Survival of patients managed in France for duodenal neuroendocrine tumors (D-NET): a 20-year multicenter cohort study from the GTE group: a cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Duodenal neuroendocrine tumours (D-NETs) have a low incidence; however, their diagnosis has been increasing. Features such as tumour location, size, type, histological grade, and stage were used to adapt the treatment to either endoscopic (ER) or surgical (SR) resections. There is no consensus regarding the definitive treatment. The authors' study aimed to describe the management of non-metastatic, well-differentiated D-NETs in France and its impact on patient survival. METHODS: A registry-based multicenter study using prospectively collected data between 2000 and 2019, including all patients managed for non-metastatic G1 and G2 D-NETs, was conducted in the GTE group. RESULTS: A total of 153 patients were included. Fifty-eight benefited from an ER, and 95 had an SR. No difference in recurrence-free survival (RFS) was observed regardless of treatment type. There was no significant difference between the two groups (ER vs. SR) in terms of location, size, grade, or lymphadenopathy, regardless of the type of incomplete resection performed or regarding the pre-therapeutic assessment of lymph node invasion in imaging. The surgery allowed for significantly more complete resection (patients with R1 resection in the SR group: 9 vs. 14 in the ER group, P<0.001). Among the 51 patients with positive lymph node dissection after SR, tumour size was less than or equal to 1 cm in 25 cases. Surgical complications were more numerous (P=0.001). In the sub-group analysis of G1-G2 D-NETs between 11 and 19 mm, there was no significant difference in grade (P=0.977) and location (P=0.617) between the two groups (ER vs. SR). No significant difference was found in both morphological and functional imaging, focusing on the pre-therapeutic assessment of lymph node invasion (P=0.387). CONCLUSION: Regardless of the resection type (ER or SR) of G1-G2 non-metastatic D-NETs, as well as the type of management of incomplete resection, which was greater in the ER group, long-term survival results were similar between ER and SR. Organ preservation seems to be the best choice owing to the slow evolution of these tumours.

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

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

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

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

Triplet chemotherapy plus cetuximab as first-line treatment in extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Triplet chemotherapy plus cetuximab showed promising results in phase II trials in unsystematically selected RAS population. We evaluated FOLFIRINOX+cetuximab efficacy as first-line treatment in extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients treated with FOLFIRINOX+cetuximab, using data from clinical trials and real-life practice. Extended mutation analysis was performed when RAS/BRAF status was unavailable. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Seventy patients (61.4 % male, median age 58.7 years) were analyzed. Eighty percent had left-sided mCRC and 97.1 % had liver metastases. Median PFS and overall survival (OS) were 13.3 and 48.5 months, respectively. The objective response rate was 85.7 %, with 20 % complete response. Primary tumor location did not affect OS and PFS. BRAF wild-type patients (n = 65) had longer PFS (13.3 vs. 6.0 months; p = 0.005) and OS (50.1 vs. 21.2 months; p = 0.007) than BRAF mutated patients (n = 5, including four BRAFV600E). Median OS was significantly longer in resected patients (n = 39, 55.1 vs. 30.7 months; p = 0.030). Main toxicities were diarrhea (31.4 %) and neutropenia (21.4 %). CONCLUSION: FOLFIRINOX+cetuximab provides good PFS, high response rate and prolonged disease control in initially unresectable extended RAS wild-type mCRC. This combination is particularly interesting for selected patients with liver-limited disease eligible to secondary resection.

Characteristics and treatment options of glucagonomas: a national study from the French Group of Endocrine Tumors and ENDOCAN-RENATEN network.

