Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (AtezoTRIBE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have not shown clinical benefit to patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who had proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) or microsatellite stable (MSS) tumours in previous studies. Both an active combination chemotherapy (FOLFOXIRI; fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) and bevacizumab seem able to increase the immunogenicity of pMMR or MSS tumours. We aimed to provide preliminary evidence of benefit from the addition of the anti-PD-L1 agent atezolizumab to first-line FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: AtezoTRIBE was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study of patients (aged 18-70 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status of 0-2 and aged 71-75 years with an ECOG performance status of 0) with histologically confirmed, unresectable, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer and adequate organ function, who were recruited from 22 oncology centres in Italy. Patients were stratified according to centre, ECOG performance status, primary tumour site, and previous adjuvant therapy. A randomisation system incorporating a minimisation algorithm randomly assigned (1:2) patients via a masked web-based allocation procedure to two groups: the control group received first-line FOLFOXIRI (intravenous 165 mg/m2 irinotecan, 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin, 200 mg/m2 leucovorin, and 3200 mg/m2 fluorouracil as a 48 h infusion) plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg intravenously), and the atezolizumab group received the same regimen plus atezolizumab (840 mg intravenously). Combination treatments were administered up to eight 14-day cycles followed by maintenance with fluorouracil and leucovorin plus bevacizumab with or without atezolizumab, according to randomisation group, until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, or consent withdrawal. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed by the intention-to-treat principle. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. The study recruitment is completed. The trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03721653. FINDINGS: Between Nov 30, 2018, and Feb 26, 2020, 218 patients were randomly assigned and received treatment (73 in the control group and 145 in the atezolizumab group). At the data cutoff (Aug 1, 2021), median follow-up was 19·9 months (IQR 17·3-23·9). Median progression-free survival was 13·1 months (80% CI 12·5-13·8) in the atezolizumab group and 11·5 months (10·0-12·6) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·69 [80% CI 0·56-0·85]; p=0·012; adjusted HR 0·70 [80% CI 0·57-0·87]; log-rank test p=0·018). The most frequent all-cause grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (59 [42%] of 142 patients in the atezolizumab group vs 26 [36%] of 72 patients in the control group), diarrhoea (21 [15%] vs nine [13%]), and febrile neutropenia (14 [10%] vs seven [10%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 39 (27%) patients in the atezolizumab group and in 19 (26%) patients in the control group. Two (1%) treatment-related deaths (due to acute myocardial infarction and bronchopulmonary haemorrhage) were reported in the atezolizumab group; none were reported in the control group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of atezolizumab to first-line FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is safe and improved progression-free survival in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: GONO Foundation, ARCO Foundation, F Hoffmann-La Roche, and Roche.

The Clinical Value of Nutritional Care before and during Active Cancer Treatment.

Malnutrition and muscle wasting are frequently reported in cancer patients, either linked to the tumor itself or caused by oncologic therapies. Understanding the value of nutritional care during cancer treatment remains crucial. In fact, cancer-associated sarcopenia plays a key role in determining higher rates of morbidity, mortality, treatment-induced toxicities, prolonged hospitalizations and reduced adherence to anticancer treatment, worsening quality of life and survival. Planning baseline screening to intercept nutritional troubles earlier, organizing timely reassessments, and providing adequate counselling and dietary support, healthcare professional may positively interfere with this process and improve patients' overall outcomes during the whole disease course. Several screening tools have been proposed for this purpose. Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS), Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA), Patient Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) are the most common studied. Interestingly, second-level tools including skeletal muscle index (SMI) and bioelectric impedance analysis (BIA) provide a more precise assessment of body composition, even if they are more complex. However, nutritional assessment is not currently used in clinical practice and procedures must be standardized in order to improve the efficacy of standard chemotherapy, targeted agents or even checkpoint inhibitors that is potentially linked with the patients' nutritional status. In the present review, we will discuss about malnutrition and the importance of an early nutritional assessment during chemotherapy and treatment with novel checkpoint inhibitors, in order to prevent treatment-induced toxicities and to improve survival outcomes.

Prognostic impact of immune-microenvironment in colorectal liver metastases resected after triplets plus a biologic agent: A pooled analysis of five prospective trials.

