Overall survival with 3 or 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy in Italian TOSCA phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard treatment of high-risk colon cancer (CC). A shorter duration (3 months) can achieve a similar outcome [in terms of relapse-free survival (RFS)] to a longer duration. This study reports the overall survival (OS) analysis of the three or six colon adjuvant (TOSCA) phase III study. It assessed different adjuvant chemotherapy durations in patients with resected high-risk stage II and stage III CC. MATERIAL AND METHODS: TOSCA was an open-label, phase III, multicentre, non-inferiority trial conducted in 130 Italian centres. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 1 : 1 ratio, to receive 3 months of standard doses of FOLFOX/CAPOX, or 6 months of FOLFOX/CAPOX. Patients with histologically confirmed high-risk stage II and III CC were included, with RFS being the primary end point. OS was a secondary end point. RESULTS: From June 2007 to March 2013, 3759 patients were accrued. At a median follow-up of 7 years, the hazard ratio (HR) for RFS of the 3-month versus 6-month arms was 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.29, P for non-inferiority = 0.380, P for superiority = 0.068, crossing the non-inferiority limit of 1.20. This result did not allow us to reject the null hypothesis of the inferiority of the 3-month arm. The HR for OS of the 3-month versus 6-month arms was 1.09 (95% CI 0.93-1.26, P for superiority = 0.288). At the last follow-up analysis, the absolute OS difference between arms was <1%. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis of the TOSCA trial does not indicate any significant difference in OS between the treatment groups. The extra benefit provided by the longer treatment should be balanced against the extra toxicity of more prolonged therapy. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number: NCT0064660.

Consensus and controversies regarding follow-up after treatment with curative intent of nonmetastatic colorectal cancer: a synopsis of guidelines used in countries represented in the European Society of Coloproctology.

AIM: It is common clinical practice to follow patients for a period of years after treatment with curative intent of nonmetastatic colorectal cancer, but follow-up strategies vary widely. The aim of this systematic review was to provide an overview of recommendations on this topic in guidelines from member countries of the European Society of Coloproctology, with supporting evidence. METHOD: A systematic search of Medline, Embase and the guideline databases Trip database, BMJ Best Practice and Guidelines International Network was performed. Quality assessment included use of the AGREE-II tool. All topics with recommendations from included guidelines were identified and categorized. For each subtopic, a conclusion was made followed by the degree of consensus and the highest level of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-one guidelines were included. The majority recommended that structured follow-up should be offered, except for patients in whom treatment of recurrence would be inappropriate. It was generally agreed that clinical visits, measurement of carcinoembryoinc antigen and liver imaging should be part of follow-up, based on a high level of evidence, although the frequency is controversial. There was also consensus on imaging of the chest and pelvis in rectal cancer, as well as endoscopy, based on lower levels of evidence and with a level of intensity that was contradictory. CONCLUSION: In available guidelines, multimodal follow-up after treatment with curative intent of colorectal cancer is widely recommended, but the exact content and intensity are highly controversial. International agreement on the optimal follow-up schedule is unlikely to be achieved on current evidence, and further research should refocus on individualized 'patient-driven' follow-up and new biomarkers.

The hard road to data interpretation: 3 or 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer?

Background: Six months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is standard for patients with stage III colon cancer following surgery. However, oxaliplatin is associated with peripheral neurotoxicity which worsens over treatment duration. Consequently, a shorter treatment duration, if equally effective, would be extremely beneficial. A pooled analysis of data for 12 834 stage III colon cancer patients, from six randomised phase III trials of adjuvant therapy, the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant chemotherapy study, was carried out and the results presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting 2017. To clarify the potential impact of these results on clinical practice, ESMO decided to sponsor a special session at their 2017 Annual Meeting dedicated to achieving a more meaningful interpretation of the results. Methods: Medical oncologists from Europe, the United States and Asia selected for their involvement in the trials, together with an independent statistician and an independent clinician, were invited to provide their independent interpretations of the results and contribute to a moderated panel discussion. The pooled analysis evaluated the non-inferiority of 3 versus 6 months of adjuvant FOLFOX/CAPOX therapy but not the non-inferiority of 3 months CAPOX versus 6 months FOLFOX therapy. Results: There was strong evidence of an interaction between the choice of regimen (CAPOX or FOLFOX) and duration of treatment. Patients were classified as either 'fighters' or 'fatalists', and 3-month CAPOX was considered standard for patients classified as fatalists even if they had high-risk disease. However, patients classified as 'fighters' would only receive 3 months of CAPOX if they had low-risk disease but would always receive 6 months of CAPOX/FOLFOX if they had T4 disease. The panel was split on whether they would advocate 3 or 6 months CAPOX therapy based on high-risk N2 disease. Conclusions: The main drivers of the duration of treatment were choice of regimen and patient attitude, with risk, based mainly on T4 stage, having less influence.

