FOLFIRI Plus Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab in Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: The PRODIGE 59-FFCD 1707-DURIGAST Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Efficacy of second-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric or gastrooesphageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma remains limited. Ojectives: To determine the efficacy of 1 or 2 immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with FOLFIRI (leucovorin [folinic acid], fluorouracil, and irinotecan) in the treatment of advanced gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: The PRODIGE 59-FFCD 1707-DURIGAST trial is a randomized, multicenter, noncomparative, phase 2 trial, conducted from August 27, 2020, and June 4, 2021, at 37 centers in France that included patients with advanced gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma who had disease progression after platinum-based first-line chemotherapy. Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive FOLFIRI plus durvalumab (anti-programmed cell death 1 [PD-L1]) (FD arm) or FOLFIRI plus durvalumab and tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 [CTLA-4]) (FDT arm). The efficacy analyses used a clinical cutoff date of January 9, 2023. Main outcome and Measures: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) at 4 months according to RECIST 1.1 criteria evaluated by investigators. Results: Overall, between August 27, 2020, and June 4, 2021, 96 patients were randomized (48 in each arm). The median age was 59.7 years, 28 patients (30.4%) were women and 49 (53.3%) had GEJ tumors. Four month PFS was 44.7% (90% CI, 32.3-57.7) and 55.6% (90% CI, 42.3-68.3) in the FD and FDT arms, respectively. The primary end point was not met. Median PFS was 3.8 and 5.4 months, objective response rates were 34.7% and 37.7%, and median overall survival was 13.2 and 9.5 months in the FD and FDT arms, respectively. Disease control beyond 1 year was 14.9% in the FD arm and 24.4% in the FDT arm. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 22 (47.8%) patients in each arm. A combined positive score (CPS) PD-L1 of 5 or higher was observed in 18 tumors (34.0%) and a tumor proportion score (TPS) PD-L1 of 1% or higher in 13 tumors (24.5%). Median PFS according to CPS PD-L1 was similar (3.6 months for PD-L1 CPS ≥5 vs 5.4 months for PD-L1 CPS <5) by contrast for TPS PD-L1 (6.0 months for PD-L1 TPS ≥1% vs 3.8 months for PD-L1 TPS <1%). Conclusions and Relevance: Combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors with FOLFIRI in second-line treatment for advanced gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma showed an acceptable safety profile but antitumor activity only in a subgroup of patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03959293.

Atezolizumab plus modified docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil as first-line treatment for advanced anal cancer (SCARCE C17-02 PRODIGE 60): a randomised, non-comparative, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: The modified docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (mDCF) regimen has shown efficacy and safety as first-line treatment for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, making it a standard regimen. Inhibitors of programmed cell death protein 1 and its ligand, such as pembrolizumab, nivolumab, retifanlimab, avelumab, and atezolizumab, have shown some antitumour activity as monotherapy in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anus that is refractory to chemotherapy. This phase 2 study evaluated the combination of mDCF and atezolizumab as first-line treatment in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anus. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, non-comparative, phase 2 study, participants from 21 centres (academic, private, and community hospitals and cancer research centres) across France with chemo-naive, metastatic, or unresectable locally advanced recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, aged 18 years or older, and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, were randomly allocated (2:1) to receive either atezolizumab (800 mg intravenously every 2 weeks up to 1 year) plus mDCF (eight cycles of 40 mg per m2 docetaxel and 40 mg per m2 cisplatin on day 1 and 1200 mg per m2 per day of fluorouracil for 2 days, every 2 weeks intravenously; group A) or mDCF alone (group B). Randomisation was done centrally using a minimisation technique and was stratified by age (<65 years vs ≥65 years) and disease status. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed 12-month progression-free survival in the modified intention-to-treat population in group A (35% for the null hypothesis and 50% for the alternative hypothesis). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03519295, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: 97 evaluable participants (64 in group A and 33 in group B) were enrolled between July 3, 2018, and Aug 19, 2020. The median follow-up was 26·5 months (95% CI 24·8-28·4). The median age of participants was 64·1 years (IQR 56·2-71·6), and 71 (73%) were female. 12-month progression-free survival was 45% (90% CI 35-55) in group A and 43% (29-58) in group B. In participants with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 5 or greater, 12-month progression-free survival was 70% (95% CI 47-100) in group A and 40% (19-85) in group B (interaction p=0·051) Both groups showed high compliance. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were observed in 39 (61%) participants in group A and 14 (42%) in group B. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (nine [14%] participants in group A vs five [15%] in group B), anaemia (nine [14%] vs one [3%]), fatigue (three [5%] vs four [12%]), and diarrhoea (seven [11%] vs one [3%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 16 (25%) participants in group A and four (12%) in group B, and these were mDCF-related in seven (11%) participants in group A and four (12%) in group B. Atezolizumab-related serious adverse events occurred in nine (14%) participants in group A, including grade 2 infusion-related reaction in three (5%), grade 3 infection in two (3%), and grade 2 colitis, grade 3 acute kidney injury, grade 3 sarcoidosis, and a grade 4 platelet count decrease each in one participant (2%). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Despite a higher incidence of adverse events, combining atezolizumab with mDCF is feasible, with similar dose intensity in both groups, although the primary efficacy endpoint was not met. The predictive value of a PD-L1 combined positive score of 5 or greater now needs to be confirmed in future studies. FUNDING: GERCOR, Roche.

