Erlotinib Plus Gemcitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Patients With Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Phase III Trial of the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group.

PURPOSE: Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer have a poor prognosis and there have been no improvements in survival since the introduction of gemcitabine in 1996. Pancreatic tumors often overexpress human epidermal growth factor receptor type 1 (HER1/EGFR) and this is associated with a worse prognosis. We studied the effects of adding the HER1/EGFR-targeted agent erlotinib to gemcitabine in patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive standard gemcitabine plus erlotinib (100 or 150 mg/d orally) or gemcitabine plus placebo in a double-blind, international phase III trial. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 569 patients were randomly assigned. Overall survival based on an intent-to-treat analysis was significantly prolonged on the erlotinib/gemcitabine arm with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.82 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.99; P = .038, adjusted for stratification factors; median 6.24 months v 5.91 months). One-year survival was also greater with erlotinib plus gemcitabine (23% v 17%; P = .023). Progression-free survival was significantly longer with erlotinib plus gemcitabine with an estimated HR of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92; P = .004). Objective response rates were not significantly different between the arms, although more patients on erlotinib had disease stabilization. There was a higher incidence of some adverse events with erlotinib plus gemcitabine, but most were grade 1 or 2. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this randomized phase III trial is the first to demonstrate statistically significantly improved survival in advanced pancreatic cancer by adding any agent to gemcitabine. The recommended dose of erlotinib with gemcitabine for this indication is 100 mg/d.

Bevacizumab in Combination With Oxaliplatin-Based Chemotherapy As First-Line Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab when added to first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (either capecitabine plus oxaliplatin [XELOX] or fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin [FOLFOX-4]) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with MCRC were randomly assigned, in a 2 × 2 factorial design, to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to bevacizumab versus placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 1,401 patients were randomly assigned in this 2 × 2 analysis. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months in the bevacizumab group and 8.0 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 97.5% CI, 0.72 to 0.95; P = .0023). Median overall survival was 21.3 months in the bevacizumab group and 19.9 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.89; 97.5% CI, 0.76 to 1.03; P = .077). Response rates were similar in both arms. Analysis of treatment withdrawals showed that, despite protocol allowance of treatment continuation until disease progression, only 29% and 47% of bevacizumab and placebo recipients, respectively, were treated until progression. The toxicity profile of bevacizumab was consistent with that documented in previous trials. CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy significantly improved PFS in this first-line trial in patients with MCRC. Overall survival differences did not reach statistical significance, and response rate was not improved by the addition of bevacizumab. Treatment continuation until disease progression may be necessary in order to optimize the contribution of bevacizumab to therapy.

Biomarker-Driven Therapy in Metastatic Gastric and Esophageal Cancer: Real-Life Clinical Experience.

BACKGROUND: Precision treatment of cancer uses biomarker-driven therapy to individualize and optimize patient care. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate real-life clinical experience with biomarker-driven therapy in metastatic gastric and esophageal cancer in Israel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included patients with metastatic gastric or esophageal cancer who were treated in the participating institutions and underwent biomarker-driven therapy. Treatment was considered to have a benefit if the ratio between the longest progression-free survival (PFS) post biomarker-driven therapy and the last PFS before the biomarker-driven therapy was ≥1.3. The null hypothesis was that ≤15% of patients gain such benefit. RESULTS: The analysis included 46 patients (61% men; median age, 58 years; 57% with poorly-differentiated tumors). At least one actionable (i.e., predictive of response to a specific therapy) biomarker was identified for each patient. Immunohistochemistry was performed on all samples and identified 1-8 (median: 3) biomarkers per patient (most commonly: low TS, high TOPO1, high TOP2A). Twenty-eight patients received therapy after the biomarker analysis (1-4 lines). In the 1st line after biomarker analysis, five patients (18%) achieved a partial response and five (18%) stable disease; the median (range) PFS was 129 (12-1155) days. Twenty-four patients were evaluable for PFS ratio analysis; in seven (29.2%), the ratio was ≥1.3. In a one-sided exact binomial test vs. the null hypothesis, p = 0.019; therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrated that implementing biomarker-driven analysis is feasible and could provide clinical benefit for a considerable proportion (~30%) of patients with metastatic gastric or esophageal cancer.

Phase I trial of sorafenib in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin in advanced solid tumors.

