Chemotherapy (doublet or triplet) plus targeted therapy by RAS status as conversion therapy in colorectal cancer patients with initially unresectable liver-only metastases. The UNICANCER PRODIGE-14 randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients have a better prognosis if metastases are resectable. Initially, unresectable liver-only metastases can be converted to resectable with chemotherapy plus a targeted therapy. We assessed which of chemotherapy doublet (2-CTx) or triplet (3-CTx), combined with targeted therapy by RAS status, would be better in this setting. METHODS: PRODIGE 14 was an open-label, multicenter, randomised Phase 2 trial. CRC patients with initially defined unresectable liver-only metastases received either, 2-CTx (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) or 3-CTx (FOLFIRINOX), plus bevacizumab/cetuximab by RAS status. The primary endpoint was to increase the R0/R1 liver-resection rate from 50 to 70% with the 3-CTx. RESULTS: Patients (n = 256) were mainly men with an ECOG PS of 0, and a median age of 60 years. In total, 109 patients (42.6%) had RAS-mutated tumours. After a median follow-up of 45.6 months, the R0/R1 liver-resection rate was 56.9% (95% CI: 48-66) with the 3-CTx versus 48.4% (95% CI: 39-57) with the 2-CTx (P = 0.17). Median overall survival was 43.4 months with 3-CTx versus 40 months with 2-CTx. CONCLUSION: We failed to increase from 50 to 70% the R0/R1 liver-resection rate with the use of 3-CTx combined with bevacizumab or cetuximab by RAS status in CRC patients with initially unresectable liver metastases.

Perioperative treatment in resectable gastric cancer with spartalizumab in combination with fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel (FLOT): a phase II study (GASPAR).

BACKGROUND: Perioperative chemotherapy and surgery are a standard of care for patients with resectable gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. However, the prognosis remains poor for this population. The FLOT (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) regimen is considered as the new standard chemotherapy regimen for perioperative strategy, despite associated with a 5-year overall survival rate (OS) amounting 45% following radical surgery. Immunotherapy with antibodies that inhibit PD-1/ PD-L1 interaction has recently emerged as a new treatment option with promising and encouraging early trial results for patients with advanced or metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Currently, no trials have investigated the impact of perioperative immunotherapy in combination with chemotherapy for resectable gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. METHODS: GASPAR trial is a multicenter open-label, nonrandomized, phase II trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Spartalizumab in combination with the FLOT regimen as perioperative treatment for resectable gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. The main endpoint is the proportion of patients with pathological complete regression (pCR) in the primary tumour after preoperative treatment. Systemic treatment will include a pre-operative neoadjuvant and a post-operative adjuvant treatment, during which FLOT regimen will be administered every two weeks for 4 cycles and Spartalizumab every four weeks for 2 cycles. For patients with confirmed tumor resectability on imaging assessment, surgery will be realized within 4-6 weeks after the last dose of preoperative chemotherapy. Post-operative systemic treatment will then be initiated within 4-10 weeks after surgery. Using a Simon's two-stage design, up to 67 patients will be enrolled, including 23 in the first stage. DISCUSSION: Currently, no trials have investigated the impact of immunotherapy in combination with FLOT chemotherapy as perioperative treatment for resectable gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Some studies have suggested a change in the tumor immune micro-environment following neoadjuvant chemotherapy in this setting, reinforcing the relevance to propose a phase II trial evaluating efficacy and safety of Spartalizumab in combination with perioperative chemotherapy, with the aim of improving treatment efficacy and survival outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04736485, registered February, 3, 2021.

Withholding the Introduction of Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor: Impact on Outcomes in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Tumors: A Multicenter AGEO Study (the WAIT or ACT Study).

BACKGROUND: Patients with RAS wild-type (WT) nonresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) may receive either bevacizumab or an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) combined with first-line, 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. Without the RAS status information, the oncologist can either start chemotherapy with bevacizumab or wait for the introduction of the anti-EGFR. Our objective was to compare both strategies in a routine practice setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective, propensity score-weighted study included patients with a RAS WT nonresectable mCRC, treated between 2013 and 2016 by a 5-FU-based chemotherapy, with either delayed anti-EGFR or immediate anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Primary criterion was overall survival (OS). Secondary criteria were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: A total of 262 patients (129 in the anti-VEGF group and 133 in the anti-EGFR group) were included. Patients receiving an anti-VEGF were more often men (68% vs. 56%), with more metastatic sites (>2 sites: 15% vs. 9%). The median delay to obtain the RAS status was 19 days (interquartile range: 13-26). Median OS was not significantly different in the two groups (29 vs. 30.5 months, p = .299), even after weighting on the propensity score (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.08, p = .2024). The delayed introduction of anti-EGFR was associated with better median PFS (13.8 vs. 11.0 months, p = .0244), even after weighting on the propensity score (HR = 0.74, 95% CI, 0.61-0.90, p = .0024). ORR was significantly higher in the anti-EGFR group (66.7% vs. 45.6%, p = .0007). CONCLUSION: Delayed introduction of anti-EGFR had no deleterious effect on OS, PFS, and ORR, compared with doublet chemotherapy with anti-VEGF. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: For RAS/RAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, patients may receive 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab or an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). In daily practice, the time to obtain the RAS status might be long enough to consider two options: to start the chemotherapy with bevacizumab, or to start without a targeted therapy and to add the anti-EGFR at reception of the RAS status. This study found no deleterious effect of the delayed introduction of an anti-EGFR on survival, compared with the introduction of an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor from cycle 1. It is possible to wait one or two cycles to introduce the anti-EGFR while waiting for RAS status.

