Real-World Data on Olaparib in Relapsed BRCA-mutated Ovarian Cancer: A Multicenter GINECO RETROLA Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Olaparib was approved in 2014 by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as maintenance treatment for patients with breast cancer gene (BRCA)-mutated platinum-sensitive relapsed high-grade epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) following the results of the Study 19. We present the results of a national real-world study on the effectiveness of olaparib in relapsed BRCA-mutated EOC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with EOC, peritoneal, and/or fallopian-tube cancer treated with olaparib in a French Center between May 2014 and March 2017 were included. The primary end-point of the study was progression-free survival. RESULTS: Of the 128 patients analyzed, 89 were treated according to the EMA label. The median progression-free survival was 17.0 months. The most common treatment-related toxicity was fatigue. Treatment-related myelodysplastic syndrome (n=5) and a second cancer (n=1) were diagnosed. CONCLUSION: In this real-life setting, olaparib confirmed its efficacy and safety profile, as previously shown in clinical trials.

A phase II study of Navitoclax (ABT-263) as single agent in women heavily pretreated for recurrent epithelial ovarian cancer: The MONAVI - GINECO study.

BACKGROUND: There are limited treatment options for ovarian cancer patients with early relapse after platinum chemotherapy. In preclinical studies, we previously demonstrated the promising activity of ABT-737, a Bcl-2/Bcl-xL anti-apoptotic protein inhibitor, in chemo-resistant ovarian cancer cells and tumors, suggesting its potential activity in platinum-resistant patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicenter single-arm phase II study to assess the efficacy of Navitoclax (orally available ABT-737 analogue) monotherapy in 46 heavily pretreated (2-12 lines, median = 4) patients with high-grade serous platinum-resistant ovarian tumors. Navitoclax was administered at the daily dose of 150 mg during a lead-in period (7-14 days) and then increased to 250 mg daily in the absence of dose-limiting thrombocytopenia (

Association of COVID-19 Lockdown With the Tumor Burden in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with substantial reduction in screening, case identification, and hospital referrals among patients with cancer. However, no study has quantitatively examined the implications of this correlation for cancer patient management. Objective: To evaluate the association of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown with the tumor burden of patients who were diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) before vs after lockdown. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed participants in the screening procedure of the PANIRINOX (Phase II Randomized Study Comparing FOLFIRINOX + Panitumumab vs FOLFOX + Panitumumab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Stratified by RAS Status from Circulating DNA Analysis) phase 2 randomized clinical trial. These newly diagnosed patients received care at 1 of 18 different clinical centers in France and were recruited before or after the lockdown was enacted in France in the spring of 2020. Patients underwent a blood-sampling screening procedure to identify their RAS and BRAF tumor status. Exposures: mCRC. Main Outcomes and Measures: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis was used to identify RAS and BRAF status. Tumor burden was evaluated by the total plasma ctDNA concentration. The median ctDNA concentration was compared in patients who underwent screening before (November 11, 2019, to March 9, 2020) vs after (May 14 to September 3, 2020) lockdown and in patients who were included from the start of the PANIRINOX study. Results: A total of 80 patients were included, of whom 40 underwent screening before and 40 others underwent screening after the first COVID-19 lockdown in France. These patients included 48 men (60.0%) and 32 women (40.0%) and had a median (range) age of 62 (37-77) years. The median ctDNA concentration was statistically higher in patients who were newly diagnosed after lockdown compared with those who were diagnosed before lockdown (119.2 ng/mL vs 17.3 ng/mL; P < .001). Patients with mCRC and high ctDNA concentration had lower median survival compared with those with lower concentration (14.7 [95% CI, 8.8-18.0] months vs 20.0 [95% CI, 14.1-32.0] months). This finding points to the potential adverse consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdown. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that tumor burden differed between patients who received an mCRC diagnosis before vs after the first COVID-19 lockdown in France. The findings of this study suggest that CRC is a major area for intervention to minimize pandemic-associated delays in screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

Intrapericardial instillation of bleomycin prevents recurrence of malignant pericardial effusions: Series of 46 cases and comprehensive literature review.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant pericardial effusion is a severe complication of lung and breast cancer. The median survival is less than 4 months and recurrences occurs in about 40% of cases. Systemic chemotherapy and/or local treatments are necessary, even if there is no consensus. METHODS: We collected data from patients in our center from 1997 to 2016 who received at least one intrapericardial instillation of bleomycin (60mg). At the same time, we conducted a review of the relevant literature on the subject. RESULTS: We included 46 patients in the analysis. Median survival was 2.6 months [95% CI: 1.7; 4.7]. Overall survival was 49% [33%; 63%] at 3 months and 28% [15%; 42%] at 6 months. In the lung cancer subgroup, overall survival was 18% [3%; 44%] at 3 months. In the breast cancer subgroup, overall survival was 73% [44%; 89%] at 3 months and 46% [21%; 69%] at 6 months. DISCUSSION: The best response rates in the literature are obtained with local instillation of bleomycin or cisplatin. Malignant pericardial effusions in breast cancer patients had a better prognosis. This is certainly related to the prognosis of the underlying disease. We have not found an increase in overall survival with intrapericardial chemotherapy injections, but preventing recurrence of malignant pericardial effusions is a benefit in itself, thus avoiding a lethal complication.

