Different prognostic values of KRAS exon 2 submutations and BRAF V600E mutation in microsatellite stable (MSS) and unstable (MSI) stage III colon cancer: an ACCENT/IDEA pooled analysis of seven trials.

BACKGROUND: The prognostic value of KRAS and BRAFV600E mutations in stage III colon cancer (CC) remains controversial and has never been clearly analyzed in patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumors due to sample size limitations. Data are also lacking for KRAS submutations and prognosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined clinicopathological variables and prognosis in patients with surgically resected stage III CC who participated in seven clinical trials from the ACCENT/IDEA databases. Associations between KRAS exon 2 and BRAFV600E mutations and time to recurrence (TTR), overall survival (OS), and survival after recurrence (SAR) were assessed using a Cox model. We also analyzed the prognostic value of KRAS exon 2 submutations. RESULTS: Among 8460 patients, 11.4% had MSI-H status. In the MSI-H group, BRAFV600E, KRAS exon 2 mutants, and double-wild-type statuses were detected in 40.6%, 18.1%, and 41.3%, respectively, whereas and in the microsatellite stable (MSS) group, these were detected in 7.7%, 38.6%, and 53.8%, respectively. In the MSS group, 5-year TTR rates of 61.8%, 66.3%, and 72.9% were observed among patients with BRAFV600E, KRAS exon 2 mutants, and those who were DWT, respectively [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.58 and 1.31, both P < 0.001]. In the MSI-H group, 5-year TTR rates did not differ significantly among the mutated subgroups. Similar results were found for OS. However, survival after relapse was significantly shorter in the KRAS exon 2- and BRAFV600E-mutated patients in both MSS (adjusted HR = 2.06 and 1.15; both P < 0.05) and MSI-H (adjusted HR = 1.99 and 1.81; both P < 0.05) groups. In the MSS group, KRAS exon 2 mutations were associated with TTR, but only p.G12C, p.G12D, and p.G13D were associated with poor outcomes after disease recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Testing for both KRAS and BRAFV600E mutations in stage III patients should be considered as they can better define individual patient prognosis, and may also enable patient selection for (neo)adjuvant trials dedicated to specific molecular subtypes with poor prognosis.

Tumor budding is an independent prognostic factor in stage III colon cancer patients: a post-hoc analysis of the IDEA-France phase III trial (PRODIGE-GERCOR).

BACKGROUND: Histological characteristics at the invasive front may reflect tumor aggressiveness; specifically, tumor budding (Bd) is an emerging prognostic biomarker in colon cancer (CC). We explored further the significance of Bd for risk stratification by evaluating survival of stage III CC patients included in the IDEA-France phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This post-hoc study was conducted on tissue slides from 1048 stage III CC patients. Bd was scored by central review by the Bd criteria of the 2016 International Tumor Budding Consensus Conference (ITBCC 2016) and classified as Bd1 (0-4 buds/0.785 mm2), Bd2 (5-9 buds), and Bd3 (≥10 buds) categories. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed by the log-rank test. Clinicopathological features and Immunoscore® were correlated with Bd. RESULTS: Overall, Bd1, Bd2, and Bd3 were observed in 39%, 28%, and 33% of CC, respectively. Bd2 and Bd3 were associated with vascular (P = 0.002) and perineural invasions (P = 0.0009). The 3-year DFS and the 5-year OS rates for Bd (1 versus 2-3) were 79.4% versus 67.2% (P = 0.001) and 89.2% versus 80.8% (P = 0.001), respectively. This was confirmed after adjustment for relevant clinicopathological features for DFS [hazard ratio (HR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.77, P = 0.003] and OS (HR 1.65, 95% CI 1.22-2.22, P = 0.001). When combined with pTN stage and Immunoscore® subgroups, Bd significantly improved disease prognostication. CONCLUSIONS: Bd demonstrated its independent prognostic value for DFS and OS. Given these findings, Bd as per the ITBCC 2016 should be mandatory in every pathology report in stage III CC patients. Bd and Immunoscore® could play a complementary role in personalized health care in this setting.

Perioperative FOLFOX 4 Versus FOLFOX 4 Plus Cetuximab Versus Immediate Surgery for High-Risk Stage II and III Colon Cancers: A Phase II Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial (PRODIGE 22).

