Prognostic score for synchronous metastatic rectal cancer: A real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic factors of metastatic rectal cancer are not well known. AIM: The objective of this study was to identify prognostic factors of overall survival (OS) in a cohort of patients with non-resectable synchronous metastatic rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients were retrospectively enrolled from 18 French centres. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for OS. A simple score was derived from this a development cohort RESULTS: A total of 243 patients with metastatic rectal cancer were included in the study. Median OS was 24.4 months, 95% CI [19.4-27.2]. Among patients with non-resected metastases (n=141), six independent prognostic factors associated with better OS were identified in multivariate analysis: primary tumour surgery, WHO score 0-1, middle or upper rectal tumour, lung metastases only, systemic chemotherapy and targeted agent in first line. A prognostic score individualized three groups, each factor counting for one point in the score (<3, = 3 et > 3). Their median OS were respectively 27.9 months, 95% CI [21.7-35.1], 17.1 months [11.9-19.7] (HR2/1=2.08, 95%, CI [1.31-3.30], p2/1=0.002) and 9.1 months [4.9-11.7] (HR3/2=2.32, 95% CI [1.38-3.92], p3/2=0.001). CONCLUSION: A prognostic score for non-resectable synchronous metastatic rectal cancer can be proposed to classify patients in three prognostic groups.

CHEOPS trial: a GINECO group randomized phase II assessing addition of a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor to oral vinorelbine in pre-treated metastatic breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the CHEOPS trial was to assess the benefit of adding aromatase inhibitor (AI) to metronomic chemotherapy, oral vinorelbine, 50 mg, three times a week for pre-treated, HR + /HER2- metastatic breast cancer patients. METHODS: In this multicentric phase II study, patients had to have progressed on AI and one or two lines of chemotherapy. They were randomized between oral vinorelbine (Arm A) and oral vinorelbine with non-steroidal AI (Arm B). RESULTS: 121 patients were included, 61 patients in Arm A and 60 patients in Arm B. The median age was 68 years. 109 patients had visceral metastases. They all had previously received an AI. The study had been prematurely stopped following the third death due to febrile neutropenia. Median PFS trend was found to be different with 2.3 months and 3.7 months in Arm A and Arm B, respectively (HR 0.73, 95%CI 0.50-1.06, p value = 0.0929). No statistical difference was shown in OS and better tumor response. 56 serious adverse events corresponding to 25 patients (21%) were reported (respectively, 12 (20%) versus 13 (22%) for arms A and B) (NS). CONCLUSION: The addition of AI to oral vinorelbine over oral vinorelbine alone in aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer was associated with a non-significant improvement of PFS. Several unexpected serious adverse events were reported. Metronomic oral vinorelbine schedule, at 50 mg three times a week, requires close biological monitoring. The question of hormonal treatment and chemotherapy combination remains open.

Baseline tumour size is an independent prognostic factor for overall survival in PD-L1 ≥ 50% non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with first-line pembrolizumab.

BACKGROUND: Advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with a PD-L1 tumour proportion score ≥ 50% can be treated with pembrolizumab alone. Our aim was to assess the impact of baseline tumour size (BTS) on overall survival (OS) in NSCLC patients treated with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy. METHODS: This retrospective, multicentre study included all patients with untreated advanced NSCLC receiving either pembrolizumab (PD-L1 ≥ 50%) or platinum-based chemotherapy (any PD-L1). The primary endpoint was the impact of BTS (defined as the sum of the dimensions of baseline target lesions according to RECIST v1.1 criteria) on OS. RESULTS: Between 09-2016 and 06-2020, 188 patients were included, 96 in the pembrolizumab (P-group) and 92 in the chemotherapy group (CT-group). The median follow-up was 26.9 months (range 0.13-37.91) and 44.4 months (range 0.23-48.62), respectively, while the median BTS was similar, 85.5 mm (IQR 57.2-113.2) and 86.0 mm (IQR 53.0-108.5), respectively (p = 0.42). The median P-group OS was 18.2 months [95% CI 12.2-not reached (NR)] for BTS > 86 mm versus NR (95% CI 27.2-NR) for BTS ≤ 86 mm (p = 0.0026). A high BTS was associated with a shorter OS in univariate analyses (p = 0.009) as well as after adjustment on confounding factors (HR 2.16, [95% CI 1.01-4.65], p = 0.048). The CT-group OS was not statistically different between low and high BTS patients, in univariate and multivariate analyses (p = 0.411). CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment on major baseline clinical prognostic factors, BTS was an independent prognostic factor for OS in PD-L1 ≥ 50% advanced NSCLC patients treated first-line with pembrolizumab.

