Evaluation of the inflammation-based modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) as a prognostic and predictive biomarker in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy: a post hoc analysis of the randomized phase III XELAVIRI trial (AIO KRK0110).

BACKGROUND: The inflammation-based modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS) combines serum levels of C-reactive protein and albumin and was shown to predict survival in advanced cancer. We aimed to elucidate the prognostic impact of mGPS on survival as well as its predictive value when combined with gender in unselected metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients receiving first-line chemotherapy in the randomized phase III XELAVIRI trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In XELAVIRI, mCRC patients were treated with either fluoropyrimidine/bevacizumab followed by additional irinotecan at first progression (sequential treatment arm; Arm A) or upfront combination of fluoropyrimidine/bevacizumab/irinotecan (intensive treatment arm; Arm B). In the present post hoc analysis, survival was evaluated with respect to the assorted mGPS categories 0, 1 or 2. Interaction between mGPS and gender was analyzed. RESULTS: Out of 421 mCRC patients treated in XELAVIRI, 362 [119 women (32.9%) and 243 men (67.1%)] were assessable. For the entire study population a significant association between mGPS and overall survival (OS) was observed [mGPS = 0: median 28.9 months, 95% confidence interval (CI) 25.9-33.6 months; mGPS = 1: median 21.4 months, 95% CI 17.6-26.1 months; mGPS = 2: median 16.8 months, 95% CI 14.3-21.2 months; P < 0.00001]. Similar results were found when comparing progression-free survival between groups. The effect of mGPS on survival did not depend on the applied treatment regimen (P = 0.21). In female patients, a trend towards longer OS was observed in Arm A versus Arm B, with this effect being clearly more pronounced in the mGPS cohort 0 (41.6 versus 25.5 months; P = 0.056). By contrast, median OS was longer in male patients with an mGPS of 1-2 treated in Arm B versus Arm A (20.8 versus 17.4 months; P = 0.022). CONCLUSION: We demonstrate the role of mGPS as an independent predictor of OS regardless of the treatment regimen in mCRC patients receiving first-line treatment. mGPS may help identify gender-specific subgroups that benefit more or less from upfront intensive therapy.

Sense of coherence and its context with demographics, psychological aspects, lifestyle, complementary and alternative medicine and lay aetiology.

PURPOSE: For patients with a cancer diagnosis, coping abilities are of high importance. Cancer patients with a high sense of coherence may cope better. The purpose of this study is to learn more about the correlation of sense of coherence and different aspects, such as demographics, psychological factors, lifestyle, complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and lay aetiology. METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study was performed in ten cancer centres in Germany. The questionnaire consisted of ten sub-items, collecting information about sense of coherence, demographics, general life satisfaction, resilience, spirituality, self-efficacy, physical activity and sports, nutrition, CAM methods and cancer causes. RESULTS: As many as 349 participants were evaluable. The mean sense of coherence score was M = 47.30. Significant associations were shown for sense of coherence and financial situation (r = 0.230, p < 0.001), level of education (r = 0.187, p < 0.001), marital status (η = 0.177, p = 0.026) and time interval since diagnosis (r = - 0.109, p = 0.045). Sense of coherence and resilience correlated on a high level, as well as spirituality, self-efficacy and general life satisfaction (r = 0.563, r = 0.432, r = 0.461, r = 0.306, p's < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Several aspects, such as demographics and psychological factors, have a great influence on the sense of coherence. To help patients to cope better, physicians should try to strengthen sense of coherence, resilience and self-efficacy and, at the same time, consider patients' individual background such as level of education, financial capacity and emotional support by family members.

Resilience in cancer patients and how it correlates with demographics, psychological factors, and lifestyle.

