First-line single-agent regorafenib in frail patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a pilot phase II study of the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours (TTD).

BACKGROUND: Treatment of frail patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) is controversial. This pilot phase II trial aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib when administered in first-line to frail patients with advanced CRC. METHODS: Frail patients without prior advanced colorectal cancer treatment were included in the study. Definition of frailty was defined per protocol based on dependency criteria, presence of chronic comorbid pathologies and/or geriatric features. MAIN OBJECTIVE: to assess progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months. Treatment consisted of 28-day cycles of orally administered regorafenib 160 mg/day (3 weeks followed by 1 week rest). RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were included in the study. Median age was 81 years (range 63-89). Frailty criteria: dependency was observed in 26 patients (55%), comorbidities in 27 (57%) and geriatric features in 18 (38%). PFS rate at 6 months was 45% (95% confidence interval [CI] 30-60]. Median PFS was 5.6 months (95%CI 2.7-8.4). Median overall survival (OS) was 16 months (95%CI 7.8-24). Complete response, partial response and stable disease were observed in one, two and 21 patients respectively (objective response rate 6.4%; disease control rate 51%). Thirty-nine patients (83%) experienced grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs). The most common grade 3-4 AEs were hypertension (15 patients; 32%), asthenia (14; 30%), hypophosphatemia (6; 13%); diarrhea (4; 8%), hand-foot-skin reaction (4; 8%). There were two toxic deaths (4.2%) (grade 5 rectal bleeding and death not further specified). Dose reduction was required in 26 patients (55%) and dose-delays in 13 patients (28%). CONCLUSIONS: The study did not meet the pre-specified boundary of 55% PFS rate at 6 months. Toxicity observed (83% patients experienced grade 3 and 4 AEs) preclude its current use in clinical practice on this setting. Disease control rate and overall survival results are interesting and might warrant further investigation to identify those who benefit from this approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered at EudraCT ( 2013-000236-94 ). Date of trial registration: April 9th, 2013.

SEOM Clinical Guideline for the treatment of pancreatic cancer (2016).

Pancreatic cancer remains an aggressive disease with a 5 year survival rate of 5%. Only 15% of patients with pancreatic cancer are eligible for radical surgery. Evidence suggests a benefit on survival with adjuvant chemotherapy (gemcitabine o fluourouracil) after R1/R0 resection. Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy is also a valid option in patients with positive margins. Borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as the involvement of the mesenteric vasculature with a limited extension. These tumors are technically resectable, but with a high risk of positive margins. Neoadjuvant treatment represents the best option for achieving an R0 resection. In advanced disease, two new chemotherapy treatment schemes (Folfirinox or Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel) have showed improvements in overall survival compared with gemcitabine alone. Progress in pancreatic cancer treatment will require a better knowledge of the molecular biology of this disease, focusing on personalized cancer therapies in the near future.

Further evidence for preoperative chemoradiotherapy and transanal endoscopic surgery (TEM) in T2-3s,N0,M0 rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy and local excision via transanal endoscopic surgery (TEM) in T2-3s,N0,M0 rectal cancer achieve promising results in selected patients. We describe our long-term follow-up experience with this combination, and evaluate complete clinical and pathological responses, local recurrence and overall survival. METHODS: The prospective observational follow-up study carried out since 2007. Out of 476 consecutive patients treated with TEM, we selected those with adenocarcinoma of low or moderate grade of differentiation, clinical stages T2-superficial T3,N0,M0, who refused radical surgery. Preoperative chemoradiotherapy comprised 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine combined with radiotherapy at a dose of 50.4 Gy. TEM was performed after 8 weeks. Complications were recorded and long-term follow-up was conducted. RESULTS: Fifteen patients undergoing preoperative chemoradiotherapy and TEM (median age 76 years, 95 % CI 70.3-80.4, and median follow-up 38 months, 95 % CI 20-44) were studied. No local recurrence was observed, and only one patient (6.7 %) presented systemic relapse. The overall survival was 76 %. Complete clinical response was achieved in seven patients (46.7 %) and complete pathological response in four (26.7 %). With regard to toxicity associated with neoadjuvant treatment, four patients (26.7 %) developed grade 3 adverse effects; no grade 4 or 5 adverse effects were observed. There was no postoperative mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study, with a response rate of 26.7 % and without local relapse, support the treatment of T2-3s,N0,M0 of rectal cancer with preoperative chemoradiotherapy and local excision (TEM).