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase pharmacogenetics for predicting fluoropyrimidine-related toxicity in the randomised, phase III adjuvant TOSCA trial in high-risk colon cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) catabolises ∼85% of the administered dose of fluoropyrimidines. Functional DPYD gene variants cause reduced/abrogated DPD activity. DPYD variants analysis may help for defining individual patients' risk of fluoropyrimidine-related severe toxicity. METHODS: The TOSCA Italian randomised trial enrolled colon cancer patients for 3 or 6 months of either FOLFOX-4 or XELOX adjuvant chemotherapy. In an ancillary pharmacogenetic study, 10 DPYD variants (*2A rs3918290 G>A, *13 rs55886062 T>G, rs67376798 A>T, *4 rs1801158 G>A, *5 rs1801159 A>G, *6 rs1801160 G>A, *9A rs1801265 T>C, rs2297595 A>G, rs17376848 T>C, and rs75017182 C>G), were retrospectively tested for associations with ⩾grade 3 fluoropyrimidine-related adverse events (FAEs). An association analysis and a time-to-toxicity (TTT) analysis were planned. To adjust for multiple testing, the Benjamini and Hochberg's False Discovery Rate (FDR) procedure was used. RESULTS: FAEs occurred in 194 out of 508 assessable patients (38.2%). In the association analysis, FAEs occurred more frequently in *6 rs1801160 A allele carriers (FDR=0.0083). At multivariate TTT analysis, significant associations were found for *6 rs1801160 A allele carriers (FDR<0.0001), *2A rs3918290 A allele carriers (FDR<0.0001), and rs2297595 GG genotype carriers (FDR=0.0014). Neutropenia was the most common FAEs (28.5%). *6 rs1801160 (FDR<0.0001), and *2A rs3918290 (FDR=0.0004) variant alleles were significantly associated with time to neutropenia. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds evidence on the role of DPYD pharmacogenetics for safety of patients undergoing fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy.

A need to simplify informed consent documents in cancer clinical trials. A position paper of the ARCAD Group.

Background: In respect of the principle of autonomy and the right of self-determination, obtaining an informed consent of potential participants before their inclusion in a study is a fundamental ethical obligation. The variations in national laws, regulations, and cultures contribute to complex informed consent documents for patients participating in clinical trials. Currently, only few ethics committees seem willing to address the complexity and the length of these documents and to request investigators and sponsors to revise them in a way to make them understandable for potential participants. The purpose of this work is to focus on the written information in the informed consent documentation for drug development clinical trials and suggests (i) to distinguish between necessary and not essential information, (ii) to define the optimal format allowing the best legibility of those documents. Methods: The Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Group, an international scientific committee involving oncologists from all over the world, addressed these issues and developed and uniformly accepted a simplified informed consent documentation for future clinical research. Results: A simplified form of informed consent with the leading part of 1200-1800 words containing all of the key information necessary to meet ethical and regulatory requirements and 'relevant supportive information appendix' of 2000-3000 words is provided. Conclusions: This position paper, on the basis of the ARCAD Group experts discussions, proposes our informed consent model and the rationale for its content.

How health-related quality of life assessment should be used in advanced colorectal cancer clinical trials.

