Assessment of Duration and Effects of 3 vs 6 Months of Adjuvant Chemotherapy in High-Risk Stage II Colorectal Cancer: A Subgroup Analysis of the TOSCA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The addition of oxaliplatin to the standard 6-month fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colorectal cancer has been reported to reduce the risk of relapse although it does not increase survival. The Three or Six Colon Adjuvant (TOSCA) trial compared 3 months with 6 months of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer. The utility remains unknown. Objective: To assess the noninferiority and toxic effects of 3 vs 6 months of FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) adjunct chemotherapy among patients with high-risk stage II resected colorectal cancer enrolled in the TOSCA trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: The TOSCA study was a noninferiority phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted from June 2007 to March 2013 in 130 Italian centers. Included patients had resected colorectal cancer located 12 cm from the anal verge by endoscopy or above the peritoneal reflection at surgery. In this preplanned study assessing the per-protocol population, 5-year relapse-free survival was evaluated in 1254 patients with high-risk stage II resected colorectal cancer who had received adjuvant FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin). Interventions: Patients were originally randomized (1:1) in the TOSCA trial to receive 3 months (experimental group) or 6 months (control) of standard doses of FOLFOX or CAPOX at the discretion of the treating physician. Main Outcome and Measures: A hazard ratio of at least 1.2 between the 3-month and 6-month chemotherapy groups was set to reject the null hypothesis of noninferiority. Results: Overall, 1254 patients (mean [SD] age, 62.4 [9.8] years; 565 women [45.1%]) with clinical high-risk stage II resected colorectal cancer were analyzed at a median follow-up of 62 months (interquartile range, 53-71) months. Of them, 301 patients (24.0%) had pT4N0M0 tumors, and the remaining 953 patients (76.0%) had high-risk pT3N0M0 tumors; 776 patients (61.9%) received FOLFOX and 478 (38.1%) received CAPOX. The 5-year relapse-free survival was 82.2% for the 3-month arm and 88.2% for the 6-month arm, with an estimated hazard ratio of 1.41 (95% CI, 1.05-1.89; P = .86 for noninferiority). For CAPOX, the 5-year relapse-free survival was similar in the 2 arms (difference, 0.76% favoring the 6-month arm; 95% CI, -6.28% to 7.80%), whereas for FOLFOX, the difference was pronounced: 8.56% in favor of the longer-duration arm (95% CI, 3.45%-13.67%). Nevertheless, the test for an interaction between duration and regimen was not statistically significant. Neurotoxicity was approximately 5 times lower in the shorter duration arm than in the longer duration arm. Conclusions and Relevance: In the 3-month arm, the treatment was significantly less toxic than in the 6-month arm. Noninferiority was not shown for 5-year relapse-free survival. However, a possible regimen effect was observed, suggesting that either 3 months of CAPOX or 6 months of FOLFOX therapy can be used whenever an oxaliplatin doublet is indicated for treatment of patients with stage II colorectal cancer. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0064660.

Assessment of Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel as switch maintenance versus continuation of first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced HER-2 negative gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancers: the ARMANI phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Platinum/fluoropyrimidine regimens are the backbone of first-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). However response rates to first line chemotherapy range from 30 to 50% and disease progression occurs after 4-6 cycles. The optimal duration of first-line therapy is still unknown and its continuation until disease progression represents the standard. However this strategy is often associated with cumulative toxicity and rapid development of drug resistance. Moreover, only about 40% of AGC pts. are eligible for second-line treatment. METHODS: This is a randomized, open-label, multicenter phase III trial. It aims at assessing whether switch maintenance to ramucirumab plus paclitaxel will extend the progression-free survival (PFS) of subjects with HER-2 negative AGC who have not progressed after 3 months of a first-line with a platinum/fluoropyrimidine regimen (either FOLFOX4, mFOLFOX6 or XELOX). The primary endpoint is to compare Progression-Free Survival (PFS) of patients in ARM A (switch maintenance to ramucirumab and placlitaxel) versus ARM B (continuation of the same first-line therapy with oxaliplatin/fluoropyrimidine). Secondary endpoints are: overall survival, time-to-treatment failure, overall response rate, duration of response, percentage of patients that will receive a second line therapy according to arm treatment, safety, quality of life. Exploratory studies including Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) in archival tumor tissues are planned in order to identify potential biomarkers of primary resistance and prognosis. DISCUSSION: The ARMANI study estimates if patients treated with early swich with ramucirumab plus paclitaxel received benefit when compared to those treated with continuation of first line therapy. The hypothesis is that the early administration of an active, non-cross resistant second-line regimen such as ramucirumab plus paclitaxel may prolong the time in which patients are progression-free, and consequently have a better quality of life. Moreover, this strategy may rescue all those subjects that become ineligible for second-line therapy due to the rapid deterioration of health status after the first disease progression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ARMANI is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02934464 , October 17, 2016) and EudraCT(2016-001783-12, April 202,016).

Economic burden of patients affected by non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): the LIFE study.

PURPOSE: Non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a condition with significant clinical burden for patients and relevant economic impact. Limited evidence exists on the management costs of NSCLC patients, especially in the late phases of the disease. The main objective of this analysis was to evaluate the economic impact of clinical management of NSCLC patients in the Italian population. METHODS: This evaluation was an economic analysis of the observational and multicentre study LIFE, which described the therapeutic approach in routine clinical practice for NSCLC patients, progressing after first-line treatment. This study evaluated resource consumption in different Italian hospitals, including specialist visits, hospitalizations, accesses to first aid, pharmacological treatment, laboratory tests and palliative care. The National Healthcare Service perspective was adopted. RESULTS: In this study, N = 191 patients enrolled in the LIFE study were included. Patients were aged 64.2 years and were predominantly males (66%). In the different line of treatments, monthly costs of patients ranged between €1471 (first line) and €1788 (third line). The overall healthcare cost over the average period of observation (16.4 months) was €25,859 per patient. Overall, oncology therapy was the cost driver, although the composition of medical costs changed across the different lines of treatment, with costs for concomitant medication and palliative care being predominant in late phase of the disease. CONCLUSIONS: The economic burden of NSCLC is extremely high during the overall period of treatment, and a significant level of care is required in each stage of the disease.

Ethics for end-of-life treatments: metastatic colorectal cancer is one example.

The number of biological agents (BAs) registered with an indication related to cancer treatment is flourishing and the cost of these treatments is rising dramatically, making the situation potentially unsustainable for healthcare systems. Here we focus on the examples of bevacizumab (BV) and cetuximab (CX), two BAs approved for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The first clinical trials show an increase in median overall survival of a few months, though these results could not always be repeated in subsequent studies. We reviewed full economic evaluations (FEEs) on BV or CX and despite frequently arguable estimates based on indirect efficacy, only one estimated the addition of CX was cost-effective in a virtual subgroup of patients, albeit with flawed methods. Most Western European countries reimburse BV and CX for mCRC, though clinical evidence seems weak and economic evidence even absent. The underlying question is whether national health authorities are prepared to spend an increasing share of healthcare budgets on very expensive end-of-life treatments, their impact on life expectancy (a few additional months at best) and QoL (enhanced mainly by patients' hopes) being doubtful and their cost-effectiveness hardly ever proved. Further research is needed to explore how ethics could be included and thus assessed under these circumstances.