FOLFIRI-bevacizumab as a second-line treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer after gemcitabine-based chemotherapy.

Background: Advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) has a poor prognosis. Gemcitabine with platinum chemotherapy was the standard first-line chemotherapeutic regimen until the recent addition of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 antibodies. After disease progression, the only second-line chemotherapy that has demonstrated a survival benefit versus supportive care is FOLFOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin), with a modest benefit. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of second-line FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil, and irinotecan) combined with bevacizumab for advanced BTC. Methods: This single-center retrospective study enrolled patients with metastatic BTC (intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma [ICC], extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma [ECC], or gallbladder carcinoma) that progressed after first-line gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. FOLFIRI-bevacizumab was administered intravenously every 2 weeks [folinic acid 200 mg/m², fluorouracil 400 mg/m² (bolus), fluorouracil 2400 mg/m² (46-h continuous intravenous infusion), irinotecan 180 mg/m², and bevacizumab 5 mg/kg] until unacceptable toxicity, patient refusal, or disease progression. Results: Overall, 28 patients received the FOLFIRI-bevacizumab regimen after gemcitabine-based chemotherapy. The median overall survival (OS) was 9.0 months (95% CI 6.4-16.5). The OS rate was 39.3% (95% CI 24.8-62.3) and 10.7% (95% CI 3.7-32.1) at 12- and 24-months respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was 5.2 months (95% CI 3.1-10.2) with FOLFIRI-bevacizumab. The PFS rates at 12 months and 24 months were 17.9% (95% CI 8.19-39.5] and 10.7% (95% CI 3.7-31.2), respectively. The overall response rate (ORR) to FOLFIRI-bevacizumab was 23.1%, with a disease control rate (DCR) of 69.3%. Grade 3-4 adverse events (sAE) were reported in 20 patients (71.4%) treated with FOLFIRI-bevacizumab. Conclusion: FOLFIRI-bevacizumab as a second-line treatment for advanced BTC after gemcitabine-based chemotherapy showed efficacy and safety with a promising tumor response rate in this retrospective single-center study.

A colonoscopy quality improvement intervention in an endoscopy unit.

Many studies identified colonoscopy quality indicators in order to improve performance and safety. We conducted a colonoscopy improvement study. Our study was designed according to a Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle: first recording of our quality indicators and identification of shortcomings, second identification of improvement targets and implementation of new procedures, third second recording of quality indicators, fourth validation of procedures and identification of new goals. Quality indicators derived from European and French guidelines were recorded before and after our improvement actions. We were mainly interested in the quality indicators of the colonic preparation, the description of the diagnosed lesions and on the examination reports. The data of 134 patients prospectively included in January-February 2017 were compared to 133 patients included in May-June 2019, after implementation of improvement procedures, in the digestive endoscopy unit of the university hospital of Dijon, France. Our intervention, and in particular the implementation of new standardized forms, improved preparation quality: Boston Bowel Preparation Scale scores increased significantly from 7.8 to 8.2. Cecal intubation rate increased by 6%, and more adenomas were diagnosed and removed (+3.3%). Adenoma detection rate increased significantly from 26 to 42%. The completion of withdrawal time measure improved from 6.7 to 100%. Our study led to the rapid implementation of corrective actions and improved quality in our unit and in our personal practice. This quality improvement strategy could be easily implemented in every digestive endoscopy unit.

