Phase 1 trial evaluating cisplatin, gemcitabine, and veliparib in 2 patient cohorts: Germline BRCA mutation carriers and wild-type BRCA pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: A phase 1 trial was used to evaluate a combination of cisplatin, gemcitabine, and escalating doses of veliparib in patients with untreated advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in 2 cohorts: a germline BRCA1/2-mutated (BRCA+) cohort and a wild-type BRCA (BRCA-) cohort. The aims were to determine the safety, dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), maximum tolerated dose, and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of veliparib combined with cisplatin and gemcitabine and to assess the antitumor efficacy (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1) and overall survival. METHODS: Gemcitabine and cisplatin were dosed at 600 and 25 mg/m2 , respectively, over 30 minutes on days 3 and 10 of a 21-day cycle. Four dose levels of veliparib were evaluated: 20 (dose level 0), 40 (dose level 1), and 80 mg (dose level 2) given orally twice daily on days 1 to 12 and 80 mg given twice daily on days 1 to 21 (dose level 2A [DL2A]). RESULTS: Seventeen patients were enrolled: 9 BRCA+ patients, 7 BRCA- patients, and 1 patient with an unknown status. DLTs were reached at DL2A (80 mg twice daily on days 1 to 21). Two of the 5 patients in this cohort (40%) experienced grade 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Two grade 5 events occurred on protocol. The objective response rate in the BRCA+ cohort was 7 of 9 (77.8%). The median overall survival for BRCA+ patients was 23.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8-30.2 months). The median overall survival for BRCA- patients was 11 months (95% CI, 1.5-12.1 months). CONCLUSIONS: The RP2D of veliparib was 80 mg by mouth twice daily on days 1 to 12 in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine; the DLT was myelosuppression. Substantial antitumor activity was seen in BRCA+ PDAC. A randomized phase 2 trial is currently evaluating cisplatin and gemcitabine with and without veliparib for BRCA+ PDAC (NCT01585805). Cancer 2018;124:1374-82. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

FOLFIRINOX for advanced pancreatic cancer: the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre experience.

BACKGROUND: FOLFIRINOX has been shown to significantly increase both overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic pancreas cancer. There is limited data regarding the treatment of locally advanced pancreatic cancer. We present a retrospective study of patients with both locally advanced and metastatic pancreas cancer using FOLFIRINOX as first-line therapy in our centre. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of patients treated with FOLFIRINOX for pancreatic cancer at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, between December 2011 and July 2014. The primary objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FOLFIRINOX when used with dose modifications. RESULTS: One hundred two patients were identified; 66 metastatic and 36 locally advanced. Sixty-eight per cent of patients initiated treatment with a dose reduction. The median (95% CI) OS in the metastatic group was 13.1 (6.3-16.1) months with full dose and 12.9 (10.3-30.1) months with modified dose. The median (95% CI) OS in the locally advanced group was 11.1 (6.1-not reached) months with full dose and 23 (not reached-not reached) months with modified dose. The median (95% CI) PFS in the metastatic group was 6.2 (4.9-15.2) months with full dose and 8.7 (5.7-12.9) months with modified dose. The median (95% CI) PFS in the locally advanced group was 11.1 (3.1-not reached) months with full dose and 10.4 (6.8-not reached) months with modified dose. Grade 3/4 haematologic adverse events were observed in 43% of patients. Grade 3/4 non-haematologic adverse events were observed in 28% of patients. Patient well-being significantly improved from baseline to cycle 4 (P=0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Efficacy was achievable with dose-modified FOLFIRINOX in daily setting. The safety of FOLFIRINOX remains a concern with a high rate of grades 3 and 4 neutropaenia despite dose reduction.

Prognostic nomogram and score to predict overall survival in locally advanced untreated pancreatic cancer (PROLAP).