OBJECTIVE: Glucagonoma is a very rare functional pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (PanNET). We aimed to provide data on the diagnosis, prognosis, and management of patients with glucagonoma. DESIGN AND METHODS: In this retrospective national cohort, we included all patients with glucagonoma, defined by at least 1 major criterion (necrolytic migratory erythema [NME] and/or recent-onset diabetes, and/or weight loss ≥ 5 kg) associated with either glucagonemia > 2 × upper limit of normal or positive glucagon immunostaining. Antisecretory efficacy was defined as partial/complete resolution of glucagonoma symptoms. Antitumor efficacy was assessed according to the time to next treatment (TTNT). RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients were included with median age 58.7 yo, primary PanNET located in the tail (68.4%), synchronous metastases (63.2%). Median Ki-67 index was 3%. Most frequent glucagonoma symptoms at diagnosis were NME (86.8%), weight loss (68.4%), and diabetes (50%). Surgery of the primary PanNET was performed in 76.3% of cases, mainly with curative intent (61.5%). After surgery, complete resolution of NME was seen in 93.8% (n = 15/16). The secretory response rates were 85.7%, 85.7%, 75%, and 60% with surgery of metastases (n = 6/7), chemotherapy (n = 6/7), liver-directed therapy (n = 6/8), and somatostatin analogs (n = 6/10), respectively. All lines combined, longer TTNT was reported with chemotherapy (20.2 months). Median overall survival (OS) was 17.3 years. The Ki-67 index > 3% was associated with shorter OS (hazard ratio 5.27, 95% CI [1.11-24.96], P = .036). CONCLUSION: Patients with glucagonoma had prolonged survival, even in the presence of metastases at diagnosis. Curative-intent surgery should always be considered. Chemotherapy, peptide receptor radionuclide therapy, or liver-directed therapy seems to provide both substantial antitumor and antisecretory efficacies.

Hepatic arterial oxaliplatin plus intravenous 5-fluorouracil and cetuximab for first-line treatment of colorectal liver metastases: A multicenter phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and tolerability of hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) oxaliplatin plus systemic 5-fluorouracil and cetuximab as frontline treatment in patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) are unknown. METHODS: In this multicenter, single-arm phase II study, patients with CRLM not amenable to curative-intent resection or requiring complex/major liver resection, and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease, received HAI oxaliplatin and intravenous 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin and cetuximab, every two weeks until disease progression, limiting toxicity or at least 3 months after complete response or curative-intent resection/ablation. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: 35 patients, mostly with bilateral (89%), multiple CRLM (>4, 86%; >10, 46%) were enrolled in eight centers. The ORR was 88% (95% CI, 71%-96%) among evaluable patients (n = 32), and 95% (95% CI 70-100%) among the 22 wild-type RAS/BRAF evaluable patients. After a median follow-up of 8.8 years (95% CI, 8.7-not reached), median progression-free survival was 17.9 months (95% CI, 15-23) and median overall survival (OS) was 46.3 months (95% CI, 40.0-not reached). 23 of the 35 patients (66%), including 22 (79%) of the 25 patients with wild-type RAS tumor, underwent curative-intent surgical resection and/or ablation of CRLM. HAI catheter remained patent in 86% of patients, allowing for a median of eight oxaliplatin infusions (range, 1-19). Treatment toxicity was manageable, without toxic death. CONCLUSION: HAI oxaliplatin plus systemic 5-fluorouracil and cetuximab appears highly effective in the frontline treatment of patients with unresectable CRLM and should be investigated further.

NESC Multicenter Phase II Trial in the Preoperative Treatment of Gastric Adenocarcinoma with Chemotherapy (Docetaxel-Cisplatin-5FU + Lenograstim) Followed by Chemoradiation (CRT) Based 5FU and Oxaliplatin and Surgery.

