First-Line Chemotherapy for Metastatic Esophageal Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Clinico-Biological Predictors of Disease Control.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify predictors of tumor control (TC) in metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients receiving first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: A development cohort of 68 patients from a prospective multicenter trial (NCT01248299) was used to identify predictors of TC at first radiological tumor assessment and to generate a predictive score for TC. That score was applied in an independent retrospective single-center validation cohort of 60 consecutive patients. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis identified three predictors of TC: body mass index ≥18.5 (OR 4.5, 95% CI 0.91-22.5), absence of bone metastasis (OR 4.6, 95% CI 0.91-23.2) and albumin ≥35 g/l (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.0-12.1). Based on the presence or absence of these three independent prognosticators, we built a predictive model using a score from 0 to 3. In the development cohort, the TC rates were 14.3 and 78.0% and in the validation cohort 12.5 and 44.2%, for scores of 0-1 and 2-3, respectively. With negative predictive values of 85 and 88% in the development and validation cohorts, respectively, we were able to identify patients with a very low probability of TC. CONCLUSION: We have developed and validated a score that can be easily determined at the bedside to predict TC in metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma patients.

Impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiation on lymph node status in esophageal cancer: post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: The study objectives were to analyze the impact of the number of lymph nodes (LNs) reported as resected (NLNr) and the number of LNs invaded (NLNi) on the prognosis of esophageal cancer (EC) after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. BACKGROUND: Pathological LN status is a major disease prognostic factor and marker of surgical quality. The impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiation (nCRT) on LN status remains poorly studied in EC. METHODS: Post hoc analysis from a phase III randomized controlled trial comparing nCRT and surgery (group nCRT) to surgery alone (group S) in stage I and II EC (NCT00047112). Only patients who underwent surgical resection were considered (n = 170). RESULTS: nCRT resulted in tumoral downstaging (pT0, 40.7% vs 1.1%, P < 0.001), LN downstaging (pN0, 69.1% vs 47.2%, P = 0.016), and reduction in the median NLNr [16.0 (range, 0-47.0) vs 22.0 (range, 3.0-58.0), P = 0.001] and NLNi [0 (range, 0-25) vs 1.0 (range, 0-25), P = 0.001]. A good histological response (TRG1/2) in the resected esophageal specimen correlated with reduced median NLNi [0 (range, 0-10) vs 1.0 (range, 0-4), P = 0.007]. After adjustment by treatment, NLNi [hazards ratio (HR) (1-3 vs 0) 3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.3-5.5, and HR (>3 vs 0) 3.5, 95% CI: 2.0-6.2, P < 0.001] correlated with prognosis, whereas NLNr [HR (<15 vs ≥15) 0.95, 95% CI: 0.6-1.4, P = 0.807 and HR (<23 vs ≥23) 1.4, 95% CI: 0.9-2.0, P = 0.131] did not. In Poisson regression analysis, nCRT was an independent predictive variable for reduced NLNr [exp(coefficient) 0.80, 95% CI: 0.66-0.96, P = 0.018]. CONCLUSIONS: nCRT is not only responsible for disease downstaging but also predicts fewer LNs being identified after surgical resection for EC. This has implications for the current quality criteria for surgical resection.

Incidence and patterns of late recurrences in rectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Long-term recurrences of rectal cancer raised questions about the possible benefit of prolonging the recommended active 5-year clinical and endoscopic surveillance. The aim of this study was to determine for the first time, incidence and patterns of late 10-year recurrence after curative resection of rectal cancer. METHODS: The study included 1,222 patients with rectal cancer resected for cure between 1985 and 2000 from those registered in two French population-based digestive cancer registries. Information about local recurrences and distant metastases at 10 years was retrospectively and actively collected up to January 1, 2011. RESULTS: Although the overall 5-year cumulated rate was 39.5 %, the 10-year cumulated rate was 44.1 % (25.6 % for local recurrence and 29.9 % for distant metastases). In multivariate analyses, TNM stage was associated with a higher risk of local recurrence (hazard ratio [HR] stage III vs. stage I = 3.98 [95 % confidence interval, 2.66-5.94]) and of distant metastasis (HR = 3.60 [2.65-4.91]). Preoperative radiotherapy decreased the risk of local recurrence (HR = 0.43 [0.28-0.66]), but not the risk of metastasis. Patients diagnosed between 1995 and 2000 were less prone to develop long-term metastasis than those diagnosed between 1985 and 1989 (HR = 0.66 [0.49-0.88]). Among patients without recurrence 5 years after diagnosis, one patient in 13 developed a recurrence between 5 and 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Late recurrences do exist. A personalised surveillance could be extended until 10 years according to the characteristics of primary tumour and the patient.