BACKGROUND: The management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) patients remains controversial. Better discrimination for overall survival (OS) at diagnosis is needed. We address this issue by developing and validating a prognostic nomogram and a score for OS in LAPC (PROLAP). METHODS: Analyses were derived from 442 LAPC patients enrolled in the LAP07 trial. The prognostic ability of 30 baseline parameters was evaluated using univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses. Performance assessment and internal validation of the final model were done with Harrell's C-index, calibration plot and bootstrap sample procedures. On the basis of the final model, a prognostic nomogram and a score were developed, and externally validated in 106 consecutive LAPC patients treated in Besançon Hospital, France. RESULTS: Age, pain, tumour size, albumin and CA 19-9 were independent prognostic factors for OS. The final model had good calibration, acceptable discrimination (C-index=0.60) and robust internal validity. The PROLAP score has the potential to delineate three different prognosis groups with median OS of 15.4, 11.7 and 8.5 months (log-rank P<0.0001). The score ability to discriminate OS was externally confirmed in 63 (59%) patients with complete clinical data derived from a data set of 106 consecutive LAPC patients; median OS of 18.3, 14.1 and 7.6 months for the three groups (log-rank P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The PROLAP nomogram and score can accurately predict OS before initiation of induction chemotherapy in LAPC-untreated patients. They may help to optimise clinical trials design and might offer the opportunity to define risk-adapted strategies for LAPC management in the future.

Survival Following Resection of Intra- and Extra-Hepatic Metastases from Colorectal Cancer: A Phase II Trial.

PURPOSE: Metastasectomy for intrahepatic metastases (IHM) from colorectal cancer (CRC) provides excellent 5-year overall survival (OS). Presence of extrahepatic metastases (EHM) has been a historic contraindication to surgery. Due to improved safety of hepatectomy, there is growing interest in multisite metastasectomy for IHM and EHM. The objective of this study was to evaluate the results of metastasectomy for patients with IHM and EHM from CRC. METHODS: A phase II study of metastasectomy for both IHM and EHM from CRC. Eligible patients with any number of IHM and up to three EHM foci, resectable with RO intent, were offered metastasectomy. Clinical, survival, and quality of life (QoL) data were analyzed using standard statistical methods. RESULTS: Twenty-six patients were enrolled with a median age of 58 (range 32-84) years; 14/26 (54 %) presented with synchronous disease. The lung was the most common EHM site (13/26, 50 %). Protocol surgery was completed in 20/26 (77 %), including 12/26 (46 %) planned sequential resections. Major morbidity and perioperative mortality were 5/26 (19 %) and 1/26 (4 %), respectively. The QoL decline appeared to be transient. All QoL domains returned to baseline by 1-year posttreatment. The median recurrence-free survival (RFS) was 5 months by intent-to-treat analysis. The median OS from the time of CRC diagnosis and metastasectomy were 50 and 38 months (3-year OS 80 and 53 %), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Complete metastasectomy of multisite CRC is safe, but disease recurs in the majority of patients. Data suggest that aggressive multisite metastasectomy may provide OS benefit for selected patients.

Quality of life in patients with K-RAS wild-type colorectal cancer: the CO.20 phase 3 randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The CO.20 trial randomized patients with K-RAS wild-type, chemotherapy-refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer to receive cetuximab (CET) plus brivanib alaninate (BRIV) or CET plus placebo (CET/placebo). METHODS: Quality of life (QoL) was assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 at baseline and at 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 24 weeks until disease progression. Predefined coprimary QoL endpoints were time to deterioration (first worsening from baseline of ≥ 10 points) on the Physical Function (PF) and Global (GHS) scales. RESULTS: Of 750 randomized patients, 721 (358 of whom received CET/BRIV) were assessable for QoL. QoL compliance and baseline PF and GHS scores did not differ by treatment arm. The median time to deterioration was 1.6 months versus 1.1 months for GHS (P =.02) and 5.6 months versus 1.7 months for PF (P <.0001) favoring CET/placebo. Secondary analysis favored CET/placebo for QOL response on the PF, Cognitive Function, Fatigue, Nausea, Appetite, and Diarrhea scales. A greater percentage of patients on the CET/BRIV arm had PF worsening at 6 weeks (31% vs 17%). Clinical adverse events of ≥ grade 3 were more common with CET/BRIV than with CET/placebo, including fatigue (25% vs 11%), hypertension, rash, diarrhea, abdominal pain, dehydration, and anorexia. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with CET/placebo, the combination of CET/BRIV worsened time to QoL deterioration for patients with K-RAS wild-type, chemotherapy-refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer on the PF and GHS scales of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30. This result may be due to higher rates of fatigue and gastrointestinal adverse events.