BACKGROUND: Being diagnosed with cancer is challenging. Many patients wish to be actively involved in treatment and contribute to therapy, but the patients' coping abilities and desire for involvement differ. The individual level of resilience seems to play a major role. Our study aims to learn more about the associations of resilience and factors as demographics and psychological factors. METHODS: This multicentric cross-sectional study was conducted in ten oncological centers in Germany in summer 2021. The questionnaire collected information on demographics, resilience, self-efficacy, general satisfaction with life, and sense of coherence. Considered lifestyle-aspects were diet and physical activity. 416 patients were included in the analyses. RESULTS: A moderate mean resilience score was achieved (M = 69). Significant correlations in demographics were found for resilience and education (r = 0.146, p = 0.003), income (r = 0.205, p = 0.001), and time since receiving diagnosis (r = - 0.115, p = 0.021). Resilience and self-efficacy correlated on a high level (r = 0.595, p < 0.001), resilience and sense of coherence, and resilience and general satisfaction with life in a moderate way (r = 0.339, p < 0.001; r = 0.461, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Resilience portrays an important aspect in cancer treatment. Detecting patients at risk, stabilizing, or improving resilience are important to focus on and strengthen them accordingly. Possible negatively influencing factors (e.g., low self-efficacy) need to be considered. Factors affecting resilience but difficult to influence, as educational background, should be screened for. Also, the combination of low resilience and low income seems to describe a vulnerable patient group.

Afatinib plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine alone as first-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer: The randomised, open-label phase II ACCEPT study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie with an integrated analysis of the 'burden of therapy' method.

BACKGROUND: Targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor pathway remains controversial in pancreatic cancer. Afatinib is an oral irreversible ErbB family blocker approved in non-small-cell lung cancer. This open-label, multicenter, randomised phase II trial evaluated gemcitabine plus afatinib (Gem/afatinib) versus gemcitabine (Gem) alone as first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomised in a 2:1 ratio to either Gem (1000 mg/m2 weekly for three weeks followed by one week of rest, repeated every four weeks) and afatinib (40 mg orally once daily) or Gem alone. Overall survival (OS) was the primary study end-point. The novel BOTh©™ methodology was implemented to derive a quantitative estimate for the 'Burden of Therapy/Toxicity' (BOTh) for each patient on every day during the clinical study. RESULTS: One hundred nineteen patients from 25 centres were randomised, 79 patients for Gem/afatinib and 40 for Gem. Median OS was 7.3 months in the Gem/afatinib arm versus 7.4 months in the Gem-alone arm (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.06, p = 0.80). Median progression-free survival was identical in both arms (3.9 months versus 3.9 months, HR: 0.85, p = 0.43). Adverse events were more frequent in the Gem/afatinib arm, especially diarrhoea (71% vs. 13%) and skin rash (65% vs. 5%). The BOTh©™ analysis revealed a significantly higher burden of toxicity in the combination arm (p = 0.0005). CONCLUSION: The addition of afatinib to Gem did not improve treatment efficacy and was more toxic. The BOTh©™ methodology allowed a detailed insight into the course of treatment-related adverse events over the study period. The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01728818) and Eudra-CT (2011-004063-77).

Relation of cetuximab-induced skin toxicity and early tumor shrinkage in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: results of the randomized phase 3 trial FIRE-3 (AIO KRK0306).

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab-induced skin toxicity (Cet-ST) is positively associated with outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Besides its predictive relevance for targeted therapy, we investigated its prognostic impact with early tumor shrinkage (ETS) ≥20%, another on-treatment surrogate for clinical outcome in FIRE-3. PATIENTS AND METHODS: FIRE-3 evaluated first-line FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) plus cetuximab (FOLFIRI/Cet) versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (FOLFIRI/Bev) in mCRC patients with RAS-WT tumors (i.e. wild-type in KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). Retrospective data on Cet-ST that occurred during cycles 1-3 of treatment were correlated with efficacy endpoints, including ETS. To control for guarantee-time bias, only patients who had completed three or more treatment cycles were considered. RESULTS: Of 199 patients treated with FOLFIRI/Cet, 181 (91.0%) completed three or more treatment cycles. A significant survival benefit of FOLFIRI/Cet over FOLFIRI/Bev was only evident in patients developing Cet-ST grade 2-3 [41.0 versus 26.6 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.73; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.61-0.87; P < 0.001] compared with Cet-ST grade 0-1 (HR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.67-1.20; P = 0.48). Regarding prognosis, Cet-ST grade 2-3 (n = 75; 41.4%), compared with Cet-ST grade 0-1 (n = 106; 58.6%), was associated with prolonged overall survival (OS; HR = 0.62; 95% CI: 0.42-0.91; P = 0.01). In multivariate analysis, both Cet-ST (HR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.50-0.87; P = 0.003) and ETS (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.74; P < 0.0001) were independently prognostic for OS. Absence of both Cet-ST grade ≥2 and ETS identified a subgroup of patients with very poor prognosis (median OS 15.1 months). CONCLUSIONS: In FIRE-3, the addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI was associated with superior OS compared with FOLFIRI/Bev only in patients developing Cet-ST grade ≥2. Regarding prognostic relevance, both Cet-ST and ETS were independent and early predictors of survival. The present analysis supports that a combined evaluation of on-treatment parameters such as Cet-ST and ETS may help to guide treatment of mCRC.

