Rationale and design of the PROMETCO study: a real-world, prospective, longitudinal cohort on the continuum of care of metastatic colorectal cancer from a clinical and patient perspective.

The PROMETCO study is collecting real-world data on metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with two progressions. This international, prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study is collecting data on mCRC patients with two disease progressions since diagnosis and receiving subsequent treatment. Objectives include overall survival, treatment patterns, effectiveness and safety and patient-reported outcomes using the EuroQol 5-level, 5-dimensional questionnaire, the Brief Fatigue Inventory and a modified version of the ACCEPTance by the Patients of their Treatment (ACCEPT©) questionnaire. Data are collected retrospectively and prospectively up to 18 months. As of 13 October 2021, 544 patients from 18 countries had been enrolled. To the authors' knowledge, PROMETCO is the first international, real-world study of the continuum of care of mCRC patients in this setting. Trial registration number: NCT03935763 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Current therapy of advanced colorectal cancer according to RAS/RAF mutational status.

Colorectal cancer is a clinically and molecularly heterogeneous disease. Currently, extended RAS and BRAF mutation testing is obligatory in routine clinical practice before starting any treatment in the metastatic setting. Treatment decision making also includes assessment of the clinical condition of the patient, definition of the treatment goal, and consideration of the primary tumor site. Biological treatment is part of the first-line drug combination unless contraindicated. Mutational status is significantly associated with the outcome of patients and is strongly predictive for anti-EGFR-targeted therapy. The prognosis of RAS mutant CRC is clearly inferior to wild-type cases. RAS remains an elusive target, and specific treatment options are not yet available. Recently, promising results of a direct KRAS G12C inhibitor have been reported; however, further confirmation is needed. The biomarker landscape in mCRC is evolving; new promising markers are awaited with the chance of more precise targeted treatment.

Tumor Response and Symptom Palliation from RAINBOW, a Phase III Trial of Ramucirumab Plus Paclitaxel in Previously Treated Advanced Gastric Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In the intent-to-treat (ITT) population of the RAINBOW study, objective response rate (ORR) was 28% and 16% in the ramucirumab and control arms, respectively. To further characterize tumor response, we present details on timing and extent of tumor shrinkage, as well as associations with symptom palliation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Tumor response was assessed with RECIST v1.1, and quality of life (QoL) was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) v3.0. Prespecified and post hoc analyses were conducted in the ITT population, patients with measurable disease, or responders, and included best overall response (BOR), ORR, disease control rate (DCR), duration of response, time to response (TtR), change in tumor size, and associations of QoL with tumor shrinkage and BOR. RESULTS: In both treatment arms, median TtR was 1.5 months. Responses were more durable in the ramucirumab versus control arm (median 4.4 vs. 2.8 months). In patients with measurable disease (78% of ITT), ORR was 36% versus 20%; DCR was 81% versus 61% in the ramucirumab versus control arms. Waterfall plots demonstrated more tumor shrinkage in the ramucirumab versus control arm. Regardless of treatment, tumor response and stable disease were associated with improved or stable QoL, with more tumor shrinkage associated with greater symptom palliation. CONCLUSION: Treatment with ramucirumab plus paclitaxel yielded the highest ORR reported to date for patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Additional details demonstrate robustness of tumor response results. The extent of tumor shrinkage is directly associated with symptom palliation and should be considered when evaluating patient needs and treatment selection. Clinical trial identification number. NCT01170663. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel is a recognized standard of care as it improves survival for patients with advanced gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma who have been previously treated with recommended first-line therapy. These additional data on tumor response demonstrate a positive association between tumor shrinkage and symptom palliation in a patient population that is often symptomatic. These observations included patients with nonmeasurable disease, a group of patients often underrepresented in clinical trials. This knowledge can inform treatment decisions, which align individual patient characteristics and needs with demonstrated benefits.

Expenditures on Oncology Drugs and Cancer Mortality-to-Incidence Ratio in Central and Eastern Europe.

