Trastuzumab with trimodality treatment for oesophageal adenocarcinoma with HER2 overexpression (NRG Oncology/RTOG 1010): a multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab is a monoclonal antibody against HER2 (also known as ERBB2). The primary objective of the NRG Oncology/RTOG-1010 trial was to establish whether trastuzumab improves disease-free survival when combined with trimodality treatment (paclitaxel plus carboplatin and radiotherapy, followed by surgery) for patients with untreated HER2-overexpressing oesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: NRG Oncology/RTOG-1010 was an open label, randomised, phase 3 trial for which patients were accrued from 111 NRG-affiliated institutions in the USA. Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with newly diagnosed pathologically confirmed oesophageal adenocarcinoma, American Joint Committee on Cancer 7th edition T1N1-2 or T2-3N0-2 stage disease, and a Zubrod performance status of 0-2. Patients were stratified by adenopathy (no vs yes [coeliac absent] vs yes [coeliac present ≤2 cm]) and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive weekly intravenous paclitaxel (50 mg/m2 intravenously over 1 h) and carboplatin (area under the curve 2, intravenously over 30-60 min) for 6 weeks with radiotherapy 50·4 Gy in 28 fractions (chemoradiotherapy) followed by surgery, with or without intravenous trastuzumab (4 mg/kg in week one, 2 mg/kg per week for 5 weeks during chemoradiotherapy, 6 mg/kg once presurgery, and 6 mg/kg every 3 weeks for 13 treatments starting 21-56 days after surgery). The primary endpoint, disease-free survival, was defined as the time from randomisation to death or first of locoregional disease persistence or recurrence, distant metastases, or second primary malignancy. Analyses were done by modified intention to treat. This study is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01196390; it is now closed and in follow-up. FINDINGS: 606 patients were entered for HER2 assessment from Dec 30, 2010 to Nov 10, 2015, and 203 eligible patients who were HER2-positive were enrolled and randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy plus trastuzumab (n=102) or chemoradiotherapy alone (n=101). Median duration of follow-up was 2·8 years (IQR 1·4-5·7). Median disease-free survival was 19·6 months (95% CI 13·5-26·2) with chemoradiotherapy plus trastuzumab compared with 14·2 months (10·5-23·0) for chemoradiotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0·99 [95% CI 0·71-1·39], log-rank p=0·97). Grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 41 (43%) of 95 patients in the chemoradiotherapy plus trastuzumab group versus 52 (54%) of 96 in the chemoradiotherapy group and grade 4 events occurred in 20 (21%) versus 21 (22%). The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related adverse events for both groups were haematological (53 [56%] of 95 patients in the chemoradiotherapy plus trastuzumab group vs 55 [57%] of 96 patients in the chemotherapy group) or gastrointestinal disorders (28 [29%] vs 20 [21 %]). 34 (36%) of 95 patients in the chemoradiotherapy plus trastuzumab group and 27 (28%) of 96 patients in the chemoradiotherapy only group had treatment-related serious adverse events. There were eight treatment-related deaths: five (5%) of 95 patients in the chemoradiotherapy plus trastuzumab group (bronchopleural fistula, oesophageal anastomotic leak, lung infection, sudden death, and death not otherwise specified), and three (3%) of 96 in the chemoradiotherapy group (two multiorgan failure and one sepsis). INTERPRETATION: The addition of trastuzumab to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for HER2-overexpressing oesophageal cancer was not effective. Trastuzumab did not lead to increased toxicities, suggesting that future studies combining it with or using other agents targeting HER2 in oesophageal cancer are warranted. FUNDING: National Cancer Institute and Genentech.

Phase II Study of Preoperative Chemoradiotherapy with Oxaliplatin, Infusional 5-Fluorouracil, and Cetuximab Followed by Postoperative Docetaxel and Cetuximab in Patients with Adenocarcinoma of the Esophagus: A Trial of the ECOG-ACRIN Cancer Research Group (E2205).

