Adjuvant platinum versus capecitabine for residual, invasive, triple-negative breast cancer: Patient-reported outcomes in ECOG-ACRIN EA1131.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are a better tool for evaluating the experiences of patients who have symptomatic, treatment-associated adverse events (AEs) compared with clinician-rated AEs. The authors present PROs assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and treatment-related neurotoxicity for adjuvant capecitabine versus platinum on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ECOG-ACRIN) EA1131 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02445391). METHODS: Participants completed the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gynecologic Oncology Group neurotoxicity subscale (platinum arm only) at baseline, cycle 3 day 1 (C3D1), 6 months, and 15 months. Because of early termination, power was insufficient to test the hypothesis that HRQoL, as assessed by the NFBSI-16 treatment side-effect (TSE) subscale, would be better at 6 and 15 months in the capecitabine arm; all analyses were exploratory. Means were compared by using t-tests or the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and proportions were compared by using the χ2 test. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-six of 330 eligible patients provided PROs. The mean NFBSI-16 TSE subscale score was lower for the platinum arm at baseline (p = .02; absolute difference, 0.6 points) and for the capecitabine arm at C3D1 (p = .04; absolute difference, 0.5 points), but it did not differ at other times. The mean change in TSE subscale scores differed between the arms from baseline to C3D1 (platinum arm, 0.15; capecitabine arm, -0.72; p = .03), but not from baseline to later time points. The mean decline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Gynecologic Oncology Group neurotoxicity subscale scores exceeded the minimal meaningful change (1.38 points) from baseline to each subsequent time point (all p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the similar frequency of clinician-rated AEs, PROs identified greater on-treatment symptom burden with capecitabine and complemented clinician-rated AEs by characterizing patients' experiences during chemotherapy.

Adjuvant Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Colon Cancer (COLOPEC): 5-Year Results of a Randomized Multicenter Trial.

Clinical trials frequently include multiple end points that mature at different times. The initial report, typically based on the primary end point, may be published when key planned co-primary or secondary analyses are not yet available. Clinical Trial Updates provide an opportunity to disseminate additional results from studies, published in JCO or elsewhere, for which the primary end point has already been reported.Whether adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) might prevent peritoneal metastases after curative surgery for high-risk colon cancer is an ongoing debate. This study aimed to determine 5-year oncologic outcomes of the randomized multicenter COLOPEC trial, which included patients with clinical or pathologic T4N0-2M0 or perforated colon cancer and randomly assigned (1:1) to either adjuvant systemic chemotherapy and HIPEC (n = 100) or adjuvant systemic chemotherapy alone (n = 102). HIPEC was performed using a one-time administration of oxaliplatin (460 mg/m2, 30 minutes, 42°C, concurrent fluorouracil/leucovorin intravenously), either simultaneously (9%) or within 5-8 weeks (91%) after primary tumor resection. Outcomes were analyzed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Long-term data were available of all 202 patients included in the COLOPEC trial, with a median follow-up of 59 months (IQR, 54.5-64.5). No significant difference was found in 5-year overall survival rate between patients assigned to adjuvant HIPEC followed by systemic chemotherapy or only adjuvant systemic chemotherapy (69.6% v 70.9%, log-rank; P = .692). Five-year peritoneal metastases rates were 63.9% and 63.2% (P = .907) and 5-year disease-free survival was 55.7% and 52.3% (log-rank; P = .875), respectively. No differences in quality-of-life outcomes were found. Our findings implicate that adjuvant HIPEC should still be performed in trial setting only.

