Preliminary tolerance analysis of adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients after resection of stage III colon cancer from the PRODIGE 34-FFCD randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Colon adenocarcinoma mainly occurs in older patients. Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy improved disease-free survival after stage III colon cancer resection, but this improvement was not demonstrated in older patients. METHODS: The purpose of ADAGE-PRODIGE 34, randomized open phase III trial is to compare in patients over 70 years oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine with fluoropyrimidine alone in fit patients (Group 1) and fluoropyrimidine with observation in frail patients (Group 2) after resection of stage III colon adenocarcinoma. We report a preliminary tolerance analysis on 50% of the first patients enrolled. RESULTS: The analysis was conducted on 491 patients (378 in Group 1 and 113 in Group 2). Patients in Group 2 were older and showed more frailty criteria than those in Group 1. Cumulative grade 3-5 toxicities were more frequent in patients treated with oxaliplatin in Group 1 or with fluoropyrimidine in Group 2 than in patients treated with fluoropyrimidine in Group 1. At least one course was deferred in more than half of the patients in all groups. Early treatment cessation was more frequent in Group 2. CONCLUSION: No safety concerns were raised for the continuation of accrual. The frailty criteria distribution suggests that the investigator's evaluation for group allocation was accurate.

Five-Year Outcomes of FOLFIRINOX vs Gemcitabine as Adjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Early results at 3 years from the PRODIGE 24/Canadian Cancer Trials Group PA6 randomized clinical trial showed survival benefits with adjuvant treatment with modified FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; mature data are now available. Objective: To report 5-year outcomes and explore prognostic factors for overall survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial was conducted at 77 hospitals in France and Canada and included patients aged 18 to 79 years with histologically confirmed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had undergone complete macroscopic (R0/R1) resection within 3 to 12 weeks before randomization. Patients were included from April 16, 2012, through October 3, 2016. The cutoff date for this analysis was June 28, 2021. Interventions: A total of 493 patients were randomized (1:1) to receive treatment with modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, 85 mg/m2 of body surface area; irinotecan, 150-180 mg/m2; leucovorin, 400 mg/m2; and fluorouracil, 2400 mg/m2, every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2, days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks) as adjuvant therapy for 24 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, metastasis-free survival, and cancer-specific survival. Prognostic factors for overall survival were determined. Results: Of the 493 patients, 216 (43.8%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 62.0 (8.9) years. At a median of 69.7 months' follow-up, 367 disease-free survival events were observed. In patients receiving chemotherapy with modified FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine, median disease-free survival was 21.4 months (95% CI, 17.5-26.7) vs 12.8 months (95% CI, 11.6-15.2) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.82; P < .001) and 5-year disease-free survival was 26.1% vs 19.0%; median overall survival was 53.5 months (95% CI, 43.5-58.4) vs 35.5 months (95% CI, 30.1-40.3) (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.85; P = .001), and 5-year overall survival was 43.2% vs 31.4%; median metastasis-free survival was 29.4 months (95% CI, 21.4-40.1) vs 17.7 months (95% CI, 14.0-21.2) (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.80; P < .001); and median cancer-specific survival was 54.7 months (95% CI, 45.8-68.4) vs 36.3 months (95% CI, 30.5-43.9) (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.82; P < .001). Multivariable analysis identified modified FOLFIRINOX, age, tumor grade, tumor staging, and larger-volume center as significant favorable prognostic factors for overall survival. Shorter relapse delay was an adverse prognostic factor. Conclusions and Relevance: The final 5-year results from the PRODIGE 24/Canadian Cancer Trials Group PA6 randomized clinical trial indicate that adjuvant treatment with modified FOLFIRINOX yields significantly longer survival than gemcitabine in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Trial Registration: EudraCT: 2011-002026-52; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01526135.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX and preoperative chemoradiotherapy for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (UNICANCER-PRODIGE 23): a multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer with chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy controls local disease, but distant metastases remain common. We aimed to assess whether administering neoadjuvant chemotherapy before preoperative chemoradiotherapy could reduce the risk of distant recurrences. METHODS: We did a phase 3, open-label, multicentre, randomised trial at 35 hospitals in France. Eligible patients were adults aged 18-75 years and had newly diagnosed, biopsy-proven, rectal adenocarcinoma staged cT3 or cT4 M0, with a WHO performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group or standard-of-care group, using an independent web-based system by minimisation method stratified by centre, extramural extension of the tumour into perirectal fat according to MRI, tumour location, and stage. Investigators and participants were not masked to treatment allocation. The neoadjuvant chemotherapy group received neoadjuvant chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 intravenously every 14 days for 6 cycles), chemoradiotherapy (50 Gy during 5 weeks and 800 mg/m2 concurrent oral capecitabine twice daily for 5 days per week), total mesorectal excision, and adjuvant chemotherapy (3 months of modified FOLFOX6 [intravenous oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 and leucovorin 400 mg/m2, followed by intravenous 400 mg/m2 fluorouracil bolus and then continuous infusion at a dose of 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h every 14 days for six cycles] or capecitabine [1250 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14 every 21 days]). The standard-of-care group received chemoradiotherapy, total mesorectal excision, and adjuvant chemotherapy (for 6 months). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population at 3 years. Safety analyses were done on treated patients. This trial was registered with EudraCT (2011-004406-25) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01804790) and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between June 5, 2012, and June 26, 2017, 461 patients were randomly assigned to either the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (n=231) or the standard-of-care group (n=230). At a median follow-up of 46·5 months (IQR 35·4-61·6), 3-year disease-free survival rates were 76% (95% CI 69-81) in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and 69% (62-74) in the standard-of-care group (stratified hazard ratio 0·69, 95% CI 0·49-0·97; p=0·034). During neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (38 [17%] of 225 patients) and diarrhoea (25 [11%] of 226). During chemoradiotherapy, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event was lymphopenia (59 [28%] of 212 in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group vs 67 [30%] of 226 patients in the standard-of-care group). During adjuvant chemotherapy, the most common grade 3-4 adverse events were lymphopenia (18 [11%] of 161 in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group vs 42 [27%] of 155 in the standard-of-care group), neutropenia (nine [6%] of 161 vs 28 [18%] of 155), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (19 [12%] of 162 vs 32 [21%] of 155). Serious adverse events occurred in 63 (27%) of 231 participants in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and 50 (22%) of 230 patients in the standard-of-care group (p=0·167), during the whole treatment period. During adjuvant therapy, serious adverse events occurred in 18 (11%) of 163 participants in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and 36 (23%) of 158 patients in the standard-of-care group (p=0·0049). Treatment-related deaths occurred in one (<1%) of 226 patients in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group (sudden death) and two (1%) of 227 patients in the standard-of-care group (one sudden death and one myocardial infarction). INTERPRETATION: Intensification of chemotherapy using FOLFIRINOX before preoperative chemoradiotherapy significantly improved outcomes compared with preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with cT3 or cT4 M0 rectal cancer. The significantly improved disease-free survival in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and the decreased neurotoxicity indicates that the perioperative approach is more efficient and better tolerated than adjuvant chemotherapy. Therefore, the PRODIGE 23 results might change clinical practice. FUNDING: Institut National du Cancer, Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and R&D Unicancer.

