Gemcitabine with or without ramucirumab as second-line treatment for malignant pleural mesothelioma (RAMES): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a preclinical rationale for inhibiting angiogenesis in mesothelioma. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of the anti-VEGFR-2 antibody ramucirumab combined with gemcitabine in patients with pretreated malignant pleural mesothelioma. METHODS: RAMES was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial done at 26 hospitals in Italy. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and histologically proven malignant pleural mesothelioma progressing during or after first-line treatment with pemetrexed plus platinum. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks plus either intravenous placebo (gemcitabine plus placebo group) or ramucirumab 10 mg/kg (gemcitabine plus ramucirumab group) on day 1 every 3 weeks, until tumour progression or unacceptable toxicity. Central randomisation was done according to a minimisation algorithm method, associated with a random element using the following stratification factors: ECOG performance status, age, histology, and first-line time-to-progression. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured from the date of randomisation to the date of death from any cause. Efficacy analyses were assessed in all patients who had been correctly randomised and received their allocated treatment, and safety analyses were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03560973, and with EudraCT, 2016-001132-36. FINDINGS: Between Dec 22, 2016, and July 30, 2018, of 165 patients enrolled 161 were correctly assigned and received either gemcitabine plus placebo (n=81) or gemcitabine plus ramucirumab (n=80). At database lock (March 8, 2020), with a median follow-up of 21·9 months (IQR 17·7-28·5), overall survival was longer in the ramucirumab group (HR 0·71, 70% CI 0·59-0·85; p=0·028). Median overall survival was 13·8 months (70% CI 12·7-14·4) in the gemcitabine plus ramucirumab group and 7·5 months (6·9-8·9) in the gemcitabine plus placebo group. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 35 (44%) of 80 patients in the gemcitabine plus ramucirumab group and 24 (30%) of 81 in the gemcitabine plus placebo group. The most common treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (16 [20%] for gemcitabine plus ramucirumab vs ten [12%] for gemcitabine plus placebo) and hypertension (five [6%] vs none). Treatment-related serious adverse events were reported in five (6%) in the gemcitabine plus ramucirumab group and in four (5%) patients in the gemcitabine plus placebo group; the most common was thromboembolism (three [4%] for gemcitabine plus ramucirumab vs two [2%] for gemcitabine plus placebo). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Ramucirumab plus gemcitabine significantly improved overall survival after first-line standard chemotherapy, with a favourable safety profile. This combination could be a new option in this setting. FUNDING: Eli Lilly Italy. TRANSLATION: For the Italian translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Increased mean corpuscular volume of red blood cells in patients treated with capecitabine for advanced breast and colon cancer.

PURPOSE: Capecitabine has demonstrated significant activity in metastatic breast and colorectal cancer. During the course of treatment with capecitabine, we observed that a relevant number of patients developed elevated levels of the mean corpuscular volume (MCV) of red blood cells. METHODS: This retrospective analysis reviewed treatment with capecitabine in 35 patients with histologically proven advanced breast and colon cancer. After 9 weeks of treatment, restaging was performed using the criteria proposed by the Committee of the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours. RESULTS: Prior to the first cycle of capecitabine treatment, there were no abnormalities in red blood cells, white blood cells, haemoglobin or platelets. The median haemoglobin level prior to the first cycle was 13 g/dl and the MCV (normal range 80-98 fl) was 86.5 fl in colon cancer patients and 12.8 g/dl and 88.7 fl in breast cancer patients, respectively. During the course of treatment, 12 weeks after the baseline evaluation, an increase in MCV was documented, while haemoglobin levels remained stable. An MCV increase was documented between baseline and the end of treatment. We noticed an increase in MCV at the end of treatment both in patients with stable disease or a partial response (n = 17) compared to patients with tumour progression (n = 11) at the first evaluation (12-14 weeks). DISCUSSION: Preliminary results showed that there is a significant MCV increase in patients receiving capecitabine for metastatic colon and breast cancer after 12 weeks of treatment. However, when we compared the MCV rise after 12 weeks that occurred with stable disease or a partial response compared to that in patients with disease progression at the first evaluation, the analysis was not statistically significant.

