Development and validation of a predictive score for diagnosing prostate cancer in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) represents the fifth cause of death in the male population worldwide. The prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test demonstrated poor accuracy to assess the presence of PCa. Thus, the PSA testing paradigm should be moved from the systematic screening approach to the early identification of men who are harbouring clinically significant disease. Accurate clinical-based tools to predict PCa should therefore be developed for general practice. We derived and validated a PCa predictive score using a primary care data source. METHODS: Using the Italian Health Search Database, we formed a cohort of men aged 45-90 years in the period between 2002 and 2015. These patients were followed up until 31 December 2022. Those with less than a 5-year follow-up were excluded. The cohort was randomly divided into 'derivation' and 'validation' samples in a 1:1 ratio. Along with the demographic and clinical determinants forming the score, we investigated the role of PSA kinetics in the prediction accuracy. RESULTS: In a cohort of 529,082 men aged 45+ years, we identified 14,524 cases of PCa (incidence rate = 2.71 per 1000 person-years; 95% confidence interval = 2.67-2.80). The prediction accuracy of the PCa-HScore featured an explained variation of 12% and a discrimination power of 70%. The calibration slope was almost equal to 1 (p = 0.951, tested for equivalence against the 'perfect' slope) and the PSA kinetics did not improve the prediction accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: The PCa-HScore might guide the prescription of PSA and/or other clinical strategies in those men reporting certain levels of risk. A related decision support system could therefore be implemented in primary care.

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.

Standardizing data collection in adjuvant colon cancer trials: A consensus project from the IDEA and ACCENT international consortia and national experts.

BACKGROUND: Despite contributions provided by the recent clinical trials, several issues and challenges still remain unsolved in adjuvant colon cancer (CC). Hence, further studies should be planned to better refine risk assessment as well as to establish the optimal treatment strategy in the adjuvant setting. However, it is necessary to request adequate, contemporary and relevant variables and report them homogeneously in order to bring maximal information when analyzing their prognostic value. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The project was devised to gain a consensus from experts engaged in the planning, accrual and analyses of stage II and III CC clinical trials, to identify mandatory and recommended baseline variables in order to i) harmonize future data collection worldwide in clinical trials dedicated to adjuvant treatment of CC; ii) propose guidance for Case Report Forms to be used for clinical trials in this setting. A total of 72 questions related to variables that should be reported and how to report them in adjuvant clinical trials were approved and then voted to reach a final consensus from panelists. RESULTS: Data items on patient-related factors, histopathological features, molecular profile, circulating biomarkers and blood analyses were analyzed and discussed by the whole expert panel. For each item, we report data supporting the acquired consensus and the relevant issues that were discussed. Nineteen items were deemed to be mandatory for resected stage III patients and 24 for resected stage II disease. In addition, 9 and 4 items were judged as recommended for stage III and II, respectively. CONCLUSION: In our opinion, these 28 variables should be used and uniformly reported in more comprehensive CRFs as research groups design future clinical trials in the field of adjuvant colon cancer.

Oxaliplatin-Based Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Older Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer: An ACCENT/IDEA Pooled Analysis of 12 Trials.

PURPOSE: A number of studies suggest that older patients may have reduced or no benefit from the addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidines as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer (CC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied the prognostic impact of age, as well as treatment adherence/toxicity patterns according to age, in patients with stage III CC who received 3 or 6 months of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) on the basis of data collected from trials from the ACCENT and IDEA databases. Associations between age and time to recurrence (TTR), disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), survival after recurrence (SAR), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were assessed by a Cox model or a competing risk model, stratified by studies and adjusted for sex, performance status, T and N stage, and year of enrollment. RESULTS: A total of 17,909 patients were included; 24% of patients were age older than 70 years (n = 4,340). Patients age ≥70 years had higher rates of early treatment discontinuation. Rates of grade ≥3 adverse events were similar between those older and younger than 70 years, except for diarrhea and neutropenia that were more frequent in older patients treated with CAPOX (14.2% v 11.2%; P = .01 and 12.1% v 9.6%; P = .04, respectively). In multivariable analysis, TTR was not significantly different between patients <70 years and those ≥70 years, but DFS, OS, SAR, and CSS were significantly shorter in those patients ≥70 years. CONCLUSION: In patients ≥70 years with stage III CC fit enough to be enrolled in clinical trials, oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy was well tolerated and led to similar TTR compared with younger patients, suggesting similar efficacy. TTR may be a more appropriate end point for efficacy in this patient population.

