Efficacy of ramucirumab combination chemotherapy as second-line treatment in patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction after exposure to checkpoint inhibitors and chemotherapy as first-line therapy.

FOLFOX plus nivolumab represents a standard of care for first-line therapy of advanced gastroesophageal cancer (aGEC) with positive PD-L1 expression. The efficacy of second-line VEGFR-2 inhibition with ramucirumab (RAM) plus chemotherapy after progression to immunochemotherapy remains unclear. Medical records of patients with aGEC enrolled in the randomized phase II AIO-STO-0417 trial after treatment failure to first-line FOLFOX plus nivolumab and ipilimumab were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into two groups based on second-line therapy: RAM plus chemotherapy (RAM group) or treatment without RAM (control group). Eighty three patients were included. In the overall population, progression-free survival (PFS) in the RAM group was superior to the control (4.5 vs 2.9 months). Responders (CR/PR) to first-line immunochemotherapy receiving RAM containing second-line therapy had prolonged OS from start of first-line therapy (28.9 vs 16.5 months), as well as second-line OS (9.6 vs 7.5 months), PFS (5.6 vs 2.9 months) and DCR (53% vs 29%) compared to the control. PD-L1 CPS ≥1 was 42% and 44% for the RAM and the control, respectively. Patients with CPS ≥1 in the RAM group showed better tumor control (ORR 25% vs 10%) and improved survival (total OS 11.5 vs 8.0 months; second-line OS 6.5 vs 3.9 months; PFS 4.5 vs 1.6 months) compared to the control. Prior exposure to first-line FOLFOX plus dual checkpoint inhibition followed by RAM plus chemotherapy shows favorable response and survival rates especially in patients with initial response and positive PD-L1 expression and has the potential to advance the treatment paradigm in aGEC.

Ramucirumab plus irinotecan / leucovorin / 5-FU versus ramucirumab plus paclitaxel in patients with advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction, who failed one prior line of palliative chemotherapy: the phase II/III RAMIRIS study (AIO-STO-0415).

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel in combination with ramucirumab is the standard of care second-line therapy in gastro-esophageal adenocarcinoma (GEA). As the number of taxane pretreated patients in the perioperative or first-line setting is increasing, it is unknown whether these patients benefit from re-applying a taxane in using the combination of paclitaxel and ramucirumab. Furthermore, the rates of neurotoxicity with first-line FOLFOX or FLOT range from 30%-70%, making second-line taxane-containing therapy less suitable to a meaningful portion of patients. This patient group is likely to benefit from a taxane-free second-line chemotherapy regimen, such as FOLFIRI and ramucirumab (FOLFIRI-Ram). Therefore, the RAMIRIS phase III trial evaluates the effects of the regimen of FOLFIRI-Ram in the second-line treatment after a taxane-based chemotherapy in patients with advanced GEA. METHODS: The RAMIRIS trial is a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase II/III study comparing treatment of FOLFIRI-Ram (arm A) with paclitaxel and ramucirumab (arm B). The Phase II is already closed with 111 enrolled patients. In the phase III, 318 taxane-pretreated patients with advanced GEA will be recruited and randomized 1:1 to FOLFIRI (5-FU 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h i.v., irinotecan 180 mg/m2 i.v.; 5-FU 400 mg/m2 bolus; leucovorin 400 mg/m2 i.v.; on day 1 and 15, q28) with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg every two weeks (Arm A) or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (days 1, 8, 15, q28) with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg every two weeks (Arm B). The primary endpoints are overall survival (OS) and objective overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints are progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate and safety and quality of life as assessed by EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire. DISCUSSION: The already completed RAMIRIS phase II demonstrated feasibility and efficacy of FOLFIRI-Ram. Especially docetaxel-pretreated patients seemed to markedly benefit from FOLFIRI-Ram, with favorable response- and PFS rates and lower toxicity. This offers a rationale for the phase III trial. If the RAMIRIS III trial transfers and confirms the results, they will affect the current treatment guidelines, recommending the combination therapy of FOLFIRI-Ram for taxane-pretreated patients with advanced GEA. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03081143 Date of registration: 13.11.2015.

