Quality of life and outcome of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy with nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine: Real-life results from the prospective QOLIXANE trial of the Platform for Outcome, Quality of Life and Translational Research on Pancreatic Cancer registry.

Few data exist on health-related quality of life (QoL) in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) receiving first-line chemotherapy (Awad L ZE, Mesbah M Boston, MA. Applying survival data methodology to analyze quality of life data, in Mesbah M, Cole BF, Ting Lee M-L (eds): Statistical Methods for Quality of Life Studies: Design, Measurements and Analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002). The QOLIXANE study is a prospective, noninterventional, multicenter substudy of the Platform for Outcome, Quality of Life and Translational Research on Pancreatic Cancer (PARAGON) registry, which evaluated QoL in patients with mPC receiving first-line gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel chemotherapy in real-life setting. QoL was prospectively measured via EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires at baseline and every month thereafter. Therapy and efficacy parameters were prospectively collected. Main objectives were the rate of patients without deterioration of Global Health Status/QoL (GHS/QoL) at 3 and 6 months. Six hundred patients were enrolled in 95 German study sites. Median progression-free survival was 5.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2-6.3). Median overall survival (OS) was 8.9 months (95% CI, 7.9-10.2), while median time to deterioration of GHS/QoL was 4.7 months (95% CI, 4.0-5.6). With a baseline GHS/QoL score of 46 (SD, 22.8), baseline QoL of the patients was severely impaired, in most cases due to loss in role functioning and fatigue. In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, 61% and 41% of patients had maintained GHS/QoL after 3 and 6 months, respectively. However, in the QoL response analysis, 35% and 19% of patients had maintained (improved or stable) GHS/QoL after 3 and 6 months, respectively, while 14% and 9% had deteriorated GHS/QoL with the remaining patients being nonevaluable. In the Cox regression analysis, GHS/QoL scores strongly predicted survival with a hazard ratio of 0.86 (P < .0001). Patients with mPC have poor QoL at baseline that deteriorates within a median of 4.7 months. Treatment with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel is associated with maintained QoL in relevant proportions of patients. However, overall, results remain poor, reflecting the aggressive nature of the disease.

Adding cetuximab to paclitaxel and carboplatin for first-line treatment of carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP): results of the Phase 2 AIO trial PACET-CUP.

BACKGROUND: Patients with carcinoma of unknown primary (CUP) have a dismal prognosis, even when treated with multi-agent chemotherapy. We hypothesised that adding the epidermal growth-factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor cetuximab to standard first-line chemotherapy with paclitaxel and carboplatin would improve PFS and RR in unfavourable CUP. METHODS: This open-labelled, multicentre Phase 2 study included patients with unfavourable, untreated adeno- or undifferentiated CUP. Patients were randomised to receive either paclitaxel/carboplatin (group A) or paclitaxel/carboplatin plus cetuximab (group B) every 3 weeks for a maximum of 6 cycles followed by cetuximab maintenance in group B. The primary endpoint was PFS in the two groups. Secondary endpoints were RR, toxicity and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: One-hundred-and-fifty patients were randomised (group A = 72, group B = 78). The median PFS and OS for all patients were 3.8 and 8.1 months (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.9-4.8 and 6.8-9.5). There was no significant difference in PFS (3.7 vs 4.6 months, HR 0.98) or OS (8.1 vs 7.4, HR 1.1) between the two treatment groups. Response rate tended to be better for chemotherapy plus cetuximab compared to chemotherapy alone (22% vs 15%). Adverse events grade ≥3 were comparable between the two groups, except for significantly increased skin toxicity in the cetuximab arm. CONCLUSIONS: Cetuximab plus paclitaxel/carboplatin did not improve PFS, OS and RR in metastatic CUP compared to paclitaxel/carboplatin alone. Addition of cetuximab resulted in additional skin toxicity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00894569.

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.

