Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab and reintroduction after progression versus mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab followed by FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (TRIBE2): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The triplet FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab showed improved outcomes for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, compared with FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab. However, the actual benefit of the upfront exposure to the three cytotoxic drugs compared with a preplanned sequential strategy of doublets was not clear, and neither was the feasibility or efficacy of therapies after disease progression. We aimed to compare a preplanned strategy of upfront FOLFOXIRI followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression versus a sequence of mFOLFOX6 (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) and FOLFIRI doublets, in combination with bevacizumab. METHODS: TRIBE2 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised study of patients aged 18-75 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2, with unresectable, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, recruited from 58 Italian oncology units. Patients were stratified according to centre, ECOG performance status, primary tumour location, and previous adjuvant chemotherapy. A randomisation system incorporating a minimisation algorithm was used to randomly assign patients (1:1) via a masked web-based allocation procedure to two different treatment strategies. In the control group, patients received first-line mFOLFOX6 (85 mg/m2 of intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg intravenously over 30 min) followed by FOLFIRI (180 mg/m2 of intravenous irinotecan over 120 min concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin; 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab after disease progression. In the experimental group, patients received FOLFOXIRI (165 mg/m2 of intravenous irinotecan over 60 min; 85 mg/m2 intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 3200 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression. Combination treatments were repeated every 14 days for up to eight cycles followed by fluorouracil and leucovorin (at the same dose administered at the last induction cycle) plus bevacizumab maintenance until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, or consent withdrawal. Patients and investigators were not masked. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival 2, defined as the time from randomisation to disease progression on any treatment given after first disease progression, or death, analysed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. Study recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02339116. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2015, and May 15, 2017, 679 patients were randomly assigned and received treatment (340 in the control group and 339 in the experimental group). At data cut-off (July 30, 2019) median follow-up was 35·9 months (IQR 30·1-41·4). Median progression-free survival 2 was 19·2 months (95% CI 17·3-21·4) in the experimental group and 16·4 months (15·1-17·5) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74, 95% CI 0·63-0·88; p=0·0005). During the first-line treatment, the most frequent of all-cause grade 3-4 events were diarrhoea (57 [17%] vs 18 [5%]), neutropenia (168 [50%] vs 71 [21%]), and arterial hypertension (25 [7%] vs 35 [10%]) in the experimental group compared with the control group. Serious adverse events occurred in 84 (25%) patients in the experimental group and in 56 (17%) patients in the control group. Eight treatment-related deaths were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions, two intestinal perforations, two sepsis, one myocardial infarction, and one bleeding) and four in the control group (two occlusions, one perforation, and one pulmonary embolism). After first disease progression, no substantial differences in the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported between the control and experimental groups, with the exception of neurotoxicity, which was only reported in the experimental group (six [5%] of 132 patients). Serious adverse events after disease progression occurred in 20 (15%) patients in the experimental group and 25 (12%) in the control group. Three treatment-related deaths after first disease progression were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions and one sepsis) and four in the control group (one intestinal occlusion, one intestinal perforation, one cerebrovascular event, and one sepsis). INTERPRETATION: Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression seems to be a preferable therapeutic strategy to sequential administration of chemotherapy doublets, in combination with bevacizumab, for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer selected according to the study criteria. FUNDING: The GONO Cooperative Group, the ARCO Foundation, and F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Maintenance single-agent bevacizumab or observation after first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicenter retrospective study.