Phase III randomized, double-blind study of paclitaxel with and without everolimus in patients with advanced gastric or esophagogastric junction carcinoma who have progressed after therapy with a fluoropyrimidine/platinum-containing regimen (RADPAC).

The RADPAC trial evaluated paclitaxel with everolimus in patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer (GEC) who have progressed after therapy with a fluoropyrimidine/platinum-containing regimen. Patients were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 ) on day 1, 8 and 15 plus everolimus (10 mg daily, arm B) d1-d28 or placebo (arm A), repeated every 28 days. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety in all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01248403. Between October 2011 and September 2015, 300 patients (median age: 62 years; median lines prior therapy: 2; 47.7% of patients had prior taxane therapy) were randomly assigned (arm A, 150, arm B, 150). In the intention to treat population, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS; everolimus, 2.2 vs placebo, 2.07 months, HR 0.88, P = .3) or OS (everolimus, 6.1 vs placebo, 5.0 months, HR 0.93, P = .54). For patients with prior taxane use, everolimus improved PFS (everolimus, 2.7 vs placebo 1.8 months, HR 0.69, P = .03) and OS (everolimus, 5.8 vs placebo 3.9 months, HR 0.73, P = .07). Combination of paclitaxel and everolimus was associated with significantly more grade 3-5 mucositis (13.3% vs 0.7%; P < .001). The addition of everolimus to paclitaxel did not improve outcomes in pretreated metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. Activity was seen in the taxane pretreated group. Additional biomarker studies are planned to look for subgroups that may have a benefit.

Ipilimumab or FOLFOX with Nivolumab and Trastuzumab in previously untreated HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic EsophagoGastric Adenocarcinoma - the randomized phase 2 INTEGA trial (AIO STO 0217).

BACKGROUND: Esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (EGA) currently represents a main cause of cancer related death. Despite an intensified treatment for locally advanced or metastatic EGA with a doublet chemotherapy consisting of a platinum compound and a fluoropyrimidine in combination with trastuzumab for HER2-positive disease or in selected cases with docetaxel, survival remains poor. Recently, immune-oncology based strategies relevantly improved the treatment of different solid tumors and showed some promise in late or later stage trials in EGA. Notably, the combination of immunotherapy with trastuzumab to enhance anti-tumor immunity through activation of innate and adaptive immunity was beneficial in preclinical studies or clinical studies in breast cancer. METHODS: The INTEGA study is an open-label, randomized, multicenter, exploratory phase II trial designed to assess clinical performance, safety and tolerability of ipilimumab or 5-FU/folinic acid and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in combination with nivolumab and trastuzumab in patients with previously untreated HER2-positive, locally advanced or metastatic EGA. The primary objective is to determine the clinical performance of ipilimumab or FOLFOX in combination with nivolumab and trastuzumab in terms of overall survival. Secondary objectives are safety and tolerability, efficacy in terms of progression-free survival and objective response rate and blood-based signatures (e.g. immune response or suppression of anti-HER2 resistance) that may correlate with treatment response. DISCUSSION: Recent evidence from the phase II NCT02954536 study (oxaliplatin, capecitabine, trastuzumab and pembrolizumab) suggests the clinical feasibility of combining chemotherapy, trastuzumab and checkpoint inhibition in EGA. However, evidence for a chemotherapy-free regimen is also mounting in HER2-positive disease (NCT02689284) i.e. margetuximab and Pembrolizumab. Both studies excelled with high overall response rates and manageable toxicities. The INTEGA study aims to comparatively assess these results and select a promising new 1st line regimen which then needs to be confirmed in a randomized phase III trial. Further, the translational part of the study might help to better stratify patients and tailor treatment of either arm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03409848 24.01.2018.