Ramucirumab, Avelumab, and Paclitaxel as Second-Line Treatment in Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma: The Phase 2 RAP (AIO-STO-0218) Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: Adding immune checkpoint inhibitors to chemotherapy has been associated with improved outcomes in metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma, but treatment combinations and optimal patient selection need to be established. Objective: To investigate the efficacy and tolerability of the programmed cell death ligand 1 (PDL-1) inhibitor avelumab with paclitaxel plus ramucirumab. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, single-group, phase 2 nonrandomized controlled trial was conducted among patients with second-line metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Patients pretreated with platinum plus fluoropyrimidine between April 2019 and November 2020 across 10 German centers (median follow-up, 27.4 months [95% CI 22.0-32.9 months]) were included. Data analysis was performed from January to December 2022. Interventions: Patients received ramucirumab at 8 mg/kg on days 1 and 15, avelumab at 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15, and paclitaxel at 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary end point was overall survival (OS) rate at 6 months, with the experimental therapy considered insufficiently active with an OS rate of 50% or less and a promising candidate with an OS rate of 65% or greater. Results: Of 60 enrolled patients, 59 patients (median [range] age, 64 [18-81] years; 47 males [70.7%]) were evaluable, including 30 patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach and 29 patients with gastroesophageal junction. All patients were pretreated with platinum plus fluoropyrimidine, and 40 patients (67.8%) had received prior taxanes; 24 of 56 evaluable patients (42.9%) had a PDL-1 combined positive score (CPS) of 5 or greater, centrally assessed. The OS rate at 6 months was 71.2% (95% CI, 61.5%-83.7%). The median OS in the intention-to-treat population (59 patients) was 10.6 months (95% CI, 8.4-12.8 months) overall. Among patients assessable by central pathology, median OS was 9.4 months (95% CI, 7.2-11.7 months) in 32 patients with a PDL-1 CPS less than 5 and 14.0 months (95% CI, 6.0-22.1 months) in 24 patients with a PDL-1 CPS of 5 or greater (P = .25). Treatment was generally well tolerated, without unexpected toxicities. Patients with higher vs lower than median T cell repertoire richness showed an increased median OS of 20.4 months (95% CI, 7.7-33.0 months) compared with 8.3 months (95% CI, 3.7-12.9 months; hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23-0.81; P = .008). Patients with lower vs higher than median cell-free DNA burden had a median OS of 19.2 months (95% CI, 8.9-29.6 months) compared with 7.3 months (95% CI, 3.2-11.4 months; hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.16-0.59; P < .001). Conclusions and relevance: In this study, the combination of avelumab with paclitaxel plus ramucirumab showed favorable efficacy and tolerability in the second-line treatment for metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma. A PDL-1 CPS score of 5 or greater, cell-free DNA level less than the median, and T cell repertoire richness greater than the median were associated with increased median OS. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03966118.

Nanoliposomal irinotecan and fluorouracil plus leucovorin versus fluorouracil plus leucovorin in patients with cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder carcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapies (AIO NALIRICC): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is an unmet need for effective therapies in pretreated advanced biliary tract cancer. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of nanoliposomal irinotecan and fluorouracil plus leucovorin compared with fluorouracil plus leucovorin as second-line treatment for biliary tract cancer. METHODS: NALIRICC was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial done in 17 German centres for patients aged 18 years or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, metastatic biliary tract cancer, and progression on gemcitabine-based therapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous infusions of nanoliposomal irinotecan (70 mg/m2), fluorouracil (2400 mg/m2), and leucovorin (400 mg/m2) every 2 weeks (nanoliposomal irinotecan group) or fluorouracil (2400 mg/m2) plus leucovorin (400 mg/m2) every 2 weeks (control group). Randomisation was by permutated block randomisation in block sizes of four, stratified by primary tumour site. Investigator-assessed progression-free survival was the primary endpoint, which was evaluated in all randomly assigned patients. Secondary efficacy outcomes were overall survival, objective response rate, and quality of life. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of the study treatment. Enrolment for this trial has been completed, and it is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03043547. FINDING: Between Dec 4, 2017, and Aug 2, 2021, 49 patients were randomly assigned to the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 51 patients to the control group. Median age was 65 years (IQR 59-71); 45 (45%) of 100 patients were female. Median progression-free survival was 2·6 months (95% CI 1·7-3·6) in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 2·3 months (1·6-3·4) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·87 [0·56-1·35]). Median overall survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 5·3-10·6) in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 8·2 months (5·4-11·9) in the control group (HR 1·08 [0·68-1·72]). The objective response rate was 14% (95% CI 6-27; seven patients) in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 4% (1-14; two patients) in the control group. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group were neutropenia (eight [17%] of 48 vs none in the control group), diarrhoea (seven [15%] vs one [2%]), and nausea (four [8%] vs none). In the control group, the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were cholangitis (four [8%] patients vs none in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group) and bile duct stenosis (four [8%] vs three [6%]). Treatment-related serious adverse events occurred in 16 (33%) patients in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group (grade 2-3 diarrhoea in five patients; one case each of abdominal infection, acute kidney injury, pancytopenia, increased blood bilirubin, colitis, dehydration, dyspnoea, infectious enterocolitis, ileus, oral mucositis, and nausea). One (2%) treatment-related serious adverse event occurred in the control group (worsening of general condition). Median duration until deterioration of global health status, characterised by the time from randomisation to the initial observation of a score decline exceeding 10 points, was 4·0 months (95% CI 2·2-not reached) in the nanoliposomal irinotecan group and 3·7 months (2·7-not reached) in the control group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of nanoliposomal irinotecan to fluorouracil plus leucovorin did not improve progression-free survival or overall survival and was associated with higher toxicity compared with fluorouracil plus leucovorin. Further research is necessary to define the role of irinotecan-based combinations in second-line treatment of biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: Servier and AIO-Studien.

