Emergency use of uridine triacetate for the prevention and treatment of life-threatening 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine toxicity.

BACKGROUND: Increased susceptibility to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/capecitabine can lead to rapidly occurring toxicity caused by impaired clearance, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency, and other genetic variations in the enzymes that metabolize 5-FU. Life-threatening 5-FU overdoses occur because of infusion pump errors, dosage miscalculations, and accidental or suicidal ingestion of capecitabine. Uridine triacetate (Vistogard) was approved in 2015 for adult and pediatric patients who exhibit early-onset severe or life-threatening 5-FU/capecitabine toxicities or present with an overdose. Uridine triacetate delivers high concentrations of uridine, which competes with toxic 5-FU metabolites. METHODS: In 2 open-label clinical studies, patients who presented with a 5-FU/capecitabine overdose or an early onset of severe toxicities were treated. Patients received uridine triacetate as soon as possible (most within the first 96 hours after 5-FU/capecitabine). Outcomes included survival, resumption of chemotherapy, and safety. Their survival was compared with the survival of a historical cohort of overdose patients who received only supportive care. RESULTS: A total of 137 of 142 overdose patients (96%) treated with uridine triacetate survived and had a rapid reversal of severe acute cardiotoxicity and neurotoxicity; in addition, mucositis and leukopenia were prevented, or the patients recovered from them. In the historical cohort, 21 of 25 patients (84%) died. Among the 141 uridine triacetate-treated overdose patients with a diagnosis of cancer (the noncancer patients included 6 intentional or accidental pediatric overdoses), 53 resumed chemotherapy in < 30 days (median time after 5-FU, 19.6 days), and this indicated a rapid recovery from toxicity. Adverse reactions in patients receiving uridine triacetate included vomiting (8.1%), nausea (4.6%), and diarrhea (3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In these studies, uridine triacetate was a safe and effective lifesaving antidote for capecitabine and 5-FU overexposure, and it facilitated the rapid resumption of chemotherapy. Cancer 2017;123:345-356. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Effect of adjuvant capecitabine or fluorouracil, with or without oxaliplatin, on survival outcomes in stage III colon cancer and the effect of oxaliplatin on post-relapse survival: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from four randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy is the standard of care for stage III colon cancer. Adjuvant capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin versus leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin has not been directly compared; therefore, we aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of these treatments using individual patient data pooled from four randomised controlled trials. We also assessed post-relapse survival, which has been postulated to be worse in patients receiving adjuvant oxaliplatin. METHODS: Patients with resected stage III colon cancer who were 18 years of age or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, from four randomised controlled trials (NSABP C-08, XELOXA, X-ACT, and AVANT; 8734 patients in total) were pooled and analysed. The treatment regimens included in our analyses were: XELOX (oxaliplatin and capecitabine); leucovorin and fluorouracil; capecitabine; FOLFOX-4 (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin); and modified FOLFOX-6 (mFOLFOX-6). Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint for all trials that supplied patients for this analysis. Here, we compared disease-free, relapse-free, and overall survival between the patient groups who received capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and those who received leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin. Post-relapse survival was compared between the combined XELOX and FOLFOX groups, and the leucovorin and fluorouracil groups. Post-relapse survival was also compared between the capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin groups. FINDINGS: Disease-free survival did not differ significantly between patients who received leucovorin and fluorouracil versus those who received capecitabine in adjusted analyses (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02 [0·93-1·11; p=0·72]) or in unadjusted analyses (HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92-1·10; p=0·86]). Relapse-free survival was similar (adjusted HR 1·02 [0·93-1·12; p=0·72] and unadjusted HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92-1·11; p=0·86]), as was overall survival (adjusted HR 1·04 [95% CI 0·93-1·15; p=0·50] and unadjusted HR 1·02 [0·92-1·14]; p=0·65). For overall survival, a significant interaction between oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine was recorded in the multiple Cox regression analysis (p=0·014). Post-relapse survival was similar in adjusted (p=0·23) and unadjusted analyses (p=0·33) for the comparison of XELOX or FOLFOX versus leucovorin and fluorouracil, and was also similar for capecitabine-based regimens versus leucovorin and fluorouracil-based regimens (unadjusted p=0·26). INTERPRETATION: Combination therapy with oxaliplatin provided consistently improved outcomes without adversely affecting post-relapse survival in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, irrespective of whether the fluoropyrimidine backbone was capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil. These data add to the existing evidence that oxaliplatin plus capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil is the standard of care for the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, and offers physicians flexibility to treat patients according to the patients' overall physical performance and preference. FUNDING: Genentech Inc.