BACKGROUND: A standard approach to treating resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma is chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by surgery; however, recurrence is common. To improve this, we designed a single-arm, phase II trial that added an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, cetuximab (C), to CRT, with the hypothesis that EGFR inhibition would improve pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We aimed to increase the pCR rate from 25% to 45%. A Simon two-stage design (α and ß of 0.10) required pCR/enrolled 5/18 for stage 1 and 14/40 total. CRT: oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 days 1, 15, and 29; infusional 5-fluorouracil 180 mg/m2 /24 hours × 35 days; C 400 mg/m2 day 1 then 250 mg/m2 days 8, 15, 22, and 29 and radiation (intensity modulated radiotherapy [IMRT] allowed) 180 cGy/day × 25 fractions (Monday through Friday). Following esophagectomy, adjuvant chemotherapy (CT): weekly docetaxel 35 mg/m2 and C 250 mg/m2 5 out of 6 weeks for two cycles. RESULTS: Of 21 eligible patients enrolled, 17 had surgery; 4 died before operation (due to pulmonary embolism 4 days after CRT, G3 diarrhea, progressive disease during CRT, sepsis/hypoxia during CRT, and acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS]). pCR = 7/17. Three postoperative deaths due to ARDS resulted in seven total study-related deaths. Of the 14 remaining patients, 12 started and completed adjuvant CT. Two of seven patients with pCR died, both of ARDS. Out of the 21 eligible subjects in this study, 13 have died and 8 remain alive. The use of IMRT did not correlate with ARDS. CONCLUSION: This regimen demonstrated promising activity. Toxicity was significant, with seven study-related deaths leading to closure after stage 1. All postoperative deaths were due to ARDS. This regimen is not recommended. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Esophageal cancer is a disease with a high death rate. The current treatment involves giving chemotherapy plus radiation followed by surgery, but this cures only a quarter of patients. In order to improve survival, better treatments are needed. This trial evaluated the addition of a novel drug, cetuximab, to chemotherapy plus radiation. Unfortunately, the side effects were too great and the study was stopped early.

Genomic Profiling of Blood-Derived Circulating Tumor DNA from Patients with Colorectal Cancer: Implications for Response and Resistance to Targeted Therapeutics.

Molecular profiling of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a promising noninvasive tool. Here, next-generation sequencing (NGS) of blood-derived ctDNA was performed in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. We investigated ctDNA-derived genomic alterations, including potential actionability, concordance with tissue NGS, and serial dynamics in 78 patients with colorectal cancer using a clinical-grade NGS assay that detects single nucleotide variants (54-73 genes) and selected copy-number variants, fusions, and indels. Overall, 63 patients [80.8% (63/78)] harbored ctDNA alterations; 59 [75.6% (59/78)], ≥1 characterized alteration (variants of unknown significance excluded). All 59 patients had actionable alterations potentially targetable with FDA-approved drugs [on-label and/or off-label (N = 54) or with experimental drugs in clinical trials (additional five patients); University of California San Diego Molecular Tumor Board assessment]: 45, by OncoKB (http://oncokb.org/#/). The tissue and blood concordance rates for common specific alterations ranged from 62.3% to 86.9% (median = 5 months between tests). In serial samples from patients on anti-EGFR therapy, multiple emerging alterations in genes known to be involved in therapeutic resistance, including KRAS, NRAS, BRAF, EGFR, ERBB2, and MET were detected. In conclusion, over 80% of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer had detectable ctDNA, and the majority had potentially actionable alterations. Concordance between tissue and blood was between 62% and 87%, despite a median of 5 months between tests. Resistance alterations emerged on anti-EGFR therapy. Therefore, biopsy-free, noninvasive ctDNA analysis provides data relevant to the clinical setting. Importantly, sequential ctDNA analysis detects patterns of emerging resistance allowing for precision planning of future therapy.

Genomic Assessment of Blood-Derived Circulating Tumor DNA in Patients With Colorectal Cancers: Correlation With Tissue Sequencing, Therapeutic Response, and Survival.

PURPOSE: Genomic alterations in blood-derived circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients with colorectal cancers were correlated with clinical outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Next-generation sequencing of ctDNA (54- to 73-gene panel) was performed in 94 patients with colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Most patients (96%) had metastatic or recurrent disease at the time of blood draw. The median number of nonsynonymous alterations per patient was three (range, zero to 30). The most frequently aberrant genes were TP53 (52.1% of patients), KRAS (34%), and APC (28.7%). Concordance between tissue and blood next-generation sequencing ranged from 63.2% (APC) to 85.5% (BRAF). Altogether, 74 patients (79%) had one or more nonsynonymous alterations, 69 (73%) had one or more potentially actionable alterations, and 61 (65%) had an alteration actionable by a drug approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (on or off label). Lung metastases correlated with improved survival from diagnosis in univariable analysis. ctDNA of 5% or more from blood tests as well as EGFR and ERBB2 (HER2) nonsynonymous alterations correlated with worse survival (but only ERBB2 remained significant in multivariable analysis). No two patients had identical molecular portfolios. Overall, 65% versus 31% of patients treated with matched (n = 17) versus unmatched therapy (n = 18) after ctDNA testing achieved stable disease for 6 months or more, partial response, or complete response (P = .045); progression-free survival, 6.1 versus 2.3 months (P = .08); and survival not reached versus 9.4 months (P = .146; all by multivariable analysis). CONCLUSION: Patients with colorectal cancer have heterogeneous ctDNA profiles, and most harbor potentially actionable ctDNA alterations. Matched therapy yielded higher rates of stable disease for 6 months or more, partial response, or complete response. ctDNA assessment may have clinical utility and merits further investigation.