Cross-trial comparisons for the adjuvant treatment of MSI colorectal cancer: dare to dream the future scenarios.

The remarkable outcomes achieved with neoadjuvant checkpoint inhibitors for patients diagnosed with MSI colorectal cancer hold the potential to revolutionize the treatment landscape in this context. Specifically, the combination of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in colon cancer and dostarlimab in rectal cancer has led to an unprecedented rate of complete pathological and clinical responses. Notably, these responses have been further substantiated by the absence of relapses, with a 0% relapse rate observed during the first year of follow-up. The significance of these achievements becomes even more apparent when compared to the relatively high relapse rates, ranging from 11% to 28%, observed in MSI colorectal cancer cases treated neoadjuvantly with chemo(radio)therapy. However, it is crucial to exercise caution when interpreting such exceptional responses in oncology, especially within a short follow-up period. The future implications of these findings will depend on how the data mature over time. In this manuscript, we attempt to explore the potential scenarios that may unfold in the near future.

Fruquintinib versus placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (FRESCO-2): an international, multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of effective systemic therapy options for patients with advanced, chemotherapy-refractory colorectal cancer. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib, a highly selective and potent oral inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs) 1, 2, and 3, in patients with heavily pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: We conducted an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study (FRESCO-2) at 124 hospitals and cancer centres across 14 countries. We included patients aged 18 years or older (≥20 years in Japan) with histologically or cytologically documented metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma who had received all current standard approved cytotoxic and targeted therapies and progressed on or were intolerant to trifluridine-tipiracil or regorafenib, or both. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive fruquintinib (5 mg capsule) or matched placebo orally once daily on days 1-21 in 28-day cycles, plus best supportive care. Stratification factors were previous trifluridine-tipiracil or regorafenib, or both, RAS mutation status, and duration of metastatic disease. Patients, investigators, study site personnel, and sponsors, except for selected sponsor pharmacovigilance personnel, were masked to study group assignments. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as the time from randomisation to death from any cause. A non-binding futility analysis was done when approximately one-third of the expected overall survival events had occurred. Final analysis occurred after 480 overall survival events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04322539, and EudraCT, 2020-000158-88, and is ongoing but not recruiting. FINDINGS: Between Aug 12, 2020, and Dec 2, 2021, 934 patients were assessed for eligibility and 691 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive fruquintinib (n=461) or placebo (n=230). Patients had received a median of 4 lines (IQR 3-6) of previous systemic therapy for metastatic disease, and 502 (73%) of 691 patients had received more than 3 lines. Median overall survival was 7·4 months (95% CI 6·7-8·2) in the fruquintinib group versus 4·8 months (4·0-5·8) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·66, 95% CI 0·55-0·80; p<0·0001). Grade 3 or worse adverse events occurred in 286 (63%) of 456 patients who received fruquintinib and 116 (50%) of 230 who received placebo; the most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the fruquintinib group included hypertension (n=62 [14%]), asthenia (n=35 [8%]), and hand-foot syndrome (n=29 [6%]). There was one treatment-related death in each group (intestinal perforation in the fruquintinib group and cardiac arrest in the placebo group). INTERPRETATION: Fruquintinib treatment resulted in a significant and clinically meaningful benefit in overall survival compared with placebo in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. These data support the use of fruquintinib as a global treatment option for patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Ongoing analysis of the quality of life data will further establish the clinical benefit of fruquintinib in this patient population. FUNDING: HUTCHMED.