Parallel evolution and differences in seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibody between patients with cancer and health care workers in a tertiary cancer centre during the first and second wave of COVID-19 pandemic: canSEROcov-II cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are a population at high risk of severe infection from SARS-CoV-2. Patients with cancer regularly attend specialised healthcare centres for management and treatment, where they are in contact with healthcare workers (HCWs). Numerous recommendations target both patients with cancer and HCWs to minimise the spread of SARS-CoV-2 during these interactions. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the parallel evolution of the COVID-19 epidemic in these 2 populations over time, we studied the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies after both the first and second waves of the pandemic, and in both cancer patients and HCWs from a single specialised anti-cancer centre. Factors associated with seropositivity were identified in both populations. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study after the second wave of the COVID pandemic in France. All participants were invited to undergo serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 and complete a questionnaire collecting data about their working conditions (for HCWs) or medical management (for patients) during this period. Results after the second wave were compared to those of a previous study among 1011 patients with cancer and 663 HCWs performed in the same centre after the first wave, using the same evaluations. FINDINGS: We included 502 HCWs and 507 patients with cancer. Seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies was higher after the second wave than after the first wave in both HCWs (15.1% versus 1.8%; p < 0.001), and patients (4.1% versus 1.7%; p = 0.038). By multivariate analysis, the factors found to be associated with seropositivity after the second wave for HCWs were: working in direct patient care (p = 0.050); having worked in a dedicated COVID-19 unit (p = 0.0036); contact with a person with COVID-19-positive in the workplace (p = 0.0118) or outside of the workplace (p = 0.0297). Among patients with cancer, only a contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19 was found to be significantly associated with positive serology. The proportion of reported contacts with individuals with COVID-19-positive was significantly lower among patients with cancer than among HCWs (7.6% versus 40.7%, respectively; p < 0.0001) INTERPRETATION: Between the first and second waves of the epidemic in France, the seroprevalence of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies increased to a lesser extent among patients with cancer than among their HCWs, possibly due to better self-protection, notably social distancing. The risk factors for infection identified among HCWs plead in favour of numerous intra-hospital contaminations, especially for HCWs in contact with high-risk patients. This underlines the compelling need to pursue efforts to implement strict hygiene and personal protection measures (including vaccination) to protect HCWs and patients with cancer.

Phase I Dose-Escalation Trial of an Innovative Chemotherapy Regimen Combining a Fractionated Dose of Irinotecan Plus Bevacizumab, Oxaliplatin, 5-Fluorouracil, and Folinic Acid (bFOLFIRINOX-3) in Chemorefractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

The care of metastatic colorectal cancers is based on combination chemotherapies including 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and monoclonal antibodies targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor or vascular endothelial growth factor. The regimen is determined based on the patient's molecular biology and general condition. Irinotecan bifractionation showed efficacy in chemorefractory patients in a previous study, FOLFIRI-3, but a desynchronized triplet has never been tested. The aim of bFOLFIRINOX-3 is to determine the safety, tolerance, and efficacy of a new regimen (FOLFIRINOX-3 bevacizumab) in chemorefractory patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of FOLFIRINOX-3 bevacizumab in chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). A standard phase I, "3 + 3" design study was performed. The standard protocol comprised simplified FOLFOX 4 (folinic acid 400 mg/m2), 5-fluorouracil (a 400 mg/m2 bolus followed by 2400 mg/m2 for 46 h), oxaliplatin (85 mg/m2) and irinotecan (administered before and after 5-fluorouracil infusion), plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg). In a "3 + 3" design, three different doses of irinotecan were tested: 60, 70 and 90 mg/m2. The primary endpoint was the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) of irinotecan. The secondary endpoints included the objective response (at 8 and 16 weeks) according to the RECIST 1.1 criteria and progression free survival. Thirteen patients were enrolled, and twelve patients were finally evaluated for dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). The dose level defined was 70 mg/m2 irinotecan. A total of three DLTs were observed (grade 3 diarrhea): two DLTs at the 90 mg/m2 dose level and one at the 70 mg/m2 dose level. The most frequently described adverse events were asthenia (93%), diarrhea (77%), nausea (62%) and peripheral sensory neuropathy (46%). The most frequent biological event was thrombopenia (54%). Regarding efficacy, among the 11 evaluable patients, no progression was observed at 8 weeks, and the partial response rate was 18.2%. At 16 weeks, a partial response rate of 27.3% was observed, and five patients had a stable disease. The new regimen of bFOLFIRINOX-3 with irinotecan at 70 mg/m2 was well tolerated. In chemorefractory patients, this protocol shows a high response rate.

Seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 among the staff and patients of a French cancer centre after first lockdown: The canSEROcov study.