Perioperative Atezolizumab Plus Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, Oxaliplatin, and Docetaxel for Resectable Esophagogastric Cancer: Interim Results From the Randomized, Multicenter, Phase II/III DANTE/IKF-s633 Trial.

PURPOSE: This trial evaluates the addition of the PD-L1 antibody atezolizumab (ATZ) to standard-of-care fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) as a perioperative treatment for patients with resectable esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (EGA). METHODS: DANTE started as multicenter, randomized phase II trial, which was subsequently converted to a phase III trial. Here, we present the results of the phase II proportion, focusing on surgical pathology and safety outcomes on an exploratory basis. Patients with resectable EGA (≥cT2 or cN+) were assigned to either four preoperative and postoperative cycles of FLOT combined with ATZ, followed by eight cycles of ATZ maintenance (arm A) or FLOT alone (arm B). RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-five patients were randomly assigned (A, 146; B, 149) with balanced baseline characteristics between arms. Twenty-three patients (8%) had tumors with microsatellite instability (MSI), and 58% patients had tumors with a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of ≥1. Surgical morbidity (A, 45%; B, 42%) and 60-day mortality (A, 3%; B, 2%) were comparable between arms. Downstaging favored arm A versus arm B (ypT0, 23% v 15% [one-sided P = .044]; ypT0-T2, 61% v 48% [one-sided P = .015]; ypN0, 68% v 54% [one-sided P = .012]). Histopathologic complete regression rates (pathologic complete response or TRG1a) were higher after FLOT plus ATZ (A, 24%; B, 15%; one-sided P = .032), and the difference was more pronounced in the PD-L1 CPS ≥10 (A, 33%; B, 12%) and MSI (A, 63%; B, 27%) subpopulations. Complete margin-free (R0) resection rates were relatively high in both arms (A, 96%; B, 95%). The incidence and severity of adverse events were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the exploratory nature of the data, the addition of ATZ to perioperative FLOT is safe and improved postoperative stage and histopathologic regression.

Capecitabine and bevacizumab for non-resectable metastatic colorectal cancer patients: final results from phase II AIO KRK 0105 trial.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend treatment with capecitabine and bevacizumab for patients (pts) with non-resectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), although clinical data in this particular patient group are lacking. METHODS: Previously untreated patients with non-resectable mCRC were to receive capecitabine (1,250 mg/sqm bid d1-14 oral) and bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg i.v.) every 3 weeks. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints include overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR) and toxicity. RESULTS: 82 pts were included: 40 female, median age 70 (range 50-86). ECOG PS 0/1/2 was 38/52/10%, respectively. Synchronous metastases were present in 58 pts. 16 pts had primary tumor in situ. Median treatment duration was 4.1 months (6 cycles). Toxicity was generally mild. ORR was 38%, with 5 complete and 23 partial responses. Median PFS was 7.0 months [95% CI (5.0-9.1)] and OS 17.9 months [95% CI (14.6-21.6)]. Second- and third-line systemic therapy was given to 57% and 33% of pts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Besides the favourable tolerability, PFS and OS were shorter than reported by other trials. Careful patient selection for upfront capecitabine and bevacizumab is essential.

Anticoagulation Therapy in Cancer Patients with Thrombosis in the Outpatient Sector of Germany (The CERTIFICAT Initiative)-German Practice of Anticoagulation Therapy of Cancer Patients with Thrombosis.

