Should we screen for colorectal cancer in people aged 75 and over? A systematic review - collaborative work of the French geriatric oncology society (SOFOG) and the French federation of digestive oncology (FFCD).

BACKGROUND: We have done a systematic literature review about CRC Screening over 75 years old in order to update knowledge and make recommendations. METHODS: PUBMED database was searched in October 2021 for articles published on CRC screening in the elderly, and generated 249 articles. Further searches were made to find articles on the acceptability, efficacy, and harms of screening in this population, together with the state of international guidelines. RESULTS: Most benefit-risk data on CRC screening in the over 75 s derived from simulation studies. Most guidelines recommend stopping cancer screening at the age of 75. In private health systems, extension of screening up to 80-85 years is, based on the life expectancy and the history of screening. Screening remains effective in populations without comorbidity given their better life-expectancy. Serious adverse events of colonoscopy increase with age and can outweigh the benefit of screening. The great majority of reviews concluded that screening between 75 and 85 years must be decided case by case. CONCLUSION: The current literature does not allow Evidence-Based Medicine propositions for mass screening above 75 years old. As some subjects over 75 years may benefit from CRC screening, we discussed ways to introduce CRC screening in France in the 75-80 age group. IRB: An institutional review board composed of members of the 2 learned societies (SOFOG and FFCD) defined the issues of interest, followed the evolution of the work and reviewed and validated the report.

Impact of a health literacy intervention combining general practitioner training and a consumer facing intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening in underserved areas: protocol for a multicentric cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer burden worldwide. In France, it is the second most common cause of cancer death after lung cancer. Systematic uptake of CRC screening can improve survival rates. However, people with limited health literacy (HL) and lower socioeconomic position rarely participate. Our aim is to assess the impact of an intervention combining HL and CRC screening training for general practitioners (GPs) with a pictorial brochure and video targeting eligible patients, to increase CRC screening and other secondary outcomes, after 1 year, in several underserved geographic areas in France. METHODS: We will use a two-arm multicentric randomized controlled cluster trial with 32 GPs primarily serving underserved populations across four regions in France with 1024 patients recruited. GPs practicing in underserved areas (identified using the European Deprivation Index) will be block-randomized to: 1) a combined intervention (HL and CRC training + brochure and video for eligible patients), or 2) usual care. Patients will be included if they are between 50 and 74 years old, eligible for CRC screening, and present to recruited GPs. The primary outcome is CRC screening uptake after 1 year. Secondary outcomes include increasing knowledge and patient activation. After trial recruitment, we will conduct semi-structured interviews with up to 24 GPs (up to 8 in each region) and up to 48 patients (6 to 12 per region) based on data saturation. We will explore strategies that promote the intervention's sustained use and rapid implementation using Normalization Process Theory. We will follow a community-based participatory research approach throughout the trial. For the analyses, we will adopt a regression framework for all quantitative data. We will also use exploratory mediation analyses. We will analyze all qualitative data using a framework analysis guided by Normalization Process Theory. DISCUSSION: Limited HL and its impact on the general population is a growing public health and policy challenge worldwide. It has received limited attention in France. A combined HL intervention could reduce disparities in CRC screening, increase screening rates among the most vulnerable populations, and increase knowledge and activation (beneficial in the context of repeated screening). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2020-A01687-32 . Date of registration: 17th November 2020.

Participation au dépistage du cancer colorectal selon le taux de pauvreté dans les Bouches-du-Rhône.

INTRODUCTION: The rate of participation in organized colorectal cancer screening (DOCCR) remains insufficient in France, with strong disparities between departments. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: The aim of this work was to assess the relationship between the DOCCR response rates for the communes of the Bouches-du-Rhône (BdR) department and the boroughs of Marseille and their poverty levels. The DOCCR response rate was assessed for the 2017-2018 campaign. The Pearson coefficient was calculated to assess correlations with the average poverty rate per commune/borough, the density of general practitioners (GPs) and Potential Localized Accessibility (PLA) to GPs. RESULTS: Among the DOCCR guests, 29.7% (± 4.7) responded. The rate of respondents differed significantly between the communes/boroughs of the department (P < 0.001). The rate of respondents was inversely correlated with the rate of people living below the poverty line, both for the communes/boroughs of the department, with a high correlation (r = - 0.795, P < 0.001) and for the Marseille boroughs, with an even higher correlation (r = - 0.910, P < 0.001). It was inversely correlated with the density of GPs (r = - 0.430, P < 0.001). On the other hand, there was a weak positive correlation with Potential Localized Accessibility to GPs (r = 0.193, P < 0.001), as well as with the age of guests (r = 0.476, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The poverty rate in the BdR, which is higher than the national average, may partly explain the low rate of DOCCR respondents; other factors such as the density of GPs and their accessibility may play a role.

