A European, prospective, observational study of enzalutamide in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: PREMISE.

In randomized clinical trials, the androgen-receptor inhibitor enzalutamide has demonstrated efficacy and safety in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). This study captured efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of enzalutamide in mCRPC patients in a real-world European setting. PREMISE (NCT0249574) was a European, long-term, prospective, observational study in mCRPC patients prescribed enzalutamide as part of standard clinical practice. Patients were categorized based on prior docetaxel and/or abiraterone use. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF), defined as time from enzalutamide initiation to permanent treatment discontinuation for any reason. Secondary endpoints included prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response, time to PSA progression, time to disease progression and safety. PROs included EuroQol 5-Dimension, 5-Level questionnaire, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate and Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form. Overall, 1732 men were enrolled. Median TTF with enzalutamide was 12.9 months in the chemotherapy- and abiraterone-naïve cohort (Cohort 1) and 8.4 months in the postchemotherapy and abiraterone-naïve cohort (Cohort 2). Clinical outcomes based on secondary endpoints also varied between cohorts. Cohorts 1 and 2 showed small improvements in health-related quality of life and pain status. The proportions of patients reporting treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were 51.0% and 62.2% in Cohorts 1 and 2, respectively; enzalutamide-related TEAEs were similar in both cohorts. The most frequent TEAE across cohorts was fatigue. These data from unselected mCRPC patients in European, real-world, clinical-practice settings confirmed the benefits of enzalutamide previously shown in clinical trial outcomes, with safety results consistent with enzalutamide's known safety profile.

Italian results of the PRECONNECT study: safety and efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil in metastatic colorectal cancer.

The international PRECONNECT Phase IIIb study demonstrated safety and efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil in the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Post-hoc analyses in a national context are important because of the differences in disease management across countries. Post-hoc safety and efficacy analyses in the PRECONNECT Italian patient subset were conducted. Patients' quality of life was assessed from baseline to end of treatment. In Italy, 161 patients were enrolled. The median age was 64 years, with a performance status of 0-1. The most common hematological drug-related adverse events ≥grade 3 were neutropenia (41.0%) and anemia (13.7%). The median progression-free survival was reached at 3.0 months, with a disease control rate of 28.6%. The Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 score improved in 25.4% of the patients. Safety, efficacy and quality of life results confirmed trifluridine/tipiracil as a feasible and favorable treatment option for metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