This dose escalation, uncontrolled phase I study evaluated the tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and antitumor activity of oral sorafenib 100, 200, or 400 mg twice daily (bid, continuous regimen) in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LCV, intravenous infusion or bolus) in patients with advanced, solid tumors. A total of 47 patients (median age 57 years; colon cancer, 55%; pancreatic cancer, 21%; prior systemic therapy, 96%) received treatment; 24 were included in the PK analyses, and 38 were evaluable for tumor response. Treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 98% of patients (≥grade 3, 55%); the most frequently reported were fatigue (51%), stomatitis/pharyngitis (47%), and hand-foot skin reaction (45%). Concomitant 5-FU/LCV resulted in no clinically relevant changes in the area under the plasma concentration-time curve in the dosing interval (AUC(0-12)) and maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) of sorafenib (100-400 mg bid) at steady state. Although the start of infusion until the last quantifiable plasma concentration (AUC(0-tn)) and C(max) of 5-FU were increased by concomitant sorafenib 100 to 200 mg, no consistent effect was observed with 400 mg sorafenib. Two (5%) patients with colon cancer achieved partial response; 16 (42%) patients (the majority with colon and pancreatic cancer) had stable disease. Sorafenib plus 5-FU/LCV was generally well tolerated with encouraging antitumor activity and no clinically relevant drug-drug interactions in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Effect of tumor load on energy expenditure in patients with pancreatic cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Increased metabolic rate may play a role in cancer cachexia, especially when caloric intake is significantly reduced. We studied the effect of tumor load on resting energy expenditure (REE) in patients with pancreatic cancer after normalizing for their daily caloric intake and body composition. METHODS: The cross-sectional study included 45 patients with pancreatic cancer (15 postoperation) and 75 controls. Resting energy expenditure was measured by indirect calorimetry, body composition was measured by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, and energy intake was measured by 3-day food records. RESULTS: There were no differences between pancreatic cancer patients who underwent surgery and those who did not in any of the anthropometric or metabolic parameters tested. Body mass index, lean body mass, body fat percentage, and energy intake were significantly lower in patients with pancreatic cancer (P < 0.0001) compared with healthy controls. Resting energy expenditure and the respiratory quotient were significantly lower in patients (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.025, respectively). There were no differences in REE between patients and controls when normalized by lean body mass. Respiratory quotients were significantly lower in patients who underwent surgery and in those who did not compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: Pancreatic cancer does not increase REE above the normal levels nor does tumor burden contribute to increasing REE. Decreased daily energy intake of our patients may have reduced measured REE.

Safety and Efficacy of Sorafenib in Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma (HCC) and Child-Pugh A versus B Cirrhosis.

BACKGROUND: We performed a retrospective analysis of data from a phase II study evaluating sorafenib in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to assess differences in safety and efficacy based on Child-Pugh (CP) status (A/B). METHODS: Patients received sorafenib 400 mg PO bid. We analyzed safety, pharmacokinetic (PK), and efficacy data in the two CP groups. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were CP A; 38 were CP B, with a median duration of therapy of 4 and 1.8 months, respectively. Grade 3/4 adverse events in the CP A and B groups, respectively, included hyperbilirubinemia (14% and 53%), ascites (3% and 5%), and encephalopathy (3% and 13%). Median overall survival (OS) in the CP A group was 9.5 months, compared with 3.2 months in the CP B population. Responses were limited in both groups. AUC and C(max) values were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the lack of randomization against placebo or no therapy in this study, it is unclear if the more frequent worsening of liver cirrhosis and outcome of CP B patients are drug related or due to disease progression, or both. As expected, outcome was poorer in patients with CP B than in those with CP A cirrhosis. The hyperbilirubinemia seen in both groups may be at least partly related to inhibition of UGT1A1 by sorafenib. PK profiles were similar in the two groups. More data are needed to confirm and more fully understand the safety and efficacy of sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC and CP B cirrhosis.

Mature Results of a Prospective Randomized Trial Comparing 5-Flourouracil with Leucovorin to 5-Flourouracil with Levamisole as Adjuvant Therapy of Stage II and III Colorectal Cancer- The Israel Cooperative Oncology Group (ICOG) Study.

