Phase 2 trial of bintrafusp alfa as second-line therapy for patients with locally advanced/metastatic biliary tract cancers.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Biliary tract cancers are rare, heterogeneous cancers with poor prognoses. Bintrafusp alfa, a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of TGF-ßRII (a TGF-ß "trap") fused to a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody blocking programmed death ligand 1, was evaluated in patients with locally advanced/metastatic chemorefractory biliary tract cancers. APPROACH AND RESULTS: This multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 study (NCT03833661) enrolled adults with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer that was intolerant to or had failed first-line systemic platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients received 1200 mg bintrafusp alfa intravenously Q2W. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 assessed by IRC. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, durable response rate, safety, progression-free survival, and overall survival.Between March 2019 and January 2020, 159 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 16.1 (range, 0.0-19.3) months; 17 patients (10.7%; 95% CI: 6.4%-16.6%) achieved an objective response. Median duration of response was 10.0 (range, 1.9-15.7) months; 10 patients (6.3%; 95% CI: 3.1%-11.3%) had a durable response (≥6 mo). Median progression-free survival was 1.8 months (95% CI: 1.7-1.8 mo); median overall survival was 7.6 months (95% CI: 5.8-9.7 mo). Overall survival rates were 57.9% (6 mo) and 38.8% (12 mo). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 26.4% of patients, including one treatment-related death (hepatic failure). Frequent grade ≥3 adverse events included anemia (3.8%), pruritus (1.9%), and increased alanine aminotransferase (1.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Although this study did not meet its prespecified primary endpoint, bintrafusp alfa demonstrated clinical activity as second-line treatment in this hard-to-treat cancer, with durable responses and a manageable safety profile.

FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine as Adjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Among patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) leads to longer overall survival than gemcitabine therapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen with gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 493 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to receive a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen (oxaliplatin [85 mg per square meter of body-surface area], irinotecan [180 mg per square meter, reduced to 150 mg per square meter after a protocol-specified safety analysis], leucovorin [400 mg per square meter], and fluorouracil [2400 mg per square meter] every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks. The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival and safety. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, the median disease-free survival was 21.6 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 12.8 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for cancer-related event, second cancer, or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.73; P<0.001). The disease-free survival rate at 3 years was 39.7% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 21.4% in the gemcitabine group. The median overall survival was 54.4 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 35.0 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86; P=0.003). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 63.4% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 48.6% in the gemcitabine group. Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 75.9% of the patients in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and in 52.9% of those in the gemcitabine group. One patient in the gemcitabine group died from toxic effects (interstitial pneumonitis). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant therapy with a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen led to significantly longer survival than gemcitabine among patients with resected pancreatic cancer, at the expense of a higher incidence of toxic effects. (Funded by R&D Unicancer and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01526135 ; EudraCT number, 2011-002026-52 .).

Intra-arterial hepatic beads loaded with irinotecan (DEBIRI) with mFOLFOX6 in unresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer: a Phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Chemo-embolisation with drug-eluting beads loaded with irinotecan (DEBIRI) increased survival as compared with intravenous irinotecan in chemorefractory patients with liver-dominant metastases from colorectal cancer (LMCRC). First-line DEBIRI with systemic chemotherapy may increase survival and secondary resection. METHODS: In the FFCD-1201 single-arm Phase 2 study, patients with untreated, non-resectable LMCRC received DEBIRI plus mFOLFOX6. Four courses of DEBIRI were performed alternating right and left lobe or two sessions with both lobes treated during the same session. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients were enrolled. Grade 3-5 toxicities were more frequent when both lobes were treated during the same session (90.5% versus 52.8%). Nine-month PFS rate was 53.6% (95% CI, 41.8-65.1%). The objective response rate (RECIST 1.1) was 73.2%, and the secondary R0 surgery was 33%. With a median follow-up of 38.3 months, median OS was 37.4 months (95% CI, 25.7-45.8), and median PFS 10.8 months (95% CI, 8.2-12.3). CONCLUSIONS: Front-line DEBIRI + mFOLFOX6 should not be recommended as the hypothesised 9-month PFS was not met. However, high response rate, deep responses, and prolonged OS encourage further evaluation in strategies integrating biologic agent, in particular in patients with secondary surgery as the main goal. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01839877.

