Detailed analysis of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who developed cardiotoxicity on another fluoropyrimidine and switched to S-1 treatment (subgroup analysis of the CardioSwitch-study).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The CardioSwitch-study demonstrated that patients with solid tumors who develop cardiotoxicity on capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) treatment can be safely switched to S-1, an alternative fluoropyrimidine (FP). In light of the European Medicines Agency approval of S-1 in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), this analysis provides more detailed safety and efficacy information, and data regarding metastasectomy and/or local ablative therapy (LAT), on the mCRC patients from the original study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at 12 European centers. The primary endpoint was recurrence of cardiotoxicity after switch. For this analysis, safety data are reported for 78 mCRC patients from the CardioSwitch cohort (N = 200). Detailed efficacy and outcomes data were available for 66 mCRC patients. RESULTS: Data for the safety of S-1 in mCRC patients were similar to the original CardioSwitch cohort and that expected for FP-based treatment, with no new concerns. Recurrent cardiotoxicity (all grade 1) with S-1-based treatment occurred in 4/78 (5%) mCRC patients; all were able to complete FP treatment. Median progression-free survival from initiation of S-1-based treatment was 9.0 months and median overall survival 26.7 months. Metastasectomy and/or LAT was performed in 33/66 (50%) patients, and S-1 was successfully used in recommended neoadjuvant/conversion or adjuvant-like combination regimens and schedules as for standard FPs. INTERPRETATION: S-1 is a safe and effective FP alternative when mCRC patients are forced to discontinue 5-FU or capecitabine due to cardiotoxicity and can be safely used in the standard recommended regimens, settings, and schedules.

SOULMATE: the Swedish study of liver transplantation for isolated colorectal cancer liver metastases not suitable for operation or ablation, compared to best established treatment-a randomized controlled multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Around one fourth of patients with colorectal cancer present themselves with distant metastases at the time of diagnosis, and one additional one fifth of the patients will develop distant metastases during the disease, most commonly in the liver. Surgical treatment such as liver resection or ablation, often combined with chemotherapy and targeted therapy, is the only treatment option with curative potential, but only about 20% of the patients with liver metastases are candidates for surgical intervention. Standard treatment for unresectable patients is palliative oncological therapy; however, less than 10% of these patients will achieve a 5-year survival. Non-randomized studies indicate that liver transplantation could be an option for selected patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), which are not suitable for operation or ablation due to surgical technical reasons such as massive tumor burden and small future liver remnant, or oncological reasons, for example, early relapse after liver surgery. Since there is a shortage of donated liver grafts, it is important to select the patient group that benefit most from the treatment. Although some studies present positive results from liver transplantation of CRLM, the results must be validated in a randomized controlled trial before this new indication for liver transplantation can be introduced as a clinical routine. METHODS: The SOULMATE study is a randomized study evaluating if liver transplantation with liver grafts, primarily from extended criteria donors, increases overall survival in patients with CRLM, not suitable for resection or ablation, in comparison with best established treatment. Patients will be randomized to liver transplantation (LT)+ best established treatment (BET) or to best established treatment only. In the SOULMATE trial, we will evaluate the use of livers from extended criteria donors to decrease the risk of prolonging waiting time for patients on the waiting list for LT. DISCUSSION: The SOULMATE study has the possibility to confirm the positive results of previous studies in a randomized setting. The use of extended criteria donors will make the results transferable globally, as most countries are struggling with organ shortage. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trial number: NCT04161092 registered 13 November 2019.

[Liver transplantation optional treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer]. / Transplantation möjlighet vid kolorektala levermetastaser.

Surgical treatment of liver metastases from colorectal cancer (CLM) is the only treatment option with curative potential; however, only about 15% to 20% of the patients seen at major hospitals are candidates for surgical resection. In a prospective study of liver transplantation (Ltx) for non-resectable CLM a 5-year overall survival rate of 60 % has been shown. We now plan to evaluate if the addition of Ltx to conventional treatment of non-resectable, non-ablatable CLM increases overall survival compared to best established treatment.  This will be done in a randomized study, primarily utilizing liver grafts from extended criteria donors not utilized for approved indications.

Cost analysis comparison between peripherally inserted central catheters and implanted chest ports in patients with cancer-A health economic evaluation of the PICCPORT trial.

BACKGROUND: A reliable central venous access device is a cornerstone in the treatment of cancer. Both peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) and totally implanted chest ports (PORT) are commonly used for the delivery of chemotherapy. Both types of catheter can cause adverse events such as catheter-related deep venous thrombosis (CR-DVT), infection and mechanical complications. METHOD: We conducted a randomized controlled trial including 399 patients with cancer and performed a health economic evaluation investigating the cost related to PICCs and PORTs using several clinically relevant dimensions from a healthcare perspective. The cost was determined using process and cost estimate models. RESULT: PICCs are associated with a higher total cost when compared with PORTs. Combining the costs of all categories, the prize per inserted device was 824.58 EUR for PICC and 662.34 EUR for PORT. When adjusting for total catheter dwell time the price was 6.58 EUR/day for PICC and 3.01 EUR/day for PORT. The difference in CR-DVT was the main contributor to the difference in cost. The daily cost of PICC is approximately twice to that of PORT. CONCLUSION: We have demonstrated that the cost from a healthcare perspective is higher in cancer patients receiving a PICC than to those with a PORT. The difference is driven mainly by the cost related to the management of adverse events. Our findings are relevant to anaesthetists, oncologists and vascular access clinicians and should be considered when choosing vascular access device prior to chemotherapy.