Accelerated versus standard epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer (UK TACT2; CRUK/05/19): quality of life results from a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with early breast cancer improves outcomes but its toxicity affects patients' quality of life (QOL). The UK TACT2 trial investigated whether accelerated epirubicin improves time to recurrence and if oral capecitabine is non-inferior to cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) for efficacy with less toxicity. Results showed no benefit for accelerated epirubicin and capecitabine was non-inferior. As part of the QOL substudy, we aimed to assess the effect of chemotherapies on psychological distress, physical symptoms, and functional domains. METHODS: TACT2 was a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, parallel-group, randomised, controlled trial done in 129 UK centres. Participants were aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed node-positive or high-risk node-negative invasive primary breast cancer, who had undergone complete excision, and due to receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to four cycles of 100 mg/m2 epirubicin either every 3 weeks (standard epirubicin) or every 2 weeks with 6 mg pegfilgrastim on day 2 of each cycle (accelerated epirubicin), followed by four 4-week cycles of either CMF (600 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide intravenously on days 1 and 8 or 100 mg/m2 orally on days 1-14; 40 mg/m2 methotrexate intravenously on days 1 and 8; and 600 mg/m2 fluorouracil intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle) or four 3-week cycles of 2500 mg/m2 capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 given twice daily on days 1-14 of each cycle). The randomisation schedule was computer generated in random permuted blocks, stratified by centre, number of nodes involved (none vs 1-3 vs ≥4), age (≤50 years vs >50 years), and planned endocrine treatment (yes vs no). QOL was one of the secondary outcomes and is reported here. All patients from a subset of 44 centres were invited to complete QOL questionnaires (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS] and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] Quality of Life Questionnaire 30-item core module [QLQ-C30] and Quality of Life Questionnaire breast module [QLQ-BR23]) at baseline, end of standard or accelerated epirubicin, end of CMF or capecitabine, and at 12 and 24 months after randomisation. The QOL substudy prespecified two coprimary QOL outcomes assessed in the intention-to-treat population: overall QOL (reported elsewhere) and HADS total score. Prespecified secondary QOL outcomes were EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales of physical function, role function, and fatigue and EORTC QLQ-BR23 subscales of sexual function and systemic therapy side-effects. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN68068041, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00301925. FINDINGS: From Dec 16, 2005, to Dec 5, 2008, 4391 patients (20 [0·5%] of whom were male) were enrolled in TACT2; 1281 (85·8%) of 1493 eligible patients were included in the QOL substudy. Eight (0·6%) participants in the QOL substudy were male and 1273 (99·4%) were female. Median follow-up was 85·6 months (IQR 80·6-95·9). Analysis was performed on the complete QOL dataset (as of Sept 15, 2011) when all participants had passed the 24-month timepoint. Prerandomisation questionnaires were completed by 1172 (91·5%) patients and 1179 (92·0%) completed at least one postrandomisation questionnaire. End-of-treatment HADS depression score (p=0·0048) and HADS total change score (p=0·0093) were worse for CMF versus capecitabine. Accelerated epirubicin led to worse physical function (p=0·0065), role function (p<0·0001), fatigue (p=0·0002), and systemic side-effects (p=0·0001), but not sexual function (p=0·36), compared with standard epirubicin during treatment, but the effect did not persist. Worse physical function (p=0·0048), sexual function (p=0·0053), fatigue (p<0·0001), and systemic side-effects (p<0·0001), but not role functioning (p=0·013), were seen for CMF versus capecitabine at end of treatment; these differences persisted at 12 months and 24 months. INTERPRETATION: Accelerated epirubicin was associated with worse QOL than was standard epirubicin but only during treatment. These findings will help patients and clinicians make an informed choice about accelerated chemotherapy. CMF had worse QOL effects than did capecitabine, which were persistent for 24 months. The favourable capecitabine QOL compared with CMF supports its use as an adjuvant option after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Amgen, Pfizer, and Roche.

Changes in Prescribing Patterns in Stage III Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: For patients with resected stage III colon cancer, 6 months of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy has been the standard of care. The IDEA collaboration aimed to evaluate whether 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy was noninferior to 6 months. Despite failing to meet its primary endpoint, the subgroup analyses demonstrated noninferiority based on regimen and treatment duration when a risk-stratified approach was used. PATIENTS AND METHODS: To evaluate the impact of the results of the IDEA collaboration, we evaluated adjuvant chemotherapy prescribing practice patterns, including planned adjuvant treatment regimen and duration from January 1, 2016, to January 31, 2021. The time period was selected to evaluate chemotherapy prescribing patterns prior to the abstract presentation of the IDEA collaboration in June 2017 and after full manuscript publication in March 2018. RESULTS: A total of 399 patients with stage III colon cancer who received adjuvant chemotherapy were included in the analysis. A significant increasing trend for use of 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy was observed after presentation of the IDEA abstract (P<.001). A significant change in CAPOX (capecitabine/oxaliplatin) prescribing was also observed, increasing from 14% of patients prior to presentation of the IDEA abstract to 48% after presentation (P<.001). Comparing 3 months of CAPOX with 6 months of FOLFOX (fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin), 3 months of CAPOX use also steadily increased over time (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.20-1.37; P<.001). Among subgroups of interest, no differences in adoption of CAPOX were observed. The adoption of 3 months of CAPOX was similar in patients with low-risk cancer (aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.17-1.37) and those with high-risk cancer (aOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.16-1.47). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the IDEA collaboration failing to demonstrate noninferiority of 3 months' duration of adjuvant therapy compared with 6 months, the findings have influenced practice prescribing patterns, favoring CAPOX and a shorter duration of planned adjuvant treatment.

Underutilization or appropriate care? Assessing adjuvant chemotherapy use and survival in 3 heterogenous subpopulations with stage II/III colorectal cancer within a large integrated health system.