Significance of lymph node involvement in local recurrence of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are few data on lymphatic spread concomitant to local recurrence (LR) of colorectal cancer (CRC). The objectives of this study were to determine variables associated with lymphatic spread, to analyze the distribution of LN+, and understand the underlying mechanisms. METHODS: A total of 76 patients underwent resection of LR of CRC between January 2007 and December 2018 at Institut cancérologique de l'Ouest and were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Twenty-five (32.9%) patients had lymph node (LN) involvement with LR. Lymphatics from the mesocolon-rectum and aorto-iliac compartments were involved in 21%, 20.3% and 18.1%, 20.3% for pelvic and retroperitoneal LRs, respectively. In multivariate analysis, the only predictive factor for LN invasion (LN+) was a primary positive LN status (odds ratio, 5.3; P = .007). Despite a trend toward a worse median overall survival in the LN+ group, the difference was not significant in comparison with the LN- group (46 vs. 57 months; P = 0.31) or with the LN- plus LN not assessed groups (46 months vs not reached; P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: LN invasion with LR from CRC is a frequent occurrence without significant impact on survival. The only predictive factor is a primary positive nodal status.

Determination of an optimal response cut-off able to predict progression-free survival in patients with well-differentiated advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours treated with sunitinib: an alternative to the current RECIST-defined response.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (pNET). Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST)-defined partial responses (PR; classically defined as ⩾30% size decrease from baseline) are infrequent. METHODS: Individual data of pNET patients from the phase II [NCT00056693] and pivotal phase III [NCT00428597] trials of sunitinib were analysed in this investigator-initiated, post hoc study. The primary objective was to determine the optimal RECIST (v.1.0) response cut-off value to identify patients who were progression-free at 11 months (median PFS in phase III trial); and the most informative time-point (highest area under the curve (AUC) by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and logistic regression) for prediction of benefit (PFS) from sunitinib. RESULTS: Data for 237 patients (85 placebo; 152 sunitinib (n=66.50 mg '4-weeks on/2-weeks off' schedule; n=86 '37.5 mg continuous daily dosing (CDD)')) and 788 scans were analysed. The median PFS for sunitinib and placebo were 9.3 months (95% CI 7.6-12.2) and 5.4 months (95% CI 3.5-6.01), respectively (hazard ratio (HR) 0.43 (95% CI 0.29-0.62); P<0.001). A PR was seen in 19 patients (13%) on sunitinib; the median change in the sum of the lesions (vs baseline) was -12.8% (range -100 to +36.4). Month 7 was the most informative time-point (AUC 0.78 (95% CI 0.66-0.9); odds ratio 1.05 (95% CI 1.01-1.08), P=0.002). Reduction of 10% (vs baseline) achieved the highest sensitivity (50%) and specificity (82%), amongst cut-offs tested. A 10% reduction in marker lesions was associated with improved PFS in the whole sunitinib population (HR 0.55 (95 CI 0.3-0.9); P=0.04); mostly in patients on sunitinib CDD (HR 0.33 (95% CI 0.2-0.7); P=0.005). A 10% reduction in marker lesions (P=0.034) and sunitinib treatment (P=0.012) independently impacted on PFS (multivariable analysis). CONCLUSIONS: A 10% reduction within marker lesions identifies pNET patients benefiting from sunitinib treatment with implications for maintenance of dose intensity and future trial design.

