Standard diametric versus volumetric early tumor shrinkage as a predictor of survival in metastatic colorectal cancer: subgroup findings of the randomized, open-label phase III trial FIRE-3 / AIO KRK-0306.

OBJECTIVES: Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) quantifies the objective response at the first assessment during systemic treatment. In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), ETS gains relevance as an early available surrogate for patient survival. The aim of this study was to increase the predictive accuracy of ETS by using semi-automated volumetry instead of standard diametric measurements. METHODS: Diametric and volumetric ETS were retrospectively calculated in 253 mCRC patients who received 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) combined with either cetuximab or bevacizumab. The association of diametric and volumetric ETS with overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was compared. RESULTS: Continuous diametric and volumetric ETS predicted survival similarly regarding concordance indices (p > .05). In receiver operating characteristics, a volumetric threshold of 45% optimally identified short-term survivors. For patients with volumetric ETS ≥ 45% (vs < 45%), median OS was longer (32.5 vs 19.0 months, p < .001) and the risk of death reduced for the first and second year (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.25, p < .001, and HR = 0.39, p < .001). Patients with ETS ≥ 45% had a reduced risk of progressive disease only for the first 6 months (HR = 0.26, p < .001). These survival times and risks were comparable to those of diametric ETS ≥ 20% (vs < 20%). CONCLUSIONS: The accuracy of ETS in predicting survival was not increased by volumetric instead of diametric measurements. Continuous diametric and volumetric ETS similarly predicted survival, regardless of whether patients received cetuximab or bevacizumab. A volumetric ETS threshold of 45% and a diametric ETS threshold of 20% equally identified short-term survivors. KEY POINTS: • ETS based on volumetric measurements did not predict survival more accurately than ETS based on standard diametric measurements. • Continuous diametric and volumetric ETS predicted survival similarly in patients receiving FOLFIRI with cetuximab or bevacizumab. • A volumetric ETS threshold of 45% and a diametric ETS threshold of 20% equally identified short-term survivors.

Early weight loss is an independent risk factor for shorter survival and increased side effects in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing first-line treatment within the randomized Phase III trial FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306).

Body weight loss is frequently regarded as negatively related to outcomes in patients with malignancies. This retrospective analysis of the FIRE-3 study evaluated the evolution of body weight in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). FIRE-3 evaluated first-line FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) plus cetuximab or bevacizumab in mCRC patients with RAS-WT tumors (ie, wild-type in KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). The prognostic and predictive relevance of early weight loss (EWL) regarding patient outcomes and treatment side effects were evaluated. Retrospective data on body weight during first 6 months of treatment were evaluated (N = 326). To correlate with efficacy endpoints and treatment side effects, patients were grouped according to clinically significant EWL ≥5% and <5% at Month 3. Age constituted the only significant predictor of EWL following a linear relationship with the corresponding log odds ratio (P = .016). EWL was significantly associated with the incident frequencies of diarrhea, edema, fatigue, nausea and vomiting. Further, a multivariate analysis revealed EWL to be an independent negative prognostic factor for overall survival (32.4 vs 21.1 months; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13-2.38; P = .0098) and progression-free survival (11.8 vs 9.0 months; HR: 1.72; 95% CI = 1.18-2.5; P = .0048). In conclusion, EWL during systemic treatment against mCRC is significantly associated with patient age. Patients exhibiting EWL had worse survival and higher frequencies of adverse events. Early preventative measures targeted at weight maintenance should be evaluated, especially in elderly patients being at highest risk of EWL.

Efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab vs FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in 1st-line treatment of older patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer: an analysis of the randomised trial FIRE-3.

BACKGROUND: The evidence on the efficacy of anticancer therapy is limited in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This retrospective analysis of phase III FIRE-3 trial assesses the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab according to the patients' age and sidedness of primary tumour. METHODS: The study endpoints overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between younger (<65 years) and older (≥65 years) patients, followed by stratification according to primary tumour sidedness. ORR was compared using Fisher´s exact test, OS and PFS were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. Univariate Cox regression analyses assessed hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for OS and PFS. RESULTS: Overall, older patients with RAS WT tumours had a significantly shorter OS when compared to younger patients (25.9 months vs 29.3 months, HR 1.29; P = 0.02). Also the proportion of right-sided tumours was significantly greater in older patients (27.1% vs 17.9%; P = 0.029). Secondary resection rates were numerically higher in younger patients (25.4% vs. 17.6%, P = 0.068) than in older patients. This was primarily seen in the Cetuximab arm, where older patients underwent less likely resection (13.1% vs. 26%; P = 0.02). Older patients with left-sided tumours showed only a trend towards greater efficacy of cetuximab (HR 0.86; P = 0.38). In patients with right-sided primary tumours, older patients did not appear to benefit from cetuximab in contrast to younger patients (≥65 years: 16.6 months vs 23.6 months, HR 1.1; P = 0.87; <65 years: 21.9 months vs 16.4 months HR 1.5; P = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: In FIRE-3, OS was generally shorter in older patients in comparison to younger patients. This could be explained by the overrepresentation of right-sided tumours and a lower secondary resection rate in older patients. The efficacy of targeted therapy was dependent on tumour sidedness in older patients with RAS WT mCRC. CLINICAL TRIAL: FIRE-3 (NCT00433927).

