Clinical and pharmacogenetic determinants of 5-fluorouracyl/leucovorin/irinotecan toxicity: Results of the PETACC-3 trial.

PURPOSE: Irinotecan (CPT-11) in combination with 5-fluorouracil (5FU) is widely used in the treatment of colorectal cancer. We assessed potential clinical variables that may predict toxicity and more specifically the role of UGT1A1 polymorphisms associated with irinotecan toxicity. We used data from the PETACC3 trial, which randomised patients in adjuvant setting to 6 months of leucovorin (LV) and 5FU (LV5/FU2) or LV5/FU2 + irinotecan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical and toxicity data were available for 2982 patients, DNA was available for 1200 (40%) of these patients. We genotyped the polymorphisms UGT1A1*28 and UGT1A1-3156G > A. Risk factors for neutropenia and diarrhoea were assessed by univariable and multivariable analyses. RESULTS: In univariable analysis, UGT1A*28 genotype was associated with an increased incidence of grade III-IV neutropenia (incidence: 44% versus 26%; odds ratio [OR]: 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-3.7). In multivariable analysis, the most important predictors (ordered in terms of contribution to R2) were baseline neutrophil count (OR for 1-unit (109/l) decrease: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.3-1.7), female sex (OR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.1-3.0), body surface area (OR for 0.1-unit increase: 0.8, 95% CI: 0.7-1.0), UGT1A1 (OR: 2.8, 95% CI: 1.6-5.0), age (OR per 10 years: 1.3, 95% CI: 1.1-1.6) and poor performance status (OR: 1.6, 95% CI: 1.0-2.6). The main predictors for grade IV neutropenia were sex, age, performance score and UGT1A1. The main predictors for diarrhoea were sex and age. CONCLUSIONS: We found that a complex of risk factors is involved in the development of toxicity, including UGT1A1. Parameters that are readily available in clinical practice, notably sex, age and performance status, are stronger predictors than the UGT1A1*28 genotype. Further studies beyond the UGT1A1*28 genotype are needed to fully understand the determinants of toxicity risk, notably in females.

Vitamin D levels in Swiss breast cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) is widely supplemented in breast cancer survivors because of the role of vitamin D in multiple health outcomes. METHODS: We conducted an observational study in 332 women in Eastern Switzerland with early, i.e., nonmetastatic breast cancer. Tumour-, patient-related and sociodemographic variables were recorded. Cholecalciferol intake and serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (1,25(OH)2D) levels were measured at the first visit (baseline) and during a follow-up visit in a median of 210 days (range 87-857) after the first visit. Patients presenting 25(OH)D deficiency were advised to take cholecalciferol supplementation. RESULTS: At baseline, 60 (18%) patients had 25(OH)D deficiency (≤50 nmol/l, ≤20 ng/l), and 70 (21%) had insufficiency (50-74 nmol/l, 20-29 ng/l). Out of 121 patients with ongoing cholecalciferol supplementation at baseline, 25(OH)D deficiency and insufficiency was observed in 9 (7%) and 16 (13%) patients, respectively, whereas out of 52 patients with no supplementation, 15 (29%) had deficiency and 19 (37%) had insufficiency. Only 85 (26%) patients had optimal 25(OH)D levels (75-100 nmol/l, 30-40 ng/l) at baseline. Seasonal variation was significant for 25(OH)D (p = 0.042) and 1,25(OH)2D (p = 0.001) levels. Living in a rural area was associated with a higher median 25(OH)D concentration as compared with living in an urban area (87 nmol/l, range 16-216 vs 72 nmol/l, range 17-162; p = 0.001). Regular sporting activity was positively associated with 25(OH)D (p = 0.045). Body mass index was inversely related to both 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)2D (Spearman's rho = -0.24, p <0.001; rho = -0.23, p <0.001, respectively). The levels of 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)2D were correlated (rho = 0.21, p <0.001). Age and bone mineral density had no significant correlation with the levels of 25(OH)D. Follow-up 25(OH)D was available for 230 patients, 44 (19%) of whom had 25(OH)D deficiency and 47 (21%) had insufficiency; 25 (41.6%) initially 25(OH)D-deficient patients attained sufficient 25(OH)D levels, whereas 33 (16.5%) patients with sufficient baseline 25(OH)D levels became deficient. Only 67 (30%) patients presented optimal 25(OH)D at the follow-up. CONCLUSION: A remarkable fraction of the patients had serum 25(OH)D below (40%) or above (30%) optimal levels, and only around 30% of patients had optimal levels. Levels of 25(OH)D and 1,25(OH)2D increased on cholecalciferol supplementation, but the usual supplementation regimens were not adequate to bring 25(OH)D to the optimal range for a large proportion of patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EKSG 08/082/2B.

