Total neoadjuvant therapy with mFOLFIRINOX versus preoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer: long-term results of the UNICANCER-PRODIGE 23 trial.

BACKGROUND: The standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer results in an excellent local disease control but the metastasis rates remain high. PRODIGE 23 demonstrated improved disease-free and metastatic-free survival with total neoadjuvant therapy versus standard of care in this population. Long-term analysis of overall survival is reported here. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study design, participants, and primary endpoint disease-free survival (DFS) have been reported for this multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial investigating the neoadjuvant chemotherapy with mFOLFIRINOX (6 cycles) followed by chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy (6 cycles), versus chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant chemotherapy (12 cycles) in patients with locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma under peritoneal reflection on MRI, and staged cT3/T4. Key secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), metastasis-free survival (MFS), and local and metastatic recurrence rate. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 82.2 months, the 7-year DFS were 67.6% (95% CI 60.7%-73.9%) and 62.5% (95% CI 55.6%-68.6%) (RMST difference 5.73 months; 95% CI 0.05-11.41; p=0.048) in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the standard of care groups, respectively. The 7-year MFS was 79.2% (95% CI 73.0%-84.4%) in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and 72.3% (95% CI 65.8%-77.8%) in the standard of care group (RMST difference 6.1 months; 95% CI 0.93-11.37; p=0.021). The 7-year OS was 81.9% (95% CI 75.8%-86.6%) in the neoadjuvant chemotherapy group and 76.1% (95% CI 69.7-81.2) in the standard of care group (RMST difference 4.37 months; 95% CI 0.35-8.38; p=0.033). The safety profile remained unchanged since the previous analysis. CONCLUSION(S): Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with mFOLFIRINOX followed by chemoradiotherapy improved OS, confirmed long-term DFS and MFS benefits in locally advanced rectal cancer patients and should be considered as a one of the best options of care for these patients.

Development and validation of AI-assisted transcriptomic signatures to personalize adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: After surgical resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), patients are predominantly treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, commonly consisting of gemcitabine-based regimens or the modified FOLFIRINOX regimen (mFFX). While mFFX has been shown to be more effective than gemcitabine-based regimens, it is also associated with higher toxicity. Current treatment decisions are based on patient performance status rather than on the molecular characteristics of the tumor. To address this gap, the goal of this study was to develop drug-specific transcriptomic signatures for personalized chemotherapy treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used PDAC datasets from preclinical models, encompassing chemotherapy response profiles for the mFFX-regimen components. From them we identified specific gene transcripts associated with chemotherapy response. Three transcriptomic AI-signatures were obtained by combining Independent Component Analysis, Least Absolute Shrinkage and the Selection Operator-Random Forest approach. We integrated a previously developed gemcitabine signature with three newly developed ones. The machine learning strategy employed to enhance these signatures incorporates transcriptomic features from the tumor microenvironment, leading to the development of the Pancreas-View tool ultimately clinically validated in a cohort of 343 patients from the PRODIGE-24/CCTG PA6 trial. RESULTS: Patients who were predicted to be sensitive to the administered drugs (n=164; 47.8%) had longer disease-free survival (DFS) than the other patients. The median DFS in the mFFX sensitive group treated with mFFX was 50.0 months (stratified HR: 0.31; 95% CI, 0.21-0.44; p<0.001) and 33.7 months (stratified HR: 0.40; 95% CI, 0.17-0.59; p<0.001) in the gemcitabine sensitive group when treated with gemcitabine. Comparatively patients with signature predictions unmatched with the treatments (n=86; 25.1%) or those resistant to all drugs (n=93; 27.1%) had shorter DFS (10.6 and 10.8 months, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a transcriptome-based tool that was developed using preclinical models and machine learning to accurately predict sensitivity to mFFX and gemcitabine.