Lay abstract PRECONNECT is an international study demonstrating the efficacy and tolerability of the drug combination trifluridine/tipiracil in adult patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated in everyday clinical practice. For this publication, the authors conducted an analysis performed on the 161 Italian patients enrolled in this study. These kinds of analyses are important because of the differences that may arise across different countries. The most common contraindications were not dangerous to health. Furthermore, 3 months from beginning the medication, half of the patients did not show a worsening of the disease and quality of life during treatment was maintained. Clinical trial registration: NCT03306394 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab and reintroduction after progression versus mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (TRIBE2): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The triplet FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab showed improved outcomes for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, compared with FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab. However, the actual benefit of the upfront exposure to the three cytotoxic drugs compared with a preplanned sequential strategy of doublets was not clear, and neither was the feasibility or efficacy of therapies after disease progression. We aimed to compare a preplanned strategy of upfront FOLFOXIRI followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression versus a sequence of mFOLFOX6 (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) and FOLFIRI doublets, in combination with bevacizumab. METHODS: TRIBE2 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised study of patients aged 18-75 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2, with unresectable, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, recruited from 58 Italian oncology units. Patients were stratified according to centre, ECOG performance status, primary tumour location, and previous adjuvant chemotherapy. A randomisation system incorporating a minimisation algorithm was used to randomly assign patients (1:1) via a masked web-based allocation procedure to two different treatment strategies. In the control group, patients received first-line mFOLFOX6 (85 mg/m2 of intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg intravenously over 30 min) followed by FOLFIRI (180 mg/m2 of intravenous irinotecan over 120 min concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin; 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab after disease progression. In the experimental group, patients received FOLFOXIRI (165 mg/m2 of intravenous irinotecan over 60 min; 85 mg/m2 intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 3200 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression. Combination treatments were repeated every 14 days for up to eight cycles followed by fluorouracil and leucovorin (at the same dose administered at the last induction cycle) plus bevacizumab maintenance until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, or consent withdrawal. Patients and investigators were not masked. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival 2, defined as the time from randomisation to disease progression on any treatment given after first disease progression, or death, analysed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. Study recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02339116. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2015, and May 15, 2017, 679 patients were randomly assigned and received treatment (340 in the control group and 339 in the experimental group). At data cut-off (July 30, 2019) median follow-up was 35·9 months (IQR 30·1-41·4). Median progression-free survival 2 was 19·2 months (95% CI 17·3-21·4) in the experimental group and 16·4 months (15·1-17·5) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74, 95% CI 0·63-0·88; p=0·0005). During the first-line treatment, the most frequent of all-cause grade 3-4 events were diarrhoea (57 [17%] vs 18 [5%]), neutropenia (168 [50%] vs 71 [21%]), and arterial hypertension (25 [7%] vs 35 [10%]) in the experimental group compared with the control group. Serious adverse events occurred in 84 (25%) patients in the experimental group and in 56 (17%) patients in the control group. Eight treatment-related deaths were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions, two intestinal perforations, two sepsis, one myocardial infarction, and one bleeding) and four in the control group (two occlusions, one perforation, and one pulmonary embolism). After first disease progression, no substantial differences in the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported between the control and experimental groups, with the exception of neurotoxicity, which was only reported in the experimental group (six [5%] of 132 patients). Serious adverse events after disease progression occurred in 20 (15%) patients in the experimental group and 25 (12%) in the control group. Three treatment-related deaths after first disease progression were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions and one sepsis) and four in the control group (one intestinal occlusion, one intestinal perforation, one cerebrovascular event, and one sepsis). INTERPRETATION: Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression seems to be a preferable therapeutic strategy to sequential administration of chemotherapy doublets, in combination with bevacizumab, for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer selected according to the study criteria. FUNDING: The GONO Cooperative Group, the ARCO Foundation, and F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Phase II study on first-line treatment of NIVolumab in combination with folfoxiri/bevacizumab in patients with Advanced COloRectal cancer RAS or BRAF mutated - NIVACOR trial (GOIRC-03-2018).

BACKGROUND: FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab has shown to be one of the therapeutic regimens in first line with the highest activity in patients (pts.) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) unselected for biomolecular alterations. Generally, tumors co-opt the programmed death-1/ligand 1 (PD-1/PD-L1) signaling pathway as one key mechanism to evade immune surveillance. As today, anti-PD-1 monoclonal antibodies are FDA approved only for DNA mismatch repair deficient/microsatellite instability-high (MMRd/MSI-H), which represent only about 5% among all mCRC. Nowadays, there are no data demonstrating anti PD-1 activity in proficient and stable disease (MMRp/MSS). A different target in mCRC is also the Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor A (VEGF-A), which acts on endothelial cells to stimulate angiogenesis. VEGF-A inhibition with bevacizumab has shown to increase the immune cell infiltration, providing a solid rationale for combining VEGF targeted agents with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Based on these evidences, we explore the combination of triplet chemotherapy (FOLFOXIRI) with bevacizumab and nivolumab in pts. with mCRC RAS/BRAF mutant regardless of microsatellite status. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, open-label, multicentric phase II trial where pts. with mCRC RAS/BRAF mutated, in first line will receive nivolumab in combination with FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab every 2 weeks for 8 cycles followed by maintenance with bevacizumab plus nivolumab every 2 weeks. Bevacizumab will be administered intravenously at dose of 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks and nivolumab intravenously as a flat dose of 240 mg every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint is the overall response rate (ORR). This study hypothesis is that the treatment is able to improve the ORR from 66 to 80%. Secondary endpoints include OS, safety, time to progression, duration of response. Collateral translational studies evaluate the i) tumor mutational burden, and ii) genetic alterations by circulating free DNA (cfDNA) obtained from plasma samples. The trial is open to enrollment, 9 of planned 70 pts. have been enrolled. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NIVACOR is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04072198 , August 28, 2019.