Purpose: Preoperative chemoradiation (CRT) is expected to increase the rate of curative resection and complete histological response. In this trial, we investigated the efficacy of a neoadjuvant CRT regimen in gastric adenocarcinoma (NCT01565109 trial). Materials and Methods: Patients with stage IB to IIIC gastric adenocarcinoma, endoscopy ultrasound and CT-scan diagnosed, were eligible for this phase II trial. Neoadjuvant treatment consisted of 2 cycles of chemotherapy with DCF (Docetaxel, Cisplatin, 5FU) followed by preoperative chemoradiation with oxaliplatin, continuous 5FU and radiotherapy (45 Gy in 25 fractions of 1.8 Gy, 5 fractions per week for 5 weeks) administered before surgery. R0-resection rate, pathological complete response rate and survival (Progression-Free and Overall survival) were evaluated as primary endpoints. Results: Among 33 patients included, 32 patients (97%) received CRT and 26 (78.8%) were resected (R0 resection for all patients resected). Among resected patients, we report pathologic complete response (pathCR) in 23,1% and pathologic major response (Tumor Regression Grade 2 according to Mandard's classification) in 26,9%. With a median follow-up duration of 5.82 years (range, 0.4-9.24 years), the estimated median overall survival (OS) for all the thirty-three patients was not reached; 1-, 3-, and 5- year OS rates were 85%, 61% and 52%, respectively. Among resected patients, those whose histological response was TRG1-2 had a significantly better OS and progression-free survival (PFS) rates than those with a TRG 3-4-5 response (p=0.019 and p=0.016 respectively). Conclusion: Promising results from trials involving preoperative chemoradiation followed by surgery in gastric cancer need to be further evaluated in a Phase III trial.

The Crying Need for a Better Response Assessment in Rectal Cancer.

OPINION STATEMENT: Since total neoadjuvant treatment achieves almost 30% pathologic complete response, organ preservation has been increasingly debated for good responders after neoadjuvant treatment for patients diagnosed with rectal cancer. Two organ preservation strategies are available: a watch and wait strategy and a local excision strategy including patients with a near clinical complete response. A major issue is the selection of patients according to the initial tumor staging or the response assessment. Despite modern imaging improvement, identifying complete response remains challenging. A better selection could be possible by radiomics analyses, exploiting numerous image features to feed data characterization algorithms. The subsequent step is to include baseline and/or pre-therapeutic MRI, PET-CT, and CT radiomics added to the patients' clinicopathological data, inside machine learning (ML) prediction models, with predictive or prognostic purposes. These models could be further improved by the addition of new biomarkers such as circulating tumor biomarkers, molecular profiling, or pathological immune biomarkers.

DCF versus doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced squamous anal cell carcinoma: a multicenter propensity score-matching study.

Triplet DCF (docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-flurouracil) and doublet CP/CF (carboplatin and paclitaxel/cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil) regimens were prospectively evaluated in advanced squamous anal cell carcinoma (SCCA), and validated as standard treatments. Even though the high efficacy and good tolerance of DCF regimen were confirmed in 3 independent prospective trials, doublet CP regimen is still recommended in several guidelines based in its better safety profile with similar efficacy compared to CF regimen. We performed a propensity score-adjusted method with inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) and matched case control (MCC) comparison among patients with metastatic or non-resectable locally advanced recurrent SCCA, treated with chemotherapy as first line regimen. The primary endpoint was the overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS). 247 patients were included for analysis. 154 patients received DCF and 93 patients received a doublet regimen. The median OS was 32.3 months with DCF and 18.3 months with doublet regimens (HR 0.53, 95%CI 0.38-0.74; p = 0.0001), and the median PFS was 11.2 months with DCF versus 7.6 months with doublet regimens (HR 0.53, 95%CI 0.39-0.73; p < 0.0001). The hazard ratios by IPTW and MCC analyses were 0.411 (95% CI, 0.324-0.521; p < 0.0001) and 0.406 (95% CI, 0.261-0.632; p < 0.0001) for OS, and 0.466 (95% CI, 0.376-0.576; p < 0.0001) and 0.438 (95% CI, 0.298-0.644; P < 0.0001) for PFS. The triplet DCF regimen provides a high and significant benefit in OS and PFS over doublet regimens, and should be considered as upfront treatment for eligible patients with advanced SCCA.

Bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI after failure of platinum-etoposide first-line chemotherapy in patients with advanced neuroendocrine carcinoma (PRODIGE 41-BEVANEC): a randomised, multicentre, non-comparative, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is no standard second-line treatment after platinum-etoposide chemotherapy for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab, and FOLFIRI alone, in this setting. METHODS: We did a randomised, non-comparative, open-label, phase 2 trial (PRODIGE 41-BEVANEC) at 26 hospitals in France. We included patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma or neuroendocrine carcinoma of unknown primary origin, documented progressive disease during or after first-line platinum-etoposide chemotherapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1; block size of three), without stratification, to receive FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m2, calcium folinate 400 mg/m2 or levofolinate 200 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus then 2400 mg/m2 over 46 h) plus bevacizumab 5 mg/kg or FOLFIRI alone, intravenously, every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was overall survival at 6 months after randomisation, evaluated in the modified intention-to-treat population (all enrolled and randomly assigned patients who received at least one cycle of FOLFIRI). This study is now complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02820857. FINDINGS: Between Sept 5, 2017, and Feb 8, 2022, 150 patients were assessed for eligibility and 133 were enrolled and randomly assigned: 65 to the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 68 to the FOLFIRI group. 126 patients (59 in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 67 in the FOLFIRI group) received at least one cycle of FOLFIRI and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, 83 (66%) of whom were male and 43 (34%) were female, and the median age of the patients was 67 years (IQR 58-73). The primary tumour location was colorectal in 38 (30%) of 126 patients, pancreatic in 34 (27%), gastro-oesophageal in 22 (17%), and unknown in 23 (18%). After a median follow-up of 25·7 months (95% CI 22·0-38·2), 6-month overall survival was 53% (80% CI 43-61) in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 60% (51-68) in the FOLFIRI group. Grade 3-4 adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of patients were neutropenia (eight [14%] patients), diarrhoea (six [10%]), and asthenia (five [8%]) in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group, and neutropenia (seven [10%]) in the FOLFIRI group. One treatment-related death (ischaemic stroke) occurred in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of bevacizumab did not seem to increase the benefit of FOLFIRI with regard to overall survival. FOLFIRI could be considered as a standard second-line treatment in patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health and Roche SAS.

Intra-arterial hepatic bevacizumab and systemic chemotherapy in hepatic metastasis of colorectal cancer: A phase II multicentric trial in second-line treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Intra-arterial hepatic (IAH) treatment has shown promising results in the management of patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) the prognosis of which is poor. Bevacizumab adjunction to standard chemotherapy has been shown to improve survival of this patient population. This prospective study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of IAH bevacizumab combined to systemic chemotherapy after first-line treatment failure in patients with CRLM. METHODS: Included patients had dominant or isolated unresectable CRLM progressing after standard first-line treatment for metastases of colorectal cancer. Three patients had less than 30% liver invasion, three patients between 30 and 50%, two more than 50% and data was missing in two patients. An intra-hepatic catheter was implanted surgically or percutaneously. Bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg was administered once every 3 weeks in combination with capecitabine 2000 mg/m² per day for 2 weeks and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² or irinotecan 200 mg/m² once every 3 weeks. The primary end-point was the objective response rate. RESULTS: Between June 2013 and February 2015, 10 patients were included. The trial was prematurely closed because of the lack of financial support and poor accrual. The patients had a median of 6 [1-9] cycles of treatment. Partial response was achieved in 2 patients (20%) and a R0 liver metastases resection in one another. All patients died of disease progression. The median overall and progression-free survival rates were respectively 14.0 (95% IC [4.8 - 25.8] and 5.4 months (95% IC [1.6 - 6.2]). Four patients had severe side effects but no toxic death occurred. CONCLUSION: IAH bevacizumab combined to systemic chemotherapy is feasible and safe in patients with unresectable isolated or dominant CRLM progressing after a first-line systemic treatment. Based on the low number of patients included in our study, our results suggest that this treatment does not increase dramatically the response rate versus an adapted systemic treatment. However, considering the safety data provided in this study, arterial infusion of bevacizumab in adjunction to chemotherapeutic agents could be evaluated in the future.

Pembrolizumab in Asian patients with microsatellite-instability-high/mismatch-repair-deficient colorectal cancer.

