Different Chemotherapy Regimens and Pathologic Complete Response in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: An Updated Network Meta-Analysis of Phase 3 Trials.

Background and Objectives: Currently, the standard treatment for non-metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) consists of a systemic neoadjuvant (or perioperative) anthracycline plus taxane-based chemotherapy, delivered either sequentially or concomitantly. We performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the relative efficacy of different neoadjuvant treatments for TNBC in terms of pathologic complete response (pCR). Materials and Methods: The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from database inception to 1 November 2023. Randomized clinical trials were used that enrolled adults with stage I-III TNBC and provided data on pCR defined as residual ypT0/TisN0M0. Between-group comparisons were estimated using risk ratios (RRs) with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). The primary outcome was the pCR rate. Results: 1129 citations were screened, and 12 randomized clinical trials were included. In Bayesian comparisons, all regimens, except anthracycline/taxanes plus gemcitabine or capecitabine, resulted in a higher pCR than the standard regimen in both direct and indirect comparisons. In particular, immunotherapy-based regimens resulted in more than double the pCR compared to historical regimens (RR = 2.3, 95% CI 1.9-2.9) and ranked as being the optimal regimen with a probability of 97%. Disease-free survival was better for immune checkpoint inhibitor-based chemotherapy (HR = 0.36, 95% 1.21-2.09) than for historical regimens. Conclusion: This meta-analysis confirmed that incorporating immunotherapy with neoadjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy is the best option to guarantee remarkable pathologic downstaging and improve clinical outcomes.

Comparison of different second line treatments for metastatic pancreatic cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC), first line treatment options usually include combination regimens of folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX or mFOLFIRINOX) or gemcitabine based regimens such as in combination with albumin-bound paclitaxel (GEM + nab-PTX). After progression, multiple regimens including NALIRI + 5-FU and folinic acid, FOLFIRINOX, 5-FU-based oxaliplatin doublets (OFF, FOLFOX, or XELOX), or 5-FU-based monotherapy (FL, capecitabine, or S-1) are considered appropriate by major guidelines. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to compare the efficacy of different treatment strategies tested as second-line regimens for patients with mPDAC after first-line gemcitabine-based systemic treatment. METHODS: Randomized phase II and III clinical trials (RCTs) were included if they were published or presented in English. Trials of interest compared two active systemic treatments as second-line regimens until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. We performed a Bayesian NMA with published hazard ratios (HRs) and 95%confidence intervals (CIs) to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of different second-line therapies for mPDAC. The main outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS), secondary endpoints were grade 3-4 toxicities. We calculated the relative ranking of agents for each outcome as their surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA). A higher SUCRA score meant a higher ranking for efficacy outcomes. RESULTS: A NMA of 9 treatments was performed for OS (n = 2521 patients enrolled). Compared with 5-FU + folinic acid both irinotecan or NALIRI + fluoropyrimidines had a trend to better OS (HR = 0.76, 95%CI 0.21-2.75 and HR = 0.74, 95%CI 0.31-1.85). Fluoropyrimidines + folinic acid + oxaliplatin were no better than the combination without oxaliplatin. The analysis of treatment ranking showed that the combination of NALIRI + 5-FU + folinic acid was most likely to yield the highest OS results (SUCRA = 0.7). Furthermore, the NMA results indicated that with the highest SUCRA score (SUCRA = 0.91), NALIRI + 5-FU + folinic acid may be the optimal choice for improved PFS amongst all regimens studied. CONCLUSIONS: According to the NMA results, NALIRI + 5-FU, and folinic acid may represent the best second-line treatment for improved survival outcomes in mPDAC. Further evidence from prospective trials is needed to determine the best treatment option for this group of patients.

