Prognostic and predictive impact of metastatic organ involvement on maintenance therapy in advanced metastatic colorectal cancer: Subgroup analysis of patients treated within the PanaMa trial (AIO KRK 0212).

Despite molecular selection, patients (pts) with RAS wildtype mCRC represent a heterogeneous population including diversity in metastatic spread. We investigated metastatic patterns for their prognostic and predictive impact on maintenance therapy with 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid ± panitumumab. The study population was stratified according to (1) number of involved metastatic sites (single vs multiple organ metastasis), liver-limited disease vs (2) liver metastasis plus one additional site, and (3) vs liver metastasis plus ≥two additional sites. Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regressions were used to correlate efficacy endpoints. Single organ metastasis was observed in 133 pts (53.6%) with 102 pts (41.1%) presenting with liver-limited disease, while multiple organ metastases were reported in 114 pts (46.0). Multiple compared to single organ metastases were associated with less favorable PFS (HR 1.48, 95% CI 1.13-1.93; P = .004) and OS (HR 1.37, 95% CI 0.98-1.93; P = .068) of maintenance therapy. While metastatic spread involving one additional extrahepatic site was not associated with clearly impaired survival compared to liver-limited disease, pts with liver metastasis plus ≥two additional sites demonstrated less favorable PFS (HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.30-2.83; P < .001), and OS (HR 2.38, 95% CI 1.51-3.76; P < .001) of maintenance therapy. Pmab-containing maintenance therapy appeared active in both pts with multiple (HR 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39-0.86; P = .006) as well as to a lesser numerical extent in pts with single organ metastasis (HR 0.83; 95% CI, 0.57-1.21; P = .332; Interaction P = .183). These data may support clinical decisions when EGFR-based maintenance therapy is considered.

Quality of life in pre- and postmenopausal patients with early breast cancer: a comprehensive analysis from the prospective MaLife project.

PURPOSE: Quality of life (QoL) plays an important role in recovery-especially after an incisive diagnosis such as breast cancer. Here, we present a comprehensive assessment of QoL for pre- and postmenopausal patients, starting from initial systemic treatment of early breast cancer until 3 years later, in patients from a so-called "real-world" setting. METHODS: 251 premenopausal and 478 postmenopausal patients with early breast cancer have been recruited into the longitudinal MaLife project within the prospective, multicentre, German Tumour Registry Breast Cancer between 2011 and 2015. The questionnaires FACT-G, FACT-Taxane, FACT-ES, EORTC QLQ-BR23, BFI and HADS were filled in at start of treatment (T0), 6, 12, 24 and 36 months later. The proportion of patients with clinically meaningful changes at 36 months was determined. RESULTS: This first interim analysis shows that the FACT-G global QoL improved over time regardless of the menopausal status. However, clinically meaningful decrease of social/family well-being (48-51%), arm symptoms (44-49%) and symptoms of neurotoxicity (55-56%) was frequently reported 3 years after start of treatment. Many premenopausal patients also reported a clinically meaningful worsening of endocrine symptoms (64%), emotional well-being (36%) and fatigue intensity (37%). Additionally, 3 years after start of treatment, 15% of the patients were classified as doubtful cases and 18% as definite cases of anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Despite improvements in global QoL, breast cancer survivors report worsened ailments 3 years after start of therapy. Follow-up care should distinguish between premenopausal patients needing special attention for emotional/menopausal issues, and postmenopausal patients needing particular care regarding physical concerns.

A randomized phase II study of paclitaxel alone versus paclitaxel plus sorafenib in second- and third-line treatment of patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (PASO).