Definitive chemoradiotherapy with FOLFOX versus fluorouracil and cisplatin in patients with oesophageal cancer (PRODIGE5/ACCORD17): final results of a randomised, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Definitive chemoradiotherapy is a curative treatment option for oesophageal carcinoma, especially in patients unsuitable for surgery. The PRODIGE5/ACCORD17 trial aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the FOLFOX treatment regimen (fluorouracil plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin) versus fluorouracil and cisplatin as part of chemoradiotherapy in patients with localised oesophageal cancer. METHODS: We did a multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 2/3 trial of patients aged 18 years or older enrolled from 24 centres in France between Oct 15, 2004, and Aug 25, 2011. Eligible participants had confirmed stage I-IVA oesophageal carcinoma (adenocarcinoma, squamous-cell, or adenosquamous), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status 0-2, sufficient caloric intake, adequate haematological, renal, and hepatic function, and had been selected to receive definitive chemoradiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either six cycles (three concomitant to radiotherapy) of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), bolus fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2), and infusional fluorouracil 1600 mg/m(2) (FOLFOX) over 46 h, or four cycles (two concomitant to radiotherapy) of fluorouracil 1000 mg/m(2) per day for 4 days and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1. Both groups also received 50 Gy radiotherapy in 25 fractions (five fractions per week). Random allocation to treatment groups was done by a central computerised randomisation procedure by minimisation, stratified by centre, histology, weight loss, and ECOG status, and was achieved independently from the study investigators. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Data analysis was primarily done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00861094. FINDINGS: 134 participants were randomly allocated to the FOLFOX group and 133 to the fluorouracil and cisplatin group (intention-to-treat population), and 131 patients in the FOLFOX group and 128 in the fluorouracil and cisplatin group actually received the study drugs (safety population). Median follow-up was 25·3 months (IQR 15·9-36·4). Median progression-free survival was 9·7 months (95% CI 8·1-14·5) in the FOLFOX group and 9·4 months (8·1-10·6) in the fluorouracil and cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·70-1·24; p=0·64). One toxic death occurred in the FOLFOX group and six in the fluorouracil-cisplatin group (p=0·066). No significant differences were recorded in the rates of most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events between the treatment groups. Of all-grade adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of patients, paraesthesia (61 [47%] events in 131 patients in the FOLFOX group vs three [2%] in 128 patients in the cisplatin-fluorouracil group, p<0·0001), sensory neuropathy (24 [18%] vs one [1%], p<0·0001), increases in aspartate aminotransferase concentrations (14 [11%] vs two [2%], p=0·002), and increases in alanine aminotransferase concentrations (11 [8%] vs two [2%], p=0·012) were more common in the FOLFOX group, whereas serum creatinine increases (four [3%] vs 15 [12%], p=0·007), mucositis (35 [27%] vs 41 [32%], p=0·011), and alopecia (two [2%] vs 12 [9%], p=0·005) were more common in the fluorouracil and cisplatin group. INTERPRETATION: Although chemoradiotherapy with FOLFOX did not increase progression-free survival compared with chemoradiotherapy with fluorouracil and cisplatin, FOLFOX might be a more convenient option for patients with localised oesophageal cancer unsuitable for surgery. FUNDING: UNICANCER, French Health Ministry, Sanofi-Aventis, and National League Against Cancer.

Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin with or without cetuximab in patients with resected stage III colon cancer (PETACC-8): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Since the 1990s, fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy has significantly reduced the risk of tumour recurrence in patients with stage III colon cancer. We aimed to assess whether the addition of cetuximab to standard adjuvant oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin chemotherapy (FOLFOX4) in patients with stage III colon cancer improved disease-free survival (DFS). METHODS: For this open-label, randomised phase 3 study done in nine European countries, we enrolled patients through an interactive voice response system to the central randomisation centre, with a central stratified permuted block randomisation procedure. We randomly assigned patients with resected (R0) stage III disease (1:1) to receive 12 cycles of FOLFOX4 twice a week with or without cetuximab. Patients were stratified by N-status (N1 vs N2), T-status (T1-3 vs T4), and obstruction or perforation status (no obstruction and no perforation vs obstruction or perforation or both). A protocol amendment (applied in June, 2008, after 2096 patients had been randomly assigned to treatment-restricted enrolment to patients with tumours wild-type at codons 12 and 13 in exon 2 of the KRAS gene (KRAS exon 2 wild-type). The primary endpoint was DFS. Analysis was intention to treat in all patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours. The study is registered at EudraCT, number 2005-003463-23. FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2005, and Nov 5, 2009, 2559 patients from 340 sites in Europe were randomly assigned. Of these patients, 1602 had KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours (intention-to-treat population), 791 in the FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab group and 811 in the FOLFOX4 group. Median follow-up was 3·3 years (IQR 3·2-3·4). In the experimental and control groups, DFS was similar in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio [HR] 1·05; 95% CI 0·85-1·29; p=0·66), and in patients with KRAS exon 2/BRAF wild-type (n=984, HR 0·99; 95% CI 0·76-1·28) or KRAS exon 2-mutated tumours (n=742, HR 1·06; 95% CI 0·82-1·37). We noted heterogeneous responses to the addition of cetuximab in preplanned subgroup analyses. Grade 3 or 4 acne-like rash (in 209 of 785 patients [27%] vs four of 805 [<1%]), diarrhoea (113 [14%] vs 70 [9%]), mucositis (63 [8%] vs 10 [1%]), and infusion-related reactions (55 [7%] vs 30 [4%]) were more frequent in patients treated with FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab than in those patients who received FOLFOX4 alone. INTERPRETATION: The addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX4 did not improve DFS compared with FOLFOX4 alone in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type resected stage III colon cancer. This trial cannot conclude on the benefit of cetuximab in the studied population, but the heterogeneity of response suggests that further investigation of the role of FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab in specific patient subgroups is warranted. FUNDING: Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive (FFCD), Merck KGaA, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Toxicity of oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil/leucovorin adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly patients with stage III colon cancer: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: Results concerning the side effects of oxaliplatin associated with fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX) in older patients are controversial. The objective of this study was to assess the use and the toxicity of FOLFOX in patients aged 70 years and older as administered in current practice. METHODS: Among 305 stage III colon cancers registered in a well-defined population in Burgundy between 2004 and 2009, 210 had adjuvant chemotherapy, including 156 with FOLFOX. The cumulated rates of toxicity were calculated by using the Kaplan-Meier method. The risks of overall toxicity and of severe toxicity (grade 3 or 4) in patients less than 70 years and in older patients were compared by using a Cox model. RESULTS: There was no difference between the group of the patients less than 70 years and the older age group for the cumulative incidence of hematologic, neurologic, digestive, and general toxicity. There was also no difference between the two groups for the severity of side effects (grade 3 or 4, 31.4 vs. 39.0 %; p = 0.576). The multivariate analysis indicated after adjustment on sex and the Charlson comorbidity score that there was no difference between the two age groups for toxicity (hazard ratio = 1.28; 95 % CI 0.68-2.41; p = 0.439). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer registries can be used to evaluate the toxicity of chemotherapy at the population level. Tolerance to the FOLFOX regimen among elderly patients did not significantly differ from that in younger patients. This treatment should be considered regardless of patients' age alone, but consideration should be given to the capacity of patients to tolerate adverse events.