Does neoadjuvant FOLFOX chemotherapy improve the prognosis of high-risk Stage II and III colon cancers? Three years' follow-up results of the PRODIGE 22 phase II randomized multicentre trial.

AIM: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy has proven valuable in locally advanced resectable colon cancer (CC) but its effect on oncological outcomes is uncertain. The aim of the present paper was to report 3-year oncological outcomes, representing the secondary endpoints of the PRODIGE 22 trial. METHOD: PRODIGE 22 was a randomized multicentre phase II trial in high-risk T3, T4 and/or N2 CC patients on CT scan. Patients were randomized between 6 months of adjuvant FOLFOX (upfront surgery) or perioperative FOLFOX (four cycles before surgery and eight cycles after; FOLFOX perioperative). In wild-type RAS patients, a third arm testing perioperative FOLFOX-cetuximab was added. The primary endpoint was the tumour regression grade. Secondary endpoints were 3-year overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS) and time to recurrence (TTR). RESULTS: Overall, 120 patients were enrolled. At interim analysis, the FOLFOX-cetuximab arm was stopped for futility. The remaining 104 patients represented our intention-to-treat population. In the perioperative group, 96% received the scheduled four neoadjuvant cycles and all but one had adjuvant FOLFOX for eight cycles. In the control arm, 38 (73%) patients received adjuvant FOLFOX. The median follow-up was 54.3 months. Three-year OS was 90.4% in both arms [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.85], 3-year DFS, RFS and TTR were, respectively, 76.8% and 69.2% (HR=0.94), 73% and 69.2% (HR = 0.86) and 82% and 72% (HR = 0.67) in the perioperative and control arms, respectively. Forest plots did not show any subgroup with significant difference for survival outcomes. No benefit from adding cetuximab was observed. CONCLUSION: Perioperative FOLFOX has no detrimental effect on long-term oncological outcomes and may be an option for some patients with locally advanced CC.