Biliary tract cancers: French national clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, UNICANCER, GERCOR, SFCD, SFED, AFEF, SFRO, SFP, SFR, ACABi, ACHBPT).

INTRODUCTION: This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines of the management of biliary tract cancers (BTC) (intrahepatic, perihilar and distal cholangiocarcinomas, and gallbladder carcinomas) published in September 2023, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org). METHODS: This collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of BTC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B and C) according to the level of scientific evidence until August 2023. RESULTS: BTC diagnosis and staging is mainly based on enhanced computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and (endoscopic) ultrasound-guided biopsy. Treatment strategy depends on BTC subtype and disease stage. Surgery followed by adjuvant capecitabine is recommended for localised disease. No neoadjuvant treatment is validated to date. Cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy combined to the anti-PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab is the first-line standard of care for advanced disease. Early systematic tumour molecular profiling is recommended to screen for actionable alterations (IDH1 mutations, FGFR2 rearrangements, HER2 amplification, BRAFV600E mutation, MSI/dMMR status, etc.) and guide subsequent lines of treatment. In the absence of actionable alterations, FOLFOX chemotherapy is the only second-line standard-of-care. No third-line chemotherapy standard is validated to date. CONCLUSION: These guidelines are intended to provide a personalised therapeutic strategy for daily clinical practice. Each individual BTC case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

Non-metastatic colon cancer: French Intergroup Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatments, and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, AFEF, and SFR).

INTRODUCTION: This article is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of non-metastatic colon cancer (CC), revised in November 2022. METHODS: These guidelines represent collaborative work of all French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of CC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B, and C) according to the level of evidence found in the literature published up to November 2022. RESULTS: Initial evaluation of CC is based on clinical examination, colonoscopy, chest-abdomen-pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assay. CC is usually managed by surgery and adjuvant treatment depending on the pathological findings. The use of adjuvant therapy remains a challenging question in stage II disease. For high-risk stage II CC, adjuvant chemotherapy must be discussed and fluoropyrimidine monotherapy or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy proposed according to the type and number of poor prognostic features. Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (FOLFOX or CAPOX) is the current standard for adjuvant therapy of patients with stage III CC. However, these regimens are associated with significant oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity. The results of the recent IDEA study provide evidence that 3 months of treatment with CAPOX is as effective as 6 months of oxaliplatin-based therapy in patients with low-risk stage III CC (T1-3 and N1). A 6-month oxaliplatin-based therapy remains the standard of care for high-risk stage III CC (T4 and/or N2). For patients unfit for oxaliplatin, fluoropyrimidine monotherapy is recommended. CONCLUSION: French guidelines for non-metastatic CC management help to offer the best personalized therapeutic strategy in daily clinical practice. Each individual case must be discussed within a multidisciplinary tumor board and then the treatment option decided with the patient.

Gemcitabine and Paclitaxel Versus Gemcitabine Alone After 5-Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin, and Irinotecan in Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Phase III PRODIGE 65-UCGI 36-GEMPAX UNICANCER Study.

