Panitumumab-based maintenance after oxaliplatin discontinuation in metastatic colorectal cancer: A retrospective analysis of two randomised trials.

Panitumumab is approved for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer and was evaluated in Phase III (PRIME, NCT00364013) and Phase II (PEAK, NCT00819780) first-line randomised studies. This retrospective analysis of these trials investigated efficacy and toxicity of panitumumab-based maintenance after oxaliplatin discontinuation in RAS wild-type patients. First-line regimens were FOLFOX4 ± panitumumab in PRIME and mFOLFOX6 plus panitumumab or mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab in PEAK. Outcomes included median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), from randomisation and oxaliplatin discontinuation, and toxicity. Overall, median duration of panitumumab plus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) maintenance was 21 (interquartile range: 11-41) weeks; that of 5-FU/LV ± bevacizumab maintenance was 16 (6-31) weeks. Median OS from randomisation was 40.2 (95% confidence interval: 30.3-50.4) and 39.1 (34.2-63.0) months for panitumumab plus 5-FU/LV maintenance and 24.1 (17.7-33.0) and 28.9 (21.0-32.0) months for 5-FU/LV ± bevacizumab maintenance in PRIME and PEAK, respectively. Median PFS from randomisation was 16.6 (11.3-23.6) and 15.4 (11.6-18.4) months for panitumumab plus 5-FU/LV maintenance and 12.6 (9.4-16.2) and 13.1 (9.5-16.6) months for 5-FU/LV ± bevacizumab maintenance in PRIME and PEAK, respectively. From oxaliplatin discontinuation, median OS was 33.9 (24.7-42.8) and 33.5 (24.5-54.9) months for panitumumab plus 5-FU/LV maintenance and 16.4 (12.4-24.1) and 23.3 (15.7-26.3) months for 5-FU/LV ± bevacizumab maintenance in PRIME and PEAK, respectively; PFS was 11.7 (7.8-19.2) and 9.7 (5.8-14.8) months and 7.1 (5.6-10.2) and 7.0 (3.9-10.6) months, respectively. The most frequently reported adverse events were rash, fatigue and diarrhoea. Maintenance of panitumumab plus 5-FU/LV after oxaliplatin discontinuation was well tolerated and may be an acceptable treatment paradigm for patients demonstrating a good response to first-line treatment. Prospective studies are warranted.

Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Quantification Criteria for Identifying Patients not Responding to Bevacizumab-Based Therapy for Colorectal Liver Metastases.

PURPOSE: To evaluate changes in tumor vascularization parameters based on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) quantification criteria of at least one visible liver metastasis as an early predictor of non-response to chemotherapy, including bevacizumab for colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter prospective study included patients who received first-line bevacizumab-based chemotherapy. Tumor enhancement measured using CEUS within one liver metastasis and in relation to the surrounding healthy liver was quantified within 8 days before the first infusion of bevacizumab (E0), 24 hours after the end of the first infusion of bevacizumab (E1), in the 24 hours before the 2nd and 3 rd infusion of bevacizumab on day 15 (E2) and day 30 (E3), respectively, and after 2 months of treatment (E4). Endpoints were tumor response using RECIST criteria at 2 months, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Among the 137 patients included in this study, 109 were analyzed. Only CEUS parameters calculated in relation to healthy liver were significant. High wash-in and wash-out rates at baseline were significantly associated with a better tumor response. Increases over time E2-E0 and E3-E0 for peak enhancement were significantly associated with shorter progression-free survival. Increases over time E2-E0 and E3-E0 for peak enhancement and wash-in area under the curve were significantly associated with a shorter overall survival. CONCLUSION: This large study demonstrated that early dynamic changes in the vascularity of liver metastases evaluated by quantified CEUS are associated with outcome in patients receiving first-line bevacizumab-based treatment for metastatic CRC.

Panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment and RAS mutations in colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that harbors KRAS mutations in exon 2 do not benefit from anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy. Other activating RAS mutations may also be negative predictive biomarkers for anti-EGFR therapy. METHODS: In this prospective-retrospective analysis, we assessed the efficacy and safety of panitumumab plus oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFOX4) as compared with FOLFOX4 alone, according to RAS (KRAS or NRAS) or BRAF mutation status. A total of 639 patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer without KRAS mutations in exon 2 had results for at least one of the following: KRAS exon 3 or 4; NRAS exon 2, 3, or 4; or BRAF exon 15. The overall rate of ascertainment of RAS status was 90%. RESULTS: Among 512 patients without RAS mutations, progression-free survival was 10.1 months with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 versus 7.9 months with FOLFOX4 alone (hazard ratio for progression or death with combination therapy, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58 to 0.90; P=0.004). Overall survival was 26.0 months in the panitumumab-FOLFOX4 group versus 20.2 months in the FOLFOX4-alone group (hazard ratio for death, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62 to 0.99; P=0.04). A total of 108 patients (17%) with nonmutated KRAS exon 2 had other RAS mutations. These mutations were associated with inferior progression-free survival and overall survival with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 treatment, which was consistent with the findings in patients with KRAS mutations in exon 2. BRAF mutations were a negative prognostic factor. No new safety signals were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Additional RAS mutations predicted a lack of response in patients who received panitumumab-FOLFOX4. In patients who had metastatic colorectal cancer without RAS mutations, improvements in overall survival were observed with panitumumab-FOLFOX4 therapy. (Funded by Amgen and others; PRIME ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00364013.).

ERCC1 isoform expression and DNA repair in non-small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: The excision repair cross-complementation group 1 (ERCC1) protein is a potential prognostic biomarker of the efficacy of cisplatin-based chemotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Although several ongoing trials are evaluating the level of expression of ERCC1, no consensus has been reached regarding a method for evaluation. METHODS: We used the 8F1 antibody to measure the level of expression of ERCC1 protein by means of immunohistochemical analysis in a validation set of samples obtained from 494 patients in two independent phase 3 trials (the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group JBR.10 and the Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9633 trial from the Lung Adjuvant Cisplatin Evaluation Biology project). We compared the results of repeated staining of the entire original set of samples obtained from 589 patients in the International Adjuvant Lung Cancer Trial Biology study, which had led to the initial correlation between the absence of ERCC1 expression and platinum response, with our previous results in the same tumors. We mapped the epitope recognized by 16 commercially available ERCC1 antibodies and investigated the capacity of the different ERCC1 isoforms to repair platinum-induced DNA damage. RESULTS: We were unable to validate the predictive effect of immunostaining for ERCC1 protein. The discordance in the results of staining for ERCC1 suggested a change in the performance of the 8F1 antibody since 2006. We found that none of the 16 antibodies could distinguish among the four ERCC1 protein isoforms, whereas only one isoform produced a protein that had full capacities for nucleotide excision repair and cisplatin resistance. CONCLUSIONS: Immunohistochemical analysis with the use of currently available ERCC1 antibodies did not specifically detect the unique functional ERCC1 isoform. As a result, its usefulness in guiding therapeutic decision making is limited. (Funded by Eli Lilly and others.).

