Prognostic and predictive value of the Immunoscore in stage III colon cancer patients treated with oxaliplatin in the prospective IDEA France PRODIGE-GERCOR cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Immunoscore (IS), which prognostically classifies stage I-III colon cancer (CC) patients, was evaluated in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Therapy (IDEA) France cohort study investigating 3 versus 6 months of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III CC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Densities of CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the tumor and invasive margin were determined by immunohistochemistry, quantified by digital pathology, and converted to IS. Mismatch repair status was determined by immunohistochemistry or by pentaplex PCR. Prediction of disease-free survival (DFS) by IS was analyzed by a multivariable Cox regression model in each study arm. Harrell's C-statistics were used to investigate the IS performance. RESULTS: Samples of 1322 patients were available. IS Low, Intermediate (Int), and High were observed in 43.6%, 47.0%, and 9.4% of patients, respectively. IS Low identified patients at higher risk of relapse or death compared with Int + High [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-1.93, P = 0.0001]. The 3-year DFS was 66.80% (95% CI 62.23-70.94) for IS Low and 77.14% (95% CI 73.50-80.35) for IS Int + High. In multivariable analysis, IS remained significantly independently associated with DFS (P = 0.003) when adjusted for sex, histological grade, T/N stage, and microsatellite instability. For mFOLFOX6-treated patients (91.6% of the cohort), a statistical significant interaction was observed for the predictive value of IS for treatment duration (3 versus 6 months) in terms of DFS (P = 0.057). IS Int + High significantly predicted benefit of 6 months of treatment (HR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.37-0.75; P = 0.0004), including clinically low- and high-risk stage III CC (all P < 0.001). Conversely, patients with IS Low (46.4%) did not significantly benefit from the 6-month mFOLFOX6 versus the 3-month mFOLFOX6. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic value of IS for DFS was confirmed in patients with stage III CC treated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Its predictive value for DFS benefit of longer duration of mFOLFOX6 adjuvant treatment was found in IS Int + High. These results will be validated in an external independent cohort. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT03422601; EudraCT Number: 2009-010384-16.

Adjuvant FOLFOX +/- cetuximab in full RAS and BRAF wildtype stage III colon cancer patients.

Background: RAS mutations have been shown to confer resistance to anti- epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) treatment. We analysed the results of the PETACC8 trial (cetuximab + FOLFOX vs FOLFOX) in full RAS and BRAF wildtype (WT) patients (pts) with resected stage III colon cancer. Patients and methods: Exons 2, 3 and 4 of KRAS and NRAS, and BRAF exons 11 and 15, were sequenced using the Ampliseq colon-lung cancer panel version 2, in PETACC8 trial pts who consented to translational research. The impact of cetuximab on time to recurrence (TTR), disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) was investigated in pts with tumours harbouring RAS and BRAF WT, and RAS mutations. The prognostic value of each individual mutation was also tested. Results: Among the 2559 pts analysed, 745 pts (29%) were known to have KRAS exon 2 mutations and 163 pts (6.4%) the BRAF V600E mutation. Of the remaining 1651 pts, 1054 were assessed by NGS, showing that a further 227 pts (21%) had KRAS exon 2, 3, 4 or NRAS exon 2, 3, 4 mutations, and that 46 pts (4.4%) had a newly diagnosed BRAF mutation. Cetuximab added to FOLFOX did not significantly improve TTR, DFS or OS in pts with RAS WT or RAS and BRAF WT tumours (HR 0.77-1.03, all P > 0.05). Cetuximab addition was not either significantly deleterious in RAS mutant pts or in pts with rare RAS or BRAF mutations. In the overall trial population, NRAS and KRAS codon 61 mutations were the only rare mutations with the same pejorative prognostic value as KRAS exon 2 or BRAF V600E mutations. Conclusion: Though not significant, the clinically relevant 0.76 adjusted HR observed for DFS in favour of adding cetuximab to FOLFOX, in full RAS and BRAF WT stage III colon cancer pts, may justify a new randomized controlled trial testing EGFR inhibitors in this setting. Clinical trial number: This is an ancillary study of the PETACC8 trial: EUDRACT 2005-003463-23.