BACKGROUND: We conducted an open-label, randomized, two-arm multi-center study to assess the efficacy and safety of paclitaxel versus paclitaxel + sorafenib in patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either paclitaxel monotherapy (80 mg/m2) weekly (3 weeks on, 1 week off) plus sorafenib 400 mg orally, twice a day taken continuously throughout 28 day cycles. Sorafenib dose was gradually escalated from a starting dose of 200 mg twice a day. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A pre-planned efficacy interim analysis was performed on the data of 60 patients, 30 patients in each treatment arm. Median PFS was estimated at 6.6 months (95% CI: 5.1 to 9.0) in patients randomized to single-agent paclitaxel (Arm A) and 5.6 months (95% CI: 3.8 to 6.5) in patients randomized to paclitaxel-sorafenib combination (Arm B) therapy. Contrary to the hypothesis, the treatment effect was statistically significant in favor of paclitaxel monotherapy (hazard ratio 1.80, 95% CI: 1.02 to 3.20; log-rank test P = 0.0409). It was decided to stop the trial early for futility. Median OS was also in favor of Arm A (20.7 months (95% CI: 16.4 to 26.7) versus 12.1 months (95% CI: 5.8 to 20.4) in Arm B. Clinical control was achieved in 28 patients (93.3%) in Arm A and in 21 patients 70.0% in Arm B. Overall response rate was met in 43.3% of patients in Arm A and in 40.0% in Arm B. Toxicities were increased in Arm B with higher rates of diarrhea, nausea, neutropenia, hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) and anorexia, Grad 3 and 4 toxicities were rare. CONCLUSIONS: In this pre-planned interim analysis, paclitaxel-sorafenib combination therapy was not found to be superior to paclitaxel monotherapy with regard to the primary end point, progression-free survival. The trial was therefore discontinued early. There was no indication of more favorable outcomes for combination therapy in secondary efficacy end points. As expected, the safety and toxicity profile of the combination therapy was less favorable compared to monotherapy. Overall, this trial did not demonstrate that adding sorafenib to second- or third-line paclitaxel provides any clinical benefit to patients with HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Cautious dosing using a sorafenib ramp up schedule might have contributed to negative results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at EudraCT (No 2009-018025-73) and retrospectively registered at Clinical trials.gov on March 17, 2011 ( NCT01320111 ).

Maintenance strategies after first-line oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (AIO 0207): a randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The definition of a best maintenance strategy following combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer is unclear. We investigated whether no continuation of therapy or bevacizumab alone are non-inferior to fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, following induction treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab. METHODS: In this open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial, we included patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function, no pre-existing neuropathy greater than grade 1, and measurable disease, from 55 hospitals and 51 private practices in Germany. After 24 weeks of induction therapy with either fluorouracil plus leucovorin plus oxaliplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin, both with bevacizumab, patients without disease progression were randomly assigned centrally by fax (1:1:1) to standard maintenance treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, bevacizumab alone, or no treatment. Both patients and investigators were aware of treatment assignment. Stratification criteria were response status, termination of oxaliplatin, previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin, and ECOG performance status. At first progression, re-induction with all drugs of the induction treatment was a planned part of the protocol. Time to failure of strategy was the primary endpoint, defined as time from randomisation to second progression after maintenance (and if applicable re-induction), death, or initiation of further treatment including a new drug. Time to failure of strategy was equivalent to time to first progression for patients who did not receive re-induction (for any reason). The boundary for assessment of non-inferiority was upper limit of the one-sided 98·8% CI 1·43. Analyses were done by intention to treat. The study has completed recruitment, but follow-up of participants is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00973609. FINDINGS: Between Sept 17, 2009, and Feb 21, 2013, 837 patients were enrolled and 472 randomised; 158 were randomly assigned to receive fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, 156 to receive bevacizumab monotherapy, and 158 to receive no treatment. Median follow-up from randomisation is 17·0 months (IQR 9·5-25·4). Median time to failure of strategy was 6·9 months (95% CI 6·1-8·5) for the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 6·1 months (5·3-7·4) for the bevacizumab alone group, and 6·4 months (4·8-7·6) for the no treatment group. Bevacizumab alone was non-inferior to standard fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·85-1·37]; p=0·53; upper limit of the one-sided 99·8% CI 1·42), whereas no treatment was not (HR 1·26 [0·99-1·60]; p=0·056; upper limit of the one-sided 99·8% CI 1·65). The protocol-defined re-induction after first progression was rarely done (30 [19%] patients in the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 67 [43%] in the bevacizumab monotherapy group, and 73 [46%] in the no treatment group. The most common grade 3 adverse event was sensory neuropathy (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 22 [14%] of 156 patients in the bevacizumab alone group, and 12 [8%] of 158 patients in the no treatment group). INTERPRETATION: Although non-inferiority for bevacizumab alone was demonstrated for the primary endpoint, maintenance treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab may be the preferable option for patients following an induction treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab, as it allows the planned discontinuation of the initial combination without compromising time with controlled disease. Only a few patients were exposed to re-induction treatment, thus deeming the primary endpoint time to failure of strategy non-informative and clinically irrelevant. Progression-free survival and overall survival should be considered primary endpoints in future trials exploring maintenance strategies.