PURPOSE: GEMPAX was an open-label, randomized phase III clinical trial designed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel versus gemcitabine alone as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) who previously received 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan. METHODS: Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed mPDAC were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive GEMPAX (paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2; IV; once at day (D) 1, D8, and D15/arm A) or gemcitabine (arm B) alone once at D1, D8, and D15 every 28 days until progression, toxicity, or patient's decision. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life, and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 211 patients (median age, 64 [30-86] years; 62% male) were included. After a median study follow-up for alive patients of 13.4 versus 13.8 months in arm A versus arm B, the median OS (95% CI) was 6.4 (5.2 to 7.4) versus 5.9 months (4.6 to 6.9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [0.63 to 1.20]; P = 0.4095), the median PFS was 3.1 (2.2 to 4.3) versus 2.0 months (1.9 to 2.3; HR, 0.64 [0.47 to 0.89]; P = 0.0067), and the ORR was 17.1% (11.3 to 24.4) versus 4.2% (0.9 to 11.9; P = 0.008) in arm A versus arm B, respectively. Overall, 16.7% of patients in arm A and 2.9% in arm B discontinued their treatment because of adverse events (AEs). One grade 5 AE associated with both gemcitabine and paclitaxel was reported in arm A (acute respiratory distress), and 58.0% versus 27.1% of patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs in arm A versus arm B, among which 15.2% versus 4.3% had anemia, 15.9% versus 15.7% had neutropenia, 19.6% versus 4.3% had thrombocytopenia, 10.1% versus 2.9% had asthenia and 12.3% versus 0.0% had neuropathy. CONCLUSION: While GEMPAX did not meet the primary end point of OS versus gemcitabine alone in patients with mPDAC in the second-line setting, both PFS and ORR were significantly improved.

Assessing the time-to-removal of totally implantable venous access devices comparing valved-versus open-ended catheters in patients treated with chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Totally IntraVenous Acess Devices (TIVAD) are used to have long-term bloodstream access. The catheter connected to the subcutaneous chamber may be valved (TIVAD-V) or open-ended (TIVAD-O). Infectious and occlusion complications require the removal of the TIVAD. We compared the two types of catheters (TIVAD-V and TIVAD-O) in terms of time-to-removal and complication rates. METHODS: A retrospective study of 636 patients treated for any malignancy using a TIVAD were included. TIVAD complication was defined as the occurrence of infection or occlusion requiring TIVAD removal. Risk factors of complications and time-to-removal of TIVAD were assessed by a Cox proportional hazard analysis. RESULTS: A total of 55 TIVADs (8.7%) were removed including 47 for infection and eight for occlusion in 54 months. There was no significant difference in the frequency of complications between TIVAD-V and TIVAD-O. There was no significant difference in time-to-removal between TIVAD-V and TIVAD-O (17.0 months, IQR [10.5-25.0] and 18.4 months, IQR [11.5-22.9], p = 0.345, respectively). CONCLUSION: There was no difference between TIVAD with valved and open catheter in terms of complications and time-to-removal in patients treated by chemotherapy.

Confounding mitigation for the exposure-response relationship of bevacizumab in colorectal cancer patients.

AIMS: The exposure-response relationship of bevacizumab may be confounded by various factors, including baseline characteristics, time-dependent target engagement and recursive relationships between exposure and response, requiring effective mitigation. This study aimed to investigate the exposure-response relationships of bevacizumab in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients while mitigating potential biases. METHODS: Bevacizumab pharmacokinetics was described using target-mediated drug disposition modelling. Relationships between target kinetics, progression-free (PFS) and overall (OS) survivals were assessed using joint pharmacokinetic and parametric hazard function models. Both prognostic-driven and response-driven potential biases were mitigated. These models evaluated the impact of increased antigen target levels, clearance and intensified dosing regimen on survival. RESULTS: Estimated target-mediated pharmacokinetic parameters in 130 assessed patients were baseline target levels (R0 = 8.4 nM), steady-state dissociation constant (KSS = 10 nM) and antibody-target complexes elimination constant (kint = 0.52 day-1 ). The distribution of R0 was significantly associated with increased baseline concentrations of carcinoembryonic antigen, circulating vascular endothelial growth factor and the presence of extrahepatic metastases. Unbound target levels (R) significantly influenced both progression and death hazard functions. Increasing baseline target levels and/or clearance values led to decreased bevacizumab unbound concentrations, increased R levels and shortened PFS and OS, while increasing bevacizumab dose led to decreased R and longer survival. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to demonstrate the relationship between bevacizumab concentrations, target involvement and clinical efficacy by effectively mitigating potential sources of bias. Most of the target amount may be tumoural in mCRC. Future studies should provide a more in-depth description of this relationship.