Evaluation of treatment and outcomes for Hispanic patients with gastric cancer at Commission on Cancer-accredited centers in the United States.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Gastric cancer in the Hispanic population commonly presents with poor clinical features. Characteristics of this vulnerable population and optimal therapy for these patients have not been clearly defined. METHODS: Using the National Cancer Database (2004-2014), we analyzed patient demographics, clinical factors, treatment-related factors, and outcomes for Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients with gastric adenocarcinoma in the United States. RESULTS: A total of 129 666 patients were included in this analysis. Hispanics were younger, more often female, had larger tumors, and were more likely to present with metastatic disease (all P < 0.001). Hispanics were more likely to undergo staging laparoscopy (5.6% vs 4.9%; P = 0.037), gastrectomy (63.5% vs 56.9%; P < 0.001), and ≥ 15 lymph nodes examined (56.1% vs 50.5%; P < 0.001). Hispanics were less likely to have negative margins (91.2% vs 92.8%; P = 0.004). Hispanics with stage II/III disease were less likely to receive neoadjuvant therapy (31.7% vs 38.7%; P < 0.001), but more likely to receive multimodal therapy (48.9% vs 46.1%; P = 0.01). Predictors for improved overall survival in Hispanics included multimodal therapy, negative margins, and treatment at an academic center. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to optimize treatment of this distinct and growing population of gastric cancer patients should focus on earlier diagnosis, referral to academic centers, and high-quality surgery.

Analysis of Circulating Tumor DNA and Clinical Correlates in Patients with Esophageal, Gastroesophageal Junction, and Gastric Adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, and gastric adenocarcinoma (herein gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas) are associated with poor prognosis and limited systemic treatment options. To further understand the genomic landscape of gastroesophageal cancers and its clinical correlations, circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) from patients' plasma was evaluated using next-generation sequencing (NGS). EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: We analyzed genomic alterations of 55 patients (mostly advanced disease; 9, surgically resectable) with gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas using clinical-grade NGS performed on plasma-derived ctDNA (54-73 gene panel). The test detects single-nucleotide variants, as well as copy number amplifications, fusions, and indels in selected genes. RESULTS: Seventy-six percent of patients (42/55) had ≥1 genomic alteration [including variants of unknown significance (VUS)] and 69.1% (38/55) had ≥1 characterized alteration (excluding VUSs). The median number of alterations per patient was 2 (range, 0-15). TP53 (50.9%, 28/55), PIK3CA (16.4%, 9/55), ERBB2 (14.5%, 8/55), and KRAS (14.5%, 8/55) genes were most frequently affected characterized alterations. Thirty-one patients also had tissue NGS. Concordance between tissue and ctDNA ranged from 61.3% (TP53 alterations) to 87.1% (KRAS alterations). ERBB2 alterations were significantly associated with poor overall survival (HR, 14.06; 95% confidence interval, 2.44-81.03; P = 0.003 multivariate analysis). Among patients with ≥1 alteration, no 2 patients had identical molecular portfolios. All patients with ≥1 characterized alteration had theoretically targetable alterations by an FDA-approved agent (on- or off-label). Illustrative case treated with cognate agent is presented. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of ctDNA by NGS among patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is feasible. Patients harbored heterogeneous patterns of genomics, with most having alterations that are potentially pharmacologically tractable.