The addition of bevacizumab to standard chemotherapy has improved progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in both first- and second line treatment, but the role of maintenance bevacizumab remains controversial. The association of various clinical factor and survival was examined in this retrospective cohort analysis. The clinical data from 220 previously untreated patients with mCRC, not progressive at the end of standard chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, were collected and analyzed. Patients were classified into two subgroups: those given with maintenance bevacizumab: "maintenance bevacizumab cohort (n = 118; MB)", and those discontinuing bevacizumab as a result of physician's or patient's decision: "no maintenance bevacizumab cohort (n = 102; noMB)". The baseline factors were well balanced between the study subgroups. Median PFS and OS for the general population was 10 months (range 7-15) and 22.5 months (range 18-26), respectively. Median PFS was 13 and 8 months in the BM and noBM cohorts, respectively (p < 0.0001). In the multivariate analysis, maintenance therapy resulted independently associated with improved PFS (HR 1.73; p < 0.001), but only objective response (OR) after first-line chemotherapy was associated with improved OS. Maintenance chemotherapy cannot be considered a standard of care after induction chemotherapy for mCRC, because the optimal balance between efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy remains a significant challenge. The results of our retrospective study suggest that maintenance therapy with bevacizumab is a safe and valuable option, particularly in those patients achieving an objective response after first-line chemotherapy.

Pre-emptive skin toxicity treatment for anti-EGFR drugs: evaluation of efficacy of skin moisturizers and lymecycline. A phase II study.

BACKGROUND: Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) target therapies like erlotinib for metastatic lung cancer and cetuximab or panitumumab for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) cause skin reaction that seems to be related to treatment efficacy. Skin toxicity evaluation protocol with panitumumab study has shown that preemptive treatment reduces the incidence of ≥Grade 2 (G2) skin toxicity in mCRC treated with panitumumab. Aim of this study is to evaluate if preemptive skin toxicity treatment with different drugs has good efficacy in patients receiving anti-EGFR therapies, such as cetuximab, panitumumab, and erlotinib, for mCRC and metastatic lung cancer. METHODS: Treatment included skin moisturizers with sunscreen and lymecycline 300 mg/daily. Primary objective is to reduce the incidence of ≥G2 skin toxicity during the first 3 months of therapy. Toxicities are reported with confidence interval at 95%. Quality of life was assessed with Dermatology Life Quality Index every 2 weeks and evaluated with repeated measure ANOVA. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients with mCRC (60.8%) and metastatic lung cancer (39.2%) were enrolled. Anticancer drugs were erlotinib/cetuximab/panitumumab 20:30:1. At 3-month evaluation, 27.4% patients had =G2 skin toxicity. Skin toxicity was not related with age (p = 0.67), sex (p = 0.65), previous chemotherapy regimens (p = 0.41), and current anti-EGFR treatment (p = 0.22). No gastrointestinal or hematological toxicities related to lymecycline were observed. Only six patients required further drugs. Quality of life analysis did not show a significant difference from the beginning and the end of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Data show efficacy of preemptive treatment with a well-tolerated profile. A reduction of severe skin toxicities is shown with an increase of grade 1 toxicities, not leading to anti-EGFR dose reduction and with better quality of life for patients.

Efficacy of third-line anti-EGFR-based treatment versus regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil according to primary tumor site in RAS/BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

Background: Right- (R) and left-sided (L) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) exhibit different clinical and molecular features. Several retrospective analyses showed that survival benefit of anti-EGFR-based therapy is limited to RAS/BRAF wt L-sided mCRC patients. Few data are available about third-line anti-EGFR efficacy according to primary tumor site. Methods: RAS/BRAF wt patients mCRC treated with third-line anti-EGFR-based therapy versus regorafenib or trifluridine/tipiracil (R/T) were retrospectively collected. The objective of the analysis was to compare treatment efficacy according to tumor site. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), response rate (RR) and toxicity. Results: A total of 76 RAS/BRAF wt mCRC patients, treated with third-line anti-EGFR-based therapy or R/T, were enrolled. Of those, 19 (25%) patients had a R-sided tumor (9 patients received anti-EGFR treatment and 10 patients R/T) and 57 (75%) patients had a L-sided tumor (30 patients received anti-EGFR treatment and 27 patients R/T). A significant PFS [7.2 vs 3.6 months, HR 0.43 (95% CI 0.2-0.76), p= 0.004] and OS benefit [14.9 vs 10.9 months, HR 0.52 (95% CI 0.28-0.98), p= 0.045] in favor of anti-EGFR therapy vs R/T was observed in the L-sided tumor group. No difference in PFS and OS was observed in the R-sided tumor group. A significant interaction according to primary tumor site and third-line regimen was observed for PFS (p= 0.05). RR was significantly higher in L-sided patients treated with anti-EGFR vs R/T (43% vs. 0%; p <0.0001), no difference was observed in R-sided patients. At the multivariate analysis, third-line regimen was independently associated with PFS in L-sided patients. Conclusions: Our results demonstrated a different benefit from third-line anti-EGFR-based therapy according to primary tumor site, confirming the role of L-sided tumor in predicting benefit from third-line anti-EGFR vs R/T. At the same time, no difference was observed in R-sided tumor.