FOLFOXIRI/Bevacizumab Plus Nivolumab as First-Line Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer RAS/BRAF Mutated: Safety Run-In of Phase II NIVACOR Trial.

The NIVACOR trial is a phase II study assessing the efficacy and safety of nivolumab in combination with FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab in first-line setting in patients affected by metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) RAS/BRAF mutated. We report safety run-in results in the first 10 patients enrolled. Patients received triplet chemotherapy with FOLFOXIRI scheme plus bevacizumab, in association with nivolumab every 2 weeks for 8 cycles (induction phase) followed by bevacizumab plus nivolumab every 2 weeks (maintenance phase), until progression of disease or unacceptable toxicities. The first ten patients were evaluated: 7 experienced at least one adverse event (AE) related to FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab and 2 related to nivolumab. The most frequent grade 1-2 AEs related to FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab were diarrhea and fatigue (71%), nausea and vomiting (57%); 3 (43%) had grade 3-4 neutropenia, and 2 (20%) patients developed grade 1-2 AEs nivolumab related: skin rash and salivary gland infection. Two patients delayed the dose because of serious AEs, proteinuria and salivary gland infection; one patient discontinued experimental treatment due to the ileo-urethral fistula and concurrent Clostridium infection diarrhea. No treatment- related death occurred. The safety run-in analysis of NIVACOR trial reassured using co-administration of FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab and nivolumab was well tolerated with an acceptable toxicity profile. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://clinicaltrials.gov/, (NCT04072198).

ROS1 rearrangements are uncommon in biliary tract cancers.

Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are a pool of diseases with poor prognosis and there is no orphan drug available. Currently, no molecular targets have been tested as druggable oncogenic drivers. C-ros oncogene 1 (ROS1) rearrangements have been previously described in various tumors, including BTCs; however, data regarding their incidence and biological significance are controversial. Therefore, a retrospective multicenter study was performed to assess the incidence of ROS1 rearrangements in BTCs by means of immunohistochemistry and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). The present study failed to demonstrate ROS1 expression in a multicenter series of 150 cases with BTCs and revealed that D4D6 was the most specific clone compared with other ROS1 primary antibodies, namely PA1-30318 and EPMGHR2. Notably, negative results obtained with D4D6 completely matched to data sorted out by FISH analysis, thus confirming a lack of ROS1 gene rearrangements in BTCs and false positive results when PA1-30318 and EPMGHR2 clones were used. These results suggest that ROS1 rearrangements may not be targets for molecular therapy of BTCs with specific inhibitors.

SARS-CoV-2 Positive Hospitalized Cancer Patients during the Italian Outbreak: The Cohort Study in Reggio Emilia.

In the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, cancer patients could be a high-risk group due to their immunosuppressed status; therefore, data on cancer patients must be available in order to consider the most adequate strategy of care. We carried out a cohort study on the risk of hospitalization for COVID-19, oncological history, and outcomes on COVID-19 infected cancer patients admitted to the Hospital of Reggio Emilia. Between 1 February and 3 April 2020, a total of 1226 COVID-19 infected patients were hospitalized. The number of cancer patients hospitalized with COVID-19 infection was 138 (11.3%). The median age was slightly higher in patients with cancers than in those without (76.5 vs. 73.0). The risk of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (10.1% vs. 6.7%; RR 1.23, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.63-2.41) and risk of death (34.1% vs. 26.0%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.61-1.71) were similar in cancer and non-cancer patients. In the cancer patients group, 89/138 (64.5%) patients had a time interval >5 years between the diagnosis of the tumor and hospitalization. Male gender, age > 74 years, metastatic disease, bladder cancer, and cardiovascular disease were associated with mortality risk in cancer patients. In the Reggio Emilia Study, the incidence of hospitalization for COVID-19 in people with previous diagnosis of cancer is similar to that in the general population (standardized incidence ratio 98; 95% CI 73-131), and it does not appear to have a more severe course or a higher mortality rate than patients without cancer. The phase II of the COVID-19 epidemic in cancer patients needs a strategy to reduce the likelihood of infection and identify the vulnerable population, both in patients with active antineoplastic treatment and in survivors with frequently different coexisting medical conditions.