Real-world analysis of the correlation between overall survival and progression-free survival in advanced pancreatic cancer: Results of NAPOLEON-1 and 2 studies.

INTRODUCTION: Fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) improve overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with pancreatic cancer, compared with gemcitabine (GEM). However, whether PFS is a surrogate marker of OS in pancreatic cancer chemotherapy focusing on FOLFIRINOX or GEM plus nab-paclitaxel remains unknown. We aimed to verify whether PFS can be a surrogate marker of OS in prognosis prediction. METHODS: This was an integrated analysis of the NAPOLEON study and retrospective cohort of the NAPOLEON-2 study-a multicenter observational study conducted in Japan, using real-world data. The primary and secondary endpoints were OS and PFS, respectively. The correlation between OS and PFS in first- and second-line treatments was assessed using Method of Moments estimation. An analysis was performed in patients with confirmed OS at the end of follow-up. The NAPOLEON-2 cohort included only patients who received 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and nanoliposomal irinotecan (NFF) as second-line treatment. RESULTS: Among 479 patients, the correlation between PFS and OS from first- and second-line chemotherapies was calculated in 310 and 225 patients, respectively. The R-squared values for the correlation between PFS and OS from first- and second-line chemotherapies were 0.74 and 0.76, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in first-line treatment between the FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel groups (P=0.92). Therefore, the FOLFIRINOX group may not have shown a stronger correlation than the NFF group. CONCLUSION: PFS can be a surrogate marker of OS in first- and second-line therapies. Appropriate prognostic estimation might contribute to proper treatment selection.

Nanoliposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil and folinic acid, FOLFIRINOX, and S-1 as second-line treatment for unresectable pancreatic cancer after gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel.

This study aimed to compare second-line treatment outcomes for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer previously treated with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) therapy. We conducted an integrated analysis of two retrospective studies included 318 patients receiving nanoliposomal irinotecan + 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (NFF) (n = 102), S-1 (n = 57), or FOLFIRINOX (n = 14) as second-line treatment. Median overall survival (OS) in the NFF group was 9.08 months, significantly better than S-1 (4.90 months, P = 0.002). FOLFIRINOX had a median OS of 4.77 months, not statistically different from NFF. Subgroup analyses of OS indicated NFF was generally superior, however, a statistical interaction was observed between the treatment regimen in serum Alb < 3.5 g/dL (P = 0.042) and serum CRP ≥ 0.3 mg/dL (P = 0.006). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 2.93 months for NFF, significantly better than S-1 (2.53 months, P = 0.024), while FOLFIRINOX had a comparable PFS (3.04 months, P = 0.948). Multivariate analysis identified the serum CRP, serum CA19-9, duration of first-line GnP therapy, and use (yes/no) of S-1 for second-line treatment as independent predictors for OS. This study concludes that second-line NFF therapy demonstrated a more favorable OS compared to S-1 therapy, however, it is still important to consider the patient background characteristics while selecting the most appropriate treatment.

A multicenter retrospective observational NAPOLEON2 study of nanoliposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil and folinic acid in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer.

Nanoliposomal irinotecan with fluorouracil and folinic acid (NFF) is a standard regimen after gemcitabine-based therapy for patients with unresectable or recurrent pancreatic cancer. However, there are limited clinical data on its efficacy and safety in the real-world. We therefore initiated a retrospective and prospective observational study (NAPOLEON-2). The results of the retrospective part were reported herein. In this retrospective study, we evaluated 161 consecutive patients who received NFF as second-or-later-line regimen. The main endpoint was overall survival (OS), and the other endpoints were response rate, disease control rate, progression-free survival (PFS), dose intensity, and adverse events (AEs). The median age was 67 years (range, 38-85 years). The median OS and PFS were 8.1 and 3.4 months, respectively. The objective response and disease control rates were 5% and 52%, respectively. The median relative dose intensity was 81.6% for nanoliposomal irinotecan and 82.9% for fluorouracil. Grade 3 or 4 hematological and nonhematological AEs occurred in 47 and 42 patients, respectively. Common grade 3 or 4 AEs included neutropenia (24%), anorexia (12%), and leukocytopenia (12%). Subanalysis of patients treated with second-line and third-or-later-line demonstrated no statistical significant difference in OS (7.6 months vs. 9.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.35; p = 0.68). In conclusion, NFF has acceptable efficacy and safety profile even in real-world clinical settings. The prospective study is in progress to validate these findings.