OBJECTIVE: This article aims to investigate the reality of anticoagulation treatment for cancer patients with thrombosis in the outpatient sector of Germany. METHODS: For the analysis period 2012 to 2015, anonymized data from 4.1 million statutory insured patients were analyzed. Cancer patients with incident thrombosis and an outpatient prescription of anticoagulant drugs were identified and evaluated for three subsequent quarters with regard to anticoagulant use. RESULTS: A total of 7,313 cancer patients with incident thrombosis (ICD-10: I80*) were evaluated. About, 90% of patients with thromboses were diagnosed and treated in the ambulatory sector. More than 80% of the prescriptions were issued by general practitioners. And 57% of patients were anticoagulated predominantly (>50% of the time) with different low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs), 24% predominantly with vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), and 17% with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs). Anticoagulants were prescribed for an average of 4.5 months. LMWH had a substantially longer prescription period (90-135 days) than VKA (53 days) or DOAC (47 days). Gastrointestinal bleeding in conjunction with hospitalization was documented in 1.76% of patients with a range of 1.3 to 3% for the different LMWHs. CONCLUSION: The prescription practice documented by this representative and comprehensive evaluation demonstrates an anticoagulation duration in accordance with the guidelines, although the choice of the respective anticoagulant was often not in compliance with the contemporary label or guidelines.

Prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia with lipegfilgrastim in patients with lung cancer: final results from the non-interventional study NADIR.

OBJECTIVE: Real-world evidence on the application of the granulocyte colony-stimulating factor lipegfilgrastim for the reduction of chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) is limited. The NADIR study aimed to evaluate effectiveness and safety of lipegfilgrastim as primary or secondary prophylaxis in patients with lung cancer undergoing chemotherapy in routine clinical practice. METHODS: The non-interventional study NADIR (German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) Number DRKS00005711) enrolled 156 patients with small-cell lung cancer (SCLC) and 145 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), who received lipegfilgrastim during chemotherapy. Primary endpoint was the incidence of severe neutropenia (CTCAE grade 3/4) and FN. The analysis was stratified for age groups (≤65 years vs. >65 years). RESULTS: Approximately half of the patients were aged >65 years (SCLC 54.5%; NSCLC 46.9%). Intention of antineoplastic treatment was mostly palliative (SCLC 89.1%; NSCLC 73.1%). Patients with high FN risk (SCLC 44.9%; NSCLC 28.3%) mostly received lipegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis (SCLC 81.4%; NSCLC 70.7%). FN was reported in 1.9% SCLC and 1.4% NSCLC patients. At least one severe neutropenia was documented in 30.1% SCLC and 17.9% NSCLC patients. For NSCLC patients aged >65 years, less severe neutropenia was reported as compared to younger patients (14.7% vs. 20.8%). Lipegfilgrastim-related adverse events were reported in 10.3% SCLC and 7.7% NSCLC patients. CONCLUSION: Lipegfilgrastim in routine clinical practice of patients with lung cancer showed similar effectiveness and safety as compared to the pivotal trial. Interestingly, in older patients severe neutropenia was reported less frequently. While most patients with high FN risk received lipegfilgrastim for primary prophylaxis as recommended, there are still 20-30% of patients at high FN risk without primary prophylaxis who could benefit from better adherence to guidelines.

Panitumumab Plus Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid Versus Fluorouracil and Folinic Acid Alone as Maintenance Therapy in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: The Randomized PANAMA Trial (AIO KRK 0212).

PURPOSE: The randomized PANAMA trial investigated the efficacy of panitumumab (Pmab) when added to maintenance therapy with fluorouracil and folinic acid (FU/FA) in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: Following first-line induction therapy with six cycles of FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab, responding patients (stable disease or partial or complete remission) were randomly assigned (1:1, open-label) to maintenance treatment with either FU/FA plus Pmab or FU/FA alone. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of progression-free survival (PFS, time from random assignment until progression or death) in favor of FU/FA plus Pmab with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.75, a power of 80%, and a significance level of 10%. Secondary end points included overall survival, objective response rate of maintenance therapy, and toxicity. Survival end points were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank test and Cox regressions. Dichotomous variables were compared by Fisher's exact test; odds ratios were indicated when appropriate. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01991873). RESULTS: Overall, 248 patients were randomly assigned and received maintenance therapy with either FU/FA plus Pmab (125 patients) or FU/FA alone (123 patients). At data cutoff, with 218 events (of 218 needed), PFS of maintenance therapy was significantly improved with FU/FA plus Pmab (8.8 months v 5.7 months; HR, 0.72; 80% CI, 0.60 to 0.85; P = .014). Overall survival (event rate 54%) numerically favored the FU/FA plus Pmab arm (28.7 months v 25.7 months; HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.18; P = .32). Objective response rates were 40.8% in patients receiving FU/FA plus Pmab versus 26.0% in patients receiving FU/FA alone (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.14 to 3.36; P = .02). The most frequent Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Event grade ≥ 3 event during maintenance therapy was skin rash (7.2%). CONCLUSION: In RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, maintenance therapy with FU/FA plus Pmab induced a significantly superior PFS compared with FU/FA alone. If active maintenance therapy is aspired following induction therapy with FU/FA and oxaliplatin plus Pmab, FU/FA plus Pmab appears to be the most favorable option.

