Use of chemotherapy near the end of life: what factors matter?

Background: Use of chemotherapy near the end of life in patients with metastatic cancer is often ineffective and toxic. Data about the factors associated with its use remain scarce, especially in Europe. Methods: Nationwide, register-based study including all hospitalized patients aged ≥20 years who died from metastatic solid tumors in France between 2010 and 2013. Results: A total of 279 846 hospitalized patients who died from metastatic cancer were included. During the last month before death, 19.5% received chemotherapy (including 11.3% during the last 2 weeks). Female sex (OR= 0.96, 95% CI= 0.93-0.98), older age (OR= 0.70, 95% CI= 0.69-0.71 for each 10-year increase) and higher number of chronic comorbidities (OR= 0.83, 95% CI= 0.82-0.84) were independently associated with lower rates of chemotherapy. Although patients with chemosensitive tumors were statistically more likely to receive chemotherapy during the last month before death (OR= 1.21, 1.18-1.25), this association was mostly fueled by testis and ovary tumors and we found no obvious pattern between the expected chemosensitivity of different cancers and the rates of chemotherapy use close to death. Compared with university hospitals, patients who died in for-profit clinics/hospital (OR= 1.40, 95% CI= 1.34-1.45), or comprehensive cancer centers (OR= 1.43, 95% CI= 1.36-1.50) were more likely to receive chemotherapy. Finally, high-volume centers and hospitals without palliative care units reported greater-than-average rates of chemotherapy near the end of life. Conclusion: among hospitalized patients with cancer, young individuals, treated in comprehensive cancer centers or in high-volume centers without palliative care units were the most likely to receive chemotherapy near the end of life. We found no evident pattern between the expected chemosensitivity of different cancers and the probability for patients to receive chemotherapy close to death.

Clinical utility of circulating DNA analysis for rapid detection of actionable mutations to select metastatic colorectal patients for anti-EGFR treatment.

BACKGROUND: While tumor-tissue remains the 'gold standard' for genetic analysis in cancer patients, it is challenged with the advent of circulating cell-free tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis from blood samples. Here, we broaden our previous study on the clinical validation of plasma DNA in metastatic colorectal cancer patients, by evaluating its clinical utility under standard management care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Concordance and data turnaround-time of ctDNA when compared with tumor-tissue analysis were studied in a real-time blinded prospective multicenter clinical study (n = 140 metastatic colorectal patients). Results are presented according to STARD criteria and were discussed in regard with clinical outcomes of patients. RESULTS: Much more mutations were found by ctDNA analysis: 59%, 11.8% and 14.4% of the patients were found KRAS, NRAS and BRAF mutant by ctDNA analysis instead of 44%, 8.8% and 7.2% by tumor-tissue analysis. Median tumor-tissue data turnaround-time was 16 days while 2 days for ctDNA analysis. Discordant samples analysis revealed that use of biopsy, long delay between tumor-tissue and blood collection and resection of the tumor at time of blood draw, tumor site, or type of tissue analyzed seem to affect concordance. Altogether, the clinical data with respect to the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor response (RAS status) and the prognosis (BRAF status) of those discordant patients do not appear contradictory to the mutational status as determined by plasma analysis. Lastly, we present the first distribution profile of the RAS and BRAF hotspot mutations as determined by ctDNA analysis (n = 119), revealing a high proportion of patients with multiple mutations (45% of the population and up to 5 mutations) and only 24% of WT scored patients for both genes. Mutation profile as determined from ctDNA analysis with using various detection thresholds highlights the importance of the test sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that ctDNA could replace tumor-tissue analysis, and also clinical utility of ctDNA analysis by considerably reducing data turnaround time.

Sunitinib in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: updated progression-free survival and final overall survival from a phase III randomized study.