Implantation of tissue expander prior to irradiation in the era of intensity modulated radiotherapy: impact on the management of patients with pelvic digestive cancers.

PURPOSE: Before the introduction of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), few teams used to implant a pelvic tissue expander to keep the bowel away from the radiation field, so as to reduce the risk of acute and late enteritis. However, this unexpected surgery could impact patient's overall treatment and may be no more necessary in the era of modern radiotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cross-sectional study including 13 patients who underwent tissue expander implantation before radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for rectal or anal carcinoma between November 2008 and March 2019. First, we aim to show that IMRT could sometimes be insufficient to respect dosimetric constraints, and then we aim to report the impact of tissue expander implantation on the global strategy of care of patients with anal and rectal cancers. RESULTS: Seventy-seven percent of the included patients were treated for anal neoplasms, while the remaining 23% had locally advanced rectal cancer. The median follow-up since implantation of the expander was 51 months [3.7-115]. Three patients recurred. One patient developed grade III toxicity related to the implantation of a tissue expander. The delay between diagnosis and the start of irradiation was significantly prolonged (median of 3 months), requiring unusual induction chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Implantation of tissue expander prior to chemoradiotherapy should be considered, even in the era of IMRT, when irradiated peritoneal cavity volume (V15Gy-V45Gy) far exceeds usual dose constraints. However, it impacts the global strategy of care by delaying the start of irradiation, by introducing induction chemotherapy, and rarely by causing post-operative complications.

Optimisation of chemotherapy prescription and preparation in an ambulatory unit: Validation of the OPTIMA program.

OBJECTIVE: We implemented the two-step OPTIMA program to anticipate chemotherapy prescription which aims to assess the discrepancy rate between anticipated and real prescription and its impact on waiting time and quality of care. METHODS: This prospective study included cancer patients receiving any intravenous chemotherapy. The OPTIMA program consists in a nurse phone call and a blood sample two days before the planned treatment. Collected information and biological results were used by a physician to issue a non-effective (step 1) or effective (step 2) anticipated prescription the day before the consultation. The real prescription was given as usual by another physician on the day of the consultation. Waiting time was collected, and patients' satisfaction with care was assessed with the OUT-PATSAT35 questionnaire. RESULTS: Respectively, 540 and 979 consultations (283 and 294 patients) were analysed in both steps. The discrepancy rate was 8.7% (step 1). In routine practice, the OPTIMA program (step 2) reduced patients' waiting time (median time 55 vs. 95 min, p < 0.001). A high general care satisfaction score was observed in both steps (80.7% and 80.2%). CONCLUSIONS: This anticipation program demonstrated the accuracy of chemotherapy prescription, whatever the regimen and cancer site, and its impact on waiting time optimisation.

CA19.9 decrease >15% is a predictor of favourable outcome in patients treated for advanced pancreatic carcinoma: analysis of two independent cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Although carbohydrate antigen 19.9 (CA19.9) is widely used in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA), no consensual cut-off value of CA19.9 decrease has been established for treatment monitoring. METHODS: This was a retrospective study including patients with a baseline CA19.9 ≥ 37 UI/ml and with locally advanced or metastatic PA from two French centers. CA19.9 measurements were performed at baseline and first CT-scan evaluation. The aim was to use a training set to determine the best cut-off of CA19.9 decrease for predicting progressive disease (PD) and to analyze its performance in an independent validation cohort. RESULTS: A total of 95 and 93 patients were included in the training and validation sets, respectively. A ≤15% CA19.9 decrease was the best cut-off for predicting PD with a sensitivity (Se) = 68% and a specificity (Sp) = 90%. In the validation set, this threshold was associated with Se = 76% and Sp = 83%. A >15% CA19.9 decrease was significantly associated with improved PFS (median 8.3 versus 3.1 months, p < 0.0001) and OS (median 14 versus 7.2 months, p < 0.0001). A >15% CA19.9 decrease was also identified as a factor independently associated with OS (HRa = 0.25, 95% CI:0.14-0.44). CONCLUSIONS: A CA 19.9 decrease >15% is a favourable predictor of outcome in patients treated for advanced PA.

