Complementary Medicine Use Amongst Patients with Metastatic Cancer Enrolled in Phase III Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Complementary medicines (CM) are frequently used by patients with cancer. Controversy exists over the effectiveness and risk that CM may add to conventional cancer therapy. The incidence of CM use among patients enrolled in phase III clinical trials is unknown. METHODS: Medication lists from 6 international phase III clinical trials were retrospectively reviewed to identify patients using CM. Patients had metastatic breast, colorectal, or lung cancers. Quality of life, adverse events, overall survival, and progression-free survival were compared between CM users and non-users. Baseline differences between groups were adjusted with propensity score matching groups. RESULTS: Seven hundred and six of 3446 patients (20.5%) used at least one CM. CM use was highest among patients with breast cancer (35.6%). CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors (ECOG 0-1, non-smoking status, younger age, and fewer metastases). CM use was associated with lower rates of adverse events (50% vs. 62%, P = .002) and quality of life was similar between both groups. After adjustment with propensity score matching, CM use was also associated with longer overall survival in patients with lung cancer (adjusted hazard ratio 0.80, 95%CI, 0.68-0.94, P =.0054). However, several key control variables like EGFR status were not available. CONCLUSION: One in 5 patients in phase III clinical trials report using CM. CM was not associated with worse cancer-specific outcomes. However, CM users had more favorable baseline prognostic factors, and likely other confounders that may have contributed to improved outcomes observed in the lung cohort. Physicians should monitor for CM use and potential interactions with clinical trial drugs.

Study protocol of a phase 1 clinical trial establishing the safety of intrapleural administration of liposomal curcumin: curcumin as a palliative treatment for malignant pleural effusion (IPAL-MPE).

INTRODUCTION: This is a phase 1, open-label, single-centre, uncontrolled, dose-escalation study to evaluate the feasibility, tolerability and pharmacokinetic profiles of a single dose of liposomal curcumin, administered via an existing tunnelled indwelling pleural catheter (TIPC) directly to the tumour site in individuals with diagnoses of malignant pleural effusion. Primarily, we aim to determine a maximum tolerated dose of liposomal curcumin administered via this method. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use a 3+3 expanded cohort for predefined dose-escalation levels or until a predefined number of dose-limiting toxicities are reached. Participants will be administered a single dose of liposomal curcumin (LipoCurc, SignPath Pharma) via their existing TIPC as a sequential enrolling case series with the following dose cohorts: 100, 200 and 300 mg/m2. Primary endpoints are determination of the maximum tolerated dose within the predetermined dose range, and determination of the feasibility of intrapleural administration of liposomal curcumin via an existing TIPC. Secondary endpoints include determination of the safety and tolerability of intrapleural administration of liposomal curcumin, median overall survival, effects on quality of life and on feelings of breathlessness, and the pharmacokinetics and concentrations of curcumin from the plasma and the pleural fluid. Important inclusion criteria include age ≥18 years, an existing TIPC, a pleural biopsy or pleural fluid cytology-proven diagnosis of malignant pleural effusion and for whom no antitumour therapy of proven benefit is available or has been previously declined, eastern cooperative group performance status <2. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the Southern Adelaide Local Health Network Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) (approval number: HREC/20/SAC/11). Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, and presented at conferences, in field of medical oncology and respiratory medicine. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620001216909. PROTOCOL VERSION NUMBER: V.1.0.

RAS Mutations as Predictive Biomarkers in Clinical Management of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

The use of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody therapies in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer is guided by the presence of activating point mutations in codons 12, 13, 59, 61, 117, and 146 of the KRAS and NRAS genes in the primary tumor. Although these mutations have been incorporated into the prescribing information for both cetuximab and panitumumab, highlighted in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines, and routinely tested, a number of controversial issues and unanswered questions related to these mutations and their clinical significance remain. In the present review, we explored the contradictory data related to the prognostic value of KRAS mutations, the reported frequent discordance of KRAS mutations, and the reported nonequivalence of some of these mutations. We also considered the issues related to incorporating additional mutations into the already accredited and approved assays and the challenges created by changing an assay's analytical and clinical limits of detection. We also discuss the lack of biologic data supporting the pathogenicity of newly described clinically actionable mutations and explore the uncertainty regarding the clinical significance of low-frequency mutations, highlighting the importance of correcting allele frequencies for tumor purity. We also considered the importance of distinguishing the significance of low-frequency RAS mutations in tumors previously not treated or treated with anti-EGFR therapies and explore new technologies capable of detecting emerging polyclonal RAS mutations that appear to confer drug resistance.