BACKGROUND: There is a steady decline in cancer mortality in Western Europe (WE), but this trend is not so obvious in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). One of the largest discrepancies between WE and CEE is the level of investment in cancer care. The objective of our analysis was to examine the correlation between mortality-to-incidence (M/I) ratio and expenditures on oncology drugs in CEE and WE. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis was done on publicly available data. Data on expenditures for oncology drugs were obtained from QuintilesIMS, and data on M/I ratio from Globocan. The main outcome was mortality-to-incidence ratio, and the primary analysis was performed by Spearman's rank correlation. RESULTS: There is a large discrepancy in expenditure on oncology drugs per cancer case between WE and CEE, and within CEE. Average expenditure on oncology drugs per capita as well as per new cancer case was 2.5 times higher in WE than in CEE. Availability of oncology drugs was highest in Germany (100%), relatively similar in WE (average of 91%), but in CEE it ranged from 37% to 86%, with an average of 70%. Annual expenditures on all oncology drugs per new cancer case was significantly negatively correlated with the M/I ratio (Spearman's ρ = -0.90, p < .001). CONCLUSION: There is a financial threshold for oncology drugs per cancer case needed to increase survival. Based on significantly lower expenditures for oncology drugs in CEE in comparison with WE, more investment for drugs as well as better, more organized, value- oriented consumption is needed. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Cancer is not treated equally successfully in Western Europe (WE) and in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). This study showed that success in treatment of cancer is associated with the amount of money invested in oncology drugs. CEE countries spend on average 2.5 times less than WE countries for oncology drugs per new cancer case. These findings should be used by health care providers and oncologists struggling for more resources and better, more organized, evidence-based allocation of these resources as well as better oncology outcomes.

Outcomes of sequential treatment with sorafenib followed by regorafenib for HCC: Additional analyses from the phase III RESORCE trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The RESORCE trial showed that regorafenib improves overall survival (OS) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma progressing during sorafenib treatment (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.50-0.78; p <0.0001). This exploratory analysis describes outcomes of sequential treatment with sorafenib followed by regorafenib. METHODS: In RESORCE, 573 patients were randomized 2:1 to regorafenib 160 mg/day or placebo for 3 weeks on/1 week off. Efficacy and safety were evaluated by last sorafenib dose. The time from the start of sorafenib to death was assessed. Time to progression (TTP) in RESORCE was analyzed by TTP during prior sorafenib treatment. RESULTS: HRs (regorafenib/placebo) for OS by last sorafenib dose were similar (0.67 for 800 mg/day; 0.68 for <800 mg/day). Rates of grade 3, 4, and 5 adverse events with regorafenib by last sorafenib dose (800 mg/day vs. <800 mg/day) were 52%, 11%, and 15% vs. 60%, 10%, and 12%, respectively. Median times (95% CI) from the start of sorafenib to death were 26.0 months (22.6-28.1) for regorafenib and 19.2 months (16.3-22.8) for placebo. Median time from the start of sorafenib to progression on sorafenib was 7.2 months for the regorafenib arm and 7.1 months for the placebo arm. An analysis of TTP in RESORCE in subgroups defined by TTP during prior sorafenib in quartiles (Q) showed HRs (regorafenib/placebo; 95% CI) of 0.66 (0.45-0.96; Q1); 0.26 (0.17-0.40; Q2); 0.40 (0.27-0.60; Q3); and 0.54 (0.36-0.81; Q4). CONCLUSIONS: These exploratory analyses show that regorafenib conferred a clinical benefit regardless of the last sorafenib dose or TTP on prior sorafenib. Rates of adverse events were generally similar regardless of the last sorafenib dose. LAY SUMMARY: This analysis examined characteristics and outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who were treated with regorafenib after they had disease progression during sorafenib treatment. Regorafenib provided clinical benefit to patients regardless of the pace of their disease progression during prior sorafenib treatment and regardless of their last sorafenib dose. The sequence of sorafenib followed by regorafenib for hepatocellular carcinoma may extend survival beyond what has been previously reported. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01774344.

Regorafenib for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma who progressed on sorafenib treatment (RESORCE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: There are no systemic treatments for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) whose disease progresses during sorafenib treatment. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib in patients with HCC who have progressed during sorafenib treatment. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, phase 3 trial done at 152 sites in 21 countries, adults with HCC who tolerated sorafenib (≥400 mg/day for ≥20 of last 28 days of treatment), progressed on sorafenib, and had Child-Pugh A liver function were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned (2:1) by a computer-generated randomisation list and interactive voice response system and stratified by geographical region, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, macrovascular invasion, extrahepatic disease, and α-fetoprotein level to best supportive care plus oral regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily during weeks 1-3 of each 4-week cycle. Investigators, patients, and the funder were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival (defined as time from randomisation to death due to any cause) and analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01774344. FINDINGS: Between May 14, 2013, and Dec 31, 2015, 843 patients were screened, of whom 573 were enrolled and randomised (379 to regorafenib and 194 to placebo; population for efficacy analyses), and 567 initiated treatment (374 received regorafenib and 193 received placebo; population for safety analyses). Regorafenib improved overall survival with a hazard ratio of 0·63 (95% CI 0·50-0·79; one-sided p<0·0001); median survival was 10·6 months (95% CI 9·1-12·1) for regorafenib versus 7·8 months (6·3-8·8) for placebo. Adverse events were reported in all regorafenib recipients (374 [100%] of 374) and 179 (93%) of 193 placebo recipients. The most common clinically relevant grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent events were hypertension (57 patients [15%] in the regorafenib group vs nine patients [5%] in the placebo group), hand-foot skin reaction (47 patients [13%] vs one [1%]), fatigue (34 patients [9%] vs nine patients [5%]), and diarrhoea (12 patients [3%] vs no patients). Of the 88 deaths (grade 5 adverse events) reported during the study (50 patients [13%] assigned to regorafenib and 38 [20%] assigned to placebo), seven (2%) were considered by the investigator to be related to study drug in the regorafenib group and two (1%) in the placebo group, including two patients (1%) with hepatic failure in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Regorafenib is the only systemic treatment shown to provide survival benefit in HCC patients progressing on sorafenib treatment. Future trials should explore combinations of regorafenib with other systemic agents and third-line treatments for patients who fail or who do not tolerate the sequence of sorafenib and regorafenib. FUNDING: Bayer.