Consensus molecular subgroups (CMS) of colorectal cancer (CRC) and first-line efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab in the FIRE3 (AIO KRK-0306) trial.

BACKGROUND: FIRE-3 compared first-line therapy with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab in 592 KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. The consensus molecular subgroups (CMS) are grouping CRC samples according to their gene-signature in four different subtypes. Relevance of CMS for the treatment of mCRC has yet to be defined. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this exploratory analysis, patients were grouped according to the previously published tumor CRC-CMSs. Objective response rates (ORR) were compared using chi-square test. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) times were compared using Kaplan-Meier estimation, log-rank tests. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated according to the Cox proportional hazard method. RESULTS: CMS classification could be determined in 438 out of 514 specimens available from the intent-to-treat (ITT) population (n = 592). Frequencies for the remaining 438 samples were as follows: CMS1 (14%), CMS2 (37%), CMS3 (15%), CMS4 (34%). For the 315 RAS wild-type tumors, frequencies were as follows: CMS1 (12%), CMS2 (41%), CMS3 (11%), CMS4 (34%). CMS distribution in right- versus (vs) left-sided primary tumors was as follows: CMS1 (27% versus 11%), CMS2 (28% versus 45%), CMS3 (10% versus 12%), CMS4 (35% versus 32%). Independent of the treatment, CMS was a strong prognostic factor for ORR (P = 0.051), PFS (P < 0.001), and OS (P < 0.001). Within the RAS wild-type population, OS observed in CMS4 significantly favored FOLFIRI cetuximab over FOLFIRI bevacizumab. In CMS3, OS showed a trend in favor of the cetuximab arm, while OS was comparable in CMS1 and CMS2, independent of targeted therapy. CONCLUSIONS: CMS classification is prognostic for mCRC. Prolonged OS induced by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the FIRE-3 study appears to be driven by CMS3 and CMS4. CMS classification provides deeper insights into the biology to CRC, but at present time has no direct impact on clinical decision-making.The FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study had been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00433927.

Nal-IRI with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and leucovorin or gemcitabine plus cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer - the NIFE trial (AIO-YMO HEP-0315) an open label, non-comparative, randomized, multicenter phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Biliary tract cancer (BTC) has a high mortality. Primary diagnosis is frequently delayed due to mostly unspecific symptoms, resulting in a high number of advanced cases at the time of diagnosis. Advanced BTCs are in principle chemotherapy sensitive as determined by improved disease control, survival and quality of life (QoL). However, median OS does not exceed 11.7 months with the current standard of care gemcitabine plus cisplatin. Thereby, novel drug formulations like nanoliposomal-irinotecan (nal-IRI) in combination with 5- fluorouracil (5-FU)/leucovorin may have the potential to improve therapeutic outcomes in this disease. METHODS: NIFE is an interventional, prospective, randomized, controlled, open label, two-sided phase II study. Within the study, 2 × 46 patients with locally advanced, non-resectable or metastatic BTC are to be enrolled by two stage design of Simon. Data analysis will be done unconnected for both arms. Patients are allocated in two arms: Arm A (experimental intervention) nal-IRI mg/m2, 46 h infusion)/5-FU (2400 mg/m2, 46 h infusion)/leucovorin (400 mg/m2, 0.5 h infusion) d1 on 14 day-cycles; Arm B (standard of care) cisplatin (25 mg/m2, 1 h infusion)/gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2, 0.5 h infusion) d1 and d8 on 21 day-cycles. The randomization (1:1) is stratified for tumor site (intrahepatic vs. extrahepatic biliary tract), disease stage (advanced vs. metastatic), age (≤70 vs. > 70 years), sex (male vs. female) and WHO performance score (ECOG 0 vs. ECOG 1). Primary endpoint of the study is the progression free survival (PFS) rate at 4 months after randomization by an intention-to-treat analysis in each of the groups. Secondary endpoints are the overall PFS rate, the 3-year overall survival rate, the disease control rate after 2 months, safety and patient related outcome with quality of life. The initial assessment of tumor resectability for locally advanced BTCs is planned to be reviewed retrospectively by a central surgical board. Exploratory objectives aim at establishing novel biomarkers and molecular signatures to predict response. The study was initiated January 2018 in Germany. DISCUSSION: The NIFE trial evaluates the potential of a nanoliposomal-irinotecan/5-FU/leucovorin combination in the first line therapy of advanced BTCs and additionally offers a unique chance for translational research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03044587. Registration Date February 7th 2017.

