Chemotherapy and biologic use in the routine management of metastatic colorectal cancer in Australia: is clinical practice following the evidence?

BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence on the optimal use of chemotherapy and biologics in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer should impact management in routine care. Recent studies have demonstrated benefits for initial triplet chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan, FOLFOXIRI) and for initial treatment with an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi) in patients with a RAS wild-type tumour and a left-sided primary tumour. AIM: To explore evolving pattern of metastatic colorectal cancer care over time in Australia. METHODS: We analysed data from the Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer registry. RESULTS: From July 2009 to December 2017, 2552 metastatic colorectal cancer patients were entered into the Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer registry. Of 1585 patients who initially underwent chemotherapy, treatment was with a doublet in 76%. FOLFOXIRI was given to 22 patients (1.4%), mostly young patients and those with potentially resectable disease. Along with first-line chemotherapy, 61% received bevacizumab, while 3.3% received an EGFRi, predominantly over the last 2 years. Within the KRAS wild-type left-sided tumour cohort, EGFRi use increased from 9% in 2015 to 37% in 2017. Across treatment sites, there was a wide variation in the utilisation of FOLFOXIRI and EGFRi therapy; bevacizumab use was more consistent. A clear impact on survival outcomes from these regimens is not evident, potentially due to multiple confounders. CONCLUSION: Doublet chemotherapy + bevacizumab remains the dominant initial strategy, with limited uptake of triplet chemotherapy and of EGFRi. Potential explanations include uncertainty about the significance of post hoc analyses for EGFRi and concerns regarding adverse events for both strategies.

Patient demographics and management landscape of metastatic colorectal cancer in the third-line setting: Real-world data in an australian population.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer and second leading cause of cancer mortality in Australia, thus carrying a significant disease burden. AIMS: This analysis aims to explore real-world treatment landscape of metastatic colorectal cancer in the third-line setting. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed treatment of recurrent and advanced colorectal cancer (TRACC) registry database from 2009 onwards. Patients treated with palliative intent who progressed after two lines of therapies were included. One treatment line was defined as any combination of systemic therapy given until progression. RESULTS: Out of 1820 patients treated palliatively, 32% (590 patients) met study criteria. Of these, 43% (254 patients) proceeded to third-line therapy, equating to 14% of all metastatic patients. In KRAS mutant or unknown tumours (97 patients), fluoropyrimidine (FP)-oxaliplatin combination was the most common choice (51%), followed by FP-irinotecan (15%), trifluridine/tipiracil (11%), mono-chemotherapy (10%), regorafenib (5%) and others (7%). Majority of FP-doublet (83%) was given as rechallenge. In 157 patients with KRAS wildtype disease, monotherapy with EGFR inhibitor was most commonly used (41%), followed by EGFR inhibitor with chemotherapy (20%), FP-doublet (18%), mono-chemotherapy (6%), trifluridine/tipiracil (6%), regorafenib (1%) and others (8%). Median overall survival was 7.1 months (range 0.4-41.2), and median time on third-line treatment was 3 months (range 0.1-40). CONCLUSIONS: In real-world Australian population, treatment choices differed based on KRAS status and will likely change with the availability of newer drugs on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Survival outcomes are comparable to newer agents in clinical trials for select patients.

EUS-FNA Biopsies to Guide Precision Medicine in Pancreatic Cancer: Results of a Pilot Study to Identify KRAS Wild-Type Tumours for Targeted Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is a leading cause of cancer death and lacks effective treatment options. Diagnostic endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration (EUS-FNA) biopsies represent an appealing source of material for molecular analysis to inform targeted therapy, as they are often the only available tissue for patients presenting with PDAC irrespective of disease stage. However, EUS-FNA biopsies are typically not used to screen for precision medicine studies due to concerns about low tissue yield and quality. Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition has shown promise in clinical trials of unselected patients with advanced pancreatic cancer, but has not been prospectively tested in KRAS wild-type patients. Here, we examine the clinical utility of EUS-FNA biopsies for molecular screening of KRAS wild-type PDAC patients for targeted anti-EGFR therapy to assess the feasibility of this approach. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fresh frozen EUS-FNA or surgical biopsies from PDAC patient tumours were used to screen for KRAS mutations. Eligible patients with recurrent, locally advanced, or metastatic KRAS wild-type status who had received at least one prior line of chemotherapy were enrolled in a pilot study (ACTRN12617000540314) and treated with panitumumab at 6mg/kg intravenously every 2 weeks until progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint was 4-month progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: 275 patient biopsies were screened for KRAS mutations, which were detected in 88.3% of patient samples. 8 eligible KRAS wild-type patients were enrolled onto the interventional study between November 2017 and December 2020 and treated with panitumumab. 4-month PFS was 14.3% with no objective tumour responses observed. The only grade 3/4 treatment related toxicity observed was hypomagnesaemia. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates proof-of-principle feasibility to molecularly screen patients with pancreatic cancer for targeted therapies, and confirms diagnostic EUS-FNA biopsies as a reliable source of tumour material for molecular analysis. Single agent panitumumab was safe and tolerable but led to no objective tumour responses in this population.

