Head-to-head comparison of treatment sequences in advanced pancreatic cancer-Real-world data from the prospective German TPK clinical cohort study.

There are no clear guidelines regarding the optimal treatment sequence for advanced pancreatic cancer, as head-to-head phase III randomised trials are missing. We assess real-world effectiveness of three common sequential treatment strategies by emulating a hypothetical randomised trial. This analysis included 1551 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer from the prospective, clinical cohort study Tumour Registry Pancreatic Cancer receiving FOLFIRINOX (n = 613) or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (GEMNAB; n = 938) as palliative first-line treatment. We used marginal structural modelling to compare overall survival (OS) and time to deterioration (TTD) of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) between three common first- to second-line treatment sequences, adjusting for time-varying potential confounding. The sequences were: FOLFIRINOX→GEMNAB, GEMNAB→FOLFOX/OFF and GEMNAB→nanoliposomal irinotecan (NALIRI) + 5-fluorouracil. Outcome was also calculated stratified by patients' prognostic risk according to the Pancreatic Cancer Score. Median OS and TTD of HRQoL independent of risk were 10.7 [8.9, 11.9] and 6.4 [4.8, 7.7] months for FOLFIRINOX→GEMNAB, 8.4 [7.4, 9.7] and 5.8 [4.6, 7.1] months for GEMNAB→FOLFOX/OFF and 8.9 [7.8, 10.4] and 4.6 [4.1, 6.1] months for GEMNAB→NALIRI+5-fluorouracil. Compared to FOLFIRINOX→GEMNAB, OS and TTD were worse for poor-risk patients with GEMNAB→FOLFOX/OFF (OS: HR 2.09 [1.47, 2.98]; TTD: HR 1.97 [1.19, 3.27]) and those with GEMNAB→NALIRI+5-fluorouracil (OS: HR 1.35, [0.76, 2.39]; TTD: HR 2.62 [1.56, 4.42]). Brackets denote 95%-confidence intervals. The estimated real-world effectiveness of the three treatment sequences evaluated were largely comparable. Poor-risk patients might benefit from intensified treatment with FOLFIRINOX→GEMNAB in terms of clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Future randomised trials on sequential treatments in advanced pancreatic cancer are warranted.

FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A novel validated prognostic score to facilitate treatment decision-making in real-world.

There is no prospective, randomised head-to-head trial comparing first-line FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in advanced pancreatic cancer. We assess real-world effectiveness and quality of life (QoL) of both regimens using a new prognostic score. This analysis includes 1540 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer from the prospective, clinical cohort study Tumour Registry Pancreatic Cancer separated into learning (n = 1027) and validation sample (n = 513). The Pancreatic Cancer Score (PCS) was developed using multivariate Cox regression. We compared overall survival (OS) and time to deterioration (TTD) for longitudinal QoL between first-line FOLFIRINOX (n = 407) and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (n = 655) according to patients' prognostic risk, after inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) by propensity score analysis. The PCS includes nine independent prognostic factors for survival: female sex, BMI ≥24/unknown, ECOG performance status ≥1, Charlson comorbidity index ≥1, tumour staging IV/unknown at primary diagnosis, liver metastases, bilirubin >1.5× upper limit of normal (ULN), leukocytes >ULN and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio ≥4. Median OS of the validation sample was 11.4 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 10.4-14.4), 8.5 (95% CI: 6.8-9.6) and 5.9 months (95% CI: 4.0-7.4) for favourable- (0-3 risk factors), intermediate- (4-5 factors) and poor-risk group (6-9 factors), respectively. After IPTW, only poor-risk patients had significantly longer median OS and TTD of overall QoL with FOLFIRINOX (OS: 6.9 months, 95% CI: 3.9-13.3; TTD: 10.6 months, 95% CI: 2.0-14.1) vs gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (OS: 4.0 months, 95% CI: 2.8-4.8; TTD: 4.1 months, 95% CI: 2.4-4.5). Our novel PCS may facilitate treatment decisions in clinical routine of advanced pancreatic cancer, since only poor-risk, but not favourable-risk patients, seem to benefit from intensified treatment with FOLFIRINOX.

Survival after secondary liver resection in metastatic colorectal cancer: Comparing data of three prospective randomized European trials (LICC, CELIM, FIRE-3).