Endocrine therapy for hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: extending endocrine sensitivity.

Targeted agents have significantly prolonged survival and improved response rates in first- and second-line settings of hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Optimal sequencing of the available options may prolong endocrine sensitivity, slow disease progression and delay the need for chemotherapy. However, the optimal treatment sequence remains unclear and therapeutic decisions are complex. We review the latest recommendations and supporting evidence for endocrine therapy in women with hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and discuss strategies for the optimal sequential therapy in scenarios of response to endocrine therapy. Although more data are needed to define the best sequence of endocrine treatments, more personalized sequential strategies, which take into account response to previous treatments as well as disease symptoms and safety issues, will be increasingly feasible.

DPYD*6 plays an important role in fluoropyrimidine toxicity in addition to DPYD*2A and c.2846A>T: a comprehensive analysis in 1254 patients.

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) is a highly polymorphic gene and classic deficient variants (i.e., c.1236G>A/HapB3, c.1679T>G, c.1905+1G>A and c.2846A>T) are characterized by impaired enzyme activity and risk of severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in patients treated with fluoropyrimidines. The identification of poor metabolizers by pre-emptive DPYD screening may reduce the rate of ADRs but many patients with wild-type genotype for classic variants may still display ADRs. Therefore, the search for additional DPYD polymorphisms associated with ADRs may improve the safety of treatment with fluoropyrimidines. This study included 1254 patients treated with fluoropyrimidine-containing regimens and divided into cohort 1, which included 982 subjects suffering from gastrointestinal G≥2 and/or hematological G≥3 ADRs, and cohort 2 (control group), which comprised 272 subjects not requiring dose reduction, delay or discontinuation of treatment. Both groups were screened for DPYD variants c.496A>G, c.1236G>A/HapB3, c.1601G>A (DPYD*4), c.1627A>G (DPYD*5), c.1679T>G (DPYD*13), c.1896T>C, c.1905 + 1G>A (DPYD*2A), c.2194G>A (DPYD*6), and c.2846A>T to assess their association with toxicity. Genetic analysis in the two cohorts were done by Real-Time PCR of DNA extracted from 3 ml of whole blood. DPYD c.496A>G, c.1601G>A, c.1627A>G, c.1896T>C, and c.2194G>A variants were found in both cohort 1 and 2, while c.1905+1G>A and c.2846A>T were present only in cohort 1. DPYD c.1679T>G and c.1236G>A/HapB3 were not found. Univariate analysis allowed the selection of c.1905+1G>A, c.2194G>A and c.2846A>T alleles as significantly associated with gastrointestinal and hematological ADRs (p < 0.05), while the c.496A>G variant showed a positive trend of association with neutropenia (p = 0.06). In conclusion, c.2194G>A is associated with clinically-relevant ADRs in addition to the already known c.1905+1G>A and c.2846A>T variants and should be evaluated pre-emptively to reduce the risk of fluoropyrimidine-associated ADRs.