Pralatrexate in relapsed/refractory T-cell lymphoma: a retrospective multicenter study.

We present a retrospective multicenter study of pralatrexate treatment outcomes in an Australian practice setting for patients with relapsed/refractory T-cell lymphoma who had failed 1+ systemic therapies, treated via a compassionate access program. Endpoints assessed included response rates, toxicities, and subsequent therapies. Progression-free survival (PFS), time to next treatment (TTNT), event-free survival (EFS), overall survival (OS), and time to best response, were assessed by Kaplan-Meier analysis. The study included 31 patients, with median age 69 years. We demonstrated ORR of 35.5% (n = 11), including 4 complete responses (13%) and 7 partial responses (23%). The predicted median OS was 10 months, with EFS of 9 months, and PFS of 9 months. Median TTNT was 8 months. Mucositis was the most commonly observed toxicity. This study - the second largest real-world cohort reported to date - underscores the importance of pralatrexate in relapsed/refractory T-cell lymphoma, as well as its acceptable toxicity profile.

Previous Bevacizumab and Efficacy of Later Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Antibodies in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Results From a Large International Registry.

BACKGROUND: The FIRE-3 [5-fluorouracil, folinic acid, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in first line treatment colorectal cancer (CRC)] study reported that first-line FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab resulted in similar progression-free survival (PFS) but improved overall survival (OS). A potential explanation is that the initial biologic agent administered in metastatic CRC (mCRC) affects later line efficacy of the other treatments. We sought to test this hypothesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We interrogated our mCRC registry (Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer) regarding treatment and outcome data for RAS wild-type patients receiving epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors (EGFRIs) in second and subsequent lines. Survival outcomes from the beginning of EGFRI use were determined as a function of previous bevacizumab use and the interval between ceasing bevacizumab and beginning EGFRI use. RESULTS: Of 2061 patients, 222 eligible patients were identified, of whom 170 (77%) had received previous bevacizumab and 52 (23%) had not. PFS and OS from the start of EGFRIs did not differ by previous bevacizumab use (3.8 vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.12; P = .81; 9.0 vs. 9.2 months; HR, 1.19; P = .48, respectively) for the whole cohort or when analyzed by the primary tumor side (HR for left side, 1.07; P = .57; HR for right side, 1.2; P = .52). PFS was significantly shorter with right-sided primary tumors when the interval between bevacizumab and EGFRI use was < 6 versus > 6 months (median, 2.2 vs. 6 months; HR, 2.23; P = .01) but not with left-sided tumors (median, 4.2 vs. 5.5 months; HR, 1.12; P = .26). CONCLUSION: Previous bevacizumab use had no effect on the activity of subsequent EGFRIs. The apparent effect of time between biologic agents in right-sided tumors might reflect patient selection.

Impact of Primary Tumor Site on Bevacizumab Efficacy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: With an ever-increasing focus on personalized medicine, all factors known to affect treatment response need to be considered when defining optimal therapy for individual patients. While the prognostic impact of primary tumor site on colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes is established, emerging data suggest potential differences in response to biologic therapies. We studied the impact of tumor site on bevacizumab efficacy in patients with metastatic CRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed data of patients in an Australian prospective multicenter metastatic CRC (mCRC) registry who received first-line chemotherapy. Tumor site was defined as right colon, cecum to transverse; left colon, splenic flexure to rectosigmoid; and rectum. Kaplan-Meier and Cox models were used for survival analyses. RESULTS: Of 926 patients, 297 had right colon, 354 left colon, and 275 rectum primary disease. Median age was 68.6, 65.9, and 63.3 years, respectively (P = .001). Right colon disease was significantly associated with intraperitoneal spread (P < .0001), while left colon and rectum disease preferentially metastasized to the liver and lungs, respectively (P < .0001 in both settings). A total of 636 patients (68.7%) received bevacizumab. Progression-free survival was superior for bevacizumab-treated patients in all groups but appeared greatest in right colon disease (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.60; P ≤ .001). Overall survival was longest in patients with disease of the rectum, followed by left colon and right colon (median, 26.2, 23.6, and 18.2 months, respectively; P = .0004). CONCLUSION: Tumor site appears to be prognostic in mCRC, with rectum and right colon disease associated with the best and worst outcomes, respectively. Patients who received bevacizumab in addition to chemotherapy had superior outcomes, with the effect appearing greatest in patients with right colon disease.

Multicenter randomized, open-label phase II trial of sequential erlotinib and gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy as first-line therapy in elderly or ECOG PS two patients with advanced NSCLC.