Reliability of patient-reported toxicities during adjuvant chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are validated tools to assess the impact of efficacy and toxicities of cancer treatments on patients' health status. Because of the demonstrated little reliability of humans in reporting memories of painful experiences, this work explores the reliability of cancer patients in reporting chemotherapy-related toxicities. AIM: This study aims to evaluate the concordance between toxicities experienced by the patients during chemotherapy and toxicities reported to the doctor at the end of the cycles. METHODS: Questionnaires concerning chemotherapy-related toxicities were administered on days 2, 5, 8, 11, 14, and 17 of each chemo cycle and at the end of the same cycle to patients undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy. The co-primary end-points were Lins's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) and mean difference between real-time and retrospective toxicity assessments. RESULTS: In total, 7182 toxicity assessments were collected from 1096 questionnaires. Concordance was observed between the retrospective evaluations and the toxicity assessments at early (day 2), peak (maximum toxicity), late (day 14 or 17), and mean real-time evaluations for each chemotherapy cycle (CCC for mean ranging from 0.52 to 0.77). No systematic discrepancy was found between real-time and retrospective evaluations, except for peak, which was systematically underestimated retrospectively. CONCLUSIONS: Toxicities reported by the patients to the doctor at the end of each chemotherapy cycle reflect what they actually experienced without any substantial distortion. This result is very relevant both for the clinical implications in daily patients' management and in the light of the current growing impact on digital monitoring of PROs.

ctDNA to Guide Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Ready for Standard of Care?

OPINION STATEMENT: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) has already shown clinically relevant results in early-stage colon cancer patient management. Its prognostic value is by far much stronger than that of the available clinico-pathological biomarkers, therefore, has the potential to personalize the treatment after radical surgery through intensifying or de-intensifying the adjuvant therapy. Further developments and improvements should be pursued by (a) optimizing ctDNA assays and (b) validating its clinical utility in the different stages of this disease. Two main avenues of ctDNA testing are being pursued: tumor-informed vs tumor-agnostic assays. Two main clinical trial designs are under study: ctDNA-based strategy and ctDNA-by-treatment interaction. The former needs large sample sizes to address the main questions of the studies; thus, the target delta benefit may be the main challenge in these trial designs. The latter may be challenged by unavoidable contamination bias. To date, several clinical trials are ongoing worldwide. We believe that this large number of trials may provide an excellent common database for the demonstration of surrogacy of ctDNA for the classical 3-year disease-free survival endpoint. This would mark a huge methodological improvement to speed up new drug testing and development in the adjuvant treatment of this disease.

Prognostic Impact of Early Treatment and Oxaliplatin Discontinuation in Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer: An ACCENT/IDEA Pooled Analysis of 11 Adjuvant Trials.

PURPOSE: Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer (CC) for 6 months remains a standard in high-risk stage III patients. Data are lacking as to whether early discontinuation of all treatment (ETD) or early discontinuation of oxaliplatin (EOD) could worsen the prognosis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied the prognostic impact of ETD and EOD in patients with stage III CC from the ACCENT/IDEA databases, where patients were planned to receive 6 months of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin. ETD was defined as discontinuation of treatment and EOD as discontinuation of oxaliplatin only before patients had received a maximum of 75% of planned cycles. Association between ETD/EOD and overall survival and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed by Cox models adjusted for established prognostic factors. RESULTS: Analysis of ETD and EOD included 10,447 (20.9% with ETD) and 7,243 (18.8% with EOD) patients, respectively. Compared with patients without ETD or EOD, patients with ETD or EOD were statistically more likely to be women, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≥ 1, and for ETD, older with a lower body mass index. In multivariable analyses, ETD was associated with a decrease in disease-free survival and overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.61, P < .001 and HR, 1.73, P < .001), which was not the case for EOD (HR, 1.07, P = .3 and HR, 1.13, P = .1). However, patients who received < 50% of the planned cycles of oxaliplatin had poorer outcomes. CONCLUSION: In patients treated with 6 months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for stage III CC, ETD was associated with poorer oncologic outcomes. However, this was not the case for EOD. These data favor discontinuing oxaliplatin while continuing fluoropyrimidine in individuals with significant neurotoxicity having received > 50% of the planned 6-month chemotherapy.

