Multicenter, randomized, double-blind phase 2 trial of FOLFIRI with regorafenib or placebo as second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor that inhibits angiogenesis, growth, and proliferation, prolongs survival as monotherapy in patients with refractory colorectal cancer. This international, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial assessed the efficacy of regorafenib with folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as a second-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who progressed on first-line oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine enrolled at 45 sites in the United States and Ireland. Patients, stratified by prior bevacizumab use, were randomized 2:1 to regorafenib or placebo. The treatment consisted of FOLFIRI on days 1 and 2 and days 15 and 16 with 160 mg of regorafenib or placebo on days 4 to 10 and days 18 to 24 of every 28-day cycle. Crossover was not allowed. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Under the assumption of a 75% event rate, 180 patients were required for 135 events to achieve 90% power to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 with a 1-sided α value of .1. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-one patients were randomized (120 to regorafenib-FOLFIRI and 61 to placebo-FOLFIRI) with a median age of 62 years. Among these, 117 (65%) received prior bevacizumab or aflibercept. PFS was longer with regorafenib-FOLFIRI than placebo-FOLFIRI (median, 6.1 vs 5.3 months; HR, 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-1.01; log-rank P = .056). The median overall survival was not longer (HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.71-1.44). The response rate was higher with regorafenib-FOLFIRI (34%; 95% CI, 25%-44%) than placebo-FOLFIRI (21%; 95% CI, 11%-33%; P = .07). Grade 3/4 adverse events with a >5% absolute increase from regorafenib included diarrhea, neutropenia, febrile neutropenia, hypophosphatemia, and hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of regorafenib to FOLFIRI as second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer only modestly prolonged PFS over FOLFIRI alone. Cancer 2018. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

A comparison of the United Kingdom clinical aptitude test (UK-CAT) with a traditional admission selection process.

BACKGROUND: The United Kingdom Clinical Aptitude Test (UK-CAT) was introduced for the purpose of student selection by a consortium of 23 UK University Medical and Dental Schools, including the University of Aberdeen in 2006. AIM: To compare candidate performance on UK-CAT with local medical student selection outcome. METHOD: We compared the outcomes of all applicants to Medicine, University of Aberdeen (UoA), in 2006 who undertook the UK-CAT. The candidates were selected into one of five outcomes (academic reject, reject following assessment, reject following interview, reserve list or offer). The candidate performance in the UK-CAT was compared to candidate performance on the UoA selection. RESULTS: Data are reported on 1307 (85.0%) students who applied to UoA in 2006 and undertook the UK-CAT. Total UK-CAT scores were significantly correlated with local selection scores. However, of 314 students offered a place following the conventional selection process, only 101 were also in the highest scoring 318 on the UK-CAT. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this study indicate that UK-CAT scores show weak correlation with success in our medical admissions process. It appears therefore that the UK-CAT examines different traits compared to our selection process. Further work is required to establish which better predicts success as an undergraduate or as a doctor.

A Phase I study of capecitabine, carboplatin, and paclitaxel with external beam radiation therapy for esophageal carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Concurrent chemotherapy and radiation therapy (RT) are used to treat patients with esophageal cancer. The optimal combination of chemotherapeutic agents with RT is undefined. We evaluated a combination of capecitabine, carboplatin, and paclitaxel with RT in a phase I study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma of the esophagus initially received capecitabine, carboplatin, and paclitaxel with RT (1.8 Gy daily to 50.4 Gy). After completion, patients were restaged and evaluated for surgery. Primary endpoints included determination of dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) and a recommended phase II dose, non-DLT, and preliminary radiographic and pathologic response rates. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were enrolled (10 men, 3 women). All were evaluable for toxicity and efficacy. Two of 3 patients at dose level 1 (capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) twice daily on RT days, carboplatin area under the curve (AUC) 2 weekly, paclitaxel 60 mg/m(2) weekly) had DLT (both Grade 4 esophagitis). Of these 3, 2 underwent esophagectomy and had pathologic complete response (pCR). Ten patients were then enrolled at dose level -1 (capecitabine 600 mg/m(2) twice daily, carboplatin AUC 1.5, paclitaxel 45 mg/m(2)). Overall, 3 of 10 patients at dose level -1 developed DLT (2 Grade 3 esophagitis, 1 Grade 3 hypotension). Esophagectomy was performed in 6 of 10 patients. All patients had pathologic downstaging and 2 of 6 had pCR. CONCLUSIONS: The maximally tolerated/recommended phase II doses were capecitabine 600 mg/m(2) twice daily, carboplatin AUC 1.5 weekly, and paclitaxel 45 mg/m(2) weekly with RT to 50.4 Gy. In our small study, this regimen appears active but is accompanied by significant toxicities, primarily esophagitis.