Clinical impact of peripherally inserted central catheters vs implanted port catheters in patients with cancer: an open-label, randomised, two-centre trial.

BACKGROUND: Centrally inserted totally implanted vascular access ports (PORTs) and peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are widely used for the administration of chemotherapy. Our aim was to study the incidence of catheter-related deep venous thrombosis in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy through either a PICC or a PORT. METHODS: Adults with non-haematological cancer (mainly breast and colorectal) from two Swedish oncology centres were included and followed for up to 1 yr. Patients were randomly assigned to receive a single-lumen PICC or PORT. The primary end point was the occurrence of a clinically significant catheter-related deep venous thrombosis, and the secondary end point was a composite of adverse events related to the catheter: insertion complication, thrombosis, occlusion, infection, and mechanical problems. RESULTS: The trial recruited 399 participants (PICC, n=201; PORT, n=198) between March 2013 and February 2017. The PICCs were associated with 16 (8%) deep venous thromboses compared with two (1%) in the PORT group (HR=10.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.3-44.6; P=0.002). The overall incidence of composite adverse events was higher for patients with a PICC compared with those with a PORT (HR=2.7; 95% confidence interval, 1.6-4.6; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PICCs are associated with higher risk for catheter-related deep venous thrombosis and other adverse events when compared with PORTs. This increased risk should be considered when choosing a vascular access device for chemotherapy, especially in patients with solid malignancy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01971021.

Protein array profiling of circulating angiogenesis-related factors during bevacizumab containing treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prolonged angiogenesis inhibition may improve treatment outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. However, due to the complexity of the angiogenic pathways there is a lack of valid predictive biomarkers for anti-angiogenic agents. Here, we describe and optimize a procedure for simultaneous dynamic profiling of multiple angiogenesis related proteins in patient serum to explore associations with the response and acquired resistance to anti-angiogenic therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients (n=22) were selected from a clinical trial investigating maintenance treatment with bevacizumab alone after response to induction chemotherapy + bevacizumab in mCRC. Serum samples were analysed for 55 unique angiogenesis related proteins using a commercial proteome profiler array and a publicly available image analysis program for quantification. Samples were collected at baseline before induction treatment start, at start of maintenance treatment, and at end of treatment after tumour progression. MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: For eight proteins, the antibody array signals were below detection range in all patient samples. None of the proteins showed levels at baseline or at start of maintenance with strong evidence for correlation to time to progression (lowest nominal p-value 0.03). The dynamic ranges of protein levels measured during the induction treatment period and during the maintenance period were analysed separately for time trends. Evidence for changing trends (up/down) in the levels of MMP-8, TIMP-4 and EGF was observed both during response to induction treatment and at progressive disease, respectively. For three of the proteins (IL-8, Activin A and IGFBP-2), weak evidence for correlation between increasing protein levels during induction with chemotherapy and bevacizumab and time to progression was observed. In conclusion, semi-quantitative profiling of angiogenesis related proteins in patient serum may be a versatile tool to screen for protein patterns aiming at identifying resistance mechanisms of anti-angiogenic treatment in patients with mCRC.

Vasoactive peptides associate with treatment outcome ofbevacizumab-containing therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is a common early adverse event of anti-angiogenic treatment of cancer and may associate with treatment response. However, blood pressure measurement as a surrogate response biomarker has methodological limitations, and predictive biomarkers of angiogenesis inhibitors are lacking. In disease associated with hypertension, vasoactive peptides have been linked to cardiovascular pressure load. Here, we have explored potential associations between circulating levels of vasoactive peptides and tumor response during bevacizumab-containing treatment of colorectal cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients with available best objective response (ORR) and time to tumor progression (TTP) data were included from a randomized clinical trial investigating maintenance therapy after first line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Midregional-pro-adrenomedullin (MR-proADM), midregional-pro-atrial-natriuretic-peptide (MR-proANP), and C-terminal-prepro-vasopressin (Copeptin) vasoactive peptide concentrations were measured in plasma at baseline and after 6 weeks of chemotherapy and bevacizumab treatment (n = 97). We determined associations among clinical outcome (ORR and TTP), peptide levels, and hypertension (NCI-CTCAE 4.0 criteria), using Spearman's test, multiple linear regression, and Mann-Whitney's test. RESULTS: Increasing levels of vasoactive peptides from baseline and after six weeks of treatment were associated with improved treatment outcome (MR-proADM: ORR, p = .0003; TTP, p = .05; MR-proANP: ORR, p = .05; TTP, p = .03; Copeptin: ORR, p = .10; TTP, p = .02). Patients with increasing levels of all three peptides (n = 28) versus increasing levels of one or two peptides (n = 59) showed a median TTP of 284 and 225 d, respectively (p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that increasing systemic levels of vasoactive peptides associate with improved tumor response and TTP in mCRC patients treated with a bevacizumab-containing regimen. These findings support the proposed link between the tumor vasculature and the cardiovascular system of the host. This should motivate further studies that investigate the potential role of vasoactive peptides as a novel class of dynamic biomarkers in the treatment of cancer.