BACKGROUND: Immune-contexture of tumour microenvironment (TME) influences prognosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients and can be altered by cytotoxic and targeted agents. Limited data are available regarding the immune-TME of CRC after treatment. METHODS: An extensive immunohistochemistry evaluation of immunological parameters on tumour cells and TME of colorectal liver metastases from 106 patients who underwent secondary resection, after receiving triplets FOLFOXIRI (5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan) or COI (capecitabine, oxaliplatin and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab (N = 59) or cetuximab (N = 47) in five first-line no-profit clinical trials was performed. RESULTS: No substantial differences were reported in immunological parameters according to administered targeted agent, RAS/BRAF mutational status and histopathological or Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours response. Stromal expression of Cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) (p = 0.002), Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) (p = 0.003) and Programmed cell death protein 1 (PD1) (p = 0.002) were independent prognostic factors for longer relapse-free survival (RFS) at multivariate analysis with a positive trend for post-resection overall survival (OS). Patients whose metastases expressed stromal COX-2, HLA and PD1 (inflamed-score positive) reported longer RFS (25.5 versus 9.8 months; p < 0.001) and post-resection OS (64.3 versus 37.7 months; p = 0.003) as compared with others. In addition, patients with higher expression of CD4 and CD8 T-cells in tumour core and invasive margin (CD4/CD8-score) showed a better post-resection OS (not-reached versus 41.6 months; p = 0.032). A combined score of inflamed-score and CD4/CD8-score (combo-score) showed a clear prognostic role. CONCLUSIONS: The present study emphasises the role of immune-TME as independent predictor of survival in patients resected after triplets plus biologic. Inflamed-, CD4/C8- and combo-scores should be confirmed as prognostic factors in further studies.

Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab and reintroduction after progression versus mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (TRIBE2): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The triplet FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab showed improved outcomes for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, compared with FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab. However, the actual benefit of the upfront exposure to the three cytotoxic drugs compared with a preplanned sequential strategy of doublets was not clear, and neither was the feasibility or efficacy of therapies after disease progression. We aimed to compare a preplanned strategy of upfront FOLFOXIRI followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression versus a sequence of mFOLFOX6 (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) and FOLFIRI doublets, in combination with bevacizumab. METHODS: TRIBE2 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised study of patients aged 18-75 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2, with unresectable, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, recruited from 58 Italian oncology units. Patients were stratified according to centre, ECOG performance status, primary tumour location, and previous adjuvant chemotherapy. A randomisation system incorporating a minimisation algorithm was used to randomly assign patients (1:1) via a masked web-based allocation procedure to two different treatment strategies. In the control group, patients received first-line mFOLFOX6 (85 mg/m2 of intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg intravenously over 30 min) followed by FOLFIRI (180 mg/m2 of intravenous irinotecan over 120 min concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin; 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab after disease progression. In the experimental group, patients received FOLFOXIRI (165 mg/m2 of intravenous irinotecan over 60 min; 85 mg/m2 intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 3200 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression. Combination treatments were repeated every 14 days for up to eight cycles followed by fluorouracil and leucovorin (at the same dose administered at the last induction cycle) plus bevacizumab maintenance until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, or consent withdrawal. Patients and investigators were not masked. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival 2, defined as the time from randomisation to disease progression on any treatment given after first disease progression, or death, analysed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. Study recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02339116. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2015, and May 15, 2017, 679 patients were randomly assigned and received treatment (340 in the control group and 339 in the experimental group). At data cut-off (July 30, 2019) median follow-up was 35·9 months (IQR 30·1-41·4). Median progression-free survival 2 was 19·2 months (95% CI 17·3-21·4) in the experimental group and 16·4 months (15·1-17·5) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74, 95% CI 0·63-0·88; p=0·0005). During the first-line treatment, the most frequent of all-cause grade 3-4 events were diarrhoea (57 [17%] vs 18 [5%]), neutropenia (168 [50%] vs 71 [21%]), and arterial hypertension (25 [7%] vs 35 [10%]) in the experimental group compared with the control group. Serious adverse events occurred in 84 (25%) patients in the experimental group and in 56 (17%) patients in the control group. Eight treatment-related deaths were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions, two intestinal perforations, two sepsis, one myocardial infarction, and one bleeding) and four in the control group (two occlusions, one perforation, and one pulmonary embolism). After first disease progression, no substantial differences in the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported between the control and experimental groups, with the exception of neurotoxicity, which was only reported in the experimental group (six [5%] of 132 patients). Serious adverse events after disease progression occurred in 20 (15%) patients in the experimental group and 25 (12%) in the control group. Three treatment-related deaths after first disease progression were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions and one sepsis) and four in the control group (one intestinal occlusion, one intestinal perforation, one cerebrovascular event, and one sepsis). INTERPRETATION: Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression seems to be a preferable therapeutic strategy to sequential administration of chemotherapy doublets, in combination with bevacizumab, for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer selected according to the study criteria. FUNDING: The GONO Cooperative Group, the ARCO Foundation, and F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Cancer-related malnutrition management: A survey among Italian Oncology Units and Patients' Associations.