Impact of socioeconomic status on survival for patients with anal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although outcomes for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) have improved, the gains in benefit may not be shared uniformly among patients of disparate socioeconomic status. In the current study, the authors investigated whether area-based median household income (MHI) is predictive of survival among patients with SCCA. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with SCCA from 2004 through 2013 in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registry were included. Socioeconomic status was defined by census-tract MHI level and divided into quintiles. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models and logistic regression were used to study predictors of survival and radiotherapy receipt. RESULTS: A total of 9550 cases of SCCA were included. The median age of the patients was 58 years, 63% were female, 85% were white, and 38% were married. In multivariable analyses, patients living in areas with lower MHI were found to have worse overall survival and cancer-specific survival (CSS) compared with those in the highest income areas. Mortality hazard ratios for lowest to highest income were 1.32 (95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.18-1.49), 1.31 (95% CI, 1.16-1.48), 1.19 (95% CI, 1.06-1.34), and 1.16 (95% CI, 1.03-1.30). The hazard ratios for CSS similarly ranged from 1.34 to 1.22 for lowest to highest income. Older age, black race, male sex, unmarried marital status, an earlier year of diagnosis, higher tumor grade, and later American Joint Committee on Cancer stage of disease also were associated with worse CSS. Income was not found to be associated with the odds of initiating radiotherapy in multivariable analysis (odds ratio of 0.87 for lowest to highest income level; 95% CI, 0.63-1.20). CONCLUSIONS: MHI appears to independently predict CSS and overall survival in patients with SCCA. Black race was found to remain a predictor of SCCA survival despite controlling for income. Further study is needed to understand the mechanisms by which socioeconomic inequalities affect cancer care and outcomes. Cancer 2018;124:1791-7. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

Delivery of adjuvant chemotherapy among stage III colon cancer patients at a public versus private hospital in New York City.

PURPOSE: Prior studies of timeliness of adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) initiation in stage III colon cancer have suggested longer time to AC at public compared with private hospitals. Few studies have explored differences in AC completion. We investigated whether timely initiation and completion of AC differed between a public and private hospital, affiliated with the same academic institution in a large, urban setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of stage III colon cancer patients who had surgery and AC at the same medical center between 2008 and 2015, either at its affiliated public hospital (n = 43) or private hospital (n = 79). We defined timely initiation as receiving AC within 60 days postoperatively, and completion as receiving ≥ 75% of planned AC. Univariate and stepwise multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify factors associated with AC delivery. RESULTS: Median number of days to AC was significantly greater among patients at the public (53, range 31-231) compared with the private hospital (43, range 25-105; p = 0.002). However, the percentage of patients with timely AC initiation did not differ substantially by hospital (74 vs 81%, p = 0.40). In multivariable analysis, age (OR 0.95/year, 95% CI 0.91-0.99) and laparoscopic versus open surgery (OR 5.65, 95% CI 1.92-16.62) were significant factors associated with timely AC initiation. Moreover, AC completion did not differ significantly between public (83.7%) and private (89.9%) hospital patients (p = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: The proportions of patients with timely initiation and completion of AC were similar at a public and private hospital affiliated with a large, urban medical center. Future research should investigate how specific system-level factors help alleviate this expected difference in timely care delivery.

Immunotherapy in pancreatic cancer: Unleash its potential through novel combinations.

Pancreatic cancer is the third leading cause of cancer mortality in both men and women in the United States, with poor response to current standard of care, short progression-free and overall survival. Immunotherapies that target cytotoxic T lymphocyte antigen-4, programmed cell death protein-1, and programmed death-ligand 1 checkpoints have shown remarkable activities in several cancers such as melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and non-small cell lung cancer due to high numbers of somatic mutations, combined with cytotoxic T-cell responses. However, single checkpoint blockade was ineffective in pancreatic cancer, highlighting the challenges including the poor antigenicity, a dense desmoplastic stroma, and a largely immunosuppressive microenvironment. In this review, we will summarize available clinical results and ongoing efforts of combining immune checkpoint therapies with other treatment modalities such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and targeted therapy. These combination therapies hold promise in unleashing the potential of immunotherapy in pancreatic cancer to achieve better and more durable clinical responses by enhancing cytotoxic T-cell responses.

A phase 1b study of erlotinib in combination with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in patients with previously untreated advanced pancreatic cancer: an Academic Oncology GI Cancer Consortium study.

