Repositioning Fenofibrate to Reactivate p53 and Reprogram the Tumor-Immune Microenvironment in HPV+ Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma.

Human papillomavirus-associated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HPV+ HNSCC) is recognized as a distinct disease with unique etiology and clinical features. Current standard of care therapeutic modalities are identical for HPV+ and HPV- HNSCC and thus, there remains an opportunity to develop innovative pharmacologic approaches to exploit the inherent vulnerabilities of HPV+ HNSCC. In this study, using an inducible HPVE6E7 knockdown system, we found that HPV+ HNSCC cells are addicted to HPVE6E7, such that loss of these viral oncogenes impaired tumorigenicity in vitro and in vivo. A number of druggable pathways, including PPAR and Wnt, were modulated in response to HPVE6E7 loss. Fenofibrate showed significant anti-proliferative effects in a panel of HPV+ cancer cell lines. Additionally, fenofibrate impaired tumor growth as monotherapy and potentiated the activity of cisplatin in a pre-clinical HPV+ animal model. Systemic fenofibrate treatment induced p53 protein accumulation, and surprisingly, re-programmed the tumor-immune microenvironment to drive immune cell infiltration. Since fenofibrate is FDA-approved with a favorable long-term safety record, repositioning of this drug, as a single agent or in combination with cisplatin or checkpoint blockade, for the HPV+ HNSCC setting should be prioritized.

Safety and Effectiveness of Aflibercept + Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan (FOLFIRI) for the Treatment of Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC) in Current Clinical Practice: OZONE Study.

For patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that have failed a first-line oxaliplatin-based regimen, the preferred treatment option is an irinotecan-based regimen. This prospective, observational, noncomparative, post-authorization safety study (OZONE) evaluated the safety and effectiveness of aflibercept plus fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in patients with mCRC treated in daily practice after failure of an oxaliplatin-based regimen. Patients were grouped by age, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, race, number, and type of prior anticancer therapy. Of 766 treated patients enrolled, 59.5% were male, 94.8% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, all received previous chemotherapy (97.8% including oxaliplatin), and 58.6% had prior exposure to bevacizumab. At least one grade ≥ 3 treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) was reported in 68.3% of patients. Neutropenia, hypertension, diarrhea, and asthenia were the most frequently occurring grade ≥ 3 TEAEs. Antivascular endothelial growth factor class events were infrequent. Subgroup analyses did not reveal major differences in the safety profile according to age, renal and hepatic status, race, or prior anticancer therapy. For the total population, median overall survival was 12.5 months, median progression-free survival was 6.1 months, and overall response rate was 16.3%. Aflibercept in combination with FOLFIRI is a safe and efficacious regimen administered in current clinical practice to patients with mCRC previously treated with oxaliplatin. The study results, conducted in real-world clinical practice with a less selected patient population, are aligned with the VELOUR (NCT00561470) trial and no new safety issues were identified.

Clinical Outcomes with First-Line Chemotherapy in a Large Retrospective Study of Patients with Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer Treated in a US Community Oncology Setting.

BACKGROUND: The combination chemotherapy regimens of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nab-p + G) and FOLFIRINOX (FFX) have each demonstrated improved survival compared with gemcitabine monotherapy in clinical trials for metastatic pancreatic cancer; however, limited comparative data exist. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare patient characteristics and clinical outcomes including time to treatment failure and overall survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving first-line chemotherapy in the community. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multi-site, observational cohort study of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer receiving first-line nab-p + G, FFX, or gemcitabine monotherapy between April 2013 and October 2015, using data from the iKnowMed electronic health record database. Patients on clinical trials or with other cancer diagnoses were excluded. Time to treatment failure and overall survival were assessed by Kaplan-Meier methods. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-six patients met selection criteria, 255 nab-p + G, 159 FFX, and 72 gemcitabine patients. Median age was 61, 68, and 73 years for FFX, nab-p + G, and gemcitabine patients, respectively (p < 0.01 for nab-p + G vs. FFX). Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 was 91% for FFX, 77% for nab-p + G, and 68% for gemcitabine patients (p < 0.01 for nab-p + G vs. FFX). For the nab-p + G vs. FFX cohorts, respectively, time to treatment failure was 3.7 vs. 4.3 months (log-rank p = 0.25); and OS was 9.8 vs. 11.4 months (log-rank p = 0.38). Among patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, time to treatment failure was 4.2 vs. 4.3 months (log-rank p = 0.47); and overall survival was 12.1 vs 11.4 months (log-rank p = 0.68). CONCLUSIONS: The nab-p + G patients were older and had worse performance status than FFX patients. Time to treatment failure and overall survival were not observed to be significantly different in first-line nab-p + G and FFX patients. Results were similar after stratifying by performance status.