Improved nationwide survival of sarcoma patients with a network of reference centers.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the impact of the implementation of a network of reference centers for sarcomas (NETSARC) on the care and survival of sarcoma patients in France since 2010. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NETSARC (netsarc.org) is a network of 26 reference sarcoma centers with specialized multidisciplinary tumor boards (MDTBs), funded by the French National Cancer Institute (INCa) since 2010. Its aims are to improve the quality of diagnosis and care of sarcoma patients. Patients' characteristics, treatments, and outcomes are collected in a nationwide database. The objective of this analysis was to compare the survival of patients in three periods: 2010-2012 (non-exhaustive), 2013-2015, and 2016-2020. RESULTS: A total of 43 975 patients with sarcomas, gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs), or connective tissue tumors of intermediate malignancy were included in the NETSARC+ database since 2010 (n = 9266 before 2013, n = 12 274 between 2013 and 2015, n = 22 435 in 2016-2020). Median age was 56 years, 50.5% were women, and 13.2% had metastasis at diagnosis. Overall survival was significantly superior in the period 2016-2020 versus 2013-2015 versus 2010-2012 for the entire population, for patients >18 years of age, and for both metastatic and non-metastatic patients in univariate and multivariate analyses (P < 0.0001). Over the three periods, we observed a significantly improved compliance to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) nationwide: the proportion of patients biopsied before surgery increased from 62.9% to 72.6%; the percentage of patients presented to NETSARC MDTBs before first surgery increased from 31.7% to 44.4% (P < 0.0001). The proportion of patients with R0 resection on first surgery increased (from 36.1% to 46.6%), while R2 resection rate decreased (from 10.9% to 7.9%), with a better compliance and improvement in NETSARC centers. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of the national reference network for sarcoma was associated with an improvement of overall survival and compliance to guidelines nationwide in sarcoma patients. Referral to expert networks for sarcoma patients should be encouraged, though a better compliance to CPGs can still be achieved.

Association of palliative care management and survival after chemotherapy discontinuation in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A retrospective single-centre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) is integrated into standard oncology care. However, its clinical impact at the end of life remains unclear in pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA). We aimed to describe the end-of-life care pathway and to assess whether PC referral influences survival after chemotherapy discontinuation (CD) among advanced PA patients. METHODS: This retrospective single-centre observational study was conducted among deceased patients with advanced PA who had received chemotherapy between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021. Baseline characteristics, the timing of PC referral and events after CD were collected. The primary outcome was time from CD to death. RESULTS: Among the 148 included patients, 53.4% (n = 79) received PC, mostly late after the CD (n = 133, 89.9%), 16.9% (n = 25) received chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life and 75.6% died at the hospital. None received PC in the 8 weeks following the diagnosis. PC referral significantly increased PC department admissions (p < 0.001) and decreased medical unit admissions (p < 0.001). The median survival after the CD was 35 days (IQR: 19-64.5). PC referral was associated with increased survival after CD (HR: 0.65 [0.47-0.90], p = 0.010, Cox) and after adjusting (HR: 0.65 [0.42-0.99], p = 0.045, Cox). CONCLUSION: The study suggests that PC may be associated with longer survival after CD in advanced PA patients. However, PC is underused, and patients are referred late in their care pathway.

Incidence and associated factors of cetuximab-induced hypersensitivity infusion reactions in 1392 cancer patients treated in four French areas: a possible association with Lyme disease?

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have observed an increased incidence of Cetuximab-induced hypersensitivity infusion reactions (CI-IRs) in the southeastern states of the USA. Tick's bites were suspected of generating cross-reactions between cetuximab and alpha-gal. This study aims was to describe the incidence and associated risk factors of CI-IRs, in the French areas chosen according to their Lyme disease incidence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on patients that received cetuximab infusion from January 2010 to June 2019 in 4 French areas with different Lyme disease incidence rates. RESULTS: Of 1392 patients, 117 (8.4%) experienced a CI-IR, including 68 severe (grade 3 or 4) reactions (4.9%). This CI-IR incidence was significantly higher in the Lyme disease high-risk area than in the other areas (13.2% versus 7.1%, 8.1% and 6.4%; P = 0.016). Sex (P = 0.53), premedication (P = 0.91), primary cancer location (P = 0.46) and chemotherapy regimen type (P = 0.78) had no impact on CI-IR incidence in the overall population. In the head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) patient subgroup, CI-IRs were significantly more frequent in the high-risk area (16.4% versus 6.7%, 7.1% and 7.0%; P = 0.0015). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that patients treated in the French area with the highest incidence of Lyme disease are at a higher risk of CI-IRs.