Attitudes toward cancer-related malnutrition vary considerably among oncologists and nutritional support is often not handled according to the available guidelines. The Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM), Italian Society of Artificial Nutrition and Metabolism (SINPE), Italian Federation of Volunteer-based Cancer Organizations (FAVO), and Fondazione AIOM Working Group conducted a national web-based survey addressed to all Italian Oncology Units referees and Italian Cancer Patients Associations. The aim was to investigate the current management of malnutrition and views on nutritional care among oncologists and patients. One hundred and seventy-one (51.6%) of the 331 registered Italian Oncology Units and 75 (38.5%) of the 195 FAVO local communities participated in the survey. Nutritional assessment and support were integrated into patient care from diagnosis for 35% of Oncology Unit referees and 15% of FAVO associates. According to 42% of oncologists, nutritional assessment was carried out only after patients requested it, while it was not performed at all for 45% of FAVO associates. Almost 60% of patient affiliates were not aware of clinical referrals for home artificial nutrition management. However, for almost all responders, the evaluation of nutritional status was considered crucial in predicting tolerance to anticancer treatment. Although malnutrition was considered a limiting factor in oncology treatments by both oncologists and patients, nutritional care practices still appear largely inappropriate. Attitudes differ between oncologists and patients, the latter reporting a more dissatisfied picture. Improving nutritional care in oncology remains a challenging task.

Nutritional Therapy in Cancer Patients Receiving Chemoradiotherapy: Should We Need Stronger Recommendations to Act for Improving Outcomes?

One of the challenges during chemotherapy and radiotherapy is to complete the planned cycles and doses without dose-limiting toxicity. Growing evidence clearly demonstrates the relationship between dose-limiting toxicity and low muscle mass. Moreover, malnutrition leads to low performance status, impaired quality of life, unplanned hospital admissions, and reduced survival. In the past, the lack of clear and authoritative recommendations and guidelines has meant that oncologists have not always fully appreciated the importance of nutritional therapy in patients receiving anticancer treatments. Therefore, collaboration between oncologists and clinical nutrition specialists needs to be urgently improved. Recent guidelines from scientific societies and practical recommendations by inter-society consensus documents can be summarized as follows: 1) timely nutritional therapy should be carefully considered if patients undergoing anticancer treatments are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition due to inadequate oral intake; 2) if oral intake is inadequate despite counseling and oral nutritional supplements, supplemental enteral nutrition or, if this is not sufficient or feasible, parenteral nutrition should be considered; 3) home artificial nutrition should be prescribed and regularly monitored using defined protocols developed between oncologists and clinical nutrition specialists; 4) appropriate nutritional management in the context of simultaneous care should become a guaranteed right for all patients with cancer. The purpose of this review is to provide oncologists with an overview of the aims and current evidence about nutrition in oncology, together with updated practical and concise recommendations on the application of nutritional therapy in cancer patients receiving chemoradiotherapy.

Second-line treatment efficacy and toxicity in older vs. non-older patients with advanced gastric cancer: A multicentre real-world study.