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with liver-limited disease (LLD) have a chance of long-term survival and potential cure after hepatic metastasectomy. However, the appropriate postoperative treatment strategy is still controversial. The CELIM and FIRE-3 studies demonstrated that secondary hepatic resection significantly improved overall survival (OS). The objective of this analysis was to compare these favorable outcome data with recent results from the LICC trial investigating the antigen-specific cancer vaccine tecemotide (L-BLP25) as adjuvant therapy in mCRC patients with LLD after R0/R1 resection. Data from mCRC patients with LLD and secondary hepatic resection from each study were analyzed for efficacy outcomes based on patient characteristics, treatment and surveillance after surgery. In LICC, 40/121 (33%) patients, in CELIM 36/111 (32%) and in FIRE-3-LLD 29/133 (22%) patients were secondarily resected, respectively. Of those, 31 (77.5%) patients in LICC and all patients in CELIM were R0 resected. Median disease-free survival after resection was 8.9 months in LICC, 9.9 months in CELIM. Median OS in secondarily resected patients was 66.1 months in LICC, 53.9 months in CELIM and 56.2 months in FIRE-3-LLD. Median age was about 5 years less in LICC compared to CELIM and FIRE-3. Secondarily resected patients of LICC, CELIM and FIRE-3 showed an impressive median survival with a tendency for improved survival for patients in the LICC trial. A younger patient cohort but also more selective surgery, improved resection techniques, deep responses and a close surveillance program after surgery in the LICC trial may have had a positive impact on survival.

Current treatment landscape of pancreatic cancer patients in a network of office-based oncologists in Germany.

Background: Pancreatic cancer is one of the most aggressive cancers, with comparatively poor outcomes despite the use of multiagent conventional chemotherapy regimens. Real-world data from clinical practice are still rare but are the basis for understanding and improving the current standard of care. Materials & methods: In this multi-institutional retrospective analysis of 24 office-based oncology practices in Germany, the authors documented 1786 pancreatic cancer patients who received systemic treatment between April 2017 and June 2021. Results: The authors' analysis showed that results from recent clinical studies are promptly incorporated into practice. Conclusion: It was striking that, during the analyzed period, the use of platinum-based therapy regimens in adjuvant and palliative first-line therapy increased predominantly in younger patients (<70 years).

Cancer of the pancreas is one of the most aggressive cancers, with poor survival despite the use of strong chemotherapy. Data from clinical practice are still rare but are the basis for understanding and improving the current standard of care. In this analysis of 24 office-based oncology practices in Germany, the authors documented treatment data of 1786 patients with pancreatic cancer who received chemotherapy between April 2017 and June 2021. The authors' analysis shows that results from recent clinical studies are promptly integrated into practice. The use of a certain type of chemotherapy with platinum increased, especially in patients younger than 70 years of age.

BRAF testing in metastatic colorectal carcinoma and novel, chemotherapy-free therapeutic options.

In the past 25 years, treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has undergone profound changes. The approval of newer chemotherapeutics such as irinotecan and oxaliplatin was followed in 2005 by the first targeted therapies, for example, monoclonal antibodies directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), as cetuximab and panitumumab, or the angiogenesis inhibitors bevacizumab, ramucirumab, and aflibercept. With the rapidly progressing molecular characterization of mCRC in the last 10 years and the classification of the disease in four consensus subtypes, further changes are emerging, which will promote, among other things, the introduction of protein-kinase inhibitors developed for specific molecular aberrations as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors into the treatment algorithm.Thorough molecular pathologic testing is indispensable today for guideline-compliant treatment of mCRC patients. In addition to RAS testing as a precondition for the therapy decision with regard to cetuximab and panitumumab, BRAF testing is of considerable relevance to allow decision making with regard to the newly approved chemotherapy-free combination of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib and cetuximab in cases where a BRAF-V600E mutation is detected. Additional diagnostic tests should also include genome instability (microsatellite instability). Overall, more and more molecular alterations need to be investigated simultaneously, so that the use of focused next-generation sequencing is increasingly recommended.This overview describes the prognostic relevance of BRAF testing in the context of molecular pathologic diagnostics of mCRC, presents new treatment options for BRAF-mutated mCRC patients, and explains which modern DNA analytical and immunohistochemical methods are available to detect BRAF mutations in mCRC patients.

[BRAF-V600E testing in metastatic colorectal cancer and new, chemotherapy-free therapy options. German version]. / BRAF-V600E-Testung beim metastasierten kolorektalen Karzinom und neue, chemotherapiefreie Therapieoptionen.