Nutrition and physical activity: French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up (SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, AFC, SFP-APA, SFNCM, AFSOS).

This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the nutrition and physical activity (PA) management in digestive oncology. This collaborative work was produced under the auspices of all French medical and surgical societies involved in digestive oncology, nutrition and supportive care. It is based on published guidelines, recent literature review and expert opinions. Recommendations are graded according to the level of evidence. Malnutrition affects more than half of patients with digestive cancers and is often underdiagnosed. It has multiple negative consequences on survival, quality of life and risk of treatment complications. Consequently, in addition to anticancer treatments, supportive care including nutritional support and PA plays a central role in the management of digestive cancers. It is crucial to detect malnutrition (diagnostic criteria updated in 2019) early, to prevent it and to act against it at all stages of the cancer and at all times of the care pathway. In this context, we proposed recommendations for the evaluation and management in nutrition and PA in digestive oncology for each stage of the disease (perioperative setting, during radiation therapy, during systemic treatments, at the palliative phase, after cancer). Guidelines for nutrition and PA management aim at increasing awareness about malnutrition in oncology. They are continuously evolving and need to be regularly updated.

Pravastatin combination with sorafenib does not improve survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sorafenib is the standard of care for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Combining sorafenib with another treatment, to improve overall survival (OS) within an acceptable safety profile, might be the next step forward in the management of patients with advanced HCC. We aimed to assess whether a combination of sorafenib and a statin improved survival in patients with HCC. METHODS: The objective of the PRODIGE-11 trial was to compare the respective clinical outcomes of the sorafenib-pravastatin combination (arm A) versus sorafenib alone (arm B) in patients with advanced HCC. Child-Pugh A patients with advanced HCC who were naive to systemic treatment (n = 323) were randomly assigned to sorafenib-pravastatin combination (n = 162) or sorafenib alone (n = 161). The primary endpoint was OS; secondary endpoints were progression-free survival, time to tumor progression, time to treatment failure, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: After randomization, 312 patients received at least 1 dose of study treatment. After a median follow-up of 35 months, 269 patients died (arm A: 135; arm B: 134) with no difference in median OS between treatments arms (10.7 months vs. 10.5 months; hazard ratio = 1.00; p = 0.975); no difference was observed in secondary survival endpoints either. In the univariate analysis, the significant prognostic factors for OS were CLIP score, performance status, and quality of life scores. The multivariate analysis showed that the only prognostic factor for OS was the CLIP score. The main toxicity was diarrhea (which was severe in 11% of patients in arm A, and 8.9% in arm B), while severe nausea-vomiting was rare, and no toxicity-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSION: Adding pravastatin to sorafenib did not improve survival in patients with advanced HCC. LAY SUMMARY: Sorafenib has proven efficacy for the treatment of patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. However, overall survival remains poor in these patients, so we were interested to see if the addition of a statin, pravastatin, improved outcomes in patients with advanced HCC. This randomized-controlled trial demonstrated that the sorafenib-pravastatin combination did not improve overall survival in this study population compared to sorafenib alone. Clinical trial number: NCT01075555.

Sorafenib alone vs. sorafenib plus GEMOX as 1st-line treatment for advanced HCC: the phase II randomised PRODIGE 10 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib remains one major first-line therapeutic options for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (aHCC), with modest efficacy. We investigated the addition of gemcitabine and oxaliplatin (GEMOX) to sorafenib in aHCC patients. METHODS: Our multicentre phase II trial randomised aHCC first-line patients to sorafenib (400 mg BID) or sorafenib-GEMOX every 2 weeks (1000 mg/m2 gemcitabine; 100 mg/m2 oxaliplatin). Primary endpoint was the 4-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients were randomised (sorafenib-GEMOX: n = 48; sorafenib: n = 46). Median age was 64 years, PS 0 (69%) or 1 (31%), 63% patients had cirrhosis, 29% portal vein thrombosis and 70% extra-hepatic disease. Median duration of sorafenib treatment was 4 months (1-51); median number of GEMOX cycles was 7 (1-16). The 4-month PFS rates were 64% and 61% in the sorafenib-GEMOX and sorafenib arms, respectively; median PFS and OS were 6.2 (95% CI: 3.8-6.8) and 13.5 (7.5-16.2) months, and 4.6 (3.9-6.2) months and 14.8 (12.2-22.2), respectively. The ORR/DCR were 9%/70% and 15%/77% in the sorafenib-GEMOX and sorafenib alone arms, respectively. Main toxicities were (sorafenib-GEMOX/sorafenib) neutropenia (23%/0), thrombocytopenia (33%/0), diarrhoea (18%/9), peripheral neuropathy (5%/0) and hand-foot syndrome (5%/18). CONCLUSIONS: Addition of GEMOX had an inpact on ORR and was well-tolerated as frontline systemic therapy. The benefit on PFS seems moderate; no subsequent study was planned.

