Atezolizumab plus modified docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil as first-line treatment for advanced anal cancer (SCARCE C17-02 PRODIGE 60): a randomised, non-comparative, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: The modified docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (mDCF) regimen has shown efficacy and safety as first-line treatment for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, making it a standard regimen. Inhibitors of programmed cell death protein 1 and its ligand, such as pembrolizumab, nivolumab, retifanlimab, avelumab, and atezolizumab, have shown some antitumour activity as monotherapy in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anus that is refractory to chemotherapy. This phase 2 study evaluated the combination of mDCF and atezolizumab as first-line treatment in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anus. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, non-comparative, phase 2 study, participants from 21 centres (academic, private, and community hospitals and cancer research centres) across France with chemo-naive, metastatic, or unresectable locally advanced recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, aged 18 years or older, and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, were randomly allocated (2:1) to receive either atezolizumab (800 mg intravenously every 2 weeks up to 1 year) plus mDCF (eight cycles of 40 mg per m2 docetaxel and 40 mg per m2 cisplatin on day 1 and 1200 mg per m2 per day of fluorouracil for 2 days, every 2 weeks intravenously; group A) or mDCF alone (group B). Randomisation was done centrally using a minimisation technique and was stratified by age (<65 years vs ≥65 years) and disease status. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed 12-month progression-free survival in the modified intention-to-treat population in group A (35% for the null hypothesis and 50% for the alternative hypothesis). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03519295, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: 97 evaluable participants (64 in group A and 33 in group B) were enrolled between July 3, 2018, and Aug 19, 2020. The median follow-up was 26·5 months (95% CI 24·8-28·4). The median age of participants was 64·1 years (IQR 56·2-71·6), and 71 (73%) were female. 12-month progression-free survival was 45% (90% CI 35-55) in group A and 43% (29-58) in group B. In participants with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 5 or greater, 12-month progression-free survival was 70% (95% CI 47-100) in group A and 40% (19-85) in group B (interaction p=0·051) Both groups showed high compliance. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were observed in 39 (61%) participants in group A and 14 (42%) in group B. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (nine [14%] participants in group A vs five [15%] in group B), anaemia (nine [14%] vs one [3%]), fatigue (three [5%] vs four [12%]), and diarrhoea (seven [11%] vs one [3%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 16 (25%) participants in group A and four (12%) in group B, and these were mDCF-related in seven (11%) participants in group A and four (12%) in group B. Atezolizumab-related serious adverse events occurred in nine (14%) participants in group A, including grade 2 infusion-related reaction in three (5%), grade 3 infection in two (3%), and grade 2 colitis, grade 3 acute kidney injury, grade 3 sarcoidosis, and a grade 4 platelet count decrease each in one participant (2%). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Despite a higher incidence of adverse events, combining atezolizumab with mDCF is feasible, with similar dose intensity in both groups, although the primary efficacy endpoint was not met. The predictive value of a PD-L1 combined positive score of 5 or greater now needs to be confirmed in future studies. FUNDING: GERCOR, Roche.

Bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI after failure of platinum-etoposide first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced neuroendocrine carcinoma (PRODIGE 41-BEVANEC): a randomised, multicentre, non-comparative, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is no standard second-line treatment after platinum-etoposide chemotherapy for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab, and FOLFIRI alone, in this setting. METHODS: We did a randomised, non-comparative, open-label, phase 2 trial (PRODIGE 41-BEVANEC) at 26 hospitals in France. We included patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma or neuroendocrine carcinoma of unknown primary origin, documented progressive disease during or after first-line platinum-etoposide chemotherapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1; block size of three), without stratification, to receive FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m2, calcium folinate 400 mg/m2 or levofolinate 200 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus then 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h) plus bevacizumab 5 mg/kg or FOLFIRI alone, intravenously, every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was overall survival at 6 months after randomisation, evaluated in the modified intention-to-treat population (all enrolled and randomly assigned patients who received at least one cycle of FOLFIRI). This study is now complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02820857. FINDINGS: Between Sept 5, 2017, and Feb 8, 2022, 150 patients were assessed for eligibility and 133 were enrolled and randomly assigned: 65 to the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 68 to the FOLFIRI group. 126 patients (59 in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 67 in the FOLFIRI group) received at least one cycle of FOLFIRI and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, 83 (66%) of whom were male and 43 (34%) were female, and the median age of the patients was 67 years (IQR 58-73). The primary tumour location was colorectal in 38 (30%) of 126 patients, pancreatic in 34 (27%), gastro-oesophageal in 22 (17%), and unknown in 23 (18%). After a median follow-up of 25·7 months (95% CI 22·0-38·2), 6-month overall survival was 53% (80% CI 43-61) in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 60% (51-68) in the FOLFIRI group. Grade 3-4 adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of patients were neutropenia (eight [14%] patients), diarrhoea (six [10%]), and asthenia (five [8%]) in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group, and neutropenia (seven [10%]) in the FOLFIRI group. One treatment-related death (ischaemic stroke) occurred in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of bevacizumab did not seem to increase the benefit of FOLFIRI with regard to overall survival. FOLFIRI could be considered as a standard second-line treatment in patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health and Roche SAS.