Effect of Adapted Physical Activity in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: The APACaP GERCOR Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: The impact of adapted physical activity (APA) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (aPDAC) is unknown. This study evaluated whether APA in addition to standard care improved HRQoL in patients who have aPDAC who are receiving first-line chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced/metastatic PDAC and an ECOG performance status of 0 to 2 were randomized (1:1) to receive standard care (standard arm) or standard care plus a home-based 16-week APA program (APA arm). The primary objective was the effect of the APA program on 3 dimensions of the EORTC QLQ-C30: global health status, physical function, and fatigue at week 16 (W16), with a one-sided type I error of 0.017 for each dimension. The primary HRQoL analysis was performed in patients with available baseline and W16 scores for the dimensions (ie, the modified intention-to-treat population 1 [mITT1]), and secondary longitudinal HRQoL analyses using the mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) and time until definitive deterioration (TUDD) methods were performed in the mITT1 population and in patients with baseline and at least one follow-up questionnaire (mITT2 population). A difference of ≥5 points was considered to be clinically relevant. RESULTS: Of 326 included patients, 313 were randomized to the standard (n=157) or APA (n=156) arms. In the mITT1 population (n=172), the mean differences in global health status, physical function, and fatigue at W16 adjusted from baseline were -0.98 (SD, 23.9; P=.39), -2.08 (SD, 21.3; P=.26), and 4.16 (SD, 29.2; P=.17), respectively, showing a non-statistically significant benefit with APA. In the mITT2 population (n=259), APA was associated with statistically significant and clinically relevant improvement in 5 and 8 dimensions of the HRQoL in the longitudinal MMRM and TUDD analyses, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: APA improved several dimensions of HRQoL in patients with aPDAC receiving first-line chemotherapy and standard care.

Time to recurrence and its relation to survival after recurrence in patients resected for stage III colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: It is intuitively thought that early relapse is associated with poor survival after recurrence (SAR) in resected colon cancer (CC) patients, but this has never been formally studied. METHODS: We pooled data from stage III patients treated with oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in two phase III trials, to analyse time to recurrence (TTR) and its relationship with SAR. TTR and SAR were also studied according to molecular status (mismatch repair (MMR), RAS, and BRAFV600E). Early relapsing patients were defined as patients having a TTR event within 12 months after starting adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: 4548 stage III CC patients were included in the present analysis. Deficient MMR (dMMR) CC patients experienced fewer recurrences than proficient (p)MMR CC patients (18.8% versus 27.6%) but had a significantly shorter median TTR (mTTR; 0.74 versus 1.40 years, p < 0.0001). In pMMR patients, BRAF and RAS mutations were also associated with earlier mTTR as compared to double wild-type (WT) patients (0.99 versus 1.38 versus 1.54 years, respectively, p < 0.0001). Early recurrence occurred in 397 patients and was associated with a median SAR (2.2 versus 3.3 years, p = 0.0007). However, this association was mainly due to pMMR/RAS and BRAFV600E mutated tumours and was not confirmed in dMMR and pMMR/double WT subgroups. CONCLUSION: In resected stage III CC treated with standard oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy, TTR varies between dMMR, pMMR/RAS, or BRAFV600E mutated and pMMR/double WT tumours. In addition, early relapse is associated with poor survival, mainly due to patients resected for a pMMR/RAS or BRAFV600E mutated tumour.