Nightmares and hallucinations with aprepitant and opium powder: a suspected drug-drug interaction.

Polypharmacy of elderly oncology patients and fragmented medication management are well-known risk factors for drug-drug interactions (DDIs). These interactions can occur among antineoplastic, ongoing chronic treatment(s) and chemotherapy-associated treatments, like antiemetics. Clinically relevant interactions based on enzyme- or transporter-inhibition phenomena of active drugs can increase the frequency of their DDIs. We describe a strongly suspected elderly cancer patient's DDI between aprepitant and opium powder in the context of an irinotecan-based regimen manifested by nightmares and visual hallucinations. We discuss this DDI's hypothetical pharmacological mechanisms and management.

Rationale and Design of the IROCAS Study: Multicenter, International, Randomized Phase 3 Trial Comparing Adjuvant Modified (m) FOLFIRINOX to mFOLFOX6 in Patients With High-Risk Stage III (pT4 and/or N2) Colon Cancer-A UNICANCER GI-PRODIGE Trial.

BACKGROUND: According to the IDEA trial, 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy should remain the treatment standard in stage III T4 or N2 colon cancer. The relatively poor survival in this high-risk subgroup-a 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 65%-and the potential synergistic efficacy of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), oxaliplatin, and irinotecan suggest that FOLFIRINOX may be a regimen of particular interest in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter international phase 3 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02967289) being conducted in 49 centers in France and Canada plans to randomize (1:1; minimization method) 640 patients aged 18 to 70 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1. Randomization occurs within 42 days (with treatment initiated within 56 days) after curative-intent R0 surgical resection of a pT4N1 or pT1-4N2 colon adenocarcinoma. Patients will be randomized to receive adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, and 5-FU 2.4 g/m2 over 46 hours) or modified FOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, 5-FU bolus 400 mg/m2, then 2.4 g/m2 over 46 hours) every 2 weeks for 24 weeks (12 cycles). Patients will be followed for 5 years after the end of adjuvant chemotherapy. A gain of 9% in 3-year DFS (primary end point) is expected (74% in the experimental arm vs. 65% in the control arm; α, 5% [2-sided log-rank test]; 1-ß, 80%). Secondary end points of this study include 2-year DFS, overall survival, and toxicity.

Three Versus 6 Months of Oxaliplatin-Based Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer: Disease-Free Survival Results From a Randomized, Open-Label, International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant (IDEA) France, Phase III Trial.

Purpose Reduction of adjuvant treatment duration may decrease toxicities without loss of efficacy in stage III colon cancer. This could offer clear advantages to patients and health care providers. Methods In International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) France, as part of the IDEA international collaboration, patient with colon cancer patients were randomly assigned to 3 and 6 months of modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6: infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX) by physician choice. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), and analyses were descriptive. Results A total of 2,010 eligible patients received either 3 or 6 months of chemotherapy (modified intention-to-treat population); 2,000 (99%) had stage III colon cancer (N1: 75%, N2: 25%); 1,809 (90%) received mFOLFOX6, and 201 (10%) received CAPOX. The median age was 64 years, and the median follow-up time was 4.3 years. Overall, 94% (3 months) and 78% (6 months) of patients completed treatment (fluoropyrimidines ± oxaliplatin). Maximal grade 2 and 3 neuropathy rates were 28% and 8% in the 3-month arm and 41% and 25% in the 6-month arm ( P < .001). Final rates of residual neuropathy greater than grade 1 were 3% in the 3-month arm and 7% in the 6-month arm ( P < .001). There were 578 DFS events: 314 and 264 in the 3- and 6-month arms, respectively. The 3-year DFS rates were 72% and 76% in the 3- and 6-month arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.05 to 1.46; P = .0112). In the 3 and 6-month arms, respectively, for patients who received mFOLFOX6, the 3-year DFS rates were 72% and 76% (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.51); for the T4 and/or N2 population, they were 58% and 66% (HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.82); and for the T1-3N1 population, they were 81% and 83% (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.49). Conclusion IDEA France, in which 90% of patients received mFOLFOX6, shows superiority of 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy compared with 3 months, especially in the T4 and/or N2 subgroups. These results should be considered alongside the international IDEA collaboration data.