Age does not influence efficacy of ramucirumab in advanced gastric cancer: Subgroup analyses of REGARD and RAINBOW.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: REGARD and RAINBOW were global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind trials of second-line ramucirumab for metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Exploratory subgroup analyses were described to assess the efficacy and safety of ramucirumab in REGARD and RAINBOW in young (≤ 45 and < 65 years) and elderly (≥ 65, ≥ 70, and ≥ 75 years) patients. METHODS: Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive ramucirumab plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care (REGARD) or 1:1 to ramucirumab plus paclitaxel or placebo plus paclitaxel (RAINBOW). Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plots assessed efficacy and adverse events by age groups for ramucirumab versus placebo. RESULTS: The hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival favored treatment with ramucirumab: REGARD ≤ 45 years (HR: 0.59, 95% confidence interval: 0.27-1.26), < 65 years (0.80, 0.59-1.10), ≥ 65 years (0.72, 0.48-1.08), ≥ 70 years (0.73, 0.44-1.23), and ≥ 75 years (0.59, 0.25-1.37); and RAINBOW ≤ 45 years (0.56, 0.33-0.93), < 65 years (0.78, 0.63-0.97), ≥ 65 years (0.88, 0.66-1.18), and ≥ 70 years (0.88, 0.60-1.28). The exception was elderly patients aged ≥ 75 years in RAINBOW (0.97, 0.47-2.01); however, patient numbers were low in this subgroup (n = 36). Similar findings were observed for progression-free survival, for which HRs numerically favored ramucirumab-treated patients. Adverse events (including grade ≥ 3) were not associated with age. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with placebo, ramucirumab conferred improvements in efficacy across age groups with a tolerable safety profile. Despite some limitations, these exploratory analyses support the use of ramucirumab in advanced gastric cancer, irrespective of age.

Trastuzumab emtansine versus taxane use for previously treated HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (GATSBY): an international randomised, open-label, adaptive, phase 2/3 study.