FLOT Versus FLOT/Trastuzumab/Pertuzumab Perioperative Therapy of Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Resectable Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Trial of the AIO EGA Study Group.

PURPOSE: High pathologic complete response (pCR) rates and comparably good survival data were seen in a phase II trial combining perioperative fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) chemotherapy with trastuzumab for resectable, esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (EGA). The current trial evaluates the addition of trastuzumab and pertuzumab to FLOT as perioperative treatment for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive resectable EGA. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized phase II/III trial, patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive, resectable EGA (≥ clinical tumor 2 or clinical nodal-positive) were assigned to four pre- and postoperative cycles of either FLOT alone (arm A) or combined with trastuzumab and pertuzumab, followed by nine cycles of trastuzumab/pertuzumab (arm B). The primary end point for the phase II part was the rate of pCR. RESULTS: The trial was closed prematurely, without transition into phase III, after results of the JACOB trial were reported. Eighty-one patients were randomly assigned (A: 41/B: 40) during the phase II part. The pCR rate was significantly improved with the trastuzumab/pertuzumab treatment (A: 12%/B: 35%; P = .02). Similarly, the rate of pathologic lymph node negativity was higher with trastuzumab/pertuzumab (A: 39%/B: 68%), whereas the R0 resection rate (A: 90%/B: 93%) and surgical morbidity (A: 43%/B: 44%) were comparable. Moreover, the inhouse mortality was equal in both arms (overall 2.5%). The median disease-free survival was 26 months in arm A and not yet reached in arm B (hazard ratio, 0.58; P = .14). After a median follow-up of 22 months, the median overall survival was not yet reached (hazard ratio, 0.56; P = .24). Disease-free survival and overall survival rates at 24 months were 54% (95% CI, 38 to 71) and 77% (95% CI, 63 to 90) in arm A and 70% (95% CI, 55 to 85) and 84% (95% CI, 72 to 96) in arm B, respectively. More ≥ grade 3 adverse events were reported with trastuzumab/pertuzumab, especially diarrhea (A: 5%/B: 41%) and leukopenia (A: 13%/B: 23%). CONCLUSION: The addition of trastuzumab/pertuzumab to perioperative FLOT significantly improved pCR and nodal negativity rates at the price of higher rates of diarrhea and leukopenia.

Efficacy of Ipilimumab vs FOLFOX in Combination With Nivolumab and Trastuzumab in Patients With Previously Untreated ERBB2-Positive Esophagogastric Adenocarcinoma: The AIO INTEGA Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma (EGA), the addition of programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) inhibitors to chemotherapy has improved outcomes in selected patient populations. Objective: To investigate the efficacy of trastuzumab and PD-1 inhibitors with cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4) inhibitors or FOLFOX in first-line treatment of advanced ERBB2-positive EGA. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2 multicenter, outpatient, randomized clinical trial with 2 experimental arms compared with historical control individually was conducted between March 2018 and May 2020 across 21 German sites. The reported results are based on a median follow-up of 14.3 months. Patients with previously untreated, metastatic ERBB2-positive (local immunohistochemistry score of 3+ or 2+/in situ hybridization amplification positive) EGA, adequate organ function, and eligibility for immunotherapy were included. Data analysis was performed from June to September 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized to trastuzumab and nivolumab (1 mg/kg × 4/240 mg for up to 12 months) in combination with mFOLFOX6 (FOLFOX arm) or ipilimumab (3 mg/kg × 4 for up to 12 weeks) (ipilimumab arm). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was survival improvement with a targeted increase of the 12-month overall survival rate from 55% (trastuzumab/chemotherapy-ToGA regimen) to 70% in each arm. Results: A total of 97 patients were enrolled, and 88 were randomized (18 women, 70 men; median [range] age, 61 [41-80] years). Baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status was 0 in 54 patients (61%) and 1 in 34 patients (39%); 66 patients (75%) had EGA localized in the esophagogastric junction and 22 in the stomach (25%). Central post hoc biomarker analysis (84 patients) showed PD-1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) combined positive score of 1 or greater in 59 patients (72%) and 5 or greater in 46 patients (56%) and confirmed ERBB2 positivity in 76 patients. The observed overall survival rate at 12 months was 70% (95% CI, 54%-81%) with FOLFOX and 57% (95% CI, 41%-71%) with ipilimumab. Treatment-related grade 3 or greater adverse events (AEs) and serious AEs occurred in 29 and 15 patients in the FOLFOX arm and in 20 and 17 patients in the ipilimumab arm, respectively, with a higher incidence of autoimmune-related AEs in the ipilimumab arm and neuropathy in the FOLFOX arm. Liquid biopsy analyses showed strong correlation of early cell-free DNA increase with shorter progression-free and overall survival and emergence of truncating and epitope-loss ERBB2 resistance sequence variations with trastuzumab treatment. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, trastuzumab, nivolumab, and FOLFOX showed favorable efficacy compared with historical data and trastuzumab, nivolumab, and ipilimumab in ERBB2-positive EGA. The ipilimumab arm yielded similar OS compared with the ToGA regimen. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03409848.