Efficacy and safety of selective internal radiotherapy with yttrium-90 resin microspheres compared with sorafenib in locally advanced and inoperable hepatocellular carcinoma (SARAH): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is the recommended treatment for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of sorafenib to that of selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) with yttrium-90 (90Y) resin microspheres in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. METHODS: SARAH was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, investigator-initiated, phase 3 trial done at 25 centres specialising in liver diseases in France. Patients were eligible if they were aged at least 18 years with a life expectancy greater than 3 months, had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, Child-Pugh liver function class A or B score of 7 or lower, and locally advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer [BCLC] stage C), or new hepatocellular carcinoma not eligible for surgical resection, liver transplantation, or thermal ablation after a previously cured hepatocellular carcinoma (cured by surgery or thermoablative therapy), or hepatocellular carcinoma with two unsuccessful rounds of transarterial chemoembolisation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a permutated block method with block sizes two and four to receive continuous oral sorafenib (400 mg twice daily) or SIRT with 90Y-loaded resin microspheres 2-5 weeks after randomisation. Patients were stratified according to randomising centre, ECOG performance status, previous transarterial chemoembolisation, and presence of macroscopic vascular invasion. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population; safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of sorafenib or underwent at least one of the SIRT work-up exams. This study has been completed and the final results are reported here. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01482442. FINDINGS: Between Dec 5, 2011, and March 12, 2015, 467 patients were randomly assigned; after eight patients withdrew consent, 237 were assigned to SIRT and 222 to sorafenib. In the SIRT group, 53 (22%) of 237 patients did not receive SIRT; 26 (49%) of these 53 patients were treated with sorafenib. Median follow-up was 27·9 months (IQR 21·9-33·6) in the SIRT group and 28·1 months (20·0-35·3) in the sorafenib group. Median overall survival was 8·0 months (95% CI 6·7-9·9) in the SIRT group versus 9·9 months (8·7-11·4) in the sorafenib group (hazard ratio 1·15 [95% CI 0·94-1·41] for SIRT vs sorafenib; p=0·18). In the safety population, at least one serious adverse event was reported in 174 (77%) of 226 patients in the SIRT group and in 176 (82%) of 216 in the sorafenib group. The most frequent grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events were fatigue (20 [9%] vs 41 [19%]), liver dysfunction (25 [11%] vs 27 [13%]), increased laboratory liver values (20 [9%] vs 16 [7%]), haematological abnormalities (23 [10%] vs 30 [14%]), diarrhoea (three [1%] vs 30 [14%]), abdominal pain (six [3%] vs 14 [6%]), increased creatinine (four [2%] vs 12 [6%]), and hand-foot skin reaction (one [<1%] vs 12 [6%]). 19 deaths in the SIRT group and 12 in the sorafenib group were deemed to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: In patients with locally advanced or intermediate-stage hepatocellular carcinoma after unsuccessful transarterial chemoembolisation, overall survival did not significantly differ between the two groups. Quality of life and tolerance might help when choosing between the two treatments. FUNDING: Sirtex Medical Inc.

Objective response by mRECIST as a predictor and potential surrogate end-point of overall survival in advanced HCC.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The Modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (mRECIST) was developed to overcome the limitations of standard RECIST criteria in response assessment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). We aimed to investigate whether objective response by mRECIST accurately predicted overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced HCC treated with systemic targeted therapies and also to preliminarily assess this end-point as a potential surrogate of OS. METHODS: Individual patient data from the BRISK-PS randomized phase III trial comparing brivanib vs. placebo (the first to prospectively incorporate mRECIST) were used to analyze objective response as a predictor of OS in a time-dependent covariate analysis. Patients with available imaging scans during follow-up were included (n=334; 85% of those randomized). Moreover, a correlation of the survival probability in deciles vs. the observed objective response was performed to evaluate its suitability as a surrogate end-point. RESULTS: Objective response was observed in 11.5% and 1.9% of patients treated with brivanib and placebo respectively, and was associated with a better survival (median OS 15.0 vs. 9.4months, p<0.001). In addition, objective response had an independent prognostic value (HR=0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.91, p=0.025) along with known prognostic factors. Finally, objective response showed promising results as a surrogate of OS in this trial (R=-0.92; 95% CI, -1 to -0.73, p<0.001). It was an early indicator of the treatment effect (median time to objective response was 1.4months). CONCLUSIONS: Objective response by mRECIST in advanced HCC predicts OS and thus can be considered as a candidate surrogate end-point. Further studies are needed to support this finding. LAY SUMMARY: There is a need to identify surrogate end-points for overall survival in advanced hepatocellular carcinoma. We studied patients from the phase III BRISK trial, comparing brivanib treatment with placebo after sorafenib progression. We demonstrate that objective response is an independent predictor of survival and qualifies as a potential surrogate end-point for overall survival in this patient population. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT00825955.

