Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated with Combined Liver Resection, Cytoreductive Surgery, and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC): Predictive Factors for Early Recurrence.

BACKGROUND: Selection of colorectal cancer patients with concomitant peritoneal (PM) and liver metastases (LM) for radical treatment with cytoreductive surgery (CRS), including liver resection and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC), needs improvement. This retrospective, monocentric study was designed to evaluate the predictive factors for early recurrence, disease-free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) in such patients treated in a referral center. METHODS: Consecutive colorectal cancer patients with concomitant LM and PM treated with curative intent with perioperative systemic chemotherapy, simultaneous complete CRS, liver resection, and HIPEC in 2011-2022 were included. Clinical, radiological (before and after preoperative chemotherapy), surgical, and pathological data were investigated, along with long-term oncologic outcomes. A multivariate analysis was performed to identify predictive factors associated with early recurrence (diagnosed <6 months after surgery), DFS, and OS. RESULTS: Of more than 61 patients included, 31 (47.1%) had pT4 and 27 (40.9%) had pN2 primary tumors. Before preoperative chemotherapy, the median number of LM was 2 (1-4). The median surgical PCI (peritoneal carcinomatosis index) was 3 (5-8.5). The median DFS and OS were 8.15 (95% confidence interval [CI] 5.5-10.1) and 34.1 months (95% CI 28.1-53.5), respectively. In multivariate analysis, pT4 (odds ratio [OR] = 4.14 [1.2-16.78], p = 0.032]) and pN2 (OR = 3.7 [1.08-13.86], p = 0.042) status were independently associated with an early recurrence, whereas retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis (hazard ratio [HR] = 39 [8.67-175.44], p < 0.001) was independently associated with poor OS. CONCLUSIONS: In colorectal cancer patients with concomitant PM and LM, an advanced primary tumor (pT4 and/or pN2) was associated with a higher risk of early recurrence following a radical multimodal treatment, whereas RLN metastases was strongly detrimental for OS.

What is the Best Therapeutic Strategy for Metachronous Resectable Colorectal Liver Metastases After Adjuvant Oxaliplatin-Based Chemotherapy? A Multidisciplinary Inter-Group Survey.

BACKGROUND: To report the current clinical practice of French physicians for metachronous resectable liver metastasis (LM) occurring after a FOLFOX adjuvant chemotherapy for primary cancer. METHODS: Twenty four clinical situations were proposed to a panel of experts via 4 learned societies. Clinical situations varied according time of recurrence (early between 6 and 12 month or > 12 month), extension of LM (limited ≤ 2 or extended > 2 lesions), presence of a neuropathy or not, and of a RAS or BRAF mutation. RESULTS: A total of 157 physicians participated in this study. A consensus was reached in 17 (71%) clinical situations. For an early limited recurrence, whatever presence of neuropathy, the preferred therapeutic approach (45%) was upfront surgery. For an early extended recurrence, whatever presence of neuropathy, there was a consensus (64%) for a preoperative chemotherapy by FOLFIRI + biologic agent. For a late recurrence without neuropathy, there was a consensus (50%) for a preoperative FOLFOX chemotherapy, whatever the extension of LM. For a late recurrence with neuropathy, upfront surgery was chosen (52%) for limited LM, and preoperative chemotherapy by FOLFIRI + biologic agent (73%) for extended LM. No response was influenced by the RAS mutation status. There was a strong consensus for intensified preoperative chemotherapy in all clinical situations for BRAF-mutated LM. CONCLUSIONS: This national survey provides an overview of the practice patterns in the treatment of LM occurring after adjuvant FOLFOX for primary. It could be a basis to establish expert's recommendations for the clinical practice.

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.

Doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma after sorafenib treatment failure (RELIVE): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Cytotoxic chemotherapy is generally ineffective in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. We assessed the intravenous perfusion of doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in whom previous sorafenib therapy had failed. METHODS: We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled phase 3 trial at 70 sites in 11 countries. Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma with one or more previous systemic therapies, including sorafenib, were randomly assigned to receive 30 mg/m2 doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles (30 mg/m2 group), 20 mg/m2 doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles (20 mg/m2 group), or standard care using a computer-generated randomisation list prepared by the funder and stratified by geographic region. Patients in the experimental groups received perfusion of the drug every 4 weeks and those in the control group received any systemic anticancer therapy (except sorafenib) as per investigator decision. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in the population of patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01655693. FINDINGS: Between June 15, 2012, and Jan 27, 2017, 541 patients were screened, of whom 144 were excluded and 397 were randomly assigned to one of the groups (133 to the 30 mg/m2 group; 130 to the 20 mg/m2 group; and 134 to the control group). Median follow-up was 22·7 months (IQR 11·2-34·9). After pooling the doxorubicin groups for the efficacy analysis, median overall survival was 9·1 months (95% CI 8·1-10·4) in the pooled doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles group and 9·0 months (7·1-11·8) in the control group (HR 1·00 [95% CI 0·78-1·28], two-sided p=0·99). 227 (94%) of 242 patients who received doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles and 100 (75%) of 134 patients in the control group had at least one treatment-emergent adverse event. The most common drug-related grade 3 or 4 treatment-emergent adverse events were neutropenia (25 [10%] of 242 treated with doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles and eight [6%] of 134 in the control group), asthenia (six [2%] and four [3%]), and thrombocytopenia (three [1%] and ten [7%]). Six (2%) patients treated with doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles and one (1%) of those in the control group were deemed by investigators to have had a drug-related death. Serious adverse events occurred in 74 (31%) patients who received doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles and 48 (36%) in the control group. INTERPRETATION: Doxorubicin-loaded nanoparticles did not improve overall survival for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in whom previous sorafenib treatment had failed. FUNDING: Onxeo.