BACKGROUND: In a phase III trial in patients with advanced, well-differentiated, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, sunitinib 37.5 mg/day improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo (11.4 versus 5.5 months; HR, 0.42; P < 0.001). Here, we present PFS using retrospective blinded independent central review (BICR) and final median overall survival (OS), including an assessment highlighting the impact of patient crossover from placebo to sunitinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, cross-sectional imaging from patients was evaluated retrospectively by blinded third-party radiologists using a two-reader, two-time-point lock, followed by a sequential locked-read, batch-mode paradigm. OS was summarized using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. Crossover-adjusted OS effect was derived using rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) analyses. RESULTS: Of 171 randomized patients (sunitinib, n = 86; placebo, n = 85), 160 (94%) had complete scan sets/time points. By BICR, median (95% confidence interval [CI]) PFS was 12.6 (11.1-20.6) months for sunitinib and 5.8 (3.8-7.2) months for placebo (HR, 0.32; 95% CI 0.18-0.55; P = 0.000015). Five years after study closure, median (95% CI) OS was 38.6 (25.6-56.4) months for sunitinib and 29.1 (16.4-36.8) months for placebo (HR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.50-1.06; P = 0.094), with 69% of placebo patients having crossed over to sunitinib. RPSFT analysis confirmed an OS benefit for sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: BICR confirmed the doubling of PFS with sunitinib compared with placebo. Although the observed median OS improved by nearly 10 months, the effect estimate did not reach statistical significance, potentially due to crossover from placebo to sunitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00428597.

Evaluation in usual practice of the bevacizumab-FOLFIRI combination for the first-line treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer treated in 2006: focus on resected patients and oncogeriatrics: AVASTIN OUEST cohort of the Observatory of Cancer of the Brittany and Pays de la Loire Areas (Observatoire dédié au Cancer Bretagne / Pays de la Loire).

BACKGROUND: In 2006, bevacizumab, a targeted therapy agent was combined with FOLFIRI for the firstline treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS/RESULTS: A study on a homogenous series of 111 patients from the Brittany and Pays de la Loire areas who received bevacizumab-FOLFIRI as first-line treatment in 2006 showed the following results: 51 responses, 29 stabilisations, 21 progressions and 10 cases of toxicity prior to assessment. Median overall survival (OS) was 25.1 months and median progression-free survival was 10.2 months. Surgery secondary to treatment tripled median OS which reached 59.2 months in resected patients versus 18.8 months in unresected patients. Comparison of patients aged more or less than 70 years showed no differences in terms of benefits or risks. CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab-FOLFIRI could be administered as part of a routine care protocol to elderly patients previously evaluated by a geriatric assessment and validated by a multidisciplinary staff.

En 2006, bevacizumab-FOLFIRI représente la thérapie ciblée administrable dès la première ligne chez les patients porteurs d'un cancer colorectal métastatique non opérable. Une série homogène de 111 patients colligés en région Bretagne et Pays de la Loire ayant reçu du bevacizumab- FOLFIRI en première ligne en 2006 révèle les résultats suivants: 51 réponses, 29 stabilités, 21 progressions et 10 toxicités avant évaluation. La médiane de survie globale (OS) est de 25,1 mois et la médiane de survie sans progression (PFS) de 10,2 mois. Dans le cas d'une chirurgie secondaire, l'OS médian triple de 18,8 mois chez les patients non réséqués versus 59,2 mois ceux réséqués. En comparant les sujets âgés de plus et de moins de 70 ans, aucune différence n'a été mise en évidence en termes de bénéfice ou de risque. Bevacizumab-FOLFIRI pourrait être administré en pratique courante chez les personnes âgées sous couvert d'une évaluation gériatrique et d'une approche multidisciplinaire.