Traditionally, the efficacy of cancer treatment in patients with advance or metastatic disease in clinical studies has been studied using overall survival and more recently tumor-based end points such as progression-free survival, measurements of response to treatment. However, these seem not to be the relevant clinical end points in current situation if such end points were no validated as surrogate of overall survival to demonstrate the clinical efficacy. Appropriate, meaningful, primary patient-oriented and patient-reported end points that adequately measure the effects of new therapeutic interventions are then crucial for the advancement of clinical research in metastatic colorectal cancer to complement the results of tumor-based end points. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is effectively an evaluation of quality of life and its relationship with health over time. HRQoL includes the patient report at least of the way a disease or its treatment affects its physical, emotional and social well-being. Over the past few years, several phase III trials in a variety of solid cancers have assessed the incremental value of HRQoL in addition to the traditional end points of tumor response and survival results. HRQoL could provide not only complementary clinical data to the primary outcomes, but also more precise predictive and prognostic value. This end point is useful for both clinicians and patients in order to achieve the dogma of precision medicine. The present article examines the use of HRQoL in phase III metastatic colorectal cancer clinical trials, outlines the importance of HRQoL assessment methods, analysis, and results presentation. Moreover, it discusses the relevance of including HRQoL as a primary/co-primary end point to support the progression-free survival results and to assess efficacy of treatment in the advanced disease setting.

A randomized trial of intensive versus minimal surveillance of patients with resected Dukes B2-C colorectal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common and the third most lethal cancer in both men and women in developed countries. About 75% of cases are first diagnosed when the disease is classified as localized or regional, undergo potentially curative treatment and enter a post-treatment surveillance program. Although such programs drain significant resources from health systems, empirical evidence of their efficacy is scanty. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Dukes B2-C colorectal cancer patients who had no evidence of disease at the end of their front-line treatment (surgery and adjuvant radiochemotherapy, if indicated) were eligible for the trial and randomized to two different surveillance programs. These programs differed greatly in the frequency of diagnostic imaging. They had similar schedules of physical examinations and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assessments. Patients received baseline and yearly health-related quality-of-life (HR-QoL) questionnaires. Primary outcomes were overall survival (OS) and QoL. RESULTS: From 1998 to 2006, 1228 assessable patients were randomized, 933 with colon cancer and 295 with rectal cancer. More than 90% of patients had the expected number of diagnostic procedures. Median follow-up duration was 62 months [interquartile range (IQR) 51-86] in the minimal surveillance group and 62 months (IQR 50-85) in the intensive group. At primary analysis, 250 patients had recurred and 218 had died. Intensive surveillance anticipated recurrence, as shown by a significant difference in mean disease-free survival of 5.9 months. Comparison of OS curves of the whole intention-to-treat population showed no statistically significant differences. HR-QoL of life scores did not differ between regimens. CONCLUSION: Our findings support the conclusions of other randomized clinical trials, which show that early diagnosis of cancer recurrence is not associated with OS benefit. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT02409472.

Phase III trial comparing 3-6 months of adjuvant FOLFOX4/XELOX in stage II-III colon cancer: safety and compliance in the TOSCA trial.

BACKGROUND: Six months of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy is standard of care for radically resected stage III colon cancer and an accepted option for high-risk stage II. A shorter duration of therapy, if equally efficacious, would be advantageous for patients and Health-Care Systems. PATIENTS AND METHODS: TOSCA ['Randomized trial investigating the role of FOLFOX-4 or XELOX (3 versus 6 months) regimen duration and bevacizumab as adjuvant therapy for patients with stage II/III colon cancer] is an open-label, phase III, multicenter, noninferiority trial randomizing patients with high-risk stage II or stage III radically resected colon cancer to receive 3 months (arm 3 m) versus 6 months (arm 6 m) of FOLFOX4/XELOX. Primary end-point was relapse-free survival. We present here safety and compliance data. RESULTS: From June 2007 to March 2013, 3759 patients were accrued from 130 Italian sites, 64% receiving FOLFOX4 and 36% XELOX in either arm. Treatment completion rate without any modification was 35% versus 12% and with delays or dose reduction 52% versus 44% in arm 3 and 6 m. Treatment was permanently discontinued in 8% (arm 3 m) and 33% (arm 6 m). In arm 6 m, 50% of patients discontinuing treatment did so after completing 80% of planned program. Grade 3+ toxicities were higher in arm 6 m than that in 3 m. Grade 2+ neuropathy was 31.2% versus 8.8% (P < 0.0001) while grade 3+ was 8.4 versus 1.3 (P < 0.0001), in arm 3 and 6 m. Seven deaths within 30 days from last treatment administration in arm 6 m and three deaths in arm 3 m were observed (0.3% versus 0.1%, P = 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: TOSCA is the first trial comparing 3 versus 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy completing accrual within the international initiative of treatment duration evaluation (International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant, IDEA). High compliance to treatment in control arm will allow a correct assessment of potential differences between the two treatment durations. CLINICALTRIALSGOV REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00646607.

ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.