In the past 25 years, treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has undergone profound changes. The approval of newer chemotherapeutics such as irinotecan and oxaliplatin was followed in 2005 by the first targeted therapies, for example, monoclonal antibodies directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR), as cetuximab and panitumumab, or the angiogenesis inhibitors bevacizumab, ramucirumab, and aflibercept. With the rapidly progressing molecular characterization of mCRC in the last 10 years and the classification of the disease in four consensus subtypes, further changes are emerging, which will promote, among other things, the introduction of protein-kinase inhibitors developed for specific molecular aberrations as well as immune checkpoint inhibitors into the treatment algorithm.Thorough molecular pathologic testing is indispensable today for guideline-compliant treatment of mCRC patients. In addition to RAS testing as a precondition for the therapy decision with regard to cetuximab and panitumumab, BRAF testing is of considerable relevance to allow decision making with regard to the newly approved chemotherapy-free combination of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib and cetuximab in cases where a BRAF-V600E mutation is detected. Additional diagnostic tests should also include genome instability (microsatellite instability). Overall, more and more molecular alterations need to be investigated simultaneously, so that the use of focused next-generation sequencing is increasingly recommended.This overview describes the prognostic relevance of BRAF testing in the context of molecular pathologic diagnostics of mCRC, presents new treatment options for BRAF-mutated mCRC patients, and explains which modern DNA analytical and immunohistochemical methods are available to detect BRAF mutations in mCRC patients.

Phase III randomized, double-blind study of paclitaxel with and without everolimus in patients with advanced gastric or esophagogastric junction carcinoma who have progressed after therapy with a fluoropyrimidine/platinum-containing regimen (RADPAC).

The RADPAC trial evaluated paclitaxel with everolimus in patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer (GEC) who have progressed after therapy with a fluoropyrimidine/platinum-containing regimen. Patients were randomly assigned to receive paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 ) on day 1, 8 and 15 plus everolimus (10 mg daily, arm B) d1-d28 or placebo (arm A), repeated every 28 days. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety in all patients who received at least one dose of treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01248403. Between October 2011 and September 2015, 300 patients (median age: 62 years; median lines prior therapy: 2; 47.7% of patients had prior taxane therapy) were randomly assigned (arm A, 150, arm B, 150). In the intention to treat population, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival (PFS; everolimus, 2.2 vs placebo, 2.07 months, HR 0.88, P = .3) or OS (everolimus, 6.1 vs placebo, 5.0 months, HR 0.93, P = .54). For patients with prior taxane use, everolimus improved PFS (everolimus, 2.7 vs placebo 1.8 months, HR 0.69, P = .03) and OS (everolimus, 5.8 vs placebo 3.9 months, HR 0.73, P = .07). Combination of paclitaxel and everolimus was associated with significantly more grade 3-5 mucositis (13.3% vs 0.7%; P < .001). The addition of everolimus to paclitaxel did not improve outcomes in pretreated metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. Activity was seen in the taxane pretreated group. Additional biomarker studies are planned to look for subgroups that may have a benefit.

Clinical Practice Observation of Trastuzumab in Patients with Human Epidermal Growth Receptor 2-Positive Metastatic Adenocarcinoma of the Stomach or Gastroesophageal Junction.

BACKGROUND: The observational study HerMES collected primary data on effectiveness and safety of trastuzumab in patients with human epidermal growth receptor 2 (HER2)-positive cancer of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) in routine clinical practice, exploring the treatment with trastuzumab, chemotherapy backbones used, and the HER2 testing in a real-world setting in Germany. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: This noninterventional study observed patients with histologically confirmed, HER2-positive metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach or GEJ, who were treated with trastuzumab according to the physicians' judgement and clinical practice. The observation phase per patient took as long as the duration of the trastuzumab therapy, but for a maximum of 12 months. A subsequent extended follow-up phase lasted until the patient's death or the end of the study, that is, 2 years from start of the follow-up phase of the last patient. All data were analyzed descriptively. RESULTS: Between February 2010 and July 2016, 364 patients were observed at 171 sites throughout Germany. The median overall survival was 14.1 months and the median progression-free survival was 7.9 months. The overall response rate was 43%. Safety was in line with previous reports. This study observed a high diversity of chemotherapy regimens that were combined with trastuzumab. Post hoc subgroup analyses showed differences in outcomes according to the chemotherapy regimen used. CONCLUSION: Trastuzumab treatment in everyday practice as observed in HerMES confirmed the positive results of the pivotal study ToGA in an observational, real-world setting. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Real-world data of trastuzumab treatment of patients with gastroesophageal or gastric metastatic adenocarcinoma confirmed the positive results of the pivotal clinical trial. The observed median overall survival was 14.1 months and the median progression-free survival was 7.9 months. Although recommendations concerning administration of trastuzumab were well implemented, a high diversity of chemotherapy regimens were combined with trastuzumab. Regimens other than the in-label regimens, especially oxaliplatin-based doublets or 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, taxane triplets, were used in 29% of patients. Observation of a second, marginal HER2-positivity population confirmed the benefit of trastuzumab predominantly for well-confirmed human epidermal growth receptor 2 (HER2)-positive tumors and the requirement of reliable HER2 testing.