Collaborative advance care planning in advanced cancer patients: col-ACP -study - study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To assure patient-centred end-of-life care, palliative interventions need to account for patients' preferences. Advance care planning (ACP) is a structured approach that allows patients, relatives and physicians to discuss end-of-life decisions. Although ACP can improve several patient related outcomes, the implementation of ACP remains difficult. The col-ACP-study (collaborative advance care planning) will investigate a new ACP procedure (col-ACP-intervention (German: Hand-in-Hand Intervention)) in palliative cancer patients and their relatives that addresses individual values and targets barriers of communication before an ACP process. METHODS: In a randomised controlled trial, 270 cancer patients without curative treatment options and their relatives will receive either 1) col-ACP 2) a supportive intervention (active control group) or 3) standard medical care (TAU). col-ACP comprises two steps: a) addressing various barriers of patients and relatives that discourage them from discussing end-of-life issues followed by b) a regular, structured ACP procedure. The col-ACP-intervention consists of 6 sessions. Primary endpoint is the patients' quality of life 16 weeks after randomisation. Secondary endpoints include measurements of distress; depression; communication barriers; caregivers' quality of life; existence of ACP or advance directives; the consistence of end of life care; and others. Patients will be followed up for 13 months. Multivariate analyses will be carried out. Qualitative evaluation of the intervention will be conducted. DISCUSSION: Augmentation of a regular ACP program by a structured psycho-oncological intervention is an innovative approach to target barriers of communication about end-of-life issues. Study findings will help to understand the value of such a combined intervention in palliative care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03387436 (Date of registration: 01/02/2018, retrospectively registered.

The RENAISSANCE (AIO-FLOT5) trial: effect of chemotherapy alone vs. chemotherapy followed by surgical resection on survival and quality of life in patients with limited-metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or esophagogastric junction - a phase III trial of the German AIO/CAO-V/CAOGI.

BACKGROUND: Historical data indicate that surgical resection may benefit select patients with metastatic gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer. However, randomized clinical trials are lacking. The current RENAISSANCE trial addresses the potential benefits of surgical intervention in gastric and gastroesophageal junction cancer with limited metastases. METHODS: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, investigator-initiated phase III trial. Previously untreated patients with limited metastatic stage (retroperitoneal lymph node metastases only or a maximum of one incurable organ site that is potentially resectable or locally controllable with or without retroperitoneal lymph nodes) receive 4 cycles of FLOT chemotherapy alone or with trastuzumab if Her2+. Patients without disease progression after 4 cycles are randomized 1:1 to receive additional chemotherapy cycles or surgical resection of primary and metastases followed by subsequent chemotherapy. 271 patients are to be allocated to the trial, of which at least 176 patients will proceed to randomization. The primary endpoint is overall survival; main secondary endpoints are quality of life assessed by EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire, progression free survival and surgical morbidity and mortality. Recruitment has already started; currently (Feb 2017) 22 patients have been enrolled. DISCUSSION: If the RENAISSANCE concept proves to be effective, this could potentially lead to a new standard of therapy. On the contrary, if the outcome is negative, patients with gastric or GEJ cancer and metastases will no longer be considered candidates for surgical intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The article reports of a health care intervention on human participants and is registered on October 12, 2015 under ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02578368 ; EudraCT: 2014-002665-30.

Difficulties of Cancer Patients' Relatives in End-of-Life Discussions: Validation of a Questionnaire.

CONTEXT: Despite the potential benefits and the desire for end-of-life communication, it rarely occurs in the familial context. Relatives play a significant role in the communication process; thus, it is crucial to understand the difficulties that they face. OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate the relatives' version of the Difficulties in End-of-Life Discussions - Family Inventory (DEOLD-FI-r) regarding its factor structure, reliability and validity. METHODS: Relatives of patients with advanced cancer were recruited in a German hospital. The factor structure of the questionnaire was explored. Construct validity was examined through correlations between the DEOLD-FI-r and measures of avoidance of cancer communication, quality of life, distress, and experienced difficulty during end-of-life discussions. Additionally, we examined the group difference between those who had and had not engaged in the conversation. RESULTS: About 111 relatives completed the survey (mean age 55.5 years, 52% female). The final version of the DEOLD-FI-r contained 23 items (α = .92). The exploratory factor analysis resulted in three factors explaining 74% of the variance. Each factor described another dimension of potential communication barriers in end-of-life discussions: 1) Own emotional burden, 2) Relational and patient-related difficulties, 3) Negative attitudes. Construct validity was supported by correlations consistent with our hypotheses and less reported communication difficulty by those who had already talked about the end-of-life with their relative (t(106) = 5.38, P < .001, d = 0.8). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that the DEOLD-FI-r is a valid and reliable instrument for the systematic assessment of difficulties in family end-of-life communication. By focusing on relatives, it complements the already validated patient-version.