Barriers to the Access of Bevacizumab in Patients with Solid Tumors and the Potential Impact of Biosimilars: A Physician Survey.

Access to bevacizumab, an important component of oncology treatment regimens, may be limited. This survey of oncologists in the US (n = 150), Europe (n = 230), and emerging markets (EM: Brazil, Mexico, and Turkey; n = 130) examined use of and barriers to accessing bevacizumab as treatment of advanced solid tumors. We also assessed the likelihood that physicians would prescribe a bevacizumab biosimilar, if available. Bevacizumab was frequently used as early-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer, metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, and metastatic ovarian cancer (all markets), and as a second-line therapy in glioblastoma multiforme (US, EM). A greater percentage of EM-based physicians cited access-related issues as a barrier to prescribing bevacizumab versus US and EU physicians. Lack of reimbursement and high out-of-pocket costs were cited as predominant barriers to prescribing and common reasons for reducing the number of planned cycles. Overall, ~50% of physicians reported they "definitely" or "probably" would prescribe a bevacizumab biosimilar, if available. Efficacy and safety data in specific tumor types and lower cost were factors cited that would increase likelihood to prescribe a bevacizumab biosimilar. A lower cost bevacizumab biosimilar could address the unmet needs of patients and physicians worldwide, and may have the greatest impact on patient outcomes in EM.

Emergency use of uridine triacetate for the prevention and treatment of life-threatening 5-fluorouracil and capecitabine toxicity.

BACKGROUND: Increased susceptibility to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/capecitabine can lead to rapidly occurring toxicity caused by impaired clearance, dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase deficiency, and other genetic variations in the enzymes that metabolize 5-FU. Life-threatening 5-FU overdoses occur because of infusion pump errors, dosage miscalculations, and accidental or suicidal ingestion of capecitabine. Uridine triacetate (Vistogard) was approved in 2015 for adult and pediatric patients who exhibit early-onset severe or life-threatening 5-FU/capecitabine toxicities or present with an overdose. Uridine triacetate delivers high concentrations of uridine, which competes with toxic 5-FU metabolites. METHODS: In 2 open-label clinical studies, patients who presented with a 5-FU/capecitabine overdose or an early onset of severe toxicities were treated. Patients received uridine triacetate as soon as possible (most within the first 96 hours after 5-FU/capecitabine). Outcomes included survival, resumption of chemotherapy, and safety. Their survival was compared with the survival of a historical cohort of overdose patients who received only supportive care. RESULTS: A total of 137 of 142 overdose patients (96%) treated with uridine triacetate survived and had a rapid reversal of severe acute cardiotoxicity and neurotoxicity; in addition, mucositis and leukopenia were prevented, or the patients recovered from them. In the historical cohort, 21 of 25 patients (84%) died. Among the 141 uridine triacetate-treated overdose patients with a diagnosis of cancer (the noncancer patients included 6 intentional or accidental pediatric overdoses), 53 resumed chemotherapy in < 30 days (median time after 5-FU, 19.6 days), and this indicated a rapid recovery from toxicity. Adverse reactions in patients receiving uridine triacetate included vomiting (8.1%), nausea (4.6%), and diarrhea (3.5%). CONCLUSIONS: In these studies, uridine triacetate was a safe and effective lifesaving antidote for capecitabine and 5-FU overexposure, and it facilitated the rapid resumption of chemotherapy. Cancer 2017;123:345-356. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Use of Adjuvant Cisplatin-Based Versus Carboplatin-Based Chemotherapy in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Findings From the Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: For patients with resected non-small-cell lung cancer, national guidelines recommend cisplatin-based doublet chemotherapy as the preferred treatment. However, many patients receive a carboplatin-based regimen instead. We aimed to identify factors associated with use of a cisplatin-based regimen and explore its association with other quality-of-care measures. METHODS: This analysis was part of the Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care, an audit and feedback project among 11 medical oncology practices. Feedback-sharing sessions based on findings of year 2006 took place in 2008. Eligible patients were random samples of those with resected stage I to III non-small-cell lung cancer treated in 2006 and 2009. RESULTS: In both years combined, 81 patients received adjuvant platinum-based doublets: 33 patients (41%) received cisplatin, and 48 patients (59%) received carboplatin. Use of a cisplatin-based doublet significantly increased in 2009 compared with 2006, from 24% to 56% (P = .006). Multivariable analysis determined that academic practices used cisplatin more frequently than nonacademic practices (odds ratios, 3.26; 95% CI, 1.19 to 8.91; P = .02). Moreover, patients treated in 2009 were more likely to receive cisplatin than those treated in 2006 (odds ratio, 4.89; 95% CI, 1.75 to 13.67; P = .002). No significant association between use of cisplatin and other quality-of-care measures was found. CONCLUSION: In this study, academic practice status and treatment year predicted use of adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy. The increase in use of cisplatin in 2009, as compared with 2006, suggests that audit and feedback may be effective ways to promote such use.

Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care: Changes in Psychosocial Quality of Care Indicators Over a 3-Year Interval.

PURPOSE: Identifying and addressing psychosocial concerns is increasingly recognized as an important aspect of cancer care that needs to be improved. As part of the Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care, medical record reviews were conducted to evaluate cancer care, including psychosocial care, at oncology practices in Florida in 2006. Results were subsequently disseminated to the practices, and performance was reassessed at the same practices in 2009. METHODS: Data were available for patients with colorectal, breast, and non-small-cell lung cancer first seen by a medical oncologist in 2006 (n = 1,609) and 2009 (n = 1,720) at the same 10 practice sites. Performance on each psychosocial indicator was evaluated for overall change over time and for variability in change based on practice site and cancer type. RESULTS: The percentage of patients identified as having a problem in emotional well-being increased significantly over time, from 24% to 31% among those assessed (P = .002) and from 13% to 16% overall (P = .026). In contrast, there no significant changes over time in assessment of emotional well-being (53% to 51%, P = .661) or in action taken to address problems (57% to 45%, P = .098). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest more intensive efforts than audit and feedback will be required to improve the quality of psychosocial care and that greater recognition of problems with emotional well-being may tax the ability of practices to link patients with appropriate services. Systematic research is needed to identify and disseminate effective strategies for implementing routine assessment of well-being and addressing the increased demands for care this will generate.