A 25-gene classifier predicts overall survival in resectable pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic carcinoma is one of the most lethal human cancers. In patients with resectable tumors, surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is the only curative treatment. However, the 5-year survival is 20%. Because of a strong metastatic propensity, neoadjuvant chemotherapy is being tested in randomized clinical trials. In this context, improving the selection of patients for immediate surgery or neoadjuvant chemotherapy is crucial, and high-throughput molecular analyses may help; the present study aims to address this. METHODS: Clinicopathological and gene expression data of 695 pancreatic carcinoma samples were collected from nine datasets and supervised analysis was applied to search for a gene expression signature predictive for overall survival (OS) in the 601 informative operated patients. The signature was identified in a learning set of patients and tested for its robustness in a large independent validation set. RESULTS: Supervised analysis identified 1400 genes differentially expressed between two selected patient groups in the learning set, namely 17 long-term survivors (LTS; ≥ 36 months after surgery) and 22 short-term survivors (STS; dead of disease between 2 and 6 months after surgery). From these, a 25-gene prognostic classifier was developed, which identified two classes ("STS-like" and "LTS-like") in the independent validation set (n = 562), with a 25% (95% CI 18-33) and 48% (95% CI 42-54) 2-year OS (P = 4.33 × 10-9), respectively. Importantly, the prognostic value of this classifier was independent from both clinicopathological prognostic features and molecular subtypes in multivariate analysis, and existed in each of the nine datasets separately. The generation of 100,000 random gene signatures by a resampling scheme showed the non-random nature of our prognostic classifier. CONCLUSION: This study, the largest prognostic study of gene expression profiles in pancreatic carcinoma, reports a 25-gene signature associated with post-operative OS independently of classical factors and molecular subtypes. This classifier may help select patients with resectable disease for either immediate surgery (the LTS-like class) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy (the STS-like class). Its assessment in the current prospective trials of adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy trials is warranted, as well as the functional analysis of the classifier genes, which may provide new therapeutic targets.

A scoring system to guide the decision for a new systemic treatment after at least two lines of palliative chemotherapy for metastatic cancers: a prospective study.

PURPOSE: A four-parameter score has been identified as associated with overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced cancer with an estimated survival inferior to 6 months. Here, we tested its prognostic value for OS in patients who had received more than two lines of systemic therapy. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with advanced cancer who were going to receive a third or more therapeutic line outside classical clinical guidelines. The four parameters (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, number of metastatic sites, serum LDH, and serum albumin) were collected at baseline, allowing to calculate the score, which sorted the patients in three groups, A, B, and C (low, intermediate, and high score, respectively). We then searched for correlations between this grouping and clinicopathological features particularly OS. RESULTS: From August 2013 to March 2014, 65 patients were enrolled and corresponded after determining their score to 26 patients in group A, 30 in B, and 9 in C. The median OS of the cohort was 4.4 months, and the 6-month OS was 42%. Overall survival was different between the three groups, with respective 6-month OS equal to 80% in group A, 17% in group B, and 0% in group C and respective median OS of 9, 2.3, and 1.6 months. Such prognostic value persisted in multivariate analysis. Similar OS differences were observed in patients with PS ≤2. CONCLUSION: This simple scoring should help oncologists identify which patients, after at least two lines of systemic therapy, might benefit from best supportive care alone.

Transcriptomic analysis predicts survival and sensitivity to anticancer drugs of patients with a pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

A major impediment to the effective treatment of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the molecular heterogeneity of this disease, which is reflected in an equally diverse pattern of clinical outcome and in responses to therapies. We developed an efficient strategy in which PDAC samples from 17 consecutive patients were collected by endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration or surgery and were preserved as breathing tumors by xenografting and as a primary culture of epithelial cells. Transcriptomic analysis was performed from breathing tumors by an Affymetrix approach. We observed significant heterogeneity in the RNA expression profile of tumors. However, the bioinformatic analysis of these data was able to discriminate between patients with long- and short-term survival corresponding to patients with moderately or poorly differentiated PDAC tumors, respectively. Primary culture of cells allowed us to analyze their relative sensitivity to anticancer drugs in vitro using a chemogram, similar to the antibiogram for microorganisms, establishing an individual profile of drug sensitivity. As expected, the response was patient dependent. We also found that transcriptomic analysis predicts the sensitivity of cells to the five anticancer drugs most frequently used to treat patients with PDAC. In conclusion, using this approach, we found that transcriptomic analysis could predict the sensitivity to anticancer drugs and the clinical outcome of patients with PDAC.