Evaluation of KRAS, NRAS and BRAF mutations detection in plasma using an automated system for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cell-free DNA detection is becoming a surrogate assay for tumor genotyping. Biological fluids often content a very low amount of cell-free tumor DNA and assays able to detect very low allele frequency mutant with a few quantities of DNA are required. We evaluated the ability of the fully-automated molecular diagnostics platform Idylla for the detection of KRAS, NRAS and BRAF hotspot mutations in plasma from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: First, we evaluated the limit of detection of the system using two set of laboratory made samples that mimic mCRC patient plasma, then plasma samples from patients with mCRC were assessed using Idylla system and BEAMing digital PCR technology. RESULTS: Limits of detection of 0.1%, 0.4% and 0.01% for KRAS, NRAS and BRAF respectively have been reached. With our laboratory made samples, sensitivity up to 0.008% has been reached. Among 15 patients' samples tested for KRAS mutation, 2 discrepant results were found between Idylla and BEAMing dPCR. A 100% concordance between the two assays has been found for the detection of NRAS and BRAF mutations in plasma samples. CONCLUSIONS: The Idylla system does not reach as high sensitivity as assays like ddPCR but has an equivalent sensitivity to modified NGS technics with a lower cost and a lower time to results. These data allowed to consider the Idylla system in a routine laboratory workflow for KRAS, NRAS and BRAF mutations detection in plasma.

Exploitation of Precision Medicine Trials Data: Examples of Long Responders From the SHIVA01 Trial.

PURPOSE: Precision medicine trials constitute a precious source of molecular data with prospective clinical annotations allowing the exploration of patients' subpopulations according to specific clinical or biological questions. Using the SHIVA01-the first randomized trial comparing molecularly targeted therapy on the basis of tumor molecular profiling versus conventional chemotherapy in metastatic cancer patients who failed standard of care therapy-annotated database, we report cases of patients treated in the trial with targeted therapy who experienced an objective response or prolonged disease stabilization in light of patients' molecular alterations. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We selected all patients included in SHIVA01 treated with a molecularly targeted agent (MTA) who experienced an objective response or disease stabilization that lasted longer than 6 months according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1. RESULTS: Among the 170 patients who received MTAs in the SHIVA01 trial, 15 patients (9%) experienced an objective response (n = 3) or disease stabilization that lasted longer than 6 months (n = 12). The most frequent histologic subtypes were breast cancer (27%) and cervical cancer (20%). Six patients, including three patients with breast cancer, were treated with abiraterone on the basis of androgen receptor protein overexpression. Five patients were treated with everolimus on the basis of a PTEN heterozygous deletion with loss of protein expression, PIK3CA mutation, or both alterations. The remaining four patients were treated with tamoxifen, erlotinib, imatinib, and vemurafenib on the basis of progesterone receptor expression, EGFR amplification, KIT mutation, and BRAF mutation, respectively. TP53 mutations were absent in responder patients. CONCLUSION: Analysis of patients who experienced objective responses or disease stabilization that lasted longer than 6 months allowed the identification of potential biomarkers of sensitivity and resistance to MTAs.

Current status on the place of FOLFIRINOX in metastatic pancreatic cancer and future directions.

Pancreatic cancer (PC) incidence rates are rapidly increasing in developed countries, with half the patients being metastatic at diagnosis. For decades, fluorouracil, then gemcitabine regimens were the preferred palliative first-line options for fit patients with metastatic PC. FOLFIRINOX (a combination of bolus and infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin) was introduced to clinical practice in 2010 due to the results of the phase II/III trial (PRODIGE 4/ACCORD 11) comparing FOLFIRINOX with single-agent gemcitabine as first-line treatment for patients with MPC. Median overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response rate were superior with FOLFIRINOX over gemcitabine and there was prolonged time to definitive deterioration in quality of life. Although FOLFIRINOX was also associated with increased toxicity, mainly febrile neutropenia and diarrhea, there has been rapid uptake of this regimen. This review closely examines optimal management and prevention of toxicities, international recommendations for first-line treatment, and use of modified FOLFIRINOX protocols. In this review, we also look at the potential benefit of FOLFIRINOX in selected groups of patients: second-line therapy, adjuvant chemotherapy, induction therapy in patients with borderline resectable and locally advanced PC. Robust validation of the FOLFIRINOX regimen in these settings requires confirmation in further randomized trials.