Sequential versus combination chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (FFCD 2000-05): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimum use of cytotoxic drugs for advanced colorectal cancer has not been defined. Our aim was to investigate whether combination treatment is better than the sequential administration of the same drugs in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients (1:1 ratio) with advanced, measurable, non-resectable colorectal cancer and WHO performance status 0-2 to receive either first-line treatment with bolus (400 mg/m(2)) and infusional (2400 mg/m(2)) fluorouracil plus leucovorin (400 mg/m(2)) (simplified LV5FU2 regimen), second-line LV5FU2 plus oxaliplatin (100 mg/m(2)) (FOLFOX6), and third-line LV5FU2 plus irinotecan (180 mg/m(2)) (FOLFIRI) or first-line FOLFOX6 and second-line FOLFIRI. Chemotherapy was administered every 2 weeks. Randomisation was done centrally using minimisation (minimisation factors were WHO performance status, previous adjuvant chemotherapy, number of disease sites, and centre). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival after two lines of treatment. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00126256. FINDINGS: 205 patients were randomly assigned to the sequential group and 205 to the combination group. 161 (79%) patients in the sequential group and 161 (79%) in the combination group died during the study. Median progression-free survival after two lines was 10·5 months (95% CI 9·6-11·5) in the sequential group and 10·3 months (9·0-11·9) in the combination group (hazard ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·77-1·16; p=0·61). All six deaths caused by toxic effects of treatment occurred in the combination group. During first-line chemotherapy, significantly fewer severe (grade 3-4) haematological adverse events (12 events in 203 patients in sequential group vs 83 events in 203 patients in combination group; p<0·0001) and non-haematological adverse events (26 events vs 186 events; p<0·0001) occurred in the sequential group than in the combination group. INTERPRETATION: Upfront combination chemotherapy is more toxic and is not more effective than the sequential use of the same cytotoxic drugs in patients with advanced, non-resectable colorectal cancer. FUNDING: Sanofi-Aventis France.

Trends in the incidence and management of biliary tract cancer: a French population-based study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The trends in incidence and management of biliary tract cancer (BTC) were investigated in a well-defined French population over a 30-year period (1976-2005). METHODS: Data were obtained from the Burgundy digestive cancer registry. Age-standardised incidence rates and trends in incidence were determined. Treatment and stage at diagnosis were also investigated. Five-year survival rates were calculated. RESULTS: Six hundred and fifteen cases of BTC were recorded. There was no significant change in BTC incidence over the 30-year period. For extrahepatic BTC age-standardised incidence rates were 1.1/100,000 for 1976-80 and 2001-2005. These rates were respectively 0.3 and 0.2/100,000 for intrahepatic BTC. The proportion of patients undergoing resection for cure increased over time from 4.8% to 14.2% (p<0.001). The proportion of stage I-II cases ranged from 3.2% to 7.1% but did not vary significantly over time (p=0.55). Most cases were metastatic or unresectable at diagnosis. Five-year relative survival rates were 4.5% for 1976-85 and 6.7% for 1996-2005, ranging from 35.1% for stages I-II to 4.3% for advanced BTC. Age and stage at diagnosis were independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of BTC has remained stable in Burgundy over the past 30 years. BTC prognosis remains poor and has only improved slightly over time.

Development and validation of a new prognostic score of death for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in palliative setting.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in a palliative setting have a poor prognosis despite recent therapeutic progress. Several prognostic scores, such as the BCLC and the CLIP, have been shown to be useful in helping select treatment options ranging from transplantation to palliative care. However, the discriminatory ability of these scores is inadequate in palliative settings, which concern about 70% of HCC patients. In this paper, we propose and validate a new prognostic score for patients in the palliative setting. METHODS: The prognostic score was developed on a set of 416 patients from a negative randomized clinical trial conducted by the Fédération Francophone de Cancers Digestifs. It was then subsequently validated on a second set of 271 patients from another negative trial. Backward selection was used to identify independent baseline characteristics. Measures of discrimination and predictive values were computed to assess the quality of the developed score. Comparisons with the BCLC and the CLIP - with and without the WHO performance status (PS) score - were performed. RESULTS: Tumour morphology, portal vein obstruction, metastasis, ascites, jaundice, alpha-foetoprotein, and serum alkaline phosphatase were included in the final score. From the training dataset, three groups of increasing risk were defined, and these were associated with hazard ratios (HR) of 2.13 and HR = 5.72. Similar results were obtained on the validation dataset. This score provides a better discriminatory ability than BCLC and CLIP in this setting. Unfortunately, absolute performances for these scores remain poor. CONCLUSIONS: The new prognostic score and CLIP + PS are recommended in palliative settings. However, new prognostic variables are necessary.

Screening of anticancer drugs for chemoembolization of hepatocellular carcinoma.