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy combined with capecitabine and sorafenib in patients with advanced KRAS-mutated rectal cancer: A phase I/II trial (SAKK 41/08).

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutation occurs in ∼40% of locally advanced rectal cancers (LARCs). The multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor sorafenib has radiosensitising effects and might improve outcomes for standard preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with KRAS-mutated LARC. METHODS: Adult patients with KRAS-mutated T3/4 and/or N1/2M0 LARC were included in this phase I/II study. The phase I dose-escalation study of capecitabine plus sorafenib and radiotherapy was followed by a phase II study assessing efficacy and safety. Primary end-points were to: establish the maximum tolerated dose of the regimen in phase I; determine the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in phase II defined as Dworak regression grade 3 and 4. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were treated at 18 centres in Switzerland and Hungary; 40 patients were included in the single-arm phase II study. Recommended doses from phase I comprised radiotherapy (45 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks) with capecitabine 825 mg/m2 twice daily × 33 plus sorafenib 400 mg/d. Median daily dose intensity in phase II was radiotherapy 100%, capecitabine 98.6%, and sorafenib 100%. The pCR rate (Dworak 3/4) was 60% (95% CI, 43.3-75.1%) by central independent pathologic review. Sphincter preservation was achieved in 89.5%, R0 resection in 94.7%, and downstaging in 81.6%. The most common grade 3 toxicities during phase II included diarrhoea (15.0%), skin toxicity outside radiotherapy field (12.5%), pain (7.5%), skin toxicity in radiotherapy field, proctitis, fatigue and cardiac ischaemia (each 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Combining sorafenib and standard chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine is highly active in patients with KRAS-mutated LARC with acceptable toxicity and deserves further investigation. www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00869570.

Hyperthermia and radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy in locally advanced cervical cancer: a systematic review with conventional and network meta-analyses.

PURPOSE: A systematic review with conventional and network meta-analyses (NMA) was conducted to examine the outcomes of loco-regional hyperthermia (HT) with radiotherapy (RT) and/or chemotherapy (CT) in locally advanced cervix cancer, IIB-IVA (LACC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 217 abstracts were screened from five databases and reported as per PRISMA guidelines. Only randomised trials with HT and RT ± CT were considered. The outcomes evaluated were complete response (CR), long-term loco-regional control (LRC), patients alive, acute and late grade III/IV toxicities. RESULTS: Eight articles were finally retained. Six randomised trials with HTRT (n = 215) vs. RT (n = 212) were subjected to meta-analysis. The risk difference for achieving CR and LRC was greater by 22% (p < .001) and 23% (p < .001), respectively, with HTRT compared to RT. A non-significant survival advantage of 8.4% with HTRT was noted with no differences in acute or late toxicities. The only HTCTRT vs. RT trial documented a CR of 83.3% vs. 46.7% (risk difference: 36.7%, p = .001). No other end points were reported. Bayesian NMA, incorporating 13 studies (n = 1000 patients) for CR and 12 studies for patients alive (n = 807 patients), comparing HTCTRT, HTRT, CTRT and RT alone, was conducted. The pairwise comparison of various groups showed that HTRTCT was the best option for both CR and patient survival. This was also evident on ranking treatment modalities based on the "surface under cumulative ranking" values. CONCLUSIONS: In LACC, HTRT demonstrates a therapeutic advantage over RT without significant acute or late morbidities. On NMA, HTCTRT appears promising, but needs further confirmation through prospective randomised trials.