PURPOSE: Addition of either nab-paclitaxel or erlotinib to gemcitabine to treat advanced pancreatic cancer has demonstrated overall survival benefit. This study was conducted to evaluate the tolerability and safety of combining all three drugs and assess preliminary evidence of efficacy. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 1b study, patients with previously untreated, advanced pancreatic cancer were treated in 28-day cycles with intravenous gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel on days 1, 8, and 15, and once daily oral erlotinib. A standard "3 + 3" design was used. Dose level 1 (DL1) for gemcitabine (mg/m(2))/nab-paclitaxel (mg/m(2))/erlotinib (mg) was 1000/125/100, respectively, with de-escalation to DL-1 (1000/100/100), DL-2b (1000/75/100), and DL-3 (1000/75/75). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was defined by occurrence of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) in ≤1 of six patients within the first cycle. Efficacy was assessed with CT scans performed at two-cycle intervals. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were enrolled. DLTs occurred in two patients at DL1, three patients at DL-1, two patients at DL-2b, and one patient at DL-3. The MTD for the combination of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel/erlotinib was DL-3 (1000/75/75). In analyses of efficacy among 14 evaluable patients, partial responses were observed in four of six patients at DL1, one of two patients at DL-2b, and two of six patients at DL-3. CONCLUSION: The addition of erlotinib to gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel is not tolerable at standard single-agent dosing of all drugs. However, significant clinical activity was noted, even at DL-3. Further study of the combination will need to incorporate reduced dosing.

Phase II Study of Olaparib (AZD-2281) After Standard Systemic Therapies for Disseminated Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Effective new agents for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) with disease progression during standard therapy regimens are needed. We hypothesized that poly ADP ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitor therapy in patients with CRC and inefficient tumor DNA repair mechanisms, such as those with high-level microsatellite instability (MSI-H), would result in synthetic lethality. METHODS: This was an open-label phase II trial testing olaparib 400 mg p.o. b.i.d. for patients with disseminated, measurable CRC failing standard therapies with centrally confirmed tumor MSI status. The primary endpoint was the tumor response, assessed by RECIST, version 1.0. The secondary endpoints were safety/toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Thirty-three patients (20 microsatellite stable [MSS], 13 MSI-H) were enrolled. The median age for all patients was 57 years and for MSS and MSI-H patients was 51 and 61 years, respectively. All patients received at least one 28-day cycle of olaparib. No patient had a complete or partial response. Nausea (48%), fatigue (36%), and vomiting (33%) were the most commonly reported treatment-related adverse events. The median PFS for all patients was 1.84 months. No statistically significant differences were found in the median PFS or OS for the MSS group compared with the MSI-H group. CONCLUSION: Single-agent olaparib delivered after failure of standard systemic therapy did not demonstrate activity for CRC patients, regardless of microsatellite status. Future trials, testing PARP inhibitors in patients with CRC should focus on the use of DNA-damaging chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy, combined with PARP inhibitors, remembering the toxicity reported in the present study. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Microsatellite instability (MSI-H) colorectal tumors exhibit hypermethylation in tumor mismatch repair genes, or have mutations in one or more of these genes resulting from a germ-line defect (Lynch syndrome). PARP inhibitors such as olaparib are most effective in tumors associated with inability to repair DNA damage. However, in this trial, single agent olaparib failed to elicit responses in patients with MSI-H colorectal tumors, and in those with microsatellite-stable tumors. It is possible that by adding olaparib to radiation therapy, or to a systemic DNA damaging agent, tumor lethality could be obtained. However, the price would be increased toxicity.

HIV Infection Is Associated With Poor Outcomes for Patients With Anal Cancer in the Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy Era.

BACKGROUND: HIV status may affect outcomes after definitive chemoradiotherapy for anal cancer. OBJECTIVE: Here, we report a large series in the highly active antiretroviral therapy era comparing outcomes between HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients with anal cancer. DESIGN: This was a retrospective chart review. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at an outpatient oncology clinic at large academic center. PATIENTS: A total of 107 patients were reviewed, 39 HIV positive and 68 HIV negative. All of the patients underwent definitive chemoradiation for anal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Data on patient characteristics, treatment, toxicity, and outcomes were collected. Overall survival, colostomy-free survival, local recurrence-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival were analyzed. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 15 months. HIV-positive patients were younger (median, 52 vs 64 years; p < 0.001) and predominantly men (82% men vs 49% men; p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in T, N, or stage groups. HIV-positive patients had a significantly longer duration from biopsy to start of chemoradiation (mean number of days, 82 vs 54; p = 0.042). There were no differences in rates of acute toxicities including diarrhea, fatigue, or dermatitis. HIV-positive patients had significantly higher rates of hospitalization (33% vs 15%; p = 0.024). The 3-year overall survival rate was 42% in HIV-positive and 76% in HIV-negative patients (p = 0.037; HR, 2.335 (95% CI, 1.032-5.283)). Three-year colostomy-free survival was 67% in HIV-positive and 88% in HIV-negative patients (p = 0.036; HR, 3.231 (95% CI, 1.014-10.299)). Differences in overall survival rates were not significant on multivariate analysis. LIMITATIONS: This study was limited by its retrospective design and small patient numbers. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort, HIV-positive patients had significantly worse overall and colostomy-free survival rates than HIV-negative patients. However, differences in survival were not significant on multivariate analysis. Additional studies are necessary to establish the etiology of this difference.