Patient Preference Between Cabazitaxel and Docetaxel for First-line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Castration-resistant Prostate Cancer: The CABADOC Trial.

BACKGROUND: The taxanes docetaxel and cabazitaxel prolong overall survival for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), with cabazitaxel approved in the postdocetaxel setting only. Recent data suggest they have similar efficacy but a different safety profile in the first-line mCRPC setting. OBJECTIVE: To assess patient preference between docetaxel and cabazitaxel among men who received one or more doses of each taxane and did not experience progression after the first taxane. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with mCRPC were randomized 1:1 to receive docetaxel (75 mg/m2 every 3 wk × 4 cycles) followed by cabazitaxel (25 mg/m2 every 3 wk × 4 cycles) or the reverse sequence. Randomization was stratified by prior abiraterone or enzalutamide use. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint was patient preference, assessed via a dedicated questionnaire after the second taxane. Secondary endpoints included reasons for patient preference, prostate-specific antigen response, radiological progression-free survival, and overall survival. This clinical trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02044354. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: Of 195 men randomized, 152 met the prespecified modified intent-to-treat criteria for analysis. Overall, 66 patients (43%) preferred cabazitaxel, 40 (27%) preferred docetaxel, and 46 (30%) had no preference (p = 0.004, adjusted for treatment period effect). More patients preferred treatment period 1 (43%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 36-52%) versus period 2 (27%, 95% CI 20-34%). Patient preference for cabazitaxel was mainly related to less fatigue (72%), better quality of life (64%), and other adverse events (hair loss, pain, nail disorders, edema). Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of each drug. CONCLUSIONS: A significantly higher proportion of chemotherapy-naïve men with mCRPC who received both taxanes preferred cabazitaxel over docetaxel. Less fatigue and better quality of life were the two main reasons driving patient choice. PATIENT SUMMARY: Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer preferred cabazitaxel over docetaxel for chemotherapy, mainly because of less fatigue and better quality of life.

[Early phase trials at the "Institut de cancérologie de l'Ouest": Clinical outcome and validation of prognostic scores]. / Essais de phase précoce à l'Institut de cancérologie de l'Ouest : réponse au traitement et validation de scores pronostiques.

INTRODUCTION: Early phase therapeutic trials in oncology are being offered to an increasing number of patients. The objective of this study is to retrospectively evaluate the treatment efficacy and survival of patients included in early phase trials at the "Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest" (ICO), as well as the interest of the Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) and PRONOPALL scores in this population. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients with cancer screened or included for an early phase trial at ICO between January 2012 and December 2015 have been identified. RESULTS: Out of 1312-screened patients, 710 were included in 115 trials (34 phase 1 trials). The absence of molecular anomaly was the main cause of inclusion failure (49.5%). The disease control rate was 90.9%, the median overall survival was 14.7 months (95% CI 12.7 to 16.4) and the median progression-free survival was 5.7 months (95% CI 5.5 to 6.6). The median overall survival was better for patients with good prognosis based on Royal Marsden Hospital score (16.6 months versus 6 months, P=0.0011) and PRONOPALL score (15.6 months versus 4.6 months, P<0.001). DISCUSSION: Our results are better than in the literature, mainly because of the high proportion of first-line treatments and the consideration of phase II trials. Patients with lung cancer particularly benefited from these treatments, in part because of the role of immunotherapy. The Royal Marsden Hospital score can guide the decision to include in early phase trials, whereas the PRONOPALL score is not enough efficient.