BACKGROUND: Although trastuzumab plus chemotherapy is the standard of care for first-line treatment of HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer, there is no established therapy in the second-line setting. In GATSBY, we examined the efficacy and tolerability of trastuzumab emtansine in patients previously treated for HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer (unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic gastric cancer, including adenocarcinoma of the gastro-oesophageal junction). METHODS: This is the final analysis from GATSBY, a randomised, open-label, adaptive, phase 2/3 study, done at 107 centres (28 countries worldwide). Eligible patients had HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer and progressed during or after first-line therapy. In stage one of the trial, patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (2:2:1) to receive intravenous trastuzumab emtansine (3·6 mg/kg every 3 weeks or 2·4 mg/kg weekly) or physician's choice of a taxane (intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks or intravenous paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 weekly). In stage two, patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (2:1) to receive the independent data monitoring committee (IDMC)-selected dose of trastuzumab emtansine (2·4 mg/kg weekly) or a taxane (same regimen as above). We used permuted block randomisation, stratified by world region, previous HER2-targeted therapy, and previous gastrectomy. The primary endpoint (overall survival) was assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01641939. FINDINGS: Between Sept 3, 2012, and Oct 14, 2013, 70 patients were assigned to receive trastuzumab emtansine 3·6 mg/kg every 3 weeks, 75 to receive trastuzumab emtansine 2·4 mg/kg weekly, and 37 to receive a taxane in the stage 1 part of the trial. At the pre-planned interim analysis (Oct 14, 2013), the IDMC selected trastuzumab emtansine 2·4 mg/kg weekly as the dose to proceed to stage 2. By Feb 9, 2015, a further 153 patients had been randomly assigned to receive trastuzumab emtansine 2·4 mg/kg weekly and a further 80 to receive a taxane. At data cutoff, median follow-up was 17·5 months (IQR 12·1-23·0) for the trastuzumab emtansine 2·4 mg/kg weekly group and 15·4 months (9·2-18·1) in the taxane group. Median overall survival was 7·9 months (95% CI 6·7-9·5) with trastuzumab emtansine 2·4 mg/kg weekly and 8·6 months (7·1-11·2) with taxane treatment (hazard ratio 1·15, 95% CI 0·87-1·51, one-sided p=0·86). The trastuzumab emtansine 2·4 mg/kg group had lower incidences of grade 3 or more adverse events (134 [60%] of 224 patients treated with trastuzumab emtansine vs 78 [70%] of 111 patients treated with a taxane), and similar incidences of adverse events leading to death (eight [4%] vs four [4%]), serious adverse events (65 [29%] vs 31 [28%]), and adverse events leading to treatment discontinuation (31 [14%] vs 15 [14%]) than did taxane treatment. The most common grade 3 or more adverse events in the trastuzumab emtansine 2·4 mg/kg weekly group were anaemia (59 [26%]) and thrombocytopenia (25 [11%]) compared with neutropenia (43 [39%]), and anaemia (20 [18%]), in the taxane group. The most common serious adverse events were anaemia (eight [4%]), upper gastrointestinal haemorrhage (eight [4%]), pneumonia (seven [3%]), gastric haemorrhage (six [3%]), and gastrointestinal haemorrhage (five [2%]) in the trastuzumab emtansine 2·4 mg/kg weekly group compared with pneumonia (four [4%]), febrile neutropenia (four [4%]), anaemia (three [3%]), and neutropenia (three [3%]) in the taxane group. INTERPRETATION: Trastuzumab emtansine was not superior to taxane in patients with previously treated, HER2-positive advanced gastric cancer. There is still an unmet need in this patient group and therapeutic options remain limited. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Nanoliposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil and folinic acid in metastatic pancreatic cancer after previous gemcitabine-based therapy (NAPOLI-1): a global, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nanoliposomal irinotecan showed activity in a phase 2 study in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapies. We assessed the effect of nanoliposomal irinotecan alone or combined with fluorouracil and folinic acid in a phase 3 trial in this population. METHODS: We did a global, phase 3, randomised, open-label trial at 76 sites in 14 countries. Eligible patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) using an interactive web response system at a central location to receive either nanoliposomal irinotecan monotherapy (120 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks, equivalent to 100 mg/m(2) of irinotecan base) or fluorouracil and folinic acid. A third arm consisting of nanoliposomal irinotecan (80 mg/m(2), equivalent to 70 mg/m(2) of irinotecan base) with fluorouracil and folinic acid every 2 weeks was added later (1:1:1), in a protocol amendment. Randomisation was stratified by baseline albumin, Karnofsky performance status, and ethnic origin. Treatment was continued until disease progression or intolerable toxic effects. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The primary analysis was planned after 305 events. Safety was assessed in all patients who had received study drug. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01494506. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2012, and Sept 11, 2013, 417 patients were randomly assigned either nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid (n=117), nanoliposomal irinotecan monotherapy (n=151), or fluorouracil and folinic acid (n=149). After 313 events, median overall survival in patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid was 6.1 months (95% CI 4.8-8.9) vs 4.2 months (3.3-5.3) with fluorouracil and folinic acid (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.92; p=0.012). Median overall survival did not differ between patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan monotherapy and those allocated fluorouracil and folinic acid (4.9 months [4.2-5.6] vs 4.2 months [3.6-4.9]; 0.99, 0.77-1.28; p=0.94). The grade 3 or 4 adverse events that occurred most frequently in the 117 patients assigned nanoliposomal irinotecan plus fluorouracil and folinic acid were neutropenia (32 [27%]), diarrhoea (15 [13%]), vomiting (13 [11%]), and fatigue (16 [14%]). INTERPRETATION: Nanoliposomal irinotecan in combination with fluorouracil and folinic acid extends survival with a manageable safety profile in patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who previously received gemcitabine-based therapy. This agent represents a new treatment option for this population. FUNDING: Merrimack Pharmaceuticals.

[Role of immunotherapy in the management of colorectal cancer]. / Az immunterápia szerepe a vastagbélrák kezelésében.

Immunotherapy proved to be effective in various forms of cancer but it is in its infancy in colorectal cancer, although the Immunoscore was developed to classify this tumor immunologically. Various forms of immunotherapy were tested in early clinical trials but anti-PD-1 antibodies seem the most promising so far. These studies also revealed that one particular molecular subgroup of colorectal cancer, the microsatellite instable variant, is extremely sensitive for such modality.

