Clinical utility of circulating DNA analysis for rapid detection of actionable mutations to select metastatic colorectal patients for anti-EGFR treatment.

BACKGROUND: While tumor-tissue remains the 'gold standard' for genetic analysis in cancer patients, it is challenged with the advent of circulating cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis from blood samples. Here, we broaden our previous study on the clinical validation of plasma DNA in metastatic colorectal cancer patients, by evaluating its clinical utility under standard management care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Concordance and data turnaround-time of ctDNA when compared with tumor-tissue analysis were studied in a real-time blinded prospective multicenter clinical study (n = 140 metastatic colorectal patients). Results are presented according to STARD criteria and were discussed in regard with clinical outcomes of patients. RESULTS: Much more mutations were found by ctDNA analysis: 59%, 11.8% and 14.4% of the patients were found KRAS, NRAS and BRAF mutant by ctDNA analysis instead of 44%, 8.8% and 7.2% by tumor-tissue analysis. Median tumor-tissue data turnaround-time was 16 days while 2 days for ctDNA analysis. Discordant samples analysis revealed that use of biopsy, long delay between tumor-tissue and blood collection and resection of the tumor at time of blood draw, tumor site, or type of tissue analyzed seem to affect concordance. Altogether, the clinical data with respect to the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor response (RAS status) and the prognosis (BRAF status) of those discordant patients do not appear contradictory to the mutational status as determined by plasma analysis. Lastly, we present the first distribution profile of the RAS and BRAF hotspot mutations as determined by ctDNA analysis (n = 119), revealing a high proportion of patients with multiple mutations (45% of the population and up to 5 mutations) and only 24% of WT scored patients for both genes. Mutation profile as determined from ctDNA analysis with using various detection thresholds highlights the importance of the test sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that ctDNA could replace tumor-tissue analysis, and also clinical utility of ctDNA analysis by considerably reducing data turnaround time.

Postoperative irinotecan in resected stage II-III rectal cancer: final analysis of the French R98 Intergroup trial†.

BACKGROUD: The R98 trial explores the addition of irinotecan to a 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus leucovorin (5-FU/LV) adjuvant regimen in optimally resected stages II-III rectal cancers. We report the updated long-term results. Disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary end point. PATIENST AND METHODS: Between March 1999 and December 2005, 357 patients were randomized: 178 in 5-FU/LV and 179 in LV5-FU2 + irinotecan arm. The trial was stratified by control arm: Mayo Clinic regimen or LV5-FU2 regimen. RESULTS: Three hundred and fifty-seven randomized patients were evaluable for efficacy. With a follow-up of 156 months, the DFS was in favour of experimental arm but did not reach statistical significance [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.80, P = 0.154]. The same was observed for overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.87, P = 0.433). The 5-year DFS was 58% in the control arm and 63% in the experimental arm. The 5-year OS was 74% in the control arm and 75% in the experimental arm. Patients allocated to the experimental arm had more grade 3-4 neutropenia when compared with the LV5-FU2 arm (33% versus 6%, P = 0.03), but not when compared with the Mayo Clinic arm (33% versus 36%, P = 0.84). Grade 3-4 diarrhoea tended to be higher in the experimental arm, but analyses stratified by control arm or by radiotherapy failed to show significant differences across strata (test for interaction P = 0.44). CONCLUSION: Even though a benefit of irinotecan in subgroups of patients cannot be excluded, due to early termination and lack of power, the study does not support the addition of irinotecan to 5-FU/LV in routine in patients with resected stage II-III rectal cancer.