Utility of serum anti-cetuximab immunoglobulin E levels to identify patients at a high risk of severe hypersensitivity reaction to cetuximab.

AIM: Cetuximab is an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody used for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer and head and neck cancer. Hypersensitivity reactions (HSRs) are associated with cetuximab use. The aim of the study was to evaluate the utility of anti-cetuximab immunoglobulin E (IgE) detection in order to identify patients at risk of HSR to cetuximab. METHODS: We included patients ready to receive a first cetuximab infusion in a prospective cohort carried out at nine French centres. Pretreatment anti-cetuximab IgE levels were measured. We compared the proportion of severe HSRs in the low anti-cetuximab IgE levels (≤29 IgE arbitrary units) subgroup with that in a historical cohort of 213 patients extracted from a previous study. RESULTS: Of the 301 assessable patients (mean age: 60.9 ± 9.3 years, head-and-neck cancer: 77%), 66 patients (22%) had high anti-cetuximab IgE levels, and 247 patients received cetuximab (including 38 with high anti-cetuximab levels). Severe HSRs occurred in eight patients (five grade 3 and three grade 4). The proportion of severe HSRs was lower in the low anti-cetuximab IgE levels subgroup vs. the historical cohort (3/209 [1.4%] vs. 11/213 [5.2%], odds ratio, 0.27, 95% confidence interval, 0.07-0.97), and higher in high vs. low anti-cetuximab IgE levels subgroup (5/38 [13.2%] vs. 3/209 [1.4%]; odds ratio, 10.4, 95% confidence interval, 2.4-45.6). Patients with severe HSRs had higher anti-cetuximab IgE levels than patients without reaction (median, 45 vs. 2 IgE arbitrary units, P = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Detection of pretreatment anti-cetuximab IgE is feasible and helpful to identify patients at risk of severe cetuximab-induced HSRs.

First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Clinico-Biological Predictors of Disease Control.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify predictors of tumor control (TC) in metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients receiving first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: A development cohort of 68 patients from a prospective multicenter trial (NCT01248299) was used to identify predictors of TC at first radiological tumor assessment and to generate a predictive score for TC. That score was applied in an independent retrospective single-center validation cohort of 60 consecutive patients. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis identified three predictors of TC: body mass index ≥18.5 (OR 4.5, 95% CI 0.91-22.5), absence of bone metastasis (OR 4.6, 95% CI 0.91-23.2) and albumin ≥35 g/l (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.0-12.1). Based on the presence or absence of these three independent prognosticators, we built a predictive model using a score from 0 to 3. In the development cohort, the TC rates were 14.3 and 78.0% and in the validation cohort 12.5 and 44.2%, for scores of 0-1 and 2-3, respectively. With negative predictive values of 85 and 88% in the development and validation cohorts, respectively, we were able to identify patients with a very low probability of TC. CONCLUSION: We have developed and validated a score that can be easily determined at the bedside to predict TC in metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients.

How to improve the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting? The French NAVI study.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) still remain frequent. The procedure for announcing the diagnosis (PAD) was an emblematic measure of the first French Plan Cancer aiming at providing patients with time to listen, information after cancer diagnosis, and discussion on treatments and their side effects. We aimed at assessing the risk factors of CINV, focusing on patients' satisfaction with the PAD. METHODS: This prospective multicentre study assessed the frequency and intensity of CINV among chemonaïve patients during the first cycle of treatment. CINV was defined by ≥1 emetic episode or reported nausea intensity ≥3 on a 0-10 scale. Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors related to global CINV onset including satisfaction with the PAD (satisfaction score ≥the median on a 0-10 scale). RESULTS: Data from 291 patients (women, 85.2%; mean age, 57 years) were analyzed. Most patients (69.4%) received highly emetogenic chemotherapy regimens and 77.7% received antiemetic drugs consistent with international guidelines. Acute, delayed and overall CINV were experienced by 40.4, 34.8 and 52.4% of patients, respectively. Sixty-seven per cent of patients were satisfied with the PAD. No relation was noted between PAD satisfaction and CINV onset. The nausea and vomiting dimension of the QLQ-C30 questionnaire before chemotherapy (OR 3.62), motion sickness history (OR 2.73), highly emetogenic CT (OR 2.73), anxiety (OR 1.99) and younger age (OR 1.96) were independent predictive factors. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients were mostly satisfied with the PAD, half of them experienced CINV. A state of anxiety could be identified during the PAD to be managed.