BACKGROUND: Clinical guidelines have recommended adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) for patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer, although the survival benefit is unclear. ACT is also recommended for patients with stage III colon cancer to reduce the risk of recurrence and mortality. For stage II/III rectal cancer, however, the role of perioperative chemotherapy (PCT, adjuvant or neoadjuvant) remains controversial, resulting in substantial variation in its use in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To understand real-world use and predictors of ACT or PCT use and survival outcomes in 3 heterogeneous patient groups with colorectal cancer (CRC), and to inform the evidence gap between guideline-based care and clinical practice. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included patients with an initial stage II/III CRC diagnosis between 2008 and 2013 identified from Kaiser Permanente Southern California electronic health record databases. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18-74 years at diagnosis and received primary curative surgery. We fitted mixed effects logistic regression models to evaluate predictors of ACT receipt and Cox proportional hazards models on propensity score-matched (PS-matched) samples to assess the association between ACT/PCT receipt and survival. RESULTS: We included 1,690 patients with colon cancer (stage II: 820 and stage III: 870) and 587 patients with rectal cancer (stage II: 241 and stage III: 346). We found that 65% of patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer, 15% of those with stage III colon, and 15% of those with stage II/III rectal cancer did not receive ACT/PCT. Patients with stage II colon cancer with T4 stage (odds ratio [OR] = 5.79, 95% CI = 3.33 - 10.06) and a lower comorbidity score were more likely to receive ACT (high vs low Charlson score: OR = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.55 - 0.87). Patients with stage III rectal cancer were more likely to receive PCT than those with stage II disease (OR = 7.85, 95% CI = 2.07 - 29.74). Patients with another cancer diagnosis prior to CRC diagnosis were less likely to receive PCT (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.16 - 0.85). ACT/PCT use was associated with improved overall survival among patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer (PS-matched hazard ratio [HR] = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.25 - 0.70) and those with stage III CRC (stage III colon: PS-matched HR = 0.3, 95% CI = 0.25 - 0.36; stage III rectal: PS-matched HR = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.13 - 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: We found potential underuse of appropriate chemotherapy treatment in patients with high-risk stage II colon cancer and stage III CRC. Clinicians' and providers' decisions on ACT administration may not be fully guided by the risk of recurrence and 5-year survival benefits in stage II colon cancer. DISCLOSURES: This research was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (under R37-CA218413). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH.

Correlation between recurrence-free survival and overall survival after upfront surgery for resected colorectal liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: The role of recurrence-free survival (RFS) as a valid surrogate endpoint for overall survival (OS) in patients who underwent upfront surgery for colorectal liver metastases remains uncertain. The aim of the study was to compare the two survival measures in a nationwide cohort of upfront resected colorectal liver metastasis. METHODS: Data from patients with colorectal liver metastases without extrahepatic metastases who underwent curative surgery for liver metastases were retrieved from the Japanese nationwide database (data collection 2005-2007 and 2013-2014). RFS, OS, and survival after recurrence were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The correlation (ρ) between RFS and OS was assessed using the rank correlation method combined with iterative multiple imputation, to account for censoring. As a secondary analysis, the correlation was evaluated according to adjuvant chemotherapy regimen. In sensitivity analysis, the pairwise correlation between RFS and OS was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 2385 patients with colorectal liver metastases were included. In the primary analysis, there was a moderately strong correlation between RFS and OS (ρ = 0.73, 95 per cent c.i. 0.70 to 0.76). The strength of the correlation was similar regardless of the adjuvant treatment regimen (oxaliplatin plus 5-fluorouracil: ρ = 0.72, 0.67 to 0.77; 5-fluorouracil alone: ρ = 0.72, 0.66 to 0.76; observation: ρ = 0.74, 0.69 to 0.78). The mean(s.d.) pairwise correlation coefficient between 3-year RFS and 5-year OS was 0.87(0.06). CONCLUSION: In surgically treated patients with colorectal liver metastases, there was a moderately strong correlation between RFS and OS, which was unaffected by the treatment regimen. Further validation using a trial-level analysis is required.

The clinical impacts of postoperative complications after colon cancer surgery for the clinical course of adjuvant treatment and survival.

AIM: We investigated whether or not postoperative complications (POCs) themselves have a negative survival impact or indirectly worsen the survival due to insufficient adjuvant chemotherapy in a pooled analysis of two large phase III studies performed in Japan PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study examined the patients who enrolled in 1304, phase III study comparing the efficacy of 6 and 12 months of capecitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer patients and in 882, a phase III study to confirm the tolerability of oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and l-leucovorin in Japanese stage II/III colon cancer patients. In our study, POCs were defined as the following major surgical complications: anastomotic leakage, pneumonia, bowel obstruction/ileus, surgical site infection, postoperative bleeding, urinary tract infection, and fistula. Patients were classified as those with POCs (C group) and those without POCs (NC group). RESULTS: A total of 2095 patients were examined in the present study. POCs were observed in 169 patients (8.1%). The overall survival (OS) rates at 5 years after surgery were 75.3% in the C group and 86.5% in the NC group (p = 0.0017). The hazard ratio of POCs for the OS in multivariate analysis was 1.70 (95% confidence interval, 1.19 to 2.45; p = 0.0040). The time to adjuvant treatment failure (TTF) of adjuvant chemotherapy was similar between the groups, being 68.6% in the C group and 67.1% in the NC group for the 6-month continuation rate of adjuvant chemotherapy. The dose reduction rate of adjuvant chemotherapy and adjuvant treatment suspension rate were also similar between the groups (C vs. NC groups: 45.0% vs. 48.7%, p = 0.3520; and 52.7% vs. 55.0%, p = 0.5522, respectively). CONCLUSION: POCs were associated with a poor prognosis but did not affect the intensity of adjuvant chemotherapy. These results suggested that POCs themselves negatively influence the survival.