Relevance of baseline carcinoembryonic antigen for first-line treatment against metastatic colorectal cancer with FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab (FIRE-3 trial).

PURPOSE: Increased baseline carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) serum level is associated with inferior overall survival (OS) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, limited data exist on its predictive relevance for targeted therapies. Therefore, we analysed its relevance in FIRE-3, a randomised phase III study. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: FIRE-3 evaluated first-line FOLFIRI plus cetuximab (FOLFIRI/Cet) versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab (FOLFIRI/Bev) in mCRC patients with RAS-WT tumour (i.e. wild-type in KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4). Herein, the impact of CEA on patient outcome was investigated. RESULTS: Of 400 patients, 356 (89.0%) were evaluable for CEA. High CEA (>10 ng/ml; N = 237) compared to low CEA (≤10 ng/ml; N = 119) was associated with shorter OS in the FOLFIRI/Bev arm (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.50; P = 0.036), while no significant OS difference was observed in the FOLFIRI/Cet arm (HR = 1.07; P = 0.74). In patients with high CEA, FOLFIRI/Cet compared to FOLFIRI/Bev showed a greater OS benefit (HR = 0.56; P < 0.001) than in patients with low CEA (HR = 0.78; P = 0.30). Furthermore, FOLFIRI/Cet exhibited significantly superior objective response rate in patients with high CEA (odds ratio = 2.21; P = 0.006) in contrast to patients with low CEA (odds ratio = 0.90; P = 0.85). CONCLUSION: In patients with RAS-WT mCRC receiving first-line chemotherapy with FOLFIRI/Cet versus FOLFIRI/Bev, elevated CEA was associated with inferior survival in the bevacizumab arm, while this was not the case when cetuximab was applied. Comparison of OS and objective response rate according to treatment arms indicated that cetuximab was greatly superior to bevacizumab in patients with elevated CEA, while this effect was markedly lower and lost statistical significance in patients with low CEA.

Efficacy of gemcitabine plus erlotinib in rash-positive patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer selected according to eligibility for FOLFIRINOX: A prospective phase II study of the 'Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie'.

INTRODUCTION: In metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) treatment, erlotinib is known to be more effective in patients developing skin rash. Treatment with the FOLFIRINOX regimen is only performed in fit patients following defined inclusion criteria. The present study investigates the efficacy of gemcitabine plus erlotinib (gem/erlotinib) in rash-positive patients fit for FOLFIRINOX. PATIENTS AND METHODS: For this prospective phase II study, 150 patients were recruited in 20 centres. All patients received gem/erlotinib for 4 weeks (run-in phase); the subsequent treatment was determined by the development of skin rash: patients with rash grades 1-4 continued with gem/erlotinib, rash-negative patients were switched to FOLFIRINOX. Primary study end-point was to achieve a 1-year survival rate in rash-positive patients ≥40%. RESULTS: Ninety patients were deemed positive for skin rash by the end of the run-in phase, showing a 1-year survival rate of 40.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 29.8-50.9). Median overall survival (OS) was 10.1 months, progression-free survival (PFS) was 3.8 months and overall response rate (ORR) was 23.3%. Patients switched to FOLFIRINOX (n = 27) had a 1-year survival rate of 48.1% (95% CI 28.7-68.1), a median OS of 10.9 months, a median PFS of 6.6 months and an ORR of 33.3%. Rash-negative patients had a lower quality of life at baseline but seemed to experience an improved control of pain during FOLFIRINOX. CONCLUSIONS: First-line treatment with gem/erlotinib was effective in fit, rash-positive mPDAC patients achieving a 1-year survival rate comparable to previous reports for FOLFIRINOX. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT0172948) and Eudra-CT (2011-005471-17).