Maintenance Therapy With Cetuximab After FOLFIRI Plus Cetuximab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal maintenance strategy after induction chemotherapy with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains to be debated. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with single-agent cetuximab after FOLFIRI (leucovorin [folinic acid], fluorouracil, and irinotecan) plus cetuximab induction therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: The TIME (Treatment After Irinotecan-Based Frontline Therapy: Maintenance With Erbitux]) (PRODIGE 28 [Partenariat de Recherche en Oncologie Digestive]-UCGI 27 [UniCancer GastroIntestinal Group]) phase 2 noncomparative, multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 15, 2014, to November 23, 2018, among 139 patients with unresectable RAS wild-type mCRC. The cutoff date for analysis was July 21, 2022. Interventions: After first-line induction therapy with 8 cycles of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab, patients without disease progression were randomized (1:1) to biweekly maintenance with cetuximab or observation. On disease progression, the same induction regimen was recommended for 16 weeks followed by further maintenance with cetuximab or observation until disease progression under the full induction regimen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the 6-month progression-free rate from randomization. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. An exploratory biomolecular analysis, using next-generation sequencing, investigated the putative prognostic value of the tumor mutation profile. Results: Of 214 patients enrolled (141 men [65.9%]; median age, 67 years [range, 23-85 years]), 139 were randomized to receive cetuximab (n = 67; 45 men [67.2%]; median age, 64 years [range, 34-85 years]) or to be observed (n = 72; 50 men [69.4%]; median age, 68 years [23-85 years]). The 6-month progression-free rate was 38.8% ([26 of 67] 95% CI, 27.1%-51.5%) in the cetuximab group and 5.6% ([4 of 72] 95% CI, 1.5%-13.6%) in the observation group. At a median follow-up of 40.5 months (95% CI, 33.6-47.5 months), median progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization was 5.3 months (95% CI, 3.7-7.4 months) in the cetuximab group and 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.8-2.7 months) in the observation group. Median overall survival (OS) was 24.8 months (95% CI, 18.7-30.4 months) in the cetuximab group and 19.7 months (95% CI, 13.3-24.4 months) in the observation group. In an exploratory multivariate analysis, any tumor-activating mutation in the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway genes was associated with shorter PFS from randomization regardless of treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.01-2.62]; P = .04). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxic effect in the cetuximab group during maintenance therapy was rash (8 of 67 [11.9%]). Conclusion and Relevance: The randomized clinical trial did not meet its primary end point but suggests clinically meaningful PFS and OS benefits associated with cetuximab maintenance therapy. However, maintenance cetuximab or treatment breaks after first-line combination FOLFIRI-cetuximab therapy seems inappropriate for patients with MAPK-mutated independently of the side of primary tumor. A more complete assessment of MAPK pathway mutations warrants further investigation to the refine treatment strategy for patients with RAS wild-type mCRC. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02404935.

Adjuvant chemotherapy benefit according to T and N stage in small bowel adenocarcinoma: a large retrospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Small bowel adenocarcinoma is a rare cancer, and the role of adjuvant chemotherapy for localized disease is still debated. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study included all consecutive patients who underwent curative surgical resection for localized small bowel adenocarcinoma between 1996 and 2019 from 3 French cohort studies. Prognostic and predictive factors of adjuvant chemotherapy efficacy were analyzed for disease-free survival and overall survival. The inverse probability of treatment weighting method was applied in the Cox regression model using the propensity score derived from multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 354 patients were included: median age, 63.5 years; duodenum location, 53.5%; and tumor stage I, II, and III in 31 (8.7%), 144 (40.7%), and 179 (50.6%) patients, respectively. The adjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 0 (0%), 66 (48.5%), and 143 (80.3%) patients with stage I, II, and III, respectively (P < .0001). In the subgroup analysis by inverse probability of treatment weighting method, a statistically significant disease-free survival and overall survival benefit in favor of adjuvant chemotherapy was observed in high-risk stage II (T4 and/or <8 lymph nodes examined) and III (T4 and/or N2) but not for low-risk stage II (T3 and ≥8 lymph nodes examined) and III (T1-3/N1) tumors (Pinteraction < .05). Furthermore, tumor location in jejunum and ileum was also a statistically significant predictive factor of response to adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III tumors (Pinteraction < .05). CONCLUSION: In localized small bowel adenocarcinoma, adjuvant chemotherapy seems to provide a statistically significant survival benefit for high-risk stage II and III tumors and for jejunum and ileum tumor locations.

Esophageal cancer - French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, RENAPE, SNFCP, AFEF, SFR).