Serial Circulating Tumor DNA Mutational Status in Patients with KRAS-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer from the Phase 3 AIO KRK0207 Trial.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the usefulness of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) pre- or post-treatment initiation for outcome prediction and treatment monitoring in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Droplet digital PCR was used to measure absolute mutant V-Ki-ras2 Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene ((mut)KRAS) ctDNA concentrations in 214 healthy controls (plasma and sera) and in 151 tissue-based mutKRAS positive patients with mCRC from the prospective multicenter phase 3 trial AIO KRK0207. Serial mutKRAS ctDNA was analyzed prior to and 2-3 weeks after first-line chemotherapy initiation with fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab in patients with mCRC and correlated with clinical parameters. RESULTS: mut KRAS ctDNA was detected in 74.8% (113/151) of patients at baseline and in 59.6% (90/151) at follow-up. mutKRAS ctDNA at baseline and follow-up was associated with poor overall survival (OS) (hazard ratio [HR] =1.88, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-2.95; HR = 2.15, 95% CI 1.47-3.15) and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 2.53, 95% CI 1.44-4.46; HR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.23-2.95), respectively. mutKRAS ctDNA clearance at follow-up conferred better disease control (P = 0.0075), better OS (log-rank P = 0.0018), and PFS (log-rank P = 0.0018). Measurable positive mutKRAS ctDNA at follow-up was the strongest and most significant independent prognostic factor on OS in multivariable analysis (HR = 2.31, 95% CI 1.40-3.25). CONCLUSIONS: Serial analysis of circulating mutKRAS concentrations in mCRC has prognostic value. Post treatment mutKRAS concentrations 2 weeks after treatment initiation were associated with therapeutic response in multivariable analysis and may be an early response predictor in patients receiving first-line combination chemotherapy. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00973609.

Ipilimumab or FOLFOX with Nivolumab and Trastuzumab in previously untreated HER2-positive locally advanced or metastatic EsophagoGastric Adenocarcinoma - the randomized phase 2 INTEGA trial (AIO STO 0217).

BACKGROUND: Esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (EGA) currently represents a main cause of cancer related death. Despite an intensified treatment for locally advanced or metastatic EGA with a doublet chemotherapy consisting of a platinum compound and a fluoropyrimidine in combination with trastuzumab for HER2-positive disease or in selected cases with docetaxel, survival remains poor. Recently, immune-oncology based strategies relevantly improved the treatment of different solid tumors and showed some promise in late or later stage trials in EGA. Notably, the combination of immunotherapy with trastuzumab to enhance anti-tumor immunity through activation of innate and adaptive immunity was beneficial in preclinical studies or clinical studies in breast cancer. METHODS: The INTEGA study is an open-label, randomized, multicenter, exploratory phase II trial designed to assess clinical performance, safety and tolerability of ipilimumab or 5-FU/folinic acid and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in combination with nivolumab and trastuzumab in patients with previously untreated HER2-positive, locally advanced or metastatic EGA. The primary objective is to determine the clinical performance of ipilimumab or FOLFOX in combination with nivolumab and trastuzumab in terms of overall survival. Secondary objectives are safety and tolerability, efficacy in terms of progression-free survival and objective response rate and blood-based signatures (e.g. immune response or suppression of anti-HER2 resistance) that may correlate with treatment response. DISCUSSION: Recent evidence from the phase II NCT02954536 study (oxaliplatin, capecitabine, trastuzumab and pembrolizumab) suggests the clinical feasibility of combining chemotherapy, trastuzumab and checkpoint inhibition in EGA. However, evidence for a chemotherapy-free regimen is also mounting in HER2-positive disease (NCT02689284) i.e. margetuximab and Pembrolizumab. Both studies excelled with high overall response rates and manageable toxicities. The INTEGA study aims to comparatively assess these results and select a promising new 1st line regimen which then needs to be confirmed in a randomized phase III trial. Further, the translational part of the study might help to better stratify patients and tailor treatment of either arm. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03409848 24.01.2018.

[Prerequisites of magnetic resonance imaging for treatment planning in locally advanced rectal cancer - Interdisciplinary recommendations]. / Stellenwert und qualitative Voraussetzungen der Magnetresonanztomografie für die Therapieplanung beim lokal fortgeschrittenen Rektumkarzinom ­ Interdisziplinäre Empfehlungen.

For the purpose of indication and patient stratification of perioperative treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has become indispensable. In this report, we describe the importance of MRI diagnostics and the qualitative conditions.