FOLFOX4 versus sequential dose-dense FOLFOX7 followed by FOLFIRI in patients with resectable metastatic colorectal cancer (MIROX): a pragmatic approach to chemotherapy timing with perioperative or postoperative chemotherapy from an open-label, randomized phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) chemotherapy is the current standard in patients with resectable metastases from colorectal cancer (CRC). We aimed to determine whether a sequential chemotherapy with dose-dense oxaliplatin (FOLFOX7) and irinotecan (FOLFIRI; irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) is superior to FOLFOX4. The chemotherapy timing was not imposed, and was perioperative or postoperative. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this open-label, phase III trial, patients with resectable or resected metastases were randomly assigned either to 12 cycles of FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2)) or 6 cycles of FOLFOX7 (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2)) followed by 6 cycles of FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m(2)). Randomization was done centrally, with stratification by chemotherapy timing, type of local treatment (surgery versus radiofrequency ablation with/without surgery), and Fong's prognostic score. The primary end point was 2-year disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: A total of 284 patients were randomized, 142 in each treatment group. Chemotherapy was perioperative in 168 (59.2%) patients and postoperative in 116 (40.8%) patients. Perioperative chemotherapy was preferentially proposed for synchronous metastases, whereas postoperative chemotherapy was more frequently used for metachronous metastases. Two-year DFS was 48.5% in the FOLFOX4 group and 50.0% in the FOLFOX7-FOLFIRI group. In the multivariable analysis, more than one metastasis [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.15] and synchronous metastases (HR = 1.63) were independent prognostic factors for shorter DFS. Five-year overall survival (OS) rate was 69.5% with FOLFOX4 versus 66.6% with FOLFOX7-FOLFIRI. CONCLUSIONS: FOLFOX7-FOLFIRI is not superior to FOLFOX4 in patients with resectable metastatic CRC. Five-year OS rates observed in both groups are the highest ever reported in this setting, possibly reflecting the pragmatic approach to chemotherapy timing. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT00268398.

Sorafenib and irinotecan (NEXIRI) as second- or later-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and KRAS-mutated tumours: a multicentre Phase I/II trial.

BACKGROUND: This trial evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of combined sorafenib and irinotecan (NEXIRI) as second- or later-line treatment of patients with KRAS-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), who had progressed after irinotecan-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In Phase I, in a 3+3 dose escalation schedule, patients received irinotecan (125, 150 or 180 mg m(-2) every 2 weeks), in combination with 400 mg sorafenib b.d. The primary end point was the maximum-tolerated dose of irinotecan. In Phase II, the primary end point was disease control rate (DCR). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. RESULTS: Phase I included 10 patients (median age 63 (49-73)); no dose-limiting toxicity was seen. In Phase II, 54 patients (median age 60 (43-80) years) received irinotecan 180 mg m(-)(2) every 2 weeks with sorafenib 400 mg b.d. Nine patients (17%) remained on full-dose sorafenib. The DCR was 64.9% (95% CI, 51-77). Median PFS and OS were 3.7 (95% CI, 3.2-4.7) and 8.0 (95% CI, 4.8-9.7) months, respectively. Toxicities included Grade 3 diarrhoea (37%), neutropenia (18%), hand-foot syndrome (13%) and Grade 4 neutropenia (17%). CONCLUSION: The NEXIRI regimen showed promising activity as second- or later-line treatment in this heavily pretreated mCRC population (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00989469).

Survey on the management of skin toxicity associated with EGFR inhibitors amongst French physicians.

BACKGROUND: Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors are part of the therapeutic arsenal available for advanced cancer. However, they are frequently associated with cutaneous side-effects, which can hamper compliance, lead to treatment refusal and impair quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To know the attitudes of French oncologists who deal with this skin toxicity. This work is one of the steps to build a therapeutic algorithm of side-effects induced by EGFR inhibitors taking both evidence-based medicine and standard practices into account. METHODS: Physicians completed a questionnaire as part of regional meetings, before any discussion. Questions concerned the management of 11 clinical situations in the context of EGFR inhibitor prescription. RESULTS: Sixty-seven questionnaires were analysed. The collaboration with dermatologists was especially planned for persisting or worsening lesions beyond 2 weeks, but never considered at the time of the introduction of targeted therapy. The results demonstrated the difficulties encountered in diagnosing and grading skin lesions. Attitudes of oncologists were uniform for preventive care and management of mild lesions for which moisturizing and cyclines were widely prescribed. Significant differences appeared in the treatment of less typical cases such as the involvement of skin appendages, secondary infections of folliculitis or cases associated with radiodermatitis. Discrepancies existed also for what to do in relation with maintenance or interruption of EGFR inhibitor mainly if they were responsible for severe lesions. CONCLUSION: This original survey emphasizes the interest of greater multidisciplinary collaboration and the necessity to harmonize practice.