Value of KRAS as prognostic or predictive marker in NSCLC: results from the TAILOR trial.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic and predictive role of KRAS mutations in advanced nonsmall-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is still unclear. TAILOR prospectively assessed the prognostic and predictive value of KRAS mutations in NSCLC patients treated with erlotinib or docetaxel in second line. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NSCLC patients from 52 Italian hospitals were genotyped for KRAS and EGFR mutational status in two independent laboratories. Wild-type EGFR patients (N = 218) received first-line platinum-based chemotherapy and were randomly allocated at progression to erlotinib or docetaxel. Overall survival (OS) according to KRAS mutational status was the primary end point. RESULTS: KRAS mutations were present in 23% of TAILOR randomized cases. The presence of a KRAS mutation did not adversely affect progression-free (PFS) or overall (OS) survival [hazard ratio (HR) PFS = 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-1.41, P = 0.977; OS = 1.24, 95% CI 0.87-1.77, P = 0.233], nor influenced treatment outcome (test for interaction: OS P = 0.965; PFS P = 0.417). Patients randomized to docetaxel treatment experienced longer survival independently from the KRAS mutational status of their tumors (HR: mutated KRAS 0.81, 95% CI 0.45-1.47; wild-type KRAS 0.79, 95% CI 0.57-1.10). CONCLUSION: In TAILOR, KRAS was neither prognostic nor predictive of benefit for either docetaxel or erlotinib. Docetaxel remains superior independently from KRAS status for second-line treatment in EGFR wild-type advanced NSCLC patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00637910.

Survival following early-stage colon cancer: an ACCENT-based comparison of patients versus a matched international general population†.

BACKGROUND: Post-treatment survival experience of early colon cancer (CC) patients is well described in the literature, which states that cure is probable for some patients. However, comparisons of treated patients' survival versus that expected from a matched general population (MGP) are limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 32 745 patients from 25 randomized adjuvant trials conducted from 1977 to 2012 in 41 countries were pooled. Observed long-term survival of these patients was compared with expected survival matched on sex, age, country, and year, both overall and by stage (II and III), sex, treatment [surgery, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), 5-FU + oxaliplatin], age (<70 and 70+), enrollment year (pre/post 2000), and recurrence (yes/no). Comparisons were made at randomization and repeated conditional on survival to 1, 2, 3, and 5 years. CC and MGP equivalence was tested, and observed Kaplan-Meier survival rates compared with expected MGP rates 3 years out from each landmark. Analyses were also repeated in patients without recurrence. RESULTS: Within most cohorts, long-term survival of CC patients remained statistically worse than the MGP, though conditional survival generally improved over time. Among those surviving 5 years, stage II, oxaliplatin-treated, elderly, and recurrence-free patients achieved subsequent 3-year survival rates within 5% of the MGP, with recurrence-free patients achieving equivalence. CONCLUSIONS: Conditional on survival to 5 years, long-term survival of most CC patients on clinical trials remains modestly poorer than an MGP, but achieves MGP levels in some subgroups. These findings emphasize the need for access to quality care and improved treatment and follow-up strategies.

Randomized trial on adjuvant treatment with FOLFIRI followed by docetaxel and cisplatin versus 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid for radically resected gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Some trial have demonstrated a benefit of adjuvant fluoropirimidine with or without platinum compounds compared with surgery alone. ITACA-S study was designed to evaluate whether a sequential treatment of FOLFIRI [irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (5-FU/LV)] followed by docetaxel plus cisplatin improves disease-free survival in comparison with 5-FU/LV in patients with radically resected gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction were randomly assigned to either FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) day 1, LV 100 mg/m(2) as 2 h infusion and 5-FU 400 mg/m(2) as bolus, days 1 and 2 followed by 600 mg/m(2)/day as 22 h continuous infusion, q14 for four cycles) followed by docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) day 1, cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) day 1, q21 for three cycles (sequential arm) or De Gramont regimen (5-FU/LV arm). RESULTS: From February 2005 to August 2009, 1106 patients were enrolled, and 1100 included in the analysis: 562 in the sequential arm and 538 in the 5-FU/LV arm. With a median follow-up of 57.4 months, 581 patients recurred or died (297 sequential arm and 284 5-FU/LV arm), and 483 died (243 and 240, respectively). No statistically significant difference was detected for both disease-free [hazard ratio (HR) 1.00; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.17; P = 0.974] and overall survival (OS) (HR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.82-1.18; P = 0.865). Five-year disease-free and OS rates were 44.6% and 44.6%, 51.0% and 50.6% in the sequential and 5-FU/LV arm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A more intensive regimen failed to show any benefit in disease-free and OS versus monotherapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01640782.