Cancer Control in Central and Eastern Europe: Current Situation and Recommendations for Improvement.

: The incidence of many cancers is higher in Western European (WE) countries, but mortality is frequently higher in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. A panel of oncology leaders from CEE countries participating in the South Eastern European Research Oncology Group (SEEROG) was formed in 2015, aiming to analyze the current status and trends of oncology care in CEE and to propose recommendations leading to improved care and outcomes. The SEEROG panel, meeting during the 11th Central European Oncology Congress, proposed the following: (a) national cancer control plans (NCCPs) required in all CEE countries, defining priorities in cancer care, including finance allocation considering limited health care budgets; (b) national cancer registries, describing in detail epidemiological trends; (c) efforts to strengthen comprehensive cancer centers; (d) that multidisciplinary care should be mandated by the NCCPs; (e) that smaller hospitals should be connected to multidisciplinary tumor boards via the Internet, providing access to specialized expertise; (f) nationwide primary prevention programs targeting smoking, obesity, and alcohol consumption and centrally evaluated secondary prevention programs for cervical, colorectal, and breast cancers; (g) prioritize education for all involved in cancer care, including oncology nurses, general practitioners, and palliative care providers; (h) establish outpatient care in day hospitals to reduce costs associated with the current inpatient model of care in CEE countries and to improve patients' quality of life; (i) long-term pharmacoeconomic evaluations of new therapies in CEE countries; (j) increase national oncology budgets in view of the higher mortality rates in CEE compared with WE countries; and (k) CEE countries urgently need help from the European Union to increase and monitor overall investment in cancer care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Significant differences in cancer incidence and mortality have been observed between European countries. While the incidence of many cancer types is higher in Western European (WE) countries, the mortality is generally higher in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The primary purpose of this review was to describe the current status and trends of oncology care in the CEE region, to raise awareness among physicians, regulators, and payers, and to propose the most needed changes in order to make the oncology care in CEE closer to the WE standards.

Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that harbors KRAS mutations in exon 2 do not benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy. Other activating RAS mutations may also be negative predictive biomarkers for anti-EGFR therapy. METHODS: In this prospective-retrospective analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) as compared with FOLFOX4 alone, according to RAS (KRAS or NRAS) or BRAF mutation status. A total of 639 patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer without KRAS mutations in exon 2 had results for at least one of the following: KRAS exon 3 or 4; NRAS exon 2, 3, or 4; or BRAF exon 15. The overall rate of ascertainment of RAS status was 90%. RESULTS: Among 512 patients without RAS mutations, progression-free survival was 10.1 months with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus 7.9 months with FOLFOX4 alone (hazard ratio for progression or death with combination therapy, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.90; P=0.004). Overall survival was 26.0 months in the panitumumab-FOLFOX4 group versus 20.2 months in the FOLFOX4-alone group (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.99; P=0.04). A total of 108 patients (17%) with nonmutated KRAS exon 2 had other RAS mutations. These mutations were associated with inferior progression-free survival and overall survival with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment, which was consistent with the findings in patients with KRAS mutations in exon 2. BRAF mutations were a negative prognostic factor. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Additional RAS mutations predicted a lack of response in patients who received panitumumab-FOLFOX4. In patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer without RAS mutations, improvements in overall survival were observed with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 therapy. (Funded by Amgen and others; PRIME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00364013.).

Ramucirumab versus placebo in combination with second-line FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma that progressed during or after first-line therapy with bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine (RAISE): a randomised, double-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis is an important therapeutic target in colorectal carcinoma. Ramucirumab is a human IgG-1 monoclonal antibody that targets the extracellular domain of VEGF receptor 2. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ramucirumab versus placebo in combination with second-line FOLFIRI (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) for metastatic colorectal cancer in patients with disease progression during or after first-line therapy with bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine. METHODS: Between Dec 14, 2010, and Aug 23, 2013, we enrolled patients into the multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 RAISE trial. Eligible patients had disease progression during or within 6 months of the last dose of first-line therapy. Patients were randomised (1:1) via a centralised, interactive voice-response system to receive 8 mg/kg intravenous ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI or matching placebo plus FOLFIRI every 2 weeks until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or death. Randomisation was stratified by region, KRAS mutation status, and time to disease progression after starting first-line treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01183780.ld FINDINGS: We enrolled 1072 patients (536 in each group). Median overall survival was 13·3 months (95% CI 12·4-14·5) for patients in the ramucirumab group versus 11·7 months (10·8-12·7) for the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·844 95% CI 0·730-0·976; log-rank p=0·0219). Survival benefit was consistent across subgroups of patients who received ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI. Grade 3 or worse adverse events seen in more than 5% of patients were neutropenia (203 [38%] of 529 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 123 [23%] of 528 in the placebo group, with febrile neutropenia incidence of 18 [3%] vs 13 [2%]), hypertension (59 [11%] vs 15 [3%]), diarrhoea (57 [11%] vs 51 [10%]), and fatigue (61 [12%] vs 41 [8%]). INTERPRETATION: Ramucirumab plus FOLFIRI significantly improved overall survival compared with placebo plus FOLFIRI as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma. No unexpected adverse events were identified and toxic effects were manageable. FUNDING: Eli Lilly.