An open-label phase II study evaluating the safety and efficacy of ramucirumab combined with mFOLFOX-6 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and VEGF receptor 2 (VEGFR-2) are believed to mediate angiogenesis in colorectal cancer (CRC). Ramucirumab (RAM; IMC-1121B) is a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody that inhibits VEGF ligand binding to VEGFR-2, inhibiting VEGFR-2 activation and signaling. METHODS: Patients with metastatic CRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, and adequate organ function who had not received chemotherapy for metastatic disease received RAM and the modified FOLFOX-6 regimen every 2 weeks. Endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate, overall survival, and safety. The sample size was based on a potentially improved median PFS from 8 months to 11 months. RESULTS: Forty-eight patients received therapy. Median PFS was 11.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.6-13.1 months). The objective response rate was 58.3% (95% CI: 43.21-72.39). The disease control rate (complete or partial response plus stable disease) was 93.8% (95% CI: 82.8-98.7). Median overall survival was 20.4 months (95% CI: 18.5-25.1 months). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events included neutropenia (grade 3: 33.3%; grade 4: 8.3%), hypertension (grade 3: 16.7%), and neuropathy (grade 3: 12.5%). Two patients died during the study due to myocardial infarction and cardiopulmonary arrest. CONCLUSION: RAM may enhance the efficacy of modified FOLFOX-6 chemotherapy with an acceptable safety profile in metastatic CRC.

A phase I study of the oral gamma secretase inhibitor R04929097 in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors (PHL-078/CTEP 8575).

PURPOSE: To establish the recommended phase II dose of the oral γ-secretase inhibitor RO4929097 (RO) in combination with gemcitabine; secondary objectives include the evaluation of safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, biomarkers of Notch signaling and preliminary anti-tumor activity. METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors were enrolled in cohorts of escalating RO dose levels (DLs). Tested RO DLs were 20 mg, 30 mg, 45 mg and 90 mg. RO was administered orally, once daily on days 1-3, 8-10, 15-17, 22-24. Gemcitabine was administered at 1,000 mg/m(2) on d1, 8, and 15 in 28 d cycles. Dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were assessed by CTCAE v4. Serial plasma was collected for RO (total and unbound) and gemcitabine pharmacokinetic analysis. Biomarkers of Notch signaling were assessed by immunohistochemistry in archival tissue. Antitumor activity was evaluated (RECIST 1.1). RESULTS: A total of 18 patients were enrolled to establish the recommended phase II dose. Of these, 3 patients received 20 mg RO, 7 patients received 30 mg RO, 6 patients received 45 mg RO and 2 patients received 90 mg RO. DLTs were grade 3 transaminitis (30 mg RO), grade 3 transaminitis and maculopapular rash (45 mg RO), and grade 3 transaminitis and failure to receive 75 % of planned RO doses secondary to prolonged neutropenia (90 mg); all were reversible. The maximum tolerated dose was exceeded at 90 mg RO. Pharmacokinetic analysis of both total and free RO confirmed the presence of autoinduction at 45 and 90 mg. Median levels of Notch3 staining were higher in individuals who received fewer than 4 cycles (p = 0.029). Circulating angiogenic factor levels did not correlate with time to progression or ≥ grade 3 adverse events. Best response (RECIST 1.1) was partial response (nasopharyngeal cancer) and stable disease > 4 months was observed in 3 patients (pancreas, tracheal, and breast primary cancers). CONCLUSIONS: RO and gemcitabine can be safely combined. The recommended phase II dose of RO was 30 mg in combination with gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2). Although RO exposure was limited by the presence of autoinduction, RO levels achieved exceeded the area under the concentration-time curve for 0-24 h (AUC(0-24)) predicted for efficacy in preclinical models using daily dosing. Evidence of clinical antitumor activity and prolonged stable disease were identified.

The association of health-care contact days with physical function and survival in CCTG/AGITG CO.17.

