Brazil-TNT: A Randomized Phase 2 Trial of Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation Followed by FOLFIRINOX Versus Chemoradiation for Stage II/III Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant radiation and oxaliplatin-based systemic therapy (total neoadjuvant therapy-TNT) have been shown to increase response and organ-preservation rates in localized rectal cancer. However, trials have been heterogeneous regarding treatment protocols and few have used a watch-and-wait (WW) approach for complete responders. This trial evaluates if conventional long-term chemoradiation followed by consolidation of FOLFIRINOX increases complete response rates and the number of patients managed by WW. METHODS: This was a pragmatic randomized phase II trial conducted in 2 Cancer Centers in Brazil that included patients with T3+ or N+ rectal adenocarcinoma. After completing a long-course 54 Gy chemoradiation with capecitabine patients were randomized 1:1 to 4 cycles of mFOLFIRINOX (Oxaliplatin 85, irinotecan 150, 5-FU 2400)-TNT-arm-or to the control arm, that did not include further neoadjuvant treatment. All patients were re-staged with dedicated pelvic magnetic resonance imaging and sigmoidoscopy 12 weeks after the end of radiation. Patients with a clinical complete response were followed using a WW protocol. The primary endpoint was complete response: clinical complete response (cCR) or pathological response (pCR). RESULTS: Between April 2021 and June 2023, 55 patients were randomized to TNT and 53 to the control arm. Tumors were 74% stage 3, median distance from the anal verge was 6 cm, 63% had an at-risk circumferential margin, and 33% an involved sphincter. The rates of cCR + pCR were (31%) for TNT versus (17%) for controls (odds ratio 2.19, CI 95% 0.8-6.22 P = .091) and rates of WW were 16% and 9% (P = ns). Median follow-up was 8.1 months and recurrence rates were 16% versus 21% for TNT and controls (P = ns). CONCLUSIONS: TNT with consolidation FOLFIRINOX is feasible and has high response rates, consistent with the current literature for TNT. This trial was supported by a grant from the Brazilian Government (PROADI-SUS - NUP 25000.164382/2020-81).

Impact of Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor (G-CSF) on the Outcomes of Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma (MPA) During First-Line Treatment With FOLFIRINOX: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The role of primary prophylaxis (PP) with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPA) treated with FOLFIRINOX is unknown. We aimed to compare the frequencies of grades 3 or 4 neutropenia (G3/4N) and febrile neutropenia (FN) and survival outcomes according to the use of PP. METHODS: This is a retrospective study. We included patients with pathologically confirmed MPA treated with FOLFIRINOX in first-line. Patients who received primary prophylaxis (PP group) were compared to patients who received secondary or no G-CSF (no-PP group). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated using the standard Cox proportional hazard model. To account for potential biases, we performed sensitivity analyses excluding patients who received secondary prophilaxis and treating G-CSF as a time-dependent covariate in extended Cox proportional hazard models. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 123 patients. PP was used by 75 patients (61.0%). G3/4 N occurred more frequently among patients without PP (10.7 vs 41.7%; P < .001). There was no difference in the frequency of FN between groups (5.3 vs 8.3%; P = .710). In multivariate analysis, PP was associated with a trend toward improved OS (HR = .66; 95% confidence interval [95% CI] .41 - 1.07; P = .094). In the multivariate model excluding patients with secondary prophylaxis (HR = .54; 95% CI 0.32 - .91; P = .022) and in the time-dependent model (HR = .47; 95% CI 0.28 - .80; P = .005), PP was associated with statistically superior OS. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the reduction in the frequency of G3/4N, the risk of FN among patients treated with FOLFIRINOX without G-CSF is too low to justify its use in a routine basis. However, given the potential of G-CSF to improve survival in this setting, further studies are warranted to assess its role during treatment with FOLFIRINOX for patients with MPA.

Erratum: Comparative efficacy of modified FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine plus capecitabine and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer: a Bayeasian network meta-analysis.

[This corrects the article on p. 1 in vol. 15.].