Adjuvant external-beam radiotherapy with concurrent chemotherapy after resection of primary gallbladder carcinoma: a 23-year experience.

PURPOSE: Primary adenocarcinoma of the gallbladder is a rare malignancy. To better define the role of adjuvant radiation therapy and chemotherapy, a retrospective analysis of the outcome of patients undergoing surgery and adjuvant therapy was undertaken. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-two patients with primary and nonmetastatic gallbladder cancer were treated with radiation therapy after surgical resection. Median radiation dose was 45 Gy. Eighteen patients received concurrent 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 1.7 years in all patients and 3.9 years in survivors. RESULTS: The 5-year actuarial overall survival, disease-free survival, metastases-free survival, and local-regional control of all 22 patients were 37%, 33%, 36%, and 59%, respectively. Median survival for all patients was 1.9 years. CONCLUSION: Our series suggests that an approach of radical resection followed by external-beam radiation therapy with radiosensitizing 5-FU in patients with locally advanced, nonmetastatic carcinoma of the gallbladder may improve survival. This regimen should be considered in patients with resectable gallbladder carcinoma.

Inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor in the treatment of colorectal cancer.

Angiogenesis is essential for tumor growth and metastasis and is a promising target in the search for new anti-neoplastic agents. Angiogenesis is a tightly regulated process dependent on the complex interplay between inhibitory and stimulatory angiogenic factors. Vascular endothelial growth factor is one of the best characterized of the pro-angiogenic growth factors, and multiple strategies have been developed to inhibit this pathway. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody developed against vascular endothelial growth factor, has shown initial preclinical and clinical activity. This review will outline the conceptual basis of anti-angiogenic therapy, discuss the critical role of vascular endothelial growth factor, and summarize the available data on the use of bevacizumab in colorectal cancer.

A phase II study of oxaliplatin, dose-intense capecitabine, and high-dose bevacizumab in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to determine the efficacy and tolerability of a novel 2-week regimen of capecitabine, oxaliplatin (OHP), and bevacizumab in patients with chemo-naive advanced colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Nineteen patients with previously untreated advanced colorectal cancer received capecitabine at 1000 mg/m(2) twice a day on days 1-5 and days 8-12 of a 14-day cycle, and OHP at 85 mg/m(2) and bevacizumab at 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. Because of unacceptable toxicities, the capecitabine dose was reduced to 850 mg/m(2). Thirty-one additional patients were treated at the lower capecitabine dose. Treatment continued until disease progression, persistent intolerable toxicity, or physician and/or patient discretion. RESULTS: Overall, toxicities were better managed and tolerated at the 850 mg/-m(2) capecitabine dose. The most common treatment-related grade ≥ 3 toxicities were diarrhea and sensory neuropathy. In the first 19 subjects, the response rate was 63% (95% confidence interval [CI], 38%-84%) and 5 patients had stable disease; median progression-free survival (PFS) was 10.1 months (95% CI, 5.7-19.5 months). In the subsequent 31 patients, the response was 42% (95% CI, 25%-61%); 11 patients had stable disease and median PFS was 10.4 months (95% CI, 6.9-15.4); median overall survival was 24.8 months (95% CI, 12.9-39.7). CONCLUSIONS: This novel regimen of capecitabine at 850 mg/m(2) twice a day on days 1-5 and days 8-12 and OHP at 85 mg/m(2)and bevacizumab at 10 mg/kg every 14 days is clinically active in advanced colorectal cancer. The toxicity profile of this regimen is consistent with the standard every-3-week dosing schedule.

