Exercise prehabilitation during neoadjuvant chemotherapy may enhance tumour regression in oesophageal cancer: results from a prospective non-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence for the use of exercise in cancer patients and data supporting enhanced tumour volume reduction following chemotherapy in animal models. To date, there is no reported histopathological evidence of a similar oncological benefit in oesophageal cancer. METHODS: A prospective non-randomised trial compared a structured prehabilitation exercise intervention during neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery versus conventional best-practice for oesophageal cancer patients. Biochemical and body composition analyses were performed at multiple time points. Outcome measures included radiological and pathological markers of disease regression. Logistic regression calculated ORs with 95% CI for the likelihood of pathological response adjusting for chemotherapy regimen and chemotherapy delivery. RESULTS: Comparison of the Intervention (n=21) and Control (n=19) groups indicated the Intervention group had higher rates of tumour regression (Mandard TRG 1-3 Intervention n=15/20 (75%) vs Control n=7/19 (36.8%) p=0.025) including adjusted analyses (OR 6.57; 95% CI 1.52 to 28.30). Combined tumour and node downstaging (Intervention n=9 (42.9%) vs Control n=3 (15.8%) p=0.089) and Fat Free Mass index were also improved (Intervention 17.8 vs 18.7 kg/m2; Control 16.3 vs 14.7 kg/m2, p=0.026). Differences in markers of immunity (CD-3 and CD-8) and inflammation (IL-6, VEGF, INF-y, TNFa, MCP-1 and EGF) were observed. CONCLUSION: The results suggest improved tumour regression and downstaging in the exercise intervention group and should prompt larger studies on this topic. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03626610.

Exploration of Novel Prognostic Markers in Grade 3 Neuroendocrine Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: High-grade neuroendocrine tumours and carcinomas (NET/NECs) behave aggressively, typically presenting at an advanced stage. Prognosis is poor, with median survival between 5 and 34 months. The mainstay of treatment is palliative systemic therapy. However, therapy carries a risk of toxicity, which can reduce quality of life. Therefore, accurate prognostic scores for risk stratification of patients with high-grade NET/NECs are needed to help guide patient management to decide whether active treatment is likely to improve overall survival (OS). We aimed to compare the prognostic ability of published prognostic scores to predict OS in a cohort of patients with high-grade NET/NECs of any primary site. METHODS: Treatment, biochemical and clinicopathological data were collected retrospectively from 77 patients with high-grade NET/NECs across three hospitals between 2016 and 2020. Variables including performance status (PS), Ki-67, age at diagnosis, previous treatment and presence of liver metastases were recorded. Pre-treatment neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR), platelet-lymphocyte ratio, modified Glasgow prognostic score (mGPS), and gastrointestinal neuroendocrine carcinoma (GI-NEC) score were derived. Univariable and multivariable survival analyses were used to assess prognostic ability. RESULTS: The median age of the cohort was 63 years (range: 31-85); 53% of subjects were female. Grade 3 NETs (G3-NETs) were identified in 32 patients and NECs in 45 patients. The median OS was 13.45 months (range: 0.87-65.37) with no difference observed between G3-NETs and NECs. Univariable analysis revealed that NLR (n = 72, p = 0.049), mGPS (n = 56, p = 0.003), GI-NEC score (n = 27, p = 0.0007) and Ki-67 (n = 66, p = 0.007) were significantly associated with OS. Multivariable analysis confirmed that elevated mGPS (p = 0.046), GI-NEC score (p = 0.036), and Ki-67 (p = 0.02) were independently prognostic for reduced OS across the entire cohort. mGPS was identified as an independent prognostic factor in G3-NETs. Independent predictors of OS in NECs were PS and Ki-67. CONCLUSIONS: mGPS, PS and Ki-67 are independent prognostic markers in high-grade NET/NEC patients. Our study supports the use of these prognostic scores for risk stratification of patients with high grade cancers and as useful tools to guide treatment decisions.

