Ampullary tumors: French Intergroup Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, UNICANCER, GERCOR, SFCD, SFED, ACHBT, AFC, SFRO, RENAPE, SNFCP, AFEF, SFP, SFR).

BACKGROUND: Management of ampullary tumors (AT) is challenging because of a low level of scientific evidence. This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of AT, either adenoma (AA) or carcinoma (AC), published in July 2023, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org). METHODS: A collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of French medical, endoscopic, oncological and surgical societies involved in the management of AT. Recommendations are based on recent literature review and expert opinions and graded in three categories (A, B, C), according to quality of evidence. RESULTS: Accurate diagnosis of AT requires at least duodenoscopy and EUS. All patients should be discussed in multidisciplinary tumor board before treatment. Surveillance may only be proposed for small AA in familial adenomatous polyposis. For AA, endoscopic papillectomy is the preferred option only if R0 resection can be achieved. When not possible, surgical papillectomy should be considered. For AC beyond pT1a N0, pancreaticoduodenectomy is the procedure of choice. Adjuvant monochemotherapy (gemcitabine, 5FU) may be proposed. For aggressive tumors (pT3/T4, pN+, R1, poorly differentiated AC, pancreatobiliary differentiation) with high risk of recurrence, 6 months polychemotherapy (CAPOX/FOLFOX for the intestinal subtype and mFOLFIRINOX for the pancreatobiliary or the mixed subtype) may be a valid alternative. Clinical and radiological follow up is recommended for 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines help to homogenize and highlight unmet needs in the management of AA and AC. Each individual case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

Relative dose intensity of first-line triplet chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: Relative dose intensity (RDI) is a measurement of chemotherapy (CT) dose defined as the actual dose received divided by the standard calculated dose during a set period. The study objective was to assess the impact of a RDI ≥ 80% on response and survival of patients treated in first line CT by FOLFOXIRI or FOLFIRINOX ± Bevacizumab (BV) for an unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: It was a retrospective, non-interventional, multicenter study calculating RDI from the first cycles of CT to the first CT-scan evaluation (CT-scan1). Objective response and disease control rates (ORR and DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients with RDI ≥ 80% and <80% and results were adjusted for age, gender, ECOG, tumor location, number of metastatic sites, RAS and BRAF status, the CT regimen, the use of BV, the delay from C1 to CT scan1. RESULTS: Among 152 screened patients, 100 met inclusion criteria, with a mean (± standard deviation) age at 59.0 (± 10.7) years. The ECOG performance status was 0-1 in 96 (96%) patients; metastases were synchronous in 95 (95%), RAS and BRAF were mutated in 60 (60%) and 22 (22%), respectively. ORR was observed in 51 (51%) at CT-scan1 with median PFS and OS of 10.5 and 21.9 months, respectively. A RDI ≥ 80% was observed in 44 (44%) patients without impact on ORR (ORa: 1.04, 95% CI: 0.37 to 2.89, p = 0.94) but was significantly associated to improved PFS and OS with HRa 0.50 (95%CI: 0.29 to 0.87, p = 0.013) and 0.52 (95% CI: 0.29 to 0.91, p = 0.023), respectively. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest a low level of FOLFOXIRI or FOLFIRINOX +/- BV exposure in first-line mCRC is associated with a significant trend on PFS and OS.

Biliary tract cancers: French national clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, UNICANCER, GERCOR, SFCD, SFED, AFEF, SFRO, SFP, SFR, ACABi, ACHBPT).

INTRODUCTION: This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines of the management of biliary tract cancers (BTC) (intrahepatic, perihilar and distal cholangiocarcinomas, and gallbladder carcinomas) published in September 2023, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org). METHODS: This collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of BTC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B and C) according to the level of scientific evidence until August 2023. RESULTS: BTC diagnosis and staging is mainly based on enhanced computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and (endoscopic) ultrasound-guided biopsy. Treatment strategy depends on BTC subtype and disease stage. Surgery followed by adjuvant capecitabine is recommended for localised disease. No neoadjuvant treatment is validated to date. Cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy combined to the anti-PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab is the first-line standard of care for advanced disease. Early systematic tumour molecular profiling is recommended to screen for actionable alterations (IDH1 mutations, FGFR2 rearrangements, HER2 amplification, BRAFV600E mutation, MSI/dMMR status, etc.) and guide subsequent lines of treatment. In the absence of actionable alterations, FOLFOX chemotherapy is the only second-line standard-of-care. No third-line chemotherapy standard is validated to date. CONCLUSION: These guidelines are intended to provide a personalised therapeutic strategy for daily clinical practice. Each individual BTC case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