Symptom improvement as prognostic factor for survival in cancer patients undergoing palliative care: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) is a validated tool for physical symptom assessment in palliative care practice which evaluates symptoms through a numeric scale from 0 to 10. The use of symptom improvement as a prognostic factor is controversial. To this purpose, a pilot study in advanced cancer patients now undergoing only palliative care was conducted. METHODS: Patients were considered eligible if no longer able to receive any anticancer treatment; they were scheduled to undergo ESAS assessment at the hospitalization and hospital discharge time points. Symptoms' scores were divided into three severity classes: mild, moderate and severe. Differences across symptoms' classes between hospitalization and hospital discharge time points were analysed with the paired-data McNemar test, according to tumour types. RESULTS: ESAS assessment was administered to 68 patients with gastrointestinal (39 patients) and non-small cell lung cancer (29 patients); median age was 69 years; Karnofsky Performance Status was 50 in 27 (39.7%) patients and >50 in 41 (60.3%) patients. Palliative Prognostic Score was A for 26 (38.2%) patients, B for 37 (54.4%) patients and C for 5 (7.4%) patients. A statistically significant reduction of severe severity class rates was observed. Symptom improvement correlates with survival improvement: Palliative Prognostic Score (hazard ratio (HR) 2.95, 95% CI 1.35-6.41, p = 0.006) and anorexia (HR 3.21, 95% 1.33-7.72, p = 0.009) appear to be prognostic factors for survival at the multivariate analysis for gastrointestinal cancer patients; asthenia is the only significant variable (HR 5.11, 95% CI 1.86-14.03, p = 0.002) for non-small cell lung cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Symptom improvement according to ESAS after palliative care treatment represents an important prognostic for survival in patients no longer suitable to receive any anticancer active therapies.

Palonosetron plus 3-day aprepitant and dexamethasone to prevent nausea and vomiting in patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The combination of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, dexamethasone, and a 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist is currently the standard antiemetic treatment in patients receiving cisplatin-based high emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a combination of palonosetron, a unique second-generation 5-HT(3) receptor antagonist, aprepitant, the only approved neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and dexamethasone as antiemetic prophylaxis in patients receiving HEC (cisplatin ≥50 mg/mq). METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve adult patients, receiving cisplatin-based HEC, were treated with palonosetron 0.25 mg/i.v., dexamethasone 20 mg/i.v., and aprepitant 125 mg/p.o., 1-h before chemotherapy. Aprepitant 80 mg/p.o. and dexamethasone 4 mg p.o. were administered on days 2-3. Primary end point was complete response (CR; no vomiting and no use of rescue medication), during the overall study period (0-120 h). Secondary end points were complete control (CR and no more than mild nausea), emesis-free rate, and nausea-free rate during the acute (0-24 h), delayed (24-120 h), and overall (0-120 h) periods. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients were included in the study. Median age was 62 years, 76.6% were male and 23.4% female, and most common tumors were lung (66.7%) and head and neck (15.8%); 70.3% of patients achieved CR during the overall study period. Complete control, emesis-free rate, and nausea-free rate were 70.3%, 92.8%, and 59.9%, respectively, during the overall phase. The most commonly reported side effects were constipation (39% of patients) and headache (5%). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that palonosetron in combination with aprepitant and dexamethasone is effective to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in patients treated with cisplatin-based HEC.