The aim of this study was to select the best candidate drug for transarterial chemoembolization by in-vitro cytotoxic evaluations of 11 anticancer drugs on three human hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) cell lines. The SNU-398, HepG2, and SNU-449 human HCC cell lines were exposed for 30 min to 11 concentrations of doxorubicin, epirubicin, idarubicin, mitoxantrone, carboplatin, cisplatin, oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, gemcitabine, mitomycin C, or paclitaxel. Cytotoxicity was measured using a quantitative colorimetric assay. For each drug and cell line, we calculated the drug concentration that caused 90% cell death (IC90). To enable comparisons of drugs with different concentration ranges, we computed the cytotoxic index (CyI) as the ratio of maximal drug concentration of more than IC90. Parameters were estimated using nonlinear regression models. Idarubicin was the most active drug on all three cell lines. With SNU-398 cells, the idarubicin CyI was 2.4-fold, 2.5-fold, 57-fold, 148-fold, and more than 58 748-fold higher than the CyIs of mitoxantrone, epirubicin, doxorubicin, gemcitabine, and other drugs, respectively. With HepG2 cells, the idarubicin CyI was 27-fold, 28-fold, 51-fold, and more than 1343-fold higher than the CyIs of doxorubicin, epirubicin, mitoxantrone, and other drugs, respectively. On the resistant SNU-449 cell line, the idarubicin CyI was 2.9-fold and 14-fold higher than the CyIs of paclitaxel and gemcitabine, respectively, the only other drugs effective on this cell line. Among 11 chemotherapeutic agents including doxorubicin, cisplatin, and epirubicin, the most effective on three HCC cell lines was idarubicin. Further clinical investigations are needed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of idarubicin for transarterial chemoembolization in HCC.

Combination 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and cisplatin (LV5FU2-CDDP) followed by gemcitabine or the reverse sequence in metastatic pancreatic cancer: final results of a randomised strategic phase III trial (FFCD 0301).

PURPOSE: Gemcitabine is the standard chemotherapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Although the 5-fluorouracil (5FU), folinic acid and cisplatin combination (LV5FU2-CDDP) is an option, the optimal order of the regimens must be determined. The first strategic phase III trial comparing LV5FU2-CDDP followed by gemcitabine versus gemcitabine followed by LV5FU2-CDDP was conducted. METHODS: Patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, performance status (PS) 0-2, without prior chemotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either LV5FU2-CDDP followed by gemcitabine at disease progression or toxicity (Arm A), or the opposite sequence (Arm B). 202 patients had to be included and 170 deaths had to be observed to detect an expected improvement in median overall survival (OS) from 6.5 to 10 months in Arm A (two-sided α = 5% and ß = 20%). RESULTS: 202 patients were included (Arm A, 102; Arm B, 100). Median age, male/female ratio, PS 0-1 and previous surgery were similar in the two arms. After a median follow-up of 44 months, median OS in Arm A was 6.6 months versus 8.0 months in Arm B (p = 0.85). Median progression-free survival was similar between Arms A and B. More grade 3/4 toxicities were observed when LV5FU2-CDDP was administered as a first-line treatment compared with gemcitabine: 79% versus 64% (p = 0.018). CONCLUSION: This trial did not show any strategic advantage to using LV5FU2-CDDP as a first-line treatment and suggests that gemcitabine remains the standard first-line treatment. Sixty-one per cent of patients were able to receive a second line of chemotherapy.

Surrogate endpoints for overall survival in digestive oncology trials: which candidates? A questionnaires survey among clinicians and methodologists.