Efficacy of Reduced-Intensity Chemotherapy With Oxaliplatin and Capecitabine on Quality of Life and Cancer Control Among Older and Frail Patients With Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: The GO2 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Older and/or frail patients are underrepresented in landmark cancer trials. Tailored research is needed to address this evidence gap. Objective: The GO2 randomized clinical trial sought to optimize chemotherapy dosing in older and/or frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, noninferiority, open-label randomized trial took place at oncology clinics in the United Kingdom with nurse-led geriatric health assessment. Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable because of advanced age and/or frailty. Interventions: There were 2 randomizations that were performed: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-21, on a 21-day cycle), Level B (doses 0.8 times A), or Level C (doses 0.6 times A). Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, the patient could instead enter CHEMO-BSC, comparing Level C vs best supportive care. Main Outcomes and Measures: First, broad noninferiority of the lower doses vs reference (Level A) was assessed using a permissive boundary of 34 days reduction in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio, HR = 1.34), selected as acceptable by a forum of patients and clinicians. Then, the patient experience was compared using Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxic effects, quality of life, and patient value/acceptability. For CHEMO-BSC, the main outcome measure was overall survival. Results: A total of 514 patients entered CHEMO-INTENSITY, of whom 385 (75%) were men and 299 (58%) were severely frail, with median age 76 years. Noninferior PFS was confirmed for Levels B vs A (HR = 1.09 [95% CI, 0.89-1.32]) and C vs A (HR = 1.10 [95% CI, 0.90-1.33]). Level C produced less toxic effects and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in younger or less frail patients. A total of 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomization: overall survival was nonsignificantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6.1 vs 3.0 months (HR = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.32-1.48], P = .34). In multivariate analysis in 522 patients with all variables available, baseline frailty, quality of life, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, and can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of different outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided a better patient experience without significantly compromising cancer control and should be considered for older and/or frail patients. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy but did not identify a group benefiting from higher-dose treatment. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN44687907.

Second-line FOLFOX chemotherapy versus active symptom control for advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC-06): a phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Advanced biliary tract cancer has a poor prognosis. Cisplatin and gemcitabine is the standard first-line chemotherapy regimen, but no robust evidence is available for second-line chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to determine the benefit derived from second-line FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer. METHODS: The ABC-06 clinical trial was a phase 3, open-label, randomised trial done in 20 sites with expertise in managing biliary tract cancer across the UK. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had histologically or cytologically verified locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer (including cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder or ampullary carcinoma) with documented radiological disease progression to first-line cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally to active symptom control (ASC) and FOLFOX or ASC alone. FOLFOX chemotherapy was administered intravenously every 2 weeks for a maximum of 12 cycles (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, L-folinic acid 175 mg [or folinic acid 350 mg], fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 [bolus], and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 as a 46-h continuous intravenous infusion). Randomisation was done following a minimisation algorithm using platinum sensitivity, serum albumin concentration, and stage as stratification factors. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was also assessed in the intention-to-treat population. The study is complete and the final results are reported. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01926236, and EudraCT, 2013-001812-30. FINDINGS: Between March 27, 2014, and Jan 4, 2018, 162 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to ASC plus FOLFOX (n=81) or ASC alone (n=81). Median follow-up was 21·7 months (IQR 17·2-30·8). Overall survival was significantly longer in the ASC plus FOLFOX group than in the ASC alone group, with a median overall survival of 6·2 months (95% CI 5·4-7·6) in the ASC plus FOLFOX group versus 5·3 months (4·1-5·8) in the ASC alone group (adjusted hazard ratio 0·69 [95% CI 0·50-0·97]; p=0·031). The overall survival rate in the ASC alone group was 35·5% (95% CI 25·2-46·0) at 6 months and 11·4% (5·6-19·5) at 12 months, compared with 50·6% (39·3-60·9) at 6 months and 25·9% (17·0-35·8) at 12 months in the ASC plus FOLFOX group. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported in 42 (52%) of 81 patients in the ASC alone group and 56 (69%) of 81 patients in the ASC plus FOLFOX group, including three chemotherapy-related deaths (one each due to infection, acute kidney injury, and febrile neutropenia). The most frequently reported grade 3-5 FOLFOX-related adverse events were neutropenia (ten [12%] patients), fatigue or lethargy (nine [11%] patients), and infection (eight [10%] patients). INTERPRETATION: The addition of FOLFOX to ASC improved median overall survival in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer after progression on cisplatin and gemcitabine, with a clinically meaningful increase in 6-month and 12-month overall survival rates. To our knowledge, this trial is the first prospective, randomised study providing reliable, high-quality evidence to allow an informed discussion with patients of the potential benefits and risks from second-line FOLFOX chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer. Based on these findings, FOLFOX should become standard-of-care chemotherapy in second-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer and the reference regimen for further clinical trials. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, StandUpToCancer, AMMF (The UK Cholangiocarcinoma Charity), and The Christie Charity, with additional funding from The Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation and the Conquer Cancer Foundation Young Investigator Award for translational research.