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-177 study evaluated pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab in patients with newly diagnosed, microsatellite-instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 by BICR and safety. Here, we report results from the post hoc analysis of patients who were enrolled in Asia from the final analysis (FA) of KEYNOTE-177. A total of 48 patients from Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan (pembrolizumab, n = 22; chemotherapy, n = 26) were included. At FA, median time from randomization to data cutoff (February 19, 2021) was 45.3 (range 38.1-57.8) months with pembrolizumab and 43.9 (range 36.6-55.1) months with chemotherapy. Median PFS was not reached (NR; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9 months-NR) with pembrolizumab versus 10.4 (95% CI 6.3-22.0) months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.26-1.20). Median OS was NR (range 13.8 months-NR) versus 30.0 (14.7-NR) months (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.27-1.55) and ORR was 50% (95% CI 28-72) versus 46% (95% CI 27-67). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported by two patients (9%) in the pembrolizumab arm and 20 (80%) in the chemotherapy arm. Immune-mediated adverse events or infusion reactions were reported by six patients (27%) and 10 patients (40%), respectively. No deaths due to TRAEs occurred. These data support first-line pembrolizumab as a standard of care for patients from Asia with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02563002.

Lanreotide as maintenance therapy after first-line treatment in patients with non-resectable duodeno-pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: An international double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised phase II trial - Prodige 31 REMINET: An FFCD study.

BACKGROUND: Following European guidelines, patients with aggressive metastatic or locally advanced, non-resectable, duodeno-pancreatic (DP) neuroendocrine tumours (NETs) should receive systemic combination chemotherapy until progression. Aggressive disease is defined as progressive and/or symptomatic metastases with or without significant hepatic invasion (>30-50%), and/or bone metastases. METHODS: This academic randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study aims to evaluate lanreotide autogel 120 mg (LAN) as maintenance treatment after at least 2 months of first-line treatment (L1) in aggressive G1-G2 DP-NET. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive LAN or placebo (PBO), every 28 days, until progression or toxicity. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS) at 6 months. RESULTS: Among the 118 planned patients, 53 were included. Of these, 81.1% had a G2 tumour, and 90.6% had metastatic disease. L1 therapy consisted of chemotherapy (96.8%). Median duration of L1 was 4.6 months (range: 2.0-7.7). At the time of randomisation, 81.1% of patients had stable disease. Median follow-up was 27.0 months (95% CI: 19.5; 31.2). PFS at 6 months was 73.1% (90% CI: 55.3; 86.6) in LAN versus 54.2% (90% CI: 35.8; 71.8) in PBO. Median PFS was 19.4 months (95% CI: 7.6; 32.6) and 7.6 months (95% CI: 3.0; 9.0), respectively. Median overall survival was 41.9 months in PBO and was not reached in LAN. The toxicity profile was mainly grade 1-2 expected toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: The encouraging results of lanreotide autogel 120 mg as a maintenance treatment after L1 in aggressive G1/2 DP-NET should be confirmed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02288377 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Hepatic Arterial Infusion Chemotherapy With Folfirinox or Oxaliplatin Alone in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Background: Hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of chemotherapy is an option for the treatment of patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (LMCRC). Though HAI with oxaliplatin (HAI-Ox) is generally used, intravenous (IV) 5-fluoro-uracil (5FU)-oxaliplatin-irinotecan HAI (HAI-Folfirinox) is feasible and leads to curative-intent surgery in 30% of pretreated patients. We compared the efficacy and safety of HAI-Ox and HAI-Folfirinox. Methods: Patients who underwent HAI chemotherapy for LMCRC were retrospectively included from 2008 to 2019 from six French expert centers. Results: Data were collected from 273 previously treated patients with LMCRC. Patients received HAI-Folfirinox (n = 52) or HAI-Ox (n = 221) combined with IV chemotherapy. The objective response rate (ORR) was 43.2% in patients with HAI-Folfirinox and 45.9% (ns) in patients with HAI-Ox. Median overall survival (OS) was 17 months (95% CI: 15-32.3) with HAI-Folfirinox and 26.2 months (95% CI: 19.4-34.4; p = 0.1) with HAI-Ox. Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 7.9 months (95% CI: 4.9-10.3) with HAI-Folfirinox and 6.4 months (95% CI: 6.0-7.7; p = 0.6) with HAI-Ox. The secondary liver resection rate was 35.6% with HAI-Folfirinox and 16.7% with HAI-Ox (p = 0.007). Grade 2 and above toxicities were significantly more frequent with HAI-Folfirinox. In the global population, only 2 factors were prognostic for OS in multivariable analyses: liver-only disease [hazard ratio (HR): 0.4; 95% CI 0.20-0.83; p = 0.013] and local complications of the catheter (HR: 3.8; 95% CI 1.6-9.0; p = 0.002). Conclusion: Hepatic arterial infusion results in high response rates, secondary resections, and long survival in pretreated patients with LMCRC.

