Quality of life assessment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving maintenance therapy after first-line induction treatment: a preplanned analysis of the phase III AIO KRK 0207 trial.

BACKGROUND: First-line maintenance strategies are a current matter of debate in the management of mCRC. Their impact on patient's health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has not yet been evaluated. The objective of this study was to assess whether differences in HRQOL during any active maintenance treatment compared with no maintenance treatment exist. PATIENT AND METHODS: Eight hundred and thirty-seven patients were enrolled in the AIO KRK 0207 trial. Four hundred and seventy-two underwent randomization (after 24 weeks of induction treatment) into one of the maintenance arms: FP plus Bev (arm A), Bev alone (arm B), or no active treatment (arm C). HRQOL were assessed every 6 weeks during induction and maintenance treatment independent from treatment stop, delay, or modification, and also continued after progression, using the EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR29. The mean value of the global quality of life dimension (GHS/QoL) of the EORTC QLQ-C30, calculated as the average of all available time points after randomization was considered as pre-specified main endpoint. Additionally, EORTC QLQ-C30 response scores were analyzed. RESULTS: For HRQOL analysis, 413 patients were eligible (arm A: 136; arm B: 142, arm C: 135). Compliance rate with the HRQOL questionnaires was 95% at time of randomization and remained high during maintenance (98%, 99%, 97% and 97% at week 6, 12, 18 and 24). No significant differences between treatment arms in the mean GHS/QoL scores were observed at any time point. Also, rates of GHS/QoL score deterioration were similar (20.5%; 17.2% and 20.7% of patients), whereas a score improvement occurred in 36.1%; 43.8% and 42.1% (arms A, B and C). CONCLUSION: Continuation of an active maintenance treatment with FP/Bev after induction treatment was neither associated with a detrimental effect on GHS/QoL scores when compared with both, less active treatment with Bev alone or no active treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBER: NCT00973609 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Intraperitoneal bevacizumab for control of malignant ascites due to advanced-stage gastrointestinal cancers: A multicentre double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study - AIO SUP-0108.

PURPOSE: Malignant ascites is debilitating for patients with advanced cancer. As shown previously, tumour cell production of vascular endothelial growth factor might be a major cause of the formation of malignant ascites. Intraperitoneal bevacizumab could therefore be an option for symptom control in refractory ascites. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer and malignant ascites who had undergone paracentesis at least twice within the past 4 weeks were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intraperitoneal bevacizumab (400 mg absolute) or placebo after paracentesis. During the 8-week treatment period, a minimum interval of 14 d was kept between the applications of the study drug. Primary end-point was paracentesis-free survival (ParFS). RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (median age 63 years) were randomised. Forty-nine patients received at least one study drug application and qualified for the main analysis. The proportion of patients with at least one common toxicity criteria grade III-V event was similar with 20/33 (61%) on bevacizumab and 11/16 (69%) on placebo. Median ParFS was 14 d (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11-17) in the bevacizumab arm and 10.5 d (95% CI: 7-21) on placebo (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% CI: 0.40-1.37; P = 0.16). The longest paracentesis-free period was 19 d on bevacizumab (range 6-66 d) and 17.5 d in the placebo arm (range 4-42) (P = 0.85). Median overall survival was 64 d (95% CI: 45-103) on bevacizumab compared to 31.5 d (95% CI: 20-117) on placebo (P = 0.31). CONCLUSION: Intraperitoneal bevacizumab was well tolerated. Overall, treatment did not result in a significantly better symptom control of malignant ascites. However, patients defined by specific immune characteristics may benefit.

Phase I study of the humanised anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody matuzumab (EMD 72000) combined with gemcitabine in advanced pancreatic cancer.

The humanised anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody matuzumab (formerly EMD 72000) is active against pancreatic cancer in preclinical studies. This phase I study assessed the safety and potential benefit of combined treatment with matuzumab and standard-dose gemcitabine. Three groups of chemotherapy-naive advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma patients (n=17) received escalating doses of matuzumab (400 mg weekly, 800 mg biweekly, or 800 mg weekly) and gemcitabine (1000 mg m-2 weekly in weeks 1-3 of each 4-week cycle). Toxicity, antitumour activity, pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters, and pharmacodynamic (PD) markers in skin biopsies were evaluated. Severe treatment-related toxicities were limited to grade 3 neutropenia (n=3), leucopenia (n=1), and decreased white blood cell count (n=1). Common study drug-related adverse events were skin toxicities (grade 2=6, grade 1=7) and fever (grade 1=4). Matuzumab inhibited phosphorylated EGFR and affected receptor-dependent signalling and transduction; effects were seen even in the lowest-dose group. Pharmacokinetic data were consistent with results of matuzumab monotherapy. Partial response (PR) or stable disease occurred in eight of 12 evaluated patients (66.7%), with three PRs among six evaluated patients in the group receiving 800 mg weekly. Matuzumab in biologically effective doses with standard gemcitabine therapy appears well tolerated. The combination is feasible and may have enhanced activity.