Effect of adjuvant capecitabine or fluorouracil, with or without oxaliplatin, on survival outcomes in stage III colon cancer and the effect of oxaliplatin on post-relapse survival: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from four randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy is the standard of care for stage III colon cancer. Adjuvant capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin versus leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin has not been directly compared; therefore, we aimed to analyse the efficacy and safety of these treatments using individual patient data pooled from four randomised controlled trials. We also assessed post-relapse survival, which has been postulated to be worse in patients receiving adjuvant oxaliplatin. METHODS: Patients with resected stage III colon cancer who were 18 years of age or older, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, from four randomised controlled trials (NSABP C-08, XELOXA, X-ACT, and AVANT; 8734 patients in total) were pooled and analysed. The treatment regimens included in our analyses were: XELOX (oxaliplatin and capecitabine); leucovorin and fluorouracil; capecitabine; FOLFOX-4 (leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin); and modified FOLFOX-6 (mFOLFOX-6). Disease-free survival was the primary endpoint for all trials that supplied patients for this analysis. Here, we compared disease-free, relapse-free, and overall survival between the patient groups who received capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and those who received leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin. Post-relapse survival was compared between the combined XELOX and FOLFOX groups, and the leucovorin and fluorouracil groups. Post-relapse survival was also compared between the capecitabine with or without oxaliplatin and leucovorin and fluorouracil with or without oxaliplatin groups. FINDINGS: Disease-free survival did not differ significantly between patients who received leucovorin and fluorouracil versus those who received capecitabine in adjusted analyses (hazard ratio [HR] 1·02 [0·93-1·11; p=0·72]) or in unadjusted analyses (HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92-1·10; p=0·86]). Relapse-free survival was similar (adjusted HR 1·02 [0·93-1·12; p=0·72] and unadjusted HR 1·01 [95% CI 0·92-1·11; p=0·86]), as was overall survival (adjusted HR 1·04 [95% CI 0·93-1·15; p=0·50] and unadjusted HR 1·02 [0·92-1·14]; p=0·65). For overall survival, a significant interaction between oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine was recorded in the multiple Cox regression analysis (p=0·014). Post-relapse survival was similar in adjusted (p=0·23) and unadjusted analyses (p=0·33) for the comparison of XELOX or FOLFOX versus leucovorin and fluorouracil, and was also similar for capecitabine-based regimens versus leucovorin and fluorouracil-based regimens (unadjusted p=0·26). INTERPRETATION: Combination therapy with oxaliplatin provided consistently improved outcomes without adversely affecting post-relapse survival in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, irrespective of whether the fluoropyrimidine backbone was capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil. These data add to the existing evidence that oxaliplatin plus capecitabine or leucovorin and fluorouracil is the standard of care for the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer, and offers physicians flexibility to treat patients according to the patients' overall physical performance and preference. FUNDING: Genentech Inc.

Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care: improvements in breast cancer quality indicators during a 3-year interval.

BACKGROUND: The Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care (FIQCC), composed of 11 practice sites across Florida, conducted its initial evaluation of adherence to breast cancer quality of care indicators (QCI) in 2006, with feedback provided to encourage quality improvement efforts at participating sites. In this study, our objective was to reassess changes over time resulting from these efforts. STUDY DESIGN: Quality care indicators were derived from the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Surgeons, and expert panel consensus. Medical records were reviewed for breast cancer patients first seen by medical oncologists in 2009 at the FIQCC sites, using the same performance indicators as in 2006. Statistical comparisons of 2006 vs 2009 data across sites were made by Pearson chi-square exact test using Monte Carlo estimation. RESULTS: Charts of 602 patients in 2006 and 636 patients in 2009 were compared. Performance on medical oncology QCI improved over time for documentation of clinical trial participation discussion (p = 0.001), documentation of consent for chemotherapy (p = 0.047), definitive surgery done after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (p = 0.017), and planned dose of chemotherapy consistent with published regimens (p = 0.02). Improvements in surgical QCI were seen for documentation of specimen orientation (p < 0.001), inking of margins (p < 0.0001), and performance of sentinel lymph node biopsy (p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: The 2006 FIQCC study identified several medical and surgical oncology QCI improvement needs. Quality improvement efforts resulted in better performance for numerous metrics, therefore speaking to the benefits of reassessment of adherence to performance indicators to guide QCI efforts.

Changes in the care of non-small-cell lung cancer after audit and feedback: the Florida initiative for quality cancer care.

PURPOSE: Audit and feedback have been widely used to enhance the performance of various medical practices. Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is one of the most common diseases encountered in medical oncology practice. We investigated the use of audit and feedback to improve the care of NSCLC. METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for patients with NSCLC first seen by a medical oncologist in 2006 (n = 518) and 2009 (n = 573) at 10 oncology practices participating in the Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care. In 2008, feedback from 2006 audit results was provided to practices, which then independently undertook steps to improve their performance. Sixteen quality-of-care indicators (QCIs) were evaluated on both time points and were examined for changes in adherence over time. RESULTS: A statistically significant increase in adherence was observed for five of 16 QCIs. Adherence to brain staging using magnetic resonance imaging or computed tomography scan for stage III NSCLC (57.8% in 2006 v 82.8% in 2009; P = .001), availability of chemotherapy flow sheet (89.2% v 97.0%; P < .001), documentation of performance status for stage III and IV disease (43.4% v 51.3%; P < .001), availability of pathology report for patients undergoing surgery (95.2% v 99.2%; P = .02), and availability of signed chemotherapy consent (69.5% v 76.3%; P = .04). There were no statistically significant decreases in adherence on any QCIs. CONCLUSION: Audit with feedback was associated with a modest but important improvement in the treatment of NSCLC. Whether these changes are durable will require long-term follow-up.

Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care: improvements on colorectal cancer quality of care indicators during a 3-year interval.

BACKGROUND: The quality of cancer care has become a national priority; however, there are few ongoing efforts to assist medical oncology practices in identifying areas for improvement. The Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care is a consortium of 11 medical oncology practices that evaluates the quality of cancer care across Florida. Within this practice-based system of self-assessment, we determined adherence to colorectal cancer quality of care indicators (QCIs) in 2006, disseminated results to each practice and reassessed adherence in 2009. The current report focuses on evaluating the direction and magnitude of change in adherence to QCIs for colorectal cancer patients between the 2 assessments. STUDY DESIGN: Medical records were reviewed for all colorectal cancer patients seen by a medical oncologist in 2006 (n = 489) and 2009 (n = 511) at 10 participating practices. Thirty-five indicators were evaluated individually and changes in QCI adherence over time and by site were examined. RESULTS: Significant improvements were noted from 2006 to 2009, with large gains in surgical/pathological QCIs (eg, documenting rectal radial margin status, lymphovascular invasion, and the review of ≥ 12 lymph nodes) and medical oncology QCIs (documenting planned treatment regimen and providing recommended neoadjuvant regimens). Documentation of perineural invasion and radial margins significantly improved; however, adherence remained low (47% and 71%, respectively). There was significant variability in adherence for some QCIs across institutions at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care practices conducted self-directed quality-improvement efforts during a 3-year interval and overall adherence to QCIs improved. However, adherence remained low for several indicators, suggesting that organized improvement efforts might be needed for QCIs that remained consistently low over time. Findings demonstrate how efforts such as the Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care are useful for evaluating and improving the quality of cancer care at a regional level.

Axitinib and/or bevacizumab with modified FOLFOX-6 as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: In this multicenter, open-label, randomized phase 2 trial, the authors evaluated the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor axitinib, bevacizumab, or both in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mCRC were randomized 1:1:1 to receive continuous axitinib 5 mg twice daily, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or axitinib 5 mg twice daily plus bevacizumab 2 mg/kg every 2 weeks, each in combination with modified 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-6). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: In all, 126 patients were enrolled from August 2007 to September 2008. The ORR was numerically inferior in the axitinib arm (n = 42) versus the bevacizumab arm (n = 43; 28.6% vs 48.8%; 1-sided P = .97). Progression-free survival (PFS) (11.0 months vs 15.9 months; 1-sided P = .57) and overall survival (OS) (18.1 months vs 21.6 months; 1-sided P = .69) also were numerically inferior in the axitinib arm. Similarly, efficacy endpoints for the axitinib/bevacizumab arm (n = 41) were numerically inferior (ORR, 39%; PFS, 12.5 months; OS, 19.7 months). The patients who received axitinib had fewer treatment cycles compared with other arms. Common all-grade adverse events across all 3 treatment arms were fatigue, diarrhea, and nausea (all ≥49%). Hypertension and headache were more frequent in the patients who received axitinib. Patients in the bevacizumab arm had the longest treatment exposures and the highest rates of peripheral neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the addition of continuous axitinib nor the axitinib/bevacizumab combination to FOLFOX-6 improved ORR, PFS, or OS compared with bevacizumab as first-line treatment of mCRC.