Prognostic and predictive molecular biomarkers in advanced colorectal cancer.

The revolution of precision medicine has produced unprecedented seismic shifts in the treatment paradigm of advanced cancers. Among the major killers, colorectal cancer (CRC) is far behind the others. In fact, the great successes obtained in breast, NSCLC, melanoma, and genitourinary tract tumors have been observed only in fewer than 5 % metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): those with the mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR), a well-known predictive factor for to the outstanding efficacy of checkpoint inhibitors (CPI). The treatment of the remaining vast majority mCRC patients is still based upon only two molecular determinants: the RAS and BRAF mutational status. New promising biomarkers include HER2, tumor mutational burden (TMB) for its possible implications on CPI efficacy, and the extremely rare NTRK fusions. The Consensus Molecular Subtypes classification (CMS) is a good example of the efforts to combine different molecular features of this disease, although its relevance in clinical practice is still under investigation. In this Review, we focus on all these prognostic and predictive biomarkers, analyzing data from the most important clinical trials of the last years. We also try to rank them according to their prognostic and predictive power.

Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Outcomes by Age Among ARCAD First- and Second-Line Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the time to progression (TTP) and survival outcomes of second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer among adults aged 70 years and older compared with younger adults following progression on first-line clinical trials. METHODS: Associations between clinical and disease characteristics, time to initial progression, and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. TTP and overall survival (OS) were compared between older and younger adults in first- and second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, number of metastatic sites and presence of metastasis in the lung, liver, or peritoneum. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Older adults comprised 16.4% of patients on first-line trials (870 total older adults aged >70 years; 4419 total younger adults aged ≤70 years, on first-line trials). Older adults and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than younger adults. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.21, P = .01). Older and younger adults enrolled in second-line trials experienced similar median TTP and median OS (median TTP = 5.1 vs 5.2 months, respectively; median OS = 11.6 vs 12.4 months, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Older adults were less likely to receive second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, though we did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes vs younger adults following second-line therapy. Further study should examine factors affecting decisions to treat older adults with second-line therapy. Inclusion of geriatric assessment may provide better criteria regarding the risks and benefits of second-line therapy.

Rechallenge with anti-EGFR therapy to extend the continuum of care in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

In patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody plus chemotherapy is a standard option for treatment in the first-line setting. Patients who progress while on treatment with anti-EGFR-based therapy can be resistant to further anti-EGFR treatment, but evidence suggests that the anti-EGFR-resistant clones decay, thereby opening the potential for rechallenge or reintroduction in later lines of treatment. Results from recent clinical studies have shown that some patients with mCRC who are rechallenged with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies exhibit durable responses. While other therapies have demonstrated improved overall survival in chemorefractory mCRC over the past decade, rechallenge with anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in later lines of treatment represents a new option that deserves further investigation in clinical trials. In this review, we summarize the molecular rationale for rechallenge or reintroduction in patients with mCRC who have progressed on earlier-line anti-EGFR treatment and examine the current evidence for using liquid biopsy as a method for selecting rechallenge as a therapeutic option. We also provide an overview of published trials and trials in progress in this field, and outline the potential role of rechallenge in the current clinical setting.

Clinical Trial Endpoints in Metastatic Cancer: Using Individual Participant Data to Inform Future Trials Methodology.