Early evaluation using a radiomic signature of unresectable hepatic metastases to predict outcome in patients with colorectal cancer treated with FOLFIRI and bevacizumab.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to build and validate a radiomic signature to predict early a poor outcome using baseline and 2-month evaluation CT and to compare it to the RECIST1·1 and morphological criteria defined by changes in homogeneity and borders. METHODS: This study is an ancillary study from the PRODIGE-9 multicentre prospective study for which 491 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated by 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) and bevacizumab had been analysed. In 230 patients, computed texture analysis was performed on the dominant liver lesion (DLL) at baseline and 2 months after chemotherapy. RECIST1·1 evaluation was performed at 6 months. A radiomic signature (Survival PrEdiction in patients treated by FOLFIRI and bevacizumab for mCRC using contrast-enhanced CT TextuRe Analysis (SPECTRA) Score) combining the significant predictive features was built using multivariable Cox analysis in 120 patients, then locked, and validated in 110 patients. Overall survival (OS) was estimated with the Kaplan-Meier method and compared between groups with the logrank test. An external validation was performed in another cohort of 40 patients from the PRODIGE 20 Trial. RESULTS: In the training cohort, the significant predictive features for OS were: decrease in sum of the target liver lesions (STL), (adjusted hasard-ratio(aHR)=13·7, p=1·93×10-7), decrease in kurtosis (ssf=4) (aHR=1·08, p=0·001) and high baseline density of DLL, (aHR=0·98, p<0·001). Patients with a SPECTRA Score >0·02 had a lower OS in the training cohort (p<0·0001), in the validation cohort (p<0·0008) and in the external validation cohort (p=0·0027). SPECTRA Score at 2 months had the same prognostic value as RECIST at 6 months, while non-response according to RECIST1·1 at 2 months was not associated with a lower OS in the validation cohort (p=0·238). Morphological response was not associated with OS (p=0·41). CONCLUSION: A radiomic signature (combining decrease in STL, density and computed texture analysis of the DLL) at baseline and 2-month CT was able to predict OS, and identify good responders better than RECIST1.1 criteria in patients with mCRC treated by FOLFIRI and bevacizumab as a first-line treatment. This tool should now be validated by further prospective studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrial.gov identifier of the PRODIGE 9 study: NCT00952029.Clinicaltrial.gov identifier of the PRODIGE 20 study: NCT01900717.

Impact of single-nucleotide polymorphisms in DNA repair pathway genes on response to chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer patients: Results from ACCORD-12/PRODIGE-2 phase III trial.

We examined whether 66 germline single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 10 candidate genes would predict clinical outcome in 316 patients with resectable locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) enrolled in the ACCORD-12 phase III trial who were randomly treated with preoperative radiotherapy plus capecitabine (CAP45; n = 155) or dose-intensified radiotherapy plus capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX50; n = 161). The primary endpoint was tumor response according to the Dworak score. Multivariate logistic regression models adjusted on treatment arm and T stage determined the SNPs prognostic and predictive values for tumor response. In univariate analysis, five SNPs in ERCC2, XPA, MTHFR and ERCC1 were associated with the Dworak score in the CAPOX50 arm. In the overall population, interaction with treatment arm was significant for ERCC2 rs1799787 (pinteraction = 0.05) and XPA rs3176683 (pinteraction = 0.008), suggesting a predictive effect for response to oxaliplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT). All but XPA rs3176683 had a prognostic effect on tumor response. In a multivariate model, interaction remained significant for XPA rs3176683 ([OR 7.33, 95% CI 1.40-38.23], pinteraction = 0.018) and the prognostic effect significant for ERCC2 rs1799787 ([OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.32-0.93], p = 0.027) and ERCC1 rs10412761 ([OR 0.57, 95%CI 0.34-0.98], p = 0.042). Patients with the T/G haplotype of rs1799787 and rs10412761 had a 60% decrease in odds of response (p < 0.001). None of the five SNPs were associated with toxicity, overall and disease-free survival. These data suggest that genetic variation in DNA repair genes influences response to preoperative CRT in LARC and identify patients who benefit from the addition of oxaliplatin to CRT.

