Perioperative or adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX for resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC-3): study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical resection followed by adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil with leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) is currently the standard of care for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. The main concern regarding adjuvant chemotherapy is that only half of patients actually receive adjuvant treatment. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, on the other hand, guarantees early systemic treatment and may increase chemotherapy use and thereby improve overall survival. Furthermore, it may prevent futile surgery in patients with rapidly progressive disease. However, some argue that neoadjuvant therapy delays surgery, which could lead to progression towards unresectable disease and thus offset the potential benefits. Comparison of perioperative (i.e., neoadjuvant and adjuvant) with (only) adjuvant administration of mFOLFIRINOX in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is needed to determine the optimal approach. METHODS: This multicenter, phase 3, RCT will include 378 patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Patients are recruited from 20 Dutch centers and three centers in Norway and Sweden. Resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as no arterial contact and ≤ 90 degrees venous contact. Patients in the intervention arm are scheduled for 8 cycles of neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX followed by surgery and 4 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX (2-week cycle of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, irinotecan 150 mg/m2 at day 1, followed by 46 h continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil 2400 g/m2). Patients in the comparator arm start with surgery followed by 12 cycles of adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX. The primary outcome is overall survival by intention-to-treat. Secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, resection rate, quality of life, adverse events, and surgical complications. To detect a hazard ratio of 0.70 with 80% power, 252 events are needed. The number of events is expected to be reached after the inclusion of 378 patients in 36 months, with analysis planned 18 months after the last patient has been randomized. DISCUSSION: The multicenter PREOPANC-3 trial compares perioperative mFOLFIRINOX with adjuvant mFOLFIRINOX in patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials: NCT04927780. Registered June 16, 2021.

Total neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX versus neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant gemcitabine for resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer (PREOPANC-2 trial): study protocol for a nationwide multicenter randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant therapy has several potential advantages over upfront surgery in patients with localized pancreatic cancer; more patients receive systemic treatment, fewer patients undergo futile surgery, and R0 resection rates are higher, thereby possibly improving overall survival (OS). Two recent randomized trials have suggested benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over upfront surgery, both including single-agent chemotherapy regimens. Potentially, the multi-agent FOLFIRINOX regimen (5-fluorouracil with leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) may further improve outcomes in the neoadjuvant setting for localized pancreatic cancer, but randomized studies are needed. The PREOPANC-2 trial investigates whether neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX improves OS compared with neoadjuvant gemcitabine-based chemoradiotherapy and adjuvant gemcitabine in resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer patients. METHODS: This nationwide multicenter phase III randomized controlled trial includes patients with pathologically confirmed resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer with a WHO performance score of 0 or 1. Resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as no arterial and ≤ 90 degrees venous involvement; borderline resectable pancreatic cancer is defined as ≤90 degrees arterial and ≤ 270 degrees venous involvement without occlusion. Patients receive 8 cycles of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy followed by surgery without adjuvant treatment (arm A), or 3 cycles of neoadjuvant gemcitabine with hypofractionated radiotherapy (36 Gy in 15 fractions) during the second cycle, followed by surgery and 4 cycles of adjuvant gemcitabine (arm B). The primary endpoint is OS by intention-to-treat. Secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, quality of life, resection rate, and R0 resection rate. To detect a hazard ratio of 0.70 with 80% power, 252 events are needed. The number of events is expected to be reached after inclusion of 368 eligible patients assuming an accrual period of 3 years and 1.5 years follow-up. DISCUSSION: The PREOPANC-2 trial directly compares two neoadjuvant regimens for patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. Our study will provide evidence on the neoadjuvant treatment of choice for patients with resectable and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Primary registry and trial identifying number: EudraCT: 2017-002036-17 . Date of registration: March 6, 2018. Secondary identifying numbers: The Netherlands National Trial Register - NL7094 , NL61961.078.17, MEC-2018-004.

Adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion pump chemotherapy and resection versus resection alone in patients with low-risk resectable colorectal liver metastases - the multicenter randomized controlled PUMP trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrences are reported in 70% of all patients after resection of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), in which half are confined to the liver. Adjuvant hepatic arterial infusion pump (HAIP) chemotherapy aims to reduce the risk of intrahepatic recurrence. A large retrospective propensity score analysis demonstrated that HAIP chemotherapy is particularly effective in patients with low-risk oncological features. The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) --the PUMP trial-- is to investigate the efficacy of adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy in low-risk patients with resectable CRLM. METHODS: This is an open label multicenter RCT. A total of 230 patients with resectable CRLM without extrahepatic disease will be included. Only patients with a clinical risk score (CRS) of 0 to 2 are eligible, meaning: patients are allowed to have no more than two out of five poor prognostic factors (disease-free interval less than 12 months, node-positive colorectal cancer, more than 1 CRLM, largest CRLM more than 5 cm in diameter, serum Carcinoembryonic Antigen above 200 µg/L). Patients randomized to arm A undergo complete resection of CRLM without any adjuvant treatment, which is the standard of care in the Netherlands. Patients in arm B receive an implantable pump at the time of CRLM resection and start adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy 4-12 weeks after surgery, with 6 cycles of floxuridine scheduled. The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, hepatic PFS, safety, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Pharmacokinetics of intra-arterial administration of floxuridine will be investigated as well as predictive biomarkers for the efficacy of HAIP chemotherapy. In a side study, the accuracy of CT angiography will be compared to radionuclide scintigraphy to detect extrahepatic perfusion. We hypothesize that adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy leads to improved survival, improved quality of life, and a reduction of costs, compared to resection alone. DISCUSSION: If this PUMP trial demonstrates that adjuvant HAIP chemotherapy improves survival in low-risk patients, this treatment approach may be implemented in the standard of care of patients with resected CRLM since adjuvant systemic chemotherapy alone has not improved survival. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PUMP trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR), number: 7493 . Date of registration September 23, 2018.

Advances in adjuvant therapy of biliary tract cancer: an overview of current clinical evidence based on phase II and III trials.

Patients with biliary tract cancer (BTC) have a high recurrence rate after complete surgical resection. To reduce the risk of recurrence and to improve survival, several chemotherapeutic agents that have shown to be active in locally advanced and metastatic BTC have been investigated in the adjuvant setting in prospective clinical trials. Based on the results of the BILCAP phase III trial, capecitabine was adapted as the standard of care by the ASCO clinical practice guideline. Ongoing randomized controlled trials mainly compare capecitabine with gemcitabine-based chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. This review provides an update of adjuvant therapy in BTC based on published data of phase II and III trials and ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Impact of nationwide enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care (PACAP-1): a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer has a very poor prognosis. Best practices for the use of chemotherapy, enzyme replacement therapy, and biliary drainage have been identified but their implementation in daily clinical practice is often suboptimal. We hypothesized that a nationwide program to enhance implementation of these best practices in pancreatic cancer care would improve survival and quality of life. METHODS/DESIGN: PACAP-1 is a nationwide multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled superiority trial. In a per-center stepwise and randomized manner, best practices in pancreatic cancer care regarding the use of (neo)adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy, and metal biliary stents are implemented in all 17 Dutch pancreatic centers and their regional referral networks during a 6-week initiation period. Per pancreatic center, one multidisciplinary team functions as reference for the other centers in the network. Key best practices were identified from the literature, 3 years of data from existing nationwide registries within the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Project (PACAP), and national expert meetings. The best practices follow the Dutch guideline on pancreatic cancer and the current state of the literature, and can be executed within daily clinical practice. The implementation process includes monitoring, return visits, and provider feedback in combination with education and reminders. Patient outcomes and compliance are monitored within the PACAP registries. Primary outcome is 1-year overall survival (for all disease stages). Secondary outcomes include quality of life, 3- and 5-year overall survival, and guideline compliance. An improvement of 10% in 1-year overall survival is considered clinically relevant. A 25-month study duration was chosen, which provides 80% statistical power for a mortality reduction of 10.0% in the 17 pancreatic cancer centers, with a required sample size of 2142 patients, corresponding to a 6.6% mortality reduction and 4769 patients nationwide. DISCUSSION: The PACAP-1 trial is designed to evaluate whether a nationwide program for enhanced implementation of best practices in pancreatic cancer care can improve 1-year overall survival and quality of life. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03513705. Trial opened for accrual on 22th May 2018.

Chemotherapy for metastatic carcinoma of the esophagus and gastro-esophageal junction.