Prognostic value of KRAS mutations in stage III colon cancer: post hoc analysis of the PETACC8 phase III trial dataset.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of KRAS mutations in colon adenocarcinoma is controversial. We examined this question as an ancillary study of the PETACC8 phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed the prognostic impact of KRAS exon 2 mutations in stage III colon cancer patients (n = 1657) receiving adjuvant FOLFOX ± cetuximab therapy included in the PETACC8 trial. Patients with BRAF-mutated cancers were excluded and, as no difference was found for time to recurrence (TTR) and disease-free survival (DFS) between treatment arms, both were pooled for analysis. Associations with TTR and DFS were analyzed using a Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: KRAS mutations were found in 638 of 1657 tumors and linked to shorter TTR (P < 0.001). However, when specific mutations were compared with wild-type, codon 12 mutations [hazard ratio (HR) 1.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.35-2.04; P < 0.001] but not codon 13 (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.85-1.79; P = 0.26) were significantly associated with shorter TTR, independently of other covariates. The interaction test showed that, regarding tumor location (distal versus proximal), KRAS genotype affects differently on recurrence (P = 0.02) and DFS (P = 0.042). Subgroup analysis showed that KRAS only affected TTR and DFS in distal tumors (n = 1043; 692 wild type; 351 mutated), with an increased risk of relapse (HR 1.96, 95% CI 1.51-2.56; P < 0.0001) for KRAS codon 12 mutations and a borderline significance for codon 13 mutations (HR 1.59, 95% CI 1.00-2.56; P = 0.051). CONCLUSION: KRAS exon 2 mutations are independent predictors of shorter TTR in patients with resected stage III distal colon cancers receiving adjuvant therapy. Future clinical trials in the adjuvant setting should consider both the tumor location and KRAS mutations as important stratification factors. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: This is an ancillary study of the PETACC8 trial: EUDRACT 2005-003463-23.

[Tolerance and efficacy of preoperative radiation therapy for elderly patients treated for rectal cancer]. / Tolérance et efficacité de la radiothérapie préopératoire chez les patients âgés atteints d'un cancer du rectum.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess the impact of age on tolerance and oncologic outcomes treated by neoadjuvant treatment for patients of 70 years old or above with locally advanced rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ninety-one consecutive patients were divided into three groups: group 1 from 70 to 75 years (n=31); group 2: 76 to 79 years (n=31) and group 3, patients aged 80 years or above (n=29). Radiation therapy was delivered according two schemes: 25Gy in five fractions (short scheme) or 45 to 50Gy with a classical fractionation (long scheme). Long scheme patients received a concomitant chemotherapy with 5-fluoro-uracile alone or associated with oxaliplatin. RESULTS: The three groups were comparable for performance status, Charlson's score and T staging. Long scheme radiation therapy and chemotherapy were performed in 77.5, 74.5 and 48.3% of patients (P=0.03) and 77.4, 71 and 41.4% (P=0.006) in the groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. All patients treated with the short scheme irradiation received the treatment without any acute toxicity. In the long scheme group, 65% of patients received the treatment on time and grade 3 or above toxicity was observed in 12% of patients who did not receive oxaliplatin and in 48% of patients who received oxaliplatin. The overall survival rate at 3 and 5 years was 66.9% and 60.8% in the group 1, 90.5% and 75.9% in the group 2 and 80.5% and 73.8% in the group 3 (P=0.15). CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant treatment is feasible with encouraging survival rates for patients aged 70 years and older. Short scheme radiation therapy seems to be an interesting option in this population.

Consensus meeting for the management of gastrointestinal stromal tumors. Report of the GIST Consensus Conference of 20-21 March 2004, under the auspices of ESMO.

BACKGROUND: The management of gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) has evolved very rapidly in the last 4 years. The objectives of this international consensus meeting were to describe the optimal management procedures for patients with GIST in localized and advanced stages, as well as research issues for the future. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A panel of experts from six specialties, including pathology, molecular biology, imaging, surgery, medical oncology and methodologists for clinical practice guidelines from different European and extra European sarcoma societies were invited to a 2-day workshop. Several questions were selected by the organizing committee prior to the conference. Selected panelists reviewed the current levels of evidence for each point, and presented their conclusions during the meeting. These proposals were discussed, and consensus points were identified and categorized according to the Standard Options Recommandations (SOR) of the French Federation of Cancer Centers and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN). RESULTS: Thirty-two consensus points were identified, most from categories 2A of the NCCN and B2 of the SOR. Among these, the standard histological examination with immunohistochemical analysis using CD117, CD34, PS100, desmin and smooth muscle actin is considered standard. Molecular biology for the identification of KIT and PDGFRA mutation is an optional diagnostic procedure for GIST with negative CD117 staining, and otherwise is considered a research procedure. Complete tumor resection with negative tumor margins is the standard surgical treatment. Adjuvant imatinib after optimal tumor resection as well as neo-adjuvant imatinib remain experimental approaches to be performed within prospective clinical studies. Imatinib should be started at the date of diagnosis of metastatic relapse and given until development of intolerance or progressive disease. The optimal criteria for tumor response to imatinib remain to be delineated, and should include not only tumor size reduction or disease stabilization, but also reduction of tumor density (Hounsfield Units) on computed tomography and metabolic activity (i.e. reduction of FDG uptake on positron emission tomography). In a substantial proportion of patients, stable disease and even increase in tumor size may be associated with pathologic response to imatinib therapy, and available survival data indicate that the survival of these patients is similar to that of patients with conventional tumor response. Metastasis resection is an experimental procedure. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus points in clinical management of GIST as well as questions for future clinical trials were identified during this consensus conference on GIST management.