Detailed Sub-study Analysis of the SECRAB Trial: Quality of Life, Cosmesis and Chemotherapy Dose Intensity.

AIMS: SECRAB was a prospective, open-label, multicentre, randomised phase III trial comparing synchronous to sequential chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Conducted in 48 UK centres, it recruited 2297 patients (1150 synchronous and 1146 sequential) between 2 July 1998 and 25 March 2004. SECRAB reported a positive therapeutic benefit of using adjuvant synchronous CRT in the management of breast cancer; 10-year local recurrence rates reduced from 7.1% to 4.6% (P = 0.012). The greatest benefit was seen in patients treated with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CMF) rather than CMF. The aim of its sub-studies reported here was to assess whether quality of life (QoL), cosmesis or chemotherapy dose intensity differed between the two CRT regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The QoL sub-study used EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23 and the Women's Health Questionnaire. Cosmesis was assessed: (i) by the treating clinician, (ii) by a validated independent consensus scoring method and (iii) from the patients' perspective by analysing four cosmesis-related QoL questions within the QLQ-BR23. Chemotherapy doses were captured from pharmacy records. The sub-studies were not formally powered; rather, the aim was that at least 300 patients (150 in each arm) were recruited and differences in QoL, cosmesis and dose intensity of chemotherapy assessed. The analysis, therefore, is exploratory in nature. RESULTS: No differences were observed in the change from baseline in QoL between the two arms assessed up to 2 years post-surgery (Global Health Status: -0.05; 95% confidence interval -2.16, 2.06; P = 0.963). No differences in cosmesis were observed (via independent and patient assessment) up to 5 years post-surgery. The percentage of patients receiving the optimal course-delivered dose intensity (≥85%) was not significantly different between the arms (synchronous 88% versus sequential 90%; P = 0.503). CONCLUSIONS: Synchronous CRT is tolerable, deliverable and significantly more effective than sequential, with no serious disadvantages identified when assessing 2-year QoL or 5-year cosmetic differences.

Determining the survival benefit of postoperative radiotherapy in patients with pT1-3N1M0 rectal cancer undergoing total mesorectal excision: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend routine postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy for patients with stage III rectal cancer who do not receive neoadjuvant therapy before surgery. The present study aimed to evaluate the value of postoperative radiotherapy in patients with low-risk disease (pT1-3N1M0) who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy prior to total mesorectal excision. METHODS: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database (2004-2016) to retrospectively recruit patients with pT1-3N1M0 rectal cancer whose initial treatment was radical surgery with postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. A propensity score model was used to balance the baseline covariates. RESULTS: Of the 2012 patients included in the present study, 1384 received adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (radio group), whereas the remaining 718 received chemotherapy alone (no-radio group). There was no significant difference in cancer-specific survival rate between the two groups (log-rank test χ2 = 2.372, P = 0.124) in the overall sample. Additionally, in the propensity score-matched cohort, adjuvant radiotherapy did not improve cancer-specific survival. Subgroup analysis showed that having three positive lymph nodes and a tumor > 50 mm, combined with postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy, could lead to an improved tumor-specific survival rate, while other cases did not benefit from postoperative radiotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with pT1-3N1M0 rectal cancer who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy before surgery, postoperative radiotherapy in addition to adjuvant chemotherapy did not significantly improve survival rates. The number of positive nodes (n = 3) and tumor size (> 50 mm) were found to be potential screening indicators for postoperative adjuvant radiotherapy.

Preoperative Chemotherapy for Operable Colon Cancer: Mature Results of an International Randomized Controlled Trial.