OBJECTIVES: Although gastric cancer (GC) incidence rises with age, older patients are poorly represented in clinical trials, whose results are therefore difficult to translate into standard management of older patients. Purpose of this study was to compare clinico-pathological features and survival outcomes between older and non-older patients with advanced GC treated with at least two chemotherapy lines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinico-pathological characteristics, basal values, and treatment data of older (≥70 years at second-line start) and non-older patients were compared using chi-square test or 2-tailed Fisher exact test. The Kaplan-Meier estimation was used to calculate progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), which were examined by log-rank test. RESULTS: Older patients represented 31.8% of the population (N = 868). Intestinal type was more frequent in older patients (P = .02). Poorly differentiated tumours were more often observed in non-older patients (P = .009). At stage IV diagnosis, the rate of liver metastases was higher in older patients (P = .02), while peritoneal spread was more represented in non-older patients (P = .002). Although older patients were more often treated with monotherapy (P = .001), they had similar PFS (HR 0.86, 95%CI 0.71-1.03, P = .102) and OS (HR 0.82, 95%CI 0.65-1.02, P = .08) compared to the non-older counterpart. No statistical differences were observed in treatment-related adverse events, hospital admissions, or further treatment lines between age groups. CONCLUSION: In our large cohort study, despite some differences in tumour characteristics and treatment intensity, no survival difference was found between older and non-older patients with advanced GC treated with at least two chemotherapy lines. Incidence of adverse events was similar between age groups.

Multicenter prospective study of angiogenesis polymorphism validation in HCC patients treated with sorafenib. An INNOVATE study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Although sorafenib is the upfront standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), molecular predictors of efficacy have not been identified yet. In the ALICE-1 study, rs2010963 of VEGF-A and VEGF-C proved to be independent predictive factors for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in multivariate analysis. The ALICE-1 study results were confirmed in the ALICE-2 study, in which VEGF and VEGFR SNPs were analyzed. In the ePHAS study we analyzed the SNPs of eNOS. In univariate analysis, patients homozygous for an eNOS haplotype (HT1: T-4b at eNOS-786/eNOS VNTR) had significantly shorter median PFS and OS than those with other haplotypes. These data were confirmed in the validation set. METHODS: This nonpharmacological, interventional, prospective multicenter study aims to determine whether eNOS, HIF-1, VEGF, Ang2 and VEGFR polymorphisms play a role in predicting the objective response rate, PFS, and OS of advanced HCC patients treated with sorafenib. The study will involve 160 advanced HCC patients with Child-Pugh class A disease. The primary aim is to validate the prognostic or predictive roles of eNOS, Ang2, HIF-1, VEGF and VEGFR polymorphisms in relation to the clinical outcome (PFS) of HCC patients treated with sorafenib. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our data may suggest that polymorphism analysis of the VEGF, VEGFR-2, HIF and eNOS genes can identify HCC patients who are more likely to benefit from sorafenib.

Metformin and insulin impact on clinical outcome in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma receiving sorafenib: Validation study and biological rationale.

PURPOSE: In 2015, we published a study on a small series of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated chronically with metformin for type II diabetes mellitus (DM2) who showed a poorer response to sorafenib. The aim of the present study was to validate the prognostic significance of metformin in HCC patients treated with sorafenib, providing a biological rationale for the mechanism of resistance to sorafenib in patients on chronic metformin therapy, and to clarify the role of sirtuin-3 (SIRT-3), a protein involved in metabolic diseases and acknowledged as a tumour suppressor in HCC, in this resistance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analysed 279 patients consecutively treated with sorafenib for the clinical analysis. Of the 86 (30%) patients with DM2, 52 (19%) were on chronic treatment with metformin and 34 (12%) with insulin. We included 43 patients with HCC for the biological study: 19 (44.1%) were diabetic and 14 (73.7%) of these received metformin for DM2. SIRT-3 expression was investigated by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) samples. RESULTS: In HCC patients undergoing chronic treatment with metformin, the use of sorafenib was associated with poor progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) (1.9 and 6.6 months, respectively) compared to 3.7 months and 10.8 months, respectively, for patients without DM2 and 8.4 months and 16.6 months, respectively, for patients on insulin (P < .0001). We also observed that SIRT-3 protein expression was significantly higher in patients treated with metformin than in those not taking this medication (65% versus 25%, respectively) (P = .013). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings could be attributed to increased tumour aggressiveness and resistance to sorafenib caused by chronic treatment with metformin.

