The PANDA study: a randomized phase II study of first-line FOLFOX plus panitumumab versus 5FU plus panitumumab in RAS and BRAF wild-type elderly metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available regarding the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer elderly patients with anti-EGFR agents in combination with chemotherapy. FOLFOX plus panitumumab is a standard first-line option for RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Slight adjustments in chemo-dosage are commonly applied in clinical practice to elderly patients, but those modified schedules have never been prospectively tested. Clinical definition of elderly (≥70 years old) patients that may deserve a more or less intensive combination therapy is still debated. Several geriatric screening tools have been developed to predict survival and risk of toxicity from treatment. Among those, the G8 screening tool has been tested in cancer patients showing the strongest prognostic value for overall survival, while the CRASH score can stratify patients according to an estimated risk of treatment-related toxicities. METHODS: The PANDA study is a prospective, open-label, multicenter, randomized phase II trial of first-line therapy with panitumumab in combination with dose-adjusted FOLFOX or with 5-fluorouracil monotherapy, in previously untreated elderly patients (≥70 years) with RAS and BRAF wild-type unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. RAS and BRAF analyses are centralized. Geriatric assessment by means of G8 and CRASH score is planned at baseline and G8 will be re-evaluated at disease progression. The primary endpoint is duration of progression-free survival in both arms. Secondary endpoints include prospective evaluation of the prognostic role of G8 score and the correlation of CRASH risk categories with toxicity. DISCUSSION: The PANDA study aims at exploring safety and efficacy of panitumumab in combination with FOLFOX or with 5FU/LV in elderly patients affected by RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer, to identify the most promising treatment strategy in this setting. Additionally, this is the first trial in which the prognostic role of the G8 score will be prospectively evaluated. Results of this study will drive further experimental developments for one or both combinations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PANDA is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov : NCT02904031 , July 11, 2016. PANDA is registered at EudraCT-No.: 2015-003888-10, September 3, 2015.

Outcomes of Advanced Gastric Cancer Patients Treated with at Least Three Lines of Systemic Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Second-line therapy has consistently demonstrated survival benefit if compared with best supportive care; however, there is limited evidence whether further lines of treatment may improve the prognosis of advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Starting from a real-world cohort of 868 AGC patients, we retrospectively analyzed baseline parameters, tumor characteristics, and treatment data of those treated with at least three lines. Categorical features were described through cross-tables and chi-square test. We explored the impact of treatment intensity and progression-free survival (PFS) experienced in previous lines on PFS and overall survival in third-line by uni- and multivariate Cox regression models and described by Kaplan-Meier estimator plot with log-rank test. RESULTS: Overall, 300 patients were included in the analysis. The most common site of primary tumor was gastric body; 45.3% of cancers had an intestinal histotype, 14% were human epidermal growth receptor 2 positive. In third-line, 45.7% of patients received a single-agent chemotherapy, 49.7% a combination regimen. Patients who had experienced a first-line PFS ≥6.9 months had a better prognosis compared with those who had achieved a shorter one. Consistently, a second-line PFS ≥3.5 months positively influenced the prognosis. Patients receiving a third-line combination regimen had better outcomes compared with those treated with a single-agent chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Our real-world study confirms that selected AGC patients may receive third-line treatment. Longer PFS in previous lines or a more intense third-line treatment positively influenced prognosis. Further efforts are warranted to define the best therapeutic sequences, and to identify the optimal candidate for treatment beyond second-line. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The benefit of third-line treatment to advanced gastric cancer patients is controversial. This study depicts a real scenario of the clinical practice in Italy, confirming that a non-negligible proportion of patients receive a third-line therapy. Longer progression-free survival in previous treatment lines or higher third-line treatment intensity positively influenced prognosis. Including a large number of real-world patients, this study provides information on third-line treatment from the daily clinical practice; moreover, its results help in defining the best therapeutic sequence and offer some hints to select the optimal candidate for treatment beyond second-line.

Prognostic factors in 868 advanced gastric cancer patients treated with second-line chemotherapy in the real world.