Gemcitabine and oxaliplatin with or without cetuximab in advanced biliary-tract cancer (BINGO): a randomised, open-label, non-comparative phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine plus a platinum-based agent (eg, cisplatin or oxaliplatin) is the standard of care for advanced biliary cancers. We investigated the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary cancers. METHODS: In this non-comparative, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial, we recruited patients with locally advanced (non-resectable) or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder carcinoma, or ampullary carcinoma and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1 from 18 hospitals across France and Germany. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally with a minimisation procedure to first-line treatment with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) and oxaliplatin (100 mg/m(2)) with or without cetuximab (500 mg/m(2)), repeated every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by centre, primary site of disease, disease stage, and previous treatment with curative intent or adjuvant therapy. Investigators who assessed treatment response were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were progression-free at 4 months, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00552149. FINDINGS: Between Oct 10, 2007, and Dec 18, 2009, 76 patients were assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab and 74 to chemotherapy alone. 48 (63%; 95% CI 52-74) patients assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab and 40 (54%; 43-65) assigned to chemotherapy alone were progression-free at 4 months. Median progression-free survival was 6·1 months (95% CI 5·1-7·6) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 5·5 months (3·7-6·6) in the chemotherapy alone group. Median overall survival was 11·0 months (9·1-13·7) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 12·4 months (8·6-16·0) in the chemotherapy alone group. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were peripheral neuropathy (in 18 [24%] of 76 patients who received chemotherapy plus cetuximab vs ten [15%] of 68 who received chemotherapy alone), neutropenia (17 [22%] vs 11 [16%]), and increased aminotransferase concentrations (17 [22%] vs ten [15%]). 70 serious adverse events were reported in 39 (51%) of 76 patients who received chemotherapy plus cetuximab (34 events in 19 [25%] patients were treatment-related), whereas 41 serious adverse events were reported in 25 (35%) of 71 patients who received chemotherapy alone (20 events in 12 [17%] patients were treatment-related). One patient died of atypical pneumonia related to treatment in the chemotherapy alone group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of cetuximab to gemcitabine and oxaliplatin did not seem to enhance the activity of chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary cancer, although it was well tolerated. Gemcitabine and platinum-based combination should remain the standard treatment option. FUNDING: Institut National du Cancer, Merck Serono.