Optimal treatment strategy after first-line induction therapy in advanced HER2-positive oeso-gastric adenocarcinoma-a retrospective, international, multicentric AGEO study.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment strategy after first-line induction therapy in advanced HER2-positive oeso-gastric adenocarcinoma (OGA) remains challenging. METHODS: Patients treated with trastuzumab (T) plus platinum salts and fluoropyrimidine (F) as first-line chemotherapy between 2010 and 2020 for HER2-positive advanced OGA at 17 academic care centers in France, Italy, and Austria were included. The primary objective was the comparison of F + T vs T alone as maintenance regimen in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after a platinum-based chemotherapy induction + T. As secondary objective, PFS and OS between patients treated with reintroduction of initial chemotherapy or standard second-line chemotherapy at progression were assessed. RESULTS: Among the 157 patients included, 86 (55%) received F + T and 71 (45%) T alone as a maintenance regimen after a median of 4 months of induction chemotherapy. Median PFS from start of maintenance therapy was 5.1 months in both groups (95% CI 4.2-7.7 for F + T and 95% CI 3.7-7.5 for T alone; p = 0.60) and median OS was 15.2 (95% CI 10.9-19.1) and 17.0 months (95% CI 15.5-21.6) for F + T and T alone, respectively (p = 0.40). Of 112/157 patients (71%) receiving systemic therapy after progression under maintenance, 26/112 (23%) were treated with a reintroduction of initial chemotherapy + T and 86/112 (77%) with a standard second-line regimen. Here, median OS was significantly longer with the reintroduction (13.8 (95% CI 12.1-19.9) vs 9.0 months (95% CI 7.1-11.9); p = 0.007) as confirmed by multivariate analysis (HR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28-0.85; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: No additional benefit of adding F to T monotherapy as a maintenance treatment could be observed. Reintroduction of initial therapy at first progression may be a feasible approach to preserve later treatment lines.

The safety and efficacy of total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery following dose-escalation: Surgical outcomes from the organ preservation in early rectal adenocarcinoma (OPERA) trial, a European multicentre phase 3 randomised trial (NCT02505750).

AIM: Nonsurgical treatment with chemoradiotherapy for rectal cancer is gaining interest as it avoids total mesorectal excision (TME) surgery and stoma. The OPERA trial aims to evaluate whether dose escalation with contact X-ray brachytherapy (CXB) boost improves organ preservation compared to external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) boost. It has been suggested that dose escalation adversely affects surgical outcomes and therefore we report outcomes following TME in OPERA at 36 months. METHODS: OPERA is a European multicentre phase 3 trial (NCT02505750) which randomises patients with cT2-3a-b, cN0-1, M0 to EBCRT (45 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks with oral capecitabine 825 mg/m2 ) followed by EBRT boost (9 Gy in 5 fractions over 5 days) versus EBCRT followed by CXB boost (90 Gy in 3 fractions over 4 weeks). Patients were assessed at 14, 20 and 24 weeks from the start of treatment. Watch and wait management was adopted for patients who achieved a clinical complete response (cCR) at 24 weeks following treatment. Either local excision (LE) or TME surgery was offered for residual disease or local regrowth, according to patient and surgeon preference. Surgical morbidity and mortality were recorded prospectively. RESULTS: Between July 2015 and June 2020, 148 patients were randomised of which 141 were evaluable in March 2022. At median follow-up of 38.2 months (range: 34.2-42.5), surgery was performed for 66 (47%) patients. A total of 27 (20%) patients had local excision and 39 (29%) had TME surgery, 22/39 (56%) underwent anterior resection and 17/39 (44%) underwent abdominoperineal excision of the rectum. The R0 resection rate was 87%. There were no deaths, and six patients (15%) had Clavien-Dindo IIIb complications. Whilst there was a statistically significant decrease in the TME rate following CXB boost (HR 0.38, 95% CI: 0.19-0.74, p = 0.00419) there was no difference in surgical outcomes between patients who received EBRT and CXB boost. CONCLUSION: Dose escalation can facilitate nonsurgical treatment for cT2-3 rectal cancer patients who are fit but wish to avoid TME surgery and stoma. If TME surgery is required, then it can be performed safely and effectively.

