Association of Bevacizumab Plus Oxaliplatin-Based Chemotherapy With Disease-Free Survival and Overall Survival in Patients With Stage II Colon Cancer: A Secondary Analysis of the AVANT Trial.

Importance: In the pivotal Bevacizumab-Avastin Adjuvant (AVANT) trial, patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer (CC) had 5-year and 10-year overall survival (OS) rates of 88% and 75%, respectively, with adjuvant fluorouracil and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy; however, the trial did not demonstrate a disease-free survival (DFS) benefit of adding bevacizumab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in stage III CC and suggested a detrimental effect on OS. The Long-term Survival AVANT (S-AVANT) study was designed to collect extended follow-up for patients in the AVANT trial. Objective: To explore the efficacy of adjuvant bevacizumab combined with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with high-risk, stage II CC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary end point analysis of the AVANT and S-AVANT studies included 573 patients with curatively resected high-risk stage II CC and at least 1 of the following criteria: stage T4, bowel obstruction or perforation, blood and/or lymphatic vascular invasion and/or perineural invasion, age younger than 50 years, or fewer than 12 nodes analyzed. The AVANT study was a multicenter randomized stage 3 clinical trial. Data were collected from December 2004 to February 2019, and data for this study were analyzed from March to September 2019. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to receive 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4), FOLFOX4 with bevacizumab, or capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) with bevacizumab. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end points of this secondary analysis were DFS and OS in patients with high-risk stage II CC. Results: The AVANT study included 3451 patients, of whom 573 (16.6%) had high-risk stage II CC (192 [33.5%] randomized to FOLFOX4 group; 194 [33.9%] randomized to FOLFOX4 with bevacizumab group; 187 [32.6%] randomized to XELOX with bevacizumab group). With a median (interquartile range) age of 57.0 (47.2-65.7) years, the study population comprised 325 men (56.7%) and 248 women (43.3%). After a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 6.9 (6.1-11.3) years, the 3-year DFS and 5-year OS rates were 88.2% (95% CI, 83.7%-93.0%) and 89.7% (95% CI, 85.4%-94.2%) in the FOLFOX4 group, 86.6% (95% CI, 81.8%-91.6%) and 89.7% (95% CI, 85.4%-94.2%) in the FOLFOX4 with bevacizumab group, and 86.7% (95% CI, 81.8%-91.8%) and 93.2% (95% CI, 89.6%-97.0%) in the XELOX with bevacizumab group, respectively. The DFS hazard ratio was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.59-1.48; P = .78) for FOLFOX4 with bevacizumab vs FOLFOX4 and 1.07 (95% CI, 0.69-1.67; P = .76) for XELOX with bevacizumab vs FOLFOX4. The OS hazard ratio was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.55-1.55; P = .76) for FOLFOX4 with bevacizumab vs FOLFOX4 and 0.85 (95% CI, 0.50-1.44; P = .55) for XELOX with bevacizumab vs FOLFOX4. Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of data from the AVANT trial, adding bevacizumab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy was not associated with longer DFS or OS in patients with high-risk stage II CC. The findings suggest that the definition of high-risk stage II CC needs to be revisited. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrial.gov Identifiers: AVANT (NCT00112918); S-AVANT (NCT02228668).

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.