INTRODUCTION: This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of esophageal cancer (EC) published in July 2022, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org). METHODS: This collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of several French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of EC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B and C), according to the level of evidence found in the literature until April 2022. RESULTS: EC diagnosis and staging evaluation are mainly based on patient's general condition assessment, endoscopy plus biopsies, TAP CT-scan and 18F FDG-PET. Surgery alone is recommended for early-stage EC, while locally advanced disease (N+ and/or T3-4) is treated with perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT) or preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy for adenocarcinoma. Preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy or definitive chemoradiation with the possibility of organ preservation are the two options for squamous cell carcinoma. Salvage surgery is recommended for incomplete response or recurrence after definitive chemoradiation and should be performed in an expert center. Treatment for metastatic disease is based on systemic therapy including chemotherapy, immunotherapy or combined targeted therapy according to biomarkers testing such as HER2 status, MMR status and PD-L1 expression. CONCLUSION: These guidelines are intended to provide a personalised therapeutic strategy for daily clinical practice and are subject to ongoing optimization. Each individual case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

Avelumab vs Standard Second-Line Chemotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and Microsatellite Instability: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Only 1 randomized clinical trial has shown the superiority of immune checkpoint inhibitors in patients with deficient mismatch repair and/or microsatellite instability (dMMR/MSI) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the first-line setting. Objectives: To determine whether avelumab (an anti-programmed cell death ligand 1 antibody) improves progression-free survival (PFS) compared with standard second-line chemotherapy in patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC. Design, Setting, and Participants: The SAMCO-PRODIGE 54 trial is a national open-label phase 2 randomized clinical trial that was conducted from April 24, 2018, to April 29, 2021, at 49 French sites. Patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC who experienced progression while receiving standard first-line therapy were included in the analysis. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive standard second-line therapy or avelumab every 2 weeks until progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or patient refusal. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary end point was PFS according to RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours), version 1.1, evaluated by investigators in patients with mCRC and confirmed dMMR and MSI status who received at least 1 dose of treatment (modified intention-to-treat [mITT] population). Results: A total of 122 patients were enrolled in the mITT population. Median age was 66 (IQR, 56-76) years, 65 patients (53.3%) were women, 100 (82.0%) had a right-sided tumor, and 52 (42.6%) had BRAF V600E-mutated tumors. There was no difference in patients and tumor characteristics between treatment groups. No new safety concerns in either group were detected, with fewer treatment-related adverse events of at least grade 3 in the avelumab group than in the chemotherapy group (20 [31.7%] vs 34 [53.1%]; P = .02). After a median follow-up of 33.3 (95% CI, 28.3-34.8) months, avelumab was superior to chemotherapy with or without targeted agents with respect to PFS (15 [24.6%] vs 5 [8.2%] among patients without progression; P = .03). Rates of PFS rates at 12 months were 31.2% (95% CI, 20.1%-42.9%) and 19.4% (95% CI, 10.6%-30.2%) in the avelumab and control groups, respectively, and 27.4% (95% CI, 16.8%-39.0%) and 9.1% (95% CI, 3.2%-18.8%) at 18 months. Objective response rates were similar in both groups (18 [29.5%] vs 16 [26.2%]; P = .45). Among patients with disease control, 18 (75.7%) in the avelumab group compared with 9 (19.1%) in the control group had ongoing disease control at 18 months. Conclusions: The SAMCO-PRODIGE 54 phase 2 randomized clinical trial showed, in patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC, better PFS and disease control duration with avelumab over standard second-line treatment, with a favorable safety profile. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03186326.

Genetic counselling referral practices for patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A French retrospective multicentre observational cohort study (CAPANCOGEN).

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Genetic counselling (GC) is a key step in the identification of inherited germline mutations. However, the oncogenetic practices are poorly described for pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) in Europe. The CAPANCOGEN study aimed to describe the GC referral practices in France and assess the implementation of international guidelines in patients with PA. METHODS: Information about GC referrals with PA was collected in 13 French centres from September 2019 to October 2021. In the 5 largest centres, personal and familial histories of cancers and diseases associated with a higher risk of germline mutations were collected in 460 patients, according to international, American, European and French GC referral guidelines. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were performed to identify the factors influencing GC referral. RESULTS: Among 833 patients, a total of 100 patients (12%) had an indication of GC according to local multidisciplinary tumour board meetings (MTBM). Among these patients, 41% did not undergo GC. The median time between MTBM and GC was 55 days (IQR: 14.5-112). Among 460 patients with collected personal and familial history, 31.5% were not referred to a GC despite an existing indication. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, suspected CDKN2A (p = 0.032) or BRCA mutation (p < 0.001), familial pancreatic cancer history (p < 0.001) and controlled disease with first-line platinum-based chemotherapy (p < 0.001) increased the referral rate. Conversely, older age (p = 0.002) and a locally advanced PA (p = 0.045) decreased the risk of GC referral. CONCLUSIONS: GC referral is inadequate despite valuable information in patients' medical files.