Impact of sorafenib dosing on outcome from the European patient subset of the GIDEON study.

AIMS: To evaluate sorafenib dosing and safety in the Global Investigation of therapeutic GIDEON study's European subpopulation. PATIENTS & METHODS: Patient demographics, disease characteristics and treatment history were recorded at enrollment; dose, adverse events and efficacy were recorded at follow-up. RESULTS: Of 1113 evaluable patients, 82% started on 800 mg/day sorafenib; patients starting on 400 mg/day were slightly older, had baseline characteristics indicative of greater disease progression and higher adverse events incidences (96 vs 88%). Treatment duration (18.0 vs 13.0 weeks) and median overall survival (12.1 vs 9.4 months) were longer in patients receiving 800 mg/day. CONCLUSION: Imbalances in independent predictive factors may have led to longer survival in patients receiving 800 mg/day sorafenib; nonetheless, results suggest that the majority can start on this dose.

[Occurrence, intratumoral heterogeneity, prognostic and predictive potential of microsatellite instability following surgical resection of primary colorectal carcinomas and corresponding liver metastases]. / Mikroszatellita-instabilitás elofordulása, intratumoralis heterogenitása, prognosztikus és prediktív potenciálja primer colorectalis carcinomák és párosított májáttéteik sebészi kezelését követoen.

INTRODUCTION: Besides clinicopathological parameters, molecular markers can be very important, and further characterize colorectal carcinomas into chromosomally unstable, microsatellite instable and "CqG-island methylator phenotype" groups. AIM: To study the frequency of microsatellite instability using immunohistochemical evaluation of MLH1, MSH2, MSH6 and PMS2 proteins in colorectal carcinoma. METHOD: 122 colorectal carcinomas as well as in 69 paired liver metastases were evaluated. Additionally, prognostic and predictive potential of mismatch repair status was tested. RESULTS: Microsatellite instable phenotype was identified in 11.5% (14/122) of the tumours. There were no differences regarding staining intensity of tumour regions. Mismatch repair status was discordant in primaries vs. metastases in 20.2%. There was no difference in progression free- and overall survival according to mismatch repair status. The mismatch repair status was not predictive for survival within systemic therapy regimen groups. CONCLUSIONS: The subgroups of colorectal carcinomas could be evaluated in a larger and homogenised patient cohort to predict prognosis and response to therapy.

Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (RAINBOW): a double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: VEGFR-2 has a role in gastric cancer pathogenesis and progression. We assessed whether ramucirumab, a monoclonal antibody VEGFR-2 antagonist, in combination with paclitaxel would increase overall survival in patients previously treated for advanced gastric cancer compared with placebo plus paclitaxel. METHODS: This randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial was done at 170 centres in 27 countries in North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Patients aged 18 years or older with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma and disease progression on or within 4 months after first-line chemotherapy (platinum plus fluoropyrimidine with or without an anthracycline) were randomly assigned with a centralised interactive voice or web-response system in a 1:1 ratio to receive ramucirumab 8 mg/kg or placebo intravenously on days 1 and 15, plus paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. A permuted block randomisation, stratified by geographic region, time to progression on first-line therapy, and disease measurability, was used. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat, and safety analysis included all patients who received at least one treatment with study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01170663, and has been completed; patients who are still receiving treatment are in the extension phase. FINDINGS: Between Dec 23, 2010, and Sept 23, 2012, 665 patients were randomly assigned to treatment-330 to ramucirumab plus paclitaxel and 335 to placebo plus paclitaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer in the ramucirumab plus paclitaxel group than in the placebo plus paclitaxel group (median 9·6 months [95% CI 8·5-10·8] vs 7·4 months [95% CI 6·3-8·4], hazard ratio 0·807 [95% CI 0·678-0·962]; p=0·017). Grade 3 or higher adverse events that occurred in more than 5% of patients in the ramucirumab plus paclitaxel group versus placebo plus paclitaxel included neutropenia (133 [41%] of 327 vs 62 [19%] of 329), leucopenia (57 [17%] vs 22 [7%]), hypertension (46 [14%] vs eight [2%]), fatigue (39 [12%] vs 18 [5%]), anaemia (30 [9%] vs 34 [10%]), and abdominal pain (20 [6%] vs 11 [3%]). The incidence of grade 3 or higher febrile neutropenia was low in both groups (ten [3%] vs eight [2%]). INTERPRETATION: The combination of ramucirumab with paclitaxel significantly increases overall survival compared with placebo plus paclitaxel, and could be regarded as a new standard second-line treatment for patients with advanced gastric cancer. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