Molecularly targeted therapy based on tumour molecular profiling versus conventional therapy for advanced cancer (SHIVA): a multicentre, open-label, proof-of-concept, randomised, controlled phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Molecularly targeted agents have been reported to have anti-tumour activity for patients whose tumours harbour the matching molecular alteration. These results have led to increased off-label use of molecularly targeted agents on the basis of identified molecular alterations. We assessed the efficacy of several molecularly targeted agents marketed in France, which were chosen on the basis of tumour molecular profiling but used outside their indications, in patients with advanced cancer for whom standard-of-care therapy had failed. METHODS: The open-label, randomised, controlled phase 2 SHIVA trial was done at eight French academic centres. We included adult patients with any kind of metastatic solid tumour refractory to standard of care, provided they had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, disease that was accessible for a biopsy or resection of a metastatic site, and at least one measurable lesion. The molecular profile of each patient's tumour was established with a mandatory biopsy of a metastatic tumour and large-scale genomic testing. We only included patients for whom a molecular alteration was identified within one of three molecular pathways (hormone receptor, PI3K/AKT/mTOR, RAF/MEK), which could be matched to one of ten regimens including 11 available molecularly targeted agents (erlotinib, lapatinib plus trastuzumab, sorafenib, imatinib, dasatinib, vemurafenib, everolimus, abiraterone, letrozole, tamoxifen). We randomly assigned these patients (1:1) to receive a matched molecularly targeted agent (experimental group) or treatment at physician's choice (control group) by central block randomisation (blocks of size six). Randomisation was done centrally with a web-based response system and was stratified according to the Royal Marsden Hospital prognostic score (0 or 1 vs 2 or 3) and the altered molecular pathway. Clinicians and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. Treatments in both groups were given in accordance with the approved product information and standard practice protocols at each institution and were continued until evidence of disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population, which was not assessed by independent central review. We assessed safety in any patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01771458. FINDINGS: Between Oct 4, 2012, and July 11, 2014, we screened 741 patients with any tumour type. 293 (40%) patients had at least one molecular alteration matching one of the 10 available regimens. At the time of data cutoff, Jan 20, 2015, 195 (26%) patients had been randomly assigned, with 99 in the experimental group and 96 in the control group. All patients in the experimental group started treatment, as did 92 in the control group. Two patients in the control group received a molecularly targeted agent: both were included in their assigned group for efficacy analyses, the patient who received an agent that was allowed in the experimental group was included in the experimental group for the purposes of safety analyses, while the other patient, who received a molecularly targeted agent and chemotherapy, was kept in the control group for safety analyses. Median follow-up was 11·3 months (IQR 5·8-11·6) in the experimental group and 11·3 months (8·1-11·6) in the control group at the time of the primary analysis of progression-free survival. Median progression-free survival was 2·3 months (95% CI 1·7-3·8) in the experimental group versus 2·0 months (1·8-2·1) in the control group (hazard ratio 0·88, 95% CI 0·65-1·19, p=0·41). In the safety population, 43 (43%) of 100 patients treated with a molecularly targeted agent and 32 (35%) of 91 patients treated with cytotoxic chemotherapy had grade 3-4 adverse events (p=0·30). INTERPRETATION: The use of molecularly targeted agents outside their indications does not improve progression-free survival compared with treatment at physician's choice in heavily pretreated patients with cancer. Off-label use of molecularly targeted agents should be discouraged, but enrolment in clinical trials should be encouraged to assess predictive biomarkers of efficacy.

The role of the FOLFIRINOX regimen for advanced pancreatic cancer.

In 2010, the FOLFIRINOX regimen (bolus and infusional 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) emerged as a new option in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer and a good performance status. However, at that time, some doubts were raised regarding safety issues. Similarly, no data on FOLFIRINOX were published in patients with unresectable/locally advanced or borderline resectable pancreatic cancer. This article presents the available experience with FOLFIRINOX outside clinical trials in metastatic and locally advanced pancreatic cancer patients. The safety of the regimen in patients with biliary stents and in previously treated patients is also described. FOLFIRINOX usage in clinical practice, including modification of the regimen (omission of bolus 5-fluorouracil; FOLFOXIRI regimen), is also presented. These data suggest that a phase III randomized study is warranted to further explore the role of FOLFIRINOX in locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

Metastatic pancreatic cancer: old drugs, new paradigms.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma has a grim prognosis and gemcitabine has been the reference treatment for 15 years. In this article, we will review current first-line treatments for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma focusing on randomized studies. RECENT FINDINGS: Among the numerous randomized phase III studies comparing gemcitabine as single agent to gemcitabine combined to a new agent, only the gemcitabine-erlotinib combination has shown a small, but statistical improvement in survival. A trend to better survival was also observed with a gemcitabine-capecitabine regimen. The use of low-weight heparin may be of value to reduce venous thromboembolic events. In selected patients with good performance status ECOG 0-1, the Folfirinox regimen, when compared with gemcitabine, was associated with more toxicities and significantly increased median survival from 6.8 to 11.1 months. SUMMARY: Gemcitabine (with or without erlotinib or capecitabine) is still the reference treatment in patients with ECOG performance status 2. Folfirinox is a new more toxic and more efficient regimen that may be considered in patients with good performance status.