Boosted selective internal radiation therapy with 90Y-loaded glass microspheres (B-SIRT) for hepatocellular carcinoma patients: a new personalized promising concept.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of dosimetry based on MAA SPECT/CT for the prediction of response, toxicity and survival, and for treatment planning in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) treated with (90)Y-loaded glass microspheres (TheraSphere®). METHODS: TheraSphere® was administered to 71 patients with inoperable HCC. MAA SPECT/CT quantitative analysis was used for the calculation of the tumour dose (TD), healthy injected liver dose (HILD), and total injected liver dose. Response was evaluated at 3 months using EASL criteria. Time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Factors potentially associated with liver toxicity were combined to construct a liver toxicity score (LTS). RESULTS: The response rate was 78.8%. Median TD were 342 Gy for responding lesions and 191 Gy for nonresponding lesions (p < 0.001). With a threshold TD of 205 Gy, MAA SPECT/CT predicted response with a sensitivity of 100% and overall accuracy of 90%. Based on TD and HILD, 17 patients underwent treatment intensification resulting in a good response rate (76.4%), without increased grade III liver toxicity. The median TTP and OS were 5.5 months (2-9.5 months) and 11.5 months (2-31 months), respectively, in patients with TD <205 Gy and 13 months (10-16 months) and 23.2 months (17.5-28.5 months), respectively, in those with TD >205 Gy (p = 0.0015 and not significant). Among patients with portal vein thrombosis (PVT) (n = 33), the median TTP and OS were 4.5 months (2-7 months) and 5 months (2-8 months), respectively, in patients with TD <205 Gy and 10 months (6-15.2 months) and 21.5 months (12-28.5 months), respectively, in those with TD >205 Gy (p = 0.039 and 0.005). The median OS was 24.5 months (18-28.5 months) in PVT patients with TD >205 Gy and good PVT targeting on MAA SPECT/CT. The LTS was able to detect severe liver toxicity (n = 6) with a sensitivity of 83% and overall accuracy of 97%. CONCLUSION: Dosimetry based on MAA SPECT/CT was able to accurately predict response and survival in patients treated with glass microspheres. This method can be used to adapt the injected activity without increasing liver toxicity, thus defining a new concept of boosted selective internal radiation therapy (B-SIRT). This new concept and LTS enable fully personalized treatment planning with glass microspheres to be achieved.

Drug-drug interactions with proton pump inhibitors in cancer patients: an underrecognized cause of treatment failure.

New concepts and drugs have revolutionized medical treatment for cancers. These drugs, which are very expensive and usually well tolerated, have dramatically improved cancer prognosis. We must use them wisely for patients to fully benefit. Gastric acid antisecretory drugs and particularly proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) revolutionized the treatment of gastroduodenal ulcers and severe gastroesophageal reflux, but are frequently overused for symptomatic treatment of epigastric pain or heartburn. Long-term acid suppression may alter the efficacy of many anticancer drugs, such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), by either decreasing gastric acid secretion and thus drug absorption, or by modifying the gut microbiome that modulates the response to ICIs. Oncologists thus need to pay particular attention to the concomitant use of PPIs and anticancer drugs. These interactions translate into major clinical impacts, with demonstrated loss of efficacy for some TKIs (erlotinib, gefitinib, pazopanib), and conflicting results with many other oral drugs, including capecitabine and CDK 4/6 inhibitors. Furthermore, the profound changes in the gut microbiome due to using PPIs have shown that the benefit of using ICIs may be suppressed in patients treated with PPIs. As the use of PPIs is not essential, we must apply the precautionary principle. The first sentence of a recent Comment in Nature was "Every day, millions of people are taking medications that will not help them". We fear that every day millions of cancer patients are taking medications that harm them. While this may well be only association and not causation, there is enough to make us pause until we reach a clear answer. All these data should encourage medical oncologists to refrain from prescribing PPIs, explaining to patients the risks of interaction in order to prevent inappropriate prescription by another physician.

Esophageal cancer - French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, RENAPE, SNFCP, AFEF, SFR).

INTRODUCTION: This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of esophageal cancer (EC) published in July 2022, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org). METHODS: This collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of several French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of EC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B and C), according to the level of evidence found in the literature until April 2022. RESULTS: EC diagnosis and staging evaluation are mainly based on patient's general condition assessment, endoscopy plus biopsies, TAP CT-scan and 18F FDG-PET. Surgery alone is recommended for early-stage EC, while locally advanced disease (N+ and/or T3-4) is treated with perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT) or preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy for adenocarcinoma. Preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy or definitive chemoradiation with the possibility of organ preservation are the two options for squamous cell carcinoma. Salvage surgery is recommended for incomplete response or recurrence after definitive chemoradiation and should be performed in an expert center. Treatment for metastatic disease is based on systemic therapy including chemotherapy, immunotherapy or combined targeted therapy according to biomarkers testing such as HER2 status, MMR status and PD-L1 expression. CONCLUSION: These guidelines are intended to provide a personalised therapeutic strategy for daily clinical practice and are subject to ongoing optimization. Each individual case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