Comparative efficacy of modified FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine plus capecitabine and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel as adjuvant treatment for resected pancreatic cancer: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There are no head-to-head comparisons evaluating the efficacy of the main polychemotherapy regimens used for patients with pancreatic cancer in the adjuvant setting. We aimed to describe the relative efficacy of modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX), gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEM-CAP) and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (GEM-NAB) in this setting using a Bayesian network approach. METHODS: We collected data from the ESPAC-4, PRODIGE 24 and APACT trials. Disease-free survival (DFS), according to the investigators, and overall survival (OS) for the three polychemotherapy regimens were compared using gemcitabine as the reference arm. We ran Markov chain Monte Carlo simulations with a fixed-effect model to generate the posterior distribution of the hazard ratios (HRs) using non-informative priors. Relative efficacy was measured by HRs, surface under cumulative ranking and rankograms. RESULTS: mFOLFIRINOX was the chemotherapy regimen most likely to be the most effective in the adjuvant setting (98.9% and 89.6% probability for DFS and OS, respectively). GEM-NAB marginally improved DFS (HR = 0.97, 95% credible interval (95% CrI) = 0.77-1.21) and OS (HR = 0.98, 95% CrI = 0.76-1.25) when compared to GEM-CAP. However, GEM-NAB had the highest chances of being the second most active chemotherapy regimen (61.4% and 52.5% probability for DFS and OS, respectively), whereas GEM-CAP was less likely to represent the second most active regimen (37.7% and 40.1% probability for DFS and OS, respectively). CONCLUSION: For patients eligible and fit enough to undergo adjuvant treatment with mFOLFIRINOX, this constitutes the treatment of choice. For those with contraindications to mFOLFIRINOX, while both GEM-NAB and GEM-CAP can be considered appropriate alternatives, GEM-NAB is likely the most effective regimen.

Alterations in regulatory T cells and immune checkpoint molecules in pancreatic cancer patients receiving FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel.

PURPOSE: This pilot study aimed on generating insight on alterations in circulating immune cells during the use of FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Peripheral blood mononuclear cells were isolated before and 30 days after initiation of chemotherapy from 20 patients with advanced PDAC. Regulatory T cells (FoxP3+) and immune checkpoints (PD-1 and TIM-3) were analyzed by flow cytometry and immunological changes were correlated with clinical outcome. RESULTS: Heterogeneous changes during chemotherapy were observed in circulating T-cell subpopulations with a pronounced effect on PD-1+ CD4+/CD8+ T cells. An increase in FoxP3+ or PD-1+ T cells had no significant effect on survival. An increase in TIM3+/CD8+ (but not TIM3+/CD4+) T cells was associated with a significant inferior outcome: median progression-free survival in the subgroup with an increase of TIM-3+/CD8+ T cells was 6.0 compared to 14.0 months in patients with a decrease/no change (p = 0.026); corresponding median overall survival was 13.0 and 20.0 months (p = 0.011), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy with FOLFIRNOX or gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel induces variable changes in circulating T-cell populations that may provide prognostic information in PDAC.

Excellent Response to Olaparib in a Patient with Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma with Germline BRCA1 Mutation after Progression on FOLFIRINOX: Case Report and Literature Review.

Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a dismal prognosis. Until recently, cytotoxic chemotherapy was the only treatment option. Currently, there are subgroups of patients with PDAC either with somatic or germline mutations who are candidates for targeted agents. Germline mutations in the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes promote the incapacity of tumor cells to recover from DNA-accumulated damage caused by cytotoxic drugs, like platinum agents, and, most recently, through a diverse process by poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor (PARPi). A 59-year-old female who was treated for a triple negative breast cancer 8 years ago with surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy, presented with increasing back pain. Investigation revealed multiple liver nodules and a large mass in the head of the pancreas. Biopsy confirmed PDAC. She received 13 cycles of FOLFIRINOX, achieving partial response both in the liver and pancreatic lesion, with resolution of symptoms. Due to increasing neuropathy, chemotherapy was stopped, and the patient was followed. Sixteen months later, her CA19-9 levels increased. Given limiting neuropathy, the patient was restarted on FOLFIRI only. After 8 cycles, there was disease progression plus uncontrolled back pain. A mutational test was requested and confirmed a BRCA1 germline mutation. The patient was started on olaparib. After 3 cycles, images showed a significant response and after 6 cycles, it remained stable, with persistent fall in CA19-9 levels. She is currently on treatment, with ongoing response. In conclusion, patients with metastatic PDAC and BRCA mutation may benefit from PARPi even after progression on chemotherapy. We hypothesize that olaparib works even in the setting of disease progression and not solely as a maintenance therapy following platinum-based therapy. Randomized trials are needed investigating the role of olaparib following disease progression in PDAC.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy after FOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: There are no randomized data to guide treatment decisions for patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma following first-line FOLFIRINOX. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies using gemcitabine-based chemotherapy after FOLFIRINOX to assess treatment efficacy and toxicity. METHODS: We included studies published between 2011 and 2018 that evaluated the efficacy and toxicity of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy after FOLFIRINOX in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. We searched PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science. Primary outcomes were objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), any grade 3/4 toxicity rate, and progression-free survival (PFS). We used the random-effects model to generate pooled estimates for proportions. RESULTS: Sixteen studies met the eligibility criteria. Overall, ORR was 10.8%, DCR was 41.1%, and any grade 3/4 toxicity rate was 28.6%. In subgroup analyses, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel was associated with superior ORR (14.4 versus 8.4%; p = 0.038) and DCR (53.5 versus 30.5%; p < 0.001) compared with single-agent gemcitabine. Median PFS ranged from 1.9 to 6.4 months and numerically favored gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests gemcitabine-based chemotherapy likely outperforms best supportive care after FOLFIRINOX in advanced pancreatic cancer. Also, gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel seems to be more active than single-agent gemcitabine (CRD42018100421).