Nab-paclitaxel plus either gemcitabine or simplified leucovorin and fluorouracil as first-line therapy for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (AFUGEM GERCOR): a non-comparative, multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine has become a standard treatment regimen in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma; however, retrospective data suggest that gemcitabine might be inefficient in 50-60% of patients and thus not an optimum regimen in combination with nab-paclitaxel. We did a phase 2 trial to assess the activity and safety of a new regimen of nab-paclitaxel plus simplified leucovorin and fluorouracil. METHODS: We did a non-comparative, multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial in 15 hospitals and institutions in France. Eligible participants were previously untreated patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (previous adjuvant chemotherapy after curative intent resection was allowed if the interval between the end of chemotherapy and relapse was more than 12 months). Patients had to have at least one measurable lesion assessed by CT scan or MRI and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or less. We randomly assigned participants (1:2) centrally to 28-day cycles of either gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel or simplified leucovorin and fluorouracil plus nab-paclitaxel. The randomisation was by minimisation, stratified by centre and ECOG performance status. Drugs were administered in each cycle as follows: nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) as 30-min intravenous infusions on days 1, 8, and 15; leucovorin (400 mg/m2) as a 120-min intravenous infusion on days 1 and 15; and fluorouracil (400 mg/m2) as a 5-min bolus intravenous infusion followed by a 46-h continuous intravenous infusion of 2400 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15. Patients continued treatment until unacceptable toxicity, disease progression, or patient withdrawal. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival at 4 months in the first 72 assessable patients in the leucovorin and fluorouracil group, with a target of 50% for the regimen to be deemed sufficiently active to warrant further study. We did the primary analysis on the modified intention-to-treat (ITT) population, defined as all randomly assigned and assessable patients regardless of their eligibility and received treatments. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01964534. The trial has ended and we report the final analysis here. FINDINGS: Between Dec 12, 2013, and Oct 31, 2014, we randomly assigned 114 patients to treatment: 75 patients to the leucovorin and fluorouracil group and 39 to the gemcitabine group. One patient in the leucovorin and fluorouracil group did not have a 4-month assessment, and was thus excluded from the modified ITT analysis. Median follow-up was 13·1 months (95% CI 12·5-14·1). At 4 months, 40 (56%, 90% CI 45-66) of 72 patients in the leucovorin and fluorouracil group were alive and free from disease progression (21 [54%, 40-68] of 39 patients in the gemcitabine group were also alive and progression-free at 4 months). Grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 33 (87%) of 38 patients in the gemcitabine group and in 56 (77%) of 73 patients in the leucovorin and fluorouracil group, with different toxicity profiles. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events in the leucovorin and fluorouracil group were neutropenia without fever (17 [23%]), fatigue (16 [22%]), paraesthesia (14 [19%]), diarrhoea (nine [12%]), and mucositis (seven [10%]); in the gemcitabine group they were neutropenia without fever (12 [32%]), thrombocytopenia (seven [18%]), fatigue (eight [21%]), anaemia (five [13%]), increased alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase concentrations (five [13%] for both), and paraesthesia (four [11%]). Two participants died; one in the leucovorin and fluorouracil group from septic shock, and one in the gemcitabine group from diabetes compensation with acidosis; these deaths were deemed to be not related to treatment. Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 28 (38%) of 73 patients in the leucovorin and fluorouracil group and in 14 (37%) of 38 in the gemcitabine group. INTERPRETATION: Nab-paclitaxel plus simplified leucovorin and fluorouracil fulfilled the primary endpoint in that more than the required 50% of our study population were progression-free at 4 months, with a tolerable toxicity profile. This regimen thus deserves further assessment in a phase 3 trial. FUNDING: GERCOR (Groupe Coopérateur Multidisciplinaire en Oncologie) and Celgene through grants to GERCOR.

Efficacy of a sequential treatment strategy with GEMOX-based followed by FOLFIRI-based chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancers.