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab for advanced colorectal cancer: final survival and per-protocol analysis of FIRE-3, a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab plus FOLFIRI improved overall survival compared with bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI in KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in FIRE-3, but no corresponding benefit was found for progression-free survival. This analysis aimed to determine whether cetuximab improves response and survival versus bevacizumab among response-evaluable patients receiving first-line FOLFIRI for RAS wild-type mCRC and the effect of primary tumour side on outcomes. METHODS: The intent-to-treat population included 593 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type mCRC. Further testing identified 400 patients with extended RAS wild-type disease; of these, 352 (88%) who received ≥3 cycles of therapy and had ≥1 post-baseline scan were evaluable for response and constituted the per-protocol population (169 cetuximab and 183 bevacizumab). Patients received 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) with either weekly cetuximab or biweekly bevacizumab given on day 1 of each 14-day cycle until response, progression or toxicity occurred. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) in the per-protocol population. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The effect of primary tumour location was evaluated. RESULTS: Median OS in the RAS wild-type population was 31 vs 26 months in the cetuximab and bevacizumab groups, respectively (HR 0.76, P = 0.012). In the per-protocol population, outcomes favoured cetuximab for ORR (77% vs 65%, P = 0.014) and median OS (33 vs 26 months, HR 0.75, P = 0.011), while PFS was comparable between groups. The advantage of cetuximab over bevacizumab occurred only in patients with left-sided primary tumours. CONCLUSIONS: FOLFIRI plus cetuximab resulted in a significantly higher ORR and longer OS compared to FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab among patients with left-sided tumours. The superior response associated with cetuximab may particularly benefit patients with symptomatic tumours or borderline-resectable metastases. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00433927.

Extended RAS Analysis of the Phase III EPIC Trial: Irinotecan + Cetuximab Versus Irinotecan as Second-Line Treatment for Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase III EPIC study (EMR 062202-025) investigated cetuximab plus irinotecan versus irinotecan in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-detectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that progressed on first-line fluoropyrimidine- and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy; we report the outcomes of patients with RAS-wild-type (wt) disease. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Available DNA samples from RAS-unselected patients (n = 1,164 of 1,298 [89.7%]) were reanalyzed for RAS mutations using beads, emulsion, amplification, and magnetics. Baseline characteristics, efficacy, safety, and poststudy therapy were assessed. RAS-wt status was defined as a mutated RAS allele frequency of ≤5%, with all relevant alleles being analyzable. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the groups (n = 452 patients with RAS-wt mCRC; cetuximab plus irinotecan n = 231, irinotecan n = 221) and between the RAS-wt and RAS-unselected populations. In the cetuximab plus irinotecan versus irinotecan arms, median overall survival was 12.3 versus 12.0 months, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.4 versus 2.6 months, and objective response rate (ORR) was 29.4% versus 5.0%, respectively. Quality of life (QoL) was improved in the cetuximab plus irinotecan arm. Serious adverse events occurred in 45.4% (cetuximab plus irinotecan) and 42.4% (irinotecan) of patients. In total, 47.1% of patients in the irinotecan arm received subsequent cetuximab therapy. CONCLUSION: PFS, ORR, and QoL were improved with cetuximab plus irinotecan as a second-line treatment in patients with RAS-wt mCRC, confirming that cetuximab-based therapy is suitable in this population. Almost half of patients in the irinotecan arm received poststudy cetuximab, masking a potential overall survival benefit of cetuximab addition. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Cetuximab is approved for the treatment of RAS-wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In this retrospective analysis of the phase III EPIC study (cetuximab plus irinotecan vs. irinotecan alone as second-line treatment in patients with RAS-unselected mCRC), the subgroup of patients with RAS-wild-type mCRC who received cetuximab plus irinotecan had improved progression-free survival, objective response rate, and quality of life compared with the RAS-unselected population. These findings suggest that cetuximab-based therapy is a suitable second-line treatment for patients with RAS-wild-type mCRC.