Chemotherapy Duration for Various Indications in Colorectal Cancer: a Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC) has evolved and become more personalized during the past several years. For example, depotentiation/reduced duration of systemic therapies has proven to be beneficial in both advanced and early stages of the disease. RECENT FINDINGS: In particular, recent randomized studies of stage III and high-risk stage II CRC showed that a shorter duration (3 months), when compared to the historical 6-month comparator, provides nearly similar overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). In the setting of advanced, inoperable CRC, a relatively short induction phase (six to eight cycles) followed by biological agents is the current standard of care in RAS wild-type (wt). versus RAS mutated cases. With regard to potentially operable stage IV disease (with the aim of converting liver metastases to operability), a relatively short number of cycles (four to six cycles) should be offered with re-staging and re-evaluation for surgery as soon as possible in most cases. For inoperable liver metastases, a relatively intensive triplet or doublet plus targeted therapy may attain conversion in some cases and may even result in cure. Rectal cancer treatment continues to be a complex disease in terms of treatment and oncological results. Recent data seem to showcase the benefits of more prolonged sequential strategies (total neoadjuvant therapy, all treatment delivered before surgery, to reduce the risk of distant metastases and local control). In recent years, different strategies regarding treatment intensity have been employed in CRC in adjuvant and metastatic setting. Introduction of triplets as first-line therapy for colon cancer and as induction phase for rectal cancer are now therapeutic options. Conversely in stage II disease or low-risk stage III resected CRC, a reduced chemotherapy length is a new standard of care.

Preferred neoadjuvant therapy for gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, the standard treatment for gastric and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma, including distal esophagus, consists of perioperative chemotherapy (CT) according to FLOT schedule (5FU/leucovorin/oxaliplatin and docetaxel), or of concomitant chemoradiotherapy (CTRT) based on CROSS regimen. However, due to the relatively lack of direct comparisons between perioperative CT and neoadjuvant CTRT, the effectiveness of these new combinations is unknown. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the efficacy of different neoadjuvant treatments for gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma in terms of overall and disease-free survival (OS and DFS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane from database inception until February 1st 2022 for randomized clinical trials that enrolled adults with gastric and GEJ carcinomas and provided data about OS and/or DFS. Between-group comparisons were estimated using hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% credible intervals (95% CrIs). Surface under the cumulative rank (SUCRA) curve plots were produced. The primary outcome was OS, secondary endpoint DFS. RESULTS: A total of 1247 citations were screened; 14 randomized clinical trials were included. In Bayesian comparisons, FLOT-based CT ranked as one of the better regimens with a probability of 41%, both with induction CT followed by CTRT (P = 0.45). For DFS analysis, the FLOT regimen was the preferred option (P = 0.62). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this NMA adds further evidence to the optimization of treatment strategies for gastric and GEJ adenocarcinomas and confirms that incorporation of perioperative triplet-based CT improved both OS and DFS compared to surgery alone and other preoperative strategies.

CEA increase as a marker of disease progression after first-line induction therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. A pooled analysis of TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies.

BACKGROUND: In mCRC, CEA is used to monitor response to systemic therapy together with imaging. After the end of induction, no major improvement in tumour shrinkage is expected, and the availability of a marker able to predict progressive disease (PD) versus no-PD might allow avoiding CT scans. METHODS: We pooled data from patients with baseline CEA ≥ 10 ng/mL included in TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies with the aim of identifying a threshold for percent increase of CEA from nadir able to predict PD after the end of the induction therapy. RESULTS: In total, 1178 paired CEA and radiological assessments from 434 patients were included. According to the optimal cut-off determined by ROC, a CEA increase of at least 120% from nadir differentiated between PD and no-PD with a sensitivity of 74% and a specificity of 78%, excluding PD in the 92% of radiological assessments and allowing to avoid the 67% of CT scans. However, CEA cut-off of 120% was not able to detect radiological PD in 26% of cases. In order to mitigate this issue, a different clinically relevant threshold was evaluated based on the best sensitivity cut-off. Therefore, using any CEA increase from nadir as a threshold, the sensitivity grew to 93% and only in the 7% of cases the radiological PD was not detected. CONCLUSIONS: In mCRC with baseline CEA ≥ 10 ng/mL, CEA values can accurately predict PD versus no-PD after the end of the first-line induction therapy.

Treatments after progression to first-line FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer: a pooled analysis of TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies by GONO.