BACKGROUND: Overall survival (OS) is the gold standard for the demonstration of a clinical benefit in cancer trials. Replacement of OS by a surrogate endpoint allows to reduce trial duration. To date, few surrogate endpoints have been validated in digestive oncology. The aim of this study was to draw up an ordered list of potential surrogate endpoints for OS in digestive cancer trials, by way of a survey among clinicians and methodologists. Secondary objective was to obtain their opinion on surrogacy and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: In 2007 and 2008, self administered sequential questionnaires were sent to a panel of French clinicians and methodologists involved in the conduct of cancer clinical trials. In the first questionnaire, panellists were asked to choose the most important characteristics defining a surrogate among six proposals, to give advantages and drawbacks of the surrogates, and to answer questions about their validation and use. Then they had to suggest potential surrogate endpoints for OS in each of the following tumour sites: oesophagus, stomach, liver, pancreas, biliary tract, lymphoma, colon, rectum, and anus. They finally gave their opinion on QoL as surrogate endpoint. In the second questionnaire, they had to classify the previously proposed candidate surrogates from the most (position #1) to the least relevant in their opinion.Frequency at which the endpoints were chosen as first, second or third most relevant surrogates was calculated and served as final ranking. RESULTS: Response rate was 30% (24/80) in the first round and 20% (16/80) in the second one. Participants highlighted key points concerning surrogacy. In particular, they reminded that a surrogate endpoint is expected to predict clinical benefit in a well-defined therapeutic situation. Half of them thought it was not relevant to study QoL as surrogate for OS.DFS, in the neoadjuvant settings or early stages, and PFS, in the non operable or metastatic settings, were ranked first, with a frequency of more than 69% in 20 out of 22 settings. PFS was proposed in association with QoL in metastatic primary liver and stomach cancers (both 81%). This composite endpoint was ranked second in metastatic oesophageal (69%), colorectal (56%) and anal (56%) cancers, whereas QoL alone was also suggested in most metastatic situations.Other endpoints frequently suggested were R0 resection in the neoadjuvant settings (oesophagus (69%), stomach (56%), pancreas (75%) and biliary tract (63%)) and response. An unexpected endpoint was metastatic PFS in non operable oesophageal (31%) and pancreatic (44%) cancers. Quality and results of surgical procedures like sphincter preservation were also cited as eligible surrogate endpoints in rectal (19%) and anal (50% in case of localized disease) cancers. Except for alpha-FP kinetic in hepatocellular carcinoma (13%) and CA19-9 decline (6%) in pancreas, few endpoints based on biological or tumour markers were proposed. CONCLUSION: The overall results should help prioritise the endpoints to be statistically evaluated as surrogate for OS, so that trialists and clinicians can rely on endpoints that ensure relevant clinical benefit to the patient.

Patterns of care and outcomes in oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The optimal treatment for oesophageal cancer is a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to describe patterns of care and survival in a well-defined population for squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) and adenocarcinoma (AC) of the oesophagus. DESIGN: Data were provided by the Digestive Cancer Registry of Burgundy (France). Recurrence, excess mortality and net survival were calculated. RESULTS: Among non-metastatic patients, the proportion of patients resected for cure decreased between 2004 and 2013 from 16% to 9% for SCC and 48% to 22% for AC. The administration of chemoradiation increased from 45 to 53% for SCC and 21 to 30% for AC. A complete clinical response to chemoradiation was reported in 40% of the patients. Five-year net survival did not vary according to histology. It was 55% in the selected group of patients resected for cure, 44% in patients treated with chemoradiation with a complete clinical response. In multivariate analysis, treatment modality only was associated with survival. In metastatic patients, 3-year net survival was 14% for those treated with chemoradiation. CONCLUSION: Chemoradiation has become the most frequently administered treatment. Cancelling or postponing surgery after chemoradiation with complete response should be assessed by a randomized clinical trial.

Small bowel adenocarcinoma: French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO).

BACKGROUND: This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of small bowel adenocarcinoma published in October 2016. METHOD: This collaborative work, co-directed by most French Medical Societies, summarizes clinical practice recommendations (guidelines) on the management of small bowel adenocarcinoma. Given the lack of specific data in the literature, all references are given by analogy with colon cancer. The classification used is the AJCC (American Joint Committee on Cancer) pTNM classification (7th edition 2009). RESULTS: Small bowel adenocarcinoma has a poor prognosis; less than 30% of patients survive for 5 years after the (first) diagnosis (5-year survival of less than 30%). Due to the rarity of the disease and the retrospective data, most recommendations are based on expert agreement. The initial evaluation is based on chest-abdomen-pelvis CT scan, CEA assay, GI endoscopy and colonoscopy in order detect lesions associated with a predisposing disease. Surgical treatment is currently the only curative option for stage I and II. Adjuvant chemotherapy can be discussed for Stage III and Stage II with T4 (expert agreement). With regard to metastatic tumors, treatment with fluoropyrimidine combined with platinum salts should be considered (expert agreement). CONCLUSION: Few specific data exist in the literature on this type of tumor; most of the recommendations come from expert agreements or by analogy with colon cancer. Thus, each case must be discussed within a multidisciplinary team.