BAYPAN study: a double-blind phase III randomized trial comparing gemcitabine plus sorafenib and gemcitabine plus placebo in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is an oral anticancer agent targeting Ras-dependent signaling and angiogenic pathways. A phase I trial demonstrated that the combination of gemcitabine and sorafenib was well tolerated and had activity in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) patients. The BAYPAN study was a multicentric, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized phase III trial comparing gemcitabine/sorafenib and gemcitabine/placebo in the treatment of APC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The patient eligibility criteria were locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, no prior therapy for advanced disease and a performance status of zero to two. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) i.v., weekly seven times followed by 1 rest week, then weekly three times every 4 weeks plus sorafenib 200 mg or placebo, two tablets p.o., twice daily continuously. RESULTS: Between December 2006 and September 2009, 104 patients were enrolled on the study (52 pts in each arm) and 102 patients were treated. The median and the 6-month PFS were 5.7 months and 48% for gemcitabine/placebo and 3.8 months and 33% for gemcitabine/sorafenib (P = 0.902, stratified log-rank test), respectively. The median overall survivals were 9.2 and 8 months, respectively (P = 0.231, log-rank test). The overall response rates were similar (19 and 23%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine does not improve PFS in APC patients.

Phase II randomised trial of chemoradiotherapy with FOLFOX4 or cisplatin plus fluorouracil in oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is a valuable treatment option for localised oesophageal cancer (EC), but improvement is still needed. A randomised phase II trial was initiated to assess the feasibility and efficacy in terms of the endoscopic complete response rate (ECRR) of radiotherapy with oxaliplatin, leucovorin and fluorouracil (FOLFOX4) or cisplatin/fluorouracil. METHODS: Patients with unresectable EC (any T, any N, M0 or M1a), or medically unfit for surgery, were randomly assigned to receive either six cycles (three concomitant and three post-radiotherapy) of FOLFOX4 (arm A) or four cycles (two concomitant and two post-radiotherapy) of cisplatin/fluorouracil (arm B) along with radiotherapy 50 Gy in both arms. Responses were reviewed by independent experts. RESULTS: A total of 97 patients were randomised (arm A/B, 53/44) and 95 were assessable. The majority had squamous cell carcinoma (82%; arm A/B, 42/38). Chemoradiotherapy was completed in 74 and 66%. The ECRR was 45 and 29% in arms A and B, respectively. Median times to progression were 15.2 and 9.2 months and the median overall survival was 22.7 and 15.1 months in arms A and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Chemoradiotherapy with FOLFOX4, a well-tolerated and convenient combination with promising efficacy, is now being tested in a phase III trial.

Toward optimized front-line therapeutic strategies in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer--an expert review from the International Congress on Anti-Cancer Treatment (ICACT) 2009.

Metastatic colorectal cancer is a particularly frequent and severe cancer. Patients die mainly from metastatic disease; however, the survival of these patients has dramatically improved with the progress in chemotherapeutic regimens as new routes of administration and introduction of more potent cytotoxic agents administered in sequential 5-FU-folinic acid-irinotecan/5-FU-folinic acid-oxaliplatine strategies. Biologic therapies have been also developed targeting two different pathways, angiogenesis and the epidermal growth factor receptor. Their combination with chemotherapy leads to improved progression-free survival and overall survival in some cases as the addition of cetuximab in wild-type K-Ras tumors. The objectives of this expert conference were to review the different options, the available prognostic or predictive factors to optimally guide the treatment.

Chemoradiotherapy for cancer of the esophagus: contribution of the leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil bolus, and infusion-cisplatin-radiotherapy schedule starting with two neoadjuvant chemotherapy cycles: results from a pilot study.