OBJECTIVE: Survival benefit with adjuvant therapy was shown in patients with Stage III colorectal cancer (CRC). This study evaluates long-term (10-year) outcome in patients with CRC randomly assigned to adjuvant 5-Fluorouracil/Leucovorin (5FU+LV) or 5-FU/Levamisole (5FU+LEV). METHODS: Between 1990 and 1995, 398 patients with curatively resected Stage II-III CRC were randomly assigned to adjuvant 5FU+LV or 5FU+LEV for 12 months. RESULTS: No difference was evident in 10-year relapse-free or overall survival between study groups. Grade III toxicity was similar between groups; however, neurotoxicity was significantly greater with 5FU+LEV (p=0.02) and gastrointestinal toxicity with 5FU+LV (p=0.03). Female patients treated with 5FU+LEV had improved overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant treatment of CRC is still based on leucovorin modulated fluorouracil. The long-term follow-up results of this trial indicate that the adjuvant treatment of Stage II-III CRC with 5FU+LV or 5FU+LEV is equally effective. The finding of improved survival in female subjects treated with 5FU+LEV warrants further study to determine if Levamisole is a better modulator of 5-FU than Leucovorin in this patient subset.

Is there a survival benefit to neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy, combined with surgery for resectable colorectal liver metastases?

BACKGROUND: The benefits of adding chemotherapy to surgery in patients with hepatic colorectal metastases at moderate and high risk for recurrence and the optimal sequence of administration are undetermined. METHODS: We followed the overall-survival and event-free survival rates after operation in patients with resectable colorectal metastases confined to the liver. The adjuvant patients first underwent surgery and then treatment, whereas the neoadjuvant patients underwent treatment, surgery, and re-treatment. Assignment was by oncologist and patient preferences. Chemotherapy was oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan (FOLFIRI) based. RESULTS: Fifty-six of 105 patients who underwent liver resections for colorectal metastases (2002-2005) are included. The two groups were comparable for demographics, characteristics of disease (including recurrence risk), treatment protocols, and follow-up. The respective 1-, 2-, and 3-year overall survival rates were 91%, 91%, and 84%, and the event-free survival rates were 63%, 49%, and 49% for the 19 adjuvant patients, and 95%, 91%, and 70%, and 94%, 50%, and 50% for the 37 neoadjuvant patients. CONCLUSIONS: The midterm overall survival and disease-free survival rates in this group of patients with resectable colorectal metastases to the liver, who were treated with combination of resection and chemotherapy, were similar, regardless of the sequence of treatment.

Response to chemotherapy predicts survival following resection of hepatic colo-rectal metastases in patients treated with neoadjuvant therapy.

BACKGROUND: Prognosis of patients following resection of CRC metastases to the liver has traditionally been predicted by clinical risk factors. In the era of neoadjuvant chemotherapy, determination of new prognostic indicators of outcome are necessary. METHODS: This retrospective study includes patients with CRC liver metastases, who received oxaliplatin or irinotecan based neoadjuvant chemotherapy and underwent R0 resection. Patients were followed by CT and PET-CT, before, during and after chemotherapy and surgery. The predictive value of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Clinical Score (MSKCC-CS) and degree of response to chemotherapy (measured by CT and PET-CT), were analyzed by univariate and multivariate COX regression. RESULTS: Included are 54 patients. Overall 1-, 2-, 3-year survival rates 88%, 70%, and 39%. Response to chemotherapy on CT was a significant predictor of survival on univariate (P = 0.03) and multivariate analysis (P = 0.03), whereas MSKCC-CS and response to chemotherapy on PET-CT were not. Multivariate analysis demonstrated response to chemotherapy as a predictor of time to recurrence on CT (P = 0.02) and PET-CT (P = 0.03), while the MSKCC-CS (P = 0.64) was not. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy, the outcome was not predicted by the traditional clinical scoring system, but rather by response to chemotherapy as evaluated by CT and PET-CT.

Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone: a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001.

PURPOSE: To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. RESULTS: Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.

Weekly infusional high-dose 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin and biweekly cisplatin: a convenient treatment option in advanced gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: To summarize our experience using a regimen of weekly 5-FU and leucovorin (LV) and biweekly cisplatin (CDDP) in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). MATERIAL/METHODS: Patients had previously untreated histologically confirmed AGC. Treatment consisted of intravenous weekly infusional 5-FU and LV and biweekly CDDP, given for 6 weeks followed by a 2-week rest. Initially, a lower dose level was used (5-FU 2000 mg/m(2), LV 500 mg/m(2), CDDP 40 mg/m(2)), which was later increased (5-FU 2600 mg/m(2), LV 500 mg/m(2), CDDP 50 mg/m(2)). RESULTS: Forty-five patients were treated, 18 at the lower dose level and 27 at the higher dose level. The median age was 67 years and 55% were male. Grade > or =3 toxicity was documented in 37% of patients but toxicity related hospitalizations or treatment discontinuation occurred in only 22% and 13%, respectively. There were no toxic deaths. The most common hematological toxicities were anemia and neutropenia and the most common non-hematological toxicities were nausea, vomiting and fatigue. Of the 39 patients evaluable for response, 13 (33%) had partial response (PR) and 11 (28%) had stable disease (SD). Control of disease (PR+SD) was achieved in 61%. The higher dose level was associated with a higher response rate (p=0.07) and an increased toxicity (p=0.01), mostly hematological and gastrointestinal. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 3.5 and 9.2 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This regimen appears safe, with a manageable toxicity profile. Efficacy data resemble those reported for more complex and toxic regimens. The higher dose level had enhanced activity, at the expense of increased toxicity.