Meta-analysis based on individual participant data (IPD) is a powerful methodology for synthesizing evidence by combining information drawn from multiple trials. Hitherto, its principal application has been in questions of clinical management, but an increasingly important use is in clarifying trials methodology, for instance in the selection of endpoints, as discussed in this review. In oncology, the Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive (ARCAD) Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Database is a leader in the use of IPD-based meta-analysis in methodological research. The ARCAD database contains IPD from more than 38 000 patients enrolled in 46 studies and continues to collect phase III trial data. Here, we review the principal findings of the ARCAD project in respect of endpoint selection and examine their implications for cancer trials. Analysis of the database has confirmed that progression-free survival (PFS) is no longer a valid surrogate endpoint predictive of overall survival in the first-line treatment of colorectal cancer. Nonetheless, PFS remains an endpoint of choice for most first-line trials in metastatic colorectal cancer and other solid tumors. Only substantial PFS effects are likely to translate into clinically meaningful benefits, and accordingly, we advocate an oncology research model designed to identify highly effective treatments in carefully defined patient groups. We also review the use of the ARCAD database in assessing clinical response including novel response metrics and prognostic markers. These studies demonstrate the value of IPD as a tool for methodological studies and provide a reference point for the expansion of this approach within clinical cancer research.

Early-Onset Colorectal Adenocarcinoma in the IDEA Database: Treatment Adherence, Toxicities, and Outcomes With 3 and 6 Months of Adjuvant Fluoropyrimidine and Oxaliplatin.

PURPOSE: Early-onset (EO) colorectal cancer (CRC, age < 50 years) incidence is increasing. Decisions on optimal adjuvant therapy should consider treatment adherence, adverse events, and expected outcomes in a population with life expectancy longer than later-onset (LO) CRC (age ≥ 50 years). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from six trials in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy database were analyzed. Characteristics, treatment adherence, and adverse events in stage II or III EO-CRC and LO-CRC were compared. To reduce confounders of non-cancer-related deaths because of age or comorbidities, time to recurrence (3-year relapse-free rate) and cancer-specific survival (5-year cancer-specific mortality rate) were considered. RESULTS: Out of 16,349 patients, 1,564 (9.6%) had EO-CRC. Compared with LO-CRC, EO-CRC had better performance status (86% v 80%, P < .01), similar T stage (% T1-3/T4: 76/24 v 77/23, P = .97), higher N2 disease rate (24% v 22%, P < .01), more likely to complete the planned treatment duration (83.2% v 78.2%, P < .01), and received a higher treatment dose intensity, especially with 6-month regimens. Gastrointestinal toxicity was more common in EO-CRC; hematologic toxicity was more frequent in LO-CRC. Compared with LO-CRC, significantly worse cancer-specific outcomes were demonstrated especially in high-risk stage III EO-CRC: lower 3-year relapse-free rate (54% v 65%; hazard ratio [HR] 1.33; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.55; P value < .001) and higher 5-year cancer-specific mortality rate (24% v 20%; HR 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.47; P value < .06). In this subgroup, no difference was observed with 3 or 6 months of therapy, with equally poor disease-free survival rates (57% v 56%; HR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73 to 1.29; P value = .85). CONCLUSION: Young age is negatively prognostic in high-risk stage III CRC and associated with significantly higher relapse rate; this is despite better treatment adherence and higher administered treatment intensity, suggesting more aggressive disease biology.

FRESCO-2: a global Phase III study investigating the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Fruquintinib, a novel, highly selective, small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGF receptors (VEGFRs)-1, -2 and -3, is approved in China for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. FRESCO-2, a global, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III study, is investigating the efficacy and safety of fruquintinib in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Key inclusion criteria include: progression on or intolerance to TAS-102 and/or regorafenib; and prior treatment with approved chemotherapy, anti-VEGF therapy, and, if RAS wild-type, anti-EGFR therapy. Approximately 687 patients will be randomized 2:1 to fruquintinib plus best supportive care or placebo plus best supportive care. Primary and key secondary end points are overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively. FRESCO-2 is enrolling in the USA, Europe, Australia and Japan.

