Safety and feasibility of chemotherapy followed by liver transplantation for patients with definitely unresectable colorectal liver metastases: insights from the TransMet randomised clinical trial.

Background: Despite the increasing efficacy of chemotherapy (C), the 5-year survival rate for patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CLM) remains around 10%. Liver transplantation (LT) might offer a curative approach for patients with liver-only disease, yet its superior efficacy compared to C alone remains to be demonstrated. Methods: The TransMet randomised multicentre clinical trial (NCT02597348) compares the curative potential of C followed by LT versus C alone in patients with unresectable CLM despite stable or responding disease on C. Patient eligibility criteria proposed by local tumour boards had to be validated by an independent committee via monthly videoconferences. Outcomes reported here are from a non-specified interim analysis. These include the eligibility of patients to be transplanted for non resectable colorectal liver metastases, as well as the feasibility and the safety of liver transplantation in this indication. Findings: From February 2016 to July 2021, 94 (60%) of 157 patients from 20 centres in 3 countries submitted to the validation committee, were randomised. Reasons for ineligibility were mainly tumour progression in 50 (32%) or potential resectability in 13 (8%). The median delay to LT after randomisation was 51 (IQR 30-65) days. Nine of 47 patients (19%, 95% CI: 9-33) allocated to the LT arm failed to undergo transplantation because of intercurrent disease progression. Three of the 38 transplanted patients (8%) were re-transplanted, one of whom (3%) died post-operatively from multi-organ failure. Interpretation: The selection process of potential candidates for curative intent LT for unresectable CLM in the TransMet trial highlighted the critical role of an independent multidisciplinary validation committee. After stringent selection, the feasibility of LT was 81%, as 19% had disease progression while on the waiting list. These patients should be given high priority for organ allocation to avoid dropout from the transplant strategy. Funding: No source of support or funding from any author to disclose for this work. The trial was supported by the Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP).

Bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI after failure of platinum-etoposide first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced neuroendocrine carcinoma (PRODIGE 41-BEVANEC): a randomised, multicentre, non-comparative, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is no standard second-line treatment after platinum-etoposide chemotherapy for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab, and FOLFIRI alone, in this setting. METHODS: We did a randomised, non-comparative, open-label, phase 2 trial (PRODIGE 41-BEVANEC) at 26 hospitals in France. We included patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma or neuroendocrine carcinoma of unknown primary origin, documented progressive disease during or after first-line platinum-etoposide chemotherapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1; block size of three), without stratification, to receive FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m2, calcium folinate 400 mg/m2 or levofolinate 200 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus then 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h) plus bevacizumab 5 mg/kg or FOLFIRI alone, intravenously, every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was overall survival at 6 months after randomisation, evaluated in the modified intention-to-treat population (all enrolled and randomly assigned patients who received at least one cycle of FOLFIRI). This study is now complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02820857. FINDINGS: Between Sept 5, 2017, and Feb 8, 2022, 150 patients were assessed for eligibility and 133 were enrolled and randomly assigned: 65 to the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 68 to the FOLFIRI group. 126 patients (59 in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 67 in the FOLFIRI group) received at least one cycle of FOLFIRI and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, 83 (66%) of whom were male and 43 (34%) were female, and the median age of the patients was 67 years (IQR 58-73). The primary tumour location was colorectal in 38 (30%) of 126 patients, pancreatic in 34 (27%), gastro-oesophageal in 22 (17%), and unknown in 23 (18%). After a median follow-up of 25·7 months (95% CI 22·0-38·2), 6-month overall survival was 53% (80% CI 43-61) in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 60% (51-68) in the FOLFIRI group. Grade 3-4 adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of patients were neutropenia (eight [14%] patients), diarrhoea (six [10%]), and asthenia (five [8%]) in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group, and neutropenia (seven [10%]) in the FOLFIRI group. One treatment-related death (ischaemic stroke) occurred in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of bevacizumab did not seem to increase the benefit of FOLFIRI with regard to overall survival. FOLFIRI could be considered as a standard second-line treatment in patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health and Roche SAS.