BACKGROUND: Gemcitabine (GEM)-platinum chemotherapy stands as first-line therapy for patients with recurrent/advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC), yielding progression-free survival (PFS) of 3.4-6.4 months. No standard second-line chemotherapy after GEM-platinum failure exists and data on survival benefit remain limited. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients with recurrent/advanced BTC who received gemcitabine-oxaliplatin (GEMOX)-based chemotherapy followed by 5-fluorouracil-irinotecan (FOLFIRI)-based chemotherapy to evaluate the efficacy of the sequential treatment strategy. Overall survival (OS) and PFS were calculated by Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: Fifty-two patients were analyzed, 21 (40%) had intrahepatic, 14 (27%) had hilar/extrahepatic, and 17 (33%) had gallbladder cancer. Median age was 64 years (range 38-79 years). Prior curative intent resection of the primary tumor was performed in 23 (44.2%) patients and GEMOX adjuvant chemotherapy was given in 12 (23.1%) patients. After a median follow-up of 36.3 months, 47 (90.4%) patients completed the treatment strategy. First-sequence GEMOX and second sequence FOLFIRI achieved 4.8 months and 3.2 months median PFS, respectively. The global OS for the sequential chemotherapy was 21.9 months. The sequence of FOLFIRI resulted in a median OS of 8.4 months. CONCLUSION: The sequence of GEMOX-FOLFIRI is a potential treatment strategy for patients with recurrent/advanced BTC.

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.

Adjuvant Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Oxaliplatin in Stage II to III Colon Cancer: Updated 10-Year Survival and Outcomes According to BRAF Mutation and Mismatch Repair Status of the MOSAIC Study.

PURPOSE: The MOSAIC (Multicenter International Study of Oxaliplatin/Fluorouracil/Leucovorin in the Adjuvant Treatment of Colon Cancer) study has demonstrated 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) and 6-year overall survival (OS) benefit of adjuvant oxaliplatin in stage II to III resected colon cancer. This update presents 10-year OS and OS and DFS by mismatch repair (MMR) status and BRAF mutation. METHODS: Survival actualization after 10-year follow-up was performed in 2,246 patients with resected stage II to III colon cancer. We assessed MMR status and BRAF mutation in 1,008 formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded specimens. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 9.5 years, 10-year OS rates in the bolus/infusional fluorouracil plus leucovorin (LV5FU2) and LV5FU2 plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) arms were 67.1% versus 71.7% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; P = .043) in the whole population, 79.5% versus 78.4% for stage II (HR, 1.00; P = .980), and 59.0% versus 67.1% for stage III (HR, 0.80; P = .016) disease. Ninety-five patients (9.4%) had MMR-deficient (dMMR) tumors, and 94 (10.4%) had BRAF mutation. BRAF mutation was not prognostic for OS (P = .965), but dMMR was an independent prognostic factor (HR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.15 to 3.55; P = .014). HRs for DFS and OS benefit in the FOLFOX4 arm were 0.48 (95% CI, 0.20 to 1.12) and 0.41 (95% CI, 0.16 to 1.07), respectively, in patients with stage II to III dMMR and 0.50 (95% CI, 0.25 to 1.00) and 0.66 (95% CI, 0.31 to 1.42), respectively, in those with BRAF mutation. CONCLUSION: The OS benefit of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy, increasing over time and with the disease severity, was confirmed at 10 years in patients with stage II to III colon cancer. These updated results support the use of FOLFOX in patients with stage III disease, including those with dMMR or BRAF mutation.

Randomized trial of simplified LV5FU2 versus FOLFOX7 followed by FOLFIRI (MIROX) in patients with initially resectable metastatic colorectal cancer: a GERCOR study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the MIROX strategy (6 FOLFOX7 cycles followed by 6 FOLFIRI cycles) in patients with resected or resectable metastases from colorectal cancer. METHODS: This trial compared the MIROX strategy to 12 cycles of simplified LV5FU2 (sLV5FU2). Chemotherapy was perioperative or adjuvant, at the investigator's decision, with stratification for this parameter. The primary objective was disease-free survival (DFS). The trial was interrupted in 2004, following the results of the adjuvant MOSAIC trial showing superiority of FOLFOX4 over LV5FU2. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients were included: 20 in MIROX arm and 19 in sLV5FU2 arm. Median DFS was higher in the MIROX arm (not reached versus 24.8 months, P = 0.044). MIROX regimen was well tolerated; 5/20 patients experienced a Grade 3 sensoryneuropathy. CONCLUSION: The MIROX strategy demonstrated promising efficacy, but this must be considered cautiously due to the small number of patients included. The pragmatic approach adopted for the treatment chronology is feasible.