[New progress in the treatment of locally advance pancreatic cancer]. / Nuevos avances en el tratamiento del cáncer de páncreas localmente avanzado.

Locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) has several definitions, but it is essentially a non-metastatic tumor, in which the initial surgical resection is not considered beneficial due to the extensive vascular involvement and consequent high chance of a nonradical resection. The introduction of chemotherapy with calcium leucovorin, fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) and gemcitabine-nab (nanoparticle albumin-bound)-paclitaxel (gem-nab) had very important implications for the management of patients with LAPC. After 4 to 6 months of induction chemotherapy, a large proportion of them have stable disease or even tumor regression, allowing to rescue those who initially were not candidates for surgery, with 30-35 months overall survival after surgery.

El cáncer de páncreas localmente avanzado (CPLA) tiene varias definiciones, pero esencialmente es un tumor no metastásico, en el que la resección quirúrgica inicial no se considera beneficiosa debido a la extensa afectación vascular y la alta probabilidad de tener márgenes quirúrgicos con compromiso tumoral. La introducción de la quimioterapia con leucovorina cálcica, fluorouracilo, clorhidrato de irinotecán y oxaliplatino (FOLFIRINOX) y gemcitabina-nab-paclitaxel (paclitaxel acoplado a albúmina, lo que aumenta su solubilidad) ha tenido alcances muy importantes en el tratamiento de pacientes con CPLA. Después de 4 a 6 meses de quimioterapia de inducción, una gran proporción tiene enfermedad estable o incluso regresión tumoral, permitiendo rescatarlos quirúrgicamente, que de inicio no eran candidatos a una cirugía resectiva, con una supervivencia global de 30 a 35 meses.

Second-Line Treatment for Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: Is There a Role for Gemcitabine?

PURPOSE: Advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) is an aggressive disease that has poor prognosis and frequently interferes with patient's quality of life. There has been progress in first-line regimens; however, there is no standard second-line regimen. The aim of this study is to analyze second-line gemcitabine after first-line fluorouracil (FU) + leucovorin (LV) + irinotecan + oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) regimen. METHODS: This study included consecutive patients with advanced PA treated at Hospital Sirio-Libanês from 2011 to 2016. The patients received FOLFIRINOX as first-line treatment and upon progression, received gemcitabine alone. Survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 54 patients were evaluated. Most patients were male (61.1%) and most had an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 prior to the beginning of second-line treatment (66.6%). The mean number of gemcitabine cycles was 3.4. Most patients had disease progression as the best response to treatment (75.9%), 11.1% had stable disease, and 9.3% experienced a partial response. The median progression-free survival was 1.7 months, and the median overall survival was 6.8 months. CONCLUSIONS: Gemcitabine alone did not show meaningful clinical benefit as second-line treatment after FOLFIRINOX.

