A snapshot of cancer-associated thromboembolic disease in 2018-2019: First data from the TESEO prospective registry.

BACKGROUND: The ever-growing complexity of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT), with new antineoplastic drugs and anticoagulants, distinctive characteristics, and decisions with low levels of evidence, justifies this registry. METHOD: TESEO is a prospective registry promoted by the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology to which 34 centers contribute cases. It seeks to provide an epidemiological description of CAT in Spain. RESULTS: Participants (N=939) with CAT diagnosed between July 2018 and December 2019 were recruited. Most subjects had advanced colon (21.4%), non-small cell lung (19.2%), and breast (11.1%) cancers, treated with dual-agent chemotherapy (28.4%), monochemotherapy (14.4%), or immune checkpoint inhibitors (3.6%). Half (51%) were unsuspected events, albeit only 57.1% were truly asymptomatic. Pulmonary embolism (PE) was recorded in 571 (58.3%); in 120/571 (21.0%), there was a concurrent deep venous thromboembolism (VTE). Most initially received low molecular weight heparin (89.7%). Suspected and unsuspected VTE had an OS rate of 9.9 (95% CI, 7.3-non-computable) and 14.4 months (95% CI, 12.6-non-computable) (p=0.00038). Six-month survival was 80.9%, 55.9%, and 55.5% for unsuspected PE, unsuspected PE admitted for another reason, and suspected PE, respectively (p<0.0001). The 12-month cumulative incidence of venous rethrombosis was 7.1% (95% CI, 4.7-10.2) in stage IV vs 3.0% (95% CI, 0.9-7.1) in stages I-III. The 12-month cumulative incidence of major/clinically relevant bleeding was 9.6% (95% CI, 6.1-14.0) in the presence of risk factors. CONCLUSION: CAT continues to be a relevant problem in the era of immunotherapy and targeted therapies. The initial TESEO data highlight the evolution of CAT, with new agents and thrombotic risk factors.

Treatment patterns of adjuvant interferon-α2b for high-risk melanoma: a retrospective study of the Grupo Español Multidisciplinar de Melanoma - Prima study.

Adjuvant interferon-α2b (IFN-α2b) has been studied extensively in clinical trials, but there have been few studies of real-world use. The aim of this study is to describe the IFN-α2b real-world patterns in patients with high-risk melanoma in Spain. This was a retrospective and multicentre chart review study of an unselected cohort of patients with melanoma at high risk for relapse (stage IIB/IIC/III) treated with IFN-α2b. Patterns were assessed in terms of dose and compliance to planned treatment. A survival analysis was carried out for the full population and according to Kirkwood scheme compliance and the presence of ulceration. Of 327 patients treated with IFN-α2b, 318 received a high-dose regimen following the standard Kirkwood scheme; thus, patterns are described for this regimen. A total of 121 (38%) and 88 (28%) patients had at least one dose reduction during the induction and maintenance phases, respectively. Dose delay was required in fewer than 10% of patients. A total of 78, 40 and 38% of the patients completed the induction phase, maintenance phase and completed treatment, respectively. The median progression-free and overall survival for the full population were 3.2 and 10.5 years, respectively. There were no differences in progression-free survival and overall survival according to Kirkwood scheme compliance and the presence of ulceration. The most frequent adverse events were neutropenia (31%) and fatigue (30%). High-dose IFN-α2b is the most frequently used regimen in Spain as an adjuvant systemic treatment for high-risk melanoma. Despite poor compliance, in this retrospective study, IFN-α2b treatment provided a benefit consistent with that described previously.

Role of Kras status in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab: a TTD group cooperative study.

BACKGROUND: In the MACRO study, patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were randomised to first-line treatment with 6 cycles of capecitabine and oxaliplatin (XELOX) plus bevacizumab followed by either single-agent bevacizumab or XELOX plus bevacizumab until disease progression. An additional retrospective analysis was performed to define the prognostic value of tumour KRAS status on progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and response rates. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: KRAS data (tumour KRAS status and type of mutation) were collected by questionnaire from participating centres that performed KRAS analyses. These data were then cross-referenced with efficacy data for relevant patients in the MACRO study database. KRAS status was analysed in 394 of the 480 patients (82.1%) in the MACRO study. Wild-type (WT) KRAS tumours were found in 219 patients (56%) and mutant (MT) KRAS in 175 patients (44%). Median PFS was 10.9 months for patients with WT KRAS and 9.4 months for patients with MT KRAS tumours (p=0.0038; HR: 1.40; 95% CI:1.12-1.77). The difference in OS was also significant: 26.7 months versus 18.0 months for WT versus MT KRAS, respectively (p=0.0002; HR: 1.55; 95% CI: 1.23-1.96). Univariate and multivariate analyses showed that KRAS was an independent variable for both PFS and OS. Responses were observed in 126 patients (57.5%) with WT KRAS tumours and 76 patients (43.4%) with MT KRAS tumours (p=0.0054; OR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.18-2.64). CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This analysis of the MACRO study suggests a prognostic role for tumour KRAS status in patients with mCRC treated with XELOX plus bevacizumab. For both PFS and OS, KRAS status was an independent factor in univariate and multivariate analyses.

First-line XELOX plus bevacizumab followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or single-agent bevacizumab as maintenance therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the phase III MACRO TTD study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this phase III trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab alone with those of bevacizumab and capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) as maintenance treatment following induction chemotherapy with XELOX plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive six cycles of bevacizumab, capecitabine, and oxaliplatin every 3 weeks followed by XELOX plus bevacizumab or bevacizumab alone until progression. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) interval; secondary endpoints were the overall survival (OS) time, objective response rate (RR), time to response, duration of response, and safety. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 480 patients (XELOX plus bevacizumab, n = 239; bevacizumab, n = 241); there were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The median follow-up was 29.0 months (range, 0-53.2 months). There were no statistically significant differences in the median PFS or OS times or in the RR between the two arms. The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities in the XELOX plus bevacizumab versus bevacizumab arms were diarrhea, hand-foot syndrome, and neuropathy. CONCLUSION: Although the noninferiority of bevacizumab versus XELOX plus bevacizumab cannot be confirmed, we can reliably exclude a median PFS detriment >3 weeks. This study suggests that maintenance therapy with single-agent bevacizumab may be an appropriate option following induction XELOX plus bevacizumab in mCRC patients.