Overweight is associated to a better prognosis in metastatic colorectal cancer: A pooled analysis of FFCD trials.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies showed that high and low body mass index (BMI) was associated with worse prognosis in early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC), and low BMI was associated with worse prognosis in metastatic CRC (mCRC). We aimed to assess efficacy outcomes according to BMI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A pooled analysis of individual data from 2085 patients enrolled in eight FFCD first-line mCRC trials from 1991 to 2013 was performed. Comparisons were made according to the BMI cut-off: Obese (BMI ≥30), overweight patients (BMI ≥ 25), normal BMI patients (BMI: 18.5-24) and thin patients (BMI <18.5). Interaction tests were performed between BMI effect and sex, age and the addition of antiangiogenics to chemotherapy. RESULTS: The rate of BMI ≥25 patients was 41.5%, ranging from 37.6% (1991-1999 period) to 41.5% (2000-2006 period) and 44.8% (2007-2013 period). Comparison of overweight patients versus normal BMI range patients revealed a significant improvement of median overall survival (OS) (18.5 versus 16.3 months, HR = 0.88 [0.80-0.98] p = 0.02) and objective response rate (ORR) (42% versus 36% OR = 1.23 [1.01-1.50] p = 0.04) but a comparable median progression-free survival (PFS) (7.8 versus 7.2 months, HR = 0.96 [0.87-1.05] p = 0.35). Subgroup analyses revealed that overweight was significantly associated with better OS in men. OS and PFS were significantly shorter in thin patients. CONCLUSION: Overweight patients had a prolonged OS compared with normal weight patients with mCRC. The association of overweight with better OS was only observed in men. The pejorative prognosis of BMI <18.5 was confirmed.

Which patients with colorectal cancer are followed up by general practitioners? A population-based study.

The aim of the study was to assess the contribution of general practitioners in the surveillance of colorectal cancer, and to examine characteristics and survival of patients with routine general practitioner follow-up. This French registry-based study included 389 patients diagnosed with first colorectal cancer in 1998 and free of disease at least 6 months after curative surgery. For each physician involved, medical records were thoroughly reviewed to collect information about the clinical examinations and follow-up tests prescribed within 3 years after surgery or until death or detection of recurrence. Five-year vital status was obtained through registry records. The proportion of routine clinical examinations performed by general practitioners increased from 35% in the first year to 65% in the third year. Patients having undergone regular general practitioner routine examinations (> or =one examination every 6-month period) had significantly less advanced disease (odds ratio: 0.45; 95% confidence interval: 0.21-0.96), preoperative complications (odds ratio: 0.28; 95% confidence interval: 0.08-0.91) and routine examinations by gastroenterologists/oncologists (odds ratio: 0.37; 95% confidence interval: 0.14-0.98) compared with those without general practitioner examinations. Routine general practitioner follow-up had no influence on 3 and 5-year survival. General practitioners detected significantly more recurrences than specialists in patients over 75 and in those presenting symptoms. French general practitioners are widely involved in the surveillance of patients with early-stage colorectal cancer, without any unfavourable impact on the patient's survival. Some suggestions exist that continuing education in oncology may increase the implication of general practitioners in colorectal cancer surveillance.

How do gastroenterologists follow patients with colorectal cancer after curative surgical resection? A three-year population-based study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the contribution of gastroenterologists (GEs) to the surveillance of colorectal cancer after curative surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This registry-based study included 407 patients residing in two French administrative areas diagnosed with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer in 1998 and free of disease six months after curative surgery. All surveillance examinations performed either in the three years after surgery or until death or recurrence were collected retrospectively. RESULTS: One hundred nine patients (27%) had a regular clinical check-up with a GE at least once a year. Factors independently associated with GE follow-up were young age (P=0.004), use of adjuvant chemotherapy (P=0.013), and surgeon follow-up (P=0.068). GEs ordered 84% of colonoscopies, 44% of abdominal ultrasound examinations and 52% of abdominal CT scans. They detected 35% of recurrences. A significant proportion of patients (20%) had no regular follow-up, irrespective of the physicians involved. CONCLUSIONS: GEs play a modest role in the routine follow-up of patients with colorectal cancer, but are largely involved in ordering surveillance tests. They might play an important role in the surveillance of patients who presently have poor access to health care.

Rectal cancer: French Intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO).