Comparison of anal cancer outcomes in public and private hospital patients treated at a single radiation oncology center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical and treatment characteristics and outcomes in locally advanced anal cancer, a potentially curable disease, in patients referred from a public or private hospital. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 112 anal cancer patients from a public and a private hospital who received definitive chemoradiotherapy at the same cancer center between 2004 and 2013. Tumor stage, radiotherapy delay, radiotherapy duration, and unplanned treatment breaks ≥10 days were compared using t-test and χ(2) test. Overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS), and colostomy free survival (CFS) were examined using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the log-rank test. Cox proportional hazard models for OS and DFS were developed. RESULTS: The follow-up was 14.9 months (range, 0.7-94.8 months). Public hospital patients presented with significantly higher clinical T stage (P<0.05) and clinical stage group (P<0.05), had significantly longer radiotherapy delays (P<0.05) and radiotherapy duration (P<0.05), and had more frequent radiation therapy (RT) breaks ≥10 days (P<0.05). Three-year OS showed a marked trend in favor of private hospital patients for 3-year OS (72.8% vs. 48.9%; P=0.171), 3-year DFS (66.3% vs. 42.7%, P=0.352), and 3-year CFS (86.4% vs. 68.9%, P=0.299). Referral hospital was not predictive of OS or DFS on multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Public hospital patients presented at later stage and experienced more delays in initiating and completing radiotherapy, which may contribute to the trend in poorer DFS and OS. These findings emphasize the need for identifying clinical and treatment factors that contribute to decreased survival in low socioeconomic status (SES) populations.

Controversies in the treatment of local and locally advanced gastric and esophageal cancers.

Despite overall progress in the therapy of local and locally advanced esophageal, gastroesophageal junction, and gastric adenocarcinomas, death as a result of these tumors remains a common outcome. Most randomized phase III trials on which level-one evidence has been built have included the heterogeneous histologies and locations associated with these tumors. However, the different etiologies, molecular biology, and recurrence patterns associated with gastroesophageal malignancies suggest the need to split rather than lump. Biologic and response differences exist between squamous and adenocarcinomas, as well as diffuse and intestinal histologies. This may be a cause behind conflicting outcomes in similar trials. The accepted standard of chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced esophageal and gastroesophageal junction cancers is based on a few positive trials, with the best chemotherapy and total dose of radiation remaining controversial. In the West, the staging evaluations of locally advanced gastric cancer are not uniform. Yet, these evaluations will inform the results of preoperative and perioperative treatments. Although postoperative chemoradiotherapy for gastric cancer has been an accepted treatment option for the last decade, more recent studies have called into question the need for radiotherapy. In perioperative strategies, it has yet to be determined whether histologic or molecular changes in the operative specimen should inform postoperative treatment. An appropriate place for targeted therapy needs to be found in preoperative and postoperative treatment regimens. Finally, because so much is lost when trials are forced to close for lack of accrual, it is imperative to build multidisciplinary consensus before they are launched.

The current status of neoadjuvant therapy for esophageal cancer.

Through the contribution of a very large number of single-arm phase II trials and many less randomized phase III trials, the standard of care for locally advanced esophageal cancer has evolved to either combination chemotherapy plus radiation or combination chemotherapy. In this review, we focus on the key findings of these studies and selected meta-analyses that have led to this evolution. We note differences in outcomes for adenocarcinomas of the esophagus when compared to squamous cell esophageal cancers. Despite progress in developing a consensus for therapy, the outcome for patients with locally advanced remains poor. We complete the review by noting newer areas of investigation seeking to provide targeted and more personalized therapy to patients with esophageal cancer.