Adjuvant chemotherapy for resected early-stage non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effects of administering chemotherapy following surgery, or following surgery plus radiotherapy (known as adjuvant chemotherapy) in patients with early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC),we performed two systematic reviews and meta-analyses of all randomised controlled trials using individual participant data. Results were first published in The Lancet in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To compare, in terms of overall survival, time to locoregional recurrence, time to distant recurrence and recurrence-free survival:A. Surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapyB. Surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapyin patients with histologically diagnosed early stage NSCLC.(2)To investigate whether or not predefined patient subgroups benefit more or less from cisplatin-based chemotherapy in terms of survival. SEARCH METHODS: We supplemented MEDLINE and CANCERLIT searches (1995 to December 2013) with information from trial registers, handsearching relevant meeting proceedings and by discussion with trialists and organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included trials of a) surgery versus surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy; and b) surgery plus radiotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy, provided that they randomised NSCLC patients using a method which precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We carried out a quantitative meta-analysis using updated information from individual participants from all randomised trials. Data from all patients were sought from those responsible for the trial. We obtained updated individual participant data (IPD) on survival, and date of last follow-up, as well as details of treatment allocated, date of randomisation, age, sex, histological cell type, stage, and performance status. To avoid potential bias, we requested information for all randomised patients, including those excluded from the investigators' original analyses. We conducted all analyses on intention-to-treat on the endpoint of survival. For trials using cisplatin-based regimens, we carried out subgroup analyses by age, sex, histological cell type, tumour stage, and performance status. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 35 trials evaluating surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone. IPD were available for 26 of these trials and our analyses are based on 8447 participants (3323 deaths) in 34 trial comparisons. There was clear evidence of a benefit of adding chemotherapy after surgery (hazard ratio (HR)= 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI)= 0.81 to 0.92, p< 0.0001), with an absolute increase in survival of 4% at five years.We identified 15 trials evaluating surgery plus radiotherapy plus chemotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy alone. IPD were available for 12 of these trials and our analyses are based on 2660 participants (1909 deaths) in 13 trial comparisons. There was also evidence of a benefit of adding chemotherapy to surgery plus radiotherapy (HR= 0.88, 95% CI= 0.81 to 0.97, p= 0.009). This represents an absolute improvement in survival of 4% at five years.For both meta-analyses, we found similar benefits for recurrence outcomes and there was little variation in effect according to the type of chemotherapy, other trial characteristics or patient subgroup.We did not undertake analysis of the effects of adjuvant chemotherapy on quality of life and adverse events. Quality of life information was not routinely collected during the trials, but where toxicity was assessed and mentioned in the publications, it was thought to be manageable. We considered the risk of bias in the included trials to be low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Results from 47 trial comparisons and 11,107 patients demonstrate the clear benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for these patients, irrespective of whether chemotherapy was given in addition to surgery or surgery plus radiotherapy. This is the most up-to-date and complete systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis that has been carried out.

Docetaxel plus nintedanib versus docetaxel plus placebo in patients with previously treated non-small-cell lung cancer (LUME-Lung 1): a phase 3, double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The phase 3 LUME-Lung 1 study assessed the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus nintedanib as second-line therapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). METHODS: Patients from 211 centres in 27 countries with stage IIIB/IV recurrent NSCLC progressing after first-line chemotherapy, stratified by ECOG performance status, previous bevacizumab treatment, histology, and presence of brain metastases, were allocated (by computer-generated sequence through an interactive third-party system, in 1:1 ratio), to receive docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) by intravenous infusion on day 1 plus either nintedanib 200 mg orally twice daily or matching placebo on days 2-21, every 3 weeks until unacceptable adverse events or disease progression. Investigators and patients were masked to assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by independent central review, analysed by intention to treat after 714 events in all patients. The key secondary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat after 1121 events had occurred, in a prespecified stepwise order: first in patients with adenocarcinoma who progressed within 9 months after start of first-line therapy, then in all patients with adenocarcinoma, then in all patients. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00805194. FINDINGS: Between Dec 23, 2008, and Feb 9, 2011, 655 patients were randomly assigned to receive docetaxel plus nintedanib and 659 to receive docetaxel plus placebo. The primary analysis was done after a median follow-up of 7·1 months (IQR 3·8-11·0). PFS was significantly improved in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group compared with the docetaxel plus placebo group (median 3·4 months [95% CI 2·9-3·9] vs 2·7 months [2·6-2·8]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·79 [95% CI 0·68-0·92], p=0·0019). After a median follow-up of 31·7 months (IQR 27·8-36·1), overall survival was significantly improved for patients with adenocarcinoma histology who progressed within 9 months after start of first-line treatment in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group (206 patients) compared with those in the docetaxel plus placebo group (199 patients; median 10·9 months [95% CI 8·5-12·6] vs 7·9 months [6·7-9·1]; HR 0·75 [95% CI 0·60-0·92], p=0·0073). Similar results were noted for all patients with adenocarcinoma histology (322 patients in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group and 336 in the docetaxel plus placebo group; median overall survival 12·6 months [95% CI 10·6-15·1] vs 10·3 months [95% CI 8·6-12·2]; HR 0·83 [95% CI 0·70-0·99], p=0·0359), but not in the total study population (median 10·1 months [95% CI 8·8-11·2] vs 9·1 months [8·4-10·4]; HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·83-1·05, p=0·2720). Grade 3 or worse adverse events that were more common in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group than in the docetaxel plus placebo group were diarrhoea (43 [6·6%] of 652 vs 17 [2·6%] of 655), reversible increases in alanine aminotransferase (51 [7·8%] vs six [0·9%]), and reversible increases in aspartate aminotransferase (22 [3·4%] vs three [0·5%]). 35 patients in the docetaxel plus nintedanib group and 25 in the docetaxel plus placebo group died of adverse events possibly unrelated to disease progression; the most common of these events were sepsis (five with docetaxel plus nintedanib vs one with docetaxel plus placebo), pneumonia (two vs seven), respiratory failure (four vs none), and pulmonary embolism (none vs three). INTERPRETATION: Nintedanib in combination with docetaxel is an effective second-line option for patients with advanced NSCLC previously treated with one line of platinum-based therapy, especially for patients with adenocarcinoma. FUNDING: Boehringer Ingelheim.