Retrospective analysis of efficacy and safety of Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma experiencing disease progression on FOLFIRINOX.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPA) represents a highly lethal condition. Despite the improvements seen with FOLFIRINOX, there is no randomized data to guide treatment selection beyond this regimen. We aimed to evaluate the outcomes of patients with MPA progressing on FOLFIRINOX who were treated with Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy afterwards. METHODS: We included patients aged 18 years or older, treated for MPA with FOLFIRINOX in the first-line setting and who experienced disease progression, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status 0-2, and treated with at least one cycle of Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in second or further lines of treatment. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the study population and Cox proportional-hazards models to describe factors associated with survival. As an exploratory analysis, we compared the outcomes of patients treated with single-agent Gemcitabine with those of patients undergoing Gemcitabine-based polychemotherapy. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 42 patients. Median age was 59 years and 78.6% of patients presented ECOG 0-1. Thirty-three patients (78.6%) were treated with Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy in the second-line setting and 27 patients (64.3%) were treated with single-agent Gemcitabine. Objective response rate and disease control rate were 2.4% and 33.4%, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were 2.9 and 5.5 months, respectively. Six-month PFS and OS rates were 19.2% and 46.2%, respectively. We observed no significant difference in OS according to the type of Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy, despite numerically improved disease control rate and PFS for those treated with Gemcitabine-based polychemotherapy. In multivariate analysis, ECOG 2 (vs. ECOG 0-1) was the only factor significantly associated with inferior PFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS: a subgroup of patients with MPA derives benefit from treatment with Gemcitabine-based regimens after FOLFIRINOX. There is a suggestion that Gemcitabine-based combinations, in particular Gemcitabine plus Nab-Paclitaxel, provide superior outcomes compared to single-agent Gemcitabine. Additionally, treatment in this setting should be offered carefully to patients with ECOG 2, as they present shorter survival and increased risk of toxicity.

Neurotoxicidad orofacial en FOLFIRINOX: ¿Oxaliplatino o Irinotecán? / Oropharyngeal neurotoxicity in FOLFIRINOX: Oxaliplatin or Irinotecan?

El cáncer de páncreas resulta una de las patologías oncológicas con mayor índice de mortalidad en Argentina. Dadala importancia y prevalencia de esta afección, en los últimos años se han desarrollado varias alternativas de tratamiento que incluyen cirugía, radioterapia y quimioterapia endovenosa. El FOLFIRINOX es uno de los esquemas dequimioterapia de primera línea en los casos de neoadyuvancia y tumores avanzados. El esquema incluye dos drogasneurotóxicas: Oxaliplatino e Irinotecán. Se presentan dos casos de neurotoxicidad orofaríngea durante la infusiónde quimioterapia: un paciente masculino de 38 años y una femenina de 54. En ambos casos la neurotoxicidad fuereversible espontáneamente. Se plantea la disminución de la velocidad de infusión de oxaliplatino y la separación dela administración de ambas drogas como estrategia para la disminución de los efectos adversos(AU)

Pancreatic cancer is one of the oncological pathologies with the highest mortality rate in Argentina. Given the prevalenceof this condition, several treatments have been developed, including surgery, radiotherapy and intravenous chemotherapy.FOLFIRINOX is one of the first-line chemotherapy schemes in cases of neoadjuvant and advanced tumors. The schemeincludes two highly neurotoxic drugs: Oxaliplatin and Irinotecan. We present two cases of oropharyngeal neurotoxicityduring the chemotherapy infusion. A 38 years old male patient and 54 years old female patient. In both cases theoropharyngeal neurotoxicity was spontaneously reversible. The decrease in the rate of infusion of oxaliplatin and theseparation of the administration of both drugs was the strategy for the reduction of adverse effects(AU)

Gemcitabine versus FOLFIRINOX in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma hENT1-positive: everything was not too bad back when everything seemed worse.

PURPOSE: hENT1 is a transmembrane protein which acts as a nucleoside transporter and is the main mediator of Gemcitabine (GEM) uptake into human cells. In this retrospective study we compared GEM versus FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer in which hENT1 evaluation was available. METHODS: 149 patients affected by unresectable metastatic pancreatic cancer, treated in our institution from 2009 to 2013, have been screened for inclusion in this retrospective study. Seventy patients, treated with GEM or FOLFIRINOX in first-line therapy, fulfilled clinical inclusion criteria for survival analysis. Thirty-one patients were available and contained sufficient quality/quantity RNA for evaluation of hENT1 expression by RT-PCR. The primary endpoint was OS and the secondary endpoint was PFS. RESULTS: The survival analysis, carried out on 70 patients regardless of hENT1 expression, showed a statistically longer OS and PFS in the group treated with FOLFIRINOX compared to GEM. Within the exploratory analysis, which included 31 patients, no differences were found in hENT1 positive patients treated with FOLFIRINOX compared to GEM in terms of OS (8.5 vs 7 months, HR: 0.89; 95 % CI 0.3-2.5; p = 0.8) and PFS (5.5 vs 5 months, HR: 0.8, 95 % CI 0.2-2.2; p = 0.61). GEM-treated hENT1 positive patients showed a statistically significant improvement both of OS (8 vs 2 months; p = 0.0012) and PFS (5 vs 1 months; p = 0.0004) in comparison to GEM-treated hENT1 negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our exploratory analysis GEM seems as effective as FOLFIRINOX in terms of survival with a better safety profile in hENT1 positive metastatic pancreatic cancer.