FFCD 1709-SIRTCI phase II trial: Selective internal radiation therapy plus Xelox, Bevacizumab and Atezolizumab in liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have high efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with microsatellite instability (MSI) but not in microsatellite stable (MSS) tumour due to the low tumour mutational burden. Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) could enhance neoantigen production thus triggering systemic anti-tumoral immune response (abscopal effect). In addition, Oxalipatin can induce immunogenic cell death and Bevacizumab can decrease the exhaustion of tumour infiltrating lymphocyte. In combination, these treatments could act synergistically to sensitize MSS mCRCs to ICI SIRTCI is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, phase II, non-comparative single-arm study evaluating the efficacy and safety of SIRT plus Xelox, Bevacizumab and Atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1) in patients with liver-dominant MSS mCRC. The primary objective is progression-free survival at 9 months. The main inclusion criteria are patients with MSS mCRC with liver-dominant disease, initially unresectable disease and with no prior oncologic treatment for metastatic disease. The trial started in November 2020 and has included 10 out of the 52 planned patients.

Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer (KEYNOTE-177): final analysis of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab has shown improved progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. However, the treatment's effect on overall survival in this cohort of patients was unknown. Here, we present the final overall survival analysis of the KEYNOTE-177 study. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study was done in 193 academic medical centres and hospitals in 23 countries. We recruited patients aged at least 18 years, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had previously untreated microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) in blocks of four using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or to the investigator's choice of intravenous mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on day 1, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 on day 1, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus on day 1 followed by a continuous infusion of 1200 mg/m2 per day for 2 days on days 1-2) or intravenous FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m2 on day 1, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 on day 1, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus on day 1 followed by a continuous infusion of 1200 mg/m2 per day for 2 days on days 1-2), every 2 weeks with or without intravenous bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks or intravenous weekly cetuximab (first dose 400 mg/m2, then 250 mg/m2 for every subsequent dose). Patients receiving chemotherapy could cross over to pembrolizumab for up to 35 treatment cycles after progression. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. KEYNOTE-177 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02563002, and is no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Feb 11, 2016, and Feb 19, 2018, 852 patients were screened, of whom 307 (36%) were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=153) or chemotherapy (n=154). 93 (60%) patients crossed over from chemotherapy to anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy (56 patients to on-study pembrolizumab and 37 patients to off-study therapy). At final analysis (median follow-up of 44·5 months [IQR 39·7-49·8]), median overall survival was not reached (NR; 95% CI 49·2-NR) with pembrolizumab vs 36·7 months (27·6-NR) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74; 95% CI 0·53-1·03; p=0·036). Superiority of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for overall survival was not demonstrated because the prespecified α of 0·025 needed for statistical significance was not achieved. At this updated analysis, median progression-free survival was 16·5 months (95% CI 5·4-38·1) with pembrolizumab versus 8·2 months (6·1-10·2) with chemotherapy (HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·45-0·79). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 33 (22%) of 153 patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 95 (66%) of 143 patients in the chemotherapy group. Common adverse events of grade 3 or worse that were attributed to pembrolizumab were increased alanine aminotransferase, colitis, diarrhoea, and fatigue in three (2%) patients each, and those attributed to chemotherapy were decreased neutrophil count (in 24 [17%] patients), neutropenia (22 [15%]), diarrhoea (14 [10%]), and fatigue (13 [9%]). Serious adverse events attributed to study treatment occurred in 25 (16%) patients in the pembrolizumab group and in 41 (29%) patients in the chemotherapy group. No deaths attributed to pembrolizumab occurred; one death due to intestinal perforation was attributed to chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: In this updated analysis, although pembrolizumab continued to show durable antitumour activity and fewer treatment-related adverse events compared with chemotherapy, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the two treatment groups. These findings support pembrolizumab as an efficacious first-line therapy in patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: MSD.