PURPOSE: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) has potential advantages over standard postoperative chemotherapy for locally advanced colon cancer but requires formal evaluation. METHODS: Patients with radiologically staged T3-4, N0-2, M0 colon cancer were randomly allocated (2:1) to 6 weeks oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine preoperatively plus 18 postoperatively (NAC group) or 24 weeks postoperatively (control group). Patients with RAS-wildtype tumors could also be randomly assigned 1:1 to receive panitumumab or not during NAC. The primary end point was residual disease or recurrence within 2 years. Secondary outcomes included surgical morbidity, histopathologic stage, regression grade, completeness of resection, and cause-specific mortality. Log-rank analyses were by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Of 699 patients allocated to NAC, 674 (96%) started and 606 (87%) completed NAC. In total, 686 of 699 (98.1%) NAC patients and 351 of 354 (99.2%) control patients underwent surgery. Thirty patients (4.3%) allocated to NAC developed obstructive symptoms requiring expedited surgery, but there were fewer serious postoperative complications with NAC than with control. NAC produced marked T and N downstaging and histologic tumor regression (all P < .001). Resection was more often histopathologically complete: 94% (648/686) versus 89% (311/351), P < .001. Fewer NAC than control patients had residual or recurrent disease within 2 years (16.9% [118/699] v 21.5% [76/354]; rate ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.54 to 0.98]; P = .037). Tumor regression correlated strongly with freedom from recurrence. Panitumumab did not enhance the benefit from NAC. Little benefit from NAC was seen in mismatch repair-deficient tumors. CONCLUSION: Six weeks of preoperative oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy for operable colon cancer can be delivered safely, without increasing perioperative morbidity. This chemotherapy regimen, when given preoperatively, produces marked histopathologic down-staging, fewer incomplete resections, and better 2-year disease control. Histologic regression after NAC is a strong predictor of lower postoperative recurrence risk so has potential use as a guide for postoperative therapy. Six weeks of NAC should be considered as a treatment option for locally advanced colon cancer.

Personalizing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced colon cancer: protocols for the international phase III FOxTROT2 and FOxTROT3 randomized controlled trials.

AIM: FOxTROT1 established a new standard of care for managing locally advanced colon cancer (CC) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Six weeks of neoadjuvant oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine (OxFp) chemotherapy was associated with greater 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) when compared with proceeding straight to surgery (STS). There is now a need to refine the use of NAC and identify those most likely to benefit. FOxTROT2 will aim to investigate NAC in older adults and those with frailty. FOxTROT3 will aim to assess whether intensified triplet NAC provides additional benefits over OxFp. METHOD: FOxTROT2 and FOxTROT3 are international, open-label, phase III randomized controlled trials. Eligible patients will be identified by the multidisciplinary team. Patient age, frailty and comorbidities will be considered to guide trial entry. Participants will be randomized 2:1 to the intervention or control arm: 6 weeks of dose-adapted neoadjuvant OxFp versus STS in FOxTROT2 and 6 weeks of neoadjuvant modified oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and irinotecan versus OxFp in FOxTROT3. The primary endpoint in FOxTROT2 is 3-year DFS. In FOxTROT3, tumour regression grade and 3-year DFS are co-primary endpoints. DISCUSSION: FOxTROT2 and FOxTROT3 will establish the FOxTROT platform, a key part of our long-term strategy to develop neoadjuvant treatments for CC. FOxTROT2 will investigate NAC in a population under-represented in FOxTROT1 and wider research. FOxTROT3 will assess whether it is possible to induce greater early tumour responses and whether this translates to superior long-term outcomes. Looking ahead, the FOxTROT platform will facilitate further trial comparisons and extensive translational research to optimize the use of NAC in CC.

Incorporating neoadjuvant chemotherapy into locally advanced colon cancer treatment pathways: Real-life experience of implementing FOxTROT.

AIM: The international FOxTROT trial, recently published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology is the first randomized controlled trial testing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) with oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil in locally advanced, but operable, colon cancer. The trial met its primary endpoint with fewer patients experiencing recurrent or residual disease at 2 years with NAC compared with the control (16.8% vs. 21.2%, risk ratio = 0.74, p  = 0.042). Translating the findings of the FOxTROT trial into improved patient outcomes is dependent on implementation of new neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) pathways in colorectal cancer. METHOD: We describe our experience implementing a novel neoadjuvant treatment pathway in colorectal cancer at a large UK teaching hospital. RESULTS: To date 64 patients have been commenced on the novel pathway following presentation and adoption of the FOxTROT trial results. We present key lessons and strategies developed across the multidisciplinary team to minimize impact on person hours, service capacity and budget, whilst building patient safety and confidence. CONCLUSION: Use of NAC for locally advanced colon cancer has been shown to improve surgical outcomes and longer term cancer outcomes. Provision of NAC requires some modifications to current treatment pathways but can be delivered with team working and without the requirement for additional resources.