Predictive and prognostic value of magnesium serum level in FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab treated patients with stage IV colorectal cancer: results from the FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study.

Magnesium wasting is a frequent side effect of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-antibody treatment as magnesium-absorption mechanisms are dependent on EGFR signaling. EGFR-inhibition results in decreased renal reabsorption. There is evidence that hypomagnesemia during cetuximab treatment correlates with response. The prognostic role of hypomagnesemia during bevacizumab treatment has not been studied yet. Here, we evaluate the prognostic value of hypomagnesemia in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab as first-line therapy. A total of 391 of 752 patients of the firstline irinotecan study population had magnesium levels measured at baseline and for the first three cycles (6 weeks) of treatment. Of those, 240 had Rat Sarkoma wildtype tumors. Overall hypomagnesemia was more common in the cetuximab compared to the bevacizumab arm (80 vs. 43%, P < 0.005). During therapy, magnesium showed a time-dependent decrease to 80% of baseline in the cetuximab and to 89% in the bevacizumab arm. Whereas magnesium continued to decrease over time in the cetuximab-treated patients, it remained stable in the bevacizumab-treated. Overall response rate (ORR) was associated with higher magnesium at week 6 (20.9 vs. 79.1%, P = 0.041). Bevacizumab-treated patients with magnesium levels below the median value at week 6 had a significantly longer progression-free survival (PFS; 11.7 vs. 9.9 months, P = 0.034; hazard ratio 0.73) and a trend towards longer overall survival (OS) (29.6 vs. 23.2 months, P = 0.089; hazard ratio 0.77). Hypomagnesemia at predefined time points and magnesium nadir had no significant effect on ORR, OS and PFS in the cetuximab arm. Our data show different magnesium kinetics in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab or bevacizumab. For patients treated with cetuximab, hypomagnesemia did not have an impact on response and survival. Hypomagnesemia might have a prognostic value in bevacizumab treatment.

Consensus statement on mandatory measurements in pancreatic cancer trials (COMM-PACT) for systemic treatment of unresectable disease.

Variations in the reporting of potentially confounding variables in studies investigating systemic treatments for unresectable pancreatic cancer pose challenges in drawing accurate comparisons between findings. In this Review, we establish the first international consensus on mandatory baseline and prognostic characteristics in future trials for the treatment of unresectable pancreatic cancer. We did a systematic literature search to find phase 3 trials investigating first-line systemic treatment for locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer to identify baseline characteristics and prognostic variables. We created a structured overview showing the reporting frequencies of baseline characteristics and the prognostic relevance of identified variables. We used a modified Delphi panel of two rounds involving an international panel of 23 leading medical oncologists in the field of pancreatic cancer to develop a consensus on the various variables identified. In total, 39 randomised controlled trials that had data on 15 863 patients were included, of which 32 baseline characteristics and 26 prognostic characteristics were identified. After two consensus rounds, 23 baseline characteristics and 12 prognostic characteristics were designated as mandatory for future pancreatic cancer trials. The COnsensus statement on Mandatory Measurements in unresectable PAncreatic Cancer Trials (COMM-PACT) identifies a mandatory set of baseline and prognostic characteristics to allow adequate comparison of outcomes between pancreatic cancer studies.

Relevance of liver-limited disease in metastatic colorectal cancer: Subgroup findings of the FIRE-3/AIO KRK0306 trial.

In metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), liver-limited disease (LLD) is associated with a higher chance of metastectomy leading to long-term survival. However, limited data describes the prognostic and predictive relevance of initially unresectable LLD with regard to targeted first-line therapy. The present analysis investigated the relevance of initially unresectable LLD in mCRC patients treated with targeted therapy against either the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) or vascular epithelial growth factor (VEGF). The analysis was performed based on FIRE-3, a randomized phase III trial comparing first-line chemotherapy with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab (anti-EGFR) or bevacizumab (anti-VEGF) in RAS wild-type (WT) mCRC. Of 400 patients, 133 (33.3%) had LLD and 267 (66.8%) had non-LLD. Median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in LLD compared to non-LLD patients (36.0 vs. 25.4 months; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.51-0.87; p = 0.002). In a multivariate analysis also including secondary hepatic resection as time-dependent variable, LLD status was independently prognostic for OS (HR = 0.67; 95% CI: 0.50-0.91; p = 0.01). As assessed by interaction tests, treatment benefit from FOLFIRI plus cetuximab compared to FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab was independent of LLD status with regard to objective response rate (ORR), early tumour shrinkage ≥20% (ETS), depth of response (DpR) and OS (all p > 0.05). In conclusion, LLD could be identified as a prognostic factor in RAS-WT mCRC, which was independent of hepatic resection in patients treated with targeted therapy. LLD had no predictive relevance since benefit from FOLFIRI plus cetuximab over bevacizumab was independent of LLD status.