[Experience with everolimus therapy for patients with metastatic renal cancer in Hungary]. / Áttétes vesedaganatos betegek everolimusterápiájával szerzett hazai tapasztalatok.

Everolimus is indicated for the therapy of adults with advanced renal cell carcinoma after failure of treatment with vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). The aim of the study was a multicenter evaluation of efficiency and toxicity of everolimus in patients with metastatic renal carcinoma who received one line of VEGFR-TKI therapy. Data of one hundred and one patients were analyzed retrospectively. Patients received everolimus therapy between January 2010 and July 2013. Data were collected in 7 different oncology institutes in Hungary. Starting daily dose of everolimus was 10 mg in 28-day cycles. Physical and laboratory examinations were done monthly. Imaging tests were performed every 3 months. Tumor response and toxicity were evaluated according to RECIST 1.0 and NCI CTCAE 3.0, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed with SPPS version 20.0 for Windows. Currently 26 (27%) patients are being treated, 52 (54.1%) patients are alive. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.7 months (95% CI 4.07-7.33). Partial remission, stable disease and progression occurred in 6 (6%), 71 (74%) and 19 (20%) patients, respectively. Median overall survival (OS) was 14.3 months (95% CI 6.99-19.81). PFS and OS results were more favorable in patients with ECOG 0-1. Survival was poorer in case of anemia, while better if PFS was longer than 12 months. In anemic patients with ECOG 0-1 and ECOG 2-3 OS was 30.9 and 7.7 months, respectively (p=0.031). Dose reduction and treatment delay happened in 8 (7.9%) and 12 (11.9%) cases, respectively. The most common side effects were the following: exanthema, edema, stomatitis, pneumonitis, anemia and abnormal kidney-, liver functions, blood sugar and cholesterol levels. According to the Hungarian experience, everolimus can safely be administered. PFS and OS results representing the centers' everyday practice, are similar to the results of the respective subgroups in the registration study.

Capecitabine and cisplatin with or without cetuximab for patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer (EXPAND): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced gastric cancer have a poor prognosis and few efficacious treatment options. We aimed to assess the addition of cetuximab to capecitabine-cisplatin chemotherapy in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer. METHODS: In our open-label, randomised phase 3 trial (EXPAND), we enrolled adults aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed locally advanced unresectable (M0) or metastatic (M1) adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastro-oesophageal junction. We enrolled patients at 164 sites (teaching hospitals and clinics) in 25 countries, and randomly assigned eligible participants (1:1) to receive first-line chemotherapy with or without cetuximab. Randomisation was done with a permuted block randomisation procedure (variable block size), stratified by disease stage (M0 vs M1), previous oesophagectomy or gastrectomy (yes vs no), and previous (neo)adjuvant (radio)chemotherapy (yes vs no). Treatment consisted of 3-week cycles of twice-daily capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) (on days 1-14) and intravenous cisplatin 80 mg/m(2) (on day 1), with or without weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) initial infusion on day 1 followed by 250 mg/m(2) per week thereafter). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), assessed by a masked independent review committee in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This study is registered at EudraCT, number 2007-004219-75. FINDINGS: Between June 30, 2008, and Dec 15, 2010, we enrolled 904 patients. Median PFS for 455 patients allocated capecitabine-cisplatin plus cetuximab was 4.4 months (95% CI 4.2-5.5) compared with 5.6 months (5.1-5.7) for 449 patients who were allocated to receive capecitabine-cisplatin alone (hazard ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.92-1.29; p=0.32). 369 (83%) of 446 patients in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 337 (77%) of 436 patients in the chemotherapy group had grade 3-4 adverse events, including grade 3-4 diarrhoea, hypokalaemia, hypomagnesaemia, rash, and hand-foot syndrome. Grade 3-4 neutropenia was more common in controls than in patients who received cetuximab. Incidence of grade 3-4 skin reactions and acne-like rash was substantially higher in the cetuximab-containing regimen than in the control regimen. 239 (54%) of 446 in the cetuximab group and 194 (44%) of 436 in the control group had any grade of serious adverse event. INTERPRETATION: Addition of cetuximab to capecitabine-cisplatin provided no additional benefit to chemotherapy alone in the first-line treatment of advanced gastric cancer in our trial. FUNDING: Merck KGaA.