Association of Prognostic Value of Primary Tumor Location in Stage III Colon Cancer With RAS and BRAF Mutational Status.

Importance: We know of no data on the prognostic value of primary tumor location (PTL) according to BRAF, RAS, and microsatellite instability (MSI) status in patients who have undergone resection for colon cancer (CC) and have been treated with current standard adjuvant chemotherapy. Objective: To determine the prognostic and predictive value of PTL according to BRAF, RAS, and MSI status in patients with stage III CC receiving adjuvant treatment with FOLFOX (folinic acid [leucovorin calcium], fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) with or without cetuximab. Design, Setting, and Participants: This post hoc analysis included patients with available tumor blocks of resected stage III colon adenocarcinoma who participated in the Pan-European Trials in Alimentary Tract Cancer (PETACC)-8 phase 3 randomized trial. Among the 2559 patients who underwent randomization, 1900 were screened by next-generation sequencing, which showed that 1869 had full information concerning PTL. We categorized primary tumor site as located proximal (right) or distal (left) to the splenic flexure. Main Outcomes and Measures: The associations between PTL (right- vs left-sided) and disease-free survival (DFS), survival after relapse (SAR), and overall survival (OS) were assessed by Cox models and adjusted for clinical and pathological features, treatment, and MSI, BRAF, and RAS status. Results: Among the 1869 patients (1056 [57%] male; mean [SD] age, 59.4 [9.5] years) with full molecular data analyzed, 755 (40%) had a right-sided tumor, 164 (10%) had MSI, 942 (50%) had RAS mutations, and 212 (11%) had BRAF mutations. Right-sided tumor location was not prognostic for DFS in the whole population but was associated with a shorter SAR (hazard ratio [HR], 1.54; 95% CI, 1.23-1.93; P = .001) and OS (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.02-1.54; P = .03). When looking at DFS in the different molecular subgroups, we found similar results for microsatellite-stable tumors and tumors with MSI; a better DFS in right-sided vs left-sided tumors in patients with RAS mutations (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64-1.00; P = .046); and a worse DFS in right-sided vs left-sided tumors in patients with RAS and BRAF double wild type (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.01-1.92; P = .04). These results were found independently of the treatment received, and no beneficial effect of cetuximab on DFS or OS was observed in left-sided tumors. Conclusions and Relevance: Although right-sided tumor location is associated with poor survival in patients with metastatic CC as previously reported, the association with disease recurrence appears to vary for patients with stage III CC and RAS or BRAF mutations vs those with double wild type.

Prognostic Value of BRAF and KRAS Mutations in MSI and MSS Stage III Colon Cancer.

Background: The prognostic value of BRAF and KRAS mutations within microsatellite-unstable (MSI) and microsatellite-stable (MSS) subgroups of resected colon carcinoma patients remains controversial. We examined this question in prospectively collected biospecimens from stage III colon cancer with separate analysis of MSI and MSS tumors from patients receiving adjuvant FOLFOX +/- cetuximab in two adjuvant therapy trials. Methods: Three groups were defined: BRAF Mutant, KRAS Mutant, and double wild-type. The analytic strategy involved estimation of study-specific effects, assessment of homogeneity of results, and then analysis of pooled data as no differences in patient outcome were found between treatment arms in both trials. Associations of mutations with patient outcome were analyzed, and multivariable models were adjusted for treatment and relevant factors. Results: Four thousand four hundred eleven tumors were evaluable for BRAF and KRAS mutations and mismatch repair status; 3934 were MSS and 477 were MSI. In MSS patients, all BRAF V600E mutations (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.23 to 1.92, P < .001), KRAS codon 12 alterations, and p.G13D mutations (HR = 1.60, 95% CI = 1.40 to 1.83, P < .001) were associated with shorter time to recurrence (TTR) and shorter survival after relapse (SAR; HR = 3.02 , 95% CI = 2.32 to 3.93, P < .001, and HR = 1.20, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.44, P = .04, respectively). Overall survival (OS) in MSS patients was poorer for BRAF-mutant patients (HR = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.56 to 2.57, P < .001) and KRAS-mutant patients (HR = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.38 to 1.91, P < .001) vs wild-type. No prognostic role of KRAS or BRAF mutations was seen in MSI patients. Furthermore, no interaction was found between treatment arm (with or without cetuximab) and KRAS and BRAF mutations for TTR or OS in MSS patients. Conclusions: In a pooled analysis of resected stage III colon cancer patients receiving adjuvant FOLFOX, BRAF or KRAS mutations are independently associated with shorter TTR, SAR, and OS in patients with MSS, but not MSI, tumors. Future clinical trials in the adjuvant setting should consider these mutations as important stratification factors.