INTRODUCTION: Although contact days-days with health-care contact outside home-are increasingly adopted as a measure of time toxicity and treatment burden, they could also serve as a surrogate of treatment-related harm. We sought to assess the association between contact days and patient-reported outcomes and the prognostic ability of contact days. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of CO.17 that evaluated cetuximab vs supportive care in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. CO.17 collected European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 instrument data. We assessed the association between number of contact days in a window and changes in physical function and global health status and the association between number of contact days in the first 4 weeks with overall survival. RESULTS: There was a negative association between the number of contact days and change in physical function (per each additional contact day: at 4 weeks, 1.50-point decrease; 8 weeks, 1.06-point decrease; P < .0001 for both) but not with global health status. This negative association was seen in patients receiving cetuximab but not supportive care. More contact days in the first 4 weeks was associated with worse overall survival for all participants and patients receiving cetuximab (per each additional contact day: all participants, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05 to 1.10; and cetuximab, adjusted HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.11; P < .0001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of a clinical trial, more contact days early in the course were associated with declines in physical function and worse survival in all participants and in participants receiving cancer-directed treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00079066.

Transverse Colon Primary Tumor Location as a Biomarker in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of CCTG/AGITG CO.17 and CO.20 Randomized Clinical Trials.

PURPOSE: Sidedness is prognostic and predictive of anti-EGFR efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Transverse colon has been historically excluded from several analyses of sidedness and the optimal division between left- and right-sided colorectal cancer is unclear. We investigated transverse colon primary tumor location as a biomarker in mCRC. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Pooled analysis of CCTG/AGITG CO.17 and CO.20 trials of cetuximab in chemotherapy-refractory mCRC. Outcomes of patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type (WT) mCRC from CO.17 and KRAS WT mCRC from CO.20 were analyzed according to location. RESULTS: A total of 553 patients were analyzed, 32 (5.8%) with cancers from the transverse, 101 (18.3%) from right, and 420 from (75.9%) left colon. Transverse mCRC failed to reach significant benefit from cetuximab versus best supportive care (BSC) for overall survival [OS; median, 5.9 vs. 2.1 months; HR, 0.63; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.28-1.42; P=0.26] and progression-free survival (PFS; median, 1.8 vs. 1.3 months; HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.26-1.28; P=0.16). Analyzing exclusively patients randomized to cetuximab, right-sided and transverse had comparable outcomes for OS (median, 5.6 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.50-1.34; P=0.43) and PFS (median, 1.9 vs. 1.8 months; HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.26; P=0.31). Patients with left-sided mCRC had superior outcomes with cetuximab compared with transverse for OS (median, 9.7 vs. 5.9 months; HR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.67; P=0.0002) and PFS (median, 3.8 vs. 1.8 months; HR, 0,49; 95% CI, 0.31-0.76; P=0.001). Location was not prognostic in patients treated with BSC alone. CONCLUSIONS: Transverse mCRC has comparable prognostic and predictive features with right-sided mCRC.

A multi-institutional phase 2 study of neoadjuvant gemcitabine and oxaliplatin with radiation therapy in patients with pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate preoperative treatment with full-dose gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, and radiation therapy (RT) in patients with localized pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Eligibility included confirmation of adenocarcinoma, resectable or borderline resectable disease, a performance status ≤2, and adequate organ function. Treatment consisted of two 28-day cycles of gemcitabine (1 g/m(2) over 30 minutes on days 1, 8, and 15) and oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 15) with RT during cycle 1 (30 Gray [Gy] in 2-Gy fractions). Patients were evaluated for surgery after cycle 2. Patients who underwent resection received 2 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: Sixty-eight evaluable patients received treatment at 4 centers. By central radiology review, 23 patients had resectable disease, 39 patients had borderline resectable disease, and 6 patients had unresectable disease. Sixty-six patients (97%) completed cycle 1 with RT, and 61 patients (90%) completed cycle 2. Grade ≥3 adverse events during preoperative therapy included neutropenia (32%), thrombocytopenia (25%), and biliary obstruction/cholangitis (14%). Forty-three patients underwent resection (63%), and complete (R0) resection was achieved in 36 of those 43 patients (84%). The median overall survival was 18.2 months (95% confidence interval, 13-26.9 months) for all patients, 27.1 months (95% confidence interval, 21.2-47.1 months) for those who underwent resection, and 10.9 months (95% confidence interval, 6.1-12.6 months) for those who did not undergo resection. A decrease in CA 19-9 level after neoadjuvant therapy was associated with R0 resection (P = .02), which resulted in a median survival of 34.6 months (95% confidence interval, 20.3-47.1 months). Fourteen patients (21%) are alive and disease free at a median follow-up of 31.4 months (range, 24-47.6 months). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative therapy with full-dose gemcitabine, oxaliplatin, and RT was feasible and resulted in a high percentage of R0 resections. The current results are particularly encouraging, because the majority of patients had borderline resectable disease.