BACKGROUND: Perioperative chemotherapy has proven valuable in several tumors, but not in colon cancer (CC). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of perioperative chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced nonmetastatic CC. METHODS: This is a French multicenter randomized phase II trial in patients with resectable high-risk T3, T4, and/or N2 CC on baseline computed tomography (CT) scan. Patients were randomized to receive either 6 months of adjuvant FOLFOX after colectomy (control) or perioperative FOLFOX for 4 cycles before surgery and 8 cycles after (FOLFOX peri-op). In RAS wild-type patients, a third arm testing perioperative FOLFOX-cetuximab was added. Tumor Regression Grade (TRG1) of Ryan et al was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were toxicity, perioperative morbidity, and quality of surgery. RESULTS: A total of 120 patients were enrolled. At interim analysis, the FOLFOX-cetuximab arm was stopped (lack of efficacy). The remaining 104 patients (control, n = 52; FOLFOX preop n = 52) represented our intention-to-treat population. In the FOLFOX perioperative group, 96% received the scheduled 4 cycles before surgery. R0 resection and complete mesocolic excision rate were 94% and 93%, respectively. Overall mortality and morbidity rates were similar in both groups. Perioperative FOLFOX chemotherapy did not improve major pathological response rate (TRG1 = 8%) but was associated with a significant pathological regression (TRG1-2 = 44% vs 8%, P < 0.001) and a trend to tumor downstaging as compared to the control group. CT scan criteria were associated with a 33% rate of overstaging in control group. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative FOLFOX for locally advanced resectable CC is feasible with an acceptable tolerability but is not associated with an increased major pathological response rate as expected. However, perioperative FOLFOX induces pathological regression and downstaging. Better preoperative staging tools are needed to decrease the risk of overtreating patients.

Prognostic and predictive value of the Immunoscore in stage III colon cancer patients treated with oxaliplatin in the prospective IDEA France PRODIGE-GERCOR cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The Immunoscore (IS), which prognostically classifies stage I-III colon cancer (CC) patients, was evaluated in the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Therapy (IDEA) France cohort study investigating 3 versus 6 months of oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III CC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Densities of CD3+ and CD8+ T cells in the tumor and invasive margin were determined by immunohistochemistry, quantified by digital pathology, and converted to IS. Mismatch repair status was determined by immunohistochemistry or by pentaplex PCR. Prediction of disease-free survival (DFS) by IS was analyzed by a multivariable Cox regression model in each study arm. Harrell's C-statistics were used to investigate the IS performance. RESULTS: Samples of 1322 patients were available. IS Low, Intermediate (Int), and High were observed in 43.6%, 47.0%, and 9.4% of patients, respectively. IS Low identified patients at higher risk of relapse or death compared with Int + High [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.24-1.93, P = 0.0001]. The 3-year DFS was 66.80% (95% CI 62.23-70.94) for IS Low and 77.14% (95% CI 73.50-80.35) for IS Int + High. In multivariable analysis, IS remained significantly independently associated with DFS (P = 0.003) when adjusted for sex, histological grade, T/N stage, and microsatellite instability. For mFOLFOX6-treated patients (91.6% of the cohort), a statistical significant interaction was observed for the predictive value of IS for treatment duration (3 versus 6 months) in terms of DFS (P = 0.057). IS Int + High significantly predicted benefit of 6 months of treatment (HR = 0.53; 95% CI 0.37-0.75; P = 0.0004), including clinically low- and high-risk stage III CC (all P < 0.001). Conversely, patients with IS Low (46.4%) did not significantly benefit from the 6-month mFOLFOX6 versus the 3-month mFOLFOX6. CONCLUSIONS: The prognostic value of IS for DFS was confirmed in patients with stage III CC treated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Its predictive value for DFS benefit of longer duration of mFOLFOX6 adjuvant treatment was found in IS Int + High. These results will be validated in an external independent cohort. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT03422601; EudraCT Number: 2009-010384-16.

Evaluation of the change of outcomes over a 10-year period in patients with stage III colon cancer: pooled analysis of 6501 patients treated with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin in the ACCENT database.