Evaluation of survival across several treatment lines in metastatic colorectal cancer: Analysis of the FIRE-3 trial (AIO KRK0306).

BACKGROUND: We explored the impacts of sequential application of various treatment lines on survival kinetics. Therefore, differences in overall survival (OS) observed in FIRE-3 were investigated in the context of time and exposure to applied treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: OS analyses (stratified by treatment with FOLFIRI plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab) were performed according to time intervals as well as using a Cox model to define changes of hazard ratio (HR) over time. RESULTS: The fraction of patients with systemic treatment and time on treatment markedly decreases over treatment lines and time. OS evaluation by a Cox model indicated a trend towards a non-proportional hazard between treatment arms (P = 0.12/P = 0.09 for KRAS-intention-to-treat (ITT)/all-RAS wild-type populations, respectively). To improve the fit of the model, a change-point (point of curve separation) was estimated at 22.6 months (day 687) after randomisation. The HR between the two arms before 22.6 months was not significantly different from one. However, markedly different survival kinetics in favour of the cetuximab arm were apparent after the change-point (KRAS-ITT: P = 0.0018; HR, 0.60 [95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44-0.83] and RAS: P = 0.0006; HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.35-0.75]). CONCLUSION: The differences in OS favouring the cetuximab arm become apparent about 22.6 months after randomisation, indicating that only those patients who survive 22.6 months after randomisation benefit from the superiority of the cetuximab arm. When OS curves separate, only few patients receive active systemic treatment in short courses, suggesting that earlier treatment effects are responsible for later kinetics of survival curves.

Impact of BRAF and RAS mutations on first-line efficacy of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab: analysis of the FIRE-3 (AIO KRK-0306) study.

BACKGROUND: RAS and BRAF mutations have been identified as negative prognostic factors in metastatic colorectal cancer. Efficacy of 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus bevacizumab in patients with RAS-mutant tumours needs to be further evaluated. Whether to treat patients with BRAF-mutant tumours with either bevacizumab or anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) antibodies remains unclear. METHODS: Patients treated within the FIRE-3 trial were retrospectively tested for BRAF and RAS mutations using formalin fixated paraffin embedded (FFPE) tumour material applying pyrosequencing for KRAS and NRAS exon 2, 3 and 4 mutations as far as for BRAF mutations. Survival analysis was done using Kaplan-Meier estimation and differences were expressed using the log-rank test. Overall response rate (ORR) was compared using Fisher's exact test. Data from a central independent radiological response evaluation were used to calculate early tumour shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR). RESULTS: Overall, 188 patients with RAS-mutant tumours and 48 with BRAF-mutant tumours were identified. In BRAF-mutant patients, ORR was numerically higher in the cetuximab versus the bevacizumab arm (52% versus 40%), while comparable results were achieved for progression-free survival (PFS; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.84, p = 0.56) and overall survival (OS; HR 0.79, p = 0.45). RAS mutation was associated with a trend towards lower ORR (37% versus 50.5%, p = 0.11) and shorter PFS (7.4 versus 9.7 months; HR 1.25; p = 0.14) in patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus bevacizumab, but OS was comparable (19.1 versus 20.1 months; HR 1.05; p = 0.73), respectively. ETS identified subgroups sensitive to cetuximab-based treatment in both BRAF- (9/17) and RAS-mutant (18/48) patients and was associated with significantly longer OS. DpR was comparable between both treatment arms in RAS- and BRAF-mutant patients, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In BRAF- and RAS-mutant patients, cetuximab- and bevacizumab-based treatment had comparable survival times. ETS represents an early parameter associated with the benefit from anti-EGFR, while this was not the case with vascular endothelial growth factor A blockade.