A phase II study of cediranib (AZD 2171) in treatment naive patients with progressive unresectable recurrent or metastatic renal cell carcinoma. A trial of the PMH phase 2 consortium.

BACKGROUND: Inhibition of angiogenesis has emerged as an effective therapeutic strategy in metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). In this single arm phase 2 study, we evaluated the efficacy and tolerability of cediranib (AZD2171) a potent angiogenesis inhibitor in first line mRCC. METHODS: Eligible patients who had no prior systemic therapy received cediranib 45 mg orally once daily continuously. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints were clinical benefit rate (ORR plus stable disease (SD) ≥ 4 months), duration of response, progression free survival (PFS), median overall survival (OS), safety and tolerability. RESULTS: Between January 2006 and April 2008, 44 patients were accrued. The median age was 62 (range 44-83) and performance status was either 0 (22 patients) or 1 (22 patients). Of the 39 evaluable patients there were 15 (38 %) partial responses (95 % CI: 23-55 %); 18 stable disease (SD) for a clinical benefit rate of 33/39 = 85 % (95 % CI: 69-94 %) and 6 progressive disease. Median PFS was 8.9 months (95 % CI: 5.1-12.9); and median OS was 28.6 months (95 % CI: 18.2-37.3 months). The most frequent grade 3 or higher AEs included hypertension, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Cediranib demonstrated significant anti-tumour activity in first line, treatment-naive mRCC, with efficacy parameters comparable to the other approved agents (sunitinib and pazopanib) in this setting. The main toxicities were fatigue, diarrhea and hypertension. Based on these encouraging results, further evaluation of cediranib in mRCC at a more tolerable dose of 30 mg daily appears warranted.

Depression and use of health care services in patients with advanced cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether depression in patients with advanced cancer is associated with increased rates of physician visits, especially to primary care. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study linking depression survey data to provincial health administration data. SETTING: Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 737 patients with advanced cancer attending Princess Margaret Hospital, who participated in the Will to Live Study from 2002 to 2008. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency of visits to primary care, oncology, surgery, and psychiatry services, before and after the depression assessment. RESULTS: Before the assessment, depression was associated with an almost 25% increase in the rate of primary care visits for reasons not related to mental health (rate ratio [RR] = 1.23, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.50), adjusting for medical morbidity and other factors. After assessment, depression was associated with a 2-fold increase in the rate of primary care visits for mental health-related reasons (RR = 2.35, 95% CI 1.18 to 4.66). However, depression was also associated during this time with an almost 25% reduction in the rate of oncology visits (RR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.94). CONCLUSION: Depression affects health care service use in patients with advanced cancer. Individuals with depression were more likely to see primary care physicians but less likely to see oncologists, compared with individuals without depression. However, the frequent association of disease-related factors with depression in patients with advanced cancer highlights the need for communication between oncologists and primary care physicians about the medical and psychosocial care of these patients.

Bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer (AVANT): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab improves the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our aim was to assess the use of bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma. METHODS: Patients from 330 centres in 34 countries were enrolled into this phase 3, open-label randomised trial. Patients with curatively resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), and fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 1; leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) plus fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 2) every 2 weeks for 12 cycles; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg plus FOLFOX4 (every 2 weeks for 12 cycles) followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks); or bevacizumab 7·5 mg/kg plus XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 2 weeks plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-15) every 3 weeks for eight cycles followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks). Block randomisation was done with a central interactive computerised system, stratified by geographic region and disease stage. Surgery with curative intent occurred 4-8 weeks before randomisation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed for all randomised patients with stage III disease. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00112918. FINDINGS: Of the total intention-to-treat population (n=3451), 2867 patients had stage III disease, of whom 955 were randomly assigned to receive FOLFOX4, 960 to receive bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and 952 to receive bevacizumab-XELOX. After a median follow-up of 48 months (range 0-66 months), 237 patients (25%) in the FOLFOX4 group, 280 (29%) in the bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 group, and 253 (27%) in the bevacizumab-XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new colon cancer, or died. The disease-free survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·17 (95% CI 0·98-1·39; p=0·07), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·07 (0·90-1·28; p=0·44). After a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the overall survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·27 (1·03-1·57; p=0·02), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·15 (0·93-1·42; p=0·21). The 573 patients with high-risk stage II cancer were included in the safety analysis. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were neutropenia (FOLFOX4: 477 [42%] of 1126 patients, bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 416 [36%] of 1145 patients, and bevacizumab-XELOX: 74 [7%] of 1135 patients), diarrhoea (110 [10%], 135 [12%], and 181 [16%], respectively), and hypertension (12 [1%], 122 [11%], and 116 [10%], respectively). Serious adverse events were more common in the bevacizumab groups (bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 297 [26%]; bevacizumab-XELOX: 284 [25%]) than in the FOLFOX4 group (226 [20%]). Treatment-related deaths were reported in one patient receiving FOLFOX4, two receiving bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and five receiving bevacizumab-XELOX. INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab does not prolong disease-free survival when added to adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage III colon cancer. Overall survival data suggest a potential detrimental effect with bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in these patients. On the basis of these and other data, we do not recommend the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with curatively resected stage III colon cancer. FUNDING: Genentech, Roche, and Chugai.

Evaluating the Time Toxicity of Cancer Treatment in the CCTG CO.17 Trial.

PURPOSE: The time spent in pursuing treatments for advanced cancer can be substantial. We have previously proposed a pragmatic and patient-centered metric of these time costs-which we term time toxicity-as any day with physical health care system contact. This includes outpatient visits (eg, bloodwork, scans, etc), emergency department visits, and overnight stays in a health care facility. Herein, we sought to assess time toxicity in a completed randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of the Canadian Cancer Trials Group CO.17 RCT that evaluated weekly cetuximab infusions versus supportive care alone in 572 patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Initial results reported a 6-week improvement in median overall survival (OS) with cetuximab (6.1 v 4.6 months). Subsequent analyses reported that benefit was restricted to patients with K-ras wild-type tumors. We calculated patient-level time toxicity by analyzing trial forms. We considered days without health care contact as home days. We compared medians of time measures across arms and stratified results by K-ras status. RESULTS: In the overall population, median time toxic days were higher in the cetuximab arm (28 v 10, P < .001) although median home days were not statistically different between arms (140 v 121, P = .09). In patients with K-ras-mutated tumors, cetuximab was associated with almost numerically equal home days (114 days v 112 days, P = .571) and higher time toxicity (23 days v 11 days, P < .001). In patients with K-ras wild-type tumors, cetuximab was associated with more home days (186 v 132, P < .001). CONCLUSION: This proof-of-concept feasibility study demonstrates that measures of time toxicity can be extracted through secondary analyses of RCTs. In CO.17, despite an overall OS benefit with cetuximab, home days were statistically similar across arms. Such data can supplement traditional survival end points in RCTs. Further work should refine and validate the measure prospectively.[Media: see text].

Erlotinib Plus Gemcitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis and there have been no improvements in survival since the introduction of gemcitabine in 1996. Pancreatic tumors often overexpress human epidermal growth factor receptor type 1 (HER1/EGFR) and this is associated with a worse prognosis. We studied the effects of adding the HER1/EGFR-targeted agent erlotinib to gemcitabine in patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard gemcitabine plus erlotinib (100 or 150 mg/d orally) or gemcitabine plus placebo in a double-blind, international phase III trial. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 569 patients were randomly assigned. Overall survival based on an intent-to-treat analysis was significantly prolonged on the erlotinib/gemcitabine arm with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P = .038, adjusted for stratification factors; median 6.24 months v 5.91 months). One-year survival was also greater with erlotinib plus gemcitabine (23% v 17%; P = .023). Progression-free survival was significantly longer with erlotinib plus gemcitabine with an estimated HR of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92; P = .004). Objective response rates were not significantly different between the arms, although more patients on erlotinib had disease stabilization. There was a higher incidence of some adverse events with erlotinib plus gemcitabine, but most were grade 1 or 2. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this randomized phase III trial is the first to demonstrate statistically significantly improved survival in advanced pancreatic cancer by adding any agent to gemcitabine. The recommended dose of erlotinib with gemcitabine for this indication is 100 mg/d.