BACKGROUND: Since 2004, adjuvant 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX or FLOX) have been the standard of care for patients with resected colon cancer. Herein we examine the change of outcomes over a 10-year period in patients with stage III colon cancer who received this regimen. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from the ACCENT database was used to compare the outcomes in older (1998-2003) and newer (2004-2009) treatment eras for patients with stage III colon cancer who received adjuvant FOLFOX or FLOX. The outcomes were compared between the two groups by the multivariate Cox proportional-hazards model adjusting for age, sex, performance score, T stage, N stage, tumor sidedness, and histological grade. RESULTS: A total of 6501 patients with stage III colon cancer who received adjuvant FOLFOX or FLOX in six randomized trials were included in the analysis. Patients enrolled in the new era group experienced statistically significant improvement in time to recurrence [3-year rate, 76.1% versus 73.0%; adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj) = 0.83 (95% CI, 0.74-0.92), P = 0.0008], disease-free survival (DFS) [3-year rate, 74.7% versus 72.3%; HRadj = 0.88 (0.79-0.98), P = 0.024], survival after recurrence (SAR) [median time, 27.0 versus 17.7 months; HRadj = 0.65 (0.57-0.74), P < 0.0001], and overall survival (OS) [5-year rate, 80.9% versus 75.7%; HRadj = 0.78 (0.69-0.88), P < 0.0001]. The improved outcomes remained in patients diagnosed at 45 years of age or older, low-risk patients (T1-3 and N1), left colon, mismatch repair proficient (pMMR), BRAF, and KRAS wild-type tumors. CONCLUSION: Improved outcomes were observed in patients with stage III colon cancer enrolled in clinical trials who received adjuvant FOLFOX/FLOX therapy in 2004 or later compared with patients in the older era. Prolonged SAR calls for revalidation of 3-year DFS as the surrogate endpoint of OS in adjuvant clinical trials and reevaluation of optimal follow-up of OS to confirm the trial findings based on the DFS endpoints. CLINICAL TRIALS NUMBERS: NCT00079274; NCT00096278; NCT00004931; NCT00275210; NCT00265811; NCT00112918.

Evidence for a New Compact Symmetric Fission Mode in Light Thorium Isotopes.

Taking benefit of the R3B/SOFIA setup to measure the mass and the nuclear charge of both fission fragments in coincidence with the total prompt-neutron multiplicity, the scission configurations are inferred along the thorium chain, from the asymmetric fission in the heavier isotopes to the symmetric fission in the neutron-deficient thorium. Against all expectations, the symmetric scission in the light thorium isotopes shows a compact configuration, which is in total contrast to what is known in the fission of the heavier thorium isotopes and heavier actinides. This new main symmetric scission mode is characterized by a significant drop in deformation energy of the fission fragments of about 19 MeV, compared to the well-known symmetric scission in the uranium-plutonium region.

Prognosis of microsatellite instability and/or mismatch repair deficiency stage III colon cancer patients after disease recurrence following adjuvant treatment: results of an ACCENT pooled analysis of seven studies.

BACKGROUND: Microsatellite instable/deficient mismatch repair (MSI/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancers have been reported to have a poor prognosis. Frequent co-occurrence of MSI/dMMR and BRAFV600E complicates the association. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with resected stage III colon cancer (CC) from seven adjuvant studies with available data for disease recurrence and MMR and BRAFV600E status were analyzed. The primary end point was survival after recurrence (SAR). Associations of markers with SAR were analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for age, gender, performance status, T stage, N stage, primary tumor location, grade, KRAS status, and timing of recurrence. RESULTS: Among 2630 patients with cancer recurrence (1491 men [56.7%], mean age, 58.5 [19-85] years), multivariable analysis revealed that patients with MSI/dMMR tumors had significantly longer SAR than did patients with microsatellite stable/proficient MMR tumors (MSS/pMMR) (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.82; 95% CI [confidence interval], 0.69-0.98; P = 0.029). This finding remained when looking at patients treated with standard oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy regimens only (aHR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.58-1.00; P = 0.048). Same trends for SAR were observed when analyzing MSI/dMMR versus MSS/pMMR tumor subgroups lacking BRAFV600E (aHR, 0.84; P = 0.10) or those harboring BRAFV600E (aHR, 0.88; P = 0.43), without reaching statistical significance. Furthermore, SAR was significantly shorter in tumors with BRAFV600E versus those lacking this mutation (aHR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.73-2.46; P < 0.0001), even in the subgroup of MSI/dMMR tumors (aHR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.67-4.21; P < 0.0001). Other factors associated with a shorter SAR were as follows: older age, male gender, T4/N2, proximal primary tumor location, poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma, and early recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In stage III CC patients recurring after adjuvant chemotherapy, and before the era of immunotherapy, the MSI/dMMR phenotype was associated with a better SAR compared with MSS/pMMR. BRAFV600E mutation was a poor prognostic factor for both MSI/dMMR and MSS/pMMR patients. TRIAL IDENTIFICATION NUMBERS: NCT00079274, NCT00265811, NCT00004931, NCT00004931, NCT00026273, NCT00096278, NCT00112918.

