Atezolizumab plus modified docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil as first-line treatment for advanced anal cancer (SCARCE C17-02 PRODIGE 60): a randomised, non-comparative, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: The modified docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (mDCF) regimen has shown efficacy and safety as first-line treatment for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, making it a standard regimen. Inhibitors of programmed cell death protein 1 and its ligand, such as pembrolizumab, nivolumab, retifanlimab, avelumab, and atezolizumab, have shown some antitumour activity as monotherapy in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anus that is refractory to chemotherapy. This phase 2 study evaluated the combination of mDCF and atezolizumab as first-line treatment in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anus. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, non-comparative, phase 2 study, participants from 21 centres (academic, private, and community hospitals and cancer research centres) across France with chemo-naive, metastatic, or unresectable locally advanced recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, aged 18 years or older, and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, were randomly allocated (2:1) to receive either atezolizumab (800 mg intravenously every 2 weeks up to 1 year) plus mDCF (eight cycles of 40 mg per m2 docetaxel and 40 mg per m2 cisplatin on day 1 and 1200 mg per m2 per day of fluorouracil for 2 days, every 2 weeks intravenously; group A) or mDCF alone (group B). Randomisation was done centrally using a minimisation technique and was stratified by age (<65 years vs ≥65 years) and disease status. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed 12-month progression-free survival in the modified intention-to-treat population in group A (35% for the null hypothesis and 50% for the alternative hypothesis). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03519295, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: 97 evaluable participants (64 in group A and 33 in group B) were enrolled between July 3, 2018, and Aug 19, 2020. The median follow-up was 26·5 months (95% CI 24·8-28·4). The median age of participants was 64·1 years (IQR 56·2-71·6), and 71 (73%) were female. 12-month progression-free survival was 45% (90% CI 35-55) in group A and 43% (29-58) in group B. In participants with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 5 or greater, 12-month progression-free survival was 70% (95% CI 47-100) in group A and 40% (19-85) in group B (interaction p=0·051) Both groups showed high compliance. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were observed in 39 (61%) participants in group A and 14 (42%) in group B. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (nine [14%] participants in group A vs five [15%] in group B), anaemia (nine [14%] vs one [3%]), fatigue (three [5%] vs four [12%]), and diarrhoea (seven [11%] vs one [3%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 16 (25%) participants in group A and four (12%) in group B, and these were mDCF-related in seven (11%) participants in group A and four (12%) in group B. Atezolizumab-related serious adverse events occurred in nine (14%) participants in group A, including grade 2 infusion-related reaction in three (5%), grade 3 infection in two (3%), and grade 2 colitis, grade 3 acute kidney injury, grade 3 sarcoidosis, and a grade 4 platelet count decrease each in one participant (2%). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Despite a higher incidence of adverse events, combining atezolizumab with mDCF is feasible, with similar dose intensity in both groups, although the primary efficacy endpoint was not met. The predictive value of a PD-L1 combined positive score of 5 or greater now needs to be confirmed in future studies. FUNDING: GERCOR, Roche.

The experience of being a caregiver of patients with digestive cancer, from patients and caregivers' perception: A mixed study.

BACKGROUNDS: Caregivers are essential in the care of a patient with digestive cancer. Considering their experience and needs is crucial. OBJECTIVES: To explore the experience of caregivers of patients with digestive cancer and to compare the perspectives of patients and caregivers. METHODS: A mixed-methods study with a cross-sectional prospective and a comprehensive qualitative dimension was performed in a medical oncology unit in a French tertiary hospital. Dyads made of patients with digestive cancer and their caregiver were recruited. The Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA) and the Supportive Care Needs Survey for Partners and Caregivers (SCNS-PC) questionnaires were distributed to caregivers. The CRA was used to measure the caregiver burden and the SCNS-PC was used to identify the unmet supportive care needs of caregivers. Semi-structured interviews with the dyads were conducted. Qualitative interviews addressed various dimensions of the caregiver's experience from each dyad's member perspective. RESULTS: Thirty-two caregivers completed the questionnaires. Responses showed high self-esteem, schedule burden, and a need for care and information services. Ten dyads participated in the interviews. Three themes emerged from the caregiver's interviews: illness is an upheaval; loneliness and helplessness are experienced; caring is a natural role with positive outcomes. Four themes emerged from patient's interviews: the caregiver naturally assumes the role and gets closer; he is the patient's anchor; his life is disrupted; anxiety and guilt accompany the desire to protect him. In comparing patient and caregiver data, the main theme of disagreement was their relationship. CONCLUSIONS: Caregiver care does not appear to be optimal, particularly in terms of their need for information. Patients have a fairly good representation of their experience, but the caregivers' opinion need to be considered.

Patients' preferences in therapeutic decision-making in digestive oncology: a single centre cross-sectional observational study.

Considering the preferences in Shared Decision Making (SDM) of patients with Digestive Cancer (DC) is crucial to ensure the quality of care. To date, there is limited information on preferences in SDM of patients with DC. The objectives of this study were to describe digestive cancer patients' preference for involvement in therapeutic decision-making and to identify variables associated with these preferences. An observational prospective study in a French university cancer center has been conducted. Patients completed two questionnaires to qualify and quantify their preference for involvement in therapeutic decision-making: the Control Preference Scale (CPS) and the Autonomy Preference Index (API), which is composed of the Decision Making (DM) score and the Information Seeking (IS) score. Associations between these scores and socio-demographic data, disease-related data, coping strategies (Brief-COPE), physical (QLQ-C30) and psychological (HADS) quality of life were tested. One-hundred fifteen patients returned the questionnaires. The majority of patients reported a passive (49.1%) or a collaborative (43.0%) CPS status. The mean DM score was 39.4 Variables associated with decision-making preferences were occupational status and time since diagnosis. The identification of variables associated with patients' preferences for involvement in decision-making can help make clinicians aware of patients' needs and wishes. However, it can only be determined by interviewing the patient individually.

Exploring the factors influencing adherence to oral anticancer drugs in patients with digestive cancer: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore the beliefs, perceptions and representations of patients in order to identify the determinants of oral anticancer drugs adherence and to take action in current practice to improve patient support in digestive oncology. METHODS: We constructed a semi-directed interview guide which aimed to explore the patient's relationship with medication, their health history, their experiences at the time of the announcement of treatment, their confidence, their fears, their motivations to adhere to their treatment and the constraints linked to their treatment. The data were analysed and discussed using a thematic approach. RESULTS: Seventeen patients agreed to participate in the study. The median age was 60 years. Ten patients had colorectal cancer, 3 patients had hepatocellular carcinoma, 3 patients had gastrointestinal stromal tumour and 1 patient had neuroendocrine pancreatic tumour. We identified five categories of factors influencing adherence: demographic and socioeconomic, disease-related, treatment-related, care system-related, and patient representation and pathways' factors. A majority of patients emphasised the importance of family support in the adherence process and the convenience of per os treatment compared to other intravenous treatments. However, several negative determinants emerged such as the toxicity of the treatment, fears of forgetting to take the medication, difficulties with the galenic formulation and negative beliefs of the family. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the need to address the different dimensions of the patient in order to understand his or her behaviour with regard to adherence and to identify the levers for improvement.