Relation of early tumor shrinkage (ETS) observed in first-line treatment to efficacy parameters of subsequent treatment in FIRE-3 (AIOKRK0306).

We explored the association of early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and non-ETS with efficacy of first-line and consecutive second-line treatment in patients with KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated in FIRE-3. Assessment of tumor shrinkage was based on the sum of longest diameters of target lesions, evaluated after 6 weeks of treatment. Shrinkage was classified as ETS (shrinkage by ≥ 20%), mETS (shrinkage by 0 to <20%), mPD (minor progression >0 to <20%) and PD (progression ≥20%). Overall survival (OS) was 33.2 (95% CI 28.0-38.4) months in ETS patients, while non-ETS was associated with less favorable outcome (mETS 24.0 (95% CI 21.2-26.9) months, mPD 19.0 (95% CI 13.0-25.0) months, PD 12.8 (95% CI 11.1-14.5) months). Differences in PFS of first-line therapy were less pronounced. ETS subgroups defined in first-line therapy also correlated with efficacy of second-line therapy. Progression-free survival in second-line (PFS2nd) was 6.5 months (5.8-7.2) for ETS, and was 5.6 (95% CI 4.7-6.5) months for mETS, 4.9 (95% CI 3.7-6.1) months for mPD and 3.3 (95% CI 2.3-4.3) months for PD. PFS of first-line and PFS2nd showed a linear correlation (Bravais-Pearson coefficient: 0.16, p = 0.006). While ETS is associated with the most favorable outcome, non-ETS represents a heterogeneous subgroup with distinct characteristics of less favorable initial tumor response to treatment. This is the first analysis to demonstrate that early tumor response observed during first-line FOLFIRI-based therapy may also relate to efficacy of second-line treatment. Early response parameters may serve as stratification factors in trials recruiting pretreated patients.

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a post-hoc analysis of tumour dynamics in the final RAS wild-type subgroup of this randomised open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: FIRE-3 compared first-line 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The same study also reported an exploratory analysis of a subgroup of patients with tumours that were wild-type at other RAS genes (KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). We report here efficacy results for the FIRE-3 final RAS (KRAS/NRAS, exons 2-4) wild-type subgroup. Moreover, new metrics of tumour dynamics were explored during a centralised radiological review to investigate how FOLFIRI plus cetuximab conferred overall survival benefit in the absence of differences in investigator-assessed objective responses and progression-free survival. METHODS: FIRE-3 was a randomised phase 3 trial comparing FOLFIRI plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary endpoint of the FIRE-3 study was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 in the intention-to-treat population. A centralised radiological review of CT scans was done in a post-hoc analysis to assess objective response according to RECIST 1.1, early tumour shrinkage, depth of response, duration of response, and time to response in the final RAS wild-type subgroup. Comparisons between treatment groups with respect to objective response rate and early tumour shrinkage were made using Fisher's exact test (two-sided), while differences in depth of response were investigated with a two-sided Wilcoxon test. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433927. FINDINGS: In the final RAS wild-type population (n=400), median overall survival was better in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group than the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group (33·1 months [95% CI 24·5-39·4] vs 25·0 months [23·0-28·1]; hazard ratio 0·70 [0·54-0·90]; p=0·0059), although investigator-assessed objective response and progression-free survival were comparable between treatment groups. Centralised radiological review of CT-assessable patients (n=330) showed that the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (113 of 157, 72·0% [95% CI 64·3-78·8] vs 97 of 173, 56·1% [48·3-63·6]; p=0·0029), frequency of early tumour shrinkage (107 of 157, 68·2% [60·3-75·4] vs 85 of 173, 49·1% [41·5-56·8]; p=0·0005), and median depth of response (-48·9% [-54·3 to -42·0] vs -32·3% [-38·2 to -29·2]; p<0·0001) were significantly better in extended RAS wild-type patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus those receiving FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. No differences in duration of response and time to response were observed between treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: This analysis provides a new framework that connects alternative metrics of response to overall survival. Superior response-related outcome parameters, such as early tumour shrinkage and depth of response, obtained by centralised radiological review correlated with the overall survival benefit conferred by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the extended RAS wild-type subgroup. FUNDING: Merck KGaA and Pfizer.