Semiology of skin toxicity associated with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors.

PURPOSE: Advances in the understanding of the mechanisms involved in oncogenesis have led to the development of so-called targeted therapies such as epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors, which take on an increasingly important role in the management of cancer. These treatments have the advantage not to trigger the adverse effects traditionally encountered with chemotherapy, such as nausea, vomiting or haematological toxicity. However, they do cause new forms of toxicity: the most common one is skin toxicity. It is important to be aware of it because it can be debilitating, adversely impacting patients' quality of life and altering treatment compliance, although it appears to be correlated with treatment response in certain series. Non-specialists can have difficulty in recognising this unusual skin toxicity. METHODS: The dermatologic side effects most frequently triggered by EGFR inhibitors are discussed in this article. RESULTS: They are divided into three categories depending on their target: inflammation of the pilo-sebaceous follicle, represented by EGFR inhibitor-associated folliculitis, which occurs at an early stage and is frequent; alteration in the skin barrier, primarily responsible for xerosis, fissures and pruritus, which are frequent and delayed; and lesions of the skin appendages (paronychia, pyogenic granuloma, hair changes), which are delayed and less frequent. CONCLUSION: It is essential for all practitioners concerned to know about these dermatologic side effects in order to ensure better global management of patients, particularly in terms of quality of life.

Management of cutaneous adverse events induced by anti-EGFR (epidermal growth factor receptor): a French interdisciplinary therapeutic algorithm.

PURPOSE: Cutaneous adverse events induced by epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors can hamper the patients' quality of life. The aim of our work was to draft an algorithm for the optimised management of this skin toxicity. METHODS: This algorithm was built in three steps under the responsibility of a steering committee. Step I: a systematic literature analysis (SLA) has been performed. Step II: the collection of information about practices was performed through a questionnaire.These questions were asked during regional meetings to which oncologists, gastro-enterologists, radiotherapists, and dermatologists were invited. Step III: a final meeting was organised involving the bibliography group and the steering committee and regional scientific committees for proposing a final algorithm. RESULTS: Step I: 14 publications were selected to evaluate the use of cyclines as curative or prophylactic treatment of the folliculitis induced by EGFR inhibitors. Nineteen publications were retained for the topical treatment of the folliculitis. Forty-six articles were selected for the management of the cutaneous lesions in link with appendages and 12 for xerosis and pruritus. Step II: 96 delegates attended the seven regional meetings and 67 questionnaires were analysed. Step III: a final algorithm was proposed on the basis of the conclusions of the first two steps and expert opinions present at this final meeting. The different propositions were unanimously approved by the 14 experts who voted. CONCLUSIONS: This multidisciplinary study summarising published data and current practices produced a therapeutic algorithm, which should facilitate the standardised, optimised management of skin toxicity associated with EGFR inhibitors in France.

A large-scale candidate gene approach identifies SNPs in SOD2 and IL13 as predictive markers of response to preoperative chemoradiation in rectal cancer.

Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision is now the standard treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer. However, tumor response to chemoradiation varies widely among individuals and cannot be determined before the final pathologic evaluation. The aim of this study was to identify germline genetic markers that could predict sensitivity or resistance to preoperative radiochemotherapy (RT-CT) in rectal cancer. We evaluated the predictive value of 128 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in 71 patients preoperatively treated by RT-CT. The selected SNPs were distributed over 76 genes that are involved in various cellular processes such as DNA repair, apoptosis, proliferation or immune response. The SNPs superoxide dismutase 2 (SOD2) rs4880 (P=0.005) and interleukin-13 (IL13) rs1800925 (P=0.0008) were significantly associated with tumor response to chemoradiation. These results reinforce the idea of using germline polymorphisms for personalized treatment.