Dose escalating study of cetuximab and 5-FU/folinic acid (FA)/oxaliplatin/irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) in first line therapy of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The FOLFOXIRI regimen (irinotecan, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil [5-FU] and folinic acid [FA]) increased the response rate and overall survival compared to FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Adding cetuximab to FOLFOX or FOLFIRI increased efficacy in patients with k-ras wild type mCRC. We explored the dose limiting toxicity and feasibility of the combination cetuximab, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, 5-FU and FA in mCRC patients. METHODS: In a dose-escalation study patients with previously untreated mCRC and a WHO performance status 0-1 received cetuximab (500 mg/m2, 2 h), followed by irinotecan (95, 125, and 165 mg/m2 in the dose levels [DL] 1, 2, and 3 respectively), followed by oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2, 2 h) which was given parallel to FA (400 mg/m2, 2 h) and followed by 5-FU (3200 mg/m2, 46 h) in an outpatient setting every two weeks. The primary endpoints were the maximum tolerable dose and the safety. The trial was approved by the local ethics committee. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2008, twenty patients were treated in this trial. In the first dose level (irinotecan 95 mg/m2) one patient developed neutropenia grade 4. One patient experienced diarrhoea grade 3 as DLT in dose level 2 (irinotecan 125 mg/m2). In dose level 3 (irinotecan 165 mg/m2), three patients experienced a DLT (diarrhoea grade 3 and two patients with neutropenia grade 4). Thus, the recommended dose for a phase II trial is 125 mg/m2 irinotecan in combination with oxaliplatin, 5-FU/FA and cetuximab. Most common grade ≥3 toxicities were neutropenia (40%), diarrhoea (25%) and acne-like rash (15%). No therapy associated death occurred.The confirmed overall response rate in all cohorts was 75% (95%-CI 51-91%). The best response was reached after a median of 3.0 (95%-CI 2.2 to 3.7) months. Median progression free survival (PFS) is 16 (95%-CI 12.6-19.4) months, overall survival (OS) 33 (95%-CI 26.2-39.8) months. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of cetuximab and FOLFOXIRIis feasible and has an acceptable toxicity profile in patients with a good performance status. The observed clinical activity with a confirmed response rate of 75% is promising and further evaluated in the ongoing CELIM2. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00422773.

Negative Hyperselection of Resistance Mutations for Panitumumab Maintenance in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (PanaMa Phase II Trial, AIO KRK 0212).

PURPOSE: We evaluated additional mutations in RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) as prognostic and predictive biomarkers for the efficacy of added panitumumab to a 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid (FU/FA) maintenance as pre-specified analysis of the randomized PanaMa trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Mutations (MUT) were identified using targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS; Illumina Cancer Hotspot Panel v2) and IHC. RAS/BRAF V600E/PIK3CA/AKT1/ALK1/ERBB2/PTEN MUT and HER2/neu overexpressions were negatively hyperselected and correlated with median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) since start of maintenance treatment, and objective response rates (ORR). Univariate/multivariate Cox regression estimated hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: 202 of 248 patients (81.5%) of the full analysis set (FAS) had available NGS data: hyperselection WT, 162 (80.2%); MUT, 40 (19.8%). From start of maintenance therapy, hyperselection WT tumors were associated with longer median PFS as compared with hyperselection MUT mCRC (7.5 vs. 5.4 months; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.52-1.07; P = 0.11), OS (28.7 vs. 22.2 months; HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.36-0.77; P = 0.001), and higher ORR (35.8% vs. 25.0%, P = 0.26). The addition of panitumumab to maintenance was associated with significant benefit in hyperselection WT tumors for PFS (9.2 vs. 6.0 months; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.47-0.93; P = 0.02) and numerically also for OS (36.9 vs. 24.9 months; HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.61-1.36; P = 0.50), but not in hyperselection MUT tumors. Hyperselection status interacted with maintenance treatment arms in terms of PFS (P = 0.06) and OS (P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Extended molecular profiling beyond RAS may have the potential to improve the patient selection for anti-EGFR containing maintenance regimens.

Phase I study of matuzumab in combination with 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and cisplatin (PLF) in patients with advanced gastric and esophagogastric adenocarcinomas.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the safety and tolerability of two different weekly doses of the fully humanized epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeting monoclonal antibody matuzumab combined with high-dose 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and cisplatin (PLF) in the first-line treatment of patients with EGFR-positive advanced gastric and esophagogastric adenocarcinomas. METHODS: Patients were treated in two matuzumab dose groups with the first cohort of patients receiving 400 mg matuzumab in combination with PLF. Based on the safety observations the next cohort of patients received 800 mg matuzumab. The study was conducted in two parts, with phase A, designed to assess the safety and tolerability of the combination, and phase B designed to be a treatment continuation for those patients benefiting from treatment. Treatment cycles were 7 weeks each. Each patient received the dose of matuzumab they were assigned to at study entry for the duration of the study. RESULTS: Fifteen EGFR-positive patients were enrolled into the two matuzumab dose groups; 400 mg dose n=7; 800 mg dose n=8. All patients experienced at least one adverse event (AE). No patient experienced any serious AE which was considered to be related to matuzumab. Two grade 3 AEs possibly related to matuzumab occurred in 2 different patients (13.3 %), both in the 800 mg dose group. No dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed in the 400 mg group. The maximum tolerated dose of matuzumab was not reached. The best confirmed overall response rate was 26.7 %. CONCLUSION: Matuzumab, in combination with PLF, demonstrated an acceptable safety profile with modest anti-tumor activity.