Bevacizumab with or without erlotinib as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (GERCOR DREAM; OPTIMOX3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The combination of an anti-VEGF or an anti-EGFR-targeted monoclonal antibody with chemotherapy has shown clinical activity in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. However, combining both anti-VEGF and anti-EGFR antibodies with chemotherapy in first-line treatment resulted in adverse outcomes. We assessed whether the combination of erlotinib, an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor, with bevacizumab could increase the efficacy of maintenance therapy in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study was undertaken in 49 centres in France, Austria, and Canada. Eligible patients were aged 18-80 years with histologically confirmed, unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer, WHO performance status 0-2, had received no previous therapy for metastatic disease, and had adequate organ function. Patients without disease progression after bevacizumab-based induction therapy were randomly assigned (1:1) by a minimisation technique to bevacizumab (7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks) or bevacizumab plus erlotinib (150 mg once daily) as maintenance therapy until progression. All patients were stratified by centre, baseline performance status, age, and number of metastatic sites. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival on maintenance therapy analysed by intention to treat. We report the final analysis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00265824. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2007, and Oct 13, 2011, 700 eligible patients were enrolled; following induction treatment, patients without disease progression were randomly assigned to bevacizumab (n=228) or bevacizumab plus erlotinib (n=224). At the final analysis, median follow-up was 51·0 months (IQR 36·0-60·0) in the bevacizumab group and 48·3 months (31·5-61·0) in the bevacizumab plus erlotinib group. In the primary analysis (after 231 progression-free survival events), median progression-free survival from randomisation was 5·1 months (95% CI 4·1-5·9) in the bevacizumab plus erlotinib group compared with 6·0 months (4·6-7·9) in the bevacizumab group (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·60-1·06]; p=0·11; unstratified HR 0·76 [0·59-0·99]; p=0·043). In the final analysis, median progression-free survival from randomisation was 5·4 months (95% CI 4·3-6·2) in the bevacizumab plus erlotinib group compared with 4·9 months (4·1-5·7) in the bevacizumab group (stratified HR 0·81 [95% CI 0·66-1·01], p=0·059; unstratified HR 0·78 [0·68-0·96], p=0·019). At the final analysis, median overall survival from maintenance was 24·9 months (95% CI 21·4-28·9) in the bevacizumab plus erlotinib group and 22·1 months (19·6-26·7) in the bevacizumab group (stratified HR 0·79 [95% CI 0·63-0·99], p=0·036; unstratified HR 0·79 [0·64-0·98], p=0·035). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events were skin rash (47 [21%] of 220 patients in the bevacizumab plus erlotinib group vs none of 224 patients in the bevacizumab alone group), diarrhoea (21 [10%] vs two [<1%]), and asthenia (12 [5%] vs two [<1%]). INTERPRETATION: Maintenance bevacizumab plus erlotinib might be a new non-chemotherapy-based maintenance option for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer after bevacizumab-based induction therapy. FUNDING: GERCOR and F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Prognostic factors of survival in a randomized phase III trial (MPACT) of weekly nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: nab-Paclitaxel in combination with gemcitabine has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC), based on superiority over gemcitabine demonstrated in the phase III MPACT trial. Previously, Karnofsky performance status (KPS) score and the presence of liver metastases were shown to be predictive of survival with nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine treatment. This analysis sought to further explore the relationship between clinical characteristics and survival in the MPACT trial and to identify potential predictors of overall survival and progression-free survival in patients with MPC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cox regression models adjusted for stratification factors and a stepwise multivariate analysis of prespecified baseline prognostic factors were performed. RESULTS: Treatment effect was significantly associated with survival, with a similar magnitude of reduction in risk of death compared with the previously reported primary analysis. Treatment effect consistently favored nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine across the majority of the prespecified factors. In addition to KPS score and presence of liver metastases, age and number of metastatic sites were independent prognostic factors of overall and progression-free survival. Baseline carbohydrate antigen 19-9 was not found to be an independent prognostic factor of survival in this analysis. CONCLUSION: The results of this analysis confirm broad utility of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine for the treatment of MPC. In addition, these findings suggest that KPS score, presence of liver metastases, age, and number of metastatic sites are important predictors of survival that may be useful when making treatment decisions and designing future clinical trials.