Pazopanib plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumours resistant to imatinib and sunitinib (PAZOGIST): a randomised, multicentre, open-label phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) are the most common mesenchymal neoplasms of the gastrointestinal tract. Imatinib followed by sunitinib and regorafenib is the standard sequence of treatment for advanced disease. Pazopanib is effective in soft tissue sarcomas but has never been assessed in advanced GIST in a randomised trial. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of pazopanib in patients with previously treated advanced GIST. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label phase 2 study, we enrolled adults (aged ≥18 years) with advanced GIST resistant to imatinib and sunitinib from 12 comprehensive cancer centres or university hospitals in France and randomly assigned them 1:1 using an interactive web-based centralised platform to 800 mg oral pazopanib once daily in 4-week cycles plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone. Randomisation was stratified by the number of previous treatment regimens (2 vs ≥3); no-one was masked to treatment group allocation. Upon disease progression, patients in the best supportive care group were allowed to switch to pazopanib as compassionate treatment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed by intention-to-treat. All randomised participants who received at least one dose of pazopanib were included in the safety analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01323400. FINDINGS: Between April 12, 2011, and Dec 9, 2013, 81 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to pazopanib plus best supportive care (n=40) or best supportive care alone (n=41). The median follow-up was 26·4 months (IQR 22·0-37·8) in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and 28·9 months (22·0-35·2) in the best supportive care group. 4-month investigator-assessed progression-free survival was 45·2% (95% CI 29·1-60·0) in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group versus 17·6% (7·8-30·8) in the best supportive care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·59, 95% CI 0·37-0·96; p=0·029). Median progression-free survival was 3·4 months (95% CI 2·4-5·6) with pazopanib plus best supportive care and 2·3 months (2·1-3·3) with best supportive care alone (HR 0·59 [0·37-0·96], p=0·03). 36 (88%) of the patients originally assigned to the best supportive care group switched to pazopanib following investigator-assessed disease progression; these patients had a median progression-free survival from pazopanib initiation of 3·5 months (95% CI 2·2-5·2). 55 (72%) of the 76 pazopanib-treated patients had pazopanib-related grade 3 or worse adverse events, the most common of which was hypertension (15 [38%] in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and 13 [36%] in the best supportive care group). 20 (26%) patients had pazopanib-related serious adverse events (14 [35%] in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and six [17%] in the best supportive care group), including pulmonary embolism in eight (9%) patients (five [13%] in the pazopanib plus best supportive care group and three [7%] in the best supportive care group). Three pazopanib-related deaths occurred (two pulmonary embolisms [one in each group] and one hepatic cytolysis [in the best supportive care group]). Three adverse event-related but not pazopanib-related deaths occurred in the best supportive care group after switch to pazopanib; these deaths were from hyperammonaemic encephalopathy, pneumopathy, and respiratory failure. INTERPRETATION: Pazopanib plus best supportive care improves progression-free survival compared with best supportive care alone in patients with advanced GIST resistant to imatinib and sunitinib, with a toxicity profile similar to that reported for other sarcomas. This trial provides reference outcome data for future studies of targeted inhibitors in the third-line setting for these patients. FUNDING: GlaxoSmithKline, French National Cancer Institute, EuroSARC (FP7-278742), Centre Léon Bérard.