BACKGROUND: More than 50% of patients with esophageal cancer have metastatic disease at presentation. The use of chemotherapy for this patient group is increasing with the intention of local and distant tumor control, improving quality of life and prolongation of survival. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of a) chemotherapy versus best supportive care or b) different chemotherapy regimes against each other, in metastatic esophageal carcinoma. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches were conducted on the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials--CENTRAL (which includes the Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group Trials Register) on The Cochrane Library (Issue 1 2004) MEDLINE (1966 to February 2004), EMBASE (1980 to February 2004) and Cancerlit. Reference lists from trials selected by electronic searching were handsearched to identify further relevant trials. Published abstracts from conference proceedings from the United European Gastroenterology Week (published in Gut) and Digestive Disease Week (published in Gastroenterology) were handsearched. The search was updated in February 2005 and February 2006. Members of the Cochrane UGPD Group, and experts in the field were contacted and asked to provide details of outstanding clinical trials and any relevant unpublished materials SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing chemotherapy versus best supportive care, or different chemotherapy regimes against each other in patients with metastatic carcinoma of the esophagus or gastro-esophageal junction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors (MYVH/EJK) extracted data and assessed trial quality. Study authors were contacted to obtain subgroup results of patients with metastatic esophageal carcinoma. MAIN RESULTS: Only two RCTs with a total of 42 participants compared chemotherapy with best supportive care for metastatic esophageal cancer. No survival benefit was shown for chemotherapy treatment in these RCTs. Five RCTs with a total of 1242 participants compared different chemotherapy regimes. Due to variation in patient population and chemotherapy regimes, it was not possible to perform a formal pooled analysis. There was no consistent benefit of any specific chemotherapy regimen. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for well designed, adequately powered, phase III trials comparing chemotherapy versus best supportive care for patients with metastatic esophageal cancer. Chemotherapy agents with promising response rates and tolerable toxicity are cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), paclitaxel and antracyclins. Future trials comparing palliative treatment modalities should assess quality of life with validated quality of life measures.

[Palliative treatment in patients with oesophagus carcinoma]. / De palliatieve behandeling van patiënten met een oesofaguscarcinoom.

More than 50% of patients with oesophageal carcinoma will undergo palliative treatment because of distant metastases or local tumour ingrowth into surrounding organs. The majority of these patients have symptoms ofdysphagia. If metastases from oesophageal carcinoma are present, the most commonly used treatment modalities for dysphagia in The Netherlands are placement of a self-expanding stent or intraluminal radiotherapy (brachytherapy). If the life expectancy of patients is longer than 3 months, brachytherapy is sometimes combined with external radiotherapy. If patients with metastases are in a good condition, chemotherapy may be considered. If there is local tumour ingrowth but no metastases, chemotherapy in combination with radiation therapy (chemoradiation) is an option. These treatments should preferably make up part of well-designed studies. Quality of life is an important endpoint to consider in the palliative treatment of patients with oesophageal cancer. Well-established standardized and validated questionnaires are available for this purpose.

[Palliative treatment of esophageal cancer with dysphagia: more favourable outcome from single-dose internal brachytherapy than from the placement of a self-expanding stent; a multicenter randomised study]. / Palliatieve behandeling voor slokdarmkanker met passageklachten: gunstiger uitkomsten van eenmalige inwendige brachytherapie dan van plaatsing van een zelfexpanderende stent; multicentrisch, gerandomiseerd onderzoek.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of single-dose internal irradiation (brachytherapy) and self-expanding metal stent placement in the palliation of oesophageal obstruction due to cancer of the oesophagus. DESIGN: Randomised trial. METHOD: In the period from December 1999-Jun 2002, 209 patients with dysphagia due to inoperable carcinoma of the oesophagus were randomised to placement of an Ultraflex stent (n = 108) or single-dose (12 Gy) brachytherapy (n = 101). Primary outcome was relief of dysphagia; secondary outcomes were complications, persistent or recurrent dysphagia, health-related quality of life, and costs. Patients were followed up by monthly home visits from a specialised nurse. RESULTS: Dysphagia improved more rapidly after stent placement than after brachytherapy, but long-term relief of dysphagia was better after brachytherapy. Stent placement resulted in more complications than did brachytherapy (36/108 (33%) versus 21/101 (21%); p = 0.02), due mainly to an increased incidence of late haemorrhage in the stent group (14 versus 5; p = 0.05). The groups did not differ with regard to the incidence of persistent or recurrent dysphagia or median survival (p > 0.20). In the long term, quality-of-life scores were higher in the brachytherapy group. Total medical costs were also similar for both treatments: Euro 8,215 for stent placement and Euro 8,135 for brachytherapy. CONCLUSION: Brachytherapy provided better long-term relief of dysphagia than did stent placement and also produced fewer complications. Brachytherapy is therefore recommended as the preferred treatment for the palliation of dysphagia due to oesophageal cancer.

Iron deficiency and risk factors for lower iron stores in 6-24-month-old New Zealanders.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of biochemical iron deficiency and identify factors associated with ferritin levels among 6-24-month-old urban South Island New Zealand children. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey conducted from May 1998 to March 1999. SETTING: The cities of Christchurch, Dunedin and Invercargill. SUBJECTS: A total of 323 randomly selected 6-24-month-old children participated (response rate 61%) of which 263 provided a blood sample. METHODS: A complete blood cell count, zinc protoporphyrin, serum ferritin and C-reactive protein were measured on nonfasting venipuncture blood samples, 3-day weighed food records and general questionnaire data were collected. RESULTS: Among children with C-reactive protein<10 mg/l (n=231), 4.3% had iron deficiency anaemia, 5.6% had iron deficiency without anaemia, and 18.6% had depleted iron stores, when a ferritin cutoff of < or =12 g/l was used. Age (negative), sex (girls>boys), ethnicity (Caucasian>non-Caucasian), weight-for-age percentiles (negative) and birth weight (positive) were associated with ferritin after adjusting for infection and socioeconomic status. When current consumption of iron fortified formula and >500 ml of cows' milk per day were included, these were associated with a 22% increase and 25% decrease in ferritin, respectively (R2=0.28). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of suboptimal iron status (29%) among young New Zealand children is cause for concern, even though severe iron deficiency is rare, because children with marginal iron status are at risk of developing severe iron deficiency if exposed to a physiological challenge.