Awareness and use of psychosocial care among cancer patients and their relatives-a comparison of people with and without a migration background in Germany.

PURPOSE: We examined how migration background is associated with awareness and usage of psycho-oncology services. METHODS: Oncologists in community-based practices and outpatient clinics asked their patients and their relatives to complete a questionnaire. Migrants were purposely over-sampled. The questionnaire was provided in Arabic, English, Farsi, French, German, Hindi, Kurdish, Pashto, Russian, Somali, Turkish, Urdu, and Vietnamese. RESULTS: From 9 collaborators, 177 participants were enrolled (130 with and 47 without migration background). The existence of outpatient cancer counselling centres was known to 38% of the participants without and 32% with migration background, self-help groups to 32 vs. 12%, and psychotherapy to 43 vs. 25%. Respondents from the Near and Middle East were less likely to know about psychotherapy (odds ratio (OR) 0.1, p = 0.01); those from the Commonwealth of the Independent States or former Yugoslavia were less often informed about self-help groups (OR 0.1, p = 0.06). Migrants retrieved information less frequently from the internet than non-migrants (10 vs. 25%). At least one service had been used by 27% of migrants and 42% of non-migrants (OR 0.5, p = 0.06). After adjusting for gender, age, education, and patient-relative status, there was no evidence for an association between migration background and service use. CONCLUSIONS: Migrants should be better informed about psychotherapy and self-help groups, in particular the ones coming from the Near or Middle East and the Commonwealth of the Independent States or former Yugoslavia. The under-use of psychosocial services can largely be explained by confounding factors. Therefore, these factors must always be taken into account when analysing the use of psychosocial services in the aforementioned populations.

The Difficulties in End-of-Life Discussions - Family Inventory (DEOLD-FI): Development and Initial Validation of a Self-Report Questionnaire in a Sample of Terminal Cancer Patients.

CONTEXT: Open end-of-life communication is especially important within the patient-family unit of care and can positively affect their medical, psychological, and relational outcomes. Nevertheless, end-of-life discussions are often perceived as difficult and avoided. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate the Difficulties in End-of-Life Discussions - Family Inventory (DEOLD-FI) to allow a systematic assessment of reasons why people shy away from end-of-life discussions. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer were recruited and completed the DEOLD-FI and measures of avoidance of cancer communication, quality of life and distress, and the experienced difficulty as well as the occurrence of end-of-life discussions. Standard item analyses and an exploratory factor analysis were conducted. Construct validity was analysed through associations between the DEOLD-FI and the aforementioned measures. RESULTS: Questionnaires were obtained from 112 participants (53% response rate; male 54%, mean age 64.9 years [range 33-94]). In the final 23-item version two factors were extracted: 'emotional burden due to end-of-life discussions' (α = 0.90) and "negative attitudes towards end-of-life discussions" (α = 0.91) explaining 69% of the variance (total scale α = 0.93). Construct validity was supported by its significant correlations with the reported difficulty in end-of-life discussions (r = 0.42) and avoidance of cancer communication (r = 0.40 to r = 0.46) and insignificant correlations with quality of life (r = -0.11), distress (r = 0.16), and physical well-being (r = 0.02). Those who had already engaged in end-of-life discussions showed significantly fewer communication barriers. CONCLUSION: Results provide evidence that the DEOLD-FI is a valid and reliable instrument for the assessment of difficulties in end-of-life discussions. Benefits for clinical practice and research are discussed.