Biomarker analysis beyond angiogenesis: RAS/RAF mutation status, tumour sidedness, and second-line ramucirumab efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma from RAISE-a global phase III study.

Background: : Second-line treatment with ramucirumab+FOLFIRI improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo+FOLFIRI for patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (CRC) [hazard ratio (HR)=0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.98, P = 0.022]. Post hoc analyses of RAISE patient data examined the association of RAS/RAF mutation status and the anatomical location of the primary CRC tumour (left versus right) with efficacy parameters. Patients and methods: Patient tumour tissue was classified as BRAF mutant, KRAS/NRAS (RAS) mutant, or RAS/BRAF wild-type. Left-CRC was defined as the splenic flexure, descending and sigmoid colon, and rectum; right-CRC included transverse, ascending colon, and cecum. Results: RAS/RAF mutation status was available for 85% of patients (912/1072) and primary tumour location was known for 94.4% of patients (1012/1072). A favourable and comparable ramucirumab treatment effect was observed for patients with RAS mutations (OS HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.71-1.04) and patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type tumours (OS HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.64-1.14). Among the 41 patients with BRAF-mutated tumours, the ramucirumab benefit was more notable (OS HR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.25-1.13), although, as with the other genetic sub-group analyses, differences were not statistically significant. Progression-free survival (PFS) data followed the same trend. Treatment-by-mutation status interaction tests (OS P = 0.523, PFS P = 0.655) indicated that the ramucirumab benefit was not statistically different among the mutation sub-groups, although the small sample size of the BRAF group limited the analysis. Addition of ramucirumab to FOLFIRI improved left-CRC median OS by 2.5 month over placebo (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68-0.97); median OS for ramucirumab-treated patients with right-CRC was 1.1 month over placebo (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.75-1.26). The treatment-by-sub-group interaction was not statistically significant for tumour sidedness (P = 0.276). Conclusions: In the RAISE study, the addition of ramucirumab to FOLFIRI improved patient outcomes, regardless of RAS/RAF mutation status, and tumour sidedness. Ramucirumab treatment provided a numerically substantial benefit in BRAF-mutated tumours, although the P-values were not statistically significant. ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01183780.

Influence of Molecular Status on Recurrence Site in Patients Treated for a Stage III Colon Cancer: a Post Hoc Analysis of the PETACC-8 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence patterns in stage III colon cancer (CC) patients according to molecular markers remain unclear. The objective of the study was to assess recurrence patterns according to microsatellite instability (MSI), RAS and BRAFV600E status in stage III CC patients. METHODS: All stage III CC patients from the PETACC-8 randomized trial tested for MSI, RAS and BRAFV600E status were included. The site and characteristics of recurrence were analyzed according to molecular status. Survival after recurrence (SAR) was analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1650 patients were included. Recurrence occurred in 434 patients (26.3%). Microsatellite stable (MSS) patients had a significantly higher recurrence rate (27.2% vs. 18.7%, P = 0.02) with a trend to more pulmonary recurrence (28.8% vs. 12.9%, P = 0.06) when compared to MSI patients. MSI patients experienced more regional lymph nodes compared to MSS (12.9% vs. 4%, P = 0.046). In the MSS population, the recurrence rate was significantly higher in RAS (32.2%) or BRAF (32.3%) patients when compared to double wild-type patients (19.9%) (p < 0.001); no preferential site of recurrence was observed according to RAS and BRAFV600E mutations. Finally, decreased SAR was observed in the case of peritoneal recurrence or more than two recurrence sites. CONCLUSIONS: Microsatellite, RAS and BRAFV600E status influences recurrence rates in stage III CC patients. However, only microsatellite status seems to be associated with specific recurrence patterns. More than two recurrence sites and recurrence in the peritoneum were associated with poorer SAR.

Inter-mesenteric connections between the superior and inferior mesenteric arteries for left colonic vascularization: implications for colorectal surgery.