Adjuvant therapy following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery for oesophageal adenocarcinoma in patients with clear resection margins.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant therapy in patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and surgery is contentious. In UK practice, surgical resection margin status is often used to classify patients into receiving adjuvant treatment. This study aimed to assess any survival benefit of adjuvant therapy in patients with clear resection margins. METHODS: This was a retrospective collaborative cohort study combining two prospectively collected UK institutional databases of patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Multivariable Cox regression and propensity matched analyses were used to compare overall and recurrence-free survival according to the adjuvant treatment. RESULTS: Of 374 patients with clear resection margins, 221 patients (59%) had no adjuvant treatment, 137 patients (37%) had adjuvant chemotherapy and 16 patients (4%) had adjuvant chemoradiotherapy. For patients who had received NAC (290, 76%), when adjuvant chemotherapy was compared to no adjuvant treatment, hazard ratios (HRs) favoured adjuvant chemotherapy but did not reach independent significance (overall survival [OS] HR 0.65 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-1.06; p .0.087). Responders to NAC (Mandard 1-3) were seemingly more likely to demonstrate a survival benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy (HR 0.42 95% CI 0.15-1.11; p .1.081). CONCLUSIONS: Although no independent survival benefit was observed, the point estimates favoured adjuvant treatment, predominantly in patients with chemo-responsive tumours.

Safety and Efficacy of the Addition of Lapatinib to Perioperative Chemotherapy for Resectable HER2-Positive Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Phase 2 Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Perioperative chemotherapy and surgery are a standard of care for operable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Anti-HER2 therapy improves survival in patients with advanced HER2-positive disease. The safety and feasibility of adding lapatinib to perioperative chemotherapy should be assessed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety of adding lapatinib to epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy and to establish a recommended dose regimen for a phase 3 trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Phase 2 randomized, open-label trial comparing standard ECX (sECX: 3 preoperative and 3 postoperative cycles of ECX with modified ECX plus lapatinib (mECX+L). This multicenter national trial was conducted in 29 centers in the United Kingdom in patients with histologically proven, HER2-positive, operable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Registration for ERBB/HER2 testing took place from February 25, 2013, to April 19, 2016, and randomization took place between May 24, 2013, and April 21, 2016. Data were analyzed May 10, 2017, to May 25, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 open-label to sECX (3 preoperative and 3 postoperative cycles of 50 mg/m2 of intravenous epirubicin on day 1, 60 mg/m2 intravenous cisplatin on day 1, 1250 mg/m2 of oral capecitabine on days 1 through 21) or mECX+L (ECX plus lapatinib days 1 through 21 in each cycle and as 6 maintenance doses). The first 10 patients in the mECX+L arm were treated with 1000 mg/m2 of capecitabine and 1250 mg of lapatinib per day, after which preoperative toxic effects were reviewed according to predefined criteria to determine doses for subsequent patients. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of patients experiencing grade 3 or 4 diarrhea with mECX+L. A rate of 20% or less was considered acceptable. No formal comparison between arms was planned. RESULTS: Between February 2013, and April 2016, 441 patients underwent central HER2 testing and 63 (14%) were classified as HER2 positive. Forty-six patients were randomized; 44 (24 sECX, 20 mECX+L) are included in this analysis. Two of the first 10 patients in the mECX+L arm reported preoperative grade 3 diarrhea; thus, no dose increase was made. The primary endpoint of preoperative grade 3 or 4 diarrhea rates were 0 of 24 in the sECX arm (0%) and 4 of 20 in the mECX+L arm (21%). One of 24 in the sECX arm and 3 of 20 in the mECX+L arm stopped preoperative treatment early, and for 4 of 19 in the mECX+L arm, lapatinib dose was reduced. Postoperative complication rates were similar in each arm. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Administration of 1250 mg of lapatinib per day in combination with ECX chemotherapy was feasible with some increase in toxic effects, which did not compromise operative management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.org identifier: 46020948; clinicaltrialsregister.eu identifier: 2006-000811-12.