Axitinib and/or bevacizumab with modified FOLFOX-6 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 trial, the authors evaluated the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor axitinib, bevacizumab, or both in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomized 1:1:1 to receive continuous axitinib 5 mg twice daily, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or axitinib 5 mg twice daily plus bevacizumab 2 mg/kg every 2 weeks, each in combination with modified 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: In all, 126 patients were enrolled from August 2007 to September 2008. The ORR was numerically inferior in the axitinib arm (n = 42) versus the bevacizumab arm (n = 43; 28.6% vs 48.8%; 1-sided P = .97). Progression-free survival (PFS) (11.0 months vs 15.9 months; 1-sided P = .57) and overall survival (OS) (18.1 months vs 21.6 months; 1-sided P = .69) also were numerically inferior in the axitinib arm. Similarly, efficacy endpoints for the axitinib/bevacizumab arm (n = 41) were numerically inferior (ORR, 39%; PFS, 12.5 months; OS, 19.7 months). The patients who received axitinib had fewer treatment cycles compared with other arms. Common all-grade adverse events across all 3 treatment arms were fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea (all ≥49%). Hypertension and headache were more frequent in the patients who received axitinib. Patients in the bevacizumab arm had the longest treatment exposures and the highest rates of peripheral neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the addition of continuous axitinib nor the axitinib/bevacizumab combination to FOLFOX-6 improved ORR, PFS, or OS compared with bevacizumab as first-line treatment of mCRC.

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.

A randomized, phase II trial of standard triweekly compared with dose-dense biweekly capecitabine plus oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: XELOX-A-DVS (dense versus standard).

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine administered for 7 days biweekly with oxaliplatin (XELOX) biweekly has been reported to have activity and safety profiles similar to those of standard capecitabine given for 14 days triweekly. Multiple studies have shown that the addition of bevacizumab to 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy is active and well tolerated. METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were randomized to XELOX plus bevacizumab using a standard triweekly cycle (Q3W) or a dose-dense biweekly cycle (Q2W) schedule. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) interval. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier, NCT00159432). RESULTS: In total, 435 U.S. patients were randomized. The median PFS intervals were 9.6 months in the Q3W group and 9.1 months in the Q2W group. The median overall survival times were 28.4 months and 22.1 months and the median times to treatment failure were 5.5 months and 3.4 months, respectively. Overall, gastrointestinal disorders were the most common (93%) adverse event (AE). Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 75% and 81% of patients in the Q3W and Q2W groups, respectively. Treatment discontinuation as a result of diarrhea (5% versus 10%) and hand-foot syndrome (2% versus 9%) was less common in the Q3W group than in the Q2W group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, the first-line treatment of U.S. patients with mCRC using a biweekly combination of XELOX and bevacizumab at the doses studied cannot be recommended. XELOX Q3W remains the preferred schedule for the management of mCRC.

