration (median 387 nM·h [range 159-637 nM·h] versus 99.2 nM·h [range 70.0-210 nM·h]; P = 0.012; Wilcoxon signed-rank test). The ratio of endoxifen to N-desmethyltamoxifen and the ratio of 4-hydroxytamoxifen to tamoxifen increased by 3.3- and ~1.5-fold, reflecting increased CYP2D6 activity. Antidepressant switching did not result in psychiatric problems or antidepressant-related adverse effects. CONCLUSION: In this study, switching to the weak CYP2D6 inhibitor escitalopram was safe and feasible and resulted in clinically relevant rises in endoxifen concentrations. We therefore advise switching paroxetine and fluoxetine to escitalopram in patients using tamoxifen. However, switching should always be weighed in individual patients.

Imatinib mesylate in the treatment of systemic mastocytosis: a phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Mastocytosis is characterized by the abnormal proliferation of mast cells in 1 or more organs. In most patients, a mutation is present in the gene for C-KIT, resulting in deregulation of the c-kit receptor. Imatinib mesylate is a potent inhibitor of c-kit receptor tyrosine kinase activity. Therefore, the authors evaluated the efficacy and safety of imatinib mesylate as treatment for patients with systemic mastocytosis. METHODS: Patients with systemic mastocytosis received imatinib mesylate orally at a dose of 400 mg once daily for 3 to 6 months. Low doses of prednisone were added during the first 2 weeks. Endpoints were reductions in serum tryptase, urinary N-methylhistamine excretion, skin lesions, the number of mast cells in bone marrow sections, hepatomegaly and/or splenomegaly, and symptoms. RESULTS: Of 14 patients who were included in the study, 11 patients had the D816V mutation. One patient expressed the FIP1L1-PDGFR-alpha rearrangement gene. In 2 patients, no mutation was found. In 10 patients, serum tryptase levels decreased >20%. In all patients, urinary N-methylhistamine excretion was reduced. In 8 of 13 evaluable patients, the number of mast cells in the bone marrow decreased. Skin symptoms diminished in 5 of 9 patients. Hepatosplenomegaly improved in 3 of 6 patients. Symptoms decreased in 8 of 13 patients. In all patients who had the D816V mutation, reductions in > or =2 endpoints were achieved. In the patient who expressed the FIP1L1-PDGFR-alpha rearrangement gene, a complete response was attained. In general, imatinib mesylate was tolerated well. CONCLUSIONS: Imatinib mesylate was effective in patients with systemic mastocytosis, including those who had the D816V mutation.