Niraparib Maintenance Therapy in Patients With Recurrent Ovarian Cancer After a Partial Response to the Last Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA Trial.

PURPOSE: In the ENGOT-OV16/NOVA trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01847274), maintenance therapy with niraparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, prolonged progression-free survival in patients with platinum-sensitive, recurrent ovarian cancer who had a response to their last platinum-based chemotherapy. The objective of the study was to assess the clinical benefit and patient-reported outcomes in patients who had a partial response (PR) and complete response (CR) to their last platinum-based therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 553 patients were enrolled in the trial. Of 203 patients with a germline BRCA mutation (gBRCAmut), 99 had a PR and 104 had a CR to their last platinum-based therapy; of 350 patients without a confirmed gBRCAmut (non-gBRCAmut), 173 had a PR and 177 had a CR. Post hoc analyses were carried out to evaluate safety and the risk of progression in these patients according to gBRCAmut status and response to their last platinum-based therapy. Ovarian cancer-specific symptoms and quality of life were assessed using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian Symptom Index. RESULTS: Progression-free survival was improved in patients treated with niraparib compared with placebo in both the gBRCAmut cohort (PR: hazard ratio [HR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.131 to 0.441; P < .0001; CR: HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.160 to 0.546; P < .0001) and the non-gBRCAmut cohort (PR: HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.230 to 0.532; P < .0001; CR: HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.383 to 0.868; P = .0082). The incidence of any-grade and grade 3 or greater adverse events was manageable. No meaningful differences were observed between niraparib and placebo in PR and CR subgroups with respect to patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSION: Patients achieved clinical benefit from maintenance treatment with niraparib regardless of response to the last platinum-based therapy.

Stenting the Upper/Cervical Oesophagus with a Proximal Deployment Cervical Oesophageal Stent: Technique and Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Proximal oesophageal stent deployment continues to provide challenges due to the proximity of the upper oesophageal sphincter and the associated subsequent complications such as globus sensation and stent migration. Patients with cervical oesophageal cancer have previously had limited stenting options available to them with a paucity of the literature describing the radiological technique for successfully placing these high-risk stents. In this paper, we present our experience using the Taewoong Niti-S CERVICAL Oesophageal Stent. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We describe our method for stent deployment highlighting the importance of pre-procedural planning in ensuring an adequate proximal landing zone for the short proximal flare of the stent. Furthermore, we outline how we have adapted our placement technique to incorporate a routine pre-dilatation stage which has optimised retrieval of the proximal to distal deployment system. RESULTS: We have placed eight cervical oesophageal stents within our institution. Contrast swallows in all the patients following stent deployment have demonstrated free flow of contrast to the stomach with all patients reporting symptomatic relief and no foreign body/globus sensation. There has been one episode of stent migration but no incidence of oesophageal perforation or haemorrhage. DISCUSSION: Evolution of stenting technique and the properties of the stents themselves are improving accuracy of stent placement in relation to the important landmark of the upper oesophageal sphincter. CONCLUSION: Stenting of cervical oesophageal malignancy has proved successful in our institution and provided symptom relief for a subset of palliative patients who were previously unable to benefit from oesophageal stenting.

Three differently timed presentations of dermatomyositis associated with advanced ovarian cancer.