Adverse events associated with antiangiogenic agents in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer and their management.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in men and women, and, despite advances in detection and treatment that result in a steadily decreasing incidence and mortality, remains a leading cause of death. The 5-year survival rate of persons with metastatic CRC (mCRC) is only 12%. With the recognition of vascularity as an important factor in tumor proliferation and growth, targeting angiogenesis pathways has been a major focus of research. The addition of bevacizumab, an inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway, to cytotoxic chemotherapy has improved response rates and survival of patients with mCRC. Aflibercept, a potent new multiple angiogenic factor trap that prevents not only VEGF-A but also VEGF-B and placental growth factor from activating their native receptors, has demonstrated efficacy in previously treated patients with mCRC. Phase I/II clinical trials and, more recently, a phase III clinical trial, have demonstrated effective antiangiogenic and cytotoxic activity with acceptable safety and tolerability. As is the case with bevacizumab, the optimal use of aflibercept requires appropriate management of the associated anti-VEGF adverse events and those associated with its use in combination with chemotherapy. These adverse events have previously been observed and are generally manageable with appropriate therapeutic intervention.

Evaluating the quality of colorectal cancer care in the state of Florida: results from the Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: The Florida Initiative for Quality Cancer Care (FIQCC) was established to evaluate the quality of cancer care at the regional level across the state of Florida. This study assessed adherence to validated quality indicators in colorectal cancer (CRC) and the variability in adherence by practice site, volume, and patient age. METHODS: The FIQCC is a consortium of 11 medical oncology practices in Florida. Medical record reviews were conducted for 507 patients diagnosed with CRC and seen as new medical oncology patients in 2006. Thirty-five indicators were evaluated individually and categorized across clinical domains and components of care. RESULTS: The mean adherence for 19 of 35 individual indicators was > 85%. Pathology reports were compliant on reporting depth of tumor invasion (96%; range, 86% to 100%), grade (93%; range, 72% to 100%), and status of proximal and distal surgical resection margins (97%; range. 86% to 100%); however, documentation of lymphovascular and perineural invasion did not meet adherence standards (76%; range, 53% to 100% and 39%; range, 5% to 83%, respectively). Among patients with nonmetastatic rectal cancer, documentation of the status of surgical radial margins was consistently low across sites (42%; range, 0% to 100%; P = .19). Documentation of planned treatment regimens for adjuvant chemotherapy was noted in only 58% of eligible patients. CONCLUSION: In this large regional initiative, we found high levels of adherence to more than half of the established quality indicators. Although the quality of care delivered within FIQCC practices seems to be high, several components of care were identified that warrant further scrutiny on both a systemic level and at individual centers.

Bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer (AVANT): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab improves the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our aim was to assess the use of bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma. METHODS: Patients from 330 centres in 34 countries were enrolled into this phase 3, open-label randomised trial. Patients with curatively resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), and fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 1; leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) plus fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 2) every 2 weeks for 12 cycles; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg plus FOLFOX4 (every 2 weeks for 12 cycles) followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks); or bevacizumab 7·5 mg/kg plus XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 2 weeks plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-15) every 3 weeks for eight cycles followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks). Block randomisation was done with a central interactive computerised system, stratified by geographic region and disease stage. Surgery with curative intent occurred 4-8 weeks before randomisation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed for all randomised patients with stage III disease. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00112918. FINDINGS: Of the total intention-to-treat population (n=3451), 2867 patients had stage III disease, of whom 955 were randomly assigned to receive FOLFOX4, 960 to receive bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and 952 to receive bevacizumab-XELOX. After a median follow-up of 48 months (range 0-66 months), 237 patients (25%) in the FOLFOX4 group, 280 (29%) in the bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 group, and 253 (27%) in the bevacizumab-XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new colon cancer, or died. The disease-free survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·17 (95% CI 0·98-1·39; p=0·07), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·07 (0·90-1·28; p=0·44). After a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the overall survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·27 (1·03-1·57; p=0·02), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·15 (0·93-1·42; p=0·21). The 573 patients with high-risk stage II cancer were included in the safety analysis. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were neutropenia (FOLFOX4: 477 [42%] of 1126 patients, bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 416 [36%] of 1145 patients, and bevacizumab-XELOX: 74 [7%] of 1135 patients), diarrhoea (110 [10%], 135 [12%], and 181 [16%], respectively), and hypertension (12 [1%], 122 [11%], and 116 [10%], respectively). Serious adverse events were more common in the bevacizumab groups (bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 297 [26%]; bevacizumab-XELOX: 284 [25%]) than in the FOLFOX4 group (226 [20%]). Treatment-related deaths were reported in one patient receiving FOLFOX4, two receiving bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and five receiving bevacizumab-XELOX. INTERPRETATION: Bevacizumab does not prolong disease-free survival when added to adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage III colon cancer. Overall survival data suggest a potential detrimental effect with bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in these patients. On the basis of these and other data, we do not recommend the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with curatively resected stage III colon cancer. FUNDING: Genentech, Roche, and Chugai.