Prospective, open, multi-centre phase I/II trial to assess safety and efficacy of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy with docetaxel and oxaliplatin in patients with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction.

BACKGROUND: This phase I/II-trial assessed the dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) with docetaxel and oxaliplatin in patients with locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the oesophagogastric junction. METHODS: Patients received neoadjuvant radiotherapy (50.4 Gy) together with weekly docetaxel (20 mg/m(2) at dose level (DL) 1 and 2, 25 mg/m(2) at DL 3) and oxaliplatin (40 mg/m(2) at DL 1, 50 mg/m(2) at DL 2 and 3) over 5 weeks. The primary endpoint was the DLT and the MTD of the RCT regimen. Secondary endpoints included overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 24 patients were included. Four patients were treated at DL 1, 13 patients at DL 2 and 7 patients at DL 3. The MTD of the RCT was considered DL 2 with docetaxel 20 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 50 mg/m(2). Objective response (CR/PR) was observed in 32% (7/22) of patients. Eighteen patients (75%) underwent surgery after RCT. The median PFS for all patients (n = 24) was 6.5 months. The median overall survival for all patients (n = 24) was 16.3 months. Patients treated at DL 2 had a median overall survival of 29.5 months. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant RCT with docetaxel 20 mg/m2 and oxaliplatin 50 mg/m(2) was effective and showed a good toxicity profile. Future studies should consider the addition of targeted therapies to current neoadjuvant therapy regimens to further improve the outcome of patients with advanced cancer of the oesophagogastric junction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00374985.

Optimal maintenance strategy following FOLFOX plus anti-EGFR induction therapy in patients with RAS wild type metastatic colorectal cancer: An individual patient data pooled analysis of randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Anti-EGFR antibodies plus doublet chemotherapy is the standard of care in RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). No phase-3 level of evidence is available to guide treatment de-escalation after anti-EGFR-based first-line. Several randomised clinical trials investigated de-intensification strategies with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) and/or anti-EGFR. METHODS: We performed an individual patient data pooled analysis of Valentino, Panama, MACRO-2, COIN-B trials including RAS wild-type mCRC patients who received first-line therapy with FOLFOX plus panitumumab or cetuximab followed by pre-specified maintenance strategy. Only patients who started maintenance according to the assigned arm were included. Patients were categorised by type of maintenance (i.e. 5-FU/LV, anti-EGFR or 5-FU/LV + anti-EGFR). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the start of maintenance; toxicity was evaluated for the maintenance treatment period. RESULTS: A total of 518 patients were included in the pooled analysis. Overall, 123, 185 and 210 patients received maintenance with 5-FU/LV, anti-EGFR, 5-FU/LV + anti-EGFR, respectively. Median PFS was 5.6, 6.0 and 9.0 (P = 0.009) and OS was 25.7, 24.0 and 28.0 months (P = 0.134) in 5-FU/LV, anti-EGFR and 5-FU/LV + anti-EGFR arms, respectively. Monotherapy maintenance (either 5-FU/LV or anti-EGFR) was inferior to combination in terms of PFS (hazard ratios [HR] 1.26, P = 0.016) and non-significantly trending also in OS (HR 1.20, P = 0.111). An increase of overall any grade and grade ≥ 3 AEs and selected AEs was reported in combination compared to either 5-FU/LV or anti-EGFR arms. CONCLUSIONS: This pooled analysis including four randomised phase II supports the use of 5-FU/LV plus anti-EGFR as the preferred maintenance regimen. Data provide rational for a more individualised maintenance treatment approach based on tumour and patients features.

Depth of response of induction therapy and consecutive maintenance treatment in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: An analysis of the PanaMa trial (AIO KRK 0212).