Prevalence of cannabidiol (CBD) consumption and cancer patients' expectations in one oncology day-hospital: A cross-sectional study and questionnaire validation.

INTRODUCTION: The growing interest of cannabidiol (CBD) in medical care prompted French health authorities to explore the potential of CBD in cancer-related severe symptoms. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of CBD use among cancer patients with potential associated factors and to measure the cancer patient's health literacy (HL) on CBD consumption. METHODS: In a prospective study in oncology day-care hospital including patients from 29 October to 20 December 2021, we collected demographic, biological, and oncological characteristics. Patient CBD HL was measured by the hetero-questionnaire 8-item-CBD HL scale (HLS-8-CBD) whose conception has been validated by a psychometric analysis. RESULTS: Among 363 participants, 20 patients (5.5%) reported CBD use. Factors associated with CBD use were: age <60 years (odd ratio = 7.80[1.36-13.32], p < 10-4 versus ≥60 years), smoking history (OR = 5.53[1.81-16.88], p < 0.01), and no smoking cessation (OR = 5.07[1.66-15.46], p < 0.01). CBD use was also associated with a better CBD total HL score than non-users (p-value = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Identification of factors associated with CBD use and a relatively high patient CBD HL in CBD users showed that CBD use in cancer patients care represented a new concern and should enhance health professionals to consider CBD with its associated drug-related problems.

Deep learning for the prediction of the chemotherapy response of metastatic colorectal cancer: comparing and combining H&E staining histopathology and infrared spectral histopathology.

Colorectal cancer is a global public health problem with one of the highest death rates. It is the second most deadly type of cancer and the third most frequently diagnosed in the world. The present study focused on metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients who had been treated with chemotherapy-based regimen for which it remains uncertainty about the efficacy for all eligible patients. This is a major problem, as it is not yet possible to test different therapies in view of the consequences on the health of the patients and the risk of progression. Here, we propose a method to predict the efficacy of an anticancer treatment in an individualized way, using a deep learning model constructed on the retrospective analysis of the primary tumor of several patients. Histological sections from tumors were imaged by standard hematoxylin and eosin (HE) staining and infrared spectroscopy (IR). Images obtained were then processed by a convolutional neural network (CNN) to extract features and correlate them with the subsequent progression-free survival (PFS) of each patient. Separately, HE and IR imaging resulted in a PFS prediction with an error of 6.6 and 6.3 months respectively (28% and 26% of the average PFS). Combining both modalities allowed to decrease the error to 5.0 months (21%). The inflammatory state of the stroma seemed to be one of the main features detected by the CNN. Our pilot study suggests that multimodal imaging analyzed with deep learning methods allow to give an indication of the effectiveness of a treatment when choosing.

Beta-blocker exposure and survival outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: a retrospective cohort study (BETAPANC).

Introduction: Preclinical studies have demonstrated the possible role of beta-adrenergic receptors in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) tumor invasion and migration. The current study aimed to explore the possible association between survival outcomes and beta-blocker (BB) exposure in patients with advanced PDAC. Methods: This retrospective single-center study included 182 patients with advanced PDAC. Clinical [age, sex, BMI, cardiovascular condition, presence (SBB) or absence (NSBB) of beta-1 selectivity of BB, exposure duration, and multimorbidity], oncological (stage and anticancer treatment regimen), and biological (renal and liver function) data were collected. The endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for survival outcomes associated with BB exposure were estimated using Cox regression model and propensity score (PS) methods. Results: Forty-one patients (22.5%) were exposed to BB. A total of 104 patients progressed (57.1%) to PDAC and 139 (76.4%) patients died at the end of follow-up (median, 320 days; IQR, 438.75 days). When compared to the non-exposed group, there was no increase in survival outcomes associated with BB use (OS: HR = 1.38, 95% CI = 0.80-2.39, p = 0.25; PFS: adjusted HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.48-1.88, p = 0.88). Similar results were obtained using the PS method. Compared to no BB usage, SBB use was associated with a significant decrease in OS (HR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.16-2.80, p < 10-2). Conclusion: BB exposure was not associated with improved PDAC survival outcomes. Beta-1-selectivity was not independently associated with any differences.