[First Hungarian experience with pazopanib therapy for patients with metastatic renal cancer]. / Áttétes vesedaganatos betegek pazopanibterápiájával szerzett elsõ hazai tapasztalatok.

Pazopanib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor, is one of the new registered first-line therapeutic options in the treatment of metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma. Our aim was to evaluate the efficiency and toxicity of first-line pazopanib therapy administered for patients with metastatic clear cell renal carcinoma with good- and medium prognosis according to MSKCC criteria. Between January and May, 2011, 24 patients have been treated with pazopanib in 8 oncology centers in Hungary, out of them 21 patients' data were analyzed. The mean age was 65.3 (49-81) years, 10 males and 11 females. According to MSKCC the prognosis was good and medium in 3 and 18 cases, respectively. Daily dose of pazopanib was 800 mg administered continuously in 28 day cycles. Dose reduction was performed according to the instructions of the registration study. Tumor response was evaluated according to RECIST 1.0. Currently 6 (28.6%) patients are on treatment. Dose reduction was necessary in 6 (28.6%) cases with an average duration of 14.55 (7-150) days. Mean±SE daily dose was 692.97±13.67 (400-800) mg. Median PFS was 12.41 months (95% CI 11.52-12.94 months). Complete remission (CR), as the best tumor response occurred in 2 (9.5%) cases. Partial remission (PR), stable disease (SD) and progression was observed in 6 (28.6%), 10 (47.6%) and 3 (14.3%) cases, respectively. Objective tumor response was observed in 8 pts (38%). Median survival could not be statistically analyzed yet due to the insignificant number of fatal outcomes. Median follow-up was 25.22 months (95% CI 2.47-28.1 months). As common side-effect fatigue, weakness and diarrhea occurred in 11 (52.4%), 9 (42.9%) and 8 (38%) cases, respectively. Besides these, worsening of high blood pressure and ALT/AST elevation was observed in 5 (23.8%) and 6 (28.6%) cases, respectively. Based on the initial Hungarian experiences, pazopanib is a well tolerable product and can be administered safely. According to our results its efficiency in terms of tumor response and progression-free survival is comparable to the results of the registration study.

Bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer (AVANT): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab improves the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our aim was to assess the use of bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma. METHODS: Patients from 330 centres in 34 countries were enrolled into this phase 3, open-label randomised trial. Patients with curatively resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), and fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 1; leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) plus fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 2) every 2 weeks for 12 cycles; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg plus FOLFOX4 (every 2 weeks for 12 cycles) followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks); or bevacizumab 7·5 mg/kg plus XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 2 weeks plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-15) every 3 weeks for eight cycles followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks). Block randomisation was done with a central interactive computerised system, stratified by geographic region and disease stage. Surgery with curative intent occurred 4-8 weeks before randomisation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed for all randomised patients with stage III disease. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00112918. FINDINGS: Of the total intention-to-treat population (n=3451), 2867 patients had stage III disease, of whom 955 were randomly assigned to receive FOLFOX4, 960 to receive bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and 952 to receive bevacizumab-XELOX. After a median follow-up of 48 months (range 0-66 months), 237 patients (25%) in the FOLFOX4 group, 280 (29%) in the bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 group, and 253 (27%) in the bevacizumab-XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new colon cancer, or died. The disease-free survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·17 (95% CI 0·98-1·39; p=0·07), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·07 (0·90-1·28; p=0·44). After a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the overall survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·27 (1·03-1·57; p=0·02), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·15 (0·93-1·42; p=0·21). The 573 patients with high-risk stage II cancer were included in the safety analysis. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were neutropenia (FOLFOX4: 477 [42%] of 1126 patients, bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 416 [36%] of 1145 patients, and bevacizumab-XELOX: 74 [7%] of 1135 patients), diarrhoea (110 [10%], 135 [12%], and 181 [16%], respectively), and hypertension (12 [1%], 122 [11%], and 116 [10%], respectively). Serious adverse events were more common in the bevacizumab groups (bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 297 [26%]; bevacizumab-XELOX: 284 [25%]) than in the FOLFOX4 group (226 [20%]). Treatment-related deaths were reported in one patient receiving FOLFOX4, two receiving bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and five receiving bevacizumab-XELOX. INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab does not prolong disease-free survival when added to adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage III colon cancer. Overall survival data suggest a potential detrimental effect with bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in these patients. On the basis of these and other data, we do not recommend the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with curatively resected stage III colon cancer. FUNDING: Genentech, Roche, and Chugai.