First-line single-agent panitumumab in frail elderly patients with wild-type KRAS metastatic colorectal cancer and poor prognostic factors: A phase II study of the Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumours.

BACKGROUND: Frail elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are not candidates for chemotherapy. Monotherapy with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies may be an option for these patients with few systemic toxic effects. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Single-arm, multicentre, phase II trial including patients ⩾ 70y ears with wild-type (WT) KRAS (exon 2) mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status ⩽ 3, KPC (Köhne Prognostic Classification)--defined intermediate or high risk status, frailty and/or ineligibility for chemotherapy. Patients received panitumumab until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end-point was progression free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months. RESULTS: The study included 33 patients (intention-to-treat (ITT) population). Median age: 81 years; sex: 66.7% male; high-risk KPC status: 45.4%. Median treatment duration was 14 weeks and 6-month PFS rate was 36.4% (95% confidence interval (CI): 20.0-52.8). The objective response rate: 9.1% (95% CI: 0-18.9) (all partial responses), and there were 18 stable diseases (54.5%). Median PFS was 4.3 months (95% CI: 2.8-6.4) and median overall survival (OS) was 7.1 months (95% CI: 5.0-12.3). There were no deaths or grade 4-5 adverse events (AEs) related to panitumumab and the most common grade 3-related AE was rash acneiform (15.2%). A significant association between clinical response and RAS status was observed (P=0.037). In the WT RAS subgroup (WT exons 2, 3, and 4 of KRAS and NRAS, N = 15), 6-month PFS rate was 53.3% (95% CI: 30.1-75.2) and median PFS and OS were 7.9 and 12.3 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent panitumumab is active and well tolerated and may be a therapeutic option for high-risk frail elderly patients with WT RAS tumours considered not candidates for chemotherapy (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01126112).

Extravasation of oxaliplatin: an infrequent and irritant toxicity.

Oxaliplatin has been classified as an irritant drug. Less than 10 cases of oxaliplatin extravasation through a central venous access have been described to date. We present a case of extravasation through a central venous access, of the highest dose (165 mg) of oxaliplatin reported to date. We confirmed the irritant effect, and full recovery from toxicity was achieved. We describe the treatment administered and offer a review of literature.

The oncology acute toxicity unit (OATU): an outpatient facility for improving the management of chemotherapy toxicity.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an outpatient facility to improve the management of chemotherapy toxicity in cancer patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We set up an oncology acute toxicity unit (OATU) to improve toxicity management. A telephone helpline was the initial contact which filters out inappropriate non-toxicity-related events. Patients were provided an information booklet describing the possible side effects of the chemotherapy and the helpline telephone number. A specialist nurse received the calls and consulted the doctor if necessary. Depending on requirements, the patient's problem was resolved by telephone, or a consultation visit at the OATU was arranged. RESULTS: Between February 1999 and August 2001, 1126 patients made 2007 contacts with the OATU. The most common tumours were breast (26%), colorectal (20%) and lung (20%). The telephone helpline was used in 87% of contacts and 37% were considered inappropriate. Of the 1263 appropriate contacts, the most frequent chemotherapy schedules that had been administered were 5FU-leucovorin (11.2%) and CMF (10.4%). The most frequent side effects were fever (35.5%), diarrhoea (18.5%), mucositis (16.2%) and emesis (13%). The problem was resolved by telephone in 48% of cases and 52% required attendance in the OATU, of which 40% required hospital admission, i.e., 21.1% of the initial appropriate helpline contacts. The most frequent reason was Grade 3-4 neutropenic fever (56.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The OATU enables prompt and efficient access of patients to medical oncology facilities in the event of toxicity due to chemotherapy. Unnecessary emergency room use is avoided while oncology outpatient and hospitalisation facilities are optimised.