Retreatment with TACE: the ABCR SCORE, an aid to the decision-making process.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the standard of care for intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and it is the most commonly used treatment for HCC worldwide. However, no prognostic indices, designed to select appropriate candidates for repeat conventional TACE, have been incorporated in the guidelines. METHODS: From January 2007 to April 2012, 139 consecutive HCC patients, mainly with an alcohol- or viral-induced disease, were treated with TACE. Using a regression model on the prognostic variables of our population, we determined a score designed to help for repeat TACE and we validated it in two cohorts. We also compared it to the ART score. RESULTS: In the multivariate analysis, four prognostic factors were associated with overall survival: BCLC and AFP (>200 ng/ml) at baseline, increase in Child-Pugh score by ⩾2 from baseline, and absence of radiological response. These factors were included in a score (ABCR, ranging from -3 to +6), which correlates with survival and identifies three groups. The ABCR score was validated in two different cohorts of 178 patients and proofed to perform better than the ART score in distinguishing between patients' prognosis. CONCLUSIONS: The ABCR score is a simple and clinically relevant index, summing four prognostic variables endorsed in HCC. An ABCR score ⩾4 prior to the second TACE identifies patients with dismal prognosis who may not benefit from further TACE sessions.

Pathologic Major Response After FOLFIRINOX is Prognostic for Patients Secondary Resected for Borderline or Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: An AGEO-FRENCH, Prospective, Multicentric Cohort.

PURPOSE: In view of increased response rates and survivals in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) with FOLFIRINOX, many centers proposed this regimen as induction chemotherapy for borderline (BR) or locally advanced (LA) PAC. The aim of this study was to assess surgical and oncological outcomes of patients who underwent resection after induction FOLFIRINOX therapy. METHODS: We prospectively identified surgical consecutive BR or LA PAC patients after induction FOLFIRINOX in 20 observational French centers between November 2010 and December 2013. Two independent experts retrospectively evaluated initial CT scan for central review. RESULTS: Eighty patients were included, 47 had BR and 33 had LA PAC. Median number of FOLFIRINOX cycles was 6 (range 1-30) and 65 % of patients received chemoradiation. The 30-day-mortality, major complications, and symptomatic pancreatic fistula rates were 2.5, 22.5, and 4 %, respectively. R0 resection was achieved in 84 %. After a median follow-up of 38.2 months since diagnosis, disease-free survival (DFS) was 17.16 months. The overall survival rates at 12 and 24 months were 92 and 81 %, respectively. A 26 % (n = 21) pathologic major response (pMR) rate was reached. In univariate and multivariate analysis, pMR was a prognostic factor for DFS (hazard ratio 0.33; P = 0.01 and hazard ratio 0.38; P = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: Resection after induction FOLFIRINOX is safe and associated with similar or better outcomes as upfront surgery in patients with PAC. A pMR was observed in 26 % of cases and was prognostic of DFS. This therapeutic design should be investigated in prospective studies.

[Management of localized, locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma]. / Prise en charge des adénocarcinomes du pancréas localisés, localement avancés et métastatiques.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), which accounts for more than 90% of all pancreatic tumours, is a devastating malignancy. The prognosis is extremely poor because PDAC is usually a systemic disease at diagnosis. All stages, the survival does not exceed 5% at 5 years. However 15% of PDAC can be resected and today a margin-negative resection followed by adjuvant chemotherapy remains the only potential for a prolonged survival. Postoperative mortality had significantly decreased and the benefit of postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy has been clearly shown. Substantial progress has been made in the field of palliative chemotherapy by introducing new chemotherapy regimens (FOLFIRINOX [folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan and oxaliplatin] and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel), when the patient's performance status allows the use of these drugs. The role of radiation therapy remains controversial.

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.

FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine for metastatic pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the efficacy and safety of a combination chemotherapy regimen consisting of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRINOX) as compared with gemcitabine as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 342 patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0 or 1 (on a scale of 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating a greater severity of illness) to receive FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, 85 mg per square meter of body-surface area; irinotecan, 180 mg per square meter; leucovorin, 400 mg per square meter; and fluorouracil, 400 mg per square meter given as a bolus followed by 2400 mg per square meter given as a 46-hour continuous infusion, every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter weekly for 7 of 8 weeks and then weekly for 3 of 4 weeks. Six months of chemotherapy were recommended in both groups in patients who had a response. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: The median overall survival was 11.1 months in the FOLFIRINOX group as compared with 6.8 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.73; P<0.001). Median progression-free survival was 6.4 months in the FOLFIRINOX group and 3.3 months in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio for disease progression, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.59; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 31.6% in the FOLFIRINOX group versus 9.4% in the gemcitabine group (P<0.001). More adverse events were noted in the FOLFIRINOX group; 5.4% of patients in this group had febrile neutropenia. At 6 months, 31% of the patients in the FOLFIRINOX group had a definitive degradation of the quality of life versus 66% in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.70; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with gemcitabine, FOLFIRINOX was associated with a survival advantage and had increased toxicity. FOLFIRINOX is an option for the treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and good performance status. (Funded by the French government and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00112658.).

Sunitinib malate for the treatment of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors.

BACKGROUND: The multitargeted tyrosine kinase inhibitor sunitinib has shown activity against pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors in preclinical models and phase 1 and 2 trials. METHODS: We conducted a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of sunitinib in patients with advanced, well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. All patients had Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors-defined disease progression documented within 12 months before baseline. A total of 171 patients were randomly assigned (in a 1:1 ratio) to receive best supportive care with either sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg per day or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival; secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, and safety. RESULTS: The study was discontinued early, after the independent data and safety monitoring committee observed more serious adverse events and deaths in the placebo group as well as a difference in progression-free survival favoring sunitinib. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the sunitinib group as compared with 5.5 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26 to 0.66; P<0.001). A Cox proportional-hazards analysis of progression-free survival according to baseline characteristics favored sunitinib in all subgroups studied. The objective response rate was 9.3% in the sunitinib group versus 0% in the placebo group. At the data cutoff point, 9 deaths were reported in the sunitinib group (10%) versus 21 deaths in the placebo group (25%) (hazard ratio for death, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.19 to 0.89; P=0.02). The most frequent adverse events in the sunitinib group were diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, asthenia, and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous daily administration of sunitinib at a dose of 37.5 mg improved progression-free survival, overall survival, and the objective response rate as compared with placebo among patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. (Funded by Pfizer; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00428597.).

Proton pump inhibitors and cancer treatments: Emerging evidence against coadministration.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are widely used in cancer patients despite accumulating data showing that they can impact the efficacy of major anticancer drugs. This is particularly important with tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs). RESULTS: Most TKIs require gastric acidity for their absorption and some retrospective series demonstrated that coprescription decreases the survival benefit of some TKI use (erlotinib, gefitinib and pazopanib). Relations between microbiota, the immune system, and the efficacy of immunotherapy are now obvious, just as modifications to gut flora after PPIs use are well-known. Many retrospective articles, including articles based on individual-participant data from randomized studies, demonstrated that patients treated with CPIs have a poorer outcome (overall survival, progression-free survival and response rate) when they received PPIs concomitantly, while there was no impact of such coprescription among patients in control arms, not treated with immunotherapies. Similar data were also observed in patients treated with palbociclib. CONCLUSION: For these interactions, it is very important to use the precautionary principle and warn patients and physicians about this. In patients who require acid suppression because of severe symptoms, using antacids or H2 blockers could be recommended.

How to Balance Prognostic Factors in Controlled Phase II Trials: Stratified Permuted Block Randomization or Minimization? An Analysis of Clinical Trials in Digestive Oncology.

In controlled phase II trials, major prognostic factors need to be well balanced between arms. The main procedures used are SPBR (Stratified Permuted Block Randomization) and minimization. First, we provide a systematic review of the treatment allocation procedure used in gastrointestinal oncology controlled phase II trials published in 2019. Second, we performed simulations using data from six phase II studies to measure the impacts of imbalances and bias on the efficacy estimations. From the 40 articles analyzed, all mentioned randomization in both the title and abstract, the median number of patients included was 109, and 77.5% were multicenter. Of the 27 studies that reported at least one stratification variable, 10 included the center as a stratification variable, 10 used minimization, 9 used SBR, and 8 were unspecified. In real data studies, the imbalance increased with the number of centers. The total and marginal imbalances were higher with SBR than with minimization, and the difference increased with the number of centers. The efficiency estimates per arm were close to the original trial estimate in both procedures. Minimization is often used in cases of numerous centers and guarantees better similarity between arms for stratification variables for total and marginal imbalances in phase II trials.