CEA response is associated with tumor response and survival in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type and extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer receiving first-line FOLFIRI plus cetuximab or bevacizumab (FIRE-3 trial).

BACKGROUND: To examine the relation of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) response with tumor response and survival in patients with (K)RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy in the FIRE-3 trial comparing FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CEA response assessed as the percentage of CEA decrease from baseline to nadir was evaluated for its association with tumor response and survival. Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed an optimal cut-off value of 75% using the maximum of sensitivity and specificity for CEA response to discriminate CEA responders from non-responders. In addition, the time to CEA nadir was calculated. RESULTS: Of 592 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 472 were eligible for analysis of CEA (cetuximab arm: 230 and bevacizumab arm: 242). Maximal relative CEA decrease (%) significantly (P = 0.003) differed between the cetuximab arm (median 83.0%; IQR 40.9%-94.7%) and the bevacizumab arm (median 72.3%; IQR 26.3%-91.0%). In a longitudinal analysis, the CEA decrease occurred faster in the cetuximab arm and was greater than in the bevacizumab arm at all evaluated time points until 56 weeks after treatment start. CEA nadir occurred after 3.3 months (cetuximab arm) and 3.5 months (bevacizumab arm), (P = 0.49). In the cetuximab arm, CEA responders showed a significantly longer progression-free survival [11.8 versus 7.4 months; hazard ratio (HR) 1.53; 95% Cl, 1.15-2.04; P = 0.004] and longer overall survival (36.6 versus 21.3 months; HR 1.73; 95% Cl, 1.24-2.43; P = 0.001) than CEA non-responders. Analysis of extended RAS wild-type patients revealed similar results. CONCLUSION: In the FIRE-3 trial, CEA decrease was significantly faster and greater in the cetuximab arm than in the bevacizumab arm and correlated with the prolonged survival observed in patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT00433927 (ClinicalTrials.gov); AIO KRK0306 FIRE-3.

Influence of mRNA expression of epiregulin and amphiregulin on outcome of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with 5-FU/LV plus irinotecan or irinotecan plus oxaliplatin as first-line treatment (FIRE 1-trial).

Our aim was to investigate the impact of EREG and AREG mRNA expression (by RT-qPCR) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In addition, epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) expression (by immunohistochemistry) as well as RAS-and PIK3CA-mutations (by pyrosequencing) were assessed. Tumors of 208 mCRC patients receiving 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin plus irinotecan (FUFIRI) or irinotecan plus oxaliplatin (mIROX) within the FIRE-1 trial were analyzed for mutations. Molecular characteristics were correlated with response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS). mRNA expression was evaluated using ROC-analysis in 192 tumors (AREG high n = 31 vs. low n = 161; EREG high n = 89 vs. low n = 103). High versus low AREG expression was associated with PFS of 10.0 versus 8.0 months (HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.402-0.940, p = 0.03) and OS of 24.6 versus 18.7 months (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.476-1.078, p = 0.11). High versus low EREG expression correlated with prolonged PFS (9.4 vs. 6.8 months, HR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.460-0.846, p = 0.002) and OS (25.8 vs. 15.5 months, HR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.351-0.657, p < 0.001). The positive prognostic effect of high EREG expression was confirmed in a multivariate analysis and was neither affected by EGFR expression nor by mutations of RAS- and PIK3CA-genes. EREG expression appears as an independent prognostic marker in patients with mCRC receiving first-line irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

Evaluation of prognostic factors in liver-limited metastatic colorectal cancer: a preplanned analysis of the FIRE-1 trial.

BACKGROUND: Liver-limited disease (LLD) denotes a specific subgroup of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 479 patients with unresectable mCRC from an irinotecan-based randomised phase III trial were evaluated. Patients with LLD and non-LLD and hepatic resection were differentiated. Based on baseline patient characteristic, prognostic factors for hepatic resection were evaluated. Furthermore, prognostic factors for median overall survival (OS) were estimated via Cox regression in LLD patients. RESULTS: Secondary liver resection was performed in 38 out of 479 patients (resection rate: 7.9%). Prognostic factors for hepatic resection were LLD, lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), node-negative primary, alkaline phosphatase (AP) and Karnofsky performance status (PS). Median OS was significantly increased after hepatic resection (48 months), whereas OS in LLD (17 months) and non-LLD (19 months) was comparable in non-resected patients. With the inapplicability of Koehne's risk classification in LLD patients, a new score based on only the independent prognostic factors LDH and white blood cell (WBC) provided markedly improved information on the outcome. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing hepatic resection showed favourable long-term survival, whereas non-resected LLD patients and non-LLD patients did not differ with regard to progression-free survival and OS. The LDH levels and WBC count were confirmed as prognostic factors and provide a useful and simple score for OS-related risk stratification also in LLD.