Sorafenib alone vs. sorafenib plus GEMOX as 1st-line treatment for advanced HCC: the phase II randomised PRODIGE 10 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib remains one major first-line therapeutic options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC), with modest efficacy. We investigated the addition of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) to sorafenib in aHCC patients. METHODS: Our multicentre phase II trial randomised aHCC first-line patients to sorafenib (400 mg BID) or sorafenib-GEMOX every 2 weeks (1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine; 100 mg/m2 oxaliplatin). Primary endpoint was the 4-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were randomised (sorafenib-GEMOX: n = 48; sorafenib: n = 46). Median age was 64 years, PS 0 (69%) or 1 (31%), 63% patients had cirrhosis, 29% portal vein thrombosis and 70% extra-hepatic disease. Median duration of sorafenib treatment was 4 months (1-51); median number of GEMOX cycles was 7 (1-16). The 4-month PFS rates were 64% and 61% in the sorafenib-GEMOX and sorafenib arms, respectively; median PFS and OS were 6.2 (95% CI: 3.8-6.8) and 13.5 (7.5-16.2) months, and 4.6 (3.9-6.2) months and 14.8 (12.2-22.2), respectively. The ORR/DCR were 9%/70% and 15%/77% in the sorafenib-GEMOX and sorafenib alone arms, respectively. Main toxicities were (sorafenib-GEMOX/sorafenib) neutropenia (23%/0), thrombocytopenia (33%/0), diarrhoea (18%/9), peripheral neuropathy (5%/0) and hand-foot syndrome (5%/18). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of GEMOX had an inpact on ORR and was well-tolerated as frontline systemic therapy. The benefit on PFS seems moderate; no subsequent study was planned.

Pravastatin combination with sorafenib does not improve survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sorafenib is the standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Combining sorafenib with another treatment, to improve overall survival (OS) within an acceptable safety profile, might be the next step forward in the management of patients with advanced HCC. We aimed to assess whether a combination of sorafenib and a statin improved survival in patients with HCC. METHODS: The objective of the PRODIGE-11 trial was to compare the respective clinical outcomes of the sorafenib-pravastatin combination (arm A) versus sorafenib alone (arm B) in patients with advanced HCC. Child-Pugh A patients with advanced HCC who were naive to systemic treatment (n = 323) were randomly assigned to sorafenib-pravastatin combination (n = 162) or sorafenib alone (n = 161). The primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, time to tumor progression, time to treatment failure, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: After randomization, 312 patients received at least 1 dose of study treatment. After a median follow-up of 35 months, 269 patients died (arm A: 135; arm B: 134) with no difference in median OS between treatments arms (10.7 months vs. 10.5 months; hazard ratio = 1.00; p = 0.975); no difference was observed in secondary survival endpoints either. In the univariate analysis, the significant prognostic factors for OS were CLIP score, performance status, and quality of life scores. The multivariate analysis showed that the only prognostic factor for OS was the CLIP score. The main toxicity was diarrhea (which was severe in 11% of patients in arm A, and 8.9% in arm B), while severe nausea-vomiting was rare, and no toxicity-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSION: Adding pravastatin to sorafenib did not improve survival in patients with advanced HCC. LAY SUMMARY: Sorafenib has proven efficacy for the treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. However, overall survival remains poor in these patients, so we were interested to see if the addition of a statin, pravastatin, improved outcomes in patients with advanced HCC. This randomized-controlled trial demonstrated that the sorafenib-pravastatin combination did not improve overall survival in this study population compared to sorafenib alone. Clinical trial number: NCT01075555.

Regorafenib for Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Who Progressed After Standard Therapy: Results of the Large, Single-Arm, Open-Label Phase IIIb CONSIGN Study.