An interval >7 weeks between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery improves pathologic complete response and disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: We assessed whether the time interval between neoadjuvant therapy and surgery affects the operative and postoperative morbidity and mortality, the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate, and disease recurrence in locally advanced rectal cancer. METHODS: One-hundred and thirty-two patients with locally advanced low- and mid-rectal cancer underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by radical resection (October 2000 to December 2006). Data on the neoadjuvant regime, neoadjuvant-surgery interval, final pathology, type of operation, operative time, intraoperative blood transfusions, postoperative complications, length of hospital stay, disease recurrence, and mortality were reviewed. The patients were divided into two groups according to the neoadjuvant-surgery interval: 7 weeks (group B, n = 84). RESULTS: The groups were demographically comparable except for the group A patients being younger at operation. The median interval between chemoradiation and surgery was 56 days (range 13-173 days). Thirty-seven patients (28%) had a pCR and near pCR. Fifty three patients (40%) had complications. There was no in-hospital mortality. Surgery type, operative time, number of intraoperative blood transfusions, postoperative complications, and length of hospitalization were not influenced by the interval length. The pCR and near pCR rates were higher with longer interval: 17% in group A, 35% in group B (P = 0.03). Patients operated at an interval >7 weeks had significantly better disease-free survival (P = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A neoadjuvant-surgery interval >7 weeks was associated with higher rates of pCR and near pCR, decreased recurrence and improved disease-free survival.

Randomized phase III study of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin compared with fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) is noninferior to fluorouracil. folinic acid, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX-4) as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The initial design of this trial was a randomized, two-arm, noninferiority, phase III comparison of XELOX versus FOLFOX-4. After patient accrual had begun, the trial design was amended in 2003 after bevacizumab phase III data became available. The resulting 2 x 2 factorial design randomly assigned patients to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to also receive either bevacizumab or placebo. We report here the results of the analysis of the XELOX versus FOLFOX-4 arms. The analysis of bevacizumab versus placebo with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is reported separately. The prespecified primary end point for the noninferiority analysis was progression-free survival. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population comprised 634 patients from the original two-arm portion of the study, plus an additional 1,400 patients after the start of the amended 2 x 2 design, for a total of 2,034 patients. The median PFS was 8.0 months in the pooled XELOX-containing arms versus 8.5 months in the FOLFOX-4-containing arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 97.5% CI, 0.93 to 1.16). The median overall survival was 19.8 months with XELOX versus 19.6 months with FOLFOX-4 (HR, 0.99; 97.5% CI, 0.88 to 1.12). FOLFOX-4 was associated with more grade 3/4 neutropenia/granulocytopenia and febrile neutropenia than XELOX, and XELOX with more grade 3 diarrhea and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome than FOLFOX-4. CONCLUSION: XELOX is noninferior to FOLFOX-4 as a first-line treatment for MCRC, and may be considered as a routine treatment option for appropriate patients.

Bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase III study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab when added to first-line oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (either capecitabine plus oxaliplatin [XELOX] or fluorouracil/folinic acid plus oxaliplatin [FOLFOX-4]) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with MCRC were randomly assigned, in a 2 x 2 factorial design, to XELOX versus FOLFOX-4, and then to bevacizumab versus placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: A total of 1,401 patients were randomly assigned in this 2 x 2 analysis. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.4 months in the bevacizumab group and 8.0 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR], 0.83; 97.5% CI, 0.72 to 0.95; P = .0023). Median overall survival was 21.3 months in the bevacizumab group and 19.9 months in the placebo group (HR, 0.89; 97.5% CI, 0.76 to 1.03; P = .077). Response rates were similar in both arms. Analysis of treatment withdrawals showed that, despite protocol allowance of treatment continuation until disease progression, only 29% and 47% of bevacizumab and placebo recipients, respectively, were treated until progression. The toxicity profile of bevacizumab was consistent with that documented in previous trials. CONCLUSION: The addition of bevacizumab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy significantly improved PFS in this first-line trial in patients with MCRC. Overall survival differences did not reach statistical significance, and response rate was not improved by the addition of bevacizumab. Treatment continuation until disease progression may be necessary in order to optimize the contribution of bevacizumab to therapy.