Repositioning Fenofibrate to Reactivate p53 and Reprogram the Tumor-Immune Microenvironment in HPV+ Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Human papillomavirus-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HPV+ HNSCC) is recognized as a distinct disease with unique etiology and clinical features. Current standard of care therapeutic modalities are identical for HPV+ and HPV- HNSCC and thus, there remains an opportunity to develop innovative pharmacologic approaches to exploit the inherent vulnerabilities of HPV+ HNSCC. In this study, using an inducible HPVE6E7 knockdown system, we found that HPV+ HNSCC cells are addicted to HPVE6E7, such that loss of these viral oncogenes impaired tumorigenicity in vitro and in vivo. A number of druggable pathways, including PPAR and Wnt, were modulated in response to HPVE6E7 loss. Fenofibrate showed significant anti-proliferative effects in a panel of HPV+ cancer cell lines. Additionally, fenofibrate impaired tumor growth as monotherapy and potentiated the activity of cisplatin in a pre-clinical HPV+ animal model. Systemic fenofibrate treatment induced p53 protein accumulation, and surprisingly, re-programmed the tumor-immune microenvironment to drive immune cell infiltration. Since fenofibrate is FDA-approved with a favorable long-term safety record, repositioning of this drug, as a single agent or in combination with cisplatin or checkpoint blockade, for the HPV+ HNSCC setting should be prioritized.

Evaluating the quality of psychosocial care in outpatient medical oncology settings using performance indicators.

OBJECTIVE: An American Psychosocial Oncology Society workgroup has developed indicators of the quality of psychosocial care that can be measured through review of medical records. The present report describes the first large-scale use of these indicators to evaluate psychosocial care in outpatient medical oncology settings. METHODS: Medical records of 1660 colorectal, breast and non-small cell cancer patients first seen by a medical oncologist in 2006 at 11 practice sites in Florida were reviewed for performance on indicators of the quality of psychosocial care. RESULTS: Assessment of emotional well-being was significantly less likely to be documented than assessment of pain (52 vs 87%, p<0.001). A problem with emotional well-being was documented in 13% of records and evidence of action taken was documented in 58% of these records. Ten of eleven practice sites performed below an 85% threshold on each indicator of psychosocial care. Variability in assessment of emotional-well being was associated (p<0.02) with practice site and patient gender and age while variability in assessment of pain was associated (p<0.001) with practice site and cancer type. CONCLUSIONS: Findings illustrate how use of the psychosocial care indicators permits identification of specific practice sites and processes of care that should be targeted for quality improvement efforts. Additionally, findings demonstrate the extent to which routine assessment of emotional well-being lags behind routine assessment of pain in cancer patients.

Safety and Effectiveness of Aflibercept + Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan (FOLFIRI) for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) in Current Clinical Practice: OZONE Study.

For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that have failed a first-line oxaliplatin-based regimen, the preferred treatment option is an irinotecan-based regimen. This prospective, observational, noncomparative, post-authorization safety study (OZONE) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of aflibercept plus fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in patients with mCRC treated in daily practice after failure of an oxaliplatin-based regimen. Patients were grouped by age, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, race, number, and type of prior anticancer therapy. Of 766 treated patients enrolled, 59.5% were male, 94.8% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, all received previous chemotherapy (97.8% including oxaliplatin), and 58.6% had prior exposure to bevacizumab. At least one grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was reported in 68.3% of patients. Neutropenia, hypertension, diarrhea, and asthenia were the most frequently occurring grade ≥ 3 TEAEs. Antivascular endothelial growth factor class events were infrequent. Subgroup analyses did not reveal major differences in the safety profile according to age, renal and hepatic status, race, or prior anticancer therapy. For the total population, median overall survival was 12.5 months, median progression-free survival was 6.1 months, and overall response rate was 16.3%. Aflibercept in combination with FOLFIRI is a safe and efficacious regimen administered in current clinical practice to patients with mCRC previously treated with oxaliplatin. The study results, conducted in real-world clinical practice with a less selected patient population, are aligned with the VELOUR (NCT00561470) trial and no new safety issues were identified.