Ramucirumab with cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic gastric or junctional adenocarcinoma (RAINFALL): a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: VEGF and VEGF receptor 2 (VEGFR-2)-mediated signalling and angiogenesis can contribute to the pathogenesis and progression of gastric cancer. We aimed to assess whether the addition of ramucirumab, a VEGFR-2 antagonist monoclonal antibody, to first-line chemotherapy improves outcomes in patients with metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. METHODS: For this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 126 centres in 20 countries, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with metastatic, HER2-negative gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate organ function. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with an interactive web response system to receive cisplatin (80 mg/m2, on the first day) plus capecitabine (1000 mg/m2, twice daily for 14 days), every 21 days, and either ramucirumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo on days 1 and 8, every 21 days. 5-Fluorouracil (800 mg/m2 intravenous infusion on days 1-5) was permitted in patients unable to take capecitabine. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival, analysed by intention to treat in the first 508 patients. We did a sensitivity analysis of the primary endpoint, including a central review of CT scans. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02314117. FINDINGS: Between Jan 28, 2015, and Sept 16, 2016, 645 patients were randomly assigned to receive ramucirumab plus fluoropyrimidine and cisplatin (n=326) or placebo plus fluoropyrimidine and cisplatin (n=319). Investigator-assessed progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ramucirumab group than the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·753, 95% CI 0·607-0·935, p=0·0106; median progression-free survival 5·7 months [5·5-6·5] vs 5·4 months [4·5-5·7]). A sensitivity analysis based on central independent review of the radiological images did not corroborate the investigator-assessed difference in progression-free survival (HR 0·961, 95% CI 0·768-1·203, p=0·74). There was no difference in overall survival between groups (0·962, 0·801-1·156, p=0·6757; median overall survival 11·2 months [9·9-11·9] in the ramucirumab group vs 10·7 months [9·5-11·9] in the placebo group). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (85 [26%] of 323 patients in the ramucirumab group vs 85 [27%] of 315 in the placebo group), anaemia (39 [12%] vs 44 [14%]), and hypertension (32 [10%] vs 5 [2%]). The incidence of any-grade serious adverse events was 160 (50%) of 323 patients in the ramucirumab group and 149 (47%) of 315 patients in the placebo group. The most common serious adverse events were vomiting (14 [4%] in the ramucirumab group vs 21 [7%] in the placebo group) and diarrhoea (11 [3%] vs 19 [6%]). There were seven deaths in each group, either during study treatment or within 30 days of discontinuing study treatment, which were the result of treatment-related adverse events. In the ramucirumab group, these adverse events were acute kidney injury, cardiac arrest, gastric haemorrhage, peritonitis, pneumothorax, septic shock, and sudden death (n=1 of each). In the placebo group, these adverse events were cerebrovascular accident (n=1), multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (n=2), pulmonary embolism (n=2), sepsis (n=1), and small intestine perforation (n=1). INTERPRETATION: Although the primary analysis for progression-free survival was statistically significant, this outcome was not confirmed in a sensitivity analysis of progression-free survival by central independent review, and did not improve overall survival. Therefore, the addition of ramucirumab to cisplatin plus fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy is not recommended as first-line treatment for this patient population. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company.

Results from the prospective German TPK clinical cohort study: Treatment algorithms and survival of 1,174 patients with locally advanced, inoperable, or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Pancreatic cancer is a highly lethal malignancy. Developments in recent years have broadened our therapeutic armamentarium. Novel drugs such as nab-paclitaxel, liposomal irinotecan and chemotherapy regimens such as FOLFIRINOX have been successfully tested in clinical trials. Data on patients outside of clinical trials are scarce but necessary to assess and improve the standard of care. We present data on treatment and survival of 1,174 patients with locally advanced, inoperable, or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Between February 2014 and June 2017, patients were recruited by 104 sites at start of first-line therapy into the ongoing, prospective clinical cohort study TPK (Tumour Registry Pancreatic Cancer). As first-line therapy, 89% of patients received one of the three treatment regimens: gemcitabine monotherapy (23%), nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (42%), or FOLFIRINOX (24%). The corresponding subgroups differed: Patients receiving gemcitabine monotherapy were older and more comorbid (median age 78 years, 73% ECOG ≥ 1) than patients receiving nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (median age 71, 64% ECOG ≥ 1) or patients receiving FOLFIRINOX (median age 60, 52% ECOG ≥ 1). At least 40% of patients died before receiving second-line treatment. First-line progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI: 3.7-5.2) for gemcitabine, 5.6 months (95% CI: 5.0-6.2) for nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine, and 6.3 months (95% CI: 5.5-6.9) for FOLFIRINOX. Our data represent the treatment reality in a German community setting. Although there are no stringent inclusion criteria for our cohort study, overall survival is comparable to that reported by randomised clinical trials.