Observational Study in a Real-World Setting of Targeted Therapy in the Systemic Treatment of Progressive Unresectable or Metastatic Well-Differentiated Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (pNETs) in France: OPALINE Study.

INTRODUCTION: Approval of sunitinib and everolimus for the treatment of progressive, unresectable or metastatic well-differentiated pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (pNETs) was obtained in France in 2011 and 2012, respectively. OPALINE was set up as an observational study to evaluate the efficacy of sunitinib and everolimus compared to usual pNET treatments of chemotherapies and somatostatin analogues that had been previously recommended by the health authorities. METHODS: The OPALINE study assessed the efficacy of everolimus and sunitinib in terms of survival, disease progression and tolerance. Patients (N = 144) were enrolled from May 2015 to September 2017, and their disease characteristics were analyzed from diagnosis to 2 years post-enrollment. RESULTS: At inclusion most patients had comorbidities, and about 95% presented metastases. Patients received on average 3.2 lines of treatment from diagnosis to inclusion and two lines throughout the 2-year follow-up. Seventy-nine patients (59.0%) received at least one targeted therapy (TT) during their care path. For these patients, the overall survival (OS) was approximatively 176.5 months (95% CI: 97.2-not evaluable), with a 2-year survival rate estimated at 93.6% (SD 2.6%). Similar survival rates were observed whether the TTs were prescribed sooner or later in the treatment path. The main reasons for discontinuation of TTs were disease progression (54 patients) and adverse events (26 patients). Most patients receiving TTs did not change their dose during the follow-up reflecting the good treatment tolerability over time. No new safety alert was reported for everolimus and sunitinib during this study. CONCLUSION: Given their good tolerance and positive impact on estimated OS, the two TTs have an important role to play in the care path of patients with pNETs. GOV NATIONAL CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: NCT02264665.

Phase III randomized trial comparing systemic versus intra-arterial oxaliplatin, combined with LV5FU2 +/- irinotecan and a targeted therapy, in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer restricted to the liver (OSCAR): PRODIGE 49.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with unresectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer (CRCLM), systemic doublet or triplet chemotherapy and targeted therapy is considered a standard first-line treatment. Hepatic arterial infusion of oxaliplatin (HAI-ox) generates a high response rate, but this still needs to be confirmed in a randomized trial. We incorporated HAI-ox in doublet or triplet + targeted therapy to validate its efficacy. AIM: The OSCAR study is an ongoing randomized phase III trial comparing FOLFOX + targeted therapy according to RAS status, or FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab in patients eligible for triplet therapy, with the same regimen but with HAI-ox instead of IV-ox as the first-line treatment for CRCLM. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Main eligibility criteria are colorectal cancer, unresectable liver metastasis, no extra-hepatic metastases except pulmonary nodules if ≤3 and <10 mm, ECOG performance status 0 or 1. ENDPOINT: The primary endpoint is progression-free survival (PFS). A difference of 4 months for the median PFS in favor of HAI-ox is expected (HR = 0.73). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, overall response rate, secondary liver resection, safety, and quality of life. CONCLUSION: This study is planned to include 348 patients to demonstrate the superiority of HAI-ox over systemic oxaliplatin in first-line CRCLM treatment (NCT02885753).