Definitive chemoradiotherapy with FOLFOX versus fluorouracil and cisplatin in patients with oesophageal cancer (PRODIGE5/ACCORD17): final results of a randomised, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Definitive chemoradiotherapy is a curative treatment option for oesophageal carcinoma, especially in patients unsuitable for surgery. The PRODIGE5/ACCORD17 trial aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the FOLFOX treatment regimen (fluorouracil plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin) versus fluorouracil and cisplatin as part of chemoradiotherapy in patients with localised oesophageal cancer. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 2/3 trial of patients aged 18 years or older enrolled from 24 centres in France between Oct 15, 2004, and Aug 25, 2011. Eligible participants had confirmed stage I-IVA oesophageal carcinoma (adenocarcinoma, squamous-cell, or adenosquamous), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status 0-2, sufficient caloric intake, adequate haematological, renal, and hepatic function, and had been selected to receive definitive chemoradiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either six cycles (three concomitant to radiotherapy) of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), bolus fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2), and infusional fluorouracil 1600 mg/m(2) (FOLFOX) over 46 h, or four cycles (two concomitant to radiotherapy) of fluorouracil 1000 mg/m(2) per day for 4 days and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1. Both groups also received 50 Gy radiotherapy in 25 fractions (five fractions per week). Random allocation to treatment groups was done by a central computerised randomisation procedure by minimisation, stratified by centre, histology, weight loss, and ECOG status, and was achieved independently from the study investigators. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Data analysis was primarily done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00861094. FINDINGS: 134 participants were randomly allocated to the FOLFOX group and 133 to the fluorouracil and cisplatin group (intention-to-treat population), and 131 patients in the FOLFOX group and 128 in the fluorouracil and cisplatin group actually received the study drugs (safety population). Median follow-up was 25·3 months (IQR 15·9-36·4). Median progression-free survival was 9·7 months (95% CI 8·1-14·5) in the FOLFOX group and 9·4 months (8·1-10·6) in the fluorouracil and cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·70-1·24; p=0·64). One toxic death occurred in the FOLFOX group and six in the fluorouracil-cisplatin group (p=0·066). No significant differences were recorded in the rates of most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events between the treatment groups. Of all-grade adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of patients, paraesthesia (61 [47%] events in 131 patients in the FOLFOX group vs three [2%] in 128 patients in the cisplatin-fluorouracil group, p<0·0001), sensory neuropathy (24 [18%] vs one [1%], p<0·0001), increases in aspartate aminotransferase concentrations (14 [11%] vs two [2%], p=0·002), and increases in alanine aminotransferase concentrations (11 [8%] vs two [2%], p=0·012) were more common in the FOLFOX group, whereas serum creatinine increases (four [3%] vs 15 [12%], p=0·007), mucositis (35 [27%] vs 41 [32%], p=0·011), and alopecia (two [2%] vs 12 [9%], p=0·005) were more common in the fluorouracil and cisplatin group. INTERPRETATION: Although chemoradiotherapy with FOLFOX did not increase progression-free survival compared with chemoradiotherapy with fluorouracil and cisplatin, FOLFOX might be a more convenient option for patients with localised oesophageal cancer unsuitable for surgery. FUNDING: UNICANCER, French Health Ministry, Sanofi-Aventis, and National League Against Cancer.

Risk factors associated with hypersensitivity reactions to cetuximab: anti-cetuximab IgE detection as screening test.

AIM: To describe the factors associated with a high risk of a hypersensitivity reaction to cetuximab. PATIENTS & METHODS: We retrospectively studied a cohort of patients living in Normandy (France) treated with cetuximab. RESULTS: Among the 229 treated patients, 24 (10.5%) had a hypersensitivity reaction to cetuximab, including 11 grade 3-5 reactions. Detection of anti-cetuximab IgE could be performed in 108 patients. Anti-cetuximab IgE was found in 13 of 17 patients (76.5%) who had a hypersensitivity reaction to cetuximab compared with 17 of 91 control patients (18.7%; adjusted odds ratio: 14.99; 95% CI: 3.59-62.63). No clinical criteria predicted the risk of allergy to cetuximab. CONCLUSION: Anti-cetuximab IgE may help physicians identify patients at risk of a hypersensitivity reaction to cetuximab.