Efficacy of second-line chemotherapy after treatment with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel or FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

First-line chemotherapy for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC) includes gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX). However, the efficacy of second-line chemotherapy and the role of combination chemotherapy in clinical practice is still unknown. Data was gathered from 14 hospitals in the Kyushu area of Japan from December 2013 to March 2017. The median overall survival (mOS) from second-line treatment was contrasted between patients who received second-line chemotherapy (CT group) and those who received the best supportive care (BSC group). Furthermore, the mOS of combination chemotherapy was compared to mono chemotherapy in the CT group. To control possible bias in the selection of treatment, we performed a propensity score-adjusted analysis. A total of 255 patients received GnP or FFX as first-line chemotherapy. There were 156 in the CT group and 77 in the BSC group of these. The CT group had a significantly longer mOS than the BSC group (5.2 vs. 2.6 months; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.38; 95% CI 0.27-0.54). In the CT group, 89 patients received combination chemotherapy while 67 received mono chemotherapy. The mOS did not differ significantly between the combination and mono chemotherapy groups (5.5 vs. 4.8 months; adjusted HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.58-1.33). Among patients with MPC receiving second-line treatment, the CT group had a significantly longer mOS than the BSC group, but combination chemotherapy conferred no improvement in survival compared to mono chemotherapy.

Real-World Treatment Sequencing in Vulnerable Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Multicenter Retrospective Study.

BACKGROUND: Data regarding treatment sequence for vulnerable patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a real-world setting are lacking. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess treatment outcomes in second-line or later chemotherapy for vulnerable patients with mCRC in a real-world setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Vulnerable patients with mCRC who received less intensive treatment ('vulnerable') regimens, i.e. fluoropyrimidines with or without biologics (FP), reduced-dose doublet regimens with or without biologics (Doublet), and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monotherapy (Anti-EGFR), as first-line therapy between June 2015 and December 2018 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 210 patients from 15 hospitals were analyzed. The median age was 78 years (range 28-90), and 44 patients (21%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) score of 2. In the entire population, the median time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were 7.6 and 21.4 months, respectively. Following the failure of first-line therapy in 195 patients, 74 (38%), 24 (12%), and 13 (7%) patients received vulnerable regimens, full-dose doublet regimens with or without biologics, and other regimens, respectively, whereas 84 (43%) received best supportive care (BSC). In patients receiving vulnerable regimens as second-line therapy, the median TTF and OS were 4.4 and 13.7 months, respectively, while response rate and disease control rate were 18% and 62%, respectively. In 84 patients who received BSC, the median OS was 3.5 months. CONCLUSIONS: Second-line chemotherapy for vulnerable patients with mCRC showed clinically meaningful outcomes; however, few patients received second-line therapy, and survival among patients who received BSC was dismal.

Scoring model with serum albumin and CA19-9 for metastatic pancreatic cancer in second-line treatment: results from the NAPOLEON study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer refractory to first-line chemotherapy (CTx) have few treatment options. It is unclear what kind of patients could be brought about survival benefit by 2nd-line CTx after refractory to gemcitabine + nab-PTX (GnP) or FOLFIRINOX. METHODS: This analysis was conducted as part of a multicenter retrospective study of GnP or FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Excluding censored cases, 156 and 77 patients, respectively, received second-line chemotherapy (CTx) and best supportive care (BSC). Using prognostic factors for post-discontinuation survivals (PDSs) at the first-line determination in multivariate analysis, we developed a scoring system to demonstrate the benefit of second-line CTx. RESULTS: The second-line CTx group had a median PDS of 5.2 months, whereas the BSC group had a median PDS of 2.7 months (hazard ratio 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.31-0.57; p < 0.01). According to the Cox regression model, serum albumin levels below 3.5 g/dL, and CA19-9 levels above 1000 U/mL were independent prognostic factors (p < 0.01). Serum albumin (≥ and < 3.5 g/dL allotted to scores 0 and 1) and CA19-9 (< and ≥ 1000 U/mL allotted to scores 0 and 1) at first-line determination were used to develop the scoring system. The PDSs of patients with scores of 0 and 1 were significantly better than those of the BSC group; however, there was no significant difference between the PDSs of patients with score 2 and the BSC group. CONCLUSION: The survival advantage of second-line CTx, was observed in patients with scores of 0 and 1 but not in those with score 2.