CA 19-9 tumour-marker response to chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer enrolled in a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Several studies in patients undergoing chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic carcinoma have linked a decrease in the concentration of the tumour marker carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 to lengthened survival. The aim of this study was to test the hypotheses that an early decrease in baseline serum CA 19-9 concentration (on day 42, after two cycles of chemotherapy) by at least 50% is associated with lengthened survival, and that a decrease in CA 19-9 concentration of at least 50% from the baseline concentration to the lowest value measured at any time during treatment (nadir) is of prognostic significance, enabling its use as a surrogate endpoint for survival. METHODS: CA 19-9 serum concentration was measured at baseline and every 3 weeks thereafter in patients with histologically proven advanced pancreatic carcinoma enrolled in a randomised trial of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus capecitabine. Patients were excluded if baseline serum CA 19-9 concentration was below the upper limit of normal (ULN) in the laboratory or if this measurement was missing. Comparisons of survival between patients with and without a CA 19-9 response were corrected for the guarantee-time bias by the landmark method. The trial on which this study is based is registered on the clinical trials site of the US National Cancer Institute website http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00030732. FINDINGS: 247 of 319 randomised patients were assessable for analysis of baseline serum CA 19-9 concentration, and, of these, 175 patients were assessable for tumour-marker response to treatment. Median overall survival for patients with a baseline CA 19-9 concentration equal to or above the median value (ie, 59xULN) was 5.8 months (95% CI 5.1-7.0), which was significantly shorter than that for patients with baseline concentrations below the median value (10.3 months [95% CI 8.6-12.8], p<0.0001). An early decrease in CA 19-9 concentration of at least 50% after two cycles of chemotherapy was not associated with a longer overall survival compared with patients who did not have a decrease of at least 50% (median 10.1 months [9.2-12.7] vs 8.6 months [6.9-11.2], p=0.53; hazard ratio for death 1.11 [0.81-1.52]). Furthermore, a decrease in CA 19-9 concentration of at least 50% reached at the CA 19-9 nadir concentration was not associated with a longer overall survival compared with those patients who did not have a decrease of at least 50% (median 7.8 months [6.5.10.1] vs 6.7 months [5.5-9.8], p=0.74; 0.95 [0.69-1.31]) after adjusting for the guarantee-time bias. INTERPRETATION: Pretreatment serum CA 19-9 concentration is an independent prognostic factor for survival, but a decrease in concentration during chemotherapy is not significantly associated with lengthened survival compared with those who did not have a corresponding decrease. Our data suggest that CA 19-9 response during chemotherapy is not a valid surrogate endpoint for survival in clinical trials.

FOLFOX in patients aged between 76 and 80 years with metastatic colorectal cancer: an exploratory cohort of the OPTIMOX1 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients older than 75 years of age are usually excluded from metastatic colorectal cancer randomized studies. The OPTIMOX1 study evaluated FOLFOX7, a simplified (s) leucovorin (LV) and 5-fluorouracil (5FU) regimen (sLV5FU2) with high-dose oxaliplatin, in a new oxaliplatin stop-and-go strategy. An exploratory cohort of patients aged 76 to 80 years was included in the study. METHODS: In all, 620 previously untreated patients were randomized between FOLFOX4 until progression (arm A), or FOLFOX7 for 6 cycles, maintenance without oxaliplatin for 12 cycles, and reintroduction of FOLFOX7 (arm B). RESULTS: A total of 37 patients aged 76 to 80 years were included, 20 in arm A and 17 in arm B. The overall response rate (ORR) was 59.4%, comparable to younger patients (59%). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.0 months and median overall survival (OS) was 20.7 months. These results did not differ from that in younger patients < or =75 years in the OPTIMOX1 study with PFS 9.0 months (P = .63) and OS 20.2 months (P = .57). They experienced slightly more grade 3 of 4 toxicity than younger patients: 65% versus 48% (P = .06), mainly with more neutropenia (41% vs 24%, P = .03) and neurotoxicity (22% vs 11%, P = .06). Tolerability, however, was manageable and no toxic death occurred in this elderly population. CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of FOLFOX-based treatment was maintained in patients >75 years with both FOLFOX regimens. The oxaliplatin stop-and-go management strategy performed well in this population.