Clinical and radiologic signs of relapsed ovarian germ cell tumor: tissue is the issue.

Malignant ovarian germ cell tumor is a rare disease, but with current treatment strategies including surgery and platinum based chemotherapy survival is excellent. After treatment, intensive followup is indicated to encounter tumor relapse at an early stage. This case describes a 22-year-old female with a history of common variable immune deficiency (CVID) who underwent a resection of a large ovarian germ cell tumor followed by 4 cycles of cisplatin and etoposide resulting in clinical complete remission. During followup, she developed a mass at the umbilicus and ascites. Initially, the cytology of the ascites was interpreted as tumor positive, suspicious of relapse of the disease, but tumor markers remained negative. However, during laparoscopy it turned out to be a mature teratoma, which can develop after chemotherapy, the so called growing teratoma syndrome. In retrospect, the ascites was false positive. This case shows that current diagnostic tools are not sufficient to distinguish between vital tumor and mature teratoma and can be misleading. Tumor biopsy and/or laparoscopic inspection are therefore indicated.

The burden of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in patients with Barrett's esophagus.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Patients with Barrett's esophagus are recommended to undergo regular surveillance with upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, an invasive procedure that may cause anxiety, pain, and discomfort. We assessed to what extent patients perceived this procedure as burdensome. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 192 patients with Barrett's esophagus were asked to fill out questionnaires at 1 week and immediately before endoscopy, and at 1 week and 1 month afterwards. Four variables were assessed: (i) pain and discomfort experienced during endoscopy; (ii) symptoms; (iii) psychological burden, i. e., anxiety, depression and distress levels (Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, Impact of Event Scale); and (iv) perceived risk of developing adenocarcinoma. RESULTS: At least one questionnaire was returned by 180 patients (94 %), 151 completed all four (79 %). Of all patients, only 14 % experienced the endoscopy as painful. However, 59 % reported it to be burdensome. Apart from an increase in throat ache (47 % after endoscopy versus 12 % before), the procedure did not cause physical symptoms. Patients' anxiety, depression, and distress levels were significantly increased in the week before endoscopy compared with the week after. Patients perceiving their risk of developing adenocarcinoma as high reported higher levels of psychological distress and that the procedure was a greater burden. CONCLUSIONS: Upper gastrointestinal endoscopy is burdensome for many patients with Barrett's esophagus and causes moderate distress. Perception of a high risk of adenocarcinoma may increase distress and the burden experienced from the procedure. The benefits of endoscopic surveillance for patients with Barrett's esophagus should be weighed against its drawbacks, including the short-term burden for patients.

Cost study of metal stent placement vs single-dose brachytherapy in the palliative treatment of oesophageal cancer.

Self-expanding metal stent placement and single-dose brachytherapy are commonly used for the palliation of oesophageal obstruction due to inoperable oesophagogastric cancer. We randomised 209 patients to the placement of an Ultraflex stent (n=108) or single-dose brachytherapy (12 Gy, n=101). Cost comparisons included comprehensive data of hospital costs, diagnostic interventions and extramural care. We acquired detailed information on health care consumption from a case record form and from monthly home visits by a specialised nurse. The initial costs of stent placement were higher than the costs of brachytherapy (1500 euro vs 570 euro; P<0.001). Total medical costs were, however, similar (stent 11 195 euro vs brachytherapy 10 078 euro, P>0.20). Total hospital stay during follow-up was 11.5 days after stent placement vs 12.4 days after brachytherapy, which was responsible for the high intramural costs in both treatment groups (stent 6512 euro vs brachytherapy 7982 euro, P>0.20). Costs for medical procedures during follow-up were higher after stent placement (stent 249 euro vs brachytherapy 168 euro, P=0.002), while the costs of extramural care were similar (1278 euro vs 1046 euro, P>0.20). In conclusion, there are only small differences between the total medical costs of both palliative treatment modalities, despite the fact that the initial costs of stent placement are much higher than those of brachytherapy. Therefore, cost considerations should not play an important role in decision making on the appropriate palliative treatment strategy for patients with malignant dysphagia.