BACKGROUND: In patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, depth of response (DpR) has gained importance as a novel end-point in clinical trials. We investigated the overall DpR, as well as the prognostic and predictive impact of DpR to induction therapy (six cycles of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin [FU/FA], oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] and panitumumab [Pmab]) on consecutive maintenance therapy (FU/FA plus Pmab or FU/FA alone) in patients treated within the PanaMa trial. METHODS: Central radiological assessment was performed according to RECIST 1.1. DpR was defined as percentage change in tumour diameter within defined time intervals (induction therapy, maintenance therapy, total course of therapy). For prognostic and predictive analyses, median DpR (

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.

Consensus Molecular Subtypes as Biomarkers of Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid Maintenance Therapy With or Without Panitumumab in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (PanaMa, AIO KRK 0212).

PURPOSE: Consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) were evaluated as prognostic and predictive biomarkers of patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) with or without panitumumab (Pmab) after Pmab + mFOLFOX6 induction within the randomized phase II PanaMa trial. METHODS: CMSs were determined in the safety set (ie, patients that received induction) and full analysis set (FAS; ie, randomly assigned patients who received maintenance) and correlated with median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) since the start of induction or maintenance treatment and objective response rates (ORRs). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CI were calculated by univariate/multivariate Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: Of 377 patients of the safety set, 296 (78.5%) had available CMS data: CMS1/2/3/4: 29 (9.8%)/122 (41.2%)/33 (11.2%)/112 (37.8%) and unclassifiable: 17 (5.7%). The CMSs were prognostic biomarkers in terms of PFS (P < .0001), OS (P < .0001), and ORR (P = .02) since the start of induction treatment. In FAS patients (n = 196), with CMS2/4 tumors, the addition of Pmab to FU/FA maintenance therapy was associated with longer PFS (CMS2: HR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.36 to 0.95], P = .03; CMS4: HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.38 to 1.03], P = .07) and OS (CMS2: HR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.52 to 1.52], P = .66; CMS4: HR, 0.54 [95% CI, 0.30 to 0.96], P = .04). The CMS interacted significantly with treatment in terms of PFS (CMS2 v CMS1/3: P = .02; CMS4 v CMS1/3: P = .03) and OS (CMS2 v CMS1/3: P = .03; CMS4 v CMS1/3: P < .001). CONCLUSION: The CMS had a prognostic impact on PFS, OS, and ORR in RAS wild-type mCRC. In PanaMa, Pmab + FU/FA maintenance was associated with beneficial outcomes in CMS2/4, whereas no benefit was observed in CMS1/3 tumors.

Tumor vessel stabilization and remodeling by anti-angiogenic therapy with bevacizumab.

Bevacizumab-resistant tumor vessels were characterized by an increased vessel diameter and normalization of vascular structures by the recruitment of mature pericytes and smooth muscle cells. Here, we analyzed human liver metastases which were taken at clinical relapse in patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma treated with anti-angiogenic therapy using the humanized monoclonal anti-VEGF bevacizumab. Tumor vessels which are resistant to anti-VEGF therapy are increased in size and characterized by a normalization of the vascular bed. These results were confirmed using NOD SCID mice as animal model and xenograft transplantation of human PC-3 prostate carcinoma cells in combination with bevacizumab treatment. Our results confirmed that anti-angiogenic therapy results in enhanced vascular remodeling by vascular stabilization. This process is apparently accompanied by enhanced necrosis of tumor tissue. These processes interfere with the efficacy of anti-angiogenic therapy because of reduced susceptibility of stabilized vessels by this therapy. These results demonstrate the importance for the development of second generation anti-angiogenic combination therapy concepts to rule out the balance between vascular stabilization followed by a possible de-stabilization making the remained vessels susceptible to a second wave of anti-angiogenic therapy.

Phase I open-label study of cediranib, an oral inhibitor of VEGF signalling, in combination with the oral Src inhibitor saracatinib in patients with advanced solid tumours.