Relative dose intensity of first-line triplet chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Relative dose intensity (RDI) is a measurement of chemotherapy (CT) dose defined as the actual dose received divided by the standard calculated dose during a set period. The study objective was to assess the impact of a RDI ≥ 80% on response and survival of patients treated in first line CT by FOLFOXIRI or FOLFIRINOX ± Bevacizumab (BV) for an unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: It was a retrospective, non-interventional, multicenter study calculating RDI from the first cycles of CT to the first CT-scan evaluation (CT-scan1). Objective response and disease control rates (ORR and DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients with RDI ≥ 80% and <80% and results were adjusted for age, gender, ECOG, tumor location, number of metastatic sites, RAS and BRAF status, the CT regimen, the use of BV, the delay from C1 to CT scan1. RESULTS: Among 152 screened patients, 100 met inclusion criteria, with a mean (± standard deviation) age at 59.0 (± 10.7) years. The ECOG performance status was 0-1 in 96 (96%) patients; metastases were synchronous in 95 (95%), RAS and BRAF were mutated in 60 (60%) and 22 (22%), respectively. ORR was observed in 51 (51%) at CT-scan1 with median PFS and OS of 10.5 and 21.9 months, respectively. A RDI ≥ 80% was observed in 44 (44%) patients without impact on ORR (ORa: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.37 to 2.89, p = 0.94) but was significantly associated to improved PFS and OS with HRa 0.50 (95%CI: 0.29 to 0.87, p = 0.013) and 0.52 (95% CI: 0.29 to 0.91, p = 0.023), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest a low level of FOLFOXIRI or FOLFIRINOX +/- BV exposure in first-line mCRC is associated with a significant trend on PFS and OS.

Hepatic arterial oxaliplatin plus intravenous 5-fluorouracil and cetuximab for first-line treatment of colorectal liver metastases: A multicenter phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and tolerability of hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) oxaliplatin plus systemic 5-fluorouracil and cetuximab as frontline treatment in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are unknown. METHODS: In this multicenter, single-arm phase II study, patients with CRLM not amenable to curative-intent resection or requiring complex/major liver resection, and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, received HAI oxaliplatin and intravenous 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and cetuximab, every two weeks until disease progression, limiting toxicity or at least 3 months after complete response or curative-intent resection/ablation. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: 35 patients, mostly with bilateral (89%), multiple CRLM (>4, 86%; >10, 46%) were enrolled in eight centers. The ORR was 88% (95% CI, 71%-96%) among evaluable patients (n = 32), and 95% (95% CI 70-100%) among the 22 wild-type RAS/BRAF evaluable patients. After a median follow-up of 8.8 years (95% CI, 8.7-not reached), median progression-free survival was 17.9 months (95% CI, 15-23) and median overall survival (OS) was 46.3 months (95% CI, 40.0-not reached). 23 of the 35 patients (66%), including 22 (79%) of the 25 patients with wild-type RAS tumor, underwent curative-intent surgical resection and/or ablation of CRLM. HAI catheter remained patent in 86% of patients, allowing for a median of eight oxaliplatin infusions (range, 1-19). Treatment toxicity was manageable, without toxic death. CONCLUSION: HAI oxaliplatin plus systemic 5-fluorouracil and cetuximab appears highly effective in the frontline treatment of patients with unresectable CRLM and should be investigated further.

Maintenance Therapy With Cetuximab After FOLFIRI Plus Cetuximab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal maintenance strategy after induction chemotherapy with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains to be debated. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with single-agent cetuximab after FOLFIRI (leucovorin [folinic acid], fluorouracil, and irinotecan) plus cetuximab induction therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: The TIME (Treatment After Irinotecan-Based Frontline Therapy: Maintenance With Erbitux]) (PRODIGE 28 [Partenariat de Recherche en Oncologie Digestive]-UCGI 27 [UniCancer GastroIntestinal Group]) phase 2 noncomparative, multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 15, 2014, to November 23, 2018, among 139 patients with unresectable RAS wild-type mCRC. The cutoff date for analysis was July 21, 2022. Interventions: After first-line induction therapy with 8 cycles of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab, patients without disease progression were randomized (1:1) to biweekly maintenance with cetuximab or observation. On disease progression, the same induction regimen was recommended for 16 weeks followed by further maintenance with cetuximab or observation until disease progression under the full induction regimen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the 6-month progression-free rate from randomization. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. An exploratory biomolecular analysis, using next-generation sequencing, investigated the putative prognostic value of the tumor mutation profile. Results: Of 214 patients enrolled (141 men [65.9%]; median age, 67 years [range, 23-85 years]), 139 were randomized to receive cetuximab (n = 67; 45 men [67.2%]; median age, 64 years [range, 34-85 years]) or to be observed (n = 72; 50 men [69.4%]; median age, 68 years [23-85 years]). The 6-month progression-free rate was 38.8% ([26 of 67] 95% CI, 27.1%-51.5%) in the cetuximab group and 5.6% ([4 of 72] 95% CI, 1.5%-13.6%) in the observation group. At a median follow-up of 40.5 months (95% CI, 33.6-47.5 months), median progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization was 5.3 months (95% CI, 3.7-7.4 months) in the cetuximab group and 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.8-2.7 months) in the observation group. Median overall survival (OS) was 24.8 months (95% CI, 18.7-30.4 months) in the cetuximab group and 19.7 months (95% CI, 13.3-24.4 months) in the observation group. In an exploratory multivariate analysis, any tumor-activating mutation in the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway genes was associated with shorter PFS from randomization regardless of treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.01-2.62]; P = .04). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxic effect in the cetuximab group during maintenance therapy was rash (8 of 67 [11.9%]). Conclusion and Relevance: The randomized clinical trial did not meet its primary end point but suggests clinically meaningful PFS and OS benefits associated with cetuximab maintenance therapy. However, maintenance cetuximab or treatment breaks after first-line combination FOLFIRI-cetuximab therapy seems inappropriate for patients with MAPK-mutated independently of the side of primary tumor. A more complete assessment of MAPK pathway mutations warrants further investigation to the refine treatment strategy for patients with RAS wild-type mCRC. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02404935.