Costs associated with capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil monotherapy after surgical resection in patients with colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare chemotherapy-related and total medical costs among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) receiving capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) monotherapy after surgical resection. METHODS: This retrospective, claim-based study utilized the Thomson Reuters Market Scan(R) databases to identify 1,396 CRC patients who received capecitabine or 5-FU monotherapy within 90 days of surgical resection from 2003 through 2006. Propensity score matching addressed selection bias, and multivariate models estimated adjusted relative risks of treatment-related complications and medical costs of matched cohorts. RESULTS: Capecitabine users incurred USD 740 less in total direct medical costs (p = 0.003) and USD 785 less in chemotherapy-related costs (p < 0.0001) than 5-FU users. Although drug acquisition cost was higher for capecitabine than for 5-FU (USD 958 vs. USD 71, p < 0.0001), chemotherapy administration cost was lower (USD 76 vs. USD 1,062, p < 0.0001). The unadjusted (610 vs. 1,960 events per 1,000 person-months) and adjusted risks (47%) were lower for capecitabine than 5-FU for any complication, and specifically for bone marrow (67%), gastrointestinal (50%), and constitutional (41%) complications (p < 0.0001, all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant capecitabine monotherapy was associated with lower total medical and chemotherapy-related costs than 5-FU. Reduced complications and costs associated with capecitabine administration offset the higher acquisition cost.

Initial evaluation of quality indicators for psychosocial care of adults with cancer.

BACKGROUND: The American Psychosocial Oncology Society has developed the first indicators of the quality of psychosocial care for cancer patients. This report describes the initial evaluation of these indicators. METHODS: Medical records of 388 colorectal cancer patients first seen by a medical oncologist in 2006 at seven practice sites were reviewed by trained abstractors whose accuracy was documented by periodic checks. RESULTS: Rates of assessment of emotional well-being within 1 month of a patient's first visit with a medical oncologist ranged from 6% to 84% (mean = 60%; P < .001). Among the 45 patients identified as having a problem with emotional well-being, rates of evidence of action taken (or explanation for no action) ranged from 0% to 100% (mean = 51%; P = .85). A direct comparison showed that pain was assessed more often than emotional well-being in these patients (87% vs 60%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Findings show these indicators can be measured easily and reliably, demonstrate variability across practices that suggests potential for improvement, and yield information that can be used to take actions to improve quality. Additional findings suggest that, to date, efforts to promote routine symptom assessment have been more successful for pain than for emotional well-being.

Successful administration of panitumumab alone after severe infusion reaction to cetuximab in a patient with metastatic colorectal cancer.

The administration of monoclonal antibodies (MoAbs) can result in infusion reactions of various grades; severe reactions are seen in approximately 3% of patients after infusions of cetuximab (fatalities occur in approximately 0.1% of patients). We report a case of a patient who had a severe reaction to cetuximab (a murine MoAb) who then received panitumumab (a human MoAb) and tolerated it without any infusion reaction.

Results of a phase II trial of cetuximab plus capecitabine/irinotecan as first-line therapy for patients with advanced and/or metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: XELIRI (capecitabine/irinotecan) is effective and well tolerated in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Cetuximab is active in mCRC alone or with chemotherapy. This study evaluated cetuximab plus XELIRI in first-line treatment of mCRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Subjects had histologically confirmed unresectable colorectal adenocarcinoma (with T4 lesions) after preoperative chemoradiation and/or metastases. Treatment was capecitabine 1700 mg/m2 (850 mg/m2 orally twice a day on days 1-14 for 3 weeks), irinotecan 200 mg/m2 intravenously (I.V.) on day 1 every 3 weeks, and weekly cetuximab (initially 400 mg/m2 I.V. [120 minutes], subsequently 250 mg/m2 [30 minutes]). RESULTS: Baseline characteristics (N = 70): 43 men (61%); median age, 61.5 years; Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1 = 66%/34%; 94% adenocarcinoma. Previous therapy: surgery (91%), chemotherapy (14%), or radiation therapy (7%). Responses (patients completing > or = 2 cycles): complete response (5.7%), partial response (37.7%), stable disease (43.4%), and progressive disease (PD; 13.2%); 16 patients discontinued early (n = 4 allergic reaction, n = 2 withdrew consent, n = 2 death, and n = 8 other adverse events [AEs]). The overall per-protocol response rate was 43.4% (34% intent to treat [ITT]; disease control rate, 86.8%; 69% ITT). The median time to progression was 8.1 months (range, < 1-27.0 months), and the median time to response was 1.6 months (range, 1.1-8.4 months). The median survival was 20.5 months, and 45.7% of patients remain alive. Of the 38 deaths, 84% were because of PD. No death was treatment related. The most frequent grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs included diarrhea, neutropenia, and nausea/vomiting; 32% of patients required dose reductions. All patients are off the study primarily because of PD (34.3%) or AEs (40.0%). CONCLUSION: In summary, XELIRI plus cetuximab is a promising regimen that merits further study for first-line mCRC.