Withholding the Introduction of Anti-Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor: Impact on Outcomes in RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Tumors: A Multicenter AGEO Study (the WAIT or ACT Study).

BACKGROUND: Patients with RAS wild-type (WT) nonresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) may receive either bevacizumab or an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) combined with first-line, 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. Without the RAS status information, the oncologist can either start chemotherapy with bevacizumab or wait for the introduction of the anti-EGFR. Our objective was to compare both strategies in a routine practice setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This multicenter, retrospective, propensity score-weighted study included patients with a RAS WT nonresectable mCRC, treated between 2013 and 2016 by a 5-FU-based chemotherapy, with either delayed anti-EGFR or immediate anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF). Primary criterion was overall survival (OS). Secondary criteria were progression-free survival (PFS) and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: A total of 262 patients (129 in the anti-VEGF group and 133 in the anti-EGFR group) were included. Patients receiving an anti-VEGF were more often men (68% vs. 56%), with more metastatic sites (>2 sites: 15% vs. 9%). The median delay to obtain the RAS status was 19 days (interquartile range: 13-26). Median OS was not significantly different in the two groups (29 vs. 30.5 months, p = .299), even after weighting on the propensity score (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.08, p = .2024). The delayed introduction of anti-EGFR was associated with better median PFS (13.8 vs. 11.0 months, p = .0244), even after weighting on the propensity score (HR = 0.74, 95% CI, 0.61-0.90, p = .0024). ORR was significantly higher in the anti-EGFR group (66.7% vs. 45.6%, p = .0007). CONCLUSION: Delayed introduction of anti-EGFR had no deleterious effect on OS, PFS, and ORR, compared with doublet chemotherapy with anti-VEGF. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: For RAS/RAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, patients may receive 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy plus either bevacizumab or an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). In daily practice, the time to obtain the RAS status might be long enough to consider two options: to start the chemotherapy with bevacizumab, or to start without a targeted therapy and to add the anti-EGFR at reception of the RAS status. This study found no deleterious effect of the delayed introduction of an anti-EGFR on survival, compared with the introduction of an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor from cycle 1. It is possible to wait one or two cycles to introduce the anti-EGFR while waiting for RAS status.

Gastric cancer: French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO).

INTRODUCTION: This document is a summary of the French Intergroup guidelines regarding the management of gastric cancer published in October 2016, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org), updated in October 2017. METHODS: This collaborative work was realized under the auspices of several French medical societies involved in management of gastric cancer. Recommendations are graded in three categories (A-C), according to the amount of evidence found in the literature until July 2017. RESULTS: There are several known risk factors for gastric cancer, including Helicobacter pylori and genetic predispositions, both requiring a specific screening for patients and their relatives. The diagnosis and staging evaluation are essentially based on gastroscopy plus biopsies and computed tomography scan. The endoscopic ultrasonography can be used for superficial tumors in case of discussion for endoscopic resection (T1N0). For local disease (N+ and/or T > T1), the strategic therapy is based on surgery associated with perioperative chemotherapy. In the absence of preoperative treatment (for any raison), the postoperative chemoradiotherapy (or chemotherapy) should be discussed for patients with stage II or III tumor. For metastatic disease, the treatment is based on "palliative" chemotherapy consisting in a doublet or triplet regimens depending of age, performance status and HER2 tumor status. For patients with limited metastatic disease, surgical resection could be discussed in multidisciplinary meeting in case of stable disease after chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: These guidelines in gastric cancer are done to help decision for daily clinical practice. These recommendations are permanently being reviewed. Each individual case must be discussed within a multidisciplinary team.