EGFR pathway biomarkers in erlotinib-treated patients with advanced pancreatic cancer: translational results from the randomised, crossover phase 3 trial AIO-PK0104.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to identify molecular epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tissue biomarkers in pancreatic cancer (PC) patients treated with the anti-EGFR agent erlotinib within the phase 3 randomised AIO-PK0104 study. METHODS: AIO-PK0104 was a multicenter trial comparing gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by capecitabine with capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine in advanced PC; primary study end point was the time-to-treatment failure after first- and second-line therapy (TTF2). Translational analyses were performed for KRAS exon 2 mutations, EGFR expression, PTEN expression, the EGFR intron 1 and exon 13 R497K polymorphism (PM). Biomarker data were correlated with TTF, overall survival (OS) and skin rash. RESULTS: Archival tumour tissue was available from 208 (74%) of the randomised patients. The KRAS mutations were found in 70% (121 out of 173) of patients and exclusively occurred in codon 12. The EGFR overexpression was detected in 89 out of 181 patients (49%) by immunohistochemistry (IHC), and 77 out of 166 patients (46%) had an EGFR gene amplification by fluorescence in-situ hybridisation (FISH); 30 out of 171 patients (18%) had a loss of PTEN expression, which was associated with an inferior TTF1 (first-line therapy; HR 0.61, P=0.02) and TTF2 (HR 0.66, P=0.04). The KRAS wild-type status was associated with improved OS (HR 1.68, P=0.005); no significant OS correlation was found for EGFR-IHC (HR 0.96), EGFR-FISH (HR 1.22), PTEN-IHC (HR 0.77), intron 1 (HR 0.91) or exon 13 R497K PM (HR 0.83). None of the six biomarkers correlated with the occurrence of skin rash. CONCLUSION: The KRAS wild-type was associated with an improved OS in erlotinib-treated PC patients in this phase 3 study; it remains to be defined whether this association is prognostic or predictive.

FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer-subgroup analysis of patients with KRAS: mutated tumours in the randomised German AIO study KRK-0306.

BACKGROUND: The AIO KRK-0306 trial compares the efficacy of infusional 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid, irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In October 2008, an amendment terminated the inclusion of patients with KRAS-mutated tumours. This subgroup of patients is evaluated in the present analysis, while the study is ongoing for patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to FOLFIRI (Tournigand regimen) every 2 weeks plus cetuximab (400 mg/m2 day 1, followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly=arm A) or bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every 2 weeks=arm B). Among 336 randomised patients, KRAS mutation was demonstrated in 100 assessable patients. The primary study end point was objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: ORR was 44% [95% confidence interval (CI) 29% to 59%] in arm A versus 48% (95% CI, 33% to 62%) in arm B. Progression-free survival was 7.5 versus 8.9 months (hazard ratio: 1.0) and overall survival was 22.7 versus 18.7 months (hazard ratio: 0.86) in arms A versus B, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first head to head comparison of cetuximab versus bevacizumab in first-line treatment of mCRC. In the present evaluation of patients with KRAS-mutated tumours, neither strategy demonstrated a clearly superior outcome.

Correlation of capecitabine-induced skin toxicity with treatment efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: results from the German AIO KRK-0104 trial.