UNLABELLED: Combining different targeted anticancer agents may improve clinical outcomes. This Phase I study investigated cediranib, an oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor signalling in combination with saracatinib, an oral Src inhibitor. The primary endpoint was safety/tolerability. Secondary assessments included pharmacokinetics and preliminary efficacy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumours received cediranib 20, 30 or 45 mg/day for 7 days followed by daily treatment with cediranib at the same dose plus saracatinib 175 mg/day. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients received cediranib (20 mg, n = 6; 30 mg, n = 6; 45 mg, n = 27 [n = 20 in cohort expansion]) plus saracatinib. In the cediranib 45 mg cohort, 59% of patients required dose reduction/pause compared with 33% in each of the other two cohorts. There was one dose-limiting toxicity (hypertension; 45 mg cohort). The most common adverse events were hypertension (67%), diarrhoea (62%), dysphonia (46%) and fatigue (39%). There was no evidence of a clinically significant effect of saracatinib on cediranib pharmacokinetics and vice versa. 22/35 evaluable patients had a best response of stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: All cediranib doses were tolerated; however, in patients with advanced solid tumours, for combination with saracatinib 175 mg/day, cediranib 20 or 30 mg/day was more sustainable than 45 mg/day.

Ten-year survival of esophageal cancer after an en-bloc esophagectomy.

BACKGROUND: Esophagectomy with gastric pull-up is the optimal treatment for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. Although the morbidity and mortality of an esophagectomy is reduced, the long-term outcome remains poor. The aim of this study was to evaluate the 10-year survival of a standardized multidisciplinary therapy concept for esophageal cancer. METHODS: Between 1989 and 1999, 114 patients were treated for esophageal cancer at the University of Essen. All patients underwent an en-bloc esophagectomy with systematic lymphadenectomy. Patients with locally advanced disease (stage III) received neoadjuvant therapy. All patients were followed-up for 10 years or more or until death. RESULTS: The 3-year survival was 35%, the 5-year survival 25%, and the 10-year survival was 18%. The recurrence rate was 44% with a median time of 13 months. There was no significant difference in survival between patients with locally advanced disease who received neoadjuvant therapy and patients with early disease (stadium I + II) who underwent surgery alone. Of the patients who achieved 10-year survival, 60% had locally advanced disease and received neoadjuvant therapy. CONCLUSION: Patients with locally advanced disease, managed by a multidisciplinary treatment strategy, achieved a similar long-term survival to patients with early disease (stadium I + II).

Panitumumab Plus Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid Versus Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid Alone as Maintenance Therapy in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Randomized PANAMA Trial (AIO KRK 0212).

PURPOSE: The randomized PANAMA trial investigated the efficacy of panitumumab (Pmab) when added to maintenance therapy with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: Following first-line induction therapy with six cycles of FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab, responding patients (stable disease or partial or complete remission) were randomly assigned (1:1, open-label) to maintenance treatment with either FU/FA plus Pmab or FU/FA alone. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of progression-free survival (PFS, time from random assignment until progression or death) in favor of FU/FA plus Pmab with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75, a power of 80%, and a significance level of 10%. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate of maintenance therapy, and toxicity. Survival end points were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank test and Cox regressions. Dichotomous variables were compared by Fisher's exact test; odds ratios were indicated when appropriate. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01991873). RESULTS: Overall, 248 patients were randomly assigned and received maintenance therapy with either FU/FA plus Pmab (125 patients) or FU/FA alone (123 patients). At data cutoff, with 218 events (of 218 needed), PFS of maintenance therapy was significantly improved with FU/FA plus Pmab (8.8 months v 5.7 months; HR, 0.72; 80% CI, 0.60 to 0.85; P = .014). Overall survival (event rate 54%) numerically favored the FU/FA plus Pmab arm (28.7 months v 25.7 months; HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.18; P = .32). Objective response rates were 40.8% in patients receiving FU/FA plus Pmab versus 26.0% in patients receiving FU/FA alone (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.14 to 3.36; P = .02). The most frequent Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event grade ≥ 3 event during maintenance therapy was skin rash (7.2%). CONCLUSION: In RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, maintenance therapy with FU/FA plus Pmab induced a significantly superior PFS compared with FU/FA alone. If active maintenance therapy is aspired following induction therapy with FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab, FU/FA plus Pmab appears to be the most favorable option.