Survival outcomes of bevacizumab beyond progression in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated in US community oncology.

BACKGROUND: Bevacizumab prolongs OS when added to first- or second-line chemotherapy for mCRC. This retrospective analysis evaluated the association between the continued use of BBP and survival outcomes in mCRC patients treated in a community oncology setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were derived from the US Oncology iKnowMed electronic medical record system. Patients with mCRC who received first-line bevacizumab-containing therapy between July 1, 2006 and June 30, 2009, were dichotomized into 2 second-line treatment cohorts: those receiving BBP and No-BBP. Clinical outcomes, including OS and postprogression OS (ppOS; time from start of second-line therapy to any-cause death), were calculated using Kaplan-Meier methods. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the effects of patient and treatment characteristics on survival outcomes, adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: Overall, 573 patients met the inclusion criteria for analysis-BBP (n = 267) and No-BBP (n = 306). Median OS and ppOS were longer in the BBP cohort (27.9 and 14.6 months, respectively) compared with the No-BBP cohort (21.4 and 10.1 months). According to multivariate analyses, BBP was associated with longer OS (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61-0.95) and ppOS (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60-0.93) after adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: In the community oncology setting, BBP treatment was correlated with prolonged OS and ppOS in patients with mCRC. These results provide insight into real-world patterns of care and resultant bevacizumab use in this patient population.

A randomized, phase II trial of standard triweekly compared with dose-dense biweekly capecitabine plus oxaliplatin plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: XELOX-A-DVS (dense versus standard).

BACKGROUND: Capecitabine administered for 7 days biweekly with oxaliplatin (XELOX) biweekly has been reported to have activity and safety profiles similar to those of standard capecitabine given for 14 days triweekly. Multiple studies have shown that the addition of bevacizumab to 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy is active and well tolerated. METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were randomized to XELOX plus bevacizumab using a standard triweekly cycle (Q3W) or a dose-dense biweekly cycle (Q2W) schedule. The primary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS) interval. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier, NCT00159432). RESULTS: In total, 435 U.S. patients were randomized. The median PFS intervals were 9.6 months in the Q3W group and 9.1 months in the Q2W group. The median overall survival times were 28.4 months and 22.1 months and the median times to treatment failure were 5.5 months and 3.4 months, respectively. Overall, gastrointestinal disorders were the most common (93%) adverse event (AE). Grade 3 or 4 AEs occurred in 75% and 81% of patients in the Q3W and Q2W groups, respectively. Treatment discontinuation as a result of diarrhea (5% versus 10%) and hand-foot syndrome (2% versus 9%) was less common in the Q3W group than in the Q2W group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, the first-line treatment of U.S. patients with mCRC using a biweekly combination of XELOX and bevacizumab at the doses studied cannot be recommended. XELOX Q3W remains the preferred schedule for the management of mCRC.