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.

Visceral fat and clinical outcome in patients receiving first-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Visceral fat produces angiogenic factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor that promote tumoral growth. However, its influence on outcome for patients with advanced cancer treated with anti-angiogenic agents is controversial. AIMS: The aim of this study was to determine whether visceral fat volume, visceral fat area and body mass index are associated with outcome in patients receiving first-line bevacizumab-based treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: This multicenter prospective study included 103 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who received first-line bevacizumab-based chemotherapy. Computed tomography was used to measure visceral fat volume and visceral fat area. Endpoints were tumoral response at 2 months, progression free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: Visceral fat volume and visceral fat area, but not body mass index, were significantly associated with better outcome. Using sex-specific median values progression free survival was significantly longer in patients with high visceral fat volume (13.2 versus 9.4 months; p = 0.0043). In the same way, high visceral fat volume and visceral fat area were associated with a significantly better overall survival: 31.3 versus 20.5 months (p = 0.0072) and 29.3 versus 20.5 months (p = 0.0078), respectively. By multivariate analysis, visceral fat volume was associated with longer progression free survival and overall survival. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a high visceral fat volume is associated with better outcome in patients receiving first-line bevacizumab-based chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Prognostic value of liver metastases in colorectal cancer treated by systemic therapy: An ARCAD pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: The liver is the most frequent site of metastases in colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to assess the response rate and survival outcomes in metastatic CRC patients with non-liver metastases (NLM) compared to those with liver metastases (LM) across different lines of treatment. METHODS: A total of 17,924 mCRC patients included in 26 trials from the ARCAD CRC database were analyzed. The analysis was conducted based on the presence or absence of LM across different treatment groups: chemotherapy (CT) alone, CT + anti-VEGF, CT + anti-EGFR in KRAS wild-type tumors, within the first-line (1 L) and second-line (2 L), and patients enrolled in third-line (≥3 L) trials treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib or placebo. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Out of the 17,924 patients, 14,066 had LM (30.6 % with only liver involvement and 69.4 % with liver and other metastatic sites), while 3858 patients had NLM. In the CT alone and CT + anti-VEGF subgroups, NLM patients showed better OS and PFS in the 1 L and 2 L settings. However, in the CT + anti-EGFR 1 L and 2 L subgroups, there was no significant difference in OS and PFS between NLM and LM patients. In the ≥ 3 L subgroups, better OS and PFS were observed in NLM patients. ORRs were higher in LM patients than in NLM patients across all cohorts treated in the 1 L and only in the anti-EGFR cohort in the 2 L. CONCLUSION: LM is a poor prognostic factor for mCRC increasing from 1 L to ≥ 3 L except for patients in 1 L and 2 L receiving CT+anti-EGFR. These data justify using LM as a stratification factor in future trials for patients with unresectable mCRC.

Multi-Institutional Randomized Phase II Trial of Gefitinib for Previously Treated Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of two doses of gefitinib (Iressa [ZD1839]; AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE), a novel epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in patients with pretreated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multicenter phase II trial. Two hundred ten patients with advanced NSCLC who were previously treated with one or two chemotherapy regimens (at least one containing platinum) were randomized to receive either 250-mg or 500-mg oral doses of gefitinib once daily. RESULTS: Efficacy was similar for the 250- and 500-mg/d groups. Objective tumor response rates were 18.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.5 to 27.3) and 19.0% (95% CI, 12.1 to 27.9); among evaluable patients, symptom improvement rates were 40.3% (95% CI, 28.5 to 53.0) and 37.0% (95% CI, 26.0 to 49.1); median progression-free survival times were 2.7 and 2.8 months; and median overall survival times were 7.6 and 8.0 months, respectively. Symptom improvements were recorded for 69.2% (250 mg/d) and 85.7% (500 mg/d) of patients with a tumor response. Adverse events (AEs) at both dose levels were generally mild (grade 1 or 2) and consisted mainly of skin reactions and diarrhea. Drug-related toxicities were more frequent in the higher-dose group. Withdrawal due to drug-related AEs was 1.9% and 9.4% for patients receiving gefitinib 250 and 500 mg/d, respectively. CONCLUSION: Gefitinib showed clinically meaningful antitumor activity and provided symptom relief as second- and third-line treatment in these patients. At 250 mg/d, gefitinib had a favorable AE profile. Gefitinib 250 mg/d is an important, novel treatment option for patients with pretreated advanced NSCLC.

