CT evaluation after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy for borderline and locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

AIM: To assess anatomic changes on computed tomography (CT) after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/irinotecan/oxaliplatin) chemotherapy for secondary resected borderline resectable (BR) and locally advanced (LA) pancreatic adenocarcinoma and their accuracy to predict resectability and pathological response. METHODS: Thirty-six patients with secondary resected BR/LA pancreatic adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy (± chemoradiotherapy) were retrospectively included. Two radiologists reviewed baseline and pre-surgical CTs in consensus. NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) classification, largest axis, product of the three axes (P3A), and arterial/venous involvement were studied and compared to pathological response and resection status and to disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Thirty-one patients had R0 resection, including only six exhibiting a downstaging according to the NCCN classification. After treatment, the largest axis and P3A decreased (P < 0.0001). The pre-surgical largest axis and P3A were smaller in case of R0 resection (P = 0.019/P = 0.021). The largest axis/P3A variations were higher in case of complete pathological response (P = 0.011/P = 0.016). A decrease of the arterial/venous involvement was not able to predict R0 or ypT0N0 (P > 0.05). Progression of the vascular involvement was seen in two (5 %) patients and led to a shorter DFS. CONCLUSION: In BR/LA pancreatic adenocarcinoma after the neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX regimen (± chemoradiotherapy), significant tumour size decreases were observed on CT. However, CT staging was not predictive of resectability and pathological response. KEY POINTS: • Significant tumour size decreases were observed on CT after FOLFIRINOX (± chemoradiotherapy). • CT is not able to predict R0 resection accurately after FOLFIRINOX (± chemoradiotherapy). • CT is not able to predict complete response accurately after FOLFIRINOX (± chemoradiotherapy). • Even with a stable NCCN classification, BR/LA pancreatic adenocarcinoma could have R0 resection.

MRI restaging of rectal cancer: The RAC (Response-Anal canal-CRM) analysis joint consensus guidelines of the GRERCAR and GRECCAR groups.

PURPOSE: To develop guidelines by international experts to standardize data acquisition, image interpretation, and reporting in rectal cancer restaging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Evidence-based data and experts' opinions were combined using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method to attain consensus guidelines. Experts provided recommendations for reporting template and protocol for data acquisition were collected; responses were analysed and classified as "RECOMMENDED" versus "NOT RECOMMENDED" (if ≥ 80% consensus among experts) or uncertain (if < 80% consensus among experts). RESULTS: Consensus regarding patient preparation, MRI sequences, staging and reporting was attained using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. A consensus was reached for each reporting template item among the experts. Tailored MRI protocol and standardized report were proposed. CONCLUSION: These consensus recommendations should be used as a guide for rectal cancer restaging with MRI.

Structured and shared MRI staging lexicon and report of rectal cancer: A consensus proposal by the French Radiology Group (GRERCAR) and Surgical Group (GRECCAR) for rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To develop French guidelines by experts to standardize data acquisition, image interpretation, and reporting in rectal cancer staging with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Evidence-based data and opinions of experts of GRERCAR (Groupe de REcherche en Radiologie sur le CAncer du Rectum [i.e., Rectal Cancer Imaging Research Group]) and GRECCAR (Groupe de REcherche en Chirurgie sur le CAncer du Rectum [i.e., Rectal Cancer Surgery Research Group]) were combined using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method to attain consensus guidelines. Experts scoring of reporting template and protocol for data acquisition were collected; responses were analyzed and classified as "Recommended" versus "Not recommended" (when ≥ 80% consensus among experts) or uncertain (when < 80% consensus among experts). RESULTS: Consensus regarding patient preparation, MRI sequences, staging and reporting was attained using the RAND-UCLA Appropriateness Method. A consensus was reached for each reporting template item among the experts. Tailored MRI protocol and standardized report were proposed. CONCLUSION: These consensus recommendations should be used as a guide for rectal cancer staging with MRI.

Clinical Benefit of Everolimus as Second-Line Therapy in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma: The French Retrospective SECTOR Study.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data of everolimus after vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR)-tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) are limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The retrospective, noninterventional SECTOR (SECond line with afiniTOR) study (N = 165) assessed outcomes of second-line everolimus after initial VEGFR-TKI (TKI-everolimus, n = 144) and of third-line VEGFR-TKI after everolimus (TKI-everolimus-TKI, n = 59) in patients with mRCC. The primary end point was duration of everolimus therapy for both populations. RESULTS: Median duration was 4.0 months (range, 0.0-33.0 months) for second-line everolimus and 18.0 months (range, 2-78 months) for sequential VEGFR-TKI and everolimus. Median overall survival (OS) for this sequence was 36.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 27.0-56.0 months) and was longer for patients who received a first-line TKI for ≥ 9 months (not reached) than for < 9 months (28.0 months; P < .001). During second-line everolimus treatment, commonly reported adverse events (all grades) were fatigue (n = 66, 40.7%), anemia (n = 58, 35.8%), and stomatitis (n = 41, 25.3%). Median duration from initiation of first-line TKI to the end of the third-line TKI was 24.0 months (95% CI, 19.0-29.0 months). Median OS for this sequence was 41.0 months (95% CI, 25.0-57.0 months) and was significantly longer for patients who received the first-line TKI for ≥ 9 months (37.5 months) than for < 9 months (19.0 months; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: These results reflect clinical use of sequential TKI-everolimus and TKI-everolimus-TKI and provide additional evidence that everolimus could be an option in second-line therapy in mRCC. Results of the CheckMate-025 (Nivolumab versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal-Cell Carcinoma) and METEOR (Metastatic RCC Phase 3 Study Evaluating Cabozantinib versus Everolimus) studies might change the treatment landscape.