Comparable survival outcome of metastatic colorectal cancer in Indigenous and non-Indigenous patients: Retrospective analysis of the South Australian metastatic colorectal cancer registry.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate disparities in demographics, disease characteristics, treatment and overall survival between South Australian (SA) Indigenous and non-Indigenous patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). DESIGN: This employs a retrospective population study using the SA mCRC registry. SETTING: The SA mCRC registry identifies mCRC patients from hospital encounters, histopathology reports, medical oncology letters, clinician notification, attendances at multidisciplinary meetings and death audits by the SA Cancer Registry. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2865 adult mCRC patients including 14 Indigenous patients were identified through the SA mCRC registry between February 2006 and August 2013. Patients were linked to the SA Cancer Registry to obtain Indigenous status. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Demographic, disease and treatment characteristics were compared using Chi-squared test and t-test; while overall survival defined as time to any cause of death was analysed using Cox regression. RESULTS: No difference was observed for clinical characteristics, except for a higher proportion of Indigenous patients receiving chemotherapy (85.7% versus 58.5%; P = 0.04). The rate of liver surgery was similar across the two groups (21.0% versus 15.1%; P = 0.40). The median overall survivals were equivalent (11.9 months versus 15.1 months; hazard ratio = 1.00; 95% confidence interval for hazard ratio, 0.54-1.86). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical characteristics and survival outcomes were similar between Indigenous and non-Indigenous patients captured on the SA mCRC registry, and outcome of those who have an access to comprehensive cancer care appeared independent of Indigenous status and in line with large clinical trials. Underestimation of Indigenous cases due to their lower utilisation of cancer service could not be excluded and ultimately the accurate reporting of these patients is crucial.

Does the Chemotherapy Backbone Impact on the Efficacy of Targeted Agents in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature.

IMPORTANCE: The EGFR inhibitors (EGFR-I) cetuximab and panitumumab and the angiogenesis inhibitors (AIs) bevacizumab and aflibercept have demonstrated varying efficacy in mCRC. OBJECTIVE: To document the overall impact of specific chemotherapy regimens on the efficacy of targeted agents in treating patients with mCRC. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched to 2014, supplemented by hand-searching ASCO/ESMO conference abstracts. STUDY SELECTION: Published RCTs of patients with histologically confirmed mCRC were included if they investigated either 1) chemotherapy with or without a biological agent or 2) different chemotherapy regimens with the same biological agent. EGFR-I trials were restricted to KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) populations. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were independently abstracted by two authors and trial quality assessed according to Cochrane criteria. The primary outcome was overall survival with secondary endpoints progression free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity. RESULTS: EGFR-I added to irinotecan-based chemotherapy modestly improved OS with HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-1.00, p = 0.04), but more so PFS with HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.86, p<0.00001). No benefit was evident for EGFR-I added to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (OS HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.87-1.09) and PFS HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.83-1.02)). Significant oxaliplatin-irinotecan subgroup interactions were present for PFS with I2 = 82%, p = 0.02. Further analyses of oxaliplatin+EGFR-I trials showed greater efficacy with infusional 5FU regimens (PFS HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.94) compared to capecitabine (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.91-1.30) and bolus 5FU (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.79-1.45); subgroup interaction was present with I2 = 72%, p = 0.03. The oxaliplatin-irinotecan interaction was not evident for infusional 5FU regimens. For AIs, OS benefit was observed with both oxaliplatin-based (HR 0.83) and irinotecan-based (HR 0.77) regimens without significant subgroup interactions. Oxaliplatin+AI trials showed no subgroup interactions by type of FP, whilst an interaction was present for irinotecan+AI trials although aflibercept was only used with infusional FP (I2 = 89.7%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: The addition of EGFR-I to irinotecan-based chemotherapy has consistent efficacy, regardless of FP regimen, whereas EGFR-I and oxaliplatin-based regimens were most active with infusional 5FU. No such differential activity was observed with the varying chemotherapy schedules when combined with AIs.