BACKGROUND: FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab (bev) is a first-line regimen of proven activity and efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer. The upfront exposure to three cytotoxics raises concerns about the efficacy of treatments after progression. METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of treatments after progression to upfront FOLFOXIRI/bev in patients enrolled in two randomised Phase 3 studies (TRIBE and TRIBE2) that compared FOLFOXIRI/bev to doublets (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI)/bev. Response rate, progression-free survival (2nd PFS) and overall survival (2nd OS) during treatments after progression were assessed. The RECIST response in first line and the oxaliplatin and irinotecan-free interval (OIFI) were investigated as potential predictors of benefit from FOLFOXIRI ± bev reintroduction. RESULTS: Longer 2nd PFS was reported in patients receiving FOLFOXIRI ± bev reintroduction compared to doublets ± bev or other treatments (6.1 versus 4.4 and 3.9 months, respectively, P = 0.013), and seems limited to patients achieving a response during first line (6.9 versus 4.2 and 4.7 months, respectively, P = 0.005) and an OIFI ≥ 4 months (7.2 versus 6.5 and 4.6 months, respectively, P = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: First-line FOLFOXIRI/bev does not impair the administration of effective second-line therapies. First-line response and longer OIFI seem associated with improved response and 2nd PFS from FOLFOXIRI ± bev reintroduction, without impacting 2nd OS.

The Protein Imager: a full-featured online molecular viewer interface with server-side HQ-rendering capabilities.

SUMMARY: Molecular viewers' long learning curve is hindering researchers in approaching the field of structural biology for the first time. Herein, we present 'The Protein Imager', a lightweight, powerful and easy-to-use interface as a next-gen online molecular viewer. Furthermore, the interface is linked to an automated server-side rendering system able to generate publication-quality molecular illustrations. The Protein Imager interface has been designed for easy usage for beginners and experts in the field alike. The interface allows the preparation of very complex molecular views maintaining a high level of responsiveness even on mobile devices. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The Protein Imager interface is freely available online at https://3dproteinimaging.com/protein-imager. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Systemic doxycycline for pre-emptive treatment of anti-EGFR-related skin toxicity in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving first-line panitumumab-based therapy: a post hoc analysis of the Valentino study.

INTRODUCTION: The combination of anti-EGFRs and doublet chemotherapy is considered the optimal upfront option for patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type left-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The prophylactic or reactive treatment with tetracyclines for EGFR inhibitor-induced skin toxicity is currently clinical practice, though non-conclusive results are available. METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of the Valentino study that randomized RAS wild-type mCRC patients to two panitumumab-based maintenance regimens after the first-line induction, aimed at assessing the safety and efficacy of the administration of a pre-emptive doxycycline prophylaxis for anti-EGFR-related skin toxicity. We assessed the rate of treatment-related and panitumumab-related adverse events (AEs), treatment intensity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 226 patients, out of the 229 enrolled in the Valentino study, were eligible for the analysis. Overall, 143 (63%) and 83 (37%) patients received or not the antibiotic prophylaxis for skin toxicity. Any grade and G3/4 panitumumab-related AEs were reported in 89% versus 92% (p = 0.650) and 27% versus 27% (p = 1.000) patients who received or not the pre-emptive prophylaxis, respectively. Any grade and G3/4 skin rash occurred in 81% versus 90% (p = 0.085) and 27% versus 25% (p = 0.876) patients receiving or not the prophylaxis, respectively. No significant differences in terms of treatment duration, treatment delays or dose reductions, PFS, and OS were observed in the two sub-populations. CONCLUSION: The adequate management of anti-EGFR-related skin toxicity is fundamental to optimize the outcome of mCRC patients, balancing the survival benefit with patients' quality of life, especially in the first-line setting.

Impact of BMI on Survival Outcomes of Immunotherapy in Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review.

Growing research has focused on obesity as a prognostic factor during therapy with immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). The role of body-mass index (BMI) in predicting response and toxicity to ICIs is not clear, as studies have shown inconsistent results and significant interpretation biases. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the relationship between BMI and survival outcomes during ICIs, with a side focus on the incidence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs). A total of 17 studies were included in this systematic review. Altogether, the current evidence does not support a clearly positive association of BMI with survival outcomes. Regarding toxicities, available studies confirm a superimposable rate of irAEs among obese and normal weight patients. Intrinsic limitations of the analyzed studies include the retrospective nature, the heterogeneity of patients' cohorts, and differences in BMI categorization for obese patients across different studies. These factors might explain the heterogeneity of available results, and the subsequent absence of a well-established role of baseline BMI on the efficacy of ICIs among cancer patients. Further prospective studies are needed, in order to clarify the role of obesity in cancer patients treated with immunotherapy.

Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab and reintroduction after progression versus mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (TRIBE2): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The triplet FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab showed improved outcomes for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, compared with FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab. However, the actual benefit of the upfront exposure to the three cytotoxic drugs compared with a preplanned sequential strategy of doublets was not clear, and neither was the feasibility or efficacy of therapies after disease progression. We aimed to compare a preplanned strategy of upfront FOLFOXIRI followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression versus a sequence of mFOLFOX6 (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) and FOLFIRI doublets, in combination with bevacizumab. METHODS: TRIBE2 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised study of patients aged 18-75 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2, with unresectable, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, recruited from 58 Italian oncology units. Patients were stratified according to centre, ECOG performance status, primary tumour location, and previous adjuvant chemotherapy. A randomisation system incorporating a minimisation algorithm was used to randomly assign patients (1:1) via a masked web-based allocation procedure to two different treatment strategies. In the control group, patients received first-line mFOLFOX6 (85 mg/m2 of intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg intravenously over 30 min) followed by FOLFIRI (180 mg/m2 of intravenous irinotecan over 120 min concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin; 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab after disease progression. In the experimental group, patients received FOLFOXIRI (165 mg/m2 of intravenous irinotecan over 60 min; 85 mg/m2 intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 3200 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression. Combination treatments were repeated every 14 days for up to eight cycles followed by fluorouracil and leucovorin (at the same dose administered at the last induction cycle) plus bevacizumab maintenance until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, or consent withdrawal. Patients and investigators were not masked. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival 2, defined as the time from randomisation to disease progression on any treatment given after first disease progression, or death, analysed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. Study recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02339116. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2015, and May 15, 2017, 679 patients were randomly assigned and received treatment (340 in the control group and 339 in the experimental group). At data cut-off (July 30, 2019) median follow-up was 35·9 months (IQR 30·1-41·4). Median progression-free survival 2 was 19·2 months (95% CI 17·3-21·4) in the experimental group and 16·4 months (15·1-17·5) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74, 95% CI 0·63-0·88; p=0·0005). During the first-line treatment, the most frequent of all-cause grade 3-4 events were diarrhoea (57 [17%] vs 18 [5%]), neutropenia (168 [50%] vs 71 [21%]), and arterial hypertension (25 [7%] vs 35 [10%]) in the experimental group compared with the control group. Serious adverse events occurred in 84 (25%) patients in the experimental group and in 56 (17%) patients in the control group. Eight treatment-related deaths were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions, two intestinal perforations, two sepsis, one myocardial infarction, and one bleeding) and four in the control group (two occlusions, one perforation, and one pulmonary embolism). After first disease progression, no substantial differences in the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported between the control and experimental groups, with the exception of neurotoxicity, which was only reported in the experimental group (six [5%] of 132 patients). Serious adverse events after disease progression occurred in 20 (15%) patients in the experimental group and 25 (12%) in the control group. Three treatment-related deaths after first disease progression were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions and one sepsis) and four in the control group (one intestinal occlusion, one intestinal perforation, one cerebrovascular event, and one sepsis). INTERPRETATION: Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression seems to be a preferable therapeutic strategy to sequential administration of chemotherapy doublets, in combination with bevacizumab, for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer selected according to the study criteria. FUNDING: The GONO Cooperative Group, the ARCO Foundation, and F Hoffmann-La Roche.

The Pan-Immune-Inflammation Value is a new prognostic biomarker in metastatic colorectal cancer: results from a pooled-analysis of the Valentino and TRIBE first-line trials.

BACKGROUND: Immune-inflammatory biomarkers (IIBs) showed a prognostic relevance in patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC). We aimed at evaluating the prognostic power of a new comprehensive biomarker, the Pan-Immune-Inflammation Value (PIV), in patients with mCRC receiving first-line therapy. METHODS: In the present pooled-analysis, we included patients enrolled in the Valentino and TRIBE trials. PIV was calculated as: (neutrophil count × platelet count × monocyte count)/lymphocyte count. A cut-off was determined using the maximally selected rank statistics method. Generalised boosted regression (GBR), the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox hazards regression models were used for survival analyses. RESULTS: A total of 438 patients were included. Overall, 208 patients (47%) had a low-baseline PIV and 230 (53%) had a high-baseline PIV. Patients with high PIV experienced a worse PFS (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.36-2.03, P < 0.001) and worse OS (HR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.57-2.57; P < 0.001) compared to patients with low PIV. PIV outperformed the other IIBs in the GBR model and in the multivariable models. CONCLUSION: PIV is a strong predictor of survival outcomes with better performance than other well-known IIBs in patients with mCRC treated with first-line therapy. PIV should be prospectively validated to better stratify mCRC patients undergoing first-line therapy.