AIM: The potential beneficial interaction between erlotinib and chemotherapy may require sequencing or pharmacodynamic separation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerance of sequential erlotinib and gemcitabine versus gemcitabine monotherapy as first-line therapy in elderly or ECOG PS-2 patients with advanced non-small cell lung carcinoma. METHODS: The primary objective of this multicenter randomized Phase II study was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives were overall response rate (ORR), disease control rate, response duration, overall survival and safety. Patients were randomized to either gemcitabine (1250 mg/m2 Day 1, 8 q28 days) followed by erlotinib (150 mg/day on day 15 through day 28), (EG-arm), or gemcitabine monotherapy (1000 mg/m2 Days 1, 8, 15 q28 days), (G-arm) for up to six cycles. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were recruited, 28 G-arm and 26 EG-arm. Overall, efficacy results were not significantly different between study arms. Median PFS and ORR for the G- versus EG-arms were 8.0 versus 10.3 weeks (hazard ratio 1.3; 95% confidence interval [0.63;2.68]; P=0.48) and 7.1 versus 3.8 percent respectively (difference -3.30; 95% confidence interval [-17.5;10.9]). The majority of adverse events (AEs) in both arms were Grade 1-2. The commonest AEs recorded in the EG- and G-arms were rash-like events (65 percent) and nausea (42 percent) respectively. Four patients (17 percent) in EG-arm and five (16 percent) in G-arm experienced at least one treatment-related serious AE. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients with non-small cell lung carcinoma at ECOG PS-2 or aged ≥70 years derived no efficacy advantage from sequential erlotinib in combination with gemcitabine relative to gemcitabine alone. No unexpected safety findings were noted.

Novel quality indicators for metastatic colorectal cancer management identify significant variations in these measures across treatment centers in Australia.

AIMS: Defining multidisciplinary quality of care indicators (QCIs) for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) could improve understanding of variations in routine practice care. This may identify areas of below-average performance, which could then be addressed by clinicians to improve the quality of care delivered. This study aimed to define a panel of QCIs in mCRC and, based on these QCIs, to evaluate quality of care across multiple Australian sites. METHODS: A panel of clinicians with expertise in colorectal cancer defined evidence-based or best practice-based QCIs relevant to the routine multidisciplinary management of mCRC patients through structured consensus discussion. Related data were extracted from the Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer (TRACC) registry, a prospectively maintained database recording comprehensive details on consecutive mCRC patients across multiple Australian hospitals. Variations in QCIs across sites were explored. RESULTS: Of 13 QCIs defined, data related to 10 were reliably extracted from TRACC. Analysis of data on 1276 patients across 10 sites demonstrated low rates of screening for hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer in young patients and significant variation in surveillance-detected recurrences, lung resection rates and palliative chemotherapy use. Exploratory analyses suggested correlation between liver resection rates and survival. CONCLUSIONS: We have defined a novel set of mCRC QCIs and have demonstrated wide variation in the quality of care of mCRC across multiple Australian sites. With further validation to confirm a direct correlation between QCI and patient outcomes, these QCIs could be applied to improve the quality of care received by all mCRC patients.

Comparison of toxicity and outcomes of concurrent radiotherapy with carboplatin/paclitaxel or cisplatin/etoposide in stage III non-small cell lung cancer.

Concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) has become the standard of care for patients with unresectable stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The comparative merits of two widely used regimens: carboplatin/paclitaxel (PC) and cisplatin/etoposide (PE), each with concurrent radiotherapy, remain largely undefined. Records for consecutive patients with stage III NSCLC treated with PC or PE and ≥60 Gy chest radiotherapy between 2000 and 2011 were reviewed for outcomes and toxicity. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox modeling with the Wald test. Comparison across groups was done using the student's t and chi-squared tests. Seventy-five (PC: 44, PE: 31) patients were analyzed. PC patients were older (median 71 vs. 63 years; P = 0.0006). Other characteristics were comparable between groups. With PE, there was significantly increased grade ≥3 neutropenia (39% vs. 14%, P = 0.024) and thrombocytopenia (10% vs. 0%, P = 0.039). Radiation pneumonitis was more common with PC (66% vs. 38%, P = 0.033). Five treatment-related deaths occurred (PC: 3 vs. PE: 2, P = 1.000). With a median follow-up of 51.6 months, there were no significant differences in relapse-free survival (median PC 12.0 vs. PE 11.5 months, P = 0.700) or overall survival (median PC 20.7 vs. PE 13.7 months; P = 0.989). In multivariate analyses, no factors predicted for improved survival for either regimen. PC was more likely to be used in elderly patients. Despite this, PC resulted in significantly less hematological toxicity but achieved similar survival outcomes as PE. PC is an acceptable CCRT regimen, especially in older patients with multiple comorbidities.