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (FIRE-3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab and bevacizumab have both been shown to improve outcomes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer when added to chemotherapy regimens; however, their comparative effectiveness when partnered with first-line fluorouracil, folinic acid, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) is unknown. We aimed to compare these agents in patients with KRAS (exon 2) codon 12/13 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18-75 years with stage IV, histologically confirmed colorectal cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, an estimated life expectancy of greater than 3 months, and adequate organ function, from centres in Germany and Austria. Patients were centrally randomised by fax (1:1) to FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (using permuted blocks of randomly varying size), stratified according to ECOG performance status, number of metastatic sites, white blood cell count, and alkaline phosphatase concentration. The primary endpoint was objective response analysed by intention to treat. The study has completed recruitment, but follow-up of participants is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433927. FINDINGS: Between Jan 23, 2007, and Sept 19, 2012, 592 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours were randomly assigned and received treatment (297 in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group and 295 in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group). 184 (62·0%, 95% CI 56·2-67·5) patients in the cetuximab group achieved an objective response compared with 171 (58·0%, 52·1-63·7) in the bevacizumab group (odds ratio 1·18, 95% CI 0·85-1·64; p=0·18). Median progression-free survival was 10·0 months (95% CI 8·8-10·8) in the cetuximab group and 10·3 months (9·8-11·3) in the bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·88-1·26; p=0·55); however, median overall survival was 28·7 months (95% CI 24·0-36·6) in the cetuximab group compared with 25·0 months (22·7-27·6) in the bevacizumab group (HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·62-0·96; p=0·017). Safety profiles were consistent with the known side-effects of the study drugs. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in both treatment groups were haematotoxicity (73 [25%] of 297 patients in the cetuximab group vs 62 [21%] of 295 patients in the bevacizumab group), skin reactions (77 [26%] vs six [2%]), and diarrhoea (34 [11%] vs 40 [14%]). INTERPRETATION: Although the proportion of patients who achieved an objective response did not significantly differ between the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab and FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab groups, the association with longer overall survival suggests that FOLFIRI plus cetuximab could be the preferred first-line regimen for patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: Merck KGaA.

Baseline carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) serum levels predict bevacizumab-based treatment response in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) affects tumorigenesis by enhancing tumor cell survival and by inducing tumor angiogenesis. This study aimed to evaluate baseline CEA serum levels to predict bevacizumab-based therapy effect and survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Two hundred and ninety eight mCRC patients receiving chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab or cetuximab were analyzed in a retrospective study. Disease control (DC), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival were assessed and related to pretreatment CEA serum levels. Patients with baseline CEA serum levels below the statistical median of 26.8 ng/mL (group I) were compared with patients with higher CEA levels (group II). The cetuximab-based treatment cohort was analyzed for specificity assessment of CEA to predict the anti-vascular endothelial growth factor effect in mCRC. Baseline CEA serum levels inversely correlated with therapeutic response in patients receiving bevacizumab-based treatment (disease control rate, 84% vs 60%), inversely correlated with median PFS leading to a median PFS benefit of 2.1 months for patients in group I when compared with group II, as well as inversely correlated with median overall survival (37.5 months vs 21.4 months). In an independent cohort of 129 patients treated with cetuximab-based therapy, no association of therapeutic response or PFS with CEA serum levels was found. As expected, baseline CEA levels were prognostic for mCRC. These data give first evidence that baseline serum CEA levels might constitute an important predictor for the efficacy of first-line bevacizumab-based therapy in patients with mCRC.

Response to GEMOX plus erlotinib in pancreatic cancer is associated with ERCC1 overexpression.

INTRODUCTION: There are no data about the efficacy of gemcitabine in combination with oxaliplatin (GEMOX) and erlotinib for the treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). Thus, we performed this retrospective analysis in mPC patients to investigate the activity and safety of GEMOX plus erlotinib and correlated the benefit with ERCC1 expression, a potential biomarker for treatment response. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with untreated mPC receiving off-protocol GEMOX plus erlotinib were included. Data collection included baseline demographic, response and toxicity data as well as PFS and OS. Additionally, immunohistochemistry was performed to stain for ERCC1 expression. RESULTS: A total of 51 patients were included. The median age was 62 years and the median ECOG performance score was 1 (range, 0-1). Objective response or disease stabilization was achieved in 54% of the patients. The median PFS was 4·4 months (95% CI 4·4-5·4) and median OS was 8·5 months (95% CI 6·1-10·9). The 27 patients, who benefited from this regimen, had a median PFS of 6·7, a median OS of 11·2 months and an overexpression of ERCC1 (histoscore 10, P ≤ 0·05) compared to nonresponders (histoscore 7·2). Myelosuppression was the most frequent side effect. The most common severe nonhematological toxicities were diarrhoea and skin toxicity in six (12%) patients each. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that the combination of GEMOX plus erlotinib is safe and active in about half of the patients. Patients, who had a higher ERCC1 staining pattern, benefited most from this therapy. Prospective biomarker studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