Hyperthermia and Radiation Therapy in Locoregional Recurrent Breast Cancers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the outcome of hyperthermia (HT) and radiation therapy (RT) in locally recurrent breast cancers (LRBCs). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 708 abstracts were screened from 8 databases according to the PRISMA guidelines. Single-arm and 2-arm studies, treating LRBCs with HT and RT but without surgery (for local recurrence) or concurrent chemotherapy were considered. The evaluated endpoint was complete response (CR). RESULTS: Thirty-one full text articles, pertaining to 34 studies, were shortlisted for the meta-analysis. Eight were 2-arm (randomized, n=5; nonrandomized, n=3), whereas 26 were single-arm studies. In all, 627 patients were enrolled in 2-arm and 1483 in single-arm studies. Patients were treated with a median of 7 HT sessions, and an average temperature of 42.5°C was attained. Mean RT dose was 38.2 Gy (range, 26-60 Gy). Hyperthermia was most frequently applied after RT. In the 2-arm studies, a CR of 60.2% was achieved with RT + HT versus 38.1% with RT alone (odds ratio 2.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.66-4.18, P<.0001). Risk ratio and risk difference were 1.57 (95% CI 1.25-1.96, P<.0001) and 0.22 (95% CI 0.11-0.33, P<.0001), respectively. In 26 single-arm studies, RT + HT attained a CR of 63.4% (event rate 0.62, 95% CI 0.57-0.66). Moreover, 779 patients had been previously irradiated (696 from single-arm and 83 from 2-arm studies). A CR of 66.6% (event rate 0.64, 95% CI 0.58-0.70) was achieved with HT and reirradiation (mean ± SD dose: 36.7 ± 7.7 Gy). Mean acute and late grade 3/4 toxicities with RT + HT were 14.4% and 5.2%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Thermoradiation therapy enhances the likelihood of CR rates in LRBCs over RT alone by 22% with minimal acute and late morbidities. For even those previously irradiated, reirradiation with HT provides locoregional control in two-thirds of the patients. Thermoradiation therapy could therefore be considered as an effective and safe palliative treatment option for LRBCs.

Integrated analysis of molecular and clinical prognostic factors in stage II/III colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic potential of individual clinical and molecular parameters in stage II/III colon cancer has been investigated, but a thorough multivariable assessment of their relative impact is missing. METHODS: Tumors from patients (N = 1404) in the PETACC3 adjuvant chemotherapy trial were examined for BRAF and KRAS mutations, microsatellite instability (MSI), chromosome 18q loss of heterozygosity (18qLOH), and SMAD4 expression. Their importance in predicting relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) was assessed by Kaplan-Meier analyses, Cox regression models, and recursive partitioning trees. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: MSI-high status and SMAD4 focal loss of expression were identified as independent prognostic factors with better RFS (hazard ratio [HR] of recurrence = 0.54, 95% CI = 0.37 to 0.81, P = .003) and OS (HR of death = 0.43, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.70, P = .001) for MSI-high status and worse RFS (HR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.19 to 1.81, P < .001) and OS (HR = 1.58, 95% CI = 1.23 to 2.01, P < .001) for SMAD4 loss. 18qLOH did not have any prognostic value in RFS or OS. Recursive partitioning identified refinements of TNM into new clinically interesting prognostic subgroups. Notably, T3N1 tumors with MSI-high status and retained SMAD4 expression had outcomes similar to stage II disease. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant assessment of molecular and clinical markers in multivariable analysis is essential to confirm or refute their independent prognostic value. Including molecular markers with independent prognostic value might allow more accurate prediction of prognosis than TNM staging alone.