Randomized phase II open-label study of mFOLFOX6 in combination with linifanib or bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although CRC is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States, second-line CRC treatment is limited. In this trial we examined the efficacy and safety of linifanib, an oral, potent, selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor and platelet-derived growth factor receptor families, with mFOLFOX6, compared with bevacizumab and mFOLFOX6, in previously treated metastatic CRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred forty-eight patients with advanced CRC previously treated with fluoropyrimidine or irinotecan received bevacizumab (10 mg/kg, intravenous), low-dose linifanib (7.5 mg), or high-dose linifanib (12.5 mg), with mFOLFOX6. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in PFS occurred between bevacizumab and linifanib doses (low, hazard ratio [HR], 1.453 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.830-2.539]; high, HR, 1.257 [95% CI, 0.672-2.351]). Median OS values were similar for bevacizumab and high-dose linifanib (bevacizumab, 16.5 months [95% CI, 13.0-not available]; high-dose linifanib, 16.4 months [95% CI, 11.9-21.7]; low-dose linifanib, 12.0 months [95% CI, 10.1-13.0]). ORRs were similar (bevacizumab, 34.7% [95% CI, 21.7-49.6]; low-dose linifanib, 24.0% [95% CI, 13.1-38.2]; high-dose linifanib, 22.4% [95% CI, 11.8-36.6]). Median cycles of 5-fluorouracil were reduced in the linifanib arms, versus the bevacizumab arm. Grade 3/4 adverse event occurrences were more frequent with linifanib. Palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia, hypothyroidism, and thrombocytopenia were more common with high-dose linifanib than bevacizumab. CONCLUSION: Combining linifanib with mFOLFOX6 as a second-line treatment for metastatic CRC did not improve PFS, radiographic findings, or duration of response versus bevacizumab and mFOLFOX6.

Optimal duration and timing of adjuvant chemotherapy after definitive surgery for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas: ongoing lessons from the ESPAC-3 study.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant chemotherapy improves patient survival rates after resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but the optimal duration and time to initiate chemotherapy is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma treated within the international, phase III, European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer-3 (version 2) study were included if they had been randomly assigned to chemotherapy. Overall survival analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis, retaining patients in their randomized groups, and adjusting the overall treatment effect by known prognostic variables as well as the start time of chemotherapy. RESULTS: There were 985 patients, of whom 486 (49%) received gemcitabine and 499 (51%) received fluorouracil; 675 patients (68%) completed all six cycles of chemotherapy (full course) and 293 patients (30%) completed one to five cycles. Lymph node involvement, resection margins status, tumor differentiation, and completion of therapy were all shown by multivariable Cox regression to be independent survival factors. Overall survival favored patients who completed the full six courses of treatment versus those who did not (hazard ratio [HR], 0.516; 95% CI, 0.443 to 0.601; P < .001). Time to starting chemotherapy did not influence overall survival rates for the full study population (HR, 0.985; 95% CI, 0.956 to 1.015). Chemotherapy start time was an important survival factor only for the subgroup of patients who did not complete therapy, in favor of later treatment (P < .001). CONCLUSION: Completion of all six cycles of planned adjuvant chemotherapy rather than early initiation was an independent prognostic factor after resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. There seems to be no difference in outcome if chemotherapy is delayed up to 12 weeks, thus allowing adequate time for postoperative recovery.

Rechallenge with oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine for metastatic colorectal carcinoma after prior therapy.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) who have received oxaliplatin, 5-fluoropyrimidine, and irinotecan chemotherapy (with or without bevacizumab) and antiepidermal growth factor receptor therapy (if KRAS is wild type) have no further standard treatment options. Although repeating a prior chemotherapy [in particular, oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine (FOX)] is an option, there is very little evidence in the literature for this approach; thus, we reviewed our registry to assess the frequency and outcome of rechallenging with FOX. METHODS: Patients who had been rechallenged with FOX were identified from the South Australian metastatic CRC database. Patient characteristics were analyzed, and tumor response was retrospectively assessed using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. RESULTS: Twenty patients were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. The number of prior lines of therapy received for metastatic CRC was 4 lines for 2 patients, 3 lines for 6 patients, 2 lines for 7 patients, and 1 line for 3 patients, with 3 patients having received oxaliplatin as adjuvant therapy. Four patients had received bevacizumab previously, 7 patients had undergone antiepidermal growth factor receptor treatment, and 4 patients had undergone liver resection earlier. Response rate was 18%, and 47% had stable disease. The median progression-free survival was 3.7 months, median overall survival was 7.8 months, and 1-year survival was 37%. CONCLUSIONS: In this selected population, there is evidence of modest activity of rechallenge with FOX chemotherapy, although radiologic response is uncommon.