Circulating tumour DNA at baseline for individualised prognostication in patients with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic colorectal cancer. An AGEO prospective study.

PURPOSE: Baseline circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) is a potential prognostic marker in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. However, few studies have compared ctDNA with the usual prognostic factors, and no ctDNA cut-off has been proposed for daily use in clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naive patients with mCRC were prospectively included. Plasma samples were collected at diagnosis and analysed centrally by both NGS and methylation digital PCR. Baseline patient and disease characteristics, treatment regimens, and secondary surgeries were collected. The restricted cubic spline method was used to define the optimal cut-off of ctDNA mutated allelic frequency (MAF). Prognostic values were assessed on overall survival (OS) using Cox models. RESULTS: From July 2015 to December 2016, 412 patients were included. ctDNA was undetectable in 83 patients (20%). ctDNA was an independent prognostic marker for OS considering the whole study population. The optimal cut-off for ctDNA MAF was 20% with median OS of 16.0 and 35.8 months for patients with MAF ≥20% and<20%, respectively (hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% confidence intervals: 0.31-0.51; P < 0.0001). The independent prognostic value of ctDNA MAF at 20% was confirmed in subgroups defined by RAS/BRAF status or resectability of metastases. Combining ctDNA MAF and carcinoembryonic antigen levels allowed us to define three different prognostic groups with median OS of 14.2, 21.1, and 46.4 months (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: ctDNA with a MAF cut-off of 20% improves prognostication of chemotherapy-naïve mCRC patients and may be useful in the future for individualised therapeutic decisions and as a stratification factor in clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02502656.

Prognostic score for synchronous metastatic rectal cancer: A real-world study.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic factors of metastatic rectal cancer are not well known. AIM: The objective of this study was to identify prognostic factors of overall survival (OS) in a cohort of patients with non-resectable synchronous metastatic rectal cancer. METHODS: Patients were retrospectively enrolled from 18 French centres. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify prognostic factors for OS. A simple score was derived from this a development cohort RESULTS: A total of 243 patients with metastatic rectal cancer were included in the study. Median OS was 24.4 months, 95% CI [19.4-27.2]. Among patients with non-resected metastases (n=141), six independent prognostic factors associated with better OS were identified in multivariate analysis: primary tumour surgery, WHO score 0-1, middle or upper rectal tumour, lung metastases only, systemic chemotherapy and targeted agent in first line. A prognostic score individualized three groups, each factor counting for one point in the score (<3, = 3 et > 3). Their median OS were respectively 27.9 months, 95% CI [21.7-35.1], 17.1 months [11.9-19.7] (HR2/1=2.08, 95%, CI [1.31-3.30], p2/1=0.002) and 9.1 months [4.9-11.7] (HR3/2=2.32, 95% CI [1.38-3.92], p3/2=0.001). CONCLUSION: A prognostic score for non-resectable synchronous metastatic rectal cancer can be proposed to classify patients in three prognostic groups.

Perioperative Cetuximab with Cisplatin and 5-Fluorouracil in Esogastric Adenocarcinoma: A Phase II Study.

PURPOSE: While perioperative chemotherapy provides a survival benefit over surgery alone in gastric and gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) adenocarcinomas, the results need to be improved. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative cetuximab combined with 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received six cycles of cetuximab, cisplatin, and simplified LV5FU2 before and after surgery. The primary objective was a combined evaluation of the tumor objective response (TOR), assessed by computed tomography, and the absence of major toxicities resulting in discontinuation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NCT) (45% and 90%, respectively). RESULTS: From 2011 to 2013, 65 patients were enrolled. From 64 patients evaluable for the primary endpoint, 19 (29.7%) had a morphological TOR and 61 (95.3%) did not stop NCT prematurely due to major toxicity. Sixty patients (92.3%) underwent resection. Sixteen patients (/56 available, 28.5%) had histological responses (Mandard tumor regression grade ≤3). After a median follow-up of 44.5 months, median disease-free and overall survival were 24.4 [95% CI: 16.4-39.4] and 40.3 months [95% CI: 27.5-NA], respectively. CONCLUSION: Adding cetuximab to the NCT regimen in operable G/GEJ adenocarcinomas is safe, but did not show enough efficacy in the present study to meet the primary endpoint (NCT01360086).