C-reactive protein/albumin ratio is the most significant inflammatory marker in unresectable pancreatic cancer treated with FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel.

There are limited absolute biomarkers for determining the prognosis before first- and second-line palliative chemotherapy in unresectable pancreatic cancer (urPC) patients. To find the best prognostic inflammatory marker, we investigated relationships between overall survival (OS) and six inflammatory markers; C-reactive protein/albumin ratio (CAR), neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), prognostic nutrition index (PNI), platelet-lymphocyte ratio (PLR), Glasgow prognostic score (GPS), and prognostic index (PI). We examined 255 patients who received gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel or FOLFIRINOX as first-line chemotherapy and 159 patients who subsequently underwent second-line chemotherapy. First-line patients with lower CAR had better OS compared to those with a higher CAR (hazard ratio 0.57; 95% confidential index 0.42-77; P < 0.01). Similarly, lower NLR (P = 0.01), higher PNI (P = 0.04), lower PLR (P = 0.03), GPS score of 0 (P < 0.01) and PI score of 0 (P < 0.01) were all associated with better OS. CAR demonstrated the best superiority for determining survival prognosis through the use of area under the curve of time-dependent receiver-operating characteristic curves. Furthermore, a lower CAR before second-line therapy exhibited better OS versus higher CAR (P < 0.01). Therefore, CAR might be a useful biomarker for predicting urPC patient prognosis in both first- and second-line chemotherapy.

Conversion Surgery for Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer Treated With FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine Plus Nab-paclitaxel.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Recent advances in chemotherapy have made significant progress in conversion surgery (CS) for unresectable pancreatic cancer (uPC). However, the success rate and efficacy of CS have not been fully demonstrated in patients with uPC treated with FOLFIRINOX (FFX) or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 318 patients with uPC who received FFX or GnP as first-line chemotherapy. The efficacy in the CS group, defined as undergoing complete resection after chemotherapy, was analyzed, and compared with the non-CS group; then, contributing factors to achieving CS were extracted. We also analyzed differences in the efficacy of CS between locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) and metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). RESULTS: Overall, CS was achieved in 4.3% of cases, eight patients (13.3%) with LAPC and five (2.1%) with MPC. Contributing factors to CS were LAPC, no liver metastasis, CA19-9 ≤37, and chemotherapy response. After adjusting for these, overall survival was significantly better in the CS group than in the non-CS group [median of 32.9 vs. 11.3 months; adjusted hazard ratio (HR)=0.32; 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.14-0.70; p<0.01]. Median relapse-free survival duration after CS was 19.1 and 18.1 months in the LAPC-CS and MPC-CS group, respectively (p=0.84). The median post-conversion survival was 27.6 months in the entire CS group, 43.8 months in the LAPC-CS group and 21.3 months in the MPC-CS group. CONCLUSION: CS was achieved in 13.3% of LAPC and 2.1% of MPC cases. If possible, CS can markedly improve prognosis, even in MPC.

Multicenter Retrospective Analysis of Original versus Modified FOLFIRINOX in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Results of the NAPOLEON Study.

INTRODUCTION: Original FOLFIRINOX (oFFX) is more toxic than other regimens for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC); therefore, a modified FFX (mFFX) regimen with a reduced dosage has been used in Japanese clinical practice. However, very few studies have compared these two regimens. METHODS: This study was conducted as part of a multicenter retrospective study of 318 patients with mPC across 14 centers in Japan (NAPOLEON study). To control for potential bias and confounders, we conducted a propensity score-adjusted analysis of patient characteristics and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: oFFX and mFFX were administered to 48 and 54 patients. More patients with younger age and poorer performance status were included in the oFFX group. The overall survival (OS; median, 11.6 vs. 11.3 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-1.40; p = 0.67), progression-free survival (PFS) (median, 6.3 vs. 5.7 months; HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.56-1.28; p = 0.44), and overall response rate (29 vs. 26%, p = 0.71) were not significantly different for the oFFX and mFFX groups. Thrombopenia and liver dysfunction were significantly more frequent with oFFX than with mFFX. The median received dose intensity of CPT-11 was higher with oFFX than with mFFX (299 vs. 270 mg/m2/week, p < 0.01). The propensity score-adjusted analysis revealed no statistically significant differences in OS and PFS between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In our data, there was no significant difference in efficacy between mFFX and oFFX, and mFFX has fewer adverse events.