BACKGROUND: Although second-line therapy is often considered for advanced gastric cancer patients, the optimal candidates are not well defined. METHODS: We retrospectively collected baseline parameters, tumour features, and treatment data for 868 advanced gastric cancer patients exposed to multiple treatment lines at 19 Italian centres. Cross-tables and chi-square tests were used to describe categorical features. To predict the impact of clinical variables on progression-free survival and overall survival, Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: At the start of second-line therapy, median age was 64.8 years (25th-75th percentiles: 55.2-71.9 years). Overall, 43% of patients received single-agent chemotherapy, 47.4% a doublet, and 7.3% a triplet. Median second-line progression-free survival was 2.8 months (25th-75th percentiles: 1.8-5.2 months) and median second-line overall survival was 5.6 months (25th-75th percentiles: 2.9-10.0 months). Multivariate analysis showed that performance status, LDH level, neutrophils/lymphocytes ratio, and progression-free survival in the first-line therapy all impacted on prognosis. Based on these four prognostic factors, a prognostic index was constructed that divided patients into good, intermediate, and poor risk groups; median second-line overall survival for each group was 7.7, 4.5, and 2.0 months, respectively (log-rank p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Advanced gastric cancer patients with a favourable ECOG performance status, lower LDH levels, and a lower neutrophils/lymphocytes ratio at the start of second-line therapy seem to have better outcomes, regardless of age and intensity of treatment. A longer progression-free survival in the first-line therapy also had positive prognostic value. Our real-life study might help clinicians to identify the patients who may benefit most from a second-line therapy.

Discordance in pathology report after central pathology review: Implications for breast cancer adjuvant treatment.

AIM: Pathological predictive factors are the most important markers when selecting early breast cancer adjuvant therapy. In randomized clinical trials the variability in pathology report after central pathology review is noteworthy. We evaluated the discordance rate (DR) and inter-rater agreement between local and central histopathological report and the clinical implication on treatment decision. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted in a series of consecutive early breast cancer tumors diagnosed by local pathologists and subsequently reviewed at the Pathology Division of European Institute of Oncology. The inter-rater agreement (k) between local and central pathology was calculated for Ki-67, grading, hormone receptors (ER/PgR) and HER2/neu. The Bland-Altman plots were derived to determine discrepancies in Ki-67, ER and PgR. DR was calculated for ER/PgR and HER2. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2013, 187 pathology specimens from 10 Cancer Centers were reviewed. Substantial agreement was observed for ER (k0.612; 95% CI, 0538-0.686), PgR (k0.659; 95% CI, 0580-0.737), Ki-67 (k0.609; 95% CI, 0.534-0.684) and grading (k0.669; 95% CI, 0.569-0.769). Moderate agreement was found for HER2 (k0.546; 95% CI, 0444-0.649). DR was 9.5% (negativity to positivity) and 31.7% (positivity to negativity) for HER2 and 26.2% (negativity to positivity) and 12.5% (positivity to negativity) for ER/PgR. According to changes in Her2 and ER/PgR status, 23 (12.2%) and 33 (17.6%) systemic prescription were respectively modified. CONCLUSIONS: In our retrospective analysis, central pathological review has a significant impact in the decision-making process in early breast cancer, as shown in clinical trials. Further studies are warranted to confirm these provocative results.

Angiogenic inhibitors for older patients with advanced colorectal cancer: does the age hold the stage?

Although major progress has been achieved in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) with the employment of antiangiogenic agents, several questions remain on the use of these drugs in older patients. Since cardiovascular, renal and other comorbidities are common in the elderly, an accurate assessment of the patients' conditions should be performed before a treatment decision is made. Since most CRC patients enrolled in clinical trials testing antiangiogenic drugs were aged < 65 years, the efficacy and tolerability of these agents in elderly patients has not been adequately explored. Data suggest that patients with advanced CRC derive similar benefit from bevacizumab treatment regardless of age, but the advantage of other antiangiogenic drugs in the same class of patients appears more blurred. Literature data suggest that specific antiangiogenic-related toxicities such as hypertension or arterial thromboembolic events may be higher in the elderly than in the younger patients. In addition, it should be emphasized that the patients included in the clinical studies discussed herein were selected and therefore may not be representative of the usual elderly population. Advanced age alone should not discourage the use of bevacizumab. However, a careful patients' selection and watchful monitoring of toxicities are required to optimize the use of antiangiogenics in this population.