Cancer patients and the Internet: a survey of the 'Quality of Life' Working Groups of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Internistische Onkologie and the Nord-Ostdeutsche Gesellschaft für Gynäkologische Onkologie.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life (QoL) assessment, are becoming more important as endpoint in clinical trials and for decision making regarding new anticancer product approvals. Nevertheless, numerous obstacles exist regarding the implementation of QoL assessment in the daily practice of medical oncologists. Regular, computerized or internet home-based QoL assessments could be a step forward. METHODS: Using a 15-item paper questionnaire, we conducted a survey among 1580 cancer patients regarding their willingness to use internet QoL assessment, and collected personal data and information about current disease and performance status. RESULTS: Younger patients (i.e. ≤65 years) significantly more often had internet access (78% versus 36%; χ(2) test, p < 0.001). Moreover, the availability of internet access correlated with higher education levels. 55% of all polled patients are willing to use an internet-based QoL assessment tool, regardless of the type of internet access, whereas almost two-thirds (n = 600; 65%) of patients with their own internet access would be willing to use it for providing statements about QoL. Of these, especially younger patients in good health status with higher education degrees indicated their willingness to use such tools. CONCLUSION: These data may serve as a basis for identifying patient groups willing to participate in pilot projects to evaluate the implementation of internet-based regular assessment of QoL in cancer.

[Adjuvant therapy in colon cancer]. / Adjuvante therapie des kolonkarzinoms.

The goal of improving adjuvant treatment can be reached in two ways: firstly, by developing more effective drugs and protocols and, secondly, by selecting suitable patients on the basis of clinical and molecular factors. In UICC (Union internationale contre le cancer) stage II, microsatellite instability (MSI) is a strong prognostic factor. Whether it can also be used as a predictive marker is currently a matter of controversy because the available data are contradictory. The question whether or not the MSI status should be checked before treatment decisions are made in stage II patients can therefore not be clearly answered at present. For adjuvant treatment in stage III, with capecitabine/oxaliplatin (XELOX) there is now a new protocol available that is based on the orally administered prodrug capecitabine. With regard to the question of how much older patients in this stage may also benefit from a combination chemotherapy, new--and contradictory--data have emerged recently: firstly, preliminary results of two new studies have given rise to safety concerns and, secondly, an analysis by the 'ACCENT Collaborative Group' indicated lower efficacy of the 'newer' adjuvant protocols in older people. These findings, however, have now been called into question as a result of a new subgroup analysis from the XELOXA study. The expert group therefore recommended that the decision whether to treat patients older than 70 years with an (oral) fluoropyrimidine alone or in combination with oxaliplatin should be based on clinical parameters such as biological age and comorbidities.

Gefitinib in combination with capecitabine as second-line therapy in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC): a phase I/II study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO).

BACKGROUND: This phase I/II study was conducted to assess the maximal tolerated dose (MTD) and the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) of gefitinib in combination with capecitabine in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: After failure of a 1st-line therapy, patients with aCRC received escalating doses of gefitinib once daily in combination with capecitabine twice daily: dose level (DL) 1: gefitinib 250 mg and capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2), DL 2: gefitinib 250 mg and capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2), DL 3: gefitinib 500 mg and capecitabine 850 mg/m(2). DLTs were determined after 6 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 16 patients were enrolled. On DL1 (n = 6), 1 patient developed a DLT (hand-foot syndrome, HFS n = 1). On DL2 (n = 7), DLTs were observed in 3 patients (exanthema n = 2, HFS n = 1), and on DL3 (n = 3), DLT occurred in 1 patient (HFS n = 1) resulting in recruitment stop at DL3. No patient showed an objective tumor response. Disease stabilization was observed in 6 patients. CONCLUSION: The combination of gefitinib and capecitabine resulted in significant skin toxicities such as exanthema and HFS. As 2nd-line treatment of patients with aCRC, this combination showed no substantial efficacy.