Fluorouracil and dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with early-stage breast cancer (GIM2): end-of-study results from a randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous analyses of the GIM (Gruppo Italiano Mammella) 2 study showed that addition of fluorouracil to epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel in patients with node-positive early breast cancer does not improve outcome, whereas dose-dense chemotherapy induces a significant improvement in both disease-free survival and overall survival as compared with a standard schedule. Here, we present long-term results of the study. METHODS: In this 2 × 2 factorial, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients aged 18-70 years with operable, node-positive, breast cancer with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 from 81 hospitals in Italy. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1:1:1) to one of the four following study groups: four cycles of standard-interval intravenous EC (epirubicin 90 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2) on day 1 every 3 weeks, followed by four cycles of intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) on day 1 every 3 weeks (q3EC-P group); four cycles of intravenous FEC (fluorouracil 600 mg/m2, epirubicin 90 mg/m2, and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m2) on day 1 every 3 weeks, followed by four cycles of intravenous paclitaxel (175 mg/m2) on day 1 every 3 weeks (q3FEC-P group); dose-dense EC-P regimen, with the same doses and drugs as the q3EC-P group but administered every 2 weeks (q2EC-P group); and the dose-dense FEC-P regimen, with the same doses and drugs as the q3FEC-P group but given every 2 weeks (q2FEC-P). Randomisation, with stratification by centre, with permuted blocks of size 12, was done with a centralised, interactive, internet-based system that randomly generated the treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, comparing different chemotherapy schedule (dose-dense vs standard-dose intervals) and regimen (FEC-P vs EC-P). Safety population included all patients that received at least one dose of any study drug according to the treatment received. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00433420, and is now closed. FINDINGS: Between April 24, 2003, and July 3, 2006, 2091 patients were randomly assigned to treatment: 545 to q3EC-P, 544 to q3FEC-P, 502 to q2EC-P, and 500 to q2FEC-P. 88 patients were enrolled in centres providing only standard interval schedule and were assigned only to q3FEC-P and q3EC-P; thus, 2091 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis for the comparison of EC-P (1047 patients) versus FEC-P (1044 patients) and 2003 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis for the comparison of dose-dense (1002 patients) versus standard interval analysis (1001 patients). After a median follow-up of 15·1 years (IQR 8·4-16·3), median disease-free survival was not significantly different between FEC-P and EC-P groups (17·09 years [95% CI 15·51-not reached] vs not reached [17·54-not reached]; unadjusted hazard ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·98-1·29]; log-rank p=0·11). Median disease-free survival was significantly higher in the dose-dense interval group than the standard-interval group (not reached [95% CI 17·45-not reached] vs 16·52 [14·24-17·54]; 0·77 [95% CI 0·67-0·89]; p=0·0004). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (200 [37%] of 536 patients in the q3EC-P group vs 257 [48%] of 533 in the q3FEC-P group vs 50 [10%] of 496 q2EC-P vs 97 [20%] of 492) and alopecia (238 [44%] vs 249 [47%] vs 228 [46%] vs 235 [48%]). During extended follow-up, no further grade 3-4 adverse events or deaths related to toxic-effects were reported. Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in nine (2%) patients in the q3EC-P group, seven (1%) in the q3FEC-P group, nine (2%) in the q2EC-P group, and nine (2%) in the q2FEC-P group. No treatment-related deaths occurred. INTERPRETATION: Updated results from the GIM2 study support that optimal adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk early breast cancer should not include fluorouracil and should use a dose-dense schedule. FUNDING: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pharmacia, Dompè Biotec Italy, Italian Ministry of Health, Fondazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro, and Alliance Against Cancer.

Circulating Tumor DNA Analysis Guiding Adjuvant Therapy in Stage II Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colon cancer continues to be debated. The presence of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) after surgery predicts very poor recurrence-free survival, whereas its absence predicts a low risk of recurrence. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for ctDNA-positive patients is not well understood. METHODS: We conducted a trial to assess whether a ctDNA-guided approach could reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy without compromising recurrence risk. Patients with stage II colon cancer were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to have treatment decisions guided by either ctDNA results or standard clinicopathological features. For ctDNA-guided management, a ctDNA-positive result at 4 or 7 weeks after surgery prompted oxaliplatin-based or fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy. Patients who were ctDNA-negative were not treated. The primary efficacy end point was recurrence-free survival at 2 years. A key secondary end point was adjuvant chemotherapy use. RESULTS: Of the 455 patients who underwent randomization, 302 were assigned to ctDNA-guided management and 153 to standard management. The median follow-up was 37 months. A lower percentage of patients in the ctDNA-guided group than in the standard-management group received adjuvant chemotherapy (15% vs. 28%; relative risk, 1.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.25 to 2.65). In the evaluation of 2-year recurrence-free survival, ctDNA-guided management was noninferior to standard management (93.5% and 92.4%, respectively; absolute difference, 1.1 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.1 to 6.2 [noninferiority margin, -8.5 percentage points]). Three-year recurrence-free survival was 86.4% among ctDNA-positive patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy and 92.5% among ctDNA-negative patients who did not. CONCLUSIONS: A ctDNA-guided approach to the treatment of stage II colon cancer reduced adjuvant chemotherapy use without compromising recurrence-free survival. (Supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; DYNAMIC Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12615000381583.).