Adjuvant therapy with fluorouracil and oxaliplatin in stage II and elderly patients (between ages 70 and 75 years) with colon cancer: subgroup analyses of the Multicenter International Study of Oxaliplatin, Fluorouracil, and Leucovorin in the Adjuvant Treatment of Colon Cancer trial.

PURPOSE: Oxaliplatin combined with fluoropyrimidine improves survival in patients with stage III colon cancer. However, adjuvant chemotherapy with oxaliplatin is controversial in stage II and elderly patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed subgroup analyses of stage II and elderly patients randomly assigned fluorouracil with leucovorin (FL) ± oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) in the Multicenter International Study of Oxaliplatin/Fluorouracil/Leucovorin in the Adjuvant Treatment of Colon Cancer study. Comorbidities, severe adverse events, second cancers, management of relapse and death as a result of causes than other colon cancer were studied. RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred forty-six patients were enrolled. Overall, 899 patients had stage II disease, including 330 low-risk and 569 high-risk patients. A total of 315 patients were ages 70 to 75 years. For stage II patients, the hazard ratio (HR) for comparing FOLFOX4 with FL was 0.84 (95% CI, 0.62 to 01.14) for disease-free survival (DFS), 0.70 (95% CI, 0.49 to 0.99) for time to recurrence (TTR), and 1.00 (95% CI, 0.70 to 1.41) for overall survival (OS). There was no interaction between treatment and stage or age. Low-risk stage II patients did not benefit from oxaliplatin. In high-risk stage II patients, the HR comparing FOLFOX4 with FL was 0.72 (95% CI, 0.51 to 1.01) for DFS, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41 to 0.92) for TTR, and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.61 to 1.36) for OS. In elderly patients, the HR comparing FOLFOX4 with FL was 0.93 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.35) for DFS, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.47 to 1.11) for TTR, and 1.10 (95% CI, 0.73 to 1.65) for OS. CONCLUSION: The results of these subset analyses show no statistically significant benefit (OS and DFS) for the addition of oxaliplatin to FL as adjuvant treatment for either stage II and elderly patients.

Alternative end points to evaluate a therapeutic strategy in advanced colorectal cancer: evaluation of progression-free survival, duration of disease control, and time to failure of strategy--an Aide et Recherche en Cancerologie Digestive Group Study.

PURPOSE: Progression-free survival (PFS) is not an optimal end point to evaluate therapeutic strategies in advanced colorectal cancer (ACRC). Therefore, composite end points have been proposed to evaluate a chemotherapy strategy when sequential treatments are available: duration of disease control (DDC) and time to failure of strategy (TFS). The goal of this study was to evaluate these alternative end points and their potential surrogacy for overall survival (OS). METHODS: We pooled individual patient data from three randomized trials evaluating chemotherapy strategy, which accrued 1,042 patients with previously untreated ACRC. In these trials, first-line treatment was either oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based chemotherapy. Compared with TFS, DDC included neither time interval between progression and next sequence of treatment nor time to progression if the best result of the next sequence of treatment was progression. RESULTS: There was good correlation between DDC and OS (correlation of median: r, 0.62; correlation of hazard ratio [HR]: adjusted copula R(2), 0.72) and between TFS and OS (correlation of median: r, 0.59; correlation of HR: adjusted copula R(2), 0.67). There was no correlation between PFS and OS (correlation of median: r, 0.45; correlation of HR: adjusted copula R(2), 0.47). CONCLUSION: DDC and TFS roughly achieved the same results. Both are acceptable new end points to evaluate a therapeutic strategy in ACRC. Although TFS achieved a pragmatic evaluation of a multiline strategy, DDC captured the effect of a specific sequence in a therapeutic strategy.