Buparlisib plus fulvestrant in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer progressing on or after mTOR inhibition (BELLE-3): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Activation of the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pathway occurs frequently in breast cancer that is resistant to endocrine therapy. Approved mTOR inhibitors effectively inhibit cell growth and proliferation but elicit AKT phosphorylation via a feedback activation pathway, potentially leading to resistance to mTOR inhibitors. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of buparlisib plus fulvestrant in patients with advanced breast cancer who were pretreated with endocrine therapy and mTOR inhibitors. METHODS: BELLE-3 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study. Postmenopausal women aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, who had relapsed on or after endocrine therapy and mTOR inhibitors, were recruited from 200 trial centres in 22 countries. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) via interactive response technology (block size of six) to receive oral buparlisib (100 mg per day) or matching placebo starting on day 1 of cycle 1, plus intramuscular fulvestrant (500 mg) on days 1 and 15 of cycle 1 and on day 1 of subsequent 28-day cycles. Randomisation was stratified by visceral disease status. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival by local investigator assessment as per the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1 in the full analysis population (all randomised patients, by intention-to-treat). Safety was analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of treatment and at least one post-baseline safety assessment. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01633060, and is ongoing but no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Jan 15, 2013, and March 31, 2016, 432 patients were randomly assigned to the buparlisib (n=289) or placebo (n=143) groups. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the buparlisib versus placebo group (3·9 months [95% CI 2·8-4·2] vs 1·8 months [1·5-2·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·67, 95% CI 0·53-0·84, one-sided p=0·00030). The most frequent grade 3-4 adverse events in the buparlisib versus placebo group were elevated alanine aminotransferase (63 [22%] of 288 patients vs four [3%] of 140), elevated aspartate aminotransferase (51 [18%] vs four [3%]), hyperglycaemia (35 [12%] vs none), hypertension (16 [6%] vs six [4%]), and fatigue (ten [3%] vs two [1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 64 (22%) of 288 patients in the buparlisib group versus 23 (16%) of 140 in the placebo group; the most frequent serious adverse events (affecting ≥2% of patients) were elevated aspartate aminotransferase (six [2%] vs none), dyspnoea (six [2%] vs one [1%]), and pleural effusion (six [2%] vs none). On-treatment deaths occurred in ten (3%) of 288 patients in the buparlisib group and in six (4%) of 140 in the placebo group; most deaths were due to metastatic breast cancer, and two were considered treatment-related (cardiac failure [n=1] in the buparlisib group and unknown reason [n=1] in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: The safety profile of buparlisib plus fulvestrant does not support its further development in this setting. Nonetheless, the efficacy of buparlisib supports the rationale for the use of PI3K inhibitors plus endocrine therapy in patients with PIK3CA mutations. FUNDING: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Estimating Survival Probabilities of Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients in the Second-Line Setting: The Gastric Life Nomogram.

OBJECTIVE: We built and externally validated a nomogram for predicting the overall survival (OS) probability of advanced gastric cancer patients receiving second-line treatment. METHODS: The nomogram was developed on a set of 320 Italian patients and validated on two independent sets (295 Italian and 172 Korean patients). Putative prognostic variables were selected using a random forest model and included in the multivariable Cox model. The nomogram's performance was evaluated by calibration plot and C index. RESULTS: ECOG performance status, neutrophils to lymphocytes ratio, and peritoneal involvement were selected and included into the multivariable model. The C index was 0.72 (95% CI 0.68-0.75) in the development set, 0.69 (95% CI 0.65-0.73) in the Italian validation set, but only 0.57 (95% CI 0.52-0.62) in the Korean set. While Italian calibrations were quite good, the Korean one was poor. Regarding 6-month OS predictions, calibration was best in both Caucasian cohorts and worst the in Asian one. CONCLUSIONS: Our nomogram may be a useful tool to predict 3- or 6-month OS in Caucasian gastric cancer patients eligible for second-line therapy. Based on three easy-to-collect variables, the Gastric Life nomogram may help clinicians improve patient selection for second-line treatments and assist in clinical trial enrollment.

