Effectiveness assessment of riluzole in the prevention of oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy: RILUZOX-01: protocol of a randomised, parallel, controlled, double-blind and multicentre study by the UNICANCER-AFSOS Supportive Care intergroup.

INTRODUCTION: Most patients (>70%) experience acute neuropathic symptoms shortly after oxaliplatin infusions. These symptoms are not always resolved between infusions. Overall, 30%-50% of patients suffer from chronic oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy (OIPN). This cumulative and dose-dependent sensory neuropathy limits compliance or results in oxaliplatin-based chemotherapies to be substituted with less neurotoxic agents. These treatment changes impair clinical outcomes, and may be associated with comorbidities, such as distress, depression and anxiety. Currently, no drug used to prevent or treat OIPN is sufficiently effective to be used routinely in clinical practice. There is, thus, an unmet therapeutic need to reduce the intensity of and/or prevent OIPN. We hypothesised that riluzole would be an excellent candidate to address this public health issue. Riluzole is approved for treating amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In animals, there is a beneficial effect on sensorimotor and pain disorders, as well as related comorbidities, after repeated administration of oxaliplatin. In humans, riluzole has shown neuroprotective, anxiolytic and antidepressive effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: RILUZOX-01 trial was designed as a randomised, controlled, double-blind study to evaluate the efficacy of riluzole to prevent OIPN. Patients with colorectal cancer and initiating adjuvant oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy are eligible. Patients (n=210) will be randomly assigned to either riluzole or placebo, concomitantly with chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is the change in OIPN intensity, assessed by the sensory scale of the QLQ-CIPN20, after six 2-week cycles of chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints include incidence and severity of neuropathy, grade of sensory neuropathy, intensity and features of neuropathic pain, health-related quality of life, disease-free survival, overall survival and safety. ETHICS AND DESSIMINATION: The study was approved by a French ethics committee (ref:39/18_1, 'Comité de Protection des Personnes' Ouest-IV, France) and plans to start enroling patients in September 2019. The trial is registered in EudraCT and clinicaltrials.gov. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N°2017-002320-25; NCT03722680.

Dynamic evaluation of circulating tumour cells in patients with advanced gastric and oesogastric junction adenocarcinoma: Prognostic value and early assessment of therapeutic effects.

BACKGROUND: The identification of dynamic biomarkers in advanced gastric and oesogastric junction adenocarcinoma (GOA) could help to tailor strategies for each patient. Enumeration of circulating tumour cells (CTCs) is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in breast, colon and prostate cancer but is not in advanced GOA. Our study aims to establish the optimal threshold and the clinical significance of CTC count in advanced GOA before and during treatment. METHODS: One hundred six patients with untreated advanced GOA were included in the ancillary study of the PRODIGE 17-ACCORD 20 trial. CTCs were detected in the peripheral blood using the CellSearch system on day 0 (D0) and day 28 (D28). The prognostic value of CTCs at D0 and D28 was analysed by testing several thresholds. RESULTS: At baseline, median CTC count was 1 (range, 0-415). While CTCs ≥1, 2 or 3 at D0 were all significantly associated with worse overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), CTCs ≥2 were the optimal threshold, on D0 or D28. CTCs ≥2 at D28 were also predictive of disease control. Taking into account both D0 and D28 CTC count defined 3 groups (low/low, high/low and low-high/high) with significantly different PFS (p = 0.0002) and OS (p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Quantification of CTCs at baseline and during treatment may be a useful prognostic tool in advanced GOA, as it is associated with worse PFS and OS. A threshold ≥2 CTCs seems to have the best discriminant value. Change in CTC count between baseline and D28 could help to tailor treatment to each individual patient.

An assessment of the benefit-risk balance of FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: We sought to assess the benefit-risk balance of FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We used generalized pairwise comparisons. This statistical method permits the simultaneous analysis of several prioritized outcome measures. The first priority outcome was survival time (OS). Differences in OS that exceeded two months were considered clinically relevant. The second priority outcome was toxicity. The overall treatment effect was quantified using the net chance of a better outcome, which can be interpreted as the net probability for a random patient treated in the FOLFIRINOX group to have a better overall outcome than a random patient in the gemcitabine group. RESULTS: In this trial 342 patients received either FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine. The net chance of a better outcome favored strongly and significantly the FOLFIRINOX group (24.7; P<.001), suggesting a favorable benefit-risk balance of FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine. The positive benefit-risk balance of FOLFIRINOX was observed throughout all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Generalized pairwise comparisons are useful to perform a quantitative assessment of the benefit-risk balance of new treatments. It provides a clinically intuitive way of comparing patients with respect to all important efficacy and toxicity outcomes. Overall the benefit-risk balance of FOLFIRINOX was strongly positive.