Feasibility of Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin Combination Chemotherapy Without Central Venous Access Device in Patients With Stage III Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: 5-Fluorouracil and leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) is a standard adjuvant treatment for patients with stage III colon cancer (CC). Capecitabine is an oral fluoropyrimidine, and administration of oxaliplatin does not necessarily require the insertion of a central venous access device (CVAD). We evaluated the feasibility of XELOX without a CVAD as adjuvant treatment in patients with stage III CC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively studied prospectively collected data from patients with stage III CC treated with XELOX in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy French trial. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with a CVAD and those with peripheral venous access (PVA), including patients who had and had not had a CVAD at the first cycle of chemotherapy. Chemotherapy without a CVAD was considered feasible if the patient received all cycles of adjuvant therapy without it. RESULTS: A total of 203 patients were included: 86 (43%) in the PVA group and 116 (57%) in the CVAD group. Of the 85 patients in the PVA group (1 patient was not treated), 69 (81.2%) did not require the insertion of a CVAD. However, 16 (18.8%) required CVAD insertion owing to systematic delay of the initially planned CVAD before the second cycle of chemotherapy in 7, complications related to PVA usage in 5, a switch to the modified FOLFOX6 regimen in 2, and other reasons in 2. The oxaliplatin dose was similar in both groups regardless of the chemotherapy duration. XELOX without a CVAD was feasible for 81.2% of the patients for whom a CVAD had not been planned before chemotherapy and for 88.4% of patients for whom chemotherapy was planned without the use of a CVAD. CONCLUSION: XELOX chemotherapy without a CVAD is a feasible approach for treating patients with stage III CC in the adjuvant setting.

High-Dose FOLFIRI plus Bevacizumab in the Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients with Two Different UGT1A1 Genotypes: FFCD 0504 Study.

High-dose FOLFIRI has an acceptable safety profile and promising efficacy. UDP-glucuronosyltransferase: (UGT1A1) polymorphism may be predictive of toxicity and efficacy of irinotecan. This phase II study aimed to evaluate the combination of high-dose FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) based on their UGT1A1 genotype. Patients with the UGT1A1 *1/*1 (group 1) or *1/*28 (group 2) genotype received bevacizumab plus high-dose FOLFIRI every 2 weeks. Using the Bryant and Day design with objective response rate and toxicity as the primary endpoints, 54 patients in each group were required with a planned interim analysis after inclusion of 17 patients per group. We planned to stop the trial at the interim analysis if ≤ 7 patients exhibited an objective response (OR) and/or ≥ 3 patients exhibited severe toxicity. At the interim analysis, ORs were higher than the number expected: 52.9% (group 1) and 58.8% (group 2). More than three toxic events occurred in both groups and, according to the interim analysis rule, the trial was closed due to unacceptable toxicity. Recruitment was stopped when 86 patients were included and an analysis on overall population was done for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The median PFS was 10.7 months (group 1) and 10.4 months (group 2). The median OS was 25.5 months (group 1) and 23.9 months (group 2). This trial does not support the use of the intensive treatment with HD-FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab combination for MCRC in patients with the UGTA1*1/UGT1A1*1 or UGT1A1*1/UGT1A1*28 genotype.

[Anti-angiogenic treatments in metastatic colorectal cancer: Does a continuous angiogenic blockade make sense?]. / Traitements anti-angiogéniques dans le cancer colorectal métastatique : peut-on envisager un blocage continu de l'angiogenèse ?

Ten years after the approval of bevacizumab in colorectal cancer patients, results from ML18147 and CORRECT studies have recently demonstrated the possibility to target angiogenesis in patients previously exposed to anti-VEGF. An increasing number of anti-angiogenic treatments are now available, however, no biomarker has yet succeeded in rationalizing our therapeutic strategies. Nevertheless, several lessons have been learned from preclinical and pivotal clinical studies. The first clinical trials demonstrated a survival benefit, adding VEGFA targeting monoclonal antibodies to chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients (AVF2107, ECOG 3200). Many phase III clinical trials confirmed the interest of this strategy, in combination with chemotherapies containing irinotecan, oxaliplatin, or with 5-fluorouracil in monotherapy. To date, such results have not been reproduced with tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting the angiogenesis pathways, with an increasing rate of chemotherapy related toxicities. Clinical trials performed in the adjuvant setting (AVANT, NSABPC08) failed to demonstrate any efficacy of the anti-VEGFA treatments on the micrometastatic disease, encouraging its prescription in the unresectable cases. On the other hand, a continuous inhibition of angiogenesis during the course of the metastatic disease was shown to be feasible and to extend colon cancer patient's survival in two recent randomized trials. For these patients, the continuation of bevacizumab beyond progression in first line improves overall survival. Lastly, results achieved by the CORRECT and CONCUR studies demonstrated that anti-angiogenics might be effective in colorectal cancers resistant to chemotherapy. This review presents the main results of preclinical and clinical studies sustaining the prescription of anti-angiogenics in metastatic colorectal cancers. The future challenge is to promote the development of biomarkers to enable the stratification of the different therapeutic strategies.