Outcomes of Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients Treated with at Least Three Lines of Systemic Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Second-line therapy has consistently demonstrated survival benefit if compared with best supportive care; however, there is limited evidence whether further lines of treatment may improve the prognosis of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Starting from a real-world cohort of 868 AGC patients, we retrospectively analyzed baseline parameters, tumor characteristics, and treatment data of those treated with at least three lines. Categorical features were described through cross-tables and chi-square test. We explored the impact of treatment intensity and progression-free survival (PFS) experienced in previous lines on PFS and overall survival in third-line by uni- and multivariate Cox regression models and described by Kaplan-Meier estimator plot with log-rank test. RESULTS: Overall, 300 patients were included in the analysis. The most common site of primary tumor was gastric body; 45.3% of cancers had an intestinal histotype, 14% were human epidermal growth receptor 2 positive. In third-line, 45.7% of patients received a single-agent chemotherapy, 49.7% a combination regimen. Patients who had experienced a first-line PFS ≥6.9 months had a better prognosis compared with those who had achieved a shorter one. Consistently, a second-line PFS ≥3.5 months positively influenced the prognosis. Patients receiving a third-line combination regimen had better outcomes compared with those treated with a single-agent chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Our real-world study confirms that selected AGC patients may receive third-line treatment. Longer PFS in previous lines or a more intense third-line treatment positively influenced prognosis. Further efforts are warranted to define the best therapeutic sequences, and to identify the optimal candidate for treatment beyond second-line. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The benefit of third-line treatment to advanced gastric cancer patients is controversial. This study depicts a real scenario of the clinical practice in Italy, confirming that a non-negligible proportion of patients receive a third-line therapy. Longer progression-free survival in previous treatment lines or higher third-line treatment intensity positively influenced prognosis. Including a large number of real-world patients, this study provides information on third-line treatment from the daily clinical practice; moreover, its results help in defining the best therapeutic sequence and offer some hints to select the optimal candidate for treatment beyond second-line.

Everolimus Plus Exemestane in Advanced Breast Cancer: Safety Results of the BALLET Study on Patients Previously Treated Without and with Chemotherapy in the Metastatic Setting.

BACKGROUND: The BALLET study was an open-label, multicenter, expanded access study designed to allow treatment with everolimus plus exemestane in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer progressed following prior endocrine therapy. A post hoc analysis to evaluate if previous chemotherapy in the metastatic setting affects the safety profile of the combination regimen of everolimus and exemestane was conducted on the Italian subset, as it represented the major part of the patients enrolled (54%). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One thousand one hundred and fifty-one Italian patients were included in the present post hoc analysis, which focused on two sets of patients: patients who never received chemotherapy in the metastatic setting (36.1%) and patients who received at least one chemotherapy treatment in the metastatic setting (63.9%). RESULTS: One thousand one hundred and sixteen patients (97.0%) prematurely discontinued the study drug, and the main reasons reported were disease progression (39.1%), local reimbursement of everolimus (31.1%), and adverse events (AEs) (16.1%). The median duration of study treatment exposure was 139.5 days for exemestane and 135.0 days for everolimus. At least one AE was experienced by 92.5% of patients. The incidence of everolimus-related AEs was higher (83.9%) when compared with those that occurred with exemestane (29.1%), and the most commonly reported everolimus-related AE was stomatitis (51.3%). However, no significant difference in terms of safety related to the combination occurred between patients without and with chemotherapy in the metastatic setting. CONCLUSION: Real-life data of the Italian patients BALLET-related cohort were an adequate setting to state that previous chemotherapy did not affect the safety profile of the combination regimen of everolimus and exemestane. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: With the advent of new targeted agents for advanced or metastatic breast cancer, multiple lines of therapy may be possible, and components of the combined regimens can overlap from one line to another. Thus, it is important to assess even the potential of cumulative and additive toxic effects among the drugs. Previous chemotherapy did not affect the safety profile of the combination regimen of everolimus and exemestane. The continuous monitoring of the safety signals of this drug combination from general clinical practice is important, in particular for stomatitis.

Evaluation of erlotinib treatment response in non-small cell lung cancer using metabolic and anatomic criteria.