Phase I study of axitinib (AG-013736) in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: Axitinib (AG-013736), an oral, potent, and selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors 1, 2, and 3, is under investigation for treatment of various solid tumors. The safety and pharmacokinetics of axitinib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer was evaluated in the phase I portion of this trial. The randomized phase II portion was reported separately. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer who had received no prior chemotherapy were eligible for this study. Pharmacokinetic profiles of the drugs were obtained on cycle (C) 1 day (D) 1 (gemcitabine alone 1,000 mg/m(2)), C1D14 (steady state, axitinib alone 5 mg twice daily [BID]), and C1D15 (gemcitabine plus steady-state axitinib). Adverse events were monitored weekly at the clinic. RESULTS: Eight patients participated in the phase IB portion of the trial. Patients received gemcitabine on D1, D8, and D15 and continuous axitinib in a 28 day-cycle beginning C1D3. There was no dose-limiting toxicity. Common treatment-related adverse events included fatigue, diarrhea, dysphonia, and hypertension. Myelosuppression was similar to gemcitabine monotherapy. No apparent major pharmacokinetic interactions between gemcitabine and axitinib were observed. Of six patients evaluable for efficacy, three had confirmed partial responses. CONCLUSIONS: Axitinib (5 mg BID) and gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m(2)) were well tolerated when administered together, without any pharmacokinetic interactions, and showed encouraging antitumor activity.

A phase II study of the halichondrin B analog eribulin mesylate in gemcitabine refractory advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Eribulin mesylate is a halichondrin B analog that inhibits microtubule dynamics. Pre-clinical studies have suggested anti-tumor activity in pancreatic cancer. This phase II study of eribulin in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine was conducted by the Princess Margaret Hospital Phase II consortium. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria included locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma and previous treatment with gemcitabine. The study was a single arm phase II trial using a Simon 2-stage design. The primary endpoint was response rate, secondary endpoints included time to progression and overall survival. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were enrolled, 14 received treatment, and 12 were evaluable for response. The median age was 61, and the majority of patients were ECOG performance status 1. Grade 3 or greater adverse events included neutropenia (29%), fatigue (14%), peripheral neuropathy (7%) and thrombosis (7%). There were no complete or partial responses and therefore the study was closed after the first stage. The best response was stable disease in 5/12 (42%) of patients. Of these five patients, three had stable disease for 9 months or greater. Median time to progression was 1.4 months, and median overall survival was 6.1 months. CONCLUSION: Eribulin was well tolerated but did not result in any objective responses in gemcitabine refractory pancreatic cancer. However, several patients had prolonged stable disease, suggesting that further studies of eribulin in pancreatic cancer may be warranted.

A phase I/II study of the Src inhibitor saracatinib (AZD0530) in combination with gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer.

AIM: This phase I/II study of saracatinib in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer was conducted by the NCIC Clinical Trials Group. The aims were to define the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of saracatinib when combined with gemcitabine, and assess the efficacy of this combination in advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligibility criteria included locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma and no prior chemotherapy. In phase I saracatinib was escalated in combination with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2)) to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D). The study was then expanded to a single arm phase II trial using a Simon 2-stage design. The primary endpoint was objective tumor response (OR) plus stable disease ≥ 4 months (SD4) rate; if ≥ 8 patients had OR+SD4, the study would proceed to stage 2. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were enrolled into the phase I portion of this study. Saracatinib 175 mg PO daily was chosen as the RP2D in combination with gemcitabine. Twenty-one additional patients were then enrolled at the RP2D (phase II). Of the 22 response evaluable patients treated at the RP2D, 9 patients (40.9%) had progressive disease, 6 patients (27.3%) had stable disease for less than 4 months, 5 patients (22.7%) had SD4, and 2 patients (9.1%) had a partial response to treatment. Objective criteria for continuing to stage 2 were thus not met and the trial was closed following the accrual of 34 patients. CONCLUSION: Saracatinib 175 mg daily in combination with gemcitabine is well tolerated but the combination did not improve efficacy over what would be expected from gemcitabine alone.