To assess feasibility and tolerance of a modification in the usual radiochemotherapy regimen for esophageal cancer by using a leucovorin, 5-fluorouracil bolus, and infusion-cisplatin regimen (six cycles), beginning with two cycles of chemotherapy before conventional radiotherapy (50 Gy), 33 patients, 30 were men, 62.8 +/- 9.5 years, were treated for an esophageal carcinoma (29 squamous cell), 27 of these were in stage III (based on computed tomography scan). Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was well tolerated; concomitant radiochemotherapy was associated with severe adverse events mostly hematological in 23 patients. Complete response was achieved in 70%; median overall survival was 14 months, and 2-year survival was 40 +/- 11%. More than one-third of cycles could be performed as outpatients. This regimen seems safe and efficient, and could be conducted in an outpatient basis.

A phase III randomised trial of LV5FU2 + irinotecan versus LV5FU2 alone in adjuvant high-risk colon cancer (FNCLCC Accord02/FFCD9802).

BACKGROUND: This multicenter adjuvant phase III trial evaluated the addition of irinotecan to LV5FU2 in colon cancer patients at high risk of relapse. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 400 patients with histologically proven primary colon cancer with postoperative N1 detected by occlusion/perforation or N2 were randomised to: A-LV5FU2 [leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), 2-h infusion, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 400 mg/m(2) bolus, 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion, days 1 and 2] or B-LV5FU2 + IRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) 90-min infusion day 1 + LV5FU2) fortnightly for 12 cycles. Primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 63 months. Significantly more T4 tumours and 15 or more positive lymph nodes were observed in arm B. 5-FU relative dose intensity (RDI) was >0.80 for 94% and 77% in arms A and B, respectively (P < 0.001). Irinotecan RDI was >0.80 for 70% patients. There were more grades 3 and 4 neutropenia in arm B (4% versus 28%, P < 0.001). The 3-year DFS was 60% [95% confidence interval (CI) 53% to 66%] and 51% (95% CI 44% to 58) in arms A and B, respectively. No difference was observed [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.12, 95% CI 0.85-1.47, P = 0.42] even when adjusted for prognostic factors (adjusted HR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.74-1.31, P = 0.92). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 67% (95% CI 59% to 73%) and 61% (95% CI 53% to 67%) in arms A and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant LV5FU2 + IRI compared with LV5FU2 alone in patients at high risk of relapse showed no improvement in DFS and OS.

Prognosis of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of three staging systems in two French clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the performance of three staging systems [Okuda, Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP) and Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer group (BCLC)], for predicting survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to explore how to improve prognostic classification among French patients with HCC whose main etiology is alcoholic cirrhosis. METHODS: We have pooled two randomized clinical trials in palliative condition from the Fédération Francophone de Cancerologie Digestive. They had included 416 and 122 patients. Performances of Okuda, CLIP and BCLC scores have been compared using Akaike information criterion, discriminatory ability (Harrell's C and the Royston's D statistics), monotonicity of gradients and predictive accuracy (Schemper statistics Vs). To explore how to improve classifications, univariate and multivariate Cox model analyses were carried out. RESULTS: The pooled database included 538 patients. The median survival was 5.3 months (95% confidence interval 4.6-6.2). For all statistics CLIP staging system had a better prognostic ability. Performances of all staging systems were rather disappointing. World Health Organization performance status (WHO PS) for CLIP or alpha-fetoprotein for BCLC allowed a significant improvement of prognostic information. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that CLIP staging seems to be most adapted to palliative setting and that it could be better by associating WHO PS.

FOLFIRINOX as induction treatment in rectal cancer patients with synchronous metastases: Results of the FFCD 1102 phase II trial.