BACKGROUND: In this paper the clinical value of PET for early prediction of tumor response to erlotinib in patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after failure of at least one prior chemotherapy regimen is evaluated. The aim was to compare the early metabolic treatment response using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 1999 recommendations and PET Response Criteria in Solid Tumors (PERCIST), and the standard treatment response using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). METHODS: Twenty patients with stage IV NSCLC were enrolled prospectively. PET/CT studies were performed before, then 48 hours, and 45 days after the initiation of erlotinib treatment. The lesion with the highest uptake in each patient was evaluated according to EORTC 1999 recommendations, PERCIST and RECIST to assess metabolic and anatomic response. Response classifications were compared statistically using Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier Test. RESULTS: At 48 hours, the Kaplan-Meier analysis showed that EORTC proved to be a significant prognostic factor for predicting DFS and OS. At 45 days, there was a significant difference in response evaluation between RECIST and metabolic classifications. RECIST and PERCIST were significant prognostic factors for predicting DFS and OS. EORTC was not able to discriminate responder from non-responder patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that, according to the EORTC protocol, the PET exam is able to provide early identification of patients who benefit from Erlotinib treatment. Used at the end of therapy, PERCIST could be considered an appropriate metabolic evaluation method to discriminate responders from non-responders.

[Sequential inhibition of angiogenesis in metastatic colorectal cancer: activity and efficacy of aflibercept]. / Inibizione sequenziale dell'angiogenesi nel carcinoma del colon-retto metastatico: attività ed efficacia di aflibercept in un caso clinico.

We report a case of a young adult affected by an adenocarcinoma of the ascending colon with synchronous, unresectable liver metastases, diagnosed on April, 2011. The patient received a first-line of bio-chemotherapy with standard folfox regimen in association with bevacizumab. Deriving from which a good partial remission of the disease with its conversion to operability; so he underwent a right hemicolectomy with liver metastasectomy. Eleven months after radical surgery, the patient experimented an intrahepatic progression of the tumour, so he started a second-line therapy with FOLFIRI regimen plus aflibercept. Six months later than the beginning of the treatment he underwent a second liver metastasectomy. He subsequently received further twelve months of the same regimen. The patient is still alive forty-six months later than the diagnosis of the disease, expressing a good performance status and he's on fourth-line chemotherapy due to a relapse of its tumour.

Translational challenges from the 2014 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium: toward a true tailored therapy through effective research.

Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2014, San Francisco, CA, USA, 16-18 January 2014. The Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium represents an indisputable occasion for sharing results and research opportunities for investigators around the globe. Across the years along with clinical trials presentations the meeting increasingly acquired a distinct role as a scientific arena for translational research. Also, this year the need for predictive markers for first-generation targeted agents and research about novel biologically driven therapeutic options characterized most of the studies presented. We focus here on reports from the 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium indicating an opportunity for biological selection of either the pharmacological target or the patient population in order to enhance clinical outcome.

Phase II randomized trial comparing metronomic anthracycline-containing chemotherapy versus standard schedule in untreated HER2 negative advanced breast cancer: activity and quality of life results of the GOIM 21003 trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing chemotherapy to achieve disease and symptoms control is a noteworthy purpose in advanced breast cancer (ABC). We reported the activity and quality of life of a phase II study, comparing metronomic regimen with standard schedule as first line chemotherapy for ABC. METHODS: Patients with HER2 negative ABC were randomized to non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (NPLD, 60 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) and cyclophosphamide (CTX, 600 mg/m2 every 3 weeks) (Arm A) or NPLD (20 mg/m2 day, on day 1, 8 and 15 every 4 weeks) and metronomic daily oral CTX 50 mg (ARM B). Primary end-points were overall response rate (ORR) and quality of life, secondary progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. RESULTS: From August 2012 to December 2017, 121 patients were enrolled, 105 evaluable. Median follow-up was 21.3 months. Most patients had hormone receptor positive. ORR was 43 % in arm A and 50 % in arm B. Median PFS was 8.9 months in arm A and 6,4 months in arm B. There was no difference in OS. Total score was not clinically different between the two arms. Grade 4 neutropenia was observed in 12 patients and 16 patients respectively; alopecia G2 in 41 % (77 %) vs 14 (27 %) in arm A and in arm B respectively. One cardiac toxicity was observed (arm A). CONCLUSIONS: First line metronomic chemotherapy for HER2 negative ABC had similar clinical activity and quite better tolerability than standard schedule and could be considered a further treatment option when chemotherapy is indicated.

Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan Plus Cetuximab Versus Cetuximab as Maintenance Therapy in First-Line Therapy for RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Phase III ERMES Study.

PURPOSE: The intensity of anti-EGFR-based first-line therapy for RAS/BRAF wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), once disease control is achieved, is controversial. A de-escalation strategy with anti-EGFR monotherapy represents a potential option to maintain efficacy while reducing cytotoxicity. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, phase III trial, patients with untreated RAS/BRAF wt mCRC were randomly assigned to receive either fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan/cetuximab (FOLFIRI/Cet) until disease progression (arm A) or FOLFIRI/Cet for eight cycles followed by Cet alone (arm B). The coprimary end points were a noninferior progression-free survival (PFS) in the modified per-protocol (mPP) population (>eight cycles) and a lower incidence of grade (G) 3-4 adverse events (AEs) for arm B compared with arm A. RESULTS: Overall, 606 patients were randomly assigned, with 300 assigned to arm A and 306 to arm B. The median follow-up was 22.3 months. In the mPP population, 291 events occurred with a PFS of 10 versus 12.2 months for arms B and A, respectively (P of noninferiority = .43). In the intention-to-treatment (ITT, ≥one cycle) population, 503 events occurred with a PFS of 9 versus 10.7 months (P = .39). The overall survival was 35.7 versus 30.7 months (P = .119) and 31.0 versus 25.2 months (P = .32) in the mPP and ITT population, respectively. Arm B had lower G3-4 AEs during the maintenance period than arm A (20.2% v 35.1%). CONCLUSION: The ERMES study did not demonstrate noninferiority of maintenance with Cet alone. Despite a more favorable safety profile, maintenance with single-agent Cet after induction with FOLFIRI/Cet cannot be recommended for all patients but could represent an option in selected cases.

The Italian Rare Biliary tract Cancer initiative (IRaBiCa): A multicentric observational study of Gruppo Oncologico dell'Italia Meridionale (GOIM) in collaboration with Gruppo Italiano Colangiocarcinoma (GICO).

INTRODUCTION: About 90% of cholangiocarcinomas are adenocarcinomas with glandular or tubular structures lined by epithelial cells, with no bile production and with a variable degree of differentiation, arising in the background of desmoplastic stroma. The remaining 10% is represented by rarer histological variants of which there is little knowledge regarding the biological behavior, molecular characterization, and sensitivity to the various possible therapies, including molecular-based treatments. Such rare tumors are described only in case reports or small retrospective series because of their exclusion from clinical trials. This national initiative, here presented, aims to address the following knowledge gap: a) how much does histological diversity translate into clinical manifestation variety? b) are those chemotherapy regimens, recommended for conventional biliary tract cancers, potentially active in rare variants?Therefore, epidemiological, pathological, and clinical characterization of series of rare biliary histotypes/variants, for which therapeutic and follow-up data are available, will be collected. METHODS: An Italian task force on rare tumors of the biliary tract (IRaBiCa) has been created, whose initiative is a multicenter retrospective study involving 34 Italian cancer centers.Clinical data from approximately 100 patients will be collected and analyzed. Continuous variables will be presented as median ± standard deviation, while categorical variables will be expressed in terms of frequency. Kaplan-Maier analyses will be used to compare disease free, progression free and overall survival, according to the different histotypes. CONCLUSIONS: We expect to gather novel data on rare histotypes of biliary tract cancer that will be useful to support their molecular and immunological characterization.