Modified FOLFIRINOX versus CisGem first-line chemotherapy for locally advanced non resectable or metastatic biliary tract cancer (AMEBICA)-PRODIGE 38: Study protocol for a randomized controlled multicenter phase II/III study.

INTRODUCTION: Combination of cisplatine and Gemcitabine (CisGem) is the reference 1st line Chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary cancer. FOLFIRINOX demonstrated an overall survival superiority when compared to gemcitabine in 1st line for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Because of similarities between pancreatic and biliary cancers, we proposed a randomized trial comparing mFOLFIRINOX and CisGEm. AIM: PRODIGE38-AMEBICA is a phase II/III trial evaluating efficacy of modifed FOLFIRINOX (D1 bolus removed) or CisGEm on patients with locally advanced non resectable or metastatic biliary tract cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Main inclusion criteria are histologically or cytologically proven biliary tract tumor (intra or extra hepatic or hilar or gallbladder carcinoma), measurable disease (metastases and/or primary tumor), Bilirubin <1,5 N and transaminases <5 N. The randomization (ratio 1:1) will be stratified on center, stage of the disease, tumor localization and previous adjuvant treatment. The Phase II trial has an objective of 73% patients alive and without progression at 6 months for Folfirinox (versus 59% for Gemcis). 128 additional patients should be added in the phase III trial with an objective of overall survival improvement of 4 months in favor of mFOLFIRINOX. CONCLUSION: The study is opened in France (EudraCT no.: 2015-002282-35). All the patients (188) of the phase II part are currently randomized.

High Resectability Rate of Initially Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases After UGT1A1-Adapted High-Dose Irinotecan Combined with LV5FU2 and Cetuximab: A Multicenter Phase II Study (ERBIFORT).

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerance of induction chemotherapy combining LV5FU2 with increased doses of irinotecan adapted to UGT1A1 genotyping and cetuximab in untreated potentially resectable liver metastases of colorectal cancer. METHODS: Twenty-six patients, PS 0-1, with class II hepatic metastases received chemotherapy combining irinotecan 260 mg/m(2) on day 1 for UGT1A1 6/6 and 6/7 genotypes and 220 mg/m(2) for UGT1A1 7/7 genotypes, with leucovorin on day 1, 5FU 400 mg/m(2) bolus on day 1 and continuous 5FU infusion for 46 h, and cetuximab on day 1 (day 1 = day 14). Primary prevention with lenograstim (day 5-9) was given to UGT1A1 6/7 and 7/7 genotypes. The primary endpoint was the response rate (RECIST1.1), and the secondary endpoints were tolerance (NCI-CTC criteria) and R0 resection rate. RESULTS: The average number of cycles per patient was 6 (±1.9). The UGT1A1 genotype was 6/6 in 34.6 %, 6/7 in 53.9 %, and 7/7 in 11.5 % of patients. At 6 cycles, 18 patients (69.2 %) presented a partial response, 5 patients (19.2 %) had stable disease, 2 patients (7.7 %) died independently of chemotherapy, and 1 patient (3.9 %) refused the treatment after 3 cycles. Four patients received 2 more cycles and the cumulative response rate at 8 cycles was 76.9 % (20/26). There was no progression. Among assessable patients (n = 23), the overall response rate was 82.6 % and 21 patients (80.7 %) had a metastasis resection. The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (31 %), diarrhea (20.8 %), and anorexia (16.4 %). There were no deaths due to toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose FOLFIRI combined with cetuximab yielded high response rates and enabled complete resection of class II hepatic metastases in most patients. It seemed to be well-tolerated among healthy selected patients thanks to irinotecan dose adaptation according to UGT1A1 pharmacogenomics status. This intensified chemotherapy regimen needs to be confirmed in a randomized, phase III study.

Regional variations in management of rectal cancer in France.

BACKGROUND: Population-based registries provide excellent data for drawing an accurate picture of disease management practices. The purpose of this study was to determine whether diagnostic and therapeutic management practices for rectal cancer vary in different geographic regions of France. METHODS: Data Issued from nine cancer registries covering 11% of the French population. The files of 683 patients with a rectal cancer diagnosed in 1995 were selected for analysis. RESULTS: Colonoscopy was performed in a mean of 91.6% of patients (range: 80.9%-98.2%) (P=0.01). The practice of colonoscopy concomitantly with barium enema varied greatly, ranging from 1.9%-57.7% of patients (P<0.001). Pretherapeutic work-up practices were significantly different depending on the region with respect to: abdominal CT scans (13.4%-69.2%), thoracic CT scans (0.9%-13.2%) and tumor markers (46.8%-80.8%). There were no significant differences between geographic regions concerning rate of resection, use of colostomy, or tumor stage at diagnosis. Administration of adjuvant radiotherapy (mean, 46.8%; range: 21.6%-70%; P<0.001) and adjuvant chemotherapy (mean, 24.1%; range: 10.3%-40.6%; P<0.05) varied significantly between regions. CONCLUSION: Diagnostic practices and administration of adjuvant treatments vary significantly between geographic regions in France. The recommendations of the French consensus guidelines are only partially adhered to. Practitioners and healthcare Authorities should be aware of these differences in order to provide more harmonious patient care.