Chemotherapy (doublet or triplet) plus targeted therapy by RAS status as conversion therapy in colorectal cancer patients with initially unresectable liver-only metastases. The UNICANCER PRODIGE-14 randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) patients have a better prognosis if metastases are resectable. Initially, unresectable liver-only metastases can be converted to resectable with chemotherapy plus a targeted therapy. We assessed which of chemotherapy doublet (2-CTx) or triplet (3-CTx), combined with targeted therapy by RAS status, would be better in this setting. METHODS: PRODIGE 14 was an open-label, multicenter, randomised Phase 2 trial. CRC patients with initially defined unresectable liver-only metastases received either, 2-CTx (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) or 3-CTx (FOLFIRINOX), plus bevacizumab/cetuximab by RAS status. The primary endpoint was to increase the R0/R1 liver-resection rate from 50 to 70% with the 3-CTx. RESULTS: Patients (n = 256) were mainly men with an ECOG PS of 0, and a median age of 60 years. In total, 109 patients (42.6%) had RAS-mutated tumours. After a median follow-up of 45.6 months, the R0/R1 liver-resection rate was 56.9% (95% CI: 48-66) with the 3-CTx versus 48.4% (95% CI: 39-57) with the 2-CTx (P = 0.17). Median overall survival was 43.4 months with 3-CTx versus 40 months with 2-CTx. CONCLUSION: We failed to increase from 50 to 70% the R0/R1 liver-resection rate with the use of 3-CTx combined with bevacizumab or cetuximab by RAS status in CRC patients with initially unresectable liver metastases.

Phase II study evaluating the association of gemcitabine, trastuzumab and erlotinib as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (GATE 1).

In a previous phase II study (THERAPY), cetuximab and trastuzumab combination, as second-line after progression with gemcitabine, showed disease stabilization in 27% of 33 patients with pancreatic carcinoma. In the present phase II multicenter study, we assessed the efficacy and tolerance of gemcitabine, trastuzumab plus erlotinib as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR, RECIST v.1); secondary endpoints were progression-free (PFS), overall (OS) survival and toxicity (NCI-CTCAE v3.0). Ancillary study addressed the predictive value of both EGFR/HER2 expression and KRAS mutational status. Sixty-three patients from four centers were included (62 evaluable for toxicity, 59 for efficacy), median age was 62 years (35-77), 59.7% men. The median treatment duration was 16.1 weeks (2.1-61). Eleven patients (19%) reported a partial tumor response, and 33 (56%) disease stabilization. DCR was 74.6% (95%CI: 61.8-85.0; 44/59 patients). After a median follow-up of 23.3 months (0.6-23.6), median PFS was 3.5 months (95%CI: 2.4-3.8) and median OS 7.9 months (95%CI: 5.1-10.2). PFS was significantly longer in patients with grade ≥ 2 cutaneous toxicities vs patients with grade 0-1 toxicities (HR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.33-0.92, P = .020). Expression of EGFR and HER2 was correlated with PFS and OS in multivariate analysis; HER2 expression was correlated with the tumor response. Main severe toxicities were neutropenia (32%), cutaneous rash (37%) and thrombosis/embolisms (35.5%). This triplet combination is effective in terms of disease control, PFS and OS, and acceptable for safety. A larger study to investigate this combination compared to the standard regimen should be discussed.

Sphincter-saving surgery for ultra-low rectal carcinoma initially indicated for abdominoperineal resection: Is it safe on a long-term follow-up?

BACKGROUND: Rate of abdominoperineal resection (APR) varies from countries and surgeons. Surgical impact of preoperative treatment for ultra-low rectal carcinoma (ULRC) initially indicated for APR is debated. We report the 10-year oncological results from a prospective controlled trial (GRECCAR 1) which evaluate the sphincter saving surgery (SSR). METHODS: ULRC indicated for APR were included (n = 207). Randomization was between high-dose radiation (HDR, 45 + 18 Gy) and radiochemotherapy (RCT, 45 Gy + 5FU infusion). Surgical decision was based on tumour volume regression at surgery. SSR technique was standardized as mucosectomy (M) or partial (PISR)/complete (CISR) intersphincteric resection. RESULTS: Overall SSR rate was 85% (72% ISR), postoperative morbidity 27%, with no mortality. There were no significant differences between the HDR and RCT groups: 10-year overall survival (OS10) 70.1% versus 69.4%, respectively, 10.2% local recurrence (9.2%/14.5%) and 27.6% metastases (32.4%/27.7%). OS and disease-free survival were significantly longer for SSR (72.2% and 60.1%, respectively) versus APR (54.7% and 38.3%). No difference in OS10 between surgical approaches (M 78.9%, PISR 75.5%, CISR 65.5%) or tumour location (low 64.8%, ultralow 76.7%). CONCLUSION: GRECCAR 1 demonstrates the feasibility of safely changing an initial APR indication into an SSR procedure according to the preoperative treatment tumour response. Long-term oncologic follow-up validates this attitude.

Withholding the Introduction of Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor: Impact on Outcomes in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Tumors: A Multicenter AGEO Study (the WAIT or ACT Study).