A multicentre retrospective study comparing site-specific treatment with empiric treatment for unfavourable subset of cancer of unknown primary site.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer of unknown primary site are divided into two distinct groups, favourable and unfavourable subsets. For the unfavourable subset, empiric treatment or site-specific treatment is recommended, but limited knowledge exists about the efficacy of site-specific treatment compared with empiric treatment in clinical practice. METHODS: In this multicentre retrospective study, we reviewed the medical records of patients with cancer of unknown primary site treated with chemotherapy (or chemoradiotherapy) as first-line treatment from eight institutions during 2006-18. We investigated the workup modality and categorized the patients into favourable and unfavourable subsets, which were further divided into site-specific and empiric treatment groups. Site-specific treatment is defined as a standard chemotherapy for an estimated primary site. We examined the efficacy in the favourable and unfavourable subsets and performed multivariable analysis for estimating the overall survival in the unfavourable subset. RESULTS: Of 177 patients with cancer of unknown primary site, 33 and 144 were categorized into favourable and unfavourable subsets, respectively. In the unfavourable subset, 84 patients (58.3%) received empiric therapy, and 60 patients (41.7%) received site-specific treatment. Median overall survival was 10.0 and 10.1 months in site-specific and empiric treatment groups, respectively, with no significant difference (hazard ratio 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.70-1.45, P = 0.95). Multivariable analysis revealed performance status, number of metastatic sites and hypoalbuminaemia as independent prognostic factors for overall survival in the unfavourable subset. CONCLUSIONS: Overall survival in site-specific and empiric treatment groups was similar in the unfavourable cancer of unknown primary site subset in this study. Further research is needed to prolong overall survival in patients in the unfavourable cancer of unknown primary site subset.

Prognostic nomogram for patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer treated with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel or FOLFIRINOX: A post-hoc analysis of a multicenter retrospective study in Japan (NAPOLEON study).

BACKGROUND: No reliable nomogram has been developed until date for predicting the survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer undergoing treatment with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) or FOLFIRINOX. METHODS: This analysis was conducted using clinical data of Japanese patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer undergoing GnP or FOLFIRINOX treatment obtained from a multicenter study (NAPOLEON study). A Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify the independent prognostic factors. A nomogram to predict 6-, 12-, and 18-month survival probabilities was generated, validated by using the concordance index (C-index), and calibrated by the bootstrapping method. And then, we attempted risk stratification for survival by classifying the patients according to the sum of the scores on the nomogram (total nomogram points). RESULTS: A total of 318 patients were enrolled. A prognostic nomogram was generated using data on the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, liver metastasis, serum LDH, serum CRP, and serum CA19-9. The C-indexes of the nomogram were 0.77, 0.72 and 0.70 for 6-, 12-, and 18-month survival, respectively. The calibration plot showed optimal agreement at all points. Risk stratification based on tertiles of the total nomogram points yielded clear separations of the survival curves. The median survival times in the low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups were 15.8, 12.8 and 7.8 months (P<0.05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our nomogram might be a convenient and inexpensive tool to accurately predict survival in Japanese patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer undergoing treatment with GnP or FOLFIRINOX, and will help clinicians in selecting appropriate therapeutic strategies for individualized management.

Gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel in older patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: A post-hoc analysis of the real-world data of a multicenter study (the NAPOLEON study).

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) in older patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC), especially those ≥75 years old. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study retrospectively enrolled 153 patients with MPC who received GnP as first-line chemotherapy. Patients ≥75 years old were allocated to the older group, and those <75 years old were assigned to the non-older group. We compared safety, antitumor efficacy, and survival between the two groups. In the older group, prognostic indicators of survival were also assessed. RESULTS: The pretreatment characteristics of the two groups were not significantly different excluding age, history of malignancy, and C-reactive protein levels. The initial dose and relative dose intensities of GnP were significantly lower in the older group. There were no significant differences in the adverse event and antitumor response rates between the two groups. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.5 and 12.0 months, respectively, in the older group, versus 6.0 and 11.1 months, respectively, in the non-older group. In the older group, a Geriatric Nutrition Risk Index (GNRI) of less than 86 was associated with poor prognosis. CONCLUSION: GnP exhibited acceptable efficacy and safety in patients ≥75 years old with MPC. GNRI might be helpful for identifying older individuals at higher risk of unfavorable outcomes.