Perioperative FOLFOX4 chemotherapy and surgery versus surgery alone for resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (EORTC 40983): long-term results of a randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous results of the EORTC intergroup trial 40983 showed that perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) increases progression-free survival (PFS) compared with surgery alone for patients with initially resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Here we present overall survival data after long-term follow-up. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, parallel-group, phase 3 study recruited patients from 78 hospitals across Europe, Australia, and Hong Kong. Eligible patients aged 18-80 years who had histologically proven colorectal cancer and up to four liver metastases were randomly assigned (1:1) to either perioperative FOLFOX4 or surgery alone. Perioperative FOLFOX4 consisted of six 14-day cycles of oxaliplatin 85mg/m(2), folinic acid 200 mg/m(2) (DL form) or 100 mg/m(2) (L form) on days 1-2 plus bolus, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) (bolus) and 600 mg/m(2) (continuous 22 h infusion), before and after surgery. Patients were centrally randomised by minimisation, adjusting for centre and risk score and previous adjuvant chemotherapy to primary surgery for colorectal cancer, and the trial was open label. Analysis of overall survival was by intention to treat in all randomly assigned patients. FINDINGS: Between Oct 10, 2000, and July 5, 2004, 364 patients were randomly assigned to a treatment group (182 patients in each group, of which 171 per group were eligible and 152 per group underwent resection). At a median follow-up of 8·5 years (IQR 7·6-9·5), 107 (59%) patients in the perioperative chemotherapy group had died versus 114 (63%) in the surgery-only group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·68-1·14; p=0·34). In all randomly assigned patients, median overall survival was 61·3 months (95% CI 51·0-83·4) in the perioperative chemotherapy group and 54·3 months (41·9-79·4) in the surgery alone group. 5-year overall survival was 51·2% (95% CI 43·6-58·3) in the perioperative chemotherapy group versus 47·8% (40·3-55·0) in the surgery-only group. Two patients in the perioperative chemotherapy group and three in the surgery-only group died from complications of protocol surgery, and one patient in the perioperative chemotherapy group died possibly as a result of toxicity of protocol treatment. INTERPRETATION: We found no difference in overall survival with the addition of perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 compared with surgery alone for patients with resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. However, the previously observed benefit in PFS means that perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 should remain the reference treatment for this population of patients. FUNDING: Norwegian and Swedish Cancer Societies, Cancer Research UK, Ligue Nationale Contre Cancer, US National Cancer Institute, Sanofi-Aventis.

Microparticle-associated tissue factor activity in patients with pancreatic cancer: correlation with clinicopathological features.

BACKGROUND: Patients with pancreatic cancer have an unfavourable prognosis. A central role in pancreatic cancer progression has been suggested for tissue factor (TF), the main initiator of the blood coagulation cascade. We hypothesized that elevated levels of plasma microparticle (MP)-associated TF activity might indicate the presence of poorly differentiated pancreatic cancer, disease dissemination and infiltration of peripancreatic vessels. METHODS: MP-TF activity was measured in 73 pancreatic cancer patients and 22 healthy controls. Abdominal computerized tomography (CT) scans performed at study inclusion were investigated for probability of tumoural vascular invasion. In addition, intratumoural TF expression, D-dimer and CA 19-9 levels were determined. RESULTS: MP-TF activity (pg/mL) was significantly higher in patients (median: 0·37 [range: 0·00-11·91]) than in controls (median: 0·05 [range: 0·00-0·76]; P < 0·001). When pancreatic cancer patients were compared with regard to stage and grade, significantly elevated levels of MP-TF activity were only present in those with poorly differentiated metastatic nonresectable tumours (n = 11, median: 2·95 [range: 0·25-11·91]). In three patients with poorly differentiated tumours, a high probability of vascular invasion was found (MP-TF activity in these cases: 2·95, 7·00 and 10·34). MP-TF activity correlated strongly with CA 19-9 (r = 0·60) and weakly with D-dimer (r = 0·33) levels. Immunohistochemical staining for TF was positive in 14 of 15 resected tumours. MP-TF activity was associated with an increased risk of mortality (HR: 1·8 per doubling in MP-TF activity, [95% CI: 1·4-2·4, P < 0·001]). CONCLUSION: MP-TF activity might represent a biomarker for a poorly differentiated and invasive pancreatic cancer phenotype and poor survival.