BACKGROUND: Patients with RAS wild-type (WT) nonresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) may receive either bevacizumab or an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) combined with first-line, 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. Without the RAS status information, the oncologist can either start chemotherapy with bevacizumab or wait for the introduction of the anti-EGFR. Our objective was to compare both strategies in a routine practice setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective, propensity score-weighted study included patients with a RAS WT nonresectable mCRC, treated between 2013 and 2016 by a 5-FU-based chemotherapy, with either delayed anti-EGFR or immediate anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Primary criterion was overall survival (OS). Secondary criteria were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: A total of 262 patients (129 in the anti-VEGF group and 133 in the anti-EGFR group) were included. Patients receiving an anti-VEGF were more often men (68% vs. 56%), with more metastatic sites (>2 sites: 15% vs. 9%). The median delay to obtain the RAS status was 19 days (interquartile range: 13-26). Median OS was not significantly different in the two groups (29 vs. 30.5 months, p = .299), even after weighting on the propensity score (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.08, p = .2024). The delayed introduction of anti-EGFR was associated with better median PFS (13.8 vs. 11.0 months, p = .0244), even after weighting on the propensity score (HR = 0.74, 95% CI, 0.61-0.90, p = .0024). ORR was significantly higher in the anti-EGFR group (66.7% vs. 45.6%, p = .0007). CONCLUSION: Delayed introduction of anti-EGFR had no deleterious effect on OS, PFS, and ORR, compared with doublet chemotherapy with anti-VEGF. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: For RAS/RAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, patients may receive 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab or an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). In daily practice, the time to obtain the RAS status might be long enough to consider two options: to start the chemotherapy with bevacizumab, or to start without a targeted therapy and to add the anti-EGFR at reception of the RAS status. This study found no deleterious effect of the delayed introduction of an anti-EGFR on survival, compared with the introduction of an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor from cycle 1. It is possible to wait one or two cycles to introduce the anti-EGFR while waiting for RAS status.

Does A Longer Waiting Period After Neoadjuvant Radio-chemotherapy Improve the Oncological Prognosis of Rectal Cancer?: Three Years' Follow-up Results of the Greccar-6 Randomized Multicenter Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report the 3-year survival results of the GRECCAR-6 trial. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Current data on the effect of an extended interval between radiochemotherapy (RCT) and resection for rectal cancer on the rate of complete pathological response (pCR = ypT0N0) is controversial. Furthermore, its effect on oncological outcomes is unknown. METHODS: The GRECCAR-6 trial was a phase III, multicenter, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, controlled trial. Patients with cT3/T4 or TxN+ tumors of the mid or lower rectum who had received RCT (45-50 Gy with 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine) were included and randomized into a 7- or 11-week waiting period. Primary endpoint was the pCR rate. Secondary endpoints were 3-year overall (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and recurrence rates. RESULTS: A total of 265 patients from 24 participating centers were enrolled. A total of 253 patients underwent a mesorectal excision. Overall pCR rate was 17% (43/253). Mean follow-up from surgical resection was 32 ±â€Š8 months. Twenty-four deaths occurred with an 89% OS at 3 years. DFS was 68.7% at 3 years (75 recurrences). Three-year local and distant recurrences were 7.9% and 23.8%, respectively. The randomization group had no impact on the 3-year OS (P = 0.8868) or DFS (P = 0.9409). Distant (P = 0.7432) and local (P = 0.3944) recurrences were also not influenced by the waiting period. DFS was independently influenced by 3 factors: circumferential radial margin (CRM) ≤1 mm [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.03; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.17-3.51], ypT3-T4 (HR = 2.69; 95% CI, 1.19-6.08) and positive lymph nodes (HR = 3.62; 95% CI, 1.89-6.91). CONCLUSION: Extending the waiting period by 4 weeks following RCT has no influence on the oncological outcomes of T3/T4 rectal cancers.

Panitumumab use in metastatic colorectal cancer and patterns of RAS testing: results from a Europe-wide physician survey and medical records review.

BACKGROUND: In Europe, treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with panitumumab requires prior confirmation of RAS wild-type mutation status. Two studies - a physician survey and a medical records review (MRR) - were conducted to evaluate the use of panitumumab and awareness among prescribing oncologists of the associated RAS testing requirements in clinical practice. METHODS: Both studies enrolled participants from nine European countries and were carried out in three consecutive rounds. Rounds 1 and 2 (2012-2013) examined KRAS (exon 2) testing only; the results have been published in full previously. Round 3 (2014-2015) examined full RAS testing (exons 2, 3, 4 of KRAS and NRAS) and was initiated following a change in prescribing guidelines, from requiring KRAS alone to requiring full RAS testing. For the physician survey, telephone interviews were conducted with oncologists who had prescribed panitumumab to patients with mCRC in the previous 6 months. For the MRR, oncologists were asked to provide anonymised clinical information, extracted from their patients' records. RESULTS: In Round 3, 152 oncologists and 131 patients' records were included in the physician survey and MRR, respectively. In Round 3 of the physician survey, 95.4% (n = 145) of participants correctly identified that panitumumab should only be prescribed in RAS wild-type mCRC compared with 99.0% (n = 298) of 301 participants in Rounds 1 and 2, responding to the same question about KRAS testing. In Round 3 of the MRR, 100% (n = 131) of patients included in the study had confirmed KRAS or RAS wild-type status prior to initiation of panitumumab compared with 97.7% (n = 299) of 306 patients in Rounds 1 and 2 (KRAS only). Of those patients in Round 3, 83.2% (n = 109) had been tested for RAS status and 16.8% (n = 22) had been tested for KRAS status only. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' adherence to prescribing guidelines has remained high over time in Europe, despite the change in indication for panitumumab treatment, from KRAS to RAS wild-type mCRC. Additionally, this study demonstrates the uptake of full RAS testing among the majority of oncologists and pathologists.