The quality of life in neoadjuvant versus adjuvant therapy of esophageal cancer treatment trial (QUINTETT): Randomized parallel clinical superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: We compared the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients undergoing trimodality therapy for resectable stage I-III esophageal cancer. METHODS: A total of 96 patients were randomized to standard neoadjuvant cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy plus radiotherapy (neoadjuvant) followed by surgical resection or adjuvant cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and epirubicin chemotherapy with concurrent extended volume radiotherapy (adjuvant) following surgical resection. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the functional assessment of cancer therapy-esophageal (FACT-E) total scores between arms at 1 year (p = 0.759) with 36% versus 41% (neoadjuvant vs. adjuvant), respectively, showing an increase of ≥15 points compared to pre-treatment (p = 0.638). The HRQOL was significantly inferior at 2 months in the neoadjuvant arm for FACT-E, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-OG25), and EuroQol 5-D-3 L in the dysphagia, reflux, pain, taste, and coughing domains (p < 0.05). Half of patients were able to complete the prescribed neoadjuvant arm chemotherapy without modification compared to only 14% in the adjuvant arm (p < 0.001). Chemotherapy related adverse events of grade ≥2 occurred significantly more frequently in the neoadjuvant arm (100% vs. 69%, p < 0.001). Surgery related adverse events of grade ≥2 were similar in both arms (72% vs. 86%, p = 0.107). There were no 30-day mortalities and 2% vs. 10% 90-day mortalities (p = 0.204). There were no significant differences in either overall survival (OS) (5-year: 35% vs. 32%, p = 0.409) or disease-free survival (DFS) (5-year: 31% vs. 30%, p = 0.710). CONCLUSION: Trimodality therapy is challenging for patients with resectable esophageal cancer regardless of whether it is given before or after surgery. Newer and less toxic protocols are needed.

Is short-course radiotherapy and total neoadjuvant therapy the new standard of care in locally advanced rectal cancer? A sensitivity analysis of the RAPIDO clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The results of the RAPIDO trial have been accepted as evidence in favour of short-course radiotherapy (SC-RT) followed by chemotherapy before total mesorectal excision in high-risk locally advanced rectal cancer. A noteworthy concern is that the RAPIDO trial did not ensure that all patients in the control arm received adjuvant chemotherapy. This may bias statistical estimates in favour of the experimental arm if adjuvant chemotherapy is active in rectal cancer. Moreover, the 5-year update revealed an increase in the risk of local relapse in the experimental arm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out sensitivity analyses to determine how plausible effects of adjuvant chemotherapy, adjusted by the proportion of patients in the standard arm receiving adjuvant treatment, would have influenced the observed treatment effect estimate of the RAPIDO trial. The most plausible values for the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy were determined by Bayesian re-analysis of a prior meta-analysis. RESULTS: The meta-analysis suggested that oxaliplatin/fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy may improve disease-free survival (DFS) in rectal cancer although the signal is weak [hazard ratio (HR) 0.84, 95% credible interval, 0.57-1.15]; probability of benefit (HR <1) was 91.2%. In the sensitivity analysis, the HR for disease-related treatment failure would remain <1, thus favouring total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), on most occasions, but the null hypothesis would not have been rejected in various credible settings. For the RAPIDO data to be consistent with the null effect, a moderate benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy (HR for DFS between 0.75 and 0.80) and 70%-80% of exposed participants would suffice. CONCLUSION: The decision to make adjuvant chemotherapy optional in the standard arm may have biased the results in favour of the experimental arm, in a scenario in which TNT does not offset the increase in local recurrences after SC-RT.

CDX2 Biomarker Testing and Adjuvant Therapy for Stage II Colon Cancer: An Exploratory Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Adjuvant chemotherapy is not recommended for patients with average-risk stage II (T3N0) colon cancer. Nevertheless, a subgroup of these patients who are CDX2-negative might benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of testing for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil combined with oxaliplatin [FOLFOX]) for patients with stage II colon cancer. METHODS: We developed a decision model to simulate a hypothetical cohort of 65-year-old patients with average-risk stage II colon cancer with 7.2% of these patients being CDX2-negative under 2 different interventions: (1) test for the absence of CDX2 expression followed by adjuvant chemotherapy for CDX2-negative patients and (2) no CDX2 testing and no adjuvant chemotherapy for any patient. We derived disease progression parameters, adjuvant chemotherapy effectiveness and utilities from published analyses, and cancer care costs from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data. Sensitivity analyses were conducted. RESULTS: Testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX for CDX2-negative patients had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $5500/quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) compared with no CDX2 testing and no FOLFOX (6.874 vs 6.838 discounted QALYs and $89 991 vs $89 797 discounted US dollar lifetime costs). In sensitivity analyses, considering a cost-effectiveness threshold of $100 000/QALY, testing for CDX2 followed by FOLFOX on CDX2-negative patients remains cost-effective for hazard ratios of <0.975 of the effectiveness of FOLFOX in CDX2-negative patients in reducing the rate of developing a metastatic recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Testing tumors of patients with stage II colon cancer for CDX2 and administration of adjuvant treatment to the subgroup found CDX2-negative is a cost-effective and high-value management strategy across a broad range of plausible assumptions.