SOCRATE-PRODIGE 55 trial: A randomized phase II study to evaluate second-line ramucirumab alone or with paclitaxel in older patients with advanced gastric cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Patients ≥ 70 years old constitute 40% of patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC). Ramucirumab plus Paclitaxel is a therapeutic option validated in the second-line treatment of advanced GC, but as older patients are at higher risk of severe toxicity, due to comorbidities and/or frailty, we aimed to evaluate second-line Ramucirumab alone or combined with Paclitaxel in terms of overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) in patients ≥ 70 years-old with advanced GC. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-comparative, prospective phase II clinical trial, the main inclusion criteria are: patients ≥ 70 years old, with advanced GC having progressed after first-line chemotherapy or in the six months following the last administration of adjuvant chemotherapy, with WHO performance status <2. They are randomized to receive either ramucirumab alone (arm A) or ramucirumab plus Paclitaxel (arm B). The primary endpoint is 6-month OS and QoL evaluated with the EORTC QLQ-ELD14 questionnaire. The secondary endpoints include other parameters of QoL, time to definitive deterioration (TTDD) in QoL and TTDD in autonomy, treatment toxicities, other parameters of survival and disease control, identification of geriatric and nutritional prognostic scores and predictive factors of treatment safety and efficacy. OS of 60% is expected at 6 months (H0:40%). Using a Simon-minimax design, with one-sided α risk of 2% and 80% power for OS, and considering 5% lost to follow-up, it is necessary to randomize 56 patients in each arm. PERSPECTIVES: As older patients are at higher risk of chemotherapy toxicity, ramucirumab alone could be an interesting alternative to Paclitaxel plus ramucirumab, as a second-line therapy for patients ≥ 70 years old with advanced GC, and needs to be evaluated.

Sintilimab versus placebo in combination with chemotherapy as first line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ORIENT-15): multicentre, randomised, double blind, phase 3 trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sintilimab versus placebo in combination with chemotherapy (cisplatin plus paclitaxel or cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil) as first line treatment of unresectable locally advanced, recurrent, or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised, double blind, phase 3 trial. SETTING: 66 sites in China and 13 sites outside of China between 14 December 2018 and 9 April 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 659 adults (aged ≥18 years) with advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma who had not received systemic treatment. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomised 1:1 to receive sintilimab or placebo (3 mg/kg in patients weighing <60 kg or 200 mg in patients weighing ≥60 kg) in combination with cisplatin 75 mg/m2 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 every three weeks. The trial was amended to allow investigators to choose the chemotherapy regimen: cisplatin plus paclitaxel or cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (800 mg/m2 continuous infusion on days 1-5). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Overall survival in all patients and in patients with combined positive scores of ≥10 for expression of programmed cell death ligand 1. RESULTS: 659 patients were randomly assigned to sintilimab (n=327) or placebo (n=332) with chemotherapy. 616 of 659 patients (93%) received sintilimab or placebo in combination with cisplatin plus paclitaxel and 43 of 659 patients (7%) received sintilimab or placebo in combination with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil. At the interim analysis, sintilimab with chemotherapy showed better overall survival compared with placebo and chemotherapy in all patients (median 16.7 v 12.5 months, hazard ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 0.78, P<0.001) and in patients with combined positive scores of ≥10 (17.2 v 13.6 months, 0.64, 0.48 to 0.85, P=0.002). Sintilimab and chemotherapy significantly improved progression free survival compared with placebo and chemotherapy in all patients (7.2 v 5.7 months, 0.56, 0.46 to 0.68, P<0.001) and in patients with combined positive scores of ≥10 (8.3 v 6.4 months, 0.58, 0.45 to 0.75, P<0.001). Adverse events related to treatment occurred in 321 of 327 patients (98%) in the sintilimab-chemotherapy group versus 326 of 332 (98%) patients in the placebo-chemotherapy group. Rates of adverse events related to treatment, grade ≥3, were 60% (196/327) and 55% (181/332) in the sintilimab-chemotherapy and placebo-chemotherapy groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with placebo, sintilimab in combination with cisplatin plus paclitaxel showed significant benefits in overall survival and progression free survival as first line treatment in patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Similar benefits of sintilimab with cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil seem promising. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03748134.

