Transverse Colon Primary Tumor Location as a Biomarker in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of CCTG/AGITG CO.17 and CO.20 Randomized Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Sidedness is prognostic and predictive of anti-EGFR efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Transverse colon has been historically excluded from several analyses of sidedness and the optimal division between left- and right-sided colorectal cancer is unclear. We investigated transverse colon primary tumor location as a biomarker in mCRC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Pooled analysis of CCTG/AGITG CO.17 and CO.20 trials of cetuximab in chemotherapy-refractory mCRC. Outcomes of patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type (WT) mCRC from CO.17 and KRAS WT mCRC from CO.20 were analyzed according to location. RESULTS: A total of 553 patients were analyzed, 32 (5.8%) with cancers from the transverse, 101 (18.3%) from right, and 420 from (75.9%) left colon. Transverse mCRC failed to reach significant benefit from cetuximab versus best supportive care (BSC) for overall survival [OS; median, 5.9 vs. 2.1 months; HR, 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.28-1.42; P=0.26] and progression-free survival (PFS; median, 1.8 vs. 1.3 months; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.26-1.28; P=0.16). Analyzing exclusively patients randomized to cetuximab, right-sided and transverse had comparable outcomes for OS (median, 5.6 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.50-1.34; P=0.43) and PFS (median, 1.9 vs. 1.8 months; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.26; P=0.31). Patients with left-sided mCRC had superior outcomes with cetuximab compared with transverse for OS (median, 9.7 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.67; P=0.0002) and PFS (median, 3.8 vs. 1.8 months; HR, 0,49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.76; P=0.001). Location was not prognostic in patients treated with BSC alone. CONCLUSIONS: Transverse mCRC has comparable prognostic and predictive features with right-sided mCRC.

The utility of H2 receptor antagonists in preventing infusion-related reactions to paclitaxel chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel has a risk of infusion-related reactions (IRRs) and despite no prospective evidence, is often given with premedication including a corticosteroid, H1 antagonist, and H2 antagonist (H2RA). Backorders impacted the supply of intravenous H2RAs at our center, and it was removed as routine premedication. The authors compared the incidence of IRR in patients treated without H2RA to patients receiving standard H2RA premedication. METHODS: The authors reviewed outpatients starting paclitaxel at the Ottawa Hospital from December 2019 to October 2021. Two cohorts were created: patients treated without H2RA premedication (intervention), and those receiving standard H2RA (control). Demographics, treatment, and IRR information were collected retrospectively. Primary end point was rate of grade ≥2 IRRs during first two doses of paclitaxel. RESULTS: A total of 182 patients were treated without H2RA premedication, compared to 184 control patients treated during non-backorder periods. Baseline characteristics included: median age, 63 years; 86% female; and primary tumor 52% breast/24% gynecologic/10% gastric/esophageal/8% lung/6% other. There were no significant differences between cohorts in baseline characteristics. There was no difference in the rate of grade ≥2 IRR between cohorts; 12.1% (22 of 182; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.7%-17.7%) for patients treated without H2RA, and 15.1% (28 of 185; 95% CI, 10.3%-21.1%) for control patients. The rate of grade ≥3 IRRs were also similar, 4.4% in intervention cohort versus 3.8% in control cohort. CONCLUSIONS: The removal of H2RAs from premedication for paclitaxel did not result in an increased incidence of IRRs. The use of H2RAs in preventing IRRs to paclitaxel should be re-evaluated.

The need for speed in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: A population kinetics assessment.

BACKGROUND: Systemic therapy prolongs overall survival (OS) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but diagnostic tests, staging and molecular profiling take time, and this can delay therapy initiation. OS approximates first-order kinetics. METHODS: We used OS of chemo-naive NSCLC patients on a placebo/best supportive care trial arm to estimate % of patients dying while awaiting therapy. We digitized survival curves from eight studies, calculated OS half-life, then estimated the proportion surviving after different times of interest (tn ) using the formula: X=exp-tn∗0.693/t1/2 , where EXP signifies exponential, * indicates multiplication, 0.693 is the natural log of 2, and t1/2 is the survival half-life in weeks. RESULTS: Across trials, the OS half-life for placebo/best supportive care in previously untreated NSCLC was 19.5 weeks. Hence, based on calculations using the formula above, if therapy were delayed by 1, 2, 3, or 4 weeks then 4%, 7%, 10%, and 13% of all patients, respectively, would die while awaiting treatment. Others would become too sick to consider therapy even if still alive. CONCLUSIONS: This quantifies why rapid baseline testing and prompt therapy initiation are important in advanced NSCLC. It also illustrates why screening procedures for clinical trial inclusion must be faster. Otherwise, it is potentially hazardous for a patient to be considered for a trial due to risk of death or deterioration while awaiting eligibility assessment. It is also important to not delay initiation of systemic therapy for procedures that add relatively little value, such as radiotherapy for small, asymptomatic brain metastases.

Palliative systemic therapy for advanced non-small cell lung cancer: Investigating disparities between patients who are treated versus those who are not.

BACKGROUND: Palliative systemic therapy (ST) in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is associated with improved overall survival (OS) and quality of life, yet many patients remain untreated. We explored differences between patients who did and did not receive palliative ST in order to gain evidence to support and advocate for the untreated. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of newly diagnosed patients with advanced, incurable NSCLC seen as outpatients at our institution between 2009 and 2012. Demographics, treatment, and survival data were collected. RESULTS: 528 patients were seen: 291 (55%) received palliative ST, while 237 (45%) received none. Demographics were as follows: Median age 67, 55% male, 50% ECOG performance status (PS) 0-1, 48% with weight loss. Untreated patients were older (median 71 vs. 64, p<0.01), less fit (PS 0-1 in 27% vs. 69%, p<0.01), and more likely to have lost weight (57% vs. 41%, p<0.01). Reasons for no treatment included poor PS (67%) and patient choice (23%). Median OS was shorter amongst untreated patients (3.9 vs. 10.7 months, HR 1.80 [95% CI 1.4-2.3], p<0.01). In multivariate analysis, not receiving ST was associated with shorter OS. CONCLUSION: Unsurprisingly, untreated patients had poorer prognostic features and worse OS. However, it is concerning that, despite being seen in an active academic center, nearly half of all referred patients with advanced NSCLC received no anti-cancer treatment. Current research primarily seeks to improve outcomes in treated patients with good PS. This review suggests that this is an inappropriate allocation of research effort. Our research should be more equitably split between good and poor performance patient groups if we are to improve the survival of all patients with advanced NSCLC. Potential strategies include more rapid diagnosis prior to functional decline, and the development of therapies effective and tolerated in a sicker population.