[Hepatic myelolipoma: A rare entity, case report and review of the literature]. / Myélolipome hépatique : une entité rare, à propos d'un cas et revue de la littérature.

Hepatic myelolipoma is a rare entity with only 17 cases described in the literature. A 73mm right liver mass was fortuitously discovered in a 55-year-old man. The biopsy showed normal hepatic tissue adjacent to a normal medular like hematopoïetic tissue, showing trilieage hematopoieses, including myeloid cells, erythroid cells and megakaryocytic cells. The diagnosis of hepatic myelolipoma was proposed. This benign tumor was initially described in adrenal gland, which is the most common topography. No malignancy or bleeding complication has been described in its hepatical location. The diagnosis is histological due to non-specific radiological presentation; it allows to avoid a surgical treatment in relation to its excellent prognosis. The etiology is not well established; but some hypotheses are discussed: adrenal or medullar heterotopia, bone marrow embolism, myeloïd metaplasia.

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.

Impact of tumour RAS/BRAF status in a first-line study of panitumumab + FOLFIRI in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: To investigate tumour biomarker status and efficacy of first-line panitumumab+FOLFIRI for metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC). METHODS: 154 patients received first-line panitumumab + FOLFIRI every 14 days. Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Data were analysed by tumour RAS (KRAS/NRAS) and BRAF status, and baseline amphiregulin (AREG) expression. RESULTS: Objective responses occurred more frequently in RAS wild type (WT) (59%) vs RAS mutant (MT) (41%) mCRC and in RAS WT/BRAF WT (68%) vs RAS or BRAF MT (37%) disease. Median response duration was longer in RAS WT (13.0 months) vs RAS MT (5.8 months) (hazard ratio (HR): 0.16). Median progression-free survival was longer in RAS WT vs MT (11.2 vs 7.3 months; HR, 0.37) and was also longer in RAS WT/BRAF WT vs RAS or BRAF MT (13.2 vs 6.9 months; HR, 0.25). Incidence of adverse events was similar regardless of RAS/BRAF status, and no new safety signals were noted. Among patients with RAS WT tumours, ORR was 67% with high AREG expression and 38% with low AREG expression. CONCLUSIONS: First-line panitumumab+FOLFIRI was associated with favourable efficacy in patients with RAS WT and RAS WT/BRAF WT vs MT mCRC tumours and was well tolerated.

High Resectability Rate of Initially Unresectable Colorectal Liver Metastases After UGT1A1-Adapted High-Dose Irinotecan Combined with LV5FU2 and Cetuximab: A Multicenter Phase II Study (ERBIFORT).

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy and tolerance of induction chemotherapy combining LV5FU2 with increased doses of irinotecan adapted to UGT1A1 genotyping and cetuximab in untreated potentially resectable liver metastases of colorectal cancer. METHODS: Twenty-six patients, PS 0-1, with class II hepatic metastases received chemotherapy combining irinotecan 260 mg/m(2) on day 1 for UGT1A1 6/6 and 6/7 genotypes and 220 mg/m(2) for UGT1A1 7/7 genotypes, with leucovorin on day 1, 5FU 400 mg/m(2) bolus on day 1 and continuous 5FU infusion for 46 h, and cetuximab on day 1 (day 1 = day 14). Primary prevention with lenograstim (day 5-9) was given to UGT1A1 6/7 and 7/7 genotypes. The primary endpoint was the response rate (RECIST1.1), and the secondary endpoints were tolerance (NCI-CTC criteria) and R0 resection rate. RESULTS: The average number of cycles per patient was 6 (±1.9). The UGT1A1 genotype was 6/6 in 34.6 %, 6/7 in 53.9 %, and 7/7 in 11.5 % of patients. At 6 cycles, 18 patients (69.2 %) presented a partial response, 5 patients (19.2 %) had stable disease, 2 patients (7.7 %) died independently of chemotherapy, and 1 patient (3.9 %) refused the treatment after 3 cycles. Four patients received 2 more cycles and the cumulative response rate at 8 cycles was 76.9 % (20/26). There was no progression. Among assessable patients (n = 23), the overall response rate was 82.6 % and 21 patients (80.7 %) had a metastasis resection. The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities were neutropenia (31 %), diarrhea (20.8 %), and anorexia (16.4 %). There were no deaths due to toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: High-dose FOLFIRI combined with cetuximab yielded high response rates and enabled complete resection of class II hepatic metastases in most patients. It seemed to be well-tolerated among healthy selected patients thanks to irinotecan dose adaptation according to UGT1A1 pharmacogenomics status. This intensified chemotherapy regimen needs to be confirmed in a randomized, phase III study.