Cancer of the pancreas: are we making progress? A review of studies in the US Oncology Research Network.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths in the United States. In 2008, approximately 37,680 people will be diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and 34,290 will die of this disease. METHODS: The authors reviewed the literature on treatment of pancreatic cancer with an emphasis on studies conducted in the US Oncology Research (USOR) Network. RESULTS: Although much research has been conducted to develop improved systemic therapies of pancreatic cancer, gemcitabine as a single agent remains the current standard of care. Combinations with other chemotherapeutic drugs or biological agents have resulted in limited improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Despite aggressive efforts to improve treatment for patients with pancreatic cancer, limited progress has been made. It is hoped that new studies being planned and conducted will improve outcomes for patients with this disease.

Clinical Outcomes with First-Line Chemotherapy in a Large Retrospective Study of Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Treated in a US Community Oncology Setting.

BACKGROUND: The combination chemotherapy regimens of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-p + G) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) have each demonstrated improved survival compared with gemcitabine monotherapy in clinical trials for metastatic pancreatic cancer; however, limited comparative data exist. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare patient characteristics and clinical outcomes including time to treatment failure and overall survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy in the community. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multi-site, observational cohort study of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving first-line nab-p + G, FFX, or gemcitabine monotherapy between April 2013 and October 2015, using data from the iKnowMed electronic health record database. Patients on clinical trials or with other cancer diagnoses were excluded. Time to treatment failure and overall survival were assessed by Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-six patients met selection criteria, 255 nab-p + G, 159 FFX, and 72 gemcitabine patients. Median age was 61, 68, and 73 years for FFX, nab-p + G, and gemcitabine patients, respectively (p < 0.01 for nab-p + G vs. FFX). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 was 91% for FFX, 77% for nab-p + G, and 68% for gemcitabine patients (p < 0.01 for nab-p + G vs. FFX). For the nab-p + G vs. FFX cohorts, respectively, time to treatment failure was 3.7 vs. 4.3 months (log-rank p = 0.25); and OS was 9.8 vs. 11.4 months (log-rank p = 0.38). Among patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, time to treatment failure was 4.2 vs. 4.3 months (log-rank p = 0.47); and overall survival was 12.1 vs 11.4 months (log-rank p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: The nab-p + G patients were older and had worse performance status than FFX patients. Time to treatment failure and overall survival were not observed to be significantly different in first-line nab-p + G and FFX patients. Results were similar after stratifying by performance status.

Bevacizumab plus irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor, has shown promising preclinical and clinical activity against metastatic colorectal cancer, particularly in combination with chemotherapy. METHODS: Of 813 patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, we randomly assigned 402 to receive irinotecan, bolus fluorouracil, and leucovorin (IFL) plus bevacizumab (5 mg per kilogram of body weight every two weeks) and 411 to receive IFL plus placebo. The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival, the response rate, the duration of the response, safety, and the quality of life. RESULTS: The median duration of survival was 20.3 months in the group given IFL plus bevacizumab, as compared with 15.6 months in the group given IFL plus placebo, corresponding to a hazard ratio for death of 0.66 (P<0.001). The median duration of progression-free survival was 10.6 months in the group given IFL plus bevacizumab, as compared with 6.2 months in the group given IFL plus placebo (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.54; P<0.001); the corresponding rates of response were 44.8 percent and 34.8 percent (P=0.004). The median duration of the response was 10.4 months in the group given IFL plus bevacizumab, as compared with 7.1 months in the group given IFL plus placebo (hazard ratio for progression, 0.62; P=0.001). Grade 3 hypertension was more common during treatment with IFL plus bevacizumab than with IFL plus placebo (11.0 percent vs. 2.3 percent) but was easily managed. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of bevacizumab to fluorouracil-based combination chemotherapy results in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvement in survival among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Barriers to the Access of Bevacizumab in Patients with Solid Tumors and the Potential Impact of Biosimilars: A Physician Survey.