HER2 Expression, Test Deviations, and Their Impact on Survival in Metastatic Gastric Cancer: Results From the Prospective Multicenter VARIANZ Study.

PURPOSE: Trastuzumab is the only approved targeted drug for first-line treatment of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic gastric cancer (mGC). However, not all patients respond and most eventually progress. The multicenter VARIANZ study aimed to investigate the background of response and resistance to trastuzumab in mGC. METHODS: Patients receiving medical treatment for mGC were prospectively recruited in 35 German sites and followed for up to 48 months. HER2 status was assessed centrally by immunohistochemistry and chromogenic in situ hybridization. In addition, HER2 gene expression was assessed using qPCR. RESULTS: Five hundred forty-eight patients were enrolled, and 77 had HER2+ mGC by central assessment (14.1%). A high deviation rate of 22.7% between central and local test results was seen. Patients who received trastuzumab for centrally confirmed HER2+ mGC (central HER2+/local HER2+) lived significantly longer as compared with patients who received trastuzumab for local HER2+ but central HER2- mGC (20.5 months, n = 60 v 10.9 months, n = 65; hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 8.2 to 14.4; P < .001). In the centrally confirmed cohort, significantly more tumor cells stained HER2+ than in the unconfirmed cohort, and the HER2 amplification ratio was significantly higher. A minimum of 40% HER2+ tumor cells and a HER2 amplification ratio of ≥ 3.0 were calculated as optimized thresholds for predicting benefit from trastuzumab. CONCLUSION: Significant discrepancies in HER2 assessment of mGC were found in tumor specimens with intermediate HER2 expression. Borderline HER2 positivity and heterogeneity of HER2 expression should be considered as resistance factors for HER2-targeting treatment of mGC. HER2 thresholds should be reconsidered. Detailed reports with quantification of HER2 expression and amplification levels may improve selection of patients for HER2-directed treatment.

Preoperative short-course radiotherapy versus combined radiochemotherapy in locally advanced rectal cancer: a multi-centre prospectively randomised study of the Berlin Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND: The additional use of radiotherapy has changed the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) dramatically. But a major achievement has been the development of total mesorectal excision (TME) as a surgical standard and the recognition that the surgeon is the predominant prognostic factor. The benefit of preoperative hypofractionated radiotherapy (SCRT; five fractions each of 5 Gy), initially established by the Swedish Rectal Cancer Trial, has been demonstrated in conjunction with TME by the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group. The concept of combined neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (conventional radiation of about 50 Gy with chemotherapy) has not been compared over surgery alone with TME. However, the German Rectal Cancer Study Group recently demonstrated that preoperative radiochemotherapy (RCT) was better than postoperative radiochemotherapy in terms of local control. METHODS AND DESIGN: Patients with histological proven rectal cancer staged T2N+ or T3 are randomized to receive either SCRT (25 Gy in five fractions of 5 Gy) plus TME-surgery within 5 days or RCT (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions of 1.8 Gy, continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil) plus TME-surgery 4-6 weeks later. All patients receive adjuvant chemotherapy (12 weeks continuous infusional 5-FU) and are followed up for 5 years. TME-quality is independently documented by the surgeon and the pathologist. Hypothesis of the study is that RCT is superior to SCRT in terms of local recurrence after five years. Secondary endpoints are overall survival, disease-free survival, complete resection rate (R0 resection), rate of sphincter saving resection, acute and late toxicity (radiation related side effects), and quality of life (including long term bowel function). DISCUSSION: Similar long-term survival, local control and late morbidity have been reported for both concepts of preoperative therapy in non-comparative studies. In addition to other ongoing (and recently published) comparative trials we include a larger number of patients for adequate power, apply quality-controlled TME and try to avoid the adjuvant treatment bias by mandatory adjuvant chemotherapy in both groups. Further more, stratification of the initially planned surgical procedure and sphincter-preservation will generate valid evidence whether RCT will allow a less aggressive (sphincter saving) surgical approach.