BACKGROUND: In the phase III CORRECT trial, regorafenib significantly improved survival in treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The CONSIGN study was designed to further characterize regorafenib safety and allow patients access to regorafenib before market authorization. METHODS: This prospective, single-arm study enrolled patients in 25 countries at 186 sites. Patients with treatment-refractory mCRC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≤1 received regorafenib 160 mg once daily for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle. The primary endpoint was safety. Progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator assessment was the only efficacy evaluation. RESULTS: In total, 2,872 patients were assigned to treatment and 2,864 were treated. Median age was 62 years, ECOG PS 0/1 was 47%/53%, and 74% had received at least three prior regimens for metastatic disease. Median treatment duration was three cycles. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) led to dose reduction in 46% of patients. Regorafenib-related TEAEs led to treatment discontinuation in 9%. Grade 5 regorafenib-related TEAEs occurred in <1%. The most common grade ≥3 regorafenib-related TEAEs were hypertension (15%), hand-foot skin reaction (14%), fatigue (13%), diarrhea (5%), and hypophosphatemia (5%). Treatment-emergent grade 3-4 laboratory toxicities included alanine aminotransferase (6%), aspartate aminotransferase (7%), and bilirubin (13%). Ongoing monitoring identified one nonfatal case of regorafenib-related severe drug-induced liver injury per DILI Working Group criteria. Median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 2.7 months (2.6-2.7). CONCLUSION: In CONSIGN, the frequency and severity of TEAEs were consistent with the known safety profile of regorafenib. PFS was similar to reports of phase III trials. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01538680. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who fail treatment with standard therapies, including chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies targeting vascular endothelial growth factor or epidermal growth factor receptor, have few treatment options. The multikinase inhibitor regorafenib was shown to improve survival in patients with treatment-refractory mCRC in the phase III CORRECT (N = 760) and CONCUR (N = 204) trials. However, safety data on regorafenib for mCRC in a larger number of patients were not available. The CONSIGN trial, carried out prospectively in more than 2,800 patients across 25 countries, confirmed the safety profile of regorafenib from the phase III trials and reinforced the importance of using treatment modifications to manage adverse events.

Hepatocellular carcinoma is diagnosed at a later stage in alcoholic patients: Results of a prospective, nationwide study.

BACKGROUND: Recent data suggest that alcohol-related hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is diagnosed at a later stage. The aim of this study was to compare HCC characteristics and outcomes in an alcohol-related group (group A) and a non-alcohol-related group (group NA). METHODS: A total of 1207 patients with newly diagnosed HCC were prospectively included between May 2008 and October 2009. Patients with multiple causes (alcohol plus another cause) were excluded. Patients were followed every year for 5 years. Recorded variables, including etiologies were tested as prognostic factors of survival in a multivariate Cox model after adjustments for a lead-time bias. RESULTS: In all, 894 patients were analyzed: 582 (65.1%) were in group A, and 312 (34.9%) were in group NA. Alcohol-related HCC was more likely to be diffuse and detected in patients with a worse performance status and worse liver function. After adjustments for a lead-time bias, the median overall survival (OS) was 9.7 and 5.7 months in groups NA and A, respectively (P = .0002), and 5.8 and 5.0 months in alcohol-abstinent and alcohol non-abstinent groups, respectively (P = .09). The prognostic role of alcohol disappeared when survival was assessed at each Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage. Patients with HCC detected during a cirrhosis follow-up program (n = 199 [22.3% of the whole cohort]) had increased lead time-adjusted median OS in comparison with patients with HCC diagnosed incidentally (11.7 vs 5.4 months; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with patients with non-alcohol-related HCC, patients with alcohol-related HCC have reduced OS, mainly because of worse liver function and tumor characteristics at diagnosis, as attested by similar survival within each BCLC stage. Cancer 2018;124:1964-72. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

A prospective clinical and biological database for pancreatic adenocarcinoma: the BACAP cohort.

BACKGROUND: The prognosis for pancreatic cancer remains poor despite diagnostic advances and treatments with new chemotherapeutic regimens. The five year survival rate remains below 3%. Consequently, there is an urgent need for new treatments to significantly improve the prognosis. In addition, there is a big gap in terms of the screening, early diagnosis and prevention of pancreatic cancer the incidence of which is increasing dramatically. METHODS: Design: the BACAP cohort is a prospective multicenter pancreatic cancer cohort (pancreatic ductal carcinoma) with clinical and multiple biological samples; Participating centers: 15 French academic and private hospitals; Study Population: any cytologically and/or histologically proven pancreatic carcinoma regardless of the stage (resectable, borderline, locally advanced or metastatic) or treatment (surgery, palliative chemotherapy, best supportive care). At least 1500 patients will be included. Clinical data collected include: disease presentation, epidemiological and social factors, baseline biology, radiology, endoscopic ultrasound, staging, pathology, treatments, follow-up (including biological and radiological), and survival. All these data are collected and stored through an e-observation system at a centralized data center. Biological samples and derived products (i.e. before any treatment): blood, saliva, endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine needle aspiration materials from the primary tumor, fine needle biopsy of metastases and surgically resected tissue. DNA and RNA are extracted from fine needle aspiration materials and are quantified and characterized for quality. Whole blood, plasma and serum are isolated from blood samples. Frozen tissues were specifically allocated to the cohort. All derived products and saliva are stored at - 80 °C. Main end-points: i) to centralize clinical data together with multiple biological samples that are harmonized in terms of sampling, the post sampling process and storage; ii) to identify new molecular markers for the diagnosis, prognosis and possibly the predictive response to pancreatic cancer surgery and or chemotherapy. DISCUSSION: The BACAP cohort is a unique prospective biological clinical database that provides the opportunity to identify correlations between the presence/expression of a broad panel of biomarkers (DNA, RNA, miRNA, proteins, etc.), epidemiological and social data, various clinical situations, various stages and the differentiation of the tumor, treatments and survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02818829 . Registration date: June 30, 2016.