Regorafenib-to-trifluridine/tipiracil Versus the Reverse Sequence for Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Real-life Experience.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Regorafenib (REG) and trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) have have been shown to improve overall survival in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents administered in sequence in real world practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinical data of patients treated beyond the 2°line with REG or FTD/TPI between January 2016 and August 2020, were retrospectively collected from eight institutes in the Lazio Region. RESULTS: We included 49 patients treated with both drug sequences. A total of 28 G3/G4 toxicity events (53.8%) were recorded in the FTD/TPI-to-REG sequence vs. 24 (46.1%) in the reverse sequence. Median overall survival for the patients included in the FTP/TPI-to-REG group was 20 months (95%CI=16.7-23.3) vs. 27 months in the reverse group (95%CI=17.8-36.2). The disease control rate was 45.0% for patients treated with the REG-to-FTD/TPI sequence vs. 24.1% in those treated with the FTD/TPI-to-REG sequence (p=0.18). CONCLUSION: The sequence REG-to-FTD/TPI and vice versa can extend survival, whereas only REG-to-FTD/TPI stabilizes cancer growth.

Oligometastatic colorectal cancer: prognosis, role of locoregional treatments and impact of first-line chemotherapy-a pooled analysis of TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies by Gruppo Oncologico del Nord Ovest.

BACKGROUND: Oligometastatic disease (OMD) identifies tumours with limited metastatic spread. OMD definition is not univocal and no data from clinical trials are available about the prognostic effect of OMD in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), the impact of locoregional treatments (LRTs) and the effect of chemotherapy intensification in these patients. The role of tumour burden (TB) in driving therapeutic choices is also debated. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We performed a pooled analysis of phase III TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies comparing FOLFOXIRI/bevacizumab (bev) to doublets (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI)/bev. Patients were grouped in OMD versus non-OMD based on the European Society for Medical Oncology definition. Among patients with OMD, those with OMD/low TB were compared with all the others. RESULTS: Of 1187 patients enrolled, 1096 were classified as OMD (N = 312 [28%]) or non-OMD (N = 784 [72%]). Among patients with OMD, 126 (40%) were OMD/low TB. OMD was associated with longer progression-free survival (14.0 versus 10.1 months; p < 0.01) and overall survival (38.2 versus 22.0 months; p < 0.01). These results were confirmed in multivariable models. The benefit provided by FOLFOXIRI/bev compared with doublets/bev did not differ in accordance with OMD and TB (p for interaction >0.05). Patients with OMD underwent LRTs more frequently (p < 0.01) and those with OMD/low TB had higher chance to undergo LRTs after the first progression (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: OMD is a positive prognostic factor in mCRC. The benefit from the upfront treatment intensification is independent of the metastatic spread extent and TB. LRTs should be highly considered in these patients, mainly during the first-line therapy but also at later stages of treatment history in selected cases.