Phase II trial of capecitabine and oxaliplatin in patients with adeno- and undifferentiated carcinoma of unknown primary.

BACKGROUND: Carcinomas of unknown primary (CUP) account for approximately 2-5% of all cancer diagnoses. Except for some subsets with favorable prognosis, for most of these patients treatment options are limited, and no standard first-line regimen has been identified. We performed a phase II study with oxaliplatin (OX) and capecitabine (CAP) as first-line treatment for patients with histo-or cytologically proven adeno- or undifferentiated CUP. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Protocol treatment in this multicenter trial consisted of CAP 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily orally (days 1-14) and OX 130 mg/m(2) intravenously (day 1), repeated every 21 days at a maximum of 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was the response rate (RR). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. RESULTS: 51 patients with CUP (71% with poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma; 41% ECOG performance status (PS) 0, 39% PS 1, 10% PS 2, 55% with elevated lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), and 39% with liver metastases) were enrolled in this study. We observed an objective RR of 11.7% and a median PFS of 2.5 months as well as an OS of 7.5 months with a good toxicity profile. CONCLUSION: CAP/OX did not reach higher RR compared to a standard regimen with paclitaxel/carboplatin, which discourages further investigation of this schedule in CUP.

Oxaliplatin in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin or capecitabine in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the outcome of 140 patients aged > or = 70 years of age who received first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer within the German phase III trial of FUFOX (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin) versus CAPOX (capecitabine/oxaliplatin). PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred forty (30%) elderly patients of 476 total patients were identified, and 138 patients received the CAPOX or FUFOX treatment. RESULTS: Overall, treatment was well tolerated, and grade 3/4 toxicities were similar in both groups, with more gastrointestinal side effects in the elderly group but less neurosensory side effects. The response rate (RR) was comparable between both cohorts (49% in elderly patients vs. 52% in patients aged < 70 years). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.7 months for patients aged > or = 70 years and 7.5 months for patients aged < 70 years (hazard ratio [HR], 1.07; 95% CI, 0.86-1.34). With regard to the chemotherapy regimen, there was no inferiority between FUFOX and CAPOX in patients aged > or = 70 years (7.9 months vs. 7.6 months). The median overall survival (OS) between FUFOX and CAPOX was comparable in patients aged > or = 70 years (14.4 months vs. 14.2 months). However, when compared with patients aged < 70 years, the median OS was significantly shorter (18.8 months vs. 14.4 months; P = 0.013; HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.76). This was consistent with our multivariate analysis, which revealed that age > or = 70 years was a negative factor for OS. CONCLUSION: Oxaliplatin combined with 5-FU/leucovorin or capecitabine was generally well tolerated in elderly patients. Elderly patients had similar PFS and overall RRs compared with the population aged < 70 years, but the OS was shorter.

Misplacement of a Port Catheter: A Differentiated View.

Clinical radiological controls after the insertion of central venous catheters (CVC) are of high importance. Misplacement of the CVC, outside of large vessels, as described in our first case, occurs in more than 7% of cases and may be associated with life-threatening events. A persistent left-sided superior vena cava (PLSSVC) occurs in 0.3-0.5% of the standard population. In one of the cases a CT scan of the chest showed the catheter in a PLSSVC. Neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy was indicated in a patient with an adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus. Under hospitalised monitoring, full-dose chemotherapy was given. Consequences for the patients arise when the findings are known for future interventions. If a PLSSVC is expected and a CVC is to be inserted, the venous return to the heart should be evaluated first, to preclude a possible backflow to the left atrium. With this constellation, a right-to-left shunt can be expected in in 10% of cases. Affected patients face a high risk of developing cardioembolic events.