Cytokeratin-18 fragments predict treatment response and overall survival in gastric cancer in a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Gastric cancer is common malignancy and exhibits a poor prognosis. At the time of diagnosis, the majority of patients present with metastatic disease which precludes curative treatment. Non-invasive biomarkers which discriminate early from advanced stages or predict the response to treatment are urgently required. This study explored the cytokeratin-18 fragment M30 and full-length cytokeratin-18 M65 in predicting treatment response and survival in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of advanced gastric cancer. METHODS: Patients enrolled in the SUN-CASE study received sunitinib or placebo as an adjunct to standard therapy with leucovorin (Ca-folinate), 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan in second or third line. Treatment response rates, progression-free survival and overall survival were assessed during a follow-up period of 12 months. Cytokeratin-18 fragments were analyzed in 52 patients at baseline and day 14 of therapy. RESULTS: Levels of M30 correlated with the presence of metastasis and lymph node involvement and decreased significantly during chemotherapy. Importantly, baseline levels of M30 were significantly higher in patients who failed therapy. In addition, patients who did not respond to treatment were also identifiable at day 14 based on elevated M30 levels. By stepwise regression analysis, M30 at day 14 was identified as independent predictor of treatment response. Likewise, serum levels of full-length cytokeratin-18 M65 at baseline also correlated with treatment failure and progression-free survival. The addition of sunitinib did not exert any effects on serum levels of M30 or M65. CONCLUSION: The cytokeratin-18 fragment M30 at day 14 identifies patients that fail to second- or third-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer. Validation of this non-invasive biomarker in gastric cancer is warranted.

Methylated free-circulating HPP1 DNA is an early response marker in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Detection of methylated free-circulating DNA (mfcDNA) for hyperplastic polyposis 1 (HPP1) in blood is correlated with a poor prognosis for patients with metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC). Here, we analyzed the plasma levels of HPP1 mfcDNA in mCRC patients treated with a combination therapy containing a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab to test whether HPP1 mfcDNA is a suitable prognostic and response biomarker. From 467 patients of the prospective clinical study AIO-KRK-0207, mfcDNA was isolated from plasma samples at different time points and bisulfite-treated mfcDNA was quantified using methylation specific PCR. About 337 of 467 patients had detectable levels for HPP1 mfcDNA before start of treatment. The detection was significantly correlated with poorer overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.86; 95%CI 1.37-2.53). About 2-3 weeks after the first administration of combination chemotherapy, HPP1 mfcDNA was reduced to non-detectable levels in 167 of 337 patients. These patients showed a better OS compared with patients with continued detection of HPP1 mfcDNA (HR HPP1(sample 1: pos/ sample 2: neg) vs. HPP1(neg/neg) = 1.41; 95%CI 1.00-2.01, HPP1(neg,pos/pos) vs. HPP1(neg/neg) = 2.60; 95%CI 1.86-3.64). Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that HPP1 mfcDNA discriminates well between patients who do (not) respond to therapy according to the radiological staging after 12 or 24 weeks (AUC = 0.77 or 0.71, respectively). Detection of HPP1 mfcDNA can be used as a prognostic marker and an early marker for response (as early as 3-4 weeks after start of treatment compared with radiological staging after 12 or 24 weeks) to identify patients who will likely benefit from a combination chemotherapy with bevacizumab.

Clinicopathological factors influencing outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with fluoropyrimidine and bevacizumab maintenance treatment vs observation: an individual patient data meta-analysis of two phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: The CAIRO3 and AIO 0207 trials demonstrated the efficacy of fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab (FP+Bev) maintenance treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. In this individual patient data meta-analysis with updated follow-up, we aim to provide more precise estimates of treatment effects and to identify subgroups that benefit most from maintenance treatment or observation. METHODS: In 871 patients, randomised to FP+Bev maintenance treatment or observation, we investigated whether treatment effect was modified by sex, age, performance status, response to induction treatment, primary tumour location, number of metastatic sites, disease stage and primary tumour resection, serum LDH, platelet count, CEA, and RAS/BRAF mutation status. Primary end point was time to second progression after reintroduction of the induction regimen (PFS2). Secondary end points were first progression-free survival (PFS1) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 68.5 months (IQR 54.6-87.0 months), maintenance treatment was more effective compared with observation in PFS1 (HR 0.40(95% CI 0.34-0.47)) and PFS2 (HR 0.70(0.60-0.81)). No subgroups were identified that did not benefit from maintenance treatment in PFS1 and PFS2; no clinically relevant subgroup effects were observed. Regarding OS, pooled results were not significant (HR 0.91(0.78-1.05)), and the trials showed marked heterogeneity in overall treatment effect and subgroup effects. CONCLUSIONS: FP+Bev maintenance treatment is effective in all patients, regardless of the investigated subgroups.