Dose-dense FEC followed by dose-dense ixabepilone as neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer patients: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Ixabepilone is an effective chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer that has been pretreated with anthracyclines and is resistant or refractory to taxanes. Adjuvant dose-dense (DD) chemotherapy is more effective than regimens administered every 3 weeks, especially in hormonal receptor (HR)-negative tumors. METHODS: A feasibility study of neoadjuvant DD ixabepilone was conducted in breast cancer patients with tumors measuring at least 2 cm. Patients received 5-fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2), epirubicin 90 mg/m(2), and cyclophosphamide 600 mg/m(2) ("FEC" in combination) administered intravenously on day 1 every 14 days with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (filgrastim) followed by ixabepilone 40 mg/m(2) administered intravenously on day 1 every 14 days with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor. The study's primary endpoint was feasibility, and the secondary endpoint was pathologic complete response. A two-stage Simon's design was adopted. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were enrolled, and 42 were evaluable. For 10 of 42 patients, DD ixabepilone was not feasible. Six (14%) required ixabepilone interruption, and four (9.5%) required ixabepilone dose reduction of 25%. One toxic death occurred. Hematologic grade 3-4 toxicities included anemia (9.5%), grade 4 neutropenia (2.4%), febrile neutropenia (4.8%), and thrombocytopenia (2.4%). Nonhematologic grade 3-4 toxicities consisted of fatigue (14.3%), mucositis (14.3%), sensory neuropathy (7.1%), onychopathy (7.1%), and liver toxicity (4.8%). Grade 2 sensory neuropathy lasting longer than 7 days was recorded in 11.9% of patients. Pathologic complete response was observed in 16 of 42 patients (38.1%), including 11 of 23 (47.8%) with HR-negative tumors and 5 of 19 (26.3%) with HR-positive tumors. CONCLUSION: Despite high activity, DD ixabepilone after DD FEC is poorly tolerated.

Panitumumab Plus Trifluridine-Tipiracil as Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Rechallenge Therapy for Refractory RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Current third-line therapies for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) have limited efficacy. Rechallenge with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors for RAS wild-type (WT) MCRC may be valuable for these patients. Objective: To compare the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody panitumumab plus standard-of-care trifluridine-tipiracil with trifluridine-tipiracil alone as third-line therapy for RAS WT MCRC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2 randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted in 7 Italian centers from June 2019 to April 2022. Patients with refractory RAS WT MCRC who had a partial or complete response to first-line chemotherapy plus an anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody and an anti-EGFR drug-free interval of 4 or more months during second-line therapy were included. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive panitumumab plus trifluridine-tipiracil or trifluridine-tipiracil alone. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) extended sequence variation analysis was performed in a subgroup of patients. Results: Of 62 included patients, 31 received panitumumab plus trifluridine-tipiracil (19 [61.3%] male; median age, 65 years [range, 39-81 years]) and 31 received trifluridine-tipiracil alone (17 [54.8%] male; median age, 66 years [range, 32-82 years]). The primary end point was met. Median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI, 2.8-5.3 months) in the panitumumab plus trifluridine-tipiracil arm vs 2.5 months (95% CI, 1.4-3.6 months) in the trifluridine-tipiracil only (hazard ratio [HR], 0.48; 95% CI, 0.28-0.82; P = .007). Pretreatment plasma RAS/BRAF WT ctDNA identified patients obtaining prolonged clinical benefit with panitumumab plus trifluridine-tipiracil compared with trifluridine-tipiracil, with PFS rates at 6 months of 38.5% vs 13.0% and at 12 months of 15.4% vs 0%. A ctDNA liquid-biopsy extended mutation analysis by FoundationOne Liquid CDx (profiling 324 genes) was performed in a subgroup of patients with baseline plasma RAS/BRAF WT ctDNA; in 15 of 23 patients (65.2%) whose tumors were WT for KRAS, NRAS, BRAFV600E, EGFR, ERBB2, MAP2K1, and PIK3CA, median PFS was 6.4 months (95% CI, 3.7-9.2 months). Within this group of 15 patients, 2 (13.3%) had partial response, 11 (73.3%) had stable disease, and 2 (13.3%) had disease progression as best response. Conclusions and Relevance: In this RCT, third-line treatment with the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody panitumumab plus the standard-of-care trifluridine-tipiracil resulted in improved PFS compared with treatment with trifluridine-tipiracil alone among patients with refractory RAS WT MCRC. The findings support the clinical utility of liquid biopsy-guided anti-EGFR rechallenge therapy for refractory RAS WT MCRC. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05468892.