Gemcitabine Plus Nab-Paclitaxel Versus FOLFIRINOX in Locally Advanced, Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Multicenter Observational Study (NAPOLEON Study).

OBJECTIVES: FOLFIRINOX (FFX, a combination of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) have been used as standard, first-line treatments for advanced pancreatic cancer. However, no study has compared the efficacy of the 2 regimens. This study retrospectively compared the efficacy and safety of the 2 regimens in patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We reviewed the records of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer who started FFX or GnP as first-line chemotherapy as part of a multicenter retrospective study in patients with unresectable pancreatic cancer treated with FFX or GnP (NAPOLEON study). RESULTS: Sixteen of the 63 patients were treated with FFX, and the other 47 patients were treated with GnP between December 2013 and March 2017. There were no significant differences in median overall survival rate between the GnP (15.5 months) and FFX (14.3 months, P = 0.60) groups or median progression-free survival rate between the GnP (8.8 months) and FFX (8.1 months, P = 0.51) groups. Both treatments were generally well tolerated, although anorexia was more severe in the FFX group than in the GnP group. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of FFX and GnP were similar but resulted in different toxicities, which could guide agent choice.

Gemcitabine Plus Nanoparticle Albumin-bound Paclitaxel Versus FOLFIRINOX for Recurrent Pancreatic Cancer After Resection.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of the study was to evaluate gemcitabine plus nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel (GnP) and FOLFIRINOX for recurrent pancreatic cancer (rPC) after resection. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Forty-four patients with rPC and 211 with de novo metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) who received GnP or FOLFIRINOX as first-line chemotherapy were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: On crude analysis, the median overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in the rPC group than in the mPC group (14.0 vs. 10.6 months, respectively; p=0.02). However, the difference was not significant on adjusted analysis using the Cox proportional hazards model (adjusted p=0.90). Patients receiving FOLFIRINOX (n=10) and GnP (n=34) in the rPC group had comparable OS (medians, 12.2 vs. 14.4 months, respectively; p=0.82) even after adjusting for covariates using the Cox model (adjusted p=0.18). CONCLUSION: The outcomes of patients in the rPC and mPC groups were comparable following chemotherapy. Both FOLFIRINOX and GnP may be reasonable options for treating rPC.

A multicenter propensity score analysis of FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel administered to patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: results from the NAPOLEON study.

PURPOSE: Fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX, FFX) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GnP) are considered standard treatments for patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Direct comparisons are not available that establish which is optimal. METHODS: We conducted a propensity score-adjusted analysis of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer to identify the therapeutic advantages of these standard therapies. We used clinical data as part of a multicenter retrospective study of patients with unresectable or recurrent pancreatic cancer treated with FFX or GnP (NAPOLEON study). RESULTS: FFX and GnP were initially administered to 102 and 153 patients, respectively. The GnP group comprised more patients of advanced age, worse performance status, lower body mass index, recurrence, and lower albumin concentrations. Median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were 11.5 months and 5.8 months in the FFX group and 11.1 months and 5.9 months in the GnP group, respectively. Propensity score-adjusted analysis indicated that the administration of FFX or GnP was not independently associated with OS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.47; P = 0.73). Similarly, the difference in PFS was not significant between groups (adjusted HR 0.93; 95% CI 0.68-1.26; P = 0.62). Gastrointestinal disorders were more common in the FFX group, whereas the frequencies of hematological, nervous system, and skin disorders were higher in the GnP group. CONCLUSION: The efficacies of FFX and GnP were comparable, although safety profiles differed and should be considered in selecting treatment.

Phase I Study of Alternate-Day Administration of S-1, Oral Leucovorin, and Bevacizumab for Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