A phase II study of capecitabine, oxaliplatin, bevacizumab and cetuximab in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

AIM: This study was designed to determine the efficacy and tolerability of capecitabine, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab in combination with cetuximab as first-line therapy for advanced colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated advanced colorectal cancer received oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg every three weeks, capecitabine 850 mg/m² twice daily on days 1-14, and cetuximab at 400 mg/m² load and 250 mg/m² weekly. KRAS, BRAF and PI3K mutation status from paraffin-embedded tumor samples were assessed using real-time polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: Thirty patients were evaluable for safety and efficacy. One patient had a complete response and 12 patients had a partial response, giving an overall response rate of 43% (95% confidence interval (CI) 25%-63%). Fifteen patients had stable disease. The median time to progression was 10.3 months (95% CI, 6.8-16.3 months). The median overall survival was 18.8 months (95% CI, 14.2-23.7 months). Common grade ≥ 3 non-hematological toxicities were skin rash (37%), sensory neuropathy (27%) and diarrhea (17%). Grade ≥ 3 hematological toxicities were uncommon. Mutations in KRAS, BRAF and PI3K occurred in 34.5%, 10.3% and 10.3% of patients respectively, but did not correlate with treatment outcome. CONCLUSION: The addition of cetuximab to capecitabine, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab did not improve the three-drug regimen activity compared to published data and was associated with significant toxicities requiring frequent dose modifications. KRAS, BRAF, and PI3K mutation status were consistent with published literature, but did not affect outcome in this small study.

A phase I dose-escalation study of imatinib mesylate (Gleevec/STI571) plus capecitabine (Xeloda) in advanced solid tumors.

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to determine the maximally tolerated dose, recommended phase II dose and toxicity profile of capecitabine plus imatinib mesylate combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-four patients with advanced solid tumors were treated with capecitabine twice daily on days 1-14 and imatinib mesylate once daily on a 21-day cycle. Dose-limiting toxicity was assessed during the first cycle. Treatment continued until disease progression or undesirable toxicity. RESULTS: Six patients were treated with capecitabine at 1000 mg/m(2) and imatinib mesylate 300 mg; unacceptable toxicity due to grade 2 intolerable hand-foot syndrome and/or grade > or = 2 diarrhea was observed. Doses were subsequently reduced to capecitabine at 750 mg/m(2) and imatinib mesylate at 300 mg; toxicities were better tolerated at the lower dose. Dose-limiting toxicities consisted of grade 3 diarrhea, anorexia and fatigue lasting > or = 4 days. Treatment-related adverse events greater than or equal to grade 3 included anemia, diarrhea, dysuria, hypophosphatemia and vertigo. Minor responses were observed in two patients: stable disease > or = 6 months was observed in two out of twenty-one evaluable patients. CONCLUSION: Full doses of capecitabine and imatinib mesylate were not tolerable. The maximum tolerated dose and the recommended phase II dose for this drug combination is capecitabine at 750 mg/m(2) twice daily for 1-14 days and imatinib at 300 mg once daily on a 21-day cycle.

Phase I dose escalation study of gemcitabine plus irinotecan in advanced solid tumors.

AIM: To determine the maximally tolerated dose (MTD), recommended phase II dose (RPTD) and toxicity profile of gemcitabine plus irinotecan combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine evaluable patients with advanced solid tumors were treated with gemcitabine (Gem) and irinotecan (Iri) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Dose levels included Gem/Iri 700/50, 900/50, 900/75, 500/50 mg/m(2) respectively. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was assessed during cycle one; toxicity evaluation was closely monitored throughout the course of treatment. Treatment continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. RESULTS: DLTs primarily consisted of grade > or = 3 thrombocytopenia lasting > or = 4 days often accompanied by grade > or = 3 neutropenia. Other grade > or = 3 toxicities included vomiting, diarrhea, fatigue and elevated alkaline phosphatase. Three patients had a partial response. Stable disease as best response was seen in 16 patients, ranging from 2-18 months. CONCLUSION: The MTD/RPTD is gemcitabine 500 mg/m(2) plus irinotecan 50 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8 and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Given the toxicity profile and negative results of phase III studies, no further testing of this treatment combination is recommended.