Sequential first-line treatment with nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine and FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma: GABRINOX phase Ib-II controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (AG) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) are promising drugs in metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). This study evaluated a new first-line sequential treatment (AG followed by FFX) in MPC that might overcome resistance to primary therapy and delay tumor progression. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically/cytologically confirmed MPC were included in a multicentric trial receiving AG (day 1, 8 and 15) followed by FFX (day 29 and 43). In phase Ib, three dose-levels were tested for maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended phase II dose. In phase II, the main outcome was the objective response rate (ORR) and secondarily safety, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: In phase Ib, we included 33 patients (31 assessable) of median age 61.0 years (range 42-75 years) and represented by 54.8% males. Five dose-limiting toxicities were reported without any death. The main grade 3/4 toxicities were neutropenia with spontaneous resolution (35.5%/32.3%), venous thromboembolism (grade 3: 22.6%) and thrombopenia (grade 3: 29.0%), while the MTD was not reached. In phase II, we included 58 patients of median age 60 years (range 34-72 years), 50% males and with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group stage score 0 and 1 of 37.9% and 62.1%, respectively. They received a median of 4 (1-9) cycles in 8.5 months (0.5-19.8 months). The ORR was 64.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) 51.1% to 77.1%], and neurotoxicity was remarkably low. The main grade 3-4 toxicities were venous thromboembolism, thrombopenia, neutropenia/febrile neutropenia, nausea, diarrhea, weight loss and asthenia without any death. Tumor response was complete in 3.5% and partial in 61.4%, while disease was stable in 19.3% and progressive in 15.8% of patients. The median PFS was 10.5 months (95% CI 6.0-12.5 months) and median OS was 15.1 months (95% CI 10.6-20.1 months). CONCLUSION: Sequential AG and FFX showed acceptable toxicity as first-line treatment with no limiting neurotoxicity, while high response rate and survival justify randomized trials.

Delayed care for patients with newly diagnosed cancer due to COVID-19 and estimated impact on cancer mortality in France.

BACKGROUND: The impact of the first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) wave on cancer patient management was measured within the nationwide network of the Unicancer comprehensive cancer centers in France. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The number of patients diagnosed and treated within 17 of the 18 Unicancer centers was collected in 2020 and compared with that during the same periods between 2016 and 2019. Unicancer centers treat close to 20% of cancer patients in France yearly. The reduction in the number of patients attending the Unicancer centers was analyzed per regions and cancer types. The impact of delayed care on cancer-related deaths was calculated based on different hypotheses. RESULTS: A 6.8% decrease in patients managed within Unicancer in the first 7 months of 2020 versus 2019 was observed. This reduction reached 21% during April and May, and was not compensated in June and July, nor later until November 2020. This reduction was observed only for newly diagnosed patients, while the clinical activity for previously diagnosed patients increased by 4% similar to previous years. The reduction was more pronounced in women, in breast and prostate cancers, and for patients without metastasis. Using an estimated hazard ratio of 1.06 per month of delay in diagnosis and treatment of new patients, we calculated that the delays observed in the 5-month period from March to July 2020 may result in an excess mortality due to cancer of 1000-6000 patients in coming years. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, the delays in cancer patient management were observed only for newly diagnosed patients, more frequently in women, for breast cancer, prostate cancer, and nonmetastatic cancers. These delays may result is an excess risk of cancer-related deaths in the coming years.