Glycolytic competence in gastric adenocarcinomas negatively impacts survival outcomes of patients treated with salvage paclitaxel-ramucirumab.

INTRODUCTION: For energy production, cancer cells maintain a high rate of glycolysis instead of oxidative phosphorylation converting glucose into lactic acid. This metabolic shift is useful to survive in unfavorable microenvironments. We investigated whether a positive glycolytic profile (PGP) in gastric adenocarcinomas may be associated with unfavorable outcomes under an anticancer systemic therapy, including the anti-angiogenic ramucirumab. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Normal mucosa (NM) and primary tumor (PT) of 40 metastatic gastric adenocarcinomas patients who received second-line paclitaxel-ramucirumab (PR) were analyzed for mRNA expression of the following genes: HK-1, HK-2, PKM-2, LDH-A, and GLUT-1. Patients were categorized with PGP when at least a doubling of mRNA expression (PT vs. NM) in all glycolytic core enzymes (HK-1 or HK-2, PKM-2, LDH-A) was observed. PGP was also related to TP53 mutational status. RESULTS: Mean LDH-A, HK-2, PKM-2 mRNA expression levels were significantly higher in PT compared with NM. 18 patients were classified as PGP, which was associated with significantly worse progression-free and overall survival times. No significant association was observed between PGP and clinical-pathologic features, including TP53 positive mutational status, in 28 samples. CONCLUSIONS: Glycolytic proficiency may negatively affect survival outcomes of metastatic gastric cancer patients treated with PR systemic therapy. TP53 mutational status alone does not seem to explain such a metabolic shift.

Assessment of Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel as switch maintenance versus continuation of first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced HER-2 negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancers: the ARMANI phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Platinum/fluoropyrimidine regimens are the backbone of first-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However response rates to first line chemotherapy range from 30 to 50% and disease progression occurs after 4-6 cycles. The optimal duration of first-line therapy is still unknown and its continuation until disease progression represents the standard. However this strategy is often associated with cumulative toxicity and rapid development of drug resistance. Moreover, only about 40% of AGC pts. are eligible for second-line treatment. METHODS: This is a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase III trial. It aims at assessing whether switch maintenance to ramucirumab plus paclitaxel will extend the progression-free survival (PFS) of subjects with HER-2 negative AGC who have not progressed after 3 months of a first-line with a platinum/fluoropyrimidine regimen (either FOLFOX4, mFOLFOX6 or XELOX). The primary endpoint is to compare Progression-Free Survival (PFS) of patients in ARM A (switch maintenance to ramucirumab and placlitaxel) versus ARM B (continuation of the same first-line therapy with oxaliplatin/fluoropyrimidine). Secondary endpoints are: overall survival, time-to-treatment failure, overall response rate, duration of response, percentage of patients that will receive a second line therapy according to arm treatment, safety, quality of life. Exploratory studies including Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) in archival tumor tissues are planned in order to identify potential biomarkers of primary resistance and prognosis. DISCUSSION: The ARMANI study estimates if patients treated with early swich with ramucirumab plus paclitaxel received benefit when compared to those treated with continuation of first line therapy. The hypothesis is that the early administration of an active, non-cross resistant second-line regimen such as ramucirumab plus paclitaxel may prolong the time in which patients are progression-free, and consequently have a better quality of life. Moreover, this strategy may rescue all those subjects that become ineligible for second-line therapy due to the rapid deterioration of health status after the first disease progression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ARMANI is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02934464 , October 17, 2016) and EudraCT(2016-001783-12, April 202,016).