Identifying the factors that determine feedback given to undergraduate medical students following formative mini-CEX assessments.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to examine the factors that determine provision of feedback to students following mini-clinical evaluation exercise (mini-CEX) assessments. METHODS: We carried out a pilot study of all final year medical students at the University of Aberdeen between November 2005 and June 2006. The study involved 396 mini-CEX encounters (173 students and 105 assessors). We retrospectively analysed the components of feedback recorded on the marking sheets. Each component of feedback was coded as a binary response (feedback recorded or not). Logistic regression was used to determine the degree and significance of the factors that influenced feedback. Specialty block, range of marks, assessor group and assessor satisfaction were entered into the analysis using SPSS Version 14. RESULTS: The provision of feedback by our assessors was poor. In 22.7% of cases, positive features were not identified; in 28.2% of cases, no suggestions for development were highlighted; in 49.7% of cases, no action plan was formulated. Assessors who gave a wider range of scores for the specific skill domains were more likely to record areas for development and action plans. Specialty block influenced feedback on areas for development. Suggesting an action plan was significantly associated with assessor group, and academic trainees were the most consistent providers of feedback. Assessor satisfaction was significantly associated with highlighting 'anything especially good'. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous factors were associated with the provision of feedback in our cohort. Assessor training may address this variability. However, this would limit the diversity of assessors, which may be undesirable. More research is required on assessor training and recruitment.

How can we prepare medical students for theatre-based learning?

CONTEXT: The quality of medical undergraduate operating theatre-based teaching is variable. Preparation prior to attending theatre may support student learning. Identifying and agreeing key skills, competences and objectives for theatre-based teaching may contribute to this process of preparation. METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional survey of consultant surgeons and students using a forced choice questionnaire containing 16 skills and competences classified as 'essential', 'desirable' or 'not appropriate', and a choice of 6 different teaching methods, scored for perceived effectiveness on a 5-point Likert scale. Questionnaire content was based on the findings from an earlier qualitative study. RESULTS: Comparative data analyses (Mann- Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests) were carried out using SPSS Version 14. A total of 42 consultant surgeons and 46 students completed the questionnaire (46% and 100% response rates, respectively). Knowledge of standard theatre etiquette and protocols, ability to scrub up adequately, ability to adhere to sterile procedures, awareness of risks to self, staff and patients, and appreciation of the need for careful peri-operative monitoring were considered 'essential' by the majority. Student and consultant responses differed significantly on 5 items, with students generally considering more practical skills and competences to be essential. Differences between students on medical and surgical attachments were also identified. CONCLUSIONS: Consultant surgeons and medical students agree on many aspects of the important learning points for theatre-based teaching. Compared with their teachers, students, particularly those on attachment to surgical specialties, are more ambitious - perhaps overly so - in the level of practical skills and risk awareness they expect to gain in theatre.

A phase I study of eniluracil/5-FU in combination with radiation therapy for potentially resectable and/or unresectable cancer of the pancreas and distal biliary tract.

PURPOSE: Eniluracil is an effective inactivator of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). It allows for oral dosing of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), which may potentially improve the antitumor activity of 5-FU when delivered concurrently with radiotherapy while avoiding the inconvenience and morbidity of continuous infusion (CI) 5-FU. We addressed the safety of oral eniluracil/5-FU combined with radiation therapy and determined the profile of dose-limiting toxicities and recommended Phase II dose (RPTD) in patients with pancreatic and hepatobiliary cancers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with resectable or locally advanced pancreatic and biliary cancer received eniluracil (starting at 6.0 mg/m(2) q12h)/5-FU (starting at 0.6 mg/m(2) q12h). Eniluracil/5-FU were given concurrently with preoperative radiation to 4500 cGy followed by 540 cGy by reduced fields. Surgery was considered 4 weeks after completion of therapy. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were enrolled. Chemoradiotherapy was completed in all patients. The MTD was not reached and, thus, the RPTD of eniluracil/5-FU was determined to be 10 mg/m(2) q12h/1 mg/m(2) q12h. Two patients with locally advanced disease had a 30-45 percent cross-sectional tumor reduction, one of which underwent margin-negative resection. Two of 5 patients with pancreatic cancer, and 1 of 3 patients with cholangiocarcinoma, with underwent exploratory surgery had margin-negative resections. One patient had a pathologic complete response (pCR). Patient 5-FU plasma exposure increased slightly from Day 8 to Day 31. CONCLUSION: Preoperative chemoradiation with oral eniluracil/5-FU is feasible, well tolerated, and potentially effective in the neoadjuvant setting. Further investigation of oral fluoropyrimidines as radiosensitizers for pancreaticobiliary malignancies is warranted.