Evaluation of Intratumoral Response Heterogeneity in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and Its Impact on Patient Overall Survival: Findings from 10,551 Patients in the ARCAD Database.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a heterogeneous disease that can evoke discordant responses to therapy among different lesions in individual patients. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria do not take into consideration response heterogeneity. We explored and developed lesion-based measurement response criteria to evaluate their prognostic effect on overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled in 17 first-line clinical trials, who had mCRC with ≥ 2 lesions at baseline, and a restaging scan by 12 weeks were included. For each patient, lesions were categorized as a progressing lesion (PL: > 20% increase in the longest diameter (LD)), responding lesion (RL: > 30% decrease in LD), or stable lesion (SL: neither PL nor RL) based on the 12-week scan. Lesion-based response criteria were defined for each patient as follows: PL only, SL only, RL only, and varied responses (mixture of RL, SL, and PL). Lesion-based response criteria and OS were correlated using stratified multivariable Cox models. The concordance between OS and classifications was measured using the C statistic. RESULTS: Among 10,551 patients with mCRC from 17 first-line studies, varied responses were noted in 51.6% of patients, among whom, 3.3% had RL/PL at 12 weeks. Among patients with RL/SL, 52% had stable disease (SD) by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (median OS (mOS) = 19.9 months) than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.76, 0.85), p < 0.001), although a shorter OS than those with RL only (mOS = 25.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.42 (1.32, 1.53), p < 0.001). Among patients with SL/PL, 74% had SD by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (mOS = 9.0 months) than those with PL only (mOS = 8.0 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.75 (0.57, 0.98), p = 0.040), yet a shorter OS than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.98 (1.80, 2.18), p < 0.001). These associations were consistent across treatment regimen subgroups. The lesion-based response criteria showed slightly higher concordance than RECIST 1.1, although it was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Varied responses at first restaging are common among patients receiving first-line therapy for mCRC. Our lesion-based measurement criteria allowed for better mortality discrimination, which could potentially be informative for treatment decision-making and influence patient outcomes.

Multifactorial pharmacogenetic analysis in colorectal cancer patients receiving 5-fluorouracil-based therapy together with cetuximab-irinotecan.

AIM: To examine the predictive value of gene polymorphisms potentially linked to toxicity, clinical response, time to progression and overall survival, following cetuximab-tegafur-uracil (UFT)-irinotecan therapy. METHODS: Fifty-two patients with advanced colorectal cancer were enrolled in an ancillary pharmacogenetic study of the phase II CETUFTIRI trial. Treatment consisted of 21 day cycles of cetuximab (day 1-day 8-day 15, 250 mg m(-2) week(-1) following a 400 mg m(-2) initial dose) together with irinotecan (day 1, 250 mg m(-2)) and UFT-folinic acid (days 1-14, 250 mg m(-2) day(-1) UFT, 90 mg day(-1) folinic acid). Analysed gene polymorphisms (blood DNA) were as follows: EGFR (CA repeats in intron 1, -216G>T, -191C>A), EGF (61A>G), FCGR2A (131Arg>His), FCGR3A (158Phe>Val), UDP-glycosyltransferase1-polypeptide A1 (TA repeats), TYMS (28 bp repeats, including the G>C mutation on the 3R allele, 6 bp deletion in 3' UTR) and MTHFR (677C>T, 1298A>C). RESULTS: Maximum toxicity grade was linked to EGFR-191C>A polymorphism, with 71.1% grade 3-4 toxicity in CC patients vs. 28.6% in other patients (P= 0.010). A tendency to a better response was observed in patients bearing the TYMS 3RG allele (P= 0.029) and those bearing the FCGR3A 158Val genotype (P= 0.020). The greater the score of favourable TYMS and FCGR3A genotypes, the better the response rate (P= 0.009) and the longer the overall survival (P= 0.007). In multivariate analysis, the score of favourable genotypes was a stronger survival predictor than the performance status. CONCLUSIONS: Present data suggest the importance of FCGR3A 158Phe>Val and TYMS 5' UTR polymorphisms in responsiveness and survival of patients receiving cetuximab-fluoropyrimidine-based therapy.