HYPHYCA: a prospective study in 613 patients conducting a comprehensive analysis for predictive factors of physiological 18F-FDG anal uptake.

BACKGROUND: Anal cancer is a relatively rare tumor of which incidence increases in developed countries. 18F-FDG PET has been increasingly used for its post radio-chemotherapy evaluation. However, several authors have reported the risk of local false-positive findings leading to low specificity and positive predictive values. These false-positive results could be due to post-radiotherapy inflammation or infection but certainly also to physiological anal canal uptake that is observed on a regular basis in clinical practice. The purpose of this prospective study (NCT03506529; HYPHYCA) was therefore to seek predictive factors of physiological anal canal hypermetabolism. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Over a 2-month period, patients aged 18 years old and more, referred for 18F-FDG PET-CT at two EARL-accredited PET centers were included, after obtaining their informed and written consent. They were asked to fill in a questionnaire including seven closed questions about usual intestinal transit, ongoing medications relative to intestinal transit, history of digestive, and anal and/or pelvic diseases. Age, gender, and body mass index (BMI) were recorded. A single nuclear medicine physician visually and quantitatively analyzed anal canal uptake (SUVmax_EARL) and assessed visual rectal content (air, feces, or both) and the largest rectal diameter (mm). RESULTS: Six hundred and thirteen patients were included (sex ratio F/M = 0.99) and 545 (89%) questionnaires were entirely completed. Significantly more males presented anal canal hypermetabolism (sex ratio (M/F) = 1.18 versus 0.85, p = 0.048). Moreover, patients with anal canal hypermetabolism had higher BMI (27.6 (5.7) kg/m2 versus 23.9 (4.5) kg/m2, p < 0.0001), higher rate of hemorrhoid history (43% versus 27%, p = 0.016), and higher rate of rectum filled with only feces (21% versus 12%, p = 0.019) as compared to patients with no anal canal uptake. On logistic regression, all these variables were found to be independent predictors of the occurrence of an anal canal hypermetabolism. Odds ratio were 1.16 (1.12-1.20) per unit of BMI (kg/m2) (p < 0.0001), 1.48 (1.04-2.11) for males (p = 0.030), 1.64 (1.10-2.45) for hemorrhoids history (p = 0.016), and 1.94 (1.147-3.22) for the rectum filled with only feces (p = 0.010). CONCLUSION: According to our study, the predictive factors of physiological anal canal hypermetabolism are high BMI, male gender, hemorrhoid history, and rectum filled with only feces. This may pave the way to a more specific interpretation of post radio-chemotherapy PET evaluations of anal canal cancer, provided that other studies are conducted in this specific population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This prospective study was registered at Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT03506529; HYPHYCA on April 24, 2018.

Sorafenib Plus Irinotecan Combination in Patients With RAS-mutated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Refractory To Standard Combined Chemotherapies: A Multicenter, Randomized Phase 2 Trial (NEXIRI-2/PRODIGE 27).

BACKGROUND: No treatment option was available for patients with RAS-mutated (RASmt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who progress after standard combined chemotherapies at the time of the study. After promising results in phase II, the aim of the present NEXIRI-2/PRODIGE 27 trial was to assess the 2-month non-progression rate for sorafenib (NEX) plus irinotecan (IRI), that is, NEXIRI, treatment. METHODS: Patients with RASmt mCRC after failure of oxaliplatin, IRI, fluoropyrimidines, and bevacizumab were randomized between NEXIRI (IRI 120-180 mg/m2 intravenous, D1 = D15 plus oral NEX 400 mg twice a day) versus IRI (180 mg/m2) versus NEX. Primary endpoint was the 2-month non-progression rate. Secondary endpoints included progression-free and overall survival (PFS and OS), safety, and germline cyclin D1 (CCND1) rs9344 polymorphisms analyses. RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were included, 59 in NEXIRI, 57 in IRI, and 57 in NEX arms. The 2-month non-progression rate was 52.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 39%-66%), 21.4% (10%-33%), and 19.3% (9%-30%) for NEXIRI, IRI, and NEX. Median PFS was 3.6 (95% CI: 2-4.2), 1.7 (1.7-1.8), and 2 (1.8-2.3) months and the median OS was 7.2 (5.8-9.4), 6.3 (4.8-8), and 5.6 (3.9-7.7) months for NEXIRI, IRI, and NEX, respectively. For NEXIRI rs9344CCND1 A/A genotype patients, OS was 19.6 months (95% CI: 4.8-not reached). Main grade 3 toxicities included neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with RASmt mCRC who progressed after standard combined chemotherapies, the results of 2-month non-progression rate and median PFS in the NEXIRI arm were in favor of an increase of the time before progression.