Chemoradiation therapy versus chemotherapy alone for gastric cancer after R0 surgical resection: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: Current national guidelines include category 1 recommendations for perioperative chemotherapy or adjuvant chemoradiation with surgical resection for patients with stage IB-IIIB gastric cancer. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials in which chemotherapy was prospectively tested against chemoradiation with surgical resection. METHODS: We electronically searched PubMed and EMBASE for randomized, controlled clinical trials involving patients with gastric adenocarcinoma, status post-R0 resection. The interventions compared were adjuvant chemotherapy versus chemoradiation, with any chemotherapy regimen. The primary outcomes of interest were disease-free survival and overall survival. The Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model was used to calculate effect sizes. RESULTS: Six trials that included 1,171 patients were evaluated; 599 were randomized to adjuvant chemoradiation and 572 to chemotherapy alone. Chemoradiation was associated with a significant increase in disease-free survival (odds ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.08-2.03) when compared to chemotherapy alone. However, there was no significant difference in overall survival (odds ratio 1.27, 95% confidence interval 0.95-1.71). Five trials found no statistically significant differences in toxicities between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with gastric cancer status post-R0 resection, adjuvant chemoradiation was associated with higher disease-free survival when compared to chemotherapy alone. It remains appropriate to design trials testing new systemic agents with radiotherapy.

Safety and pharmacokinetics of high-dose gefitinib in patients with solid tumors: results of a phase I study.

PURPOSE: Previous studies established the safety of continuous gefitinib 250 or 500 mg daily. It was postulated that a higher dose may have increased efficacy by inhibiting signaling in both the mitogen-activated protein kinase and AKT pathways. This study investigated the tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of high-dose gefitinib in patients with refractory solid malignancies. METHODS: Sequential cohorts received oral gefitinib once or twice-weekly, with dose escalation from 1,500 to 3,500 mg. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients received gefitinib at seven dose levels (1,500, 2,000, 2,500, 3,000, and 3,500 mg once-weekly; 1,500 and 2,000 mg twice-weekly). Gefitinib was well tolerated, with no dose-limiting toxicities. The maximum tolerated dose was not reached. The most common gefitinib-related adverse events were nausea and diarrhea, vomiting, and rash. Pharmacokinetic data demonstrated no consistent increase in exposure to gefitinib with increasing dose across cohorts. Consequently, the study was stopped early and gefitinib 2,000 mg twice-weekly was the highest dose administered. One of eight patients with non-small-cell lung cancer achieved a partial response. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to gefitinib did not increase consistently with increasing dose beyond gefitinib 1,500 mg once-weekly or twice-weekly. These data do not support further evaluation of gefitinib at high-dose schedules.

S0356: a phase II clinical and prospective molecular trial with oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and external-beam radiation therapy before surgery for patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

PURPOSE: Pathologic complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy for locally advanced esophageal adenocarcinoma is associated with improved survival. The Southwest Oncology Group designed a trimodality, phase II, single-arm trial with objectives of achieving a pCR rate of 40% with prospective exploratory analyses of intratumoral molecular markers postulated to affect response and survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with clinically staged II or III esophageal adenocarcinoma received oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) on days 1, 15, and 29; protracted-infusion fluorouracil (PI-FU) 180 mg/m(2)/d on days 8 through 43; and external-beam radiation therapy (EBRT) 5 days a week at 1.8 Gy/d for 25 fractions; surgery was performed 28 to 42 days after neoadjuvant therapy. Chemotherapy was planned after surgery. Tumors were analyzed for mRNA expression and polymorphisms in genes involved in drug metabolism and DNA repair. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were evaluable. Two deaths (2.2%) were attributable to preoperative therapy, and two deaths (2.2%) were attributable to surgery. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were recorded for 47.3% and 19.4% of patients, respectively. Seventy-nine patients (84.9%) underwent surgery; 67.7% of patients had R0 resections. Twenty-six patients (28.0%) had confirmed pCR (95% CI, 19.1% to 38.2%). At a median follow-up of 39.2 months, estimates of median and 3-year overall survival (OS) were 28.3 months and 45.1%, respectively. Intratumoral ERCC-1 gene expression was inversely related to progression-free survival and OS. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant oxaliplatin, PI-FU, and EBRT for esophageal adenocarcinoma is active and tolerable. Because the regimen failed to meet the primary end point, it does not define a new standard. However, future trials can be built on this platform to validate the role of ERCC-1 in determining the best systemic regimen for individual patients.