Activity and Safety of Cetuximab Plus Modified FOLFOXIRI Followed by Maintenance With Cetuximab or Bevacizumab for RAS and BRAF Wild-type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Phase 2 Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The combination of a triple-drug chemotherapy regimen with an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) agent as a first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) showed promising activity along with safety concerns in single-arm phase 2 trials. The role of maintenance following chemotherapy and anti-EGFR and the optimal regimen to be adopted are not established. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the activity and safety of cetuximab plus modified FOLFOXIRI (mFOLFOXIRI) and explore the role of maintenance with cetuximab or bevacizumab in RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In a prospective, noncomparative, open-label, multicenter, randomized phase 2 trial, patients aged 18 to 75 years with unresectable, previously untreated RAS and BRAF wild-type (before amendment, KRAS wild-type) mCRC were recruited from 21 oncology units in Italy from October 19, 2011, to March 1, 2015 (followed up through May 31, 2017). In total, 323 patients were screened and 143 were randomized to 2 treatment arms to receive as a first-line induction a regimen of mFOLFOXIRI plus cetuximab followed by cetuximab (arm A) or bevacizumab (arm B) until disease progression. Primary analyses were conducted in a modified intention-to-treat population. INTERVENTIONS: mFOLFOXIRI plus cetuximab repeated every 2 weeks for up to 8 cycles, followed by maintenance with cetuximab or bevacizumab until disease progression. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the 10-month progression-free rate (PFR); secondary end points included progression-free and overall survival, response rate, rate of metastases resection, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 143 patients randomized, 116 (81.1%) (median [interquartile range (IQR)] age, 59.5 [53-67] years; 34 [29.3%] women) had RAS and BRAF wild-type mCRC. At a median (IQR) follow-up of 44.0 (30.5-52.1) months, 10-month PFRs were 50.8% (90% CI, 39.5%-62.2%) in arm A and 40.4% (90% CI, 29.4%-52.1%) in arm B. The overall response rate was 71.6% (95% CI, 62.4%-79.5%). Main grade 3/4 adverse events were neutropenia (occurring in 36 patients [31%]), diarrhea (in 21 patients [18%]), skin toxic effects (in 18 patients [16%]), asthenia (in 11 patients [9%]), stomatitis (in 7 patients [6%]), and febrile neutropenia (in 3 patients [3%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although neither of the 2 arms met the primary end point, the findings indicate that a 4-month induction regimen of mFOLFOXIRI plus cetuximab is feasible and provides relevant activity results, leading to a high surgical resection rate. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02295930.

Adjuvant chemotherapy in esophageal cancer.

Esophageal cancer with high incidence and mortality rates plays a major clinical and social role. Adjuvant radiotherapy, chemotherapy and combined chemoradiation are used for esophageal cancer patients after esophagectomy. Outcomes of these approaches are analyzed in the literature. Three randomized clinical trials and three retrospective series were reviewed; they provided a representative pattern of available data. From their analysis some critical aspects emerged in relation to the statistical design of the few, now available randomized clinical trials. The number of patients enrolled is too low to verify minimal improvements in outcomes. Therefore, to-date there is not definite evidence in the literature supporting the role of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients undergoing surgery for esophageal cancer.

Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients ≥75 Years Old in Clinical Practice: A Multicenter Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer patients have a median age of incidence >65years although they are largely under-represented in phase-III trials. This large population contains patients unfit for treatment, those suitable for monotherapy or for doublets and the impact of chemotherapy outside clinical trial is unclear. The aim of the study was to retrospectively analyse Overall Survival(OS) of elderly metastatic colorectal cancer(mCRC) patients treated with chemotherapy in daily practice. METHODS: Kaplan-Meir method was used for OS, the log-rank or Tarone-Ware test for differences between subgroups, Cox's proportional hazard model to assess the impact of known prognostic factors and treatment. RESULTS: 751 patients with mCRC observed between January 2000 and January 2013 were collected. Median age was 79 year(75-93); Male/Female 61/39%, ECOG-PS 0-1/2 85/15%; colon/rectum 74/26%; multiple metastatic sites 34%, only liver metastasis in 41% of patients. KRAS status was studied in 35% of patients: 44% of them showed gene mutation. 20.5% of patients did not received any kind of treatment including surgery. Comorbidities observed: cardiovascular 34%, diabetes 14%, hypertension 50%. Primary tumor was resected in 80.6%; surgery of liver metastasis was done in 19% of patients (2.3% of patients >80years). 78% of patients underwent chemotherapy. Median follow up was 12 months(range 1-124). Median OS was 17 months (CI 95%15-19);median OS in no-treated patients was 5 months (4-6); mOS of patients with at least one treatment was 20 months (18-22). In KRAS mutated group median OS was 19months (15-23) while in KRAS wild type patients median OS was 25 months (20-30). At multivariate analysis sex(Female), age(<80y), performance status(0-1), chemotherapy, Surgery of metastasis, Surgery of primary tumor and Site of metastasis(liver) were prognostic factors for OS. CONCLUSION: The results of our study show that in clinical practice treatment has a positive impact on OS of elderly patients, confirmed at multivariate analysis, included patients with age >80 years old or with a poor performance status (respectively p<0.0001 and p<0.0001). KRAS analysis deserve further evaluation.