BACKGROUND: In view of the potential gravity of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection for patients with cancer, epidemiological data are vital to assess virus circulation among patients and staff of cancer centres. We performed a prospective study to investigate seroprevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies among staff and patients with cancer at a large cancer centre, at the end of the period of first national lockdown in France and to determine factors associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: After the first lockdown, all medical and non-medical staff, as well as all patients attending the medical oncology department were invited to undergo serological testing for SARS-CoV-2 between 11 May and 30 June 2020. All participants were also invited to complete a questionnaire collecting data about their living and working conditions, and for patients, medical management during lockdown. FINDINGS: A total of 1,674 subjects (663 staff members, 1011 patients) were included. Seroprevalence was low in both staff (1.8%) and patients (1.7%), despite more features of high risk for severe forms among patients. None of the risk factors tested in our analysis (working or living conditions, comorbidities, management characteristics during lockdown) was found to be statistically associated with seroprevalence in either staff or patients. There was no significant difference in the proportion of symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects between staff and patients. Only fever, loss of smell, and loss of taste were significantly more frequent among seropositive patients, in both staff and patients. INTERPRETATION: We report very low seroprevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in the staff (caregiving and non-caregiving) and patients of a large cancer care centre in which strict hygiene, personal protection, and social distancing measures were implemented.

Association of 5-FU Therapeutic Drug Monitoring to DPD Phenotype Assessment May Reduce 5-FU Under-Exposure.

In order to limit 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) toxicity, some health agencies recommend evaluating dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency before any 5-FU treatment introduction. In our study, we investigated relationships between 5-FU clearance and markers of DPD activity such as uracilemia (U), dihydrouracilemia (UH2)/U ratio, or genotype of the gene encoding DPD (DPYD). All patients with gastrointestinal cancers who received 5-FU-based regimens form March 2018 to June 2020 were included in our study. They routinely benefited of a pre-therapeutic DPYD genotyping and phenotyping. During 5-FU infusion, blood samples were collected to measure 5-FU steady-state concentration in order to adapt 5-FU doses at the following cycles. A total of 169 patients were included. Median age was 68 (40-88) years and main primary tumor sites were colorectal (40.8%) and pancreas (31.4%), metastatic in 76.3%. 5-FU was given as part of FOLFIRINOX (44.4%), simplified FOLFOX-6 (26.6%), or docetaxel/FOLFOX-4 (10.6%). Regarding DPD activity, median U and UH2/U were, respectively, 10.8 ng/mL and 10.1, and almost 15% harbored a heterozygous mutation. On the range of measured U and UH2/U, no correlation was observed with 5-FU clearance. Moreover, in patients with U < 16 ng/mL, 5-FU exposure was higher than in other patients, and most of them benefited of dose increase following 5-FU therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). If recent guidelines recommend decreasing 5-FU dose in patients harboring U ≥ 16 ng/mL, our study highlights that those patients are at risk of under-exposure and that 5-FU TDM should be conducted in order to avoid loss of efficacy.

Safety and Efficacy of Gemcitabine, Docetaxel, Capecitabine, Cisplatin as Second-line Therapy for Advanced Pancreatic Cancer After FOLFIRINOX.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The aim of this monocentric study was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a polychemotherapy regimen based on gemcitabine, docetaxel, capecitabine, cisplatin (PDGX) as second-line for advanced pancreatic cancer after FOLFIRINOX. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients received FOLFIRINOX as first-line regimen were retrospectively identified between January 2016 and January 2019. After disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, patients eligible for second-line therapy were treated in our center by PDGX. RESULTS: During this period, 18 patients received PDGX regimen as second-line therapy. Main grade 3 toxicities were hematologic, which required dose adaptation in 14/18 patients. No toxic death was observed. Median second-line progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 2,91 and 5,3 months, respectively. Total OS from the initiation of first-line was and 11,9 months. CONCLUSION: Second-line PDGX regimen after FOLFIRINOX failure is feasible, with notable toxicity profile and is associated with poor clinical outcomes.