BACKGROUND: The AIO KRK-0104 randomised phase II trial investigated the efficacy and safety of two capecitabine-based regimens: combination of capecitabine and irinotecan (CAPIRI) plus cetuximab (CAPIRI-C) and combination of capecitabine with oxaliplatin (CAPOX) plus cetuximab (CAPOX-C) in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Treatment-related skin toxicity (ST) was evaluated separately for capecitabine and cetuximab. The present analysis investigates the correlation of capecitabine-attributed ST (Cape-ST) and parameters of treatment efficacy. METHODS: Patients with mCRC were randomised to cetuximab (400 mg m(-2), day 1, followed by 250 mg m(-2) weekly) plus CAPIRI (irinotecan 200 mg m(-2), day 1; capecitabine 800 mg m(-2), twice daily, days 1-14, every 3 weeks), or cetuximab plus CAPOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg m(-2), day 1; capecitabine 1000 mg m(-2), twice daily, days 1-14, every 3 weeks). RESULTS: Of 185 recruited patients, 149 (CAPIRI-C, n=78; CAPOX-C, n=71) received study treatment beyond the first tumour assessment and were evaluable for efficacy. Capecitabine-attributed ST, predominantly hand-foot syndrome, was observed in 32.2% of patients. Capecitabine-attributed ST grade 1-3 was associated with a significantly higher disease control rate (DCR) (97.9 vs 86.1%, P=0.038) compared with grade 0 toxicity. Moreover, Cape-ST grade 1-3 related to a markedly longer progression-free survival (PFS) (9.9 vs 5.6 months, P<0.001) and overall survival (OS) (32.8 vs 22.4 months, P=0.008). Separate analyses of treatment arms indicated that the effect of Cape-ST on PFS remained significant for both arms, whereas the effect on OS remained apparent as a strong trend. CONCLUSION: This analysis supports the hypothesis that for the evaluated regimens, a correlation exists between Cape-ST and treatment efficacy regarding DCR, PFS, and OS.

A German multicenter, randomized phase III trial comparing irinotecan-carboplatin with etoposide-carboplatin as first-line therapy for extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: This trial was designed to prove superiority of irinotecan over etoposide combined with carboplatin in extensive-disease small-cell lung cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive carboplatin area under the curve 5 mg x min/ml either in combination with irinotecan 50 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 (IP) or etoposide 140 mg/m2 on days 1-3 (EP). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months. Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), response rate, and toxicity. RESULTS: Of 226 patients, 216 were eligible. Median PFS was 6.0 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 5.0-7.0] in the IP arm and 6.0 months (95% CI 5.2-6.8) in EP arm (P = 0.07). Median survival was 10.0 months (95% CI 8.4-11.6) and 9.0 months (95% CI 7.6-10.4) in the IP and EP arm (P = 0.06), respectively. Hazard ratios for disease progression and OS were 1.29 (95% CI 0.96-1.73, P = 0.095) and 1.34 (95% CI 0.97-1.85, P = 0.072), respectively. No difference in response rates was observed. Grade 3 and 4 hematologic toxicity favored the IP arm, whereas diarrhea was significantly more frequent in the IP arm. CONCLUSION: This trial failed to show superiority of irinotecan over etoposide in combination with carboplatin.

A randomized phase II trial of irinotecan plus carboplatin versus etoposide plus carboplatin treatment in patients with extended disease small-cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Superiority of irinotecan/cisplatin over etoposide/cisplatin was suggested in small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). This trial investigated irinotecan/carboplatin (IP) versus etoposide/carboplatin (EP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The interim analysis at the phase II/phase III transition point of the multicenter trial is reported. Extensive disease SCLC patients were randomized to receive carboplatin AUC 5 mg x min/ml either in combination with 50 mg/m2 of irinotecan on days 1, 8 and 15 (IP) or with etoposide 140 mg/m2 days 1-3 (EP). The primary end point was response rate and the secondary end points were toxicity and progression-free survival. RESULTS: Seventy patients were randomized. Significant differences in grade 3 and 4 thrombopenia (17% IP versus 48% EP, P = 0.01) and neutropenia (26% IP versus 51% PE, P < 0.01) were found. Grade 3 and 4 diarrhea was more frequent with IP (18%) than with EP (6%) (P = 0.133). Response rates were 67% and 59% (P = 0.24) in the IP versus EP arm, respectively. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9 months (95% CI 7.1-10.9) in the IP arm and 6 months (95% CI 4.1-7.9) in the EP arm (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: IP is active, less toxic and appears to improve PFS. Based on the phase II results the trial has been extended to phase III to assess the impact on overall survival.