Risk and outcomes of chemotherapy-induced diarrhea (CID) among patients with colorectal cancer receiving multi-cycle chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Diarrhea is a common toxicity of chemotherapy, but the practice of reporting only severe grades (≥ 3) in clinical trials results in misleading conclusions of significance. Epidemiology remains poorly described, and effects of multi-cycle regimens have not been investigated. To better understand the risks, symptom burden and consequences of CID, we studied patients receiving chemotherapy for colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: One hundred and fourteen patients receiving FOLFOX (95 patients, 530 cycles), FOLFOX + monoclonal antibodies (10 patients, 49 cycles) or FOLFIRI (9 patients, 50 cycles) were enrolled. CID was identified from diaries at baseline and daily during up to 8 chemotherapy cycles using supplemental questions on the Oral Mucositis Daily Questionnaire, a valid tool for collecting patient-reported outcomes of regimen-related mucosal injury. Patients scored CID severity from 0 "none" to 10 "worst possible," and quantity from "little" to "severe" on a 5-point scale. Quality of life was measured using the FACT-G, and fatigue using the FACIT fatigue scale. RESULTS: CID occurred in 89% of patients on FOLFIRI, 50% on FOLFOX + monoclonal antibodies and 56% on FOLFOX alone. The risk of a first episode was highest during Cycle 1 (35 %) and dropped to <10% during Cycles 3-5. Patients with CID reported poorer quality of life scores than those without CID (77.1 vs 80.7). CONCLUSIONS: Diarrhea occurs more commonly than typically appreciated during chemotherapy for CRC. Risk is highest during first exposure, suggesting variable susceptibility. Identification of this high-risk subgroup for prophylaxis could improve the quality of life.

Critical appraisal of ramucirumab (IMC-1121B) for cancer treatment: from benchside to clinical use.

Although antiangiogenic treatments have produced milestone advances in the treatment of several diseases, and have significantly extended the median survival of cancer patients, these agents share some weaknesses, including a limited impact on the overall cure rate, a fleeting effect because of redundant pathways or early appearance of resistance mechanisms, and the lack of predictive factors for treatment selection. Recent data suggest that antibodies targeting the vascular endothelial growth factor axis exert their activity through the inhibition of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-2 phosphorylation, which has a pivotal role in the neoangiogenic process. Ramucirumab, a fully humanized monoclonal antibody specifically directed against the extracellular domain of the receptor, administered intravenously every 2 or 3 weeks, is emerging as a novel antiangiogenic opportunity. Starting with preclinical data and early clinical results, this concise review focuses on the development of the novel compound across multiple cancers (including gastrointestinal malignancies, breast cancer, lung carcinoma, and genitourinary tumors), and presents available data from randomized phase II and phase III trials. REGARD was the first phase III study to report on the efficacy of single-agent ramucirumab in patients with advanced cancer. Many other ongoing phase III trials are testing the efficacy of this interesting antiangiogenic compound as a single agent or in combination with chemotherapy in different cancer types.

Adjuvant PEFG (cisplatin, epirubicin, 5-fluorouracil, gemcitabine) or gemcitabine followed by chemoradiation in pancreatic cancer: a randomized phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Information from randomized trials on the role of combination chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of pancreatic adenocarcinoma is limited. This randomized phase II trial aimed to identify the most promising regimen warranting phase III evaluation. METHODS: Therapy-naive patients, age 18-75 years, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS)>60, gross total resection of stage IB-III pancreatic adenocarcinoma, stratified for center and surgical margins, were randomly assigned to receive either gemcitabine 1 g/m2 weekly on days 1, 8, and 15 (arm A) or the PEFG regimen (cisplatin and epirubicin 40 mg/m2, day 1; gemcitabine 600 mg/m2, days 1, 8; 5-fluorouracil 200 mg/m2 daily, days 1-28) (arm B). Chemotherapy was administered every 4 weeks for 3 months and followed by irradiation concurrent to continuous infusion of 5-fluorouracil 250 mg/m2 daily. Primary endpoint was the probability of being disease-free at 1 year from surgery. Assuming P0=35% and P1=55%, α=.05 and ß=.10, the study was to enroll 51 patients per arm. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were randomized; 100 were eligible (arm A: 51; arm B: 49). Baseline characteristic (A/B) were: Median age was 61/60 years; 75% had KPS>80 75/76%; 36% grade 3 tumor 29/43%, 79% stage IIB/III 75/84%, 31% R1 resection 35/29%. Survival figures (A/B) were: Median disease-free survival was 11.7 and 15.2 months; 1-year disease-free survival 49.0% (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 35-63%) and 69.4% (95% CI 56-83%); median survival 24.8 and 28.9 months. Combination chemotherapy produced more hematological toxicity without relevant differences in nonhematological toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: The 4-drug regimen deserves further assessment in resectable pancreatic cancer.