Effect of adjuvant chemotherapy with fluorouracil plus folinic acid or gemcitabine vs observation on survival in patients with resected periampullary adenocarcinoma: the ESPAC-3 periampullary cancer randomized trial.

CONTEXT: Patients with periampullary adenocarcinomas undergo the same resectional surgery as that of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Although adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to have a survival benefit for pancreatic cancer, there have been no randomized trials for periampullary adenocarcinomas. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil or gemcitabine) provides improved overall survival following resection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: The European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-3 periampullary trial, an open-label, phase 3, randomized controlled trial (July 2000-May 2008) in 100 centers in Europe, Australia, Japan, and Canada. Of the 428 patients included in the primary analysis, 297 had ampullary, 96 had bile duct, and 35 had other cancers. INTERVENTIONS: One hundred forty-four patients were assigned to the observation group, 143 patients to receive 20 mg/m2 of folinic acid via intravenous bolus injection followed by 425 mg/m2 of fluorouracil via intravenous bolus injection administered 1 to 5 days every 28 days, and 141 patients to receive 1000 mg/m2 of intravenous infusion of gemcitabine once a week for 3 of every 4 weeks for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was overall survival with chemotherapy vs no chemotherapy; secondary measures were chemotherapy type, toxic effects, progression-free survival, and quality of life. RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients (61%) in the observation group, 83 (58%) in the fluorouracil plus folinic acid group, and 73 (52%) in the gemcitabine group died. In the observation group, the median survival was 35.2 months (95%% CI, 27.2-43.0 months) and was 43.1 (95%, CI, 34.0-56.0) in the 2 chemotherapy groups (hazard ratio, 0.86; (95% CI, 0.66-1.11; χ2 = 1.33; P = .25). After adjusting for independent prognostic variables of age, bile duct cancer, poor tumor differentiation, and positive lymph nodes and after conducting multiple regression analysis, the hazard ratio for chemotherapy compared with observation was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.98; Wald χ2 = 4.53, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with resected periampullary adenocarcinoma, adjuvant chemotherapy, compared with observation, was not associated with a significant survival benefit in the primary analysis; however, multivariable analysis adjusting for prognostic variables demonstrated a statistically significant survival benefit associated with adjuvant chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00058201.

K-ras mutations and benefit from cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor, improves overall and progression-free survival and preserves the quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer that has not responded to chemotherapy. The mutation status of the K-ras gene in the tumor may affect the response to cetuximab and have treatment-independent prognostic value. METHODS: We analyzed tumor samples, obtained from 394 of 572 patients (68.9%) with colorectal cancer who were randomly assigned to receive cetuximab plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone, to look for activating mutations in exon 2 of the K-ras gene. We assessed whether the mutation status of the K-ras gene was associated with survival in the cetuximab and supportive-care groups. RESULTS: Of the tumors evaluated for K-ras mutations, 42.3% had at least one mutation in exon 2 of the gene. The effectiveness of cetuximab was significantly associated with K-ras mutation status (P=0.01 and P<0.001 for the interaction of K-ras mutation status with overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively). In patients with wild-type K-ras tumors, treatment with cetuximab as compared with supportive care alone significantly improved overall survival (median, 9.5 vs. 4.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.74; P<0.001) and progression-free survival (median, 3.7 months vs. 1.9 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.54; P<0.001). Among patients with mutated K-ras tumors, there was no significant difference between those who were treated with cetuximab and those who received supportive care alone with respect to overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.98; P=0.89) or progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.99; P=0.96). In the group of patients receiving best supportive care alone, the mutation status of the K-ras gene was not significantly associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 1.01; P=0.97). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with a colorectal tumor bearing mutated K-ras did not benefit from cetuximab, whereas patients with a tumor bearing wild-type K-ras did benefit from cetuximab. The mutation status of the K-ras gene had no influence on survival among patients treated with best supportive care alone. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00079066.)