Toward Improved Outcomes for Patients With Lung Cancer Globally: The Essential Role of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine.

PURPOSE: Key to achieving better population-based outcomes for patients with lung cancer is the improvement of medical imaging and nuclear medicine infrastructure globally. This paper aims to outline why and spark relevant health systems strengthening. METHODS: The paper synthesizes the global lung cancer landscape, imaging referral guidelines (including resource-stratified ones), the reliance of TNM staging upon imaging, relevant multinational health technology assessments, and precisely how treatment selection and in turn patient outcomes hinge upon imaging findings. The final discussion presents data on current global gaps in both diagnostics (including imaging) and therapies and how, informed by such data, improved population-based outcomes are tangible through strategic planning. RESULTS: Imaging findings are central to appropriate lung cancer patient management and can variably lead to life-prolonging interventions and/or to life-enhancing palliative measures. Early-stage lung cancer can be treated with curative intent but, unfortunately, most patients with lung cancer still present at advanced stages and many patients lack access to both diagnostics and therapies. Furthermore, half of lung cancer cases occur in low- and middle-income countries. The role of medical imaging and nuclear medicine in lung cancer management, as outlined herein, may help inform strategic planning. CONCLUSION: Lung cancer is the number one cancer killer worldwide. The essential role that medical imaging and nuclear medicine play in early diagnosis and disease staging cannot be overstated, pivotal in selecting the many patients for whom measurably improved outcomes are attainable. Prevention synergized with patient-centered, compassionate, high-quality lung cancer management provision mandate that strategic population-based planning, including universal health coverage strategies, should extend well beyond the scope of disease prevention to include both curative and noncurative treatment options for the millions afflicted with lung cancer.

Efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer ≥ 70 years.

PURPOSE: Colorectal cancer (CRC) affects many older adults. We investigated the efficacy and safety of adding anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agents to doublet chemotherapy (DC) in older patients. METHODS: Patients with RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic CRC (mCRC) receiving first-line DC + anti-EGFR (n = 1191) or DC alone (n = 729) from seven trials in the Aide de Recherche en Cancerologie Digestive database were included. The prognostic and predictive effects of age were investigated. Progression-free and overall survival (OS) were evaluated between age groups (≥70 vs <70) for DC + anti-EGFR. In addition, outcomes were compared between DC+/-anti-EGFR within age groups in three trials with a DC alone arm. Subsequently, the same analysis was conducted for left-sided tumours. Adverse events grade ≥3 (G3+) were compared between age groups. RESULTS: Older (vs younger) patients receiving DC + anti-EGFR had similar progression-free survival (PFS) (8.7 vs 10.3 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.20 [0.96-1.49];p = 0.107) but inferior OS (21.3 vs 26.3; HR = 1.36 [1.08-1.72];p = 0.011). DC + anti-EGFR (vs DC alone) improved OS (23.9 vs 20.3; HR = 0.82 [0.70-0.95];p = 0.008) and PFS (11.2 vs 8.9; HR = 0.70 [0.60-0.82];p < 0.001) in younger but not older patients: OS (24.7 vs 17.6; HR [95% confidence interval {CI}] = 0.77 [0.58-1.04];p = 0.092) and PFS (9.1 vs 8.7; HR [95% CI] = 0.85[0.63-1.15];p = 0.287). In left-sided 'only' tumours, the following outcomes for older (vs younger) patients were observed. For DC + anti-EGFR, PFS 9 versus 11.2 months; HR1.10 (95% CI 0.83-1.46); p = 0.52, OS 25.6 vs 30.3 HR 1.32 (95% CI 0.97-1.79), p = 0.086. For DC + anti-EGFR (vs DC alone), PFS and OS for younger patients were 11.9 vs 9.2 months HR 0.60 (95% CI 0.47-0.78) p < 0.001 and 24.1 versus 23.3 months HR 0.84 (95% CI 0.67-1.04), respectively. For older patients, PFS and OS were 13.1 versus 8.5 months, HR 0.51 (95% CI, 0.28-0.93), P = 0.027 and 26.3 versus 16.5 months HR 0.49 (95% CI, 0.28-0.85), respectively. There was no significant difference in toxicity among different age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Older (vs younger) patients with mCRC RAS WT patients had comparable toxicity and efficacy with the addition of anti-EGFR agents to chemotherapy.

Capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

A regimen consisting of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6) is widely used in France in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). The aim of our study was to demonstrate the non-inferiority of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) versus FOLFOX-6 for this indication. Patients were randomly assigned to receive XELOX or FOLFOX-6 for 6 months. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) in the per-protocol (PP) population; however, progression-free and overall survival (OS), time to response and response duration were also assessed. A total of 306 patients were enrolled (XELOX n = 156; FOLFOX-6 n = 150). ORR was 42 and 46% with XELOX and FOLFOX-6, respectively, in the PP population. The difference between groups was 4.7%; the upper limit of the unilateral 95% confidence interval (14.4%) was below the non-inferiority margin of 15%. In the intent-to-treat population, median progression-free survival was 8.8 months with XELOX and 9.3 months with FOLFOX-6, and median OS was 19.9 and 20.5 months, respectively. XELOX patients had significantly more grade 3/4 thrombocytopenia (12% vs. 5%) and diarrhoea (14% vs. 7%), but significantly less grade 3/4 neutropenia (5% vs. 47%), febrile neutropenia (0% vs. 6%) and neuropathy (11% vs. 26%) than FOLFOX-6 patients. We conclude that XELOX is non-inferior in terms of efficacy to FOLFOX-6 in the first-line treatment of MCRC, but has a different toxicity profile.

Mechanism-related circulating proteins as biomarkers for clinical outcome in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma receiving sunitinib.

BACKGROUND: Several proteins that promote angiogenesis are overexpressed in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and have been implicated in disease pathogenesis. Sunitinib has antiangiogenic activity and is an oral multitargeted inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs)-1, -2, and -3, platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFRs)-α and -ß, stem-cell factor receptor (KIT), and other tyrosine kinases. In a phase II study of sunitinib in advanced HCC, we evaluated the plasma pharmacodynamics of five proteins related to the mechanism of action of sunitinib and explored potential correlations with clinical outcome. METHODS: Patients with advanced HCC received a starting dose of sunitinib 50 mg/day administered orally for 4 weeks on treatment, followed by 2 weeks off treatment. Plasma samples from 37 patients were obtained at baseline and during treatment and were analyzed for vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-A, VEGF-C, soluble VEGFR-2 (sVEGFR-2), soluble VEGFR-3 (sVEGFR-3), and soluble KIT (sKIT). RESULTS: At the end of the first sunitinib treatment cycle, plasma VEGF-A levels were significantly increased relative to baseline, while levels of plasma VEGF-C, sVEGFR-2, sVEGFR-3, and sKIT were significantly decreased. Changes from baseline in VEGF-A, sVEGFR-2, and sVEGFR-3, but not VEGF-C or sKIT, were partially or completely reversed during the first 2-week off-treatment period. High levels of VEGF-C at baseline were significantly associated with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-defined disease control, prolonged time to tumor progression (TTP), and prolonged overall survival (OS). Baseline VEGF-C levels were an independent predictor of TTP by multivariate analysis. Changes from baseline in VEGF-A and sKIT at cycle 1 day 14 or cycle 2 day 28, and change in VEGF-C at the end of the first off-treatment period, were significantly associated with both TTP and OS, while change in sVEGFR-2 at cycle 1 day 28 was an independent predictor of OS. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline plasma VEGF-C levels predicted disease control (based on RECIST) and were positively associated with both TTP and OS in this exploratory analysis, suggesting that this VEGF family member may have utility in predicting clinical outcome in patients with HCC who receive sunitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00247676.