PURPOSE: There is confusion regarding the names, the number, and the exact location of the colonic arterial arches which provide connections between the superior and inferior (IMA) mesenteric arteries at the level of the left colic angle. The aim of this review was to delineate the "true" colic arches arising in the meso of the left colic angle and to describe their surgical implications. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was performed using the MEDLINE database. The search included only human studies between 1913 and 2018. All dissection, angiographic, arterial cast and corrosion studies were analyzed. RESULTS: The terms "Riolan arch", "marginal artery of Drummond", "meandering mesenteric artery" and "Villemin's arch" must no longer be used in the scientific literature. Three arterial arches were found at the level of the left colic angle, permitting the communication between the two arterial mesenteric systems: (1) the Marginal Artery (the most peripheral, found in 100% of cases); (2) the "V" termination of the ascending branch of the left colic artery (LCA), existing in more than 2/3 of cases; and (3) the inter-mesenteric trunk, found more centrally located and existing in less than 1/3 of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Three arterial arches exist at the level of the left colic angle: (1) the Marginal Artery, (2) the "V" termination of the ascending branch of the LCA, and (3) the inter-mesenteric trunk. The knowledge of this anatomy is essential for performing colorectal surgeries involving ligation of the IMA.

Beyond second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a systematic review.

Background: The optimal chemotherapeutic regimen for use beyond the second line for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains unclear. Materials and methods: We systematically searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE and Medline for records published between January 2002 and May 2017, and cancer congress databases for records published between January 2014 and June 2017. Eligible studies evaluated the efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes of monotherapies or combination therapies at any dose and number of treatment cycles for use beyond the second line in patients with mCRC. Studies were assessed for design and quality, and a qualitative data synthesis was conducted to understand the impact of treatment on overall survival and other relevant cancer-related outcomes. Results: The search yielded 938 references of which 68 were included for qualitative synthesis. There was limited evidence to support rechallenge with chemotherapy, targeted therapy or both. Compared with placebo, an overall survival benefit for trifluridine/tipiracil (also known as TAS-102) or regorafenib has been shown for patients previously treated with conventional chemotherapy and targeted therapy. There was no evidence to suggest a difference in efficacy between these treatments. Patient choice and quality of life at this stage of treatment should also be considered when choosing an appropriate therapy. Conclusions: These findings support the introduction of an approved agent such as trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib beyond the second line before any rechallenge in patients with mCRC who have failed second-line treatment.

Bevacizumab+chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in elderly patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II trial-PRODIGE 20 study results.

Background: Metastatic colorectal cancer frequently occurs in elderly patients. Bevacizumab in combination with front line chemotherapy (CT) is a standard treatment but some concern raised about tolerance of bevacizumab for these patients. The purpose of PRODIGE 20 was to evaluate tolerance and efficacy of bevacizumab according to specific end points in this population. Patients and methods: Patients aged 75 years and over were randomly assigned to bevacizumab + CT (BEV) versus CT. LV5FU2, FOLFOX and FOLFIRI regimen were prescribed according to investigator's choice. The composite co-primary end point, assessed 4 months after randomization, was based on efficacy (tumor control and absence of decrease of the Spitzer QoL index) and safety (absence of severe cardiovascular toxicities and unexpected hospitalization). For each arm, the treatment will be consider as inefficient if 20% or less of the patients met the efficacy criteria and not safe if 40% or less met the safety criteria. Results: About 102 patients were randomized (51 BEV and 51 CT), median age was 80 years (range 75-91). Primary end point was met for efficacy in 50% and 58% and for safety in 61% and 71% of patients in BEV and CT, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 9.7 months in BEV and 7.8 months in CT. Median overall survival was 21.7 months in BEV and 19.8 months in CT. The 36-month overall survival rate was 27% in BEV and 10.1% in CT. Severe toxicities grade 3/4 were mainly non-hematologic toxicities (80.4% in BEV, 63.3% in CT). Conclusion: Bevacizumab combined with CT was safe and efficient. Both arms met the primary safety and efficacy criteria.

The hard road to data interpretation: 3 or 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer?