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy for gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The preferred neoadjuvant treatment for gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma is still matter of debate. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the different impact of neoadjuvant combined chemotherapy and radiotherapy (CTRT) versus chemotherapy (CT) alone. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in EMBASE, PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to 30th June 2018. Studies comparing survival of patients who underwent CTRT or CT alone before surgery for GEJ adenocarcinoma were included. Hazard ratio (HR) for overall survival (OS) was extracted, and a random-effects model was used for pooled analysis. Median OS, 5-year OS, complete pathologic response (pCR), locoregional and distant failure rates were also calculated. RESULTS: 22 studies including 18,260 patients were considered for the final analysis. The pooled results demonstrated that combined CTRT do not significantly reduce the risk of death (HR 0.95, 95% CI 0.84-1.07; P = 0.41) but has a positive impact on the risk of relapse (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75-0.97; P = 0.01) compared to CT alone. Addition of RT to CT alone significantly increased the odds of pCR by 2.8 (95% CI 2.27-3.47; P < 0.001) and reduced the risk of locoregional failure (OR 0.6, 95% CI 0.39-0.91; P = 0.01) but not the risk of distant metastases (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.59-1.11; P = 0.19). CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis comparing neoadjuvant CTRT with CT for adenocarcinoma of GEJ, we found no difference in terms of median OS, despite a higher pCR rate and a reduced risk of locoregional recurrences for the combined approach. Further studies, preferably large randomized clinical trials, are needed to confirm these results.

RATIONALE 301 study: tislelizumab versus sorafenib as first-line treatment for unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma.

Advanced, unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has a poor prognosis with median life expectancy of approximately 1 year. Overexpression of PD-L1 in tumor cells and PD-1 on tumor-infiltrating T cells has been associated with poorer prognosis, more advanced disease and higher recurrence rates in HCC. Monoclonal antibodies against PD-1 have demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with solid tumors, including HCC. Tislelizumab, an investigational, humanized IgG4 monoclonal antibody with high affinity and binding specificity for PD-1, has demonstrated preliminary antitumor activity in HCC. Here we describe a head-to-head Phase III study comparing the efficacy, safety and tolerability of tislelizumab with sorafenib as first-line treatment in unresectable HCC.

Different Toxicity of Cetuximab and Panitumumab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Over the last few years only one large randomized phase III study has tried to prospectively assess the safety of cetuximab and panitumumab in a head-to-head comparison. Despite the similar overall toxicity profile, cetuximab and panitumumab retain peculiar safety characteristics that deserve to be deeply investigated. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review for randomized trials in PubMed, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and EMBASE using the terms ("cetuximab" or "panitumumab") AND ("colorectal cancer" OR "colorectal carcinoma"). Data of adverse events were aggregated to obtain pooled incidence rates of prespecified adverse events. Incidence of skin toxicities was the primary outcome. A χ2 test was used for comparisons of proportions and an odds ratio (OR) was calculated for comparison. RESULTS: A total of 38 studies were included for analysis. Cetuximab was associated with fewer G3-4 skin toxicities (OR = 0.62, 95% CI 0.53-0.62; p < 0.001), slightly more frequent G3-4 acne-like rash (OR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.04-1.48; p = 0.04), and paronychia (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.1-1.7), but fewer cases of skin fissures (OR = 0.64, 95% CI 0.44-0.93; p = 0.02) and pruritus (OR = 0.45, 95% CI 0.35-0.58; p < 0.001) than PANI. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, this meta-analysis shows that cetuximab- and panitumumab-based chemotherapy have different toxicity profiles in terms of the rate of severe adverse events.

Estimating Survival Probabilities of Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients in the Second-Line Setting: The Gastric Life Nomogram.

OBJECTIVE: We built and externally validated a nomogram for predicting the overall survival (OS) probability of advanced gastric cancer patients receiving second-line treatment. METHODS: The nomogram was developed on a set of 320 Italian patients and validated on two independent sets (295 Italian and 172 Korean patients). Putative prognostic variables were selected using a random forest model and included in the multivariable Cox model. The nomogram's performance was evaluated by calibration plot and C index. RESULTS: ECOG performance status, neutrophils to lymphocytes ratio, and peritoneal involvement were selected and included into the multivariable model. The C index was 0.72 (95% CI 0.68-0.75) in the development set, 0.69 (95% CI 0.65-0.73) in the Italian validation set, but only 0.57 (95% CI 0.52-0.62) in the Korean set. While Italian calibrations were quite good, the Korean one was poor. Regarding 6-month OS predictions, calibration was best in both Caucasian cohorts and worst the in Asian one. CONCLUSIONS: Our nomogram may be a useful tool to predict 3- or 6-month OS in Caucasian gastric cancer patients eligible for second-line therapy. Based on three easy-to-collect variables, the Gastric Life nomogram may help clinicians improve patient selection for second-line treatments and assist in clinical trial enrollment.