Quality-of-life findings from a randomised phase-III study of XELOX vs FOLFOX-6 in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: A phase-III trial showed the non-inferiority of oral capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) vs 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6) in terms of efficacy in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. A secondary objective was to compare the quality of life (QoL) and health-care satisfaction of patients. METHODS: Patients were randomised to receive XELOX (n=156) or FOLFOX-6 (n=150) for 6 months. Quality of life and satisfaction were assessed by the Quality of Life Questionnaire-C30 (QLQ-C30) and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy Chemotherapy Convenience and Satisfaction Questionnaire (FACIT-CCSQ), respectively. Patients completed questionnaires at baseline, at Cycle3 (C3) and Cycle (C6) (XELOX) or at C4 and C8 visits (FOLFOX-6) and at their final visit. RESULTS: A total of 245 and 225 patients were assessed using QLQ-C30 and FACIT-CCSQ, respectively. The completion rates were >80%. Global QoL scores did not differ significantly between groups during the study. According to FACIT-CCSQ, XELOX seemed more convenient (C3/C4, P<0.001; C6/C8, P=0.009) and satisfactory to patients (C6/C8, P=0.003) than FOLFOX-6. At the final visit, XELOX patients spent fewer days on hospital visits (3.3 vs 5.3 days, P=0.045) and lost fewer hours of work/daily activities (10.2 vs 37.1 h lost, P=0.007). CONCLUSION: XELOX has a similar QoL profile, but seemed to be more convenient in terms of administration at certain time points and reduced time lost for work or other activities compared with FOLFOX-6.

Cost-minimisation analysis in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in France: XELOX versus FOLFOX-6.

OBJECTIVE: In a recent randomized study, we demonstrated that XELOX (oxaliplatin + oral capecitabine) was well tolerated and not inferior in terms of efficacy to the infusional FOLFOX-6 regimen in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The objective of this additional analysis was to compare the cost of XELOX and FOLFOX-6. METHODS: This cost-minimisation study took into account costs related to drug acquisition, hospital care for chemotherapy administration and for serious adverse event management. Hospital care costs were based on French 'diagnosis-related group' tariffs. Drug acquisition costs were drawn from French official sources. Analysis was performed from the French health insurance perspective. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the 282 patients included (143 XELOX, 139 FOLFOX-6) were well balanced. Patients reported less and shorter hospitalisations (day and overnight hospital care) with XELOX: 6.4 ± 2.2 hospitalisations versus 9.7 ± 3.1 (p < 0.001); 11.4 ± 10.6 days versus 17.7 ± 11.8 (p < 0.001). Mean disease management cost per patient was significantly lower with XELOX (EUR 12,918 ± 5,075 vs. EUR 17,229 ± 8,665, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In the perspective of our analysis, taking into account hospitalisation and drug acquisition costs, the treatment of mCRC patients with XELOX in comparison to FOLFOX-6 significantly decreased the costs, as well as the mean overall hospitalisation length of stay.

Assessment of liver metastases from colorectal adenocarcinoma following chemotherapy: SPIO-MRI versus FDG-PET/CT.

PURPOSE: This study compared superparamagnetic iron-oxide-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (SPIO-MRI) and combined fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography and computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) in evaluating liver metastases from colorectal adenocarcinoma following chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients were included in this retrospective study. SPIO-MRI and PET/CT results were compared with surgery, intraoperative ultrasound and pathology results in 11 patients and with the follow-up in eight patients. RESULTS: SPIO-MRI and PET/CT identified 125 and 71 metastases, respectively. False negative lesions were 11 for SPIO-MRI and 65 for PET/CT. In the whole study population, the per-lesion analysis of SPIO-MRI and PET/CT showed a sensitivity of 92% and 52% (p<0.001) and the per-segment analysis a sensitivity of 99% and 79% (p<0.001), respectively. In patients who underwent surgery, the per-lesion analysis of SPIO-MRI and PET/CT showed a sensitivity of 85% and 58% (p<0.05) and the per-segment analysis a sensitivity of 97% and 63% (p<0.05), respectively. In patients who underwent follow-up, the per-lesion analysis of SPIO-MRI and PET/CT showed a sensitivity of 97% and 47% (p<0.001) and the per-segment analysis a sensitivity of 100% and 63% (p<0.007), respectively. For lesions ≥15 and <30 mm and for lesions <15 mm, SPIO-MRI demonstrated a higher sensitivity than PET/CT (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: SPIO-MRI appears superior to PET/CT in evaluating liver metastases from colorectal adenocarcinoma following chemotherapy.