Survival, safety, and prognostic factors for outcome with Regorafenib in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer refractory to standard therapies: results from a multicenter study (REBECCA) nested within a compassionate use program.

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials have shown a survival benefit for regorafenib over placebo in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that progressed after standard therapies. We evaluated survival and safety outcomes in patients treated with regorafenib in a real-life setting. METHODS: REBECCA is a cohort study nested within a compassionate use program designed to evaluate survival, safety, and potential prognostic factors for outcome associated with regorafenib in patients with mCRC refractory to standard therapies. Treatment effects according to various patient and tumour characteristics were evaluated using univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression models. RESULTS: Of 1178 patients in the compassionate use program, 654 were in the full analysis set. Median follow-up was 16.5 months. Median survival was 5.6 months. The 12-month survival rate was 22 %. Survival was independently and unfavourably affected by the following variables: poor performance status, short time from initial diagnosis of metastases to the start of regorafenib, low initial regorafenib dose, >3 metastatic sites, presence of liver metastases, and KRAS mutations. We identified prognostic groups of patients with low, intermediate, and high risk of death, with a median survival of 9.2, 5.2, and 2.5 months, respectively. Five-hundred-twenty-four patients (80 %) experienced at least one regorafenib-related adverse event, most commonly, fatigue, hand-foot skin reaction, diarrhea, anorexia, arterial hypertension, and mucositis. CONCLUSION: The safety and efficacy profile of regorafenib in REBECCA are similar to those in randomized trials. Our prognostic model identified subgroups of mCRC patients who derived a minimal and maximum benefit from regorafenib. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02310477 .

Effect of Chemoradiotherapy vs Chemotherapy on Survival in Patients With Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer Controlled After 4 Months of Gemcitabine With or Without Erlotinib: The LAP07 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: In locally advanced pancreatic cancer, the role of chemoradiotherapy is controversial and the efficacy of erlotinib is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether chemoradiotherapy improves overall survival of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer controlled after 4 months of gemcitabine-based induction chemotherapy and to assess the effect of erlotinib on survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In LAP07, an international, open-label, phase 3 randomized trial, 449 patients were enrolled between 2008 and 2011. Follow-up ended in February 2013. INTERVENTIONS: In the first randomization, 223 patients received 1000 mg/m2 weekly of gemcitabine alone and 219 patients received 1000 mg/m2 of gemcitabine plus 100 mg/d of erlotinib. In the second randomization involving patients with progression-free disease after 4 months, 136 patients received 2 months of the same chemotherapy and 133 underwent chemoradiotherapy (54 Gy plus capecitabine). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was overall survival from the date of the first randomization. Secondary outcomes were the effect of erlotinib and quality assurance of radiotherapy on overall survival, progression-free survival of gemcitabine-erlotinib and erlotinib maintenance with gemcitabine alone at the second randomization, and toxic effects. RESULTS: A total of 442 of the 449 patients (232 men; median age, 63.3 years) enrolled underwent the first randomization. Of these, 269 underwent the second randomization. Interim analysis was performed when 221 patients died (109 in the chemoradiotherapy group and 112 in the chemotherapy group), reaching the early stopping boundaries for futility. With a median follow-up of 36.7 months, the median overall survival from the date of the first randomization was not significantly different between chemotherapy at 16.5 months (95% CI, 14.5-18.5 months) and chemoradiotherapy at 15.2 months (95% CI, 13.9-17.3 months; hazard ratio [HR], 1.03; 95% CI, 0.79-1.34; P = .83). Median overall survival from the date of the first randomization for the 223 patients receiving gemcitabine was 13.6 months (95% CI, 12.3-15.3 months) and was 11.9 months (95% CI, 10.4-13.5 months) for the 219 patients receiving gemcitabine plus erlotinib (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97-1.45; P = .09; 188 deaths vs 191 deaths). Chemoradiotherapy was associated with decreased local progression (32% vs 46%, P = .03) and no increase in grade 3 to 4 toxicity, except for nausea. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this open-label, randomized trial involving patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer with disease controlled after 4 months of induction chemotherapy, there was no significant difference in overall survival with chemoradiotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone and there was no significant difference in overall survival with gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine plus erlotinib used as maintenance therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00634725.

Analysis of circulating DNA and protein biomarkers to predict the clinical activity of regorafenib and assess prognosis in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a retrospective, exploratory analysis of the CORRECT trial.