Regional lymph node metastases are a strong risk factor for venous thromboembolism: results from the Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study.

Advanced cancer is a risk factor for venous thromboembolism. However, lymph node metastases are usually not considered an established risk factor. In the framework of the prospective, observational Vienna Cancer and Thrombosis Study we investigated the association between local (N0), regional (N1-3), and distant (M1) cancer stages and the occurrence of venous thromboembolism. Furthermore, we were specifically interested in the relationship between stage and biomarkers that have been reported to be associated with venous thromboembolism. We followed 832 patients with solid tumors for a median of 527 days. The study end-point was symptomatic venous thromboembolism. At study inclusion, 241 patients had local, 138 regional, and 453 distant stage cancer. The cumulative probability of venous thromboembolism after 6 months in patients with local, regional and distant stage cancer was 2.1%, 6.5% and 6.0%, respectively (P=0.002). Compared to patients with local stage disease, patients with regional and distant stage disease had a significantly higher risk of venous thromboembolism in multivariable Cox-regression analysis including age, newly diagnosed cancer (versus progression of disease), surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy (regional: HR=3.7, 95% CI: 1.5-9.6; distant: HR=5.4, 95% CI: 2.3-12.9). Furthermore, patients with regional or distant stage disease had significantly higher levels of D-dimer, factor VIII, and platelets, and lower hemoglobin levels than those with local stage disease. These results demonstrate an increased risk of venous thromboembolism in patients with regional disease. Elevated levels of predictive biomarkers in patients with regional disease underpin the results and are in line with the activation of the hemostatic system in the early phase of metastatic dissemination.

Bevacizumab in Combination With Oxaliplatin-Based Chemotherapy As First-Line Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab when added to first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (either capecitabine plus oxaliplatin [XELOX] or fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin [FOLFOX-4]) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with MCRC were randomly assigned, in a 2 × 2 factorial design, to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to bevacizumab versus placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 1,401 patients were randomly assigned in this 2 × 2 analysis. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months in the bevacizumab group and 8.0 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 97.5% CI, 0.72 to 0.95; P = .0023). Median overall survival was 21.3 months in the bevacizumab group and 19.9 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.89; 97.5% CI, 0.76 to 1.03; P = .077). Response rates were similar in both arms. Analysis of treatment withdrawals showed that, despite protocol allowance of treatment continuation until disease progression, only 29% and 47% of bevacizumab and placebo recipients, respectively, were treated until progression. The toxicity profile of bevacizumab was consistent with that documented in previous trials. CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy significantly improved PFS in this first-line trial in patients with MCRC. Overall survival differences did not reach statistical significance, and response rate was not improved by the addition of bevacizumab. Treatment continuation until disease progression may be necessary in order to optimize the contribution of bevacizumab to therapy.

Predictive factors for the benefit of perioperative FOLFOX for resectable liver metastasis in colorectal cancer patients (EORTC Intergroup Trial 40983).

OBJECTIVE: In EORTC study 40983, perioperative FOLFOX increased progression-free survival (PFS) compared with surgery alone for patients with initially 1 to 4 resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (CRC). We conducted an exploratory retrospective analysis to identify baseline factors possibly predictive for a benefit of perioperative FOLFOX on PFS. METHODS: The analysis was based on 237 events from 342 eligible patients. Cox proportional hazards regression models with a significance level of 0.1 were used to build up univariate and multivariate models. RESULTS: After adjustment for identified prognostic factors, moderately (5.1-30 ng/mL) and highly (>30 ng/mL) elevated carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) serum levels were both predictive for the benefit of perioperative chemotherapy (interaction P = 0.07; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.58 and HR = 0.52 for treatment benefit). For patients with moderately or highly elevated CEA (>5 ng/mL), the 3-year PFS was 35% with perioperative chemotherapy compared to 20% with surgery alone. Performance status (PS) 0 and BMI lower than 30 were also predictive for the benefit of perioperative chemotherapy (interaction P = 0.04 and P = 0.02). However, the number of patients with PS 1 and BMI 30 or higher were limited. The benefit of perioperative therapy was not influenced by the number of metastatic lesions (1 vs 2-4, interaction HR = 0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative FOLFOX seems to benefit in particular patients with resectable liver metastases from CRC when CEA is elevated and when PS is unaffected, regardless of the number of metastatic lesions.ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00006479.