INTRODUCTION: This document is a summary of the French Intergroup guidelines regarding the management of rectal adenocarcinoma published in February 2016. METHOD: This collaborative work, under the auspices of most of the French medical societies involved in the management of rectal cancer, is based on the previous guidelines published in 2013. Recommendations are graded into 3 categories according to the level of evidence of data found in the literature. RESULTS: In agreement with the ESMO guidelines (2013), non-metastatic rectal cancers have been stratified in 4 risk groups according to endoscopy, MRI or endorectal-ultrasonography. Locally-advanced tumors are limited to groups 3 and 4 (T3≥4cm or T3c-d or N1-2 or T4). These tumors are usually treated using neoadjuvant treatment and total proctectomy (TME). Adjuvant treatment depends on the pathological findings. Very early (group 1) or early (group 2) tumors are managed mainly by surgery, and organ preservation may be an option in selected cases. For metastatic tumors, the recommendations are based on less robust evidence and chemotherapy plays a major role. CONCLUSION: Such recommendations are constantly being optimized and each individual case must be discussed within a Multi-Disciplinary Team.

Randomized controlled trial of tamoxifen in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Randomized studies on tamoxifen treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) produced conflicting results. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of tamoxifen administration in improving overall survival of patients with advanced HCC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 420 patients with HCC who were not suitable for surgery or local treatment were randomly assigned between April 1995 and May 2000: 210 in the control group and 210 in the tamoxifen group (20 mg/d orally). Patients with WHO performance status greater than 2, belonging to Child-Pugh class C, or with serum creatinine greater than 130 mumol/L were not eligible. RESULTS: Tolerance was good and the main reported adverse effects were thrombophlebitis (three patients), nausea (two patients), and hot flushes (three patients). Outcome did not differ between the two treatment arms: estimated median survival was 4.8 and 4.0 months in the tamoxifen and in the control groups, respectively (P = .25). Univariate analysis showed significant association of survival with age, Okuda stage, WHO performance status, Child-Pugh class, intrahepatic tumor stage, alpha-fetoprotein serum concentration, and presence of extrahepatic spread, portal vein thrombosis, hepatomegaly, or hepatalgia. In a Cox proportional hazards model we found a significant beneficial effect of tamoxifen on survival in patients belonging to Okuda I or II stages. CONCLUSION: In this large study, tamoxifen did not improve the survival of patients with advanced HCC, but there is a suggestion that patients without major hepatic insufficiency seem to have some survival benefit. New trials involving this specific population are warranted.

Safety of cisplatin combined with continuous 5-FU versus bolus 5-FU and leucovorin, in metastatic gastrointestinal cancer (FFCD 9404 randomised trial).

BACKGROUND: The objective of this phase III study was to compare the safety and efficacy of FLP (modulation of 5-FU (Fluorouracil) by folinic acid or leucovorin (LV) and cisplatin vs. FP (5-FU combined with Cisplatin) as a first line chemotherapy in advanced oesophageal, gastric and pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 232 patients with measurable lesions were randomised to receive at the first cycle either FP (arm A: 5-FU 800 mg/m2/d in continuous infusion 5 days and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1 or 2), or FLP (arm B: LV, 100 mg/m2/d in bolus 5 days, followed by 5-FU 350 mg/m2/d in 1 h infusion 5 days and cisplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1 or 2). In case of no grade 3-4 haematological and diarrhoea toxicity, the dose of 5-FU was increased to 1000 mg/m2/d and 400 mg/m2/d in the two arms respectively, for the subsequent cycles until disease progression. RESULTS: The distribution of primary tumours was: 19 squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus, 19 oesophageal adenocarcinoma, 91 gastric and 97 pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Safety remained acceptable and comparable in the two arms except for the severe grade 3-4 mucositis, which was lower in arm B (4.5 vs. 16.4%, p < 0.009). Efficacy in terms of tumour response and survival was similar in the two arms, showing an objective response rate (after external review) of 18.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.4-25.8%) in arm A vs. 15% (95% CI 8.5-21.6%) in arm B, an overall median survival of 24 weeks in arm A vs. 24.7 in arm B (p = 0.83) and a progression-free median survival of 12.4 weeks vs. 12.1 in arms A and B, respectively (p = 0.91). CONCLUSION: The FLP regimen is substantially equivalent to FP in terms of safety and quality of life, as well as for antitumour efficacy in these carcinomas; the only slight advantage of FLP in this study concerns mucositis. Based on these results, FLP could be used as an alternative to FP when appropriate.