A Phase II, open-label, randomised study to assess the efficacy and safety of the MEK1/2 inhibitor AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) versus capecitabine monotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer who have failed one or two prior chemotherapeutic regimens.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of the MEK1/2 inhibitor AZD6244 (ARRY-142886) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who had failed one or two previous chemotherapeutic regimens that included oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan. METHODS: This was a Phase II, multicentre, open-label, randomised, two-arm, parallel-group study comparing AZD6244 with capecitabine monotherapy. Patients received either 100 mg twice daily oral AZD6244 free-base suspension every day or 1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily oral capecitabine, for 2 weeks, followed by a 1-week rest period, in 3-weekly cycles. The primary endpoint was the number of patients experiencing disease progression events. RESULTS: Sixty-nine patients were randomised in the study (34 and 35 patients in the AZD6244 and capecitabine groups, respectively). Disease progression events were experienced by 28 patients (~80%) in both the AZD6244 and capecitabine treatment groups. Median progression-free survival was 81 days and 88 days in the AZD6244 and capecitabine groups, respectively. Ten patients in the AZD6244 treatment arm had a best response of stable disease. For capecitabine, best response was a partial response in one patient, with stable disease in a further 15 patients. The most frequently observed adverse events reported with AZD6244 were acneiform dermatitis, diarrhoea, asthenia and peripheral oedema, compared with hand-foot syndrome, diarrhoea, nausea and abdominal pain with capecitabine. CONCLUSIONS: AZD6244 showed similar efficacy to capecitabine in terms of the number of patients with a disease progression event and of progression-free survival. AZD6244 is currently undergoing evaluation in Phase II trials in combination with other chemotherapeutic agents.

[Efficacy and safety of gefitinib or docetaxel in Chinese patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous platinum-based first-line chemotherapy].

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of gefitinib or docetaxel in Chinese patients with locally advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had failed previous platinum-based first-line chemotherapy. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 222 Chinese NSCLC patients in the subgroup of INTEREST (gefitinib versus docetaxel in previously treated non-small cell lung cancer) study. Survival analysis was evaluated by Kaplan-Meier method, and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) was used to compare the quality of life between gefitinib group and docetaxel group. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients were analyzed in this subgroup study. 107 patients were treated with gefitinib, and 115 patients treated with docetaxel. There were all balanced between the two groups in terms of sex, age, staging and pathology in patient characteristics. The median overall survival in the two groups was similar (11 months in the gefitinib group vs. 14.0 months in the docetaxel group, P = 0.783). The progression-free survival (PFS) was also similar between the two groups (median PFS: 3.4 months in gefitinib group vs. 3.8 months in docetaxel group, P = 0.214). The response rate in gefitinib group was significantly higher than that in the docetaxel group (21.9% vs. 9.1%, P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: The efficacy of gefitinib is similar with that of docetaxel in pretreated patients with locally advanced or metastatic NSCLC, however, gefitinib is more favorable in the tolerance and quality of life improvement.

The Global Landscape of Treatment Standards for Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) is a leading cause of morbidity, mortality, and disability for women worldwide. There is substantial variation in treatment outcomes, which is function of multiple variables, including access to treatment. Treatment standards can promote quality and improve survival; thus, their development should be a priority for the cancer-control planning. METHODS: We extracted the guidelines for the treatment of BC from a systematic review of the literature. We evaluated the development process, the methodology, and the recommendations formulated and surveyed the country resource stratification. Metrics of health-system capacity were selected to study the guidelines context appropriateness. RESULTS: We analyzed 49 distinct guidelines for BC, mostly in English language (n = 23), developed in upper-middle and high-income countries of the European and American regions (n = 39). A resource-stratified approach was identified in a quarter of the guidelines (n = 11), mostly from resource-constrained settings. Only one-half of the guidelines reached a gender balance of the authorship, and 10.2% were based on a multidisciplinary steering committee. A number of efforts and solutions of resource adaptations were recognized, mostly in low- and middle-income countries. Overall, the national guidelines appeared not sensitive enough of the local health-system capacity in formulating recommendations, with possible exception for the radiation therapy availability. CONCLUSION: This global landscape of treatment standards for BC demonstrates that the majority is not context appropriate. Research on the formulation of cancer treatment standards is highly warranted, along with novel platforms for developing and disseminating resource-appropriate guidance.