AIM OF THE STUDY: The optimal therapeutic strategy in patients with rectal cancer and synchronous unresectable metastases remains unknown. We evaluated the efficacy of FOLFIRINOX induction therapy in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients received at least 8 cycles of FOLFIRINOX. The primary end-point was the 4-month disease control (4 m DC) rate. Tumour responses were centrally reviewed and assessed by computed tomography scan for metastases (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours criteria) and magnetic resonance imaging for rectal tumorus. With a Simon 2-stage design and a targeted (H1) 4 m DC > 75%, 65 patients were enrolled from July 2012 to February 2015: male, 78%; median age, 61 years; performance status, 0-1, 98%; liver metastases, 92%; ≥2 metastatic sites, 63%. RESULTS: Fifty-six (85%) of the 65 patients received the 8 planned FOLFIRINOX cycles. The primary objective was achieved (4 m DC rate: 94%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 86.3-97.8). Primary tumour symptoms decreased from 72% at baseline to 10% at 4 months. Response rate was 86%, and a >70% primary tumour volume decrease was seen in 63% of patients. Forty-four patients (68%) had at least one grade 3 side-effect; no toxic deaths occurred. Median follow-up was 35.0 months (95% CI, 31.3-43.7). Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 10.9 m (95% CI, 8.8-12.9) and 33.4 m (95% CI, 22.6-38.2), respectively. CONCLUSION: Upfront FOLFIRINOX is feasible and allows good local and distant control. It therefore offers the opportunity to choose the best therapeutic strategy for each patient and to personalise treatment according to the local and distant efficacy results of this induction step. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01674309.

Health-related quality of life results from the PRODIGE 5/ACCORD 17 randomised trial of FOLFOX versus fluorouracil-cisplatin regimen in oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: A recent prospective randomised trial did not reveal significant differences in median progression-free survival between two chemoradiotherapy (CRT) regimens for inoperable non-metastatic oesophageal cancer patients. This secondary analysis aimed to describe the impact of CRT on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), physical functioning, dysphagia, fatigue and pain and to evaluate whether baseline HRQOL domains can predict overall survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 267 patients were randomly assigned to receive with 50 Gy of radiotherapy in 25 fractions six cycles of FOLFOX or four cycles of fluorouracil and cisplatin on day 1. HRQOL was prospectively assessed using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire version 3.0 with the oesophageal cancer module (QLQ-OES18). RESULTS: Both groups showed high baseline compliance. Subsequently, compliance reduced to 41% at the 6-month follow-up. Baseline HRQOL scores showed no statistical differences between treatment arms. During treatment, both groups exhibited lower physical and social functioning and increased fatigue and dyspnoea, although dysphagia moderately improved in the fluorouracil-cisplatin arm only (p = 0.047). During follow-up, HRQOL scores revealed no significant differences between chemotherapy regimens. Linear mixed model exhibited a treatment-by-time interaction effect for dysphagia (p = 0.017) with a greater decrease in dysphagia in the fluorouracil-cisplatin group. Time until definitive deterioration analysis showed no significant differences in global HRQOL, functional or main symptom domains. However, time until definitive deterioration was significantly longer for the fluorouracil and cisplatin arm compared with FOLFOX for appetite loss (p = 0.002), QLQ-OES-18 pain (p = 0.008), trouble swallowing saliva (p = 0.011) and trouble talking (p = 0.020). CONCLUSION: Analyses of HRQOL scores revealed no statistically significant differences between patients with inoperable non-metastatic oesophageal cancer treated by FOLFOX versus those treated with a fluorouracil-cisplatin regimen as part of definitive CRT.

Phase II trial of oxaliplatin as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Digestive Group of French Federation of Cancer Centers.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the objective tumor response rate and safety profile of oxaliplatin when administered to patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 39 patients were entered onto this phase II trial. One patient was excluded for having had a second cancer, so the study was based on 38 patients. Patients were treated with oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 as a 2-hour infusion on day 1, every 21 days. Patients were assessed for response every three courses. All clinical and radiologic data were reviewed by an external panel of experts, with their assessment being considered definitive. RESULTS: Nine partial responses (PRs) were observed (response rate, 24.3%; 95% confidence interval, 11.8% to 41.2%). The median duration of response was 216+ days. Fifteen patients (40.5%) had stable disease and 13 (35.2%) had progressive disease. The median progression-free survival time for all patients was 126+ days (range, 21 to 447+). The main toxicity was peripheral sensory neuropathy. Grade 3 neurotoxicity (National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria [NCI-CTC]) was reported in 13%. Hematologic and gastrointestinal toxicities were mild. The incidence of grade 3 neutropenia was 5.2%, while that of grade 3 or 4 thrombopenia was 7.9%. Vomiting (grade 3 or 4) occurred in 7.9% of patients and grade 3 diarrhea in 2.6%. CONCLUSION: This phase II study provides clear evidence of the safety and efficacy of oxaliplatin monotherapy at this dose and schedule in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal carcinoma.