Increased toxicity with gefitinib, capecitabine, and radiation therapy in pancreatic and rectal cancer: phase I trial results.

PURPOSE: Overexpression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) has been associated with aggressive tumor phenotypes, chemotherapy, and radiation resistance, as well as poor survival in preclinical and clinical models. The EGFR inhibitor gefitinib potentiates chemotherapy and radiation tumor cytotoxicity in preclinical models, including pancreatic and colorectal cancer. We initiated two phase I trials assessing the combination of gefitinib, capecitabine, and radiation in patients with localized pancreatic and rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with pathologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the pancreas and rectum were eligible. Pretreatment staging included computed tomography, endoscopic ultrasound, and surgical evaluation. Patients received 50.4 Gy of external-beam radiation therapy to the tumor in 28 fractions. Capecitabine and gefitinib were administered throughout the radiation course. Following completion, patients were restaged and considered for resection. Primary end points included determination of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and a phase II dose; secondary end points included determination of non-DLTs and preliminary radiographic and pathologic response rates. RESULTS: Ten patients were entered in the pancreatic study and six in the rectal study. DLT was seen in six of 10 patients in the pancreatic study and two of six patients in the rectal study. The primary DLT in both studies was diarrhea. Two patients developed arterial thrombi. CONCLUSION: The combination of gefitinib, capecitabine, and radiation in pancreatic and rectal cancer patients resulted in significant toxicity. A recommended phase II dose was not determined in either of our studies. Further investigation with this combination should be approached with caution.

Successful desensitization to oxaliplatin.

OBJECTIVE: To report the successful desensitization of a patient to oxaliplatin utilizing an 8-hour desensitization regimen in a controlled environment. CASE SUMMARY: A 53-year-old white woman with metastatic colon cancer was receiving oxaliplatin, bevacizumab, and capecitabine every 2 weeks, with a partial response to therapy. On her fifth cycle of this regimen, she experienced diaphoresis, hypotension, nausea, abdominal cramping, and coryza. According to the Naranjo probability scale, oxaliplatin, and not bevacizumab, was the probable cause of the hypersensitivity reaction. The woman continued therapy with capecitabine and bevacizumab, resulting in stable disease. Due to her initial response to the oxaliplatin-based regimen, it was decided to attempt desensitization to oxaliplatin in a controlled, inpatient environment. An 8-hour desensitization schedule was employed, and the patient successfully completed an additional 3 cycles with full-dose oxaliplatin. DISCUSSION: Hypersensitivity reactions to platinum-containing compounds are well described and potentially life threatening. With expanded use of oxaliplatin in various malignancies, an increased number of hypersensitivity reactions will likely be reported. Patients with previous hypersensitivity reactions to carboplatin are at risk for similar reactions to oxaliplatin. We achieved successful desensitization for oxaliplatin using increased concentrations of the drug over an 8-hour period concomitant with oral and intravenous corticosteroids and histamine blockers. CONCLUSIONS: Hypersensitivity reactions to platinum compounds may result in discontinuation of active therapies in patients with metastatic disease. Desensitization to oxaliplatin is possible utilizing this approach.

Targeted therapy of colorectal cancer: clinical experience with bevacizumab.

Advanced colorectal cancer remains an urgent health concern, despite improvements in systemic chemotherapy. Targeted therapeutics promise effective tumor therapy with minimal side effects. Angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels) is essential for tumor growth and metastasis and may be an ideal target in the search for new antineoplastic agents. Vascular endothelial growth factor is one of the best characterized of the proangiogenic growth factors that regulate angiogenesis and is a logical target in colorectal cancer therapy. Bevacizumab (Avastin; Genentech Inc.; South San Francisco, CA), a humanized murine monoclonal antibody directed at vascular endothelial growth factor, is being evaluated in the treatment of various types of cancer. It has shown promising efficacy in phase II clinical trials in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Addition of bevacizumab at a dose of 5 mg/kg to chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin) resulted in a higher objective response rate (40% versus 17%), longer time to disease progression (9.0 versus 5.2 months), and longer median survival time (21.5 versus 13.8 months). Hypertension and thrombosis were the principal safety concerns, but were manageable. Further phase II/III studies of bevacizumab, administered with 5-fluorouracil plus leucovorin, with or without irinotecan and/or oxaliplatin, in colorectal cancer, are under way.