Metastatic colorectal carcinoma with signet-ring cells: Clinical, histological and molecular description from an Association des Gastro-Entérologues Oncologues (AGEO) French multicenter retrospective cohort.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic signet-ring cell colorectal carcinoma is rare. We analyzed its clinicopathological and molecular features, prognostic factors and chemosensitivity. METHODS: Retrospective study from 2003 to 2017 in 31 French centers, divided into three groups: curative care (G1), chemotherapy alone (G2), and best supportive care (G3). RESULTS: Tumors were most frequently in the proximal colon (46%), T4 (71%), and poorly differentiated (86%). The predominant metastatic site was peritoneum (69%). Microsatellite instability and BRAF mutation were found in 19% and 9% (mainly right-sided) of patients and RAS mutations in 23%. Median overall survival (mOS) of the patients (n = 204) was 10.1 months (95%CI: 7.9;12.8), 45.1 for G1 (n = 38), 10.9 for G2 (n = 112), and 1.8 months for G3 (n = 54). No difference in mOS was found when comparing tumor locations, percentage of signet-ring cell contingent and microsatellite status. In G1, relapse-free survival was 14 months (95%CI: 6.5-20.9). In G2, median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.7 months (95%CI: 3.6;5.9]) with first-line treatment. Median PFS was higher with biological agents than without (5.0 vs 3.9 months, p = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: mSRCC has a poor prognosis with specific location and molecular alterations resulting in low chemosensitivity. Routine microsatellite analysis should be performed because of frequent MSI-high tumors in this population.

Multidisciplinary team meetings: are all patients presented and does it impact quality of care and survival - a registry-based study.

BACKGROUND: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) are part of the standard cancer care process in many European countries. In France, they are a mandatory condition in the authorization system for cancer care administration, with the goal to ensure that all new patients diagnosed with cancer are presented in MDTMs. AIM: Identify the factors associated with non-presentation or unknown presentation in MDTMs, and study the impact of presentation in MDTMs on quality of care and survival in patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: 3999 CRC patients diagnosed between 2005 and 2014 in the area covered by the "Calvados Registry of Digestive Tumours" were included. Multivariate multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the factors associated with presentation in MDTMs. Univariate analyses were performed to study the impact of MDTMs on quality of care. Multivariate Cox model and the Log-Rank test were used to assess the impact of MDTMs on survival. RESULTS: Non-presentation or unknown presentation in MDTMs were associated with higher age at diagnosis, dying within 3 months after diagnosis, unknown metastatic status, non-metastatic cancer and colon cancer. Non-presentation was associated with a diagnosis after 2010. Unknown presentation was associated with a diagnosis before 2007 and a longer travel time to the reference care centres. Presentation in MDTMs was associated with more chemotherapy administration for patients with metastatic cancer and more adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer. After excluding poor prognosis patients, lower survival was significantly associated with higher age at diagnosis, unknown metastatic status or metastatic cancer, presence of comorbidities, rectal cancer and non-presentation in MDTMs (HR = 1.5 [1.1-2.0], p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Elderly and poor prognosis patients were less presented in MDTMs. Geriatric assessments before presentation in MDTMs were shown to improve care plan establishment. The 100% objective is not coherent if MDTMs are only to discuss diagnosis and curative cares. They could also be a place to discuss therapeutic limitations. MDTMs were associated with better treatment and longer survival. We must ensure that there is no inequity in presentation in MDTMs that could lead to a loss of chance for patients.

Randomized Phase II Trial Evaluating Two Sequential Treatments in First Line of Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Results of the PANOPTIMOX-PRODIGE 35 Trial.