LESSONS LEARNED: The recommended S-1 dose was 40 mg/m2 , twice daily on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday, with oral leucovorin and bevacizumab. Compared with daily administration, the alternate-day administration of S-1 with oral leucovorin may reduce mucositis with promising antitumor activity in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. BACKGROUND: Daily S-1 plus oral leucovorin administration in a 1-week-on/1-week-off schedule has promising efficacy in gastrointestinal cancer but is associated with high risk of mucositis and diarrhea. METHODS: This phase Ib, 3+3 dose-escalation trial included patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving S-1 (40 mg/m2 ) and leucovorin (25 mg) orally twice daily (level 1, even-numbered days; level 2, Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday) and intravenous bevacizumab (5 mg/kg) every 2 weeks. Enrollment continued at the recommended dose level in the expansion cohort. RESULTS: We enrolled 21 patients (3 and 18 patients in levels 1 and 2, respectively). Briefly, 12 and 9 patients had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 and 1, respectively, and 8 and 13 patients had 1-3 and ≥4 prior treatment lines, respectively. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was not observed, and level 2 was confirmed as the recommended dose. Common grade 3-4 adverse events at level 2 were anemia (22%), anorexia (6%), and diarrhea (6%). In the entire cohort, response rate, disease control rate, and median progression-free survival were 10%, 71%, and 4.2 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: The recommended S-1 dose was 40 mg/m2 , twice daily on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday, with 25 mg oral leucovorin twice daily and 5 mg/kg bevacizumab every 2 weeks. Compared with the daily administration, alternate-day administration of S-1 plus leucovorin may reduce mucositis with promising antitumor activity in refractory mCRC.

A Phase II Study of Modified FOLFOX6 for Advanced Gastric Cancer Refractory to Standard Therapies.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with advanced gastric cancer refractory to chemotherapy, the treatment options are limited. Via this phase II study, we aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of oxaliplatin in combination with 5-fluorouracil and l-leucovorin (modified FOLFOX6). METHODS: Patients who had histologically confirmed metastatic gastric cancer refractory to ≥ two previous chemotherapy regimens were included. The primary endpoint was the overall response rate (ORR) by an independent central review. According to an assumption of a threshold ORR of 10% and expected ORR of 25%, with α = 0.05 and ß = 0.20, at least 33 patients were required. The secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), quality of life measured by EQ-5D, and safety. RESULTS: Among the 35 enrolled patients, 33 were included in the primary analysis. All patients previously received fluoropyrimidines, cisplatin, and taxanes, and 24 (73%) were pretreated with irinotecan. The confirmed ORR was 27% [95% confidence interval (CI) 13-46]. The median PFS and OS were 2.2 (95% CI 1.2-3.2) and 5.6 (95% CI 4.1-7.0) months, respectively. In the multivariate analyses, immunotherapy within 90 days and a Glasgow Prognostic Score of 0 were associated with better treatment outcomes. The most common grade ≥ 3 adverse event was neutropenia (36%), and no febrile neutropenia was observed. The median EQ-5D scores did not change from baseline at 2, 4, and 8 weeks (p value = 0.38, 0.79, and 0.98, respectively). CONCLUSION: Modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6) showed substantial activity and acceptable toxicity for chemotherapy-refractory advanced gastric cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN Clinical Trial Registry (UMIN000016416).

The association of primary tumor site with acute adverse event and efficacy of definitive chemoradiotherapy for cStage II/III esophageal cancer: an exploratory analysis of JCOG0909.

BACKGROUND: JCOG0909 is a phase II trial of definitive chemoradiotherapy including salvage treatment for cStage II-III thoracic esophageal cancer; the radiation field for elective regional lymph node irradiation, which can affect patient outcome and adverse event, varied based on the primary tumor site, i.e., upper (Ut), middle (Mt), and lower thoracic (Lt) esophagus. The impact of different primary sites on the safety and efficacy of definitive chemoradiotherapy in JCOG0909 is not well characterized. METHODS: Patients were categorized into three groups (Ut, Mt, and Lt) according to the primary tumor location. We compared acute adverse events during definitive chemoradiotherapy, complete response (CR) rate, 3-year progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) among the 3 groups. RESULTS: Out of the 96 patients enrolled in JCOG0909 between April 2010 and August 2014, 94 patients (16, 59, and 19 patients in the Ut, Mt, and Lt groups, respectively) were included in this exploratory analysis. The proportion of patients with cStage III was 25% in the Ut, 37% in the Mt, and 47% in the Lt group. Grade 3-4 leukopenia, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia were more frequently observed in the Mt (66%, 54%, and 15%) and Lt groups (84%, 68%, and 16%) than in the Ut group (38%, 44%, and 0%). There was no significant between-group difference with respect to 3-year OS (73.3%, 77.9%, and 57.9%), 3-year PFS (60.0%, 59.3%, and 47.4%), or CR rate (62.5%, 62.7%, and 42.1%). CONCLUSIONS: In JCOG0909, the incidence of severe hematological toxicity had a trend toward higher in the Mt and Lt than the Ut esophageal cancer; however, no remarkable difference by primary sites was observed with respect to efficacy endpoints.