BACKGROUND: Tumour mutational status is an important determinant of the response of metastatic colorectal cancer to targeted treatments. However, the genotype of the tissue obtained at the time of diagnosis might not accurately represent tumour genotype after multiple lines of treatment. This retrospective exploratory analysis investigated the clinical activity of regorafenib in biomarker subgroups of the CORRECT study population defined by tumour mutational status or plasma protein levels. METHODS: We used BEAMing technology to identify KRAS, PIK3CA, and BRAF mutations in DNA obtained from the plasma of 503 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who enrolled in the CORRECT trial. We quantified total human genomic DNA isolated from plasma samples for 503 patients using a modified version of human long interspersed nuclear element-1 (LINE-1) quantitive real-time PCR. We also measured the concentration of 15 proteins of interest-angiopoietin 2, interleukin 6, interleukin 8, placental growth factor, soluble TIE-1, soluble VEGFR1, VEGF-A, VEGF-C, VEGF-D, VEGF-A isoform 121, bone morphogenetic protein 7, macrophage colony-stimulating factor, stromal cell-derived factor-1, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 2, and von Willebrand factor-in plasma samples from 611 patients. We did correlative analyses of overall survival and progression-free survival in patient subgroups based on mutational status, circulating DNA concentration, and protein concentrations. The CORRECT trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01103323. FINDINGS: Tumour-associated mutations were readily detected with BEAMing of plasma DNA, with KRAS mutations identified in 349 (69%) of 503 patients, PIK3CA mutations in 84 (17%) of 503 patients, and BRAF mutations in 17 (3%) of 502 patients. We did not do correlative analysis based on BRAF genotype because of the low mutational frequency detected for this gene. Some of the most prevalent individual hot-spot mutations we identified included: KRAS (KRAS G12D, 116 [28%] of 413 mutations; G12V, 72 [17%]; and G13D, 67 [16%]) and PIK3CA (PIK3CA E542K, 27 [30%] of 89 mutations; E545K, 37 [42%]; and H1047R, 12 [14%]). 41 (48%) of 86 patients who had received anti-EGFR therapy and whose archival tumour tissue DNA was KRAS wild-type in BEAMing analysis were identified as having KRAS mutations in BEAMing analysis of fresh plasma DNA. Correlative analyses suggest a clinical benefit favouring regorafenib across patient subgroups defined by KRAS and PIK3CA mutational status (progression-free survival with regorafenib vs placebo: hazard ratio [HR] 0·52, 95% CI 0·35-0·76 for KRAS wild-type; HR 0·51, 95% CI 0·40-0·65 for KRAS mutant [KRAS wild type vs mutant, pinteraction=0·74]; HR 0·50, 95% CI 0·40-0·63 for PIK3CA wild-type; HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·32-0·89 for PIK3CA mutant [PIK3CA wild-type vs mutant, pinteraction=0·85]) or circulating DNA concentration (progression-free survival with regorafenib vs placebo: HR 0·53, 95% CI 0·40-0·71, for low circulating DNA concentrations; HR 0·52, 95% CI 0·40-0·70, for high circulating DNA concentrations; low vs high circulating DNA, pinteraction=0·601). With the exception of von Willebrand factor, assessed with the median cutoff method, plasma protein concentrations were also not associated with regorafenib activity in terms of progression-free survival. In univariable analyses, the only plasma protein that was associated with overall survival was TIE-1, high concentrations of which were associated with longer overall survival compared with low TIE-1 concentrations. This association was not significant in multivariable analyses. INTERPRETATION: BEAMing of circulating DNA could be a viable approach for non-invasive analysis of tumour genotype in real time and for the identification of potentially clinically relevant mutations that are not detected in archival tissue. Additionally, the results show that regorafenib seems to be consistently associated with a clinical benefit in a range of patient subgroups based on mutational status and protein biomarker concentrations. FUNDING: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

Chemotherapy treatment patterns and neutropenia management in gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Potentially myelosuppressive doublet and triplet chemotherapy combination regimens are considered the most active treatments in gastric cancer. This multicenter prospective observational study was designed to gain insight into the chemotherapy regimens being used in Europe and to evaluate neutropenia management in patients identified as at high risk for febrile neutropenia (FN). METHODS: Eligible patients had gastric cancer, were scheduled for ≥ 3 cycles of myelosuppressive chemotherapy, and had an investigator-assessed overall FN risk ≥ 20%. Data were collected for up to ten cycles. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who received granulocyte colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) primary prophylaxis (defined as G-CSF initiated on days 1-7 of cycle 1). Secondary endpoints included FN incidence, chemotherapy administration, and G-CSF use. RESULTS: Of 199 patients who met the eligibility criteria and started at least one cycle of chemotherapy, mean age was 63 years, 76% were men, 83% had an ECOG score of 0 or 1, 54% had metastatic disease, and 24% had received prior chemotherapy. A total of 27 different backbone regimens were given; the most common regimen was modified docetaxel, cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (DCF). Despite all patients having been identified as having a ≥ 20% FN risk, only 70 (35%) received G-CSF primary prophylaxis. FN occurred in 14 patients overall (7%). Most FN events occurred in patients who received DCF/modified DCF (9/14 events, 64%). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study reveal a high use of myelotoxic treatment regimens in gastric cancer in Europe and low adherence to clinical practice guidelines for the use of primary and secondary G-CSF prophylaxis for FN.

Fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy after preoperative chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer: long-term results of the EORTC 22921 randomised study.