TP53 mutations predict disease control in metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab-based chemotherapy.

Recent studies have suggested that activation of the EGFR pathway leads to malignant transformation only if the p53 protein is inactivated. Therefore, we evaluated the impact of TP53 mutations on cetuximab-based chemotherapy (CT) sensitivity in combination with KRAS mutations that have been associated with cetuximab resistance. KRAS and TP53 status were assessed in tumours from 64 metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with cetuximab-based CT and correlated to clinical response using the Fisher's exact test. Times to progression (TTPs) according to gene status were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with log-rank test. TP53 mutations were found in 41 patients and were significantly associated with controlled disease (CD), as defined as complete response, partial response or stable disease (P=0.037) and higher TTP (20 vs 12 weeks, P=0.004). Remarkably, in the subgroup of 46 patients without KRAS mutation, but not in patients with KRAS mutation, TP53 mutations were also associated with CD (P=0.008) and higher TTP (24 vs 12 weeks, P=0.0007). This study suggests that TP53 mutations are predictive of cetuximab sensitivity, particularly in patients without KRAS mutation, and that TP53 genotyping could have a clinical interest to select patients who should benefit from cetuximab-based CT.

Combination of surgery and chemotherapy and the role of targeted agents in the treatment of patients with colorectal liver metastases: recommendations from an expert panel.

The past 5 years have seen the clear recognition that the administration of chemotherapy to patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases can increase the number of patients who can undergo potentially curative secondary liver resection. Coupled with this, recent data have emerged that show that perioperative chemotherapy confers a disease-free survival advantage over surgery alone in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with initially resectable liver disease. The purpose of this paper is to build on the existing knowledge and review the issues surrounding the use of chemotherapy +/- targeted agents combined with surgery in the treatment of CRC patients with liver metastases, with a view to providing clinical recommendations. An international panel of 21 experts in colorectal oncology comprising liver surgeons and medical oncologists reviewed the available evidence. In a major change to clinical practice, the panel's recommendation was that the majority of patients with CRC liver metastases should be treated up front with chemotherapy, irrespective of the initial resectability status of their metastases.

A randomized phase III study comparing adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid with FOLFIRI in patients following complete resection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Studies indicate that adjuvant 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) with folinic acid (FA) in colorectal cancer patients with completely resectable liver-limited metastases (LMCRC) offers clinical benefit over surgery alone. This phase III trial compared FOLFIRI with simplified 5-FU/FA in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: LMCRC patients were randomized to receive every 14 days, FA, 400 mg/m2 infused over 2 h, followed by 5-FU as a 400 mg/m2 i.v. bolus, followed by continuous 5-FU infusion, 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h (LV5FUs) with or without irinotecan: 180 mg/m2 infusion (FOLFIRI). The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS); secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS: Treated patients (n = 306) were balanced for critical prognostic factors in each arm. Median DFS in patients receiving LV5FUs was 21.6 versus 24.7 months for FOLFIRI [hazard ratio (HR) 0.89, log-rank P = 0.44]. No significant differences were found in OS. A trend was observed for improved DFS in patients receiving FOLFIRI within 42 days of surgery (HR 0.75, P = 0.17). Grade 3/4 toxic effects were more common in patients treated with FOLFIRI versus LV5FUs (47% versus 30%) with neutropenia being most common (23% versus 7%). CONCLUSION: FOLFIRI in the adjuvant treatment of LMCRC showed no significant improvement in DFS compared with LV5FUs.

Preoperative chemoradiation in potentially resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: feasibility, treatment effect evaluation and prognostic factors, analysis of the SFRO-FFCD 9704 trial and literature review.