Right Versus Left Colon Cancer: Resectable and Metastatic Disease.

OPINION STATEMENT: Colorectal cancer does not represent a single anatomic entity and side of origin has a key impact on prognosis and response to different systemic therapies. Compared to tumours arising in left colon, right colorectal cancers rely on the activation of different molecular pathways (e.g. BRAF mutation and MSI status). From a clinical point of view, this results in a different response to anti-EGFR agents. Current guidelines suggest the use of cetuximab or panitumumab in RAS wild-type disease and left colon cancer especially for cytoreduction/conversion purposes, since the expected benefit in right colon cancer is absent or clinically modest. The prognostic role of microbiota in colorectal cancer disease deserves more clarification before being considered in common clinical practice. Screening policies could also be affected by these new acquisitions. At the moment, sidedness should be considered as a strong prognostic variable and a surrogate predictor of different activity of anti-EGFR agents in the metastatic setting. Its role in early stages of resected disease is still uncertain.

Outcomes of Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients Treated with at Least Three Lines of Systemic Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Second-line therapy has consistently demonstrated survival benefit if compared with best supportive care; however, there is limited evidence whether further lines of treatment may improve the prognosis of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Starting from a real-world cohort of 868 AGC patients, we retrospectively analyzed baseline parameters, tumor characteristics, and treatment data of those treated with at least three lines. Categorical features were described through cross-tables and chi-square test. We explored the impact of treatment intensity and progression-free survival (PFS) experienced in previous lines on PFS and overall survival in third-line by uni- and multivariate Cox regression models and described by Kaplan-Meier estimator plot with log-rank test. RESULTS: Overall, 300 patients were included in the analysis. The most common site of primary tumor was gastric body; 45.3% of cancers had an intestinal histotype, 14% were human epidermal growth receptor 2 positive. In third-line, 45.7% of patients received a single-agent chemotherapy, 49.7% a combination regimen. Patients who had experienced a first-line PFS ≥6.9 months had a better prognosis compared with those who had achieved a shorter one. Consistently, a second-line PFS ≥3.5 months positively influenced the prognosis. Patients receiving a third-line combination regimen had better outcomes compared with those treated with a single-agent chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Our real-world study confirms that selected AGC patients may receive third-line treatment. Longer PFS in previous lines or a more intense third-line treatment positively influenced prognosis. Further efforts are warranted to define the best therapeutic sequences, and to identify the optimal candidate for treatment beyond second-line. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The benefit of third-line treatment to advanced gastric cancer patients is controversial. This study depicts a real scenario of the clinical practice in Italy, confirming that a non-negligible proportion of patients receive a third-line therapy. Longer progression-free survival in previous treatment lines or higher third-line treatment intensity positively influenced prognosis. Including a large number of real-world patients, this study provides information on third-line treatment from the daily clinical practice; moreover, its results help in defining the best therapeutic sequence and offer some hints to select the optimal candidate for treatment beyond second-line.

Initial therapy with FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: A fluoropyrimidine plus irinotecan or oxaliplatin, combined with bevacizumab (a monoclonal antibody against vascular endothelial growth factor), is standard first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. Before the introduction of bevacizumab, chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) showed superior efficacy as compared with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI). In a phase 2 study, FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab showed promising activity and an acceptable rate of adverse effects. METHODS: We randomly assigned 508 patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer to receive either FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (control group) or FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (experimental group). Up to 12 cycles of treatment were administered, followed by fluorouracil plus bevacizumab until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 12.1 months in the experimental group, as compared with 9.7 months in the control group (hazard ratio for progression, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62 to 0.90; P=0.003). The objective response rate was 65% in the experimental group and 53% in the control group (P=0.006). Overall survival was longer, but not significantly so, in the experimental group (31.0 vs. 25.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.00; P=0.054). The incidences of grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity, stomatitis, diarrhea, and neutropenia were significantly higher in the experimental group. CONCLUSIONS: FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab, as compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab, improved the outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and increased the incidence of some adverse events. (Funded by the Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00719797.).