Docetaxel and continuous-infusion fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil for advanced gastric adenocarcinoma: a randomized phase II study.

PURPOSE: A combination of docetaxel and fluorouracil (DF) was evaluated in an outpatient setting and compared with epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (ECF), which served as an internal control arm to avoid selection bias. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic or locally advanced gastric adenocarcinoma without prior chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive either ECF (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) day 1, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) day 1, and fluorouracil 200 mg/m(2) days 1 through 21, every 3 weeks) or DF (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) day 1, and fluorouracil 200 mg/m(2) days 1 through 21, every 3 weeks). RESULTS: Ninety patients were randomly assigned. Toxicity was rarely severe. Major toxic effects included diarrhea, stomatitis, and leukopenia in the DF arm and nausea, vomiting, and leukopenia in the ECF arm. Forty-three of 45 patients in each arm were assessable. In the DF arm, two patients (4.4%, intent to treat) experienced a confirmed complete tumor remission as best response, and 15 patients (33.3%) experienced a confirmed partial remission (overall response rate [ORR], 37.8%; 95% CI, 25.9% to 51.9%). Two patients (4.4%) in the ECF arm showed confirmed complete remission, and 14 (31.1%) showed confirmed partial remission (ORR, 35.6%; 95% CI, 24.8% to 48.7%). For the DF and ECF arms, the median survival was 9.5 and 9.7 months, and the median time to tumor progression 5.5 and 5.3 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: DF can be safely given in an ambulant setting. Compared with ECF, the dual combination of DF shows promising efficacy and may be an alternative treatment option that avoids cisplatin.

[Recent progress in the treatment of colorectal cancer]. / Jüngste Fortschritte in der Therapie des Kolonkarzinoms.

BACKGROUND: Considerable progress has been made in the treatment of colorectal cancer. Many new results have been presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in May 2005 at Orlando, FL, USA. METHODS: This update describes the highlights of the ASCO 2005 conference and the most recent publications in this field. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer: studies could demonstrate that capecitabine can possibly replace 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in combination regimens with oxaliplatin. The EGF receptor antibody cetuximab shows activity as single agent and in combination with irinotecan. Combination with oxaliplatin/5-FU is under investigation. The VEGF antibody bevacizumab leads to improved efficacy in combination with all chemotherapies investigated so far, but shows no efficacy as single agent. Adjuvant therapy of colon cancer: oxaliplatin and 5-FU improves the disease-free survival compared with 5-FU regimens and is the new standard adjuvant treatment for stage III disease. Capecitabine demonstrates better tolerability and at least equal efficacy as 5-FU bolus regimens and should replace these regimens whenever an oxaliplatin-based therapy is not chosen. Irinotecan does not improve disease-free survival and has no proven benefit in the adjuvant setting. Monoclonal antibodies are integrated in new adjuvant trials.

5-Fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) plus sunitinib or bevacizumab as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized Phase IIb study.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib is an oral inhibitor of tyrosine kinase receptors implicated in tumor proliferation, angiogenesis, and metastasis. In this randomized, multicenter, open-label Phase IIb study, sunitinib plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin plus leucovorin plus 5-fluorouracil) was compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: Patients were stratified by performance status, baseline lactate dehydrogenase level, and prior adjuvant treatment, and randomized 1:1 to receive sunitinib 37.5 mg/day for 4 weeks on and 2 weeks off plus mFOLFOX6 every 2 weeks or bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus mFOLFOX6 every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints included objective response rate, overall survival, safety, and quality of life. RESULTS: Enrollment was closed early following accrual of 191 patients, based on an interim analysis showing an inferior trend in the primary progression-free survival efficacy endpoint for sunitinib. Ninety-six patients were randomized to sunitinib plus mFOLFOX6 and 95 to bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6. Median progression-free survival was 9.3 months and 15.4 months, respectively, but the objective response rate was similar between the study arms. Median overall survival was 23.7 months and 34.1 months, respectively. Dose reductions and interruptions were more common with sunitinib. Hematologic toxicity was more common in the sunitinib arm. CONCLUSION: While the results of the sunitinib arm are comparable with those of previously reported FOLFOX combinations, the sunitinib-based combination was associated with more toxicity than that observed with bevacizumab and mFOLFOX6. The bevacizumab arm had an unexpectedly good outcome, and was much better than that seen in the Phase III trials. Combination therapy with sunitinib plus mFOLFOX6 is not recommended for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.