BACKGROUND: EORTC trial 22921 examined the addition of preoperative or postoperative chemotherapy to preoperative radiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer. After a median follow-up of 5 years, chemotherapy-irrespective of timing-significantly improved local control. Adjuvant chemotherapy did not improve survival, but the Kaplan-Meier curves diverged, suggesting possible delayed benefit. Here, we report the updated long-term results. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with clinical stage T3 or T4 resectable rectal cancer to receive preoperative radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy before surgery followed by either adjuvant chemotherapy or surveillance. Randomisation was done using minimisation with factors of institution, sex, T stage, and distance from the tumour to the anal verge. Study coordinators, clinicians, and patients were aware of assignment. Radiotherapy consisted of 45 Gy to the posterior pelvis in 25 fractions of 1·8 Gy over 5 weeks. Each course of chemotherapy consisted of fluorouracil (350 mg/m(2) per day intravenous bolus) and folinic acid (leucovorin; 20 mg/m(2) per day intravenous bolus). For preoperative chemotherapy, two courses were given (during weeks 1 and 5 of radiotherapy). Adjuvant chemotherapy was given in four cycles, every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival. This analysis was done by intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00002523. FINDINGS: 1011 patients were randomly assigned to treatment between April, 1993, and March, 2003 (252 to preoperative radiotherapy and 253 to each of the other three groups). After a median follow-up of 10·4 years (IQR 7·8-13·1), 10-year overall survival was 49·4% (95% CI 44·6-54·1) for the preoperative radiotherapy group and 50·7% (45·9-55·2) for the preoperative radiotherapy and chemotherapy group (HR 0·99, 95% CI 0·83-1·18; p=0·91). 10-year overall survival was 51·8% (95% CI 47·0-56·4) for the adjuvant chemotherapy group and 48·4% (43·6-53·0) for the surveillance group (HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·77-1·09, p=0·32). 10-year disease-free survival was 44·2% (95% CI 39·5-48·8) for the preoperative radiotherapy group and 46·4% (41·7-50·9) for the preoperative radiotherapy and chemotherapy group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·79-1·10; p=0·38). 10-year disease-free survival was 47·0% (95% CI 42·2-51·6) for the adjuvant chemotherapy group and 43·7% (39·1-48·2) for the surveillance group (HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·77-1·08, p=0·29). At 10 years, cumulative incidence of local relapse was 22·4% (95% CI 17·1-27·6) with radiotherapy alone, 11·8% (7·8-15·8) with neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy, 14·5% (10·1-18·9) with radiotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy and 11·7% (7·7-15·6) with both adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p=0·0017). There was no difference in cumulative incidence of distant metastases (p=0·52). The frequency of long-term side-effects did not differ between the four groups (p=0·22). INTERPRETATION: Adjuvant fluorouracil-based chemotherapy after preoperative radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) does not affect disease-free survival or overall survival. Our trial does not support the current practice of adjuvant chemotherapy after preoperative radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. New treatment strategies incorporating neoadjuvant chemotherapy are required. FUNDING: EORTC, US National Cancer Institute, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique, Ligue contre le Cancer Comité du Doubs.

Regorafenib monotherapy for previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (CORRECT): an international, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: No treatment options are available for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that progresses after all approved standard therapies, but many patients maintain a good performance status and could be candidates for further therapy. An international phase 3 trial was done to assess the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib in these patients. METHODS: We did this trial at 114 centres in 16 countries. Patients with documented metastatic colorectal cancer and progression during or within 3 months after the last standard therapy were randomised (in a 2:1 ratio; by computer-generated randomisation list and interactive voice response system; preallocated block design (block size six); stratified by previous treatment with VEGF-targeting drugs, time from diagnosis of metastatic disease, and geographical region) to receive best supportive care plus oral regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily, for the first 3 weeks of each 4 week cycle. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The study sponsor, participants, and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01103323. FINDINGS: Between April 30, 2010, and March 22, 2011, 1052 patients were screened, 760 patients were randomised to receive regorafenib (n=505) or placebo (n=255), and 753 patients initiated treatment (regorafenib n=500; placebo n=253; population for safety analyses). The primary endpoint of overall survival was met at a preplanned interim analysis; data cutoff was on July 21, 2011. Median overall survival was 6·4 months in the regorafenib group versus 5·0 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·77; 95% CI 0·64-0·94; one-sided p=0·0052). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 465 (93%) patients assigned regorafenib and in 154 (61%) of those assigned placebo. The most common adverse events of grade three or higher related to regorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction (83 patients, 17%), fatigue (48, 10%), diarrhoea (36, 7%), hypertension (36, 7%), and rash or desquamation (29, 6%). INTERPRETATION: Regorafenib is the first small-molecule multikinase inhibitor with survival benefits in metastatic colorectal cancer which has progressed after all standard therapies. The present study provides evidence for a continuing role of targeted treatment after disease progression, with regorafenib offering a potential new line of therapy in this treatment-refractory population. FUNDING: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.