Sunitinib added to FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI in patients with chemorefractory advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or lower esophagus: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase II AIO trial with serum biomarker program.

BACKGROUND: As a multi-targeted anti-angiogenic receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) inhibitor sunitinib (SUN) has been established for renal cancer and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. In advanced refractory esophagogastric cancer patients, monotherapy with SUN was associated with good tolerability but limited tumor response. METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase II clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of SUN as an adjunct to second and third-line FOLFIRI (NCT01020630). Patients were randomized to receive 6-week cycles including FOLFIRI plus sodium folinate (Na-FOLFIRI) once every two weeks and SUN or placebo (PL) continuously for four weeks followed by a 2-week rest period. The primary study endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Preplanned serum analyses of VEGF-A, VEGF-D, VEGFR2 and SDF-1α were performed retrospectively. RESULTS: Overall, 91 patients were randomized, 45 in each group (one patient withdrew). The main grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia and leucopenia, observed in 56 %/20 % and 27 %/16 % for FOLFIRI + SUN/FOLFIRI + PL, respectively. Median PFS was similar, 3.5 vs. 3.3 months (hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95 % CI 0.70-1.74, P = 0.66) for FOLFIRI + SUN vs. FOLFIRI + PL, respectively. For FOLFIRI + SUN, a trend towards longer median overall survival (OS) compared with placebo was observed (10.4 vs. 8.9 months, HR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.50-1.34, one-sided P = 0.21). In subgroup serum analyses, significant changes in VEGF-A (P = 0.017), VEGFR2 (P = 0.012) and VEGF-D (P < 0.001) serum levels were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Although sunitinib combined with FOLFIRI did not improve PFS and response in chemotherapy-resistant gastric cancer, a trend towards better OS was observed. Further biomarker-driven studies with other anti-angiogenic RTK inhibitors are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered prospectively in the NCT Clinical Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) under NCT01020630 on November 23, 2009 after approval by the leading ethics committee of the Medical Association of Rhineland-Palatinate, Mainz, in coordination with the participating ethics committees (see Additional file 2) on September 16, 2009.

Maintenance strategies after first-line oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (AIO 0207): a randomised, non-inferiority, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The definition of a best maintenance strategy following combination chemotherapy plus bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer is unclear. We investigated whether no continuation of therapy or bevacizumab alone are non-inferior to fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, following induction treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab. METHODS: In this open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial, we included patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0-2, adequate bone marrow, liver, and renal function, no pre-existing neuropathy greater than grade 1, and measurable disease, from 55 hospitals and 51 private practices in Germany. After 24 weeks of induction therapy with either fluorouracil plus leucovorin plus oxaliplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin, both with bevacizumab, patients without disease progression were randomly assigned centrally by fax (1:1:1) to standard maintenance treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, bevacizumab alone, or no treatment. Both patients and investigators were aware of treatment assignment. Stratification criteria were response status, termination of oxaliplatin, previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin, and ECOG performance status. At first progression, re-induction with all drugs of the induction treatment was a planned part of the protocol. Time to failure of strategy was the primary endpoint, defined as time from randomisation to second progression after maintenance (and if applicable re-induction), death, or initiation of further treatment including a new drug. Time to failure of strategy was equivalent to time to first progression for patients who did not receive re-induction (for any reason). The boundary for assessment of non-inferiority was upper limit of the one-sided 98·8% CI 1·43. Analyses were done by intention to treat. The study has completed recruitment, but follow-up of participants is ongoing. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00973609. FINDINGS: Between Sept 17, 2009, and Feb 21, 2013, 837 patients were enrolled and 472 randomised; 158 were randomly assigned to receive fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab, 156 to receive bevacizumab monotherapy, and 158 to receive no treatment. Median follow-up from randomisation is 17·0 months (IQR 9·5-25·4). Median time to failure of strategy was 6·9 months (95% CI 6·1-8·5) for the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 6·1 months (5·3-7·4) for the bevacizumab alone group, and 6·4 months (4·8-7·6) for the no treatment group. Bevacizumab alone was non-inferior to standard fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab (hazard ratio [HR] 1·08 [95% CI 0·85-1·37]; p=0·53; upper limit of the one-sided 99·8% CI 1·42), whereas no treatment was not (HR 1·26 [0·99-1·60]; p=0·056; upper limit of the one-sided 99·8% CI 1·65). The protocol-defined re-induction after first progression was rarely done (30 [19%] patients in the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 67 [43%] in the bevacizumab monotherapy group, and 73 [46%] in the no treatment group. The most common grade 3 adverse event was sensory neuropathy (21 [13%] of 158 patients in the fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab group, 22 [14%] of 156 patients in the bevacizumab alone group, and 12 [8%] of 158 patients in the no treatment group). INTERPRETATION: Although non-inferiority for bevacizumab alone was demonstrated for the primary endpoint, maintenance treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab may be the preferable option for patients following an induction treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and bevacizumab, as it allows the planned discontinuation of the initial combination without compromising time with controlled disease. Only a few patients were exposed to re-induction treatment, thus deeming the primary endpoint time to failure of strategy non-informative and clinically irrelevant. Progression-free survival and overall survival should be considered primary endpoints in future trials exploring maintenance strategies.