Chemotherapy in resectable or potentially resectable colon cancer with liver metastases.

INTRODUCTION: The treatment of colorectal cancer liver metastases has seen significant improvement in recent years and, for certain patients, the long-term survival and even cure are possible. Despite this improvement, many more questions are yet to be answered: the optimal combination, duration, sequence of therapies, role of biologics and the timing of surgical resection are debated in the literature, with conflicting trial results. AREAS COVERED: In this review, the authors highlight the current trial evidence for systemic chemotherapy and biologic therapy for colorectal cancer liver metastases in both the pre and post-resection setting. EXPERT OPINION: The treatment of colorectal liver metastases requires a multidisciplinary approach. The role of adjuvant chemotherapy with 5 fluorouracil and oxaliplatin in stage 3 colon cancer is well established. However, the options for patients with resectable or borderline liver metastases, either in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant settings, require further study. For patients with borderline resectable metastases, the combination of triplet chemotherapy with 5 fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI) offers the best conversion rate. The role of biologic agents such as bevacizumab and EGFR inhibitors in these settings is less clear based on current evidence.

A novel method of bedside hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy as adjuvant therapy for stage-III gastric cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of a novel method of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) as adjuvant therapy for stage-III gastric cancer. METHODS: Patients with stage-III gastric cancer who underwent D2 radical gastrectomy were randomly assigned to the HIPEC or control group four weeks after surgery. The HIPEC group was treated with cisplatin (60 mg/m2) administered with a HIPEC device on days 1 and 3 (30 mg/m2 each time), along with oral S-1, 40-60 mg, twice daily, for 14 days. The control group was treated with cisplatin (60 mg/m2) administered intravenously plus oral S-1 (40-60 mg, 2/d for 14 days). The primary outcome of the study was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Total 114 patients were included in the study, with 57 patients in each group. The median DFS was 29.0 months in the HIPEC group, which was significantly longer than that in the control group (15.0 months, p = 0.006). The two-year DFS rate in the HIPEC group was higher than that in the control group (50.4% vs. 25.5%). Median OS was 42.0 month in the HIPEC group and 31.0 month in the control (p = 0.042). Peritoneal metastasis occurred in six patients in the HIPEC group (10.5%) and 12 patients in the control (21.1%, p = 0.198). No significant difference in the incidence of adverse event except for thrombocytopenia. CONCLUSION: HIPEC with cisplatin plus oral S-1 is a safe and effective adjuvant therapy for patients with advanced gastric cancer following D2 radical gastrectomy. Trial registration: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the identifier (NCT number): NCT02396498.

The Conventional Technique Versus the No-touch Isolation Technique for Primary Tumor Resection in Patients With Colon Cancer (JCOG1006): A Multicenter, Open-label, Randomized, Phase III Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This phase III trial evaluated whether the no touch was superior to the conventional in patients with cT3/T4 colon cancer. BACKGROUND: No touch involves ligating blood vessels that feed the primary tumor to limit cancer cell spreading. However, previous studies did not confirm the efficacy of the no touch. METHODS: This open-label, randomized, phase III trial was conducted at 30 Japanese centers. The eligibility criteria were histologically proven colon cancer; clinical classification of T3-4, N0-2, andM0; and patients aged 20 to 80years. Patients were randomized (1:1) to undergo open surgery with conventional or the no touch. Patients with pathological stage III disease received adjuvant capecitabine chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS) according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Between January 2011 and November 2015, 853 patients were randomized to the conventional group (427 patients) or the no touch group (426 patients). The 3-year DFS were 77.3% [95% confidence interval (CI) 73.1%-81.0%] and 76.2% (95% CI 71.9%-80.0%) in the conventional and no touch groups, respectively. The superiority of no touch was not confirmed: hazard ratio for DFS = 1.029 (95% CI 0.800- 1.324; 1-sided P = 0.59). Operative morbidity was observed in 31 of 427 conventional patients (7%) and 26 of 426 no touch patients (6%). All grade adverse events were similar between the conventional and no touch groups. No in-hospital mortality occurred in either group. CONCLUSION: The present study failed to confirm the superiority of the no touch.