Background: Six months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is standard for patients with stage III colon cancer following surgery. However, oxaliplatin is associated with peripheral neurotoxicity which worsens over treatment duration. Consequently, a shorter treatment duration, if equally effective, would be extremely beneficial. A pooled analysis of data for 12 834 stage III colon cancer patients, from six randomised phase III trials of adjuvant therapy, the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant chemotherapy study, was carried out and the results presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting 2017. To clarify the potential impact of these results on clinical practice, ESMO decided to sponsor a special session at their 2017 Annual Meeting dedicated to achieving a more meaningful interpretation of the results. Methods: Medical oncologists from Europe, the United States and Asia selected for their involvement in the trials, together with an independent statistician and an independent clinician, were invited to provide their independent interpretations of the results and contribute to a moderated panel discussion. The pooled analysis evaluated the non-inferiority of 3 versus 6 months of adjuvant FOLFOX/CAPOX therapy but not the non-inferiority of 3 months CAPOX versus 6 months FOLFOX therapy. Results: There was strong evidence of an interaction between the choice of regimen (CAPOX or FOLFOX) and duration of treatment. Patients were classified as either 'fighters' or 'fatalists', and 3-month CAPOX was considered standard for patients classified as fatalists even if they had high-risk disease. However, patients classified as 'fighters' would only receive 3 months of CAPOX if they had low-risk disease but would always receive 6 months of CAPOX/FOLFOX if they had T4 disease. The panel was split on whether they would advocate 3 or 6 months CAPOX therapy based on high-risk N2 disease. Conclusions: The main drivers of the duration of treatment were choice of regimen and patient attitude, with risk, based mainly on T4 stage, having less influence.

Phase III, randomised trial of avelumab versus physician's choice of chemotherapy as third-line treatment of patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer: primary analysis of JAVELIN Gastric 300.

Background: There currently are no internationally recognised treatment guidelines for patients with advanced gastric cancer/gastro-oesophageal junction cancer (GC/GEJC) in whom two prior lines of therapy have failed. The randomised, phase III JAVELIN Gastric 300 trial compared avelumab versus physician's choice of chemotherapy as third-line therapy in patients with advanced GC/GEJC. Patients and methods: Patients with unresectable, recurrent, locally advanced, or metastatic GC/GEJC were recruited at 147 sites globally. All patients were randomised to receive either avelumab 10 mg/kg by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks or physician's choice of chemotherapy (paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 or irinotecan 150 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15, each of a 4-week treatment cycle); patients ineligible for chemotherapy received best supportive care. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Results: A total of 371 patients were randomised. The trial did not meet its primary end point of improving OS {median, 4.6 versus 5.0 months; hazard ratio (HR)=1.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-1.4]; P = 0.81} or the secondary end points of PFS [median, 1.4 versus 2.7 months; HR=1.73 (95% CI 1.4-2.2); P > 0.99] or ORR (2.2% versus 4.3%) in the avelumab versus chemotherapy arms, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) of any grade occurred in 90 patients (48.9%) and 131 patients (74.0%) in the avelumab and chemotherapy arms, respectively. Grade ≥3 TRAEs occurred in 17 patients (9.2%) in the avelumab arm and in 56 patients (31.6%) in the chemotherapy arm. Conclusions: Treatment of patients with GC/GEJC with single-agent avelumab in the third-line setting did not result in an improvement in OS or PFS compared with chemotherapy. Avelumab showed a more manageable safety profile than chemotherapy. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02625623.

RAS mutation analysis in circulating tumor DNA from patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the AGEO RASANC prospective multicenter study.

Background: RAS mutations are currently sought for in tumor samples, which takes a median of almost 3 weeks in western European countries. This creates problems in clinical situations that require urgent treatment and for inclusion in therapeutic trials that need RAS status for randomization. Analysis of circulating tumor DNA might help to shorten the time required to determine RAS mutational status before anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Here we compared plasma with tissue RAS analysis in a large prospective multicenter cohort. Patients and methods: Plasma samples were collected prospectively from chemotherapy-naive patients and analyzed centrally by next-generation sequencing (NGS) with the colon lung cancer V2 Ampliseq panel and by methylation digital PCR (WIF1 and NPY genes). Tumoral RAS status was determined locally, in parallel, according to routine practice. For a minimal κ coefficient of 0.7, reflecting acceptable concordance (precision ± 0.07), with an estimated 5% of non-exploitable data, 425 subjects were necessary. Results: From July 2015 to December 2016, 425 patients were enrolled. For the 412 patients with available paired plasma and tumor samples, the κ coefficient was 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.64-0.77] and accuracy was 85.2% (95% CI, 81.4% to 88.5%). In the 329 patients with detectable ctDNA (at least one mutation or one methylated biomarker), the κ coefficient was 0.89 (95% CI, 0.84-0.94) and accuracy was 94.8% (95% CI, 91.9% to 97.0%). The absence of liver metastases was the main clinical factor associated with inconclusive circulating tumor DNA results [odds ratio = 0.11 (95% CI, 0.06-0.21)]. In patients with liver metastases, accuracy was 93.5% with NGS alone and 97% with NGS plus the methylated biomarkers. Conclusion: This prospective trial demonstrates excellent concordance between RAS status in plasma and tumor tissue from patients with colorectal cancer and liver metastases, thus validating plasma testing for routine RAS mutation analysis in these patients. Clinical Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02502656.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) monitoring by 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT: an open-label multicentre randomised trial.