Impact of hand-foot skin reaction on treatment outcome in patients receiving capecitabine plus erlotinib for advanced pancreatic cancer: a subgroup analysis from AIO-PK0104.

BACKGROUND: Drug-induced skin toxicity may correlate with treatment efficacy in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy or biological agents. The correlation of the capecitabine-associated hand-foot skin reaction (HFS) on outcome parameters in pancreatic cancer (PC) has not yet been investigated. METHODS: Within the multicentre phase III AIO-PK0104 trial, patients with confirmed advanced PC were randomly assigned to first-line treatment with either capecitabine plus erlotinib (150 mg/day, arm A) or gemcitabine plus erlotinib (150 mg/day, arm B). A cross-over to either gemcitabine (arm A) or capecitabine (arm B) was performed after failure of the first-line regimen. Data on skin toxicity were correlated with efficacy study endpoints using uni- and multivariate analyses. To control for guarantee-time bias (GTB), we focused on subgroup analyses of patients who had completed two and three or more treatment cycles. RESULTS: Of 281 randomised patients, skin toxicity data were available for 255 patients. Median time to capecitabine-attributed HFS was two cycles, 36 of 47 (77%) HFS events had been observed by the end of treatment cycle three. Considering HFS during first-line treatment in 101 patients treated with capecitabine for at least two cycles within the capecitabine plus erlotinib arm, time to treatment failure after first- and second-line therapy (TTF2) and overall survival (OS) both were significantly prolonged for the 44 patients (44%) with HFS compared to 57 patients without HFS (56%) (TTF2: 7.8 vs. 3.8 months, HR 0.50, p = 0.001; OS: 10.4 vs. 5.9 months, HR 0.55, p = 0.005). A subgroup analysis of 70 patients on treatment with capecitabine for at least three cycles showed similar results (TTF2: 8.3 vs. 4.4 months, HR 0.53, p = 0.010; OS: 10.4 vs. 6.7 months, HR 0.62, p = 0.056). CONCLUSION: The present subgroup analysis from AIO-PK0104 suggests that HFS may serve as an independent clinical predictor for treatment outcome in capecitabine-treated patients with advanced PC.

Gemcitabine plus erlotinib followed by capecitabine versus capecitabine plus erlotinib followed by gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer: final results of a randomised phase 3 trial of the 'Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie' (AIO-PK0104).

OBJECTIVE: AIO-PK0104 investigated two treatment strategies in advanced pancreatic cancer (PC): a reference sequence of gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by 2nd-line capecitabine was compared with a reverse experimental sequence of capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine. METHODS: 281 patients with PC were randomly assigned to 1st-line treatment with either gemcitabine plus erlotinib or capecitabine plus erlotinib. In case of treatment failure (eg, disease progression or toxicity), patients were allocated to 2nd-line treatment with the comparator cytostatic drug without erlotinib. The primary study endpoint was time to treatment failure (TTF) after 1st- and 2nd-line therapy (TTF2; non-inferiority design). KRAS exon 2 mutations were analysed in archival tumour tissue from 173 of the randomised patients. RESULTS: Of the 274 eligible patients, 43 had locally advanced and 231 had metastatic disease; 140 (51%) received 2nd-line chemotherapy. Median TTF2 was estimated with 4.2 months in both arms; median overall survival was 6.2 months with gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by capecitabine and 6.9 months with capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine, respectively (HR 1.02, p=0.90). TTF for 1st-line therapy (TTF1) was significantly prolonged with gemcitabine/erlotinib compared to capecitabine/erlotinib (3.2 vs 2.2 months; HR 0.69, p=0.0034). Skin rash was associated with both TTF2 (rash grade 0/1/2-4:2.9/4.3/6.7 months, p<0.0001) and survival (3.4/7.0/9.6 months, p<0.0001). Each arm showed a safe and manageable toxicity profile during 1st- and 2nd-line therapy. A KRAS wild-type status (52/173 patients, 30%) was associated with an improved overall survival (HR 1.68, p=0.005). CONCLUSION: Both treatment strategies are feasible and demonstrated comparable efficacy; KRAS may serve as biomarker in patients with advanced PC treated with erlotinib.