Reintroduction of oxaliplatin is associated with improved survival in advanced colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: In the OPTIMOX1 trial, previously untreated patients with advanced colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to two different schedules of leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin that were administered until progression in the control arm or in a stop-and-go fashion in the experimental arm. The randomly assigned treatment groups did not differ significantly in terms of response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival (OS). However, the impact of oxaliplatin reintroduction on OS was potentially masked by the fact that a large number of patients did not receive the planned oxaliplatin reintroduction or received oxaliplatin after second-line therapy in both treatment groups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Cox model was fitted with all significant baseline factors plus time-dependent variables reflecting tumor progression, reintroduction of oxaliplatin, and use of second-line irinotecan. A shared frailty model was fitted with all significant baseline factors plus the number of lines of chemotherapy received by the patient and the percentage of patients with oxaliplatin reintroduction in the center. An adjusted hazard ratio (HR) was calculated for three reintroduction classes (1% to 20%, 21% to 40%, and > 40%), using centers with no reintroduction (0%) as the reference group. RESULTS: Oxaliplatin reintroduction had an independent and significant impact on OS (HR = 0.56, P = .009). The percentage of patients with oxaliplatin reintroductions also had a significant impact on OS. Centers in which more than 40% of the patients were reintroduced had an adjusted HR for OS of 0.59 compared with centers in which no patient was reintroduced. CONCLUSION: Oxaliplatin reintroduction is associated with improved survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Gemcitabine plus capecitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in advanced pancreatic cancer: a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group.

PURPOSE: This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (GemCap) versus single-agent Gem in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1 to 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks). Patients were stratified according to center, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), presence of pain, and disease extent. RESULTS: A total of 319 patients were enrolled between June 2001 and June 2004. Median overall survival (OS) time, the primary end point, was 8.4 and 7.2 months in the GemCap and Gem arms, respectively (P = .234). Post hoc analysis in patients with good KPS (score of 90 to 100) showed a significant prolongation of median OS time in the GemCap arm compared with the Gem arm (10.1 v 7.4 months, respectively; P = .014). The overall frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in each arm. Neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse event in both arms. CONCLUSION: GemCap failed to improve OS at a statistically significant level compared with standard Gem treatment. The safety of GemCap and Gem was similar. In the subgroup of patients with good performance status, median OS was improved significantly. GemCap is a practical regimen that may be considered as an alternative to single-agent Gem for the treatment of advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a good performance status.

Three-dimensional non-coplanar conformal radiotherapy yields better results than traditional beam arrangements for adjuvant treatment of gastric cancer.

PURPOSE: The current standard of adjuvant treatment for gastric cancer after curative resection is concurrent administration of radiotherapy and 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. The radiation fields are often arranged as anterioposterior-posteroanterior opposed parallel fields with general recommendations for sparing at least two-thirds of one kidney. We investigated whether a better radiation distribution would be achievable with three-dimensional conformal approaches compared with the classic anterioposterior-posteroanterior fields. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 19 patients with adenocarcinoma of the stomach were treated with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy using a non-coplanar four-field arrangement. In each case, parallel planning using an anterioposterior-posteroanterior arrangement and a four-field "box" was performed, and the generated plans were subsequently compared for coverage of target volumes and doses to irradiated organs next to the tumor bed. A separate analysis was performed for kidneys exposed to greater and lower doses in each patient. The mean radiation dose and percentage of kidney volume receiving a dose >20 Gy were registered. Statistical analysis was performed using the two-tailed t test. RESULTS: The clinical target volume was adequately covered in all three plans. In the greater-dose kidney group, all the differences were statistically significant with a benefit for the three-dimensional plan. In the lower-dose kidney group, the differences in the mean radiation dose did not reach the level of statistical significance, and the differences in the kidney volume receiving a dose >20 Gy showed a statistically significant benefit for the three-dimensional plan. CONCLUSION: Non-coplanar three-dimensional-based conformal planning for postoperative radiotherapy for gastric cancer provided the best results regarding kidney and spinal cord exposure with adequate clinical target volume coverage. This technique was readily implemented in clinical practice.