Second-line treatment after docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil in metastatic squamous cell carcinomas of the anus. Pooled analysis of prospective Epitopes-HPV01 and Epitopes-HPV02 studies.

BACKGROUND: Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) is a rare disease often diagnosed at a localised stage. For locally advanced recurrence or metastatic disease, DCF (docetaxel, cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil) demonstrated high efficacy and became one of the standard regimens. However, there is no standard of care in the second line. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the Epitopes-HPV01 and Epitopes-HPV02 prospective trials, 115 patients with advanced SCCA were treated with a DCF regimen in the first line. In these studies, second-line data were registered per protocol. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of >40 months, at progression, 73 patients received a second-line (L2) treatment. In this L2 population, median overall survival (mOS) was 13.5 months (95%CI 9.4-19.8), and median progression-free survival (mPFS) was 5.7 months (3.4-7.3) in L2. Fourteen patients presented an oligometastatic progression and were treated with an ablative treatment (surgery or radiotherapy); mOS was 48.3 months (NE-NE), and mPFS was 31.3 months (23.2-NE). Fifty-nine patients received a systemic treatment (chemotherapy or immunotherapy); mOS was 11 months (8.4-15.4) and mPFS was 4.9 months (3.3-7). The most frequent chemotherapy regimens were the reintroduction of DCF, paclitaxel, FOLFIRI and mitomycin plus fluoropyrimidine. No significant difference was observed between regimens (p = 0.26). Six patients received anti-PD1/L1-based immunotherapy. CONCLUSION: Second-line treatments are effective in patients with SCCA. Ablative treatment is feasible and is probably the best option for patients with oligometastatic progression. If this is not possible, systemic therapy by an anti-PD1/L1 immunotherapy or chemotherapy can be recommended. Reintroduction of DCF, paclitaxel, FOLFIRI or mitomycin-C plus fluoropyrimidine are possible options.

Association of COVID-19 Lockdown With the Tumor Burden in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with substantial reduction in screening, case identification, and hospital referrals among patients with cancer. However, no study has quantitatively examined the implications of this correlation for cancer patient management. Objective: To evaluate the association of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown with the tumor burden of patients who were diagnosed with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) before vs after lockdown. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study analyzed participants in the screening procedure of the PANIRINOX (Phase II Randomized Study Comparing FOLFIRINOX + Panitumumab vs FOLFOX + Panitumumab in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients Stratified by RAS Status from Circulating DNA Analysis) phase 2 randomized clinical trial. These newly diagnosed patients received care at 1 of 18 different clinical centers in France and were recruited before or after the lockdown was enacted in France in the spring of 2020. Patients underwent a blood-sampling screening procedure to identify their RAS and BRAF tumor status. Exposures: mCRC. Main Outcomes and Measures: Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis was used to identify RAS and BRAF status. Tumor burden was evaluated by the total plasma ctDNA concentration. The median ctDNA concentration was compared in patients who underwent screening before (November 11, 2019, to March 9, 2020) vs after (May 14 to September 3, 2020) lockdown and in patients who were included from the start of the PANIRINOX study. Results: A total of 80 patients were included, of whom 40 underwent screening before and 40 others underwent screening after the first COVID-19 lockdown in France. These patients included 48 men (60.0%) and 32 women (40.0%) and had a median (range) age of 62 (37-77) years. The median ctDNA concentration was statistically higher in patients who were newly diagnosed after lockdown compared with those who were diagnosed before lockdown (119.2 ng/mL vs 17.3 ng/mL; P < .001). Patients with mCRC and high ctDNA concentration had lower median survival compared with those with lower concentration (14.7 [95% CI, 8.8-18.0] months vs 20.0 [95% CI, 14.1-32.0] months). This finding points to the potential adverse consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic and related lockdown. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that tumor burden differed between patients who received an mCRC diagnosis before vs after the first COVID-19 lockdown in France. The findings of this study suggest that CRC is a major area for intervention to minimize pandemic-associated delays in screening, diagnosis, and treatment.