Three Versus 6 Months of Oxaliplatin-Based Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer: Disease-Free Survival Results From a Randomized, Open-Label, International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant (IDEA) France, Phase III Trial.

Purpose Reduction of adjuvant treatment duration may decrease toxicities without loss of efficacy in stage III colon cancer. This could offer clear advantages to patients and health care providers. Methods In International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) France, as part of the IDEA international collaboration, patient with colon cancer patients were randomly assigned to 3 and 6 months of modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6: infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) by physician choice. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), and analyses were descriptive. Results A total of 2,010 eligible patients received either 3 or 6 months of chemotherapy (modified intention-to-treat population); 2,000 (99%) had stage III colon cancer (N1: 75%, N2: 25%); 1,809 (90%) received mFOLFOX6, and 201 (10%) received CAPOX. The median age was 64 years, and the median follow-up time was 4.3 years. Overall, 94% (3 months) and 78% (6 months) of patients completed treatment (fluoropyrimidines ± oxaliplatin). Maximal grade 2 and 3 neuropathy rates were 28% and 8% in the 3-month arm and 41% and 25% in the 6-month arm ( P < .001). Final rates of residual neuropathy greater than grade 1 were 3% in the 3-month arm and 7% in the 6-month arm ( P < .001). There were 578 DFS events: 314 and 264 in the 3- and 6-month arms, respectively. The 3-year DFS rates were 72% and 76% in the 3- and 6-month arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.46; P = .0112). In the 3 and 6-month arms, respectively, for patients who received mFOLFOX6, the 3-year DFS rates were 72% and 76% (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.51); for the T4 and/or N2 population, they were 58% and 66% (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.82); and for the T1-3N1 population, they were 81% and 83% (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.49). Conclusion IDEA France, in which 90% of patients received mFOLFOX6, shows superiority of 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy compared with 3 months, especially in the T4 and/or N2 subgroups. These results should be considered alongside the international IDEA collaboration data.

Prevention of 5-fluorouracil-induced early severe toxicity by pre-therapeutic dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency screening: Assessment of a multiparametric approach.

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based treatments can lead to early-onset severe (4%-5%) even fatal (0.3%) toxicities in patients with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency. This multicenter prospective cohort study aimed to assess the clinical benefit of pretherapeutic screening for DPD deficiency using a multiparametric approach. Two parallel cohorts of patients treated with 5-FU-based chemotherapy for colorectal carcinoma were compared in a prospective nonrandomized study. In arm A, patients had DPD deficiency screening before treatment, whereas in arm B no pretherapy screening was performed. Dosing was based on 5-FU administration guidelines of each institution. DPD deficiency screening was performed using a combined multiparametric approach (5-FUODPM Tox). The frequency of early grade 4-5 toxic events potentially induced by 5-FU was compared in the two groups. At total of 1,142 patients (n = 1,116 evaluable) were enrolled. In arm A, out of 718 evaluable patients, nine grade 4 early toxicities potentially related to 5-FU were reported in nine patients (1.2%) with no toxic death despite one complete DPD deficiency and 24 partial deficiencies. The 24 patients with partial deficiency had safe pharmacokinetics (PK)-monitored 5-FU. In arm B, among 398 evaluable patients, 17 grade 4-5 toxic early events potentially related to 5-FU were reported in 12 patients (4.2%). The incidence of early severe toxicity was significantly higher in arm B (P = .0019), confirming the positive impact of pretherapeutic DPD assessment. The percent of patients with a toxicity grade 3 or higher observed in arm A was 10.8% (n = 78) compared to 17.55% (n = 69)  in arm B (P = .0497). The percentage of death was reduced from 2.5/1,000 in arm B to 0 in arm A. The time to occurrence of all grade ≥3 toxicities was determined in both arms and the difference between the two arms was significant (P = .047). Overall, one patient with complete DPD deficiency confirmed retrospectively died within 13 days from grade 5 multivisceral toxicity. Enrollment was prematurely closed after external experts' decision. In conclusion, multiparametric pretherapeutic DPD deficiency screening significantly lowered the risk of early severe toxicity and avoided an early toxic death. This approach should be used for safe administration of 5-FU-based treatments.