Access to bevacizumab, an important component of oncology treatment regimens, may be limited. This survey of oncologists in the US (n = 150), Europe (n = 230), and emerging markets (EM: Brazil, Mexico, and Turkey; n = 130) examined use of and barriers to accessing bevacizumab as treatment of advanced solid tumors. We also assessed the likelihood that physicians would prescribe a bevacizumab biosimilar, if available. Bevacizumab was frequently used as early-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer, metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, and metastatic ovarian cancer (all markets), and as a second-line therapy in glioblastoma multiforme (US, EM). A greater percentage of EM-based physicians cited access-related issues as a barrier to prescribing bevacizumab versus US and EU physicians. Lack of reimbursement and high out-of-pocket costs were cited as predominant barriers to prescribing and common reasons for reducing the number of planned cycles. Overall, ~50% of physicians reported they "definitely" or "probably" would prescribe a bevacizumab biosimilar, if available. Efficacy and safety data in specific tumor types and lower cost were factors cited that would increase likelihood to prescribe a bevacizumab biosimilar. A lower cost bevacizumab biosimilar could address the unmet needs of patients and physicians worldwide, and may have the greatest impact on patient outcomes in EM.

Phase II study of oral capecitabine in patients with advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the safety and efficacy of capecitabine (Xeloda; Roche Laboratories, Nutley, NJ) in patients with metastatic or unresectable, locally advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients were treated with oral capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) administered twice daily (2,500 mg/m(2)/d) as intermittent therapy in 3-week cycles consisting of 2 weeks of treatment followed by 1 week without treatment. Tumor lesions were assessed by computed tomography scan or physical examination at 6-week intervals (after every two cycles). Adverse events were monitored continuously during treatment and for 28 days after the last dose of study drug. RESULTS: Ten (24%) of 42 patients experienced a clinical benefit response (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.1% to 39.5%) as evidenced by improvement in pain intensity, analgesic consumption, and/or Karnofsky performance status. Three (7.3%) of the 41 patients with measurable disease had an objective response (partial). The median time to objective response was 85 days (range, 47 to 91 days) and duration of response was 208, 260, and 566 days for the three responding patients. One patient with nonmeasurable but assessable disease had improved residual disease with a positive clinical benefit response, for a total of four responses among the 42 assessable patients, for an overall response rate of 9.5% (90% CI, 3.3% to 20.5%). Capecitabine was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Treatment with capecitabine resulted in clinically significant beneficial effects on tumor-related symptoms and yielded objective response activity in patients with metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic cancer. These results together with its generally tolerable safety profile and the added advantage of oral administration provide the basis for further evaluating capecitabine as a single agent or in combination with other treatment modalities in this patient population.