Each of the three patients reported in this article presented with dermatomyositis at various stages of their advanced ovarian cancer. Dermatomyositis was the presenting feature and preceded the diagnosis of ovarian cancer by several months in one patient. In another patient, dermatomyositis occurred just prior to the scheduled third cycle of palliative chemotherapy after surgical debulking for stage 4 disease. The third patient presented with pathognomonic diagnostic features of dermatomyositis after ovarian cancer recurrence. Diagnosis was delayed in at least two of these patients; however, once appropriately diagnosed, each patient responded well to immunomodulatory treatment. In one patient, initiation of oral prednisolone seemed to correlate with a steady improvement in her proximal myopathy. A pulsed methylprednisolone approach was used in another patient with conversion to a tapering dose of oral prednisolone to good effect. In the patient in whom the most severe myopathy affecting bulbar muscle groups was demonstrated, an infusion of 5 days of intravenous immunoglobulin produced an eventual improvement in her steroid-refractory myopathy.

Circulating biomarkers during treatment in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer receiving cediranib in the UK ABC-03 trial.

BACKGROUND: Advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC) has a poor prognosis. Cediranib, in addition to cisplatin/gemcitabine [CisGem], improved the response rate, but did not improve the progression-free survival (PFS) in the ABC-03 study. Minimally invasive biomarkers predictive of cediranib benefit may improve patient outcomes. METHODS: Changes in 15 circulating plasma angiogenesis or inflammatory-related proteins and cytokeratin-18 (CK18), measured at baseline and during therapy until disease progression, were correlated with overall survival (OS) using time-varying covariate Cox models (TVC). RESULTS: Samples were available from n = 117/124 (94%) patients. Circulating Ang1&2, FGFb, PDGFbb, VEGFC, VEGFR1 and CK18 decreased as a result of the therapy, independent of treatment with cediranib. Circulating VEGFR2 and Tie2 were preferentially reduced by cediranib. Patients with increasing levels of VEGFA at any time had a worse PFS and OS; this detrimental effect was attenuated in patients receiving cediranib. TVC analysis revealed CK18 and VEGFR2 increases correlated with poorer OS in all patients (P < 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Rising circulating VEGFA levels in patients with ABC, treated with CisGem, are associated with worse PFS and OS, not seen in patients receiving cediranib. Rising levels of markers of tumour burden (CK18) and potential resistance (VEGFR2) are associated with worse outcomes and warrant validation.

Cediranib or placebo in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC-03): a randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin and gemcitabine is the standard first-line chemotherapy regimen for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer; expression of VEGF and its receptors is associated with adverse outcomes. We aimed to assess the effect of the addition of cediranib (an oral inhibitor of VEGF receptor 1, 2, and 3) to cisplatin and gemcitabine on progression-free survival. METHODS: In this multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 2 study, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed or cytologically confirmed advanced biliary tract cancer from hepatobiliary oncology referral centres in the UK. Patients were eligible if they had an ECOG performance status of 0-1 and an estimated life expectancy of longer than 3 months. Patients were given first-line cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy (25 mg/m(2) cisplatin and 1000 mg/m(2) gemcitabine [on days 1 and 8 every 21 days, for up to eight cycles]) with either 20 mg oral cediranib or placebo once a day until disease progression. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) with a minimisation algorithm, incorporating the stratification factors: extent of disease, primary disease site, previous treatment, ECOG performance status, and centre. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00939848, and was closed on Sept 30, 2014; results of the final analysis for the primary endpoint are presented. FINDINGS: Between April 5, 2011, and Sept 28, 2012, we enrolled 124 patients (62 in each group). With a median follow-up of 12·2 months (IQR 7·3-18·5), median progression-free survival was 8·0 months (95% CI 6·5-9·3) in the cediranib group and 7·4 months (5·7-8·5) in the placebo group (HR 0·93, 80% CI 0·74-1·19, 95% CI 0·65-1·35; p=0·72). Patients who received cediranib had more grade 3-4 toxic effects than did patients who received placebo: hypertension (23 [37%] vs 13 [21%]; p=0·05), diarrhoea (eight [13%] vs two [3%]; p=0·05); platelet count decreased (ten [16%] vs four [6%]; p=0·09), white blood cell decreased (15 [24%] vs seven [11%]; p=0·06) and fatigue (16 [24%] vs seven [11%]; p=0·04). INTERPRETATION: Cediranib did not improve the progression-free survival of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine, which remains the standard of care. Although patients in the cediranib group had more adverse events, we recorded no unexpected toxic effects. The role of VEGF inhibition in addition to chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer remains investigational. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals.

Epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine with or without panitumumab for patients with previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer (REAL3): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: EGFR overexpression occurs in 27-55% of oesophagogastric adenocarcinomas, and correlates with poor prognosis. We aimed to assess addition of the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab to epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (EOC) in patients with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label phase 3 trial (REAL3), we enrolled patients with untreated, metastatic, or locally advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma at 63 centres (tertiary referral centres, teaching hospitals, and district general hospitals) in the UK. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of open-label EOC (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 and capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-21) or modified-dose EOC plus panitumumab (mEOC+P; epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1, capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-21, and panitumumab 9 mg/kg on day 1). Randomisation was blocked and stratified for centre region, extent of disease, and performance status. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. After a preplanned independent data monitoring committee review in October, 2011, trial recruitment was halted and panitumumab withdrawn. Data for patients on treatment were censored at this timepoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00824785. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2008, and Oct 17, 2011, we enrolled 553 eligible patients. Median overall survival in 275 patients allocated EOC was 11.3 months (95% CI 9.6-13.0) compared with 8.8 months (7.7-9.8) in 278 patients allocated mEOC+P (hazard ratio [HR] 1.37, 95% CI 1.07-1.76; p=0.013). mEOC+P was associated with increased incidence of grade 3-4 diarrhoea (48 [17%] of 276 patients allocated mEOC+P vs 29 [11%] of 266 patients allocated EOC), rash (29 [11%] vs two [1%]), mucositis (14 [5%] vs none), and hypomagnesaemia (13 [5%] vs none) but reduced incidence of haematological toxicity (grade ≥ 3 neutropenia 35 [13%] vs 74 [28%]). INTERPRETATION: Addition of panitumumab to EOC chemotherapy does not increase overall survival and cannot be recommended for use in an unselected population with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. FUNDING: Amgen, UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

Palliative treatments for patients with inoperable gastroesophageal cancers.

Most patients with cancers of the stomach, oesophagus or gastroesophageal junction ultimately develop metastatic or inoperable disease, rendering them incurable. They can, however, benefit from a variety of palliative interventions involving the multidisciplinary team, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy, endoluminal stenting, laser, or surgery. Often a combination of such strategies will be used to control symptoms, and maintain or improve quality of life. In this article, we review these multidisciplinary interventional approaches in patients with gastroesophageal cancers, and highlight future trends.

Multivariate prognostic factor analysis in locally advanced and metastatic esophago-gastric cancer--pooled analysis from three multicenter, randomized, controlled trials using individual patient data.

PURPOSE: To identify baseline prognostic factors and assess whether pretreatment quality of life (QoL) predicts survival in patients with locally advanced or metastatic esophago-gastric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1992 and 2001, 1,080 patients were enrolled into three randomized, controlled trials assessing fluorouracil-based combination chemotherapy. All patients were required to complete the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core QoL questionnaire before random assignment. RESULTS: Of the 1080 patients randomly assigned, 979 (91%) died. Four independent poor prognostic factors were identified by multivariate analysis: performance status >or= 2 (hazard ratio [HR], 1.58; 99% CI, 1.25 to 1.98), liver metastases (HR, 1.41; 99%CI, 1.14 to 1.74), peritoneal metastases (HR, 1.33; 99%CI, 1.01 to 1.74) and alkaline phosphatase >or= 100 U/L (HR, 1.41; 99% CI, 1.14 to 1.76). A prognostic index was constructed dividing patients into good (no risk factor), moderate (one or two risk factors) or poor (three or four risk factors) risk groups. One-year survival for good, moderate, and poor risk groups were 48.5%, 25.7%, and 11%, respectively, and the survival differences among these groups were highly significant (P <.00001). Compared with the good risk group, the moderate risk group had nearly twice the risk of death, and the poor risk group had 3.5-fold increased risk of death. Pretreatment physical (P =.003), role functioning (P <.001), and global QoL (P <.001) predicted survival. CONCLUSION: Four poor prognostic factors were identified and a simple prognostic index was devised. Information from this analysis can be used to aid clinical decision-making, help individual patient risk stratification, and serve as benchmark for the planning for future phase III trials.