Lay abstract Fruquintinib is a drug that slows down, reduces or prevents the growth of vessels that supply blood to certain tumors. Fruquintinib is approved in China for the treatment of cancer of the colon and rectum that has spread to these parts of the body from the primary site of cancer: metastatic colorectal cancer. The FRESCO-2 study is being conducted globally to determine how safe and effective fruquintinib is at treating patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that has grown or spread following other forms of treatment, such as chemotherapy. About 687 patients will be enrolled globally to receive either fruquintinib or a matching placebo in a 2:1 ratio, respectively. The FRESCO-2 study is enrolling patients in the USA, Europe, Australia and Japan. Clinical trial registration: NCT04322539 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine combination is more effective than gemcitabine alone in locally advanced, unresectable pancreatic cancer - A GISCAD phase II randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of combination chemotherapy has not yet been established in unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) lacking dedicated randomized trials. METHODS: This phase II trial tested the efficacy of Nab-paclitaxel (NAB-P)/Gemcitabine (G) versus G alone. Patients were randomized, 1:1 to G 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days versus NAB-P 125 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days plus G 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days. Disease progression rate after three cycles of chemotherapy was the primary end-point. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and response rate were secondary end-points. FINDINGS: A total of124 patients were enrolled. The study showed a reduction of a progressive disease from 45.6% with G to 25.4% with NAB-P/G (P = 0.01) at 3 months. Noteworthy, at 6 months in the G arm, 35.6% of patients present a metastatic spread versus 20.8% in the NAB/G arm. The response rate was 5.3% in the G arm and 27% in the NAB/G arm. Median PFS was 4 months for the G arm and 7 months for the NAB-P/G arm. Median OS was 10.6 in the G arm and 12.7 months in the NAB-P/G arm. One patient died during treatment with G due to a stroke. INTERPRETATION: NAB-P/G reduced the rate of LAPC patients progressing after three cycles of chemotherapy compared with G, especially in terms of distant relapses. It positively affects PFS. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial providing evidence that combination chemotherapy is superior to gemcitabine alone in this setting. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02043730.

Duration of Adjuvant Doublet Chemotherapy (3 or 6 months) in Patients With High-Risk Stage II Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: As oxaliplatin results in cumulative neurotoxicity, reducing treatment duration without loss of efficacy would benefit patients and healthcare providers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four of the six studies in the International Duration of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) collaboration included patients with high-risk stage II colon and rectal cancers. Patients were treated (clinician and/or patient choice) with either fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) and randomly assigned to receive 3- or 6-month treatment. The primary end point is disease-free survival (DFS), and noninferiority of 3-month treatment was defined as a hazard ratio (HR) of < 1.2- v 6-month arm. To detect this with 80% power at a one-sided type one error rate of 0.10, a total of 542 DFS events were required. RESULTS: 3,273 eligible patients were randomly assigned to either 3- or 6-month treatment with 62% receiving CAPOX and 38% FOLFOX. There were 553 DFS events. Five-year DFS was 80.7% and 83.9% for 3-month and 6-month treatment, respectively (HR, 1.17; 80% CI, 1.05 to 1.31; P [for noninferiority] .39). This crossed the noninferiority limit of 1.2. As in the IDEA stage III analysis, the duration effect appeared dependent on the chemotherapy regimen although a test of interaction was negative. HR for CAPOX was 1.02 (80% CI, 0.88 to 1.17), and HR for FOLFOX was 1.41 (80% CI, 1.18 to 1.68). CONCLUSION: Although noninferiority has not been demonstrated in the overall population, the convenience, reduced toxicity, and cost of 3-month adjuvant CAPOX suggest it as a potential option for high-risk stage II colon cancer if oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is suitable. The relative contribution of the factors used to define high-risk stage II disease needs better understanding.