Evaluating bevacizumab in combination with FOLFIRI after the failure of platinum-etoposide regimen in patients with advanced poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma: The PRODIGE 41-BEVANEC randomized phase II study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with gastroenteropancreatic (GEP), metastatic or locally advanced, non-resectable, grade 3 poorly-differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC) are treated with cisplatin (or carboplatin)-etoposide in first-line palliative chemotherapy (CT1). However, nearly all patients will develop resistance and there is no standard second-line treatment. AIM: PRODIGE 41-BEVANEC is an academic randomized, phase II study designed to evaluate the efficacy of bevacizumab in combination with FOLFIRI after failure of CT1 in unknown primary NEC and GEP-NEC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The main eligibility criteria are age ≥18 years, metastatic (synchronous or metachronous) or locally advanced, non-resectable, grade 3 GEP-NEC, and documented progressive disease during or after CT1 therapy. RESULTS: A total of 124 patients will be randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 5 mg/kg bevacizumab with FOLFIRI, or FOLFIRI alone, every 14 days until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The hypothesis is to demonstrate a 6-month overall survival for at least 50% of the patients in bevacizumab arm versus 35% in the control arm (FOLFIRI alone). Secondary endpoints are objective response, response duration, progression-free survival, toxicity, and biochemical response. CONCLUSION: The study is currently opened in France (NCT02820857). The first patient was randomized on September 6, 2017.

Patient-reported tolerance in treatments approved in neuroendocrine tumors: A national survey from the French Group of Endocrine Tumors.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) benefit from an increasing number of treatments. The patient's preference could help physicians to choose among these options. Our patient-reported survey aims to compare the perceived tolerance of NETs treatments. METHODS: Patients treated by at least three different therapeutic options have evaluated their perceived tolerance from one (very good) to five (very poor) for each single treatment. Referent physician confirmed the type and ranking over time of each treatment. RESULTS: Two hundred and fourty two treatments have been evaluated by 54 patients. Among patients and NETs characteristics, only a female gender was associated with poor perceived tolerance. Median perceived tolerance increased from 1 (somatostatin analogs, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT)), 2 (surgery, radiofrequency ablation and oral chemotherapy), 3 (interferon and everolimus), to 4 (liver embolization, sunitinib and intravenous chemotherapy). In taking somatostatin analogs as reference, the odd ratios for poor perceived tolerance were 1.7 [0.6-5.1] for oral chemotherapy, 2.2 [0.9-5.3] for surgery of the primary tumor, 2.4 [0.6-9.5] for radiofrequency ablation, 2.8 [1.1-7.3] for surgery of metastasis, 3.4 [1.4-7.9] for everolimus, 3.7 [1.6-8.5] for liver embolization, 4.9 [2.2-10.7] for intravenous chemotherapy and 5.9 [2.6-13.1] for sunitinib. Only PRRT had negative odd ratio. CONCLUSION: Our retrospective analysis suggests that perceived tolerance differ in between therapeutic options and may help physicians to sequence the therapeutic strategy.

Initial endoscopic description of esophageal squamous cell carcinomas.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate initial endoscopic practices at diagnosis of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in comparison with current recommendations. We wanted to develop a standard model for the endoscopy report which could be used in routine practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From January 2000 to December 2002, 122 patients were hospitalized for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. The initial endoscopic reports were reviewed retrospectively and compared with a model report established on the basis of current recommendations. RESULTS: One hundred and nineteen reports were re-examined. The principal reason for performing the endoscopic examination was dysphagia in 73.9% of patients. Tumor measurements (height, upper and lower extremities) were recorded in 51.2%, 79% and 41% of reports, respectively. 14.4% of the analyzed reports concerned endoscopic procedures which were performed after a first endoscopic examination because the initial report provided an imprecise tumor description. Tissue samples taken during the initial endoscopy allowed a pathological diagnosis in 94.2% of patients. Lugol staining was performed in 2.5% of procedures. CONCLUSION: Insufficiently rigorous reporting compromises the reliability of initial upper digestive endoscopic procedures. Application of a standardized model for routine practice would favor more complete reports, starting with the first procedure.

[Prostate cancer and acute disseminated intravascular coagulation. Therapeutic management based on three cases]. / Cancer de la prostate et coagulation intra vasculaire disséminée aiguë. Prise en charge thérapeutique: à propos de trois cas.

Acute DIC is a rare, but life-threatening complication of metastatic prostate cancer. The authors discuss the treatment modalities in the light of three cases and a review of the recent literature. The key to treatment of DIC is treatment anti of the tumour. Androgen blockade is indicated in hormone-dependent tumours. This treatment can sometimes be completed by low-dose oral anticoagulants. Chemotherapy is the treatment of choice of acute DIC during the hormone resistance phase.