Effects of a brief multimedia psychoeducational intervention on the attitudes and interest of patients with cancer regarding clinical trial participation: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: The negative attitudes of patients with cancer regarding clinical trials are an important contributor to low participation rates. This study evaluated whether a brief psychoeducational intervention was effective in improving patients' attitudes as well as their knowledge, self-efficacy for decision making, receptivity to receiving more information, and general willingness to participate in clinical trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 472 adults with cancer who had not been asked previously to participate in a clinical trial were randomly assigned to receive printed educational information about clinical trials or a psychoeducational intervention that provided similar information and also addressed misperceptions and concerns about clinical trials. The primary (attitudes) and secondary outcomes (knowledge, self-efficacy, receptivity, and willingness) were assessed via patient self-report before random assignment and 7 to 28 days later. RESULTS: Patients who received the psychoeducational intervention showed more positive attitudes toward clinical trials (P = .016) and greater willingness to participate (P = .011) at follow-up than patients who received printed educational information. Evidence of an indirect effect of intervention assignment on willingness to participate (estimated at 0.168; 95% CI, 0.088 to 0.248) suggested that the benefits of psychoeducation on willingness to participate were explained by the positive impact of psychoeducation on attitudes toward clinical trials. CONCLUSION: A brief psychoeducational intervention can improve the attitudes of patients with cancer toward clinical trials and thereby increase their willingness to participate in clinical trials. Findings support conducting additional research to evaluate effects of this intervention on quality of decision making and rates of participation among patients asked to enroll onto therapeutic clinical trials.

Treatment decisions after diagnosis of metastatic colorectal cancer.

Treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) involves the use of active cytotoxic drugs (irinotecan, oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil [5-FU], and capecitabine) and biological agents (bevacizumab, cetuximab, and panitumumab) either in combination or as single agents. Until recently, the only biological agent with proven first-line efficacy was bevacizumab, but options have expanded from the data generated with anti-endothelial growth factor (EGFR) monoclonal antibodies. Anti-EGFR agents can be added to first-line FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin [folinic acid], irinotecan) or FOLFOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin [folinic acid], oxaliplatin) in patients whose tumors express wild-type KRAS. These agents may improve outcomes when added to chemotherapy, particularly progression-free survival (PFS), and in the case of cetuximab, overall survival (OS) and response rates. The selection of first-line therapy should be based on the individual treatment goals after considering the efficacy and tolerability of each regimen. For patients with metastases confined to the liver, surgical resection offers a potentially curative approach. For initially unresectable lesions, treatment regimens offering high response rates may produce sufficient tumor shrinkage to permit complete resection. Regimens with high response rates are also preferable for patients requiring symptom relief or for those with large tumor burdens. The choice between intensive vs. nonintensive management also depends on other factors, including the patient's functional status, comorbidities, and desires. A sequential single-agent strategy or an intermittent approach (combination therapy followed by maintenance) may minimize toxicity and be appropriate for patients who are not surgical candidates, irrespective of treatment response. Guidelines, such as those of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), recommend that KRAS mutational status should be determined at mCRC diagnosis to identify candidates for anti-EGFR therapy whether they are used in first or subsequent lines of treatment.

Implementation of a performance improvement initiative in colorectal cancer care.

PURPOSE: In the United States, colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer after breast and prostate cancer. Numerous improvement programs have been implemented to increase CRC screening rates, but few have focused on improving the care and management of patients with a diagnosis of this malignancy. As national medical organizations focus on quality of care, efforts are necessary to provide clinicians the opportunity for self-assessment and methods for practice improvement. With this goal in mind, a national continuing medical education-certified performance improvement initiative was conceived. METHODS: THE INITIATIVE CONSISTED OF THREE STAGES: First, participants self-assessed their performance of predetermined topic measures through a review of patient charts. The topic areas included patient safety and supportive care, evidence-based surveillance, and evidenced-based treatment and were derived from current guidelines and other successful quality-improvement initiatives. Second, an actionable plan for practice improvement was developed in at least one of the three topic areas. Third, after a period of self-improvement, participants reassessed their performance of the same topic measures to determine tangible changes in patient care. RESULTS: A total of 540 patient charts were reviewed by 27 clinicians. Notable results showed large gains in areas of supportive care, such as quantitative pain assessments and emotional well-being evaluations, which traditionally have been a minor focus of other quality-improvement initiatives. Participants also showed tangible improvements in the performance of leading measures of quality care. CONCLUSION: These findings support the need for continued efforts toward performance improvement in both established and emerging areas of CRC patient care.