Randomized multicenter phase II study comparing a combination of fluorouracil and folinic acid and alternating irinotecan and oxaliplatin with oxaliplatin and irinotecan in fluorouracil-pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

PURPOSE: To assess antitumor activity and safety of two regimens in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with proven fluorouracil (5-FU) resistance in a randomized phase II study: 5-FU/folinic acid (FA) combined with alternating irinotecan (also called CPT-11) and oxaliplatin (FC/FO tritherapy), and an oxaliplatin/irinotecan (OC) combination. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty-two patients were treated: arm FC/FO (32 patients) received, every 4 weeks, FA 200 mg/m(2) followed by a 400-mg/m(2) 5-FU bolus injection, then a 600-mg/m(2) continuous infusion of 5-FU on days 1 and 2 every 2 weeks administered alternately with irinotecan (180 mg/m(2) on day 1) and oxaliplatin (85 mg/m(2) on day 15). Arm OC (30 patients) received oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) and irinotecan 200 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks. RESULTS: In an intent-to-treat analysis, two partial responses lasting 10.7 and 16 months were observed with the tritherapy regimen, and seven (median duration, 11 months; range, 10.6 to 11.4 months) were observed with the bitherapy regimen. Median progression-free and overall survival times were 8.2 and 9.8 months, respectively, in the FC/FO arm and 8.5 and 12.3 months, respectively, in the OC arm. Main grade 3/4 toxicities were, respectively, neutropenia, 53% and 47%; febrile neutropenia, 13% and 3%; diarrhea, 19% and 10%; vomiting, 6% and 13%; and neurosensory toxicity, 3% and 3%. No treatment-related deaths occurred. CONCLUSION: The every-3-weeks OC combination is safe and active in advanced 5-FU-resistant CRC patients. The lower activity data seen with the tritherapy regimen may be related to the lower dose intensities of irinotecan and oxaliplatin in this schedule.

Glufosfamide administered using a 1-hour infusion given as first-line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. A phase II trial of the EORTC-new drug development group.

The activity of glufosfamide (beta-D-glucopyranosyl-N,N'-di-(2-chloroethyl)-phosphoric acid diamide) against pancreatic cancer was investigated in a multicentre, phase II clinical study. Chemotherapy-nai;ve patients with advanced or metastatic disease were treated with glufosfamide (5 g/m(2)) using a 1-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion every 3 weeks. Patients were randomised between active-hydration and normal fluids to evaluate the nephroprotective effect of forced diuresis. Patients experiencing >0.4 mg/dl (>35 micromol/l) increase in serum creatinine compared with their baseline value were taken off treatment for safety reasons. The evaluation of response was according to the Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST). Blood sampling was performed for pharmacokinetic analyses. 35 patients from 13 institutions were registered over a 13-month period. A total of 114 treatment cycles (median 3, range 1-8) were administered to 34 patients; 18 patients were allocated to the hydration arm. Overall haematological toxicity was mild. Metabolic acidosis occurred in 2 patients treated in the active-hydration arm, grade 3 hypokalaemia was recorded in 5 patients and grade 3 hypophosphataemia in 4 patients. One patient had a grade 4 increase in serum creatinine level, concomitantly to disease progression. Active-hydration did not show a nephroprotective effect and the plasma pharmacokinetics (Pk) of glufosfamide was not significantly influenced by hydration. Two confirmed partial remissions (PR) were reported (response rate 5.9%, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.7-19.7%) and 11 cases obtained disease stabilisation (32.4%). An extra mural review panel confirmed all of the responses. Median overall survival was 5.3 months (95% CI 3.9-7.1) and time to progression (TTP) was 1.4 months (95% CI 1.3-2.7). In conclusion, glufosfamide administered using a 1-h infusion every 3 weeks has a modest activity in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Haematological toxicity is particularly mild, but regular monitoring of renal function is recommended.