Sorafenib in patients with Child-Pugh class A and B advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective feasibility analysis.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib has shown survival benefits in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child-Pugh (CP) class A liver function. There are few prospective data on sorafenib in patients with HCC and CP class B. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A consecutive prospective series of 300 patients with CP class A or B HCC were enrolled in a dual-phase trial to determine survival and safety data according to liver function (class A or B) in patients receiving oral sorafenib 800 mg daily. [Results of this study were presented in part at the ASCO 2012 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, 19-21 January 2012. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl 4): abstract 306.] RESULTS: Overall progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were 3.9, 4.1 and 9.1 months, respectively. For patients with CP class A versus B status, PFS was 4.3 versus 2.1 months, TTP was 4.2 versus 3.8 months and OS was 10.0 versus 3. 8 months. Extrahepatic spread was associated with worse outcomes but taken together with CP class, liver function played a greater role in reducing survival. Adverse events for the two CP groups were similar. CONCLUSION: Although patients with HCC and CP class B liver function have poorer outcomes than those with CP class A function, data suggest that patients with CP class B liver function can tolerate treatment and may still benefit from sorafenib.

Venous thromboembolism is a relevant and underestimated adverse event in cancer patients treated in phase I studies.

BACKGROUND: To investigate, retrospectively, the role of tumour histotype and antiangiogenic drugs for venous thromboembolism (VTE) development in advanced cancer patients treated in phase I studies. METHODS: Patients enrolled and treated in phase I studies conducted by SENDO (Southern Europe New Drugs Organisation) were considered. RESULTS: Data of 1415 patients were included in the analysis: 526 (37.2%) patients were males, median age was 57.3 years (range: 13-85). Fifty-six (3.96%) patients developed a VTE. At multivariate analysis gynaecologic (hazard ratio (HR): 2.8, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.29-6.23, P=0.009) and gastrointestinal tumours (HR: 3.23, 95% CI: 1.18-8.87, P=0.023) as well as combination regimens of cytotoxic and antiangiogenic agents (HR: 2.6, 95% CI: 1.11-6.30, P=0.028), white blood cell >11,000 µl(-1) (HR: 2.59, 95% CI: 1.10-6.09, P=0.028) and haemoglobin<10 g dl(-1) (HR: 3.1, 95% CI: 1.07-8.94, P=0.037) were statistically correlated with VTE development. Venous thromboembolism was the fourth most common cause of drug discontinuation. The median time from first drug administration to discontinuation was 1.4 for VTE and 2.3 months for the other adverse events (P=0.02). CONCLUSION: Venous thromboembolism is a relatively common complication among patients treated in the context of phase I studies, and may lead to early drug discontinuation. A greater risk of developing VTE is associated with the diagnosis of gynaecologic and gastrointestinal tumours and the combined use of chemotherapy and antiangiogenic drugs.

Triplets versus doublets, with or without cisplatin, in the first-line treatment of stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients: a multicenter randomised factorial trial (FAST).

BACKGROUND: The FAST is a 2 × 2 factorial trial addressing two questions: (1) the role of replacing cisplatin (P) with a non-platinum agent, vinorelbine (N), and (2) the role of adding a third agent, ifosfamide (I), in a doublet based on gemcitabine (G). METHODS: A total of 433 stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients were randomised to one of four arms: gemcitabine-cisplatin (GP), gemcitabine-vinorelbine, gemcitabine-ifosfamide-cisplatin or gemcitabine-ifosfamide-vinorelbine. Two comparisons were performed: N- vs P-containing regimens and I-triplets vs non-I doublets. RESULTS: For N- vs P-containing regimens, adjusted overall survival was 9.7 vs 11.3 months (P=0.044), progression-free survival was 4.9 vs 6.4 months (P=0.020) and response rate was 24% vs 31% (P=0.124), respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed between doublets and triplets. Grade 3-4 haematological toxicity was significantly more frequent in P-containing therapy; grade 3-4 leucopenia was significantly more common in triplets. Concerning non-haematological toxicity, grade 3-4 nausea-vomiting was significantly increased in P-containing regimens. CONCLUSIONS: This trial provides evidence of a slight survival superiority of GP-containing regimens over platinum-free N-containing chemotherapy. This trial also confirms that the addition of a third chemotherapy agent (I) to a standard G-based doublet does not improve treatment outcome.