A randomised phase III intergroup trial comparing high-dose infusional 5-fluorouracil with or without folinic acid with standard bolus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer: the Pan-European Trial in Adjuvant Colon Cancer 2 study.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether infusional high-dose 5-flurouracil (HD-FU) provides a significant improvement in recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) compared with a standard bolus 5-FU regimen (Mayo Clinic) in patients with curatively resectable stage III colon cancer. METHODS: Patients (n=1601) were randomised to receive either the Mayo Clinic regimen or one of the three HD-FU regimens; LV5FU2, the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO) or the Grupo Espanol para el Tratamiento Digestivos (TTD), the data from which were combined to provide the HD-FU arm for final analysis. RESULTS: Patients were evenly balanced for age, TMN, tumor grade and vascular and lymphatic invasion. Median follow-up was approximately 42months, RFS (hazard ratio [HR]=0.997) and OS (HR=0.96) (primary end-point) were not statistically different between the two treatment arms. Infusional HD-FU was generally better tolerated than bolus 5-FU regimen. CONCLUSIONS: Infusional HD-FU does not improve RFS and OS in curatively resected stage III colon cancer patients compared to the Mayo Clinic regimen, but is less toxic.

Clinical outcome of the ACCORD 12/0405 PRODIGE 2 randomized trial in rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: The ACCORD 12 trial investigated the value of two different preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CT-RT) regimens in T3-4 Nx M0 resectable rectal cancer. Clinical results are reported after follow-up of 3 years. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between November 2005 and July 2008, a total of 598 patients were randomly assigned to preoperative CT-RT with CAP45 (45-Gy RT for 5 weeks with concurrent capecitabine) or CAPOX50 (50-Gy RT for 5 weeks with concurrent capecitabine and oxaliplatin). Total mesorectal excision was planned 6 weeks after CT-RT. The primary end point was sterilization of the operative specimen, which was achieved in 13.9% versus 19.2% of patients, respectively (P = .09). Clinical results were analyzed for all randomly assigned patients according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: At 3 years, there was no significant difference between CAP45 and CAPOX50 (cumulative incidence of local recurrence, 6.1% v 4.4%; overall survival, 87.6% v 88.3%; disease-free survival, 67.9% v 72.7%). Grade 3 to 4 toxicity was reported in four patients in the CAP45 group and in two patients in the CAPOX50 group. Bowel continence, erectile dysfunction, and social life disturbance were not different between groups. In multivariate analysis, the sterilization rate (Dworak score) of the operative specimen was the main significant prognostic factor (hazard ratio, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.50). CONCLUSION: At 3 years, no significant difference in clinical outcome was achieved with the intensified CAPOX regimen. When compared with other recent randomized trials, these results indicate that concurrent administration of oxaliplatin and RT is not recommended.

Sequential versus combination chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (FFCD 2000-05): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimum use of cytotoxic drugs for advanced colorectal cancer has not been defined. Our aim was to investigate whether combination treatment is better than the sequential administration of the same drugs in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients (1:1 ratio) with advanced, measurable, non-resectable colorectal cancer and WHO performance status 0-2 to receive either first-line treatment with bolus (400 mg/m(2)) and infusional (2400 mg/m(2)) fluorouracil plus leucovorin (400 mg/m(2)) (simplified LV5FU2 regimen), second-line LV5FU2 plus oxaliplatin (100 mg/m(2)) (FOLFOX6), and third-line LV5FU2 plus irinotecan (180 mg/m(2)) (FOLFIRI) or first-line FOLFOX6 and second-line FOLFIRI. Chemotherapy was administered every 2 weeks. Randomisation was done centrally using minimisation (minimisation factors were WHO performance status, previous adjuvant chemotherapy, number of disease sites, and centre). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival after two lines of treatment. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00126256. FINDINGS: 205 patients were randomly assigned to the sequential group and 205 to the combination group. 161 (79%) patients in the sequential group and 161 (79%) in the combination group died during the study. Median progression-free survival after two lines was 10·5 months (95% CI 9·6-11·5) in the sequential group and 10·3 months (9·0-11·9) in the combination group (hazard ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·77-1·16; p=0·61). All six deaths caused by toxic effects of treatment occurred in the combination group. During first-line chemotherapy, significantly fewer severe (grade 3-4) haematological adverse events (12 events in 203 patients in sequential group vs 83 events in 203 patients in combination group; p<0·0001) and non-haematological adverse events (26 events vs 186 events; p<0·0001) occurred in the sequential group than in the combination group. INTERPRETATION: Upfront combination chemotherapy is more toxic and is not more effective than the sequential use of the same cytotoxic drugs in patients with advanced, non-resectable colorectal cancer. FUNDING: Sanofi-Aventis France.