Combination of gemcitabine and cetuximab in patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma: a phase II study of the Belgian Group of Digestive Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Cholangiocarcinomas are uncommon tumours with a poor prognosis, that frequently present epidermal growth factor receptor overexpression. METHODS: In a multi-centre phase II trial, patients with unresectable cholangiocarcinoma, naïve to chemotherapy, received Cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) at week 1, then 250 mg/m(2)/week) and Gemcitabine (1 g/m(2) on day 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months, using a Simon 2-stage design. Moreover, we assessed the impact of KRAS status and skin toxic effect on efficacy. RESULTS: Forty-four patients (41% locally advanced/59% metastatic) were enrolled. Median age was 61.5 years; ECOG PS was 0 (68%) or 1. Six months PFS reached 47%. Median OS was 13.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 9.8-31.8 months]. Nine patients (20.4%) had PR and disease-control rate was 79.5%. Grade 3/4-related toxic effects were haematological (52.2%), skin rash (13.6%) and fatigue (11.4%). KRAS mutations were found in 7 of 27 patients and had no influence on PFS. Skin toxic effect ≥grade 2 was associated with increased PFS (P = 0.05). CONCLUSION(S): Our study met its primary end point, suggesting that Gemcitabine-Cetuximab has activity in cholangiocarcinoma. KRAS status was not associated with PFS, unlike skin toxic effect, which could be used as a surrogate marker for efficacy. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00747097.

Serial FDG-PET/CT for early outcome prediction in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The study purpose was to assess the predictive value of 2-[fluorine-18]fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/computerized tomography (CT) metabolic response after a single course of chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: FDG-PET/CT scans were carried out at baseline and on day 14 in 41 patients with unresectable mCRC treated with a biweekly regimen of chemotherapy. Metabolic nonresponse was defined by <15% decrease in FDG uptake in the dominant proportion of the patient's lesions or if a lesion was found metabolically progressive. The PET-based response was correlated with radiological response (primary end point) and patient's outcome (secondary end points). RESULTS: RECIST response rate in metabolically responding patients was 43% (10 of 23) compared with 0% (0 of 17) in nonresponding patients (P=0.002). The metabolic assessment's predictive performance for RECIST response was sensitivity 100% [95% confidence interval (CI) 69% to 100%], specificity 57% (95% CI 37% to 75%), positive predictive value 43% (95% CI 23% to 66%), and negative predictive value 100% (95% CI 80% to 100%). Comparing metabolically responding versus nonresponding patients, the hazard ratio (HR) was 0.28 (95% CI 0.10-0.76) for overall survival and 0.57 (95% CI 0.27-1.21) for progression-free survival. CONCLUSION: The metabolic response measured by FDG-PET/CT after a single course of chemotherapy in mCRC is able to identify patients who will not benefit from the treatment.

Total neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer: Making sense of the results from the RAPIDO and PRODIGE 23 trials.

A few months ago, results from two randomised phase III trials of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) in locally advanced rectal cancer were presented (RAPIDO and PRODIGE 23), consistently showing better short- and long-term outcomes with TNT as compared with standard neoadjuvant long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT). These results represent corroborating evidence in support of a practice that many centres had already implemented based on promising preliminary data. Also, they provide new, high-level evidence to endorse TNT as a new management option in the treatment algorithm of stage II-III rectal cancer in those centres where CRT and SCRT have long remained the only accepted standard neoadjuvant treatments. Having two consistently positive trials is certainly reassuring regarding the potential of TNT as a general treatment approach. Nevertheless, substantial differences between these trials pose important challenges in relation to the generalisability and applicability of their results, and translation of the same into practical clinical recommendations. In this article, we address a number of key questions that the RAPIDO and PRODIGE 23 trials have raised among the broad community of gastrointestinal oncologists, proposing an interpretation of the data that may help the decision making, and highlighting grey areas that warrant further investigation.

Adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer: Current evidence and recommendations for clinical practice.

While adjuvant chemotherapy is an established treatment for pathological stage II and especially stage III colon cancer, its role in the multimodal management of rectal cancer remains controversial. As a result, there is substantial variation in the use of this treatment in clinical practice. Even among centres and physicians who consider adjuvant chemotherapy as a standard treatment, notable heterogeneity exists with regard to patient selection criteria and chemotherapy regimens. The controversy around this topic is confirmed by the lack of full consensus among national and international clinical guidelines. While most of the clinical trials do not support the contention that adjuvant chemotherapy may improve survival outcomes if pre-operative (chemo)radiotherapy is also given, these suffer from many limitations that preclude drawing definitive conclusions. Nevertheless, in the era of evidence-based medicine, physicians should be guided by the available data and refrain from extrapolating results of adjuvant colon cancer trials to inform treatment decisions for rectal cancer. Patients should be informed of the evidence gap, be given the opportunity to carefully discuss pros and cons of all the possible management options and be empowered in the decision making. In this article we review the available evidence on adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer and propose a risk-adapted decisional algorithm that largely relies on informed patient preferences.