BACKGROUND: We explored the feasibility and the histologic assessment of treatment effect of preoperative chemoradiation in patients presenting with resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Treatment consisted of concurrent radiotherapy (50 Gy within 5 weeks) and chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil (300 mg/m(2)/day, 5 days/week, weeks 1-5) and cisplatin (20 mg/m(2)/day, days 1-5 and 29-33), followed by surgical resection of the pancreatic tumor in patients without progression. RESULTS: In all, 41 patients were enrolled; 38 (93%) received >or=47 Gy; 30 patients (73%) received >or=75% of the prescribed doses of chemotherapy. Among 40 assessable patients, 27 (67.5%; 95% confidence interval 50.9% to 81.4%) were successfully treated (entire dose of radiation, >or=75% of the chemotherapy dose, no grade 4 non-hematologic toxicity). In all, 26 patients (63%) underwent surgical resection with curative intent and 21 (80.7%) had R0 resection. A total of 13 of 26 specimens (50%) presented a major pathologic response (>or=80% of severely degenerative cancer cells), with one complete pathologic response. Operative mortality was 2.8%. The local recurrence and 2-year survival rates were 4% and 32%, respectively, for the 26 operated patients. CONCLUSIONS: This proposed preoperative scheme is feasible, does not prevent successful surgery, and provides antitumoral effect associated with major histopathological response in 50% of patients and a high R0 resection rate.

A phase III randomised trial of LV5FU2 + irinotecan versus LV5FU2 alone in adjuvant high-risk colon cancer (FNCLCC Accord02/FFCD9802).

BACKGROUND: This multicenter adjuvant phase III trial evaluated the addition of irinotecan to LV5FU2 in colon cancer patients at high risk of relapse. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 400 patients with histologically proven primary colon cancer with postoperative N1 detected by occlusion/perforation or N2 were randomised to: A-LV5FU2 [leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), 2-h infusion, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 400 mg/m(2) bolus, 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion, days 1 and 2] or B-LV5FU2 + IRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) 90-min infusion day 1 + LV5FU2) fortnightly for 12 cycles. Primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 63 months. Significantly more T4 tumours and 15 or more positive lymph nodes were observed in arm B. 5-FU relative dose intensity (RDI) was >0.80 for 94% and 77% in arms A and B, respectively (P < 0.001). Irinotecan RDI was >0.80 for 70% patients. There were more grades 3 and 4 neutropenia in arm B (4% versus 28%, P < 0.001). The 3-year DFS was 60% [95% confidence interval (CI) 53% to 66%] and 51% (95% CI 44% to 58) in arms A and B, respectively. No difference was observed [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.12, 95% CI 0.85-1.47, P = 0.42] even when adjusted for prognostic factors (adjusted HR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.74-1.31, P = 0.92). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 67% (95% CI 59% to 73%) and 61% (95% CI 53% to 67%) in arms A and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant LV5FU2 + IRI compared with LV5FU2 alone in patients at high risk of relapse showed no improvement in DFS and OS.

Management of colorectal peritoneal metastases: Expert opinion.

When peritoneal metastases are diagnosed (strong agreement of experts): (i) seek advice from a multidisciplinary coordination meeting (MCM) with large experience in peritoneal disease (e.g. BIG RENAPE network); (ii) transfer (or not) the patient to a referral center with experience in hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), according to the advice of the MCM. With regard to systemic chemotherapy (strong agreement of experts): (i) it should be performed both before and after surgery, (ii) for no longer than 6 months; (iii) without postoperative anti-angiogenetic drugs. With regard to cytoreductive surgery (strong agreement of experts): (i) Radical surgery requires a xiphopubic midline incision; (ii) no cytoreductive surgery via laparoscopy. With regard to HIPEC: HIPEC can be proposed for trials outside an HIPEC referral center (weak agreement between experts): (i) if surgery is radical; (ii) if the expected morbidity is "reasonable"; (iii) if the indication for HIPEC was suggested by a MCM, and; (iv) mitomycin is preferred to oxaliplatin (which cannot be recommended) for this indication.