Results of a phase II open-label study of capecitabine in combination with irinotecan as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Between July 2001 and September 2002, 49 eligible patients were enrolled in an open-label phase II study to assess the efficacy and safety of first-line treatment with capecitabine/irinotecan in metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 twice daily) on days 1-14 and irinotecan (240 mg/m2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle. Patients enrolled had a median age of 64.5 years, and 6% of patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 2. Fifty-seven percent of patients were male. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were evaluable for response. There was 1 complete response (2%), 18 partial responses (43%), 20 cases of stable disease (48%), and 3 cases of disease progression (7%), for an overall response rate of 45% (95% CI, 30%-60%). The median duration of response was 5.7 months (range, 2.5-II.3 months). Median survival was 13.4 months (range, 1.2-28.8 months) and median progression-free survival was 6.2 months (range, 1.2-17.5 months). At 1 year, the estimated survival rate was 54% and the estimated progression-free survival rate was II%. The median number of cycles received was 6 (range, 1-18 cycles), and most patients (80%) required a dose modification because of diarrhea, nausea, and/or neutropenia. Grade 1/2 hand-foot syndrome occurred in 8 patients (16%). Grade 3/4 toxicities experienced by > or = 5% of patients included diarrhea (20%), neutropenia (12%), dehydration (10%), nausea (10%), anemia (6%), fatigue (6%), pain (6%), and vomiting (6%). CONCLUSIONS: First-line capecitabine/ irinotecan is an active combination for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer and feasible for use in the community-based setting. Despite significant toxicity with the regimen, the treatment was manageable with dose reduction or delay and should be investigated in phase III trials.

Use of Adjuvant Cisplatin-Based Versus Carboplatin-Based Chemotherapy in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Findings From the Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: For patients with resected non-small-cell lung cancer, national guidelines recommend cisplatin-based doublet chemotherapy as the preferred treatment. However, many patients receive a carboplatin-based regimen instead. We aimed to identify factors associated with use of a cisplatin-based regimen and explore its association with other quality-of-care measures. METHODS: This analysis was part of the Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care, an audit and feedback project among 11 medical oncology practices. Feedback-sharing sessions based on findings of year 2006 took place in 2008. Eligible patients were random samples of those with resected stage I to III non-small-cell lung cancer treated in 2006 and 2009. RESULTS: In both years combined, 81 patients received adjuvant platinum-based doublets: 33 patients (41%) received cisplatin, and 48 patients (59%) received carboplatin. Use of a cisplatin-based doublet significantly increased in 2009 compared with 2006, from 24% to 56% (P = .006). Multivariable analysis determined that academic practices used cisplatin more frequently than nonacademic practices (odds ratios, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.19 to 8.91; P = .02). Moreover, patients treated in 2009 were more likely to receive cisplatin than those treated in 2006 (odds ratio, 4.89; 95% CI, 1.75 to 13.67; P = .002). No significant association between use of cisplatin and other quality-of-care measures was found. CONCLUSION: In this study, academic practice status and treatment year predicted use of adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The increase in use of cisplatin in 2009, as compared with 2006, suggests that audit and feedback may be effective ways to promote such use.

Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care: Changes in Psychosocial Quality of Care Indicators Over a 3-Year Interval.

PURPOSE: Identifying and addressing psychosocial concerns is increasingly recognized as an important aspect of cancer care that needs to be improved. As part of the Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care, medical record reviews were conducted to evaluate cancer care, including psychosocial care, at oncology practices in Florida in 2006. Results were subsequently disseminated to the practices, and performance was reassessed at the same practices in 2009. METHODS: Data were available for patients with colorectal, breast, and non-small-cell lung cancer first seen by a medical oncologist in 2006 (n = 1,609) and 2009 (n = 1,720) at the same 10 practice sites. Performance on each psychosocial indicator was evaluated for overall change over time and for variability in change based on practice site and cancer type. RESULTS: The percentage of patients identified as having a problem in emotional well-being increased significantly over time, from 24% to 31% among those assessed (P = .002) and from 13% to 16% overall (P = .026). In contrast, there no significant changes over time in assessment of emotional well-being (53% to 51%, P = .661) or in action taken to address problems (57% to 45%, P = .098). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest more intensive efforts than audit and feedback will be required to improve the quality of psychosocial care and that greater recognition of problems with emotional well-being may tax the ability of practices to link patients with appropriate services. Systematic research is needed to identify and disseminate effective strategies for implementing routine assessment of well-being and addressing the increased demands for care this will generate.