Clinical and Biomarker Evaluations of Sunitinib in Patients with Grade 3 Digestive Neuroendocrine Neoplasms.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Angiogenesis is extensively developed in well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (PanNET) where sunitinib was shown to prolong progression-free survival, leading to nationwide approval. However, clinical experience in patients with grade 3 gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEPNEN-G3) remains limited. This prospective phase II trial evaluated potential predictive biomarkers of sunitinib activity in patients with advanced GEPNEN-G3. METHODS: Sunitinib was given at a dose of 37.5 mg/day as a continuous daily dosing until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Evaluation of activity was based on RECIST1.1. Safety was evaluated according to NCI-CTCAE v4. Pharmacokinetics of sunitinib and its main active metabolite SU12662 were evaluated. All tumour samples were reviewed histologically for tumour differentiation. PDGFRß, carbonic anhydrase 9, Ki-67, VEGFR2, and p-AKT were quantified using immunohistochemistry and their expression correlated with response by RECIST1.1. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were included and 26 had available histological tissue. Six and 20 patients presented well-differentiated tumours (NET-G3) and neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC), respectively. Eighteen patients responded to sunitinib (4 experienced partial responses and 14 tumour stabilization). A high p-AKT expression correlated with lower response to sunitinib (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.89-0.99, p = 0.04). Safety and PK exposure to sunitinib and SU12662 in these patients were consistent with that reported in PanNET. CONCLUSION: Sunitinib showed evidence of activity in patients with GEPNEN-G3 with expected toxicity profile. In the NET-G3 and NEC groups, 4/6 and 11/20 patients were responders, respectively. High p-AKT expression predicted a lower response to sunitinib. Our study allowed the identification of a potential biomarker of resistance/sensitivity to sunitinib in aggressive GEPNEN-G3.

Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is the recommended treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of sorafenib to that of selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) with yttrium-90 (90Y) resin microspheres in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: SARAH was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial done at 25 centres specialising in liver diseases in France. Patients were eligible if they were aged at least 18 years with a life expectancy greater than 3 months, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, Child-Pugh liver function class A or B score of 7 or lower, and locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC] stage C), or new hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for surgical resection, liver transplantation, or thermal ablation after a previously cured hepatocellular carcinoma (cured by surgery or thermoablative therapy), or hepatocellular carcinoma with two unsuccessful rounds of transarterial chemoembolisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a permutated block method with block sizes two and four to receive continuous oral sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or SIRT with 90Y-loaded resin microspheres 2-5 weeks after randomisation. Patients were stratified according to randomising centre, ECOG performance status, previous transarterial chemoembolisation, and presence of macroscopic vascular invasion. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of sorafenib or underwent at least one of the SIRT work-up exams. This study has been completed and the final results are reported here. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01482442. FINDINGS: Between Dec 5, 2011, and March 12, 2015, 467 patients were randomly assigned; after eight patients withdrew consent, 237 were assigned to SIRT and 222 to sorafenib. In the SIRT group, 53 (22%) of 237 patients did not receive SIRT; 26 (49%) of these 53 patients were treated with sorafenib. Median follow-up was 27·9 months (IQR 21·9-33·6) in the SIRT group and 28·1 months (20·0-35·3) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 8·0 months (95% CI 6·7-9·9) in the SIRT group versus 9·9 months (8·7-11·4) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% CI 0·94-1·41] for SIRT vs sorafenib; p=0·18). In the safety population, at least one serious adverse event was reported in 174 (77%) of 226 patients in the SIRT group and in 176 (82%) of 216 in the sorafenib group. The most frequent grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (20 [9%] vs 41 [19%]), liver dysfunction (25 [11%] vs 27 [13%]), increased laboratory liver values (20 [9%] vs 16 [7%]), haematological abnormalities (23 [10%] vs 30 [14%]), diarrhoea (three [1%] vs 30 [14%]), abdominal pain (six [3%] vs 14 [6%]), increased creatinine (four [2%] vs 12 [6%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (one [<1%] vs 12 [6%]). 19 deaths in the SIRT group and 12 in the sorafenib group were deemed to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: In patients with locally advanced or intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma after unsuccessful transarterial chemoembolisation, overall survival did not significantly differ between the two groups. Quality of life and tolerance might help when choosing between the two treatments. FUNDING: Sirtex Medical Inc.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Gemcitabine and dFdU in Pancreatic Cancer Patients Using an Optimal Design, Sparse Sampling Approach.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine remains a pillar in pancreatic cancer treatment. However, toxicities are frequently observed. Dose adjustment based on therapeutic drug monitoring might help decrease the occurrence of toxicities. In this context, this work aims at describing the pharmacokinetics (PK) of gemcitabine and its metabolite dFdU in pancreatic cancer patients and at identifying the main sources of their PK variability using a population PK approach, despite a sparse sampled-population and heterogeneous administration and sampling protocols. METHODS: Data from 38 patients were included in the analysis. The 3 optimal sampling times were determined using KineticPro and the population PK analysis was performed on Monolix. Available patient characteristics, including cytidine deaminase (CDA) status, were tested as covariates. Correlation between PK parameters and occurrence of severe hematological toxicities was also investigated. RESULTS: A two-compartment model best fitted the gemcitabine and dFdU PK data (volume of distribution and clearance for gemcitabine: V1 = 45 L and CL1 = 4.03 L/min; for dFdU: V2 = 36 L and CL2 = 0.226 L/min). Renal function was found to influence gemcitabine clearance, and body surface area to impact the volume of distribution of dFdU. However, neither CDA status nor the occurrence of toxicities was correlated to PK parameters. CONCLUSIONS: Despite sparse sampling and heterogeneous administration and sampling protocols, population and individual PK parameters of gemcitabine and dFdU were successfully estimated using Monolix population PK software. The estimated parameters were consistent with previously published results. Surprisingly, CDA activity did not influence gemcitabine PK, which was explained by the absence of CDA-deficient patients enrolled in the study. This work suggests that even sparse data are valuable to estimate population and individual PK parameters in patients, which will be usable to individualize the dose for an optimized benefit to risk ratio.

Beating the odds: efficacy and toxicity of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase-driven adaptive dosing of 5-FU in patients with digestive cancer.

AIMS: 5-FU is the backbone of most regimens in digestive oncology. Administration of standard 5-FU leads to 15-30% of severe side effects, and lethal toxicities are regularly reported with fluoropyrimidine drugs. Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency is a pharmacogenetic syndrome responsible for most cases of life-threatening toxicities upon 5-FU intake, and pre-treatment checking for DPD status should help to reduce both incidence and severity of side effects through adaptive dosing strategies. METHODS: We have used a simple method for rapidly establishing the DPD phenotype of patients with cancer and used it prospectively in 59 routine patients treated with 5-FU-based therapy for digestive cancers. No patient with total DPD deficiency was found but 23% of patients exhibited poor metabolizer phenotype, and one patient was phenotyped as profoundly deficient. Consequently, 5-FU doses in poor metabolizer patients were cut by an average 35% as compared with non deficient patients (2390 ± 1225 mg vs. 3653 ± 1371 mg, P < 0.003, t-test). RESULTS: Despite this marked reduction in 5-FU dosing, similar efficacy was achieved in the two subsets (clinical benefit: 40 vs. 43%, stable disease: 40 vs. 37%, progressive disease: 20% in both subsets, P = 0.893, Pearson's chi-square). No difference in toxicities was observed (P = 0.104, Fisher's exact test). Overall, only 3% of early severe toxicities were recorded, a value markedly lower than the 15-30% ones usually reported with 5-FU. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study shows how simplified DPD-based adaptive dosing of 5-FU can reduce sharply the incidence of treatment-related severe toxicities while maintaining efficacy as part of routine clinical practice in digestive oncology.

Impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on lymph node status in esophageal cancer: post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The study objectives were to analyze the impact of the number of lymph nodes (LNs) reported as resected (NLNr) and the number of LNs invaded (NLNi) on the prognosis of esophageal cancer (EC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. BACKGROUND: Pathological LN status is a major disease prognostic factor and marker of surgical quality. The impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) on LN status remains poorly studied in EC. METHODS: Post hoc analysis from a phase III randomized controlled trial comparing nCRT and surgery (group nCRT) to surgery alone (group S) in stage I and II EC (NCT00047112). Only patients who underwent surgical resection were considered (n = 170). RESULTS: nCRT resulted in tumoral downstaging (pT0, 40.7% vs 1.1%, P < 0.001), LN downstaging (pN0, 69.1% vs 47.2%, P = 0.016), and reduction in the median NLNr [16.0 (range, 0-47.0) vs 22.0 (range, 3.0-58.0), P = 0.001] and NLNi [0 (range, 0-25) vs 1.0 (range, 0-25), P = 0.001]. A good histological response (TRG1/2) in the resected esophageal specimen correlated with reduced median NLNi [0 (range, 0-10) vs 1.0 (range, 0-4), P = 0.007]. After adjustment by treatment, NLNi [hazards ratio (HR) (1-3 vs 0) 3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.3-5.5, and HR (>3 vs 0) 3.5, 95% CI: 2.0-6.2, P < 0.001] correlated with prognosis, whereas NLNr [HR (<15 vs ≥15) 0.95, 95% CI: 0.6-1.4, P = 0.807 and HR (<23 vs ≥23) 1.4, 95% CI: 0.9-2.0, P = 0.131] did not. In Poisson regression analysis, nCRT was an independent predictive variable for reduced NLNr [exp(coefficient) 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66-0.96, P = 0.018]. CONCLUSIONS: nCRT is not only responsible for disease downstaging but also predicts fewer LNs being identified after surgical resection for EC. This has implications for the current quality criteria for surgical resection.

Neoadjuvant FOLFOX 4 versus FOLFOX 4 with Cetuximab versus immediate surgery for high-risk stage II and III colon cancers: a multicentre randomised controlled phase II trial--the PRODIGE 22--ECKINOXE trial.

BACKGROUND: In patients with high risk stage II and stage III colon cancer (CC), curative surgery followed by adjuvant FOLFOX-4 chemotherapy has become the standard of care. However, for 20 to 30% of these patients, the current curative treatment strategy of surgical excision followed by adjuvant chemotherapy fails either to clear locoregional spread or to eradicate distant micrometastases, leading to disease recurrence. Preoperative chemotherapy is an attractive concept for these CCs and has the potential to impact upon both of these causes of failure. Optimum systemic therapy at the earliest possible opportunity may be more effective at eradicating distant metastases than the same treatment given after the delay and immunological stress of surgery. Added to this, shrinking the primary tumor before surgery may reduce the risk of incomplete surgical excision, and the risk of tumor cell shedding during surgery. METHODS/DESIGN: PRODIGE 22--ECKINOXE is a multicenter randomized phase II trial designed to evaluate efficacy and feasibility of two chemotherapy regimens (FOLFOX-4 alone and FOLFOX-4 + Cetuximab) in a peri-operative strategy in patients with bulky CCs. Patients with CC deemed as high risk T3, T4 and/or N2 on initial abdominopelvic CT scan are randomized to either colectomy and adjuvant chemotherapy (control arm), or 4 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFOX-4 (for RAS mutated patients). In RAS wild-type patients a third arm testing FOLFOX+ cetuximab has been added prior to colectomy. Patients in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy arms will receive postoperative treatment for 4 months (8 cycles) to complete their therapeutic schedule. The primary endpoint of the study is the histological Tumor Regression Grade (TRG) as defined by Ryan. The secondary endpoints are: treatment strategy safety (toxicity, primary tumor related complications under chemotherapy, peri-operative morbidity), disease-free and recurrence free survivals at 3 years, quality of life, carcinologic quality and completeness of the surgery, initial radiological staging and radiological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the correlation between histopathological and radiological response. Taking into account a 50% prevalence of CC without RAS mutation, accrual of 165 patients is needed for this Phase II trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01675999 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Biweekly docetaxel, fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin (TEF) as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer and adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction: safety and efficacy in a multicenter cohort.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel-cisplatin-5-FU chemotherapy is superior to 5-FU-cisplatin in terms of response rate and survival in advanced gastric cancer (AGC), but is more toxic. Oxaliplatin is better tolerated than cisplatin, which it can effectively replace in this setting. We hypothesize that incorporating docetaxel into a simplified FOLFOX regimen should be a tolerable and effective option in first-line treatment of AGC. METHODS: Data were collected at six French centers from patients with metastatic or local AGC who received docetaxel, fluorouracil, leucovorin, or oxaliplatin (TEF) as first-line treatment. TEF was administered as follows: docetaxel (50 mg/m(2)), oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2)), and leucovorin (40 mg/m(2)) on day 1, and 5-FU continuous infusion for 48 h (2400 mg/m(2)) every 2 weeks. RESULTS: Forty-one patients were enrolled. Performance status was grade 0 and 1 in respectively 27 and 58 % of patients; 17 patients had adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction; 37 patients had metastatic disease, 22 had a poorly differentiated or diffuse type. Objective response rate was 66 %, with a complete response in two patients (5 %). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were respectively 6.3 and 12.1 months. Tolerability was acceptable with no treatment-related deaths. The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (30 %) and neuropathy (12.5 %). Curative intent surgery after response to TEF was performed in seven patients (17 %). CONCLUSION: TEF is an effective first-line treatment with an acceptable toxicity profile for patients with AGC. It may allow curative resection in initially unresectable patients. TEF should now be evaluated in prospective randomized trials.