Background: [18F]2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18FDG-PET/CT) has high sensitivity for detecting recurrences of colorectal cancer (CRC). Our objective was to determine whether adding routine 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT to our usual monitoring strategy improved patient outcomes and to assess the effect on costs. Patients and methods: In this open-label multicentre trial, patients in remission of CRC (stage II perforated, stage III, or stage IV) after curative surgery were randomly assigned (1 : 1) to usual monitoring alone (3-monthly physical and tumour marker assays, 6-monthly liver ultrasound and chest radiograph, and 6-monthly whole-body computed tomography) or with 6-monthly 18FDG-PET/CT, for 3 years. A multidisciplinary committee reviewed each patient's data every 3 months and classified the recurrence status as yes/no/doubtful. Recurrences were treated with curative surgery alone if feasible and with chemotherapy otherwise. The primary end point was treatment failure defined as unresectable recurrence or death. Relative risks were estimated, and survival was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox models. Direct costs were compared. Results: Of the 239 enrolled patients, 120 were in the intervention arm and 119 in the control arm. The failure rate was 29.2% (31 unresectable recurrences and 4 deaths) in the intervention group and 23.7% (27 unresectable recurrences and 1 death) in the control group (relative risk = 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.88; P = 0.34). The multivariate analysis also showed no significant difference (hazards ratio, 1.33; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.19; P = 0.27). Median time to diagnosis of unresectable recurrence (months) was significantly shorter in the intervention group [7 (3-20) versus 14.3 (7.3-27), P = 0.016]. Mean cost/patient was higher in the intervention group (18 192 ± 27 679 € versus 11 131 ± 13 €, P < 0.033). Conclusion: 18FDG-PET/CT, when added every 6 months, increased costs without decreasing treatment failure rates in patients in remission of CRC. The control group had very close follow-up, and any additional improvement (if present) would be small and hard to detect. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00624260.

CDX2 prognostic value in stage II/III resected colon cancer is related to CMS classification.

BACKGROUND: Caudal-type homeobox transcription factor 2 (CDX2) is involved in colon cancer (CC) oncogenesis and has been proposed as a prognostic biomarker in patients with stage II or III CC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed CDX2 expression in a series of 469 CC typed for the new international consensus molecular subtype (CMS) classification, and we confirmed results in a series of 90 CC. RESULTS: Here, we show that lack of CDX2 expression is only present in the mesenchymal subgroup (CMS4) and in MSI-immune tumors (CMS1) and not in CMS2 and CMS3 colon cancer. Although CDX2 expression was a globally independent prognostic factor, loss of CDX2 expression is not associated with a worse prognosis in the CMS1 group, but is highly prognostic in CMS4 patients for both relapse free and overall survival. Similarly, lack of CDX2 expression was a bad prognostic factor in MSS patients, but not in MSI. CONCLUSIONS: Our work suggests that combination of the consensual CMS classification and lack of CDX2 expression could be a useful marker to identify CMS4/CDX2-negative patients with a very poor prognosis.

What treatment in 2017 for inoperable pancreatic cancers?

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a frequent and severe disease, either diagnosed as metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (MPA) or as locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma (LAPC). Though no improvement in patients outcome have been made between 1996 and 2011, since 5 years new treatment options have become available to treat our patients. New standard first line regimens, such as FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine combined with nab-paclitaxel, have improved overall survivals and second line treatments have been tested and validated. Other first-line treatments have failed, but research remains active and trials are ongoing with promising new anti-cancer agents. These new effective regimens used for MPA have yielded promising results in LAPC patients in open cohorts or phase II trials and a recent trial have failed to demonstrate the added value of classical external radiotherapy in this setting. Here, we review current standards of care in LAPC and MPA, consider the latest challenges and strategic questions, and examine what we may hope for in the future.