Changing monoclonal antibody keeping unaltered the chemotherapy regimen in metastatic colorectal cancer patients: is efficacy maintained?

UNLABELLED: Monoclonal antibodies bevacizumab and cetuximab both improve overall survival (OS), progression free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) when combined with irinotecan-containing regimens. The optimal sequence of these monoclonal antibodies in combination with chemotherapy is controversial. This study analysed the efficacy of cetuximab plus Folfiri after progression with the same regimen plus bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients are eligible if progressive disease (PD) after Folfiri-bevacizumab; ECOG PS 0-1. Primary endpoint is the disease control rate (DCR:ORR plus stable disease > 6 months); secondary endpoints: ORR, PFS, duration of response, OS and toxicity. ORR and DCR were reported with their confidence interval at 95%. Kaplan-Meier method was used for PFS and OS evaluation. RESULTS: 54 patients were enrolled to receive Folfiri-cetuximab after PD to Folfiri-bevacizumab treatment. Median age was 65 (43-80), M/F 31/23, ECOG PS 0/1 was 36/ 18, WT Kras 33(61%). The DCR was 64.8% (CI 95% 52.1-77.5). Among the group of patients with stable or progressive disease at first line treatment, 13.3% of them obtained a response at second line. For second line treatment median duration of response was 6 months and clinical benefit 7 months. The ORR was 22.2% (CI 95% 11.1-33.3). The median progression-free survival was 7 months (CI 95% 6-8). The median overall survival for second line treatment was 14 months (CI 95% 11-17). No grade 4 toxicity was observed. Data suggest that this sequential combination therapy is active and well tolerated. At disease progression to first line chemotherapy treatment the maintenance of the same chemotherapy regimen and the change of the monoclonal antibody showed efficacy in response and survival in patients with mCRC.

Evaluation of relapse-free survival in T3N0 colon cancer: the role of chemotherapy, a multicentric retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) in Stage II Colon Cancer (CC) is still under debate. Choice should be based on patients and disease characteristics. According to guidelines AC should be considered in high-risk T3N0 patients. No data are available for better option in low-risk patients. The aim of the study is to retrospectively evaluate relapse-free survival (RFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) according to treatment received in T3N0 CC. METHODS: RFS and DFS are evaluated with Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard model was developed using stepwise regression, enter limit and remove limit were p = 0.10 and p = 0.15, respectively. RESULTS: 834 patients with T3N0 CC were recruited. Median age was 69 (29-93), M/F 463/371, 335 low-risk patients (40.2%), 387 high-risk (46.4%), 112 unknown (13.4%); 127 (15.2%) patients showed symptoms at diagnosis. Median sampled lymph nodes were 15 (1-76); 353 (42.3%) patients were treated with AC. Median follow up was 5 years (range 3-24). The 5-years RFS was 78.4% and the 5-years DFS was 76.7%. At multivariate analysis symptoms, lymph nodes, and adjuvant chemotherapy were prognostic factors for RFS. AC is prognostic factor for all endpoints. In low-risk group 5-years RFS was 87.3% in treated patients and 74.7% in non-treated patients (p 0.03); in high-risk group was respectively 82.7% and 71.4% (p 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Data confirmed the role of known prognostic factors and suggest the relevance of adjuvant chemotherapy also in low-risk stage II T3N0 CC patients. However, the highest risk in low-risk subgroup should be identified to be submitted to AC.