Body mass index at diagnosis and survival among colon cancer patients enrolled in clinical trials of adjuvant chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Although obesity is an established risk factor for developing colon cancer, its prognostic impact and relation to patient sex in colon cancer survivors remains unclear. METHODS: The authors examined the prognostic and predictive impact of the body mass index (BMI) in patients with stage II and III colon carcinoma (N = 25,291) within the Adjuvant Colon Cancer Endpoints (ACCENT) database. BMI was measured at enrollment in randomized trials of 5-fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy. Association of BMI with the time to recurrence (TTR), disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were determined using Cox regression models. Statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 7.8 years, obese and underweight patients had significantly poorer survival compared with overweight and normal-weight patients. In a multivariable analysis, the adverse prognostic impact of BMI was observed among men but not among women (Pinteraction = .0129). Men with class 2 and 3 obesity (BMI ≥ 35.0 kg/m(2) ) had a statistically significant reduction in DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.33; P = .0297) compared with normal-weight patients. Underweight patients had a significantly shorter TTR and reduced DFS (HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09-1.28; P < .0001) that was more significant among men (HR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.15-1.50; P < .0001) than among women (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.23; P = .0362; Pinteraction = .0340). BMI was not predictive of a benefit from adjuvant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Obesity and underweight status were associated independently with inferior outcomes in patients with colon cancer who received treatment in adjuvant chemotherapy trials.

Colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy in France: how many people are actually covered? Focus on the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with fecal immunochemical test (FIT) remains low in France, particularly in the Provence-Alpes-Côte-d'Azur (PACA) region. The aim of this study was to compare insured persons (50-74 years) who had FIT and/or colonoscopy in PACA with the general French population. METHODS: FIT and colonoscopy rates were calculated according to SP-France and National Health Data System data. RESULTS: The rate of FIT in 2016-2017 was lower in PACA than in France (25.6 vs. 29.1%, P < 0.001). Conversely, in 2013-2017, the rate of colonoscopy in the past 5 years was higher in PACA than in France (23.1 vs. 20.1%, P < 0.001). Total rate for FIT within 2 years and/or colonoscopy within 5 years was 46.0% in PACA vs. 46.5% in France (P < 0.001). Overuse was higher for diagnostic (1.21) than therapeutic colonoscopies (1.05). Therapeutic colonoscopy occurred more with FIT than without (47.88 vs. 38.7%, P < 0.001). According to USA criteria, persons with FIT within 2 years and/or sigmoidoscopy and/or colonoscopy within 10 years was 59.4% in PACA vs. 54.7% in France (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Low participation in FIT in France must be improved to increase the rate of therapeutic colonoscopies and reduce the incidence of CRC. The higher colonoscopy rate in PACA could explain the lower CRC mortality. Efforts should be focused on the more than 40% of French insured who are not screened by either FIT or colonoscopy.