ESMO Consensus Guidelines for management of patients with colon and rectal cancer. a personalized approach to clinical decision making.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common tumour type in both sexes combined in Western countries. Although screening programmes including the implementation of faecal occult blood test and colonoscopy might be able to reduce mortality by removing precursor lesions and by making diagnosis at an earlier stage, the burden of disease and mortality is still high. Improvement of diagnostic and treatment options increased staging accuracy, functional outcome for early stages as well as survival. Although high quality surgery is still the mainstay of curative treatment, the management of CRC must be a multi-modal approach performed by an experienced multi-disciplinary expert team. Optimal choice of the individual treatment modality according to disease localization and extent, tumour biology and patient factors is able to maintain quality of life, enables long-term survival and even cure in selected patients by a combination of chemotherapy and surgery. Treatment decisions must be based on the available evidence, which has been the basis for this consensus conference-based guideline delivering a clear proposal for diagnostic and treatment measures in each stage of rectal and colon cancer and the individual clinical situations. This ESMO guideline is recommended to be used as the basis for treatment and management decisions.

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) gene promoter methylation and cetuximab treatment in colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) promoter methylation may be responsible for the loss of EGFR expression in neoplastic cells. The primary aim of our study was to verify a possible correlation between EGFR gene promoter methylation and clinical outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving chemotherapy with irinotecan and cetuximab. METHODS: Colorectal samples from patients treated with irinotecan-cetuximab were analysed for EGFR promoter methylation and EGFR immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were analysed. Thirty patients (58%) showed EGFR promoter hypermethylation. In EGFR promoter methylated and EGFR promoter unmethylated patients, we observed a partial response in 3 (10%) and 13 (59%) patients, respectively (P=0.03), progressive disease was obtained in 19 (63%) and 2 (9%) patients, respectively, with EGFR promoter methylated and EGFR promoter unmethylated tumours (P=0.0001). Median progression-free survival was 2.4 months in patients showing EGFR promoter methylated tumours and 7.4 months for those who had EGFR promoter unmethylated tumours (P<0.0001; Figure 1). Median overall survival was 6.1 months in patients showing EGFR promoter methylated tumours and 17.8 months for those who had EGFR promoter unmethylated tumours (P<0.0001; Figure 2). CONCLUSION: EGFR promoter hypermethylation, after confirmation in larger data set, may represent a valuable asset in further studies investigating EGFR as a therapeutic target in colorectal cancer.

Intermittent versus continuous chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer: a randomised 'GISCAD' trial.

BACKGROUND: In advanced colorectal cancer, chemotherapy is usually administered without pauses and until progression but patients can experience cumulative toxicity and cannot tolerate a heavy therapeutic charge. AIM: The aim of the present trial was to evaluate whether an intermittent chemotherapy with levo-leucovorin + 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) + irinotecan (CPT-11) was at least as effective as the same regimen given continuously, both administered until progression, in patients affected with advanced colorectal cancer and not previously exposed to chemotherapy for metastatic disease. PATIENTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 337 patients from 27 institutions were randomised between levo-leucovorin, 100/mg/m(2) i.v. + 5-FU; 400 mg/m(2) i.v. bolus + 5-FU; 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion, days 1 and 2 + CPT-11; 180 mg/m(2) day 1, administered every 2 weeks 2 months on and 2 months off (arm A) and the same regimen administered continuously (arm B), until progression in both arms. The main end point was overall survival (OS), the secondary progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicity. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 41 months, OS was 18 months in arm A and 17 months in arm B [hazard ratio (HR), 0.88]. Also PFS was comparable in the two groups (6 months in both, with HR, 1.03), and even grades 3-4 toxicity (mainly myelosuppression, fever and diarrhoea) was similar. Second-line oxaliplatin-based treatment was administered in a similar percentage (66%) in the two arms. The median chemotherapy-free period (drug holiday) in arm A was 3.5 months. CONCLUSION: Reducing the charge of therapy in this population did not diminish the efficacy of treatment. Further studies with this strategy, including biologicals, are warranted.