Grey areas and evidence gaps in the management of rectal cancer as revealed by comparing recommendations from clinical guidelines.

BACKGROUND: While the management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer has rapidly evolved over the last few decades, many grey areas and highly debated topics remain that foster significant variation in clinical practice. We aimed to identify controversial points and evidence gaps in this disease setting by systematically comparing recommendations from national and international clinical guidelines. METHODS: Twenty-six clinical questions reflecting practical challenges in the routine management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer patients were selected. Recommendations from the ESMO, NCCN, JSCCR, Australian and Ontario guidelines were extrapolated and compared using a 4-tier classification system (i.e., identical/very similar, similar, slightly different, different). Overall agreement between guidelines (i.e., substantial/complete disagreement, partial disagreement, partial agreement, substantial/complete agreement) was assessed for each clinical question and compared against the highest level of available evidence by using the χ2 statistic test. RESULTS: Guidelines were in substantial/complete agreement, partial agreement, partial disagreement, and substantial/complete disagreement for 8 (30.8%), 2 (7.7%), 7 (26.9%), and 9 (34.6%) clinical questions, respectively. High level of evidence supported clinical recommendations in 3/10 cases (30%) where guidelines were in agreement and in 10/16 cases (62.5%) where guidelines were in disagreement (χ2 = 2.6, p = 0.106). Agreement was frequently reached for questions regarding diagnosis, staging, and radiology/pathology pro-forma reporting, while disagreement characterised most of the treatment-related topics. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation exists across clinical guidelines in the recommendations for the management of nonmetastatic and oligometastatic rectal cancer. This variation is only partly explained by the lack of supporting, high-level evidence.

Colon cancer in inflammatory bowel disease: recent trends, questions and answers.

Patients with chronic colitis (ulcerative colitis or colonic Crohn's disease) have an increased risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Although most of the molecular alterations reported in sporadic CRC have also been observed in colitis-associated CRC, they do not occur at the same timing and frequency, indicating a different pathophysiology. In particular, recent work highlighted the importance of chronic mucosal inflammation as a key factor favouring colorectal carcinogenesis in these patients. This may also be one of the reasons explaining the role of 5-aminosalicylates as chemopreventive agents for CRC in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) patients with colonic involvement. Beside chemoprevention, colonoscopic screening and surveillance have been shown to be the cornerstone for CRC prevention and early detection in this particular patients' population. Periodic surveillance colonoscopy to detect dysplasia has been shown to decrease the mortality attributed to CRC. More recently, progress in imaging techniques increased our ability to identify dysplasia, and should probably now be considered to be an integral part of surveillance colonoscopy. In the future, further improvement of our knowledge of CRC biology, refinement of imaging techniques, as well as molecular discovery (e.g. identification of specific mutations in stool DNA extracts), might lead to develop more accurate diagnostic strategies to reduce the morbidity and mortality related to CRC in patients with ulcerative colitis or colonic Crohn's disease.

The role of age on dose-limiting toxicities in phase I dose-escalation trials.

PURPOSE: Elderly oncology patients are not enrolled in early-phase trials in proportion to the numbers of geriatric patients with cancer. There may be concern that elderly patients will not tolerate investigational agents as well as younger patients, resulting in a disproportionate number of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT). Recent single-institution studies provide conflicting data on the relationship between age and DLT. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We retrospectively reviewed data about patients treated on single-agent, dose-escalation, phase I clinical trials sponsored by the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) of the National Cancer Institute. Patients' dose levels were described as a percentage of maximum tolerated dose, the highest dose level at which <33% of patients had a DLT, or recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Mixed-effect logistic regression models were used to analyze relationships between the probability of a DLT and age and other explanatory variables. RESULTS: Increasing dose, increasing age, and worsening performance status (PS) were significantly related to an increased probability of a DLT in this model (P < 0.05). There was no association between dose level administered and age (P = 0.57). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of phase I dose-escalation trials, involving more than 500 patients older than 70 years of age, is the largest reported. As age and dose level increased and PS worsened, the probability of a DLT increased. Although increasing age was associated with occurrence of DLT, this risk remained within accepted thresholds of risk for phase I trials. There was no evidence of age bias on enrollment of patients on low or high dose levels.