PURPOSE: Metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) still harbors a dismal prognosis. Our previous trial (PRODIGE 4-ACCORD 11) demonstrated the superiority of 6-month chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) over gemcitabine for overall survival. The high limiting oxaliplatin-related neurotoxicity supports the evaluation of an oxaliplatin stop-and-go strategy and a sequential strategy in mPC. METHODS: In this phase II study, patients were randomly assigned to receive either 6 months of FOLFIRINOX (arm A), 4 months of FOLFIRINOX followed by leucovorin plus fluorouracil maintenance treatment for controlled patients (arm B), or a sequential treatment alternating gemcitabine and fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan every 2 months (arm C). The primary end point was progression-free survival at 6 months. RESULTS: Between January 2015 and November 2016, 276 patients (mean age: 63 years; range: 40-76 years) were enrolled (A: 91, B: 92, and C: 90). Grade 3 or 4 neurotoxicity occurred in 10.2% of patients in arm A and 19.8% in arm B. The median ratio of received dose/targeted dose of oxaliplatin was 83% in arm A and 92% in arm B. The 6-month progression-free survival was 47.1% in A, 42.9% in B, and 34.1% in C. The median overall survival was 10.1 months in arm A, 11.2 in arm B, and 7.3 in arm C. Median survival without deterioration in quality-of-life scores was higher in the maintenance arm (11.4 months) than in arms A and C (7.2 and 7.5 months, respectively). CONCLUSION: Maintenance with leucovorin plus fluorouracil appears to be feasible and effective in patients with mPC controlled after 4 months of induction chemotherapy with FOLFIRINOX. Severe neurotoxicity was higher in the maintenance therapy arm, probably because of the higher cumulative dose of oxaliplatin.

CEA, CA19-9, circulating DNA and circulating tumour cell kinetics in patients treated for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that CEA kinetics are a marker of progressive disease (PD) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study was specifically designed to confirm CEA kinetics for predicting PD and to evaluate CA19-9, cell-free DNA (cfDNA), circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) and circulating tumour cell (CTC) kinetics. METHODS: Patients starting a chemotherapy (CT) with pre-treatment CEA > 5 ng/mL and/or CA19.9 > 30 UI/mL were prospectively included. Samples were collected from baseline to cycle 4 for CEA and CA19-9 and at baseline and the sixth week for other markers. CEA kinetics were calculated from the first to the third or fourth CT cycle. RESULTS: A total of 192 mCRC patients were included. CEA kinetics based on the previously identified >0.05 threshold was significantly associated with PD (p < 0.0001). By dichotomising by the median value, cfDNA, ctDNA and CA19-9 were associated with PD, PFS and OS in multivariate analysis. A circulating scoring system (CSS) combining CEA kinetics and baseline CA19-9 and cfDNA values classified patients based on high (n = 58) and low risk (n = 113) of PD and was independently associated with PD (ORa = 4.6, p < 0.0001), PFS (HRa = 2.07, p < 0.0001) and OS (HRa = 2.55, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: CEA kinetics alone or combined with baseline CA19-9 and cfDNA are clinically relevant for predicting outcomes in mCRC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01212510.

CA19.9 decrease >15% is a predictor of favourable outcome in patients treated for advanced pancreatic carcinoma: analysis of two independent cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Although carbohydrate antigen 19.9 (CA19.9) is widely used in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA), no consensual cut-off value of CA19.9 decrease has been established for treatment monitoring. METHODS: This was a retrospective study including patients with a baseline CA19.9 ≥ 37 UI/ml and with locally advanced or metastatic PA from two French centers. CA19.9 measurements were performed at baseline and first CT-scan evaluation. The aim was to use a training set to determine the best cut-off of CA19.9 decrease for predicting progressive disease (PD) and to analyze its performance in an independent validation cohort. RESULTS: A total of 95 and 93 patients were included in the training and validation sets, respectively. A ≤15% CA19.9 decrease was the best cut-off for predicting PD with a sensitivity (Se) = 68% and a specificity (Sp) = 90%. In the validation set, this threshold was associated with Se = 76% and Sp = 83%. A >15% CA19.9 decrease was significantly associated with improved PFS (median 8.3 versus 3.1 months, p < 0.0001) and OS (median 14 versus 7.2 months, p < 0.0001). A >15% CA19.9 decrease was also identified as a factor independently associated with OS (HRa = 0.25, 95% CI:0.14-0.44). CONCLUSIONS: A CA 19.9 decrease >15% is a favourable predictor of outcome in patients treated for advanced PA.