Time from first seen in specialist care to surgery does not influence survival outcome in patients with upfront resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the impact of time to surgery (TTS) on overall survival (OS), disease free survival (DFS) and postoperative complication rate in patients with upfront resected pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA). METHODS: We retrospectively included patients who underwent upfront surgery for PA between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2014 from four French centers. TTS was defined as the number of days between the date of the first consultation in specialist care and the date of surgery. DFS for a 14-day TTS was the primary endpoint. We also analyzed survival depending on different delay cut-offs (7, 14, 28, 60 and 75 days). RESULTS: A total of 168 patients were included. 59 patients (35%) underwent an upfront surgery within 14 days. Patients in the higher delay group (> 14 days) had significantly more vein resections and endoscopic biliary drainage. Adjusted OS (p = 0.44), DFS (p = 0.99), fistulas (p = 0.41), hemorrhage (p = 0.59) and severe post-operative complications (p = 0.82) were not different according to TTS (> 14 days). Other delay cut-offs had no impact on OS or DFS. DISCUSSION: TTS seems to have no impact on OS, DFS and 90-day postoperative morbidity.

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.

Microwave Thermoablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases Close to Large Hepatic Vessels Under Pringle Maneuver Minimizes the "Heat Sink Effect".

BACKGROUND: Liver resection and thermoablation are the mainstay of the surgical management of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). The main limitation of thermoablation is the "heat-sink" effect for nodules next to large vessels. Herein, we report the preliminary results of microwave ablation (MWA) with associated Pringle maneuver to overcome this flaw. METHODS: From November 2017, we performed intraoperative MWA with Pringle maneuver for nodules ≤3 cm with immediate proximity to large vessels (distance ≤ 5 mm, diameter ≥ 3 mm). We collected characteristics of nodules, surgical procedures and postoperative morbidity. Diameter of the ablation area, especially the ablative minimal margin, was calculated for each nodule. Recurrence was also evaluated. RESULTS: Nineteen patients underwent MWA with Pringle maneuver for 23 nodules. Nineteen (83%) ablated nodules were located in segments VI, VII and VIII, and one nodule was in segment I. Median size of nodules was 15 mm (10-21). No deaths occurred. Six patients (38%) experienced complications, among them only one was subsequent to the thermal ablation. Ablative minimal margin was ≥5 mm for 19 (83%) nodules. Margin was not sufficient for four nodules, among them only 2/23 cases (8.7%) of in situ recurrence occurred after 12 months of median follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary study, MWA with Pringle maneuver was associated with a low related morbidity rate and favorable oncological outcome, especially when the radiological minimal margin was sufficient.

Prognostic factors in patients treated with second-line chemotherapy for advanced gastric cancer: results from the randomized prospective phase III FFCD-0307 trial.

AIM: The aim of this study was to determine prognostic factors in patients treated with second-line therapy (L2) for locally advanced or metastatic gastric and gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma in a randomized phase III study with predefined L2. METHODS: In the FFCD-0307 study, patients were randomly assigned to receive in L1 either epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX arm) or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI arm). L2 treatment was predefined (FOLFIRI for the ECX arm and ECX for the FOLFIRI arm). Chi square tests were used to compare the characteristics of patients treated in L2 with those of patients who did not receive L2. Prognostic factors in L2 for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed using a Cox model. RESULTS: Among 416 patients included, 101/209 (48.3%) patients in the ECX arm received FOLFIRI in L2, and 81/207 (39.1%) patients in the FOLFIRI arm received ECX in L2. Patients treated in L2, compared with those who only received L1 had : a better ECOG score (0-1: 90.4% versus 79.7%; p = 0.0002), more frequent GEJ localization (40.8% versus 27.6%; p = 0.005), and lower platelet count (median: 298000 versus 335000/mm3; p = 0.02). In multivariate analyses, age < 60 years at diagnosis (HR 1.49, 95% CI 1.09-2.03, p = 0.013) and ECOG score 2 before L2 (HR 2.62, 95% CI 1.41-4.84, p = 0.005) were the only significant poor prognostic factors for OS. CONCLUSION: Age ≥ 60 years at diagnosis and ECOG score 0/1 before L2 were the only favorable prognostic factors for OS.

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.

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.

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.

Late toxicities and clinical outcome at 5 years of the ACCORD 12/0405-PRODIGE 02 trial comparing two neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimens for intermediate-risk rectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Outcome of intermediate risk rectal cancer may be improved by the addition of oxaliplatin during 5-fluoruracil concomitant neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The purpose of this study is to analyze the main clinical results of the ACCORD12 trial (NCT00227747) in rectal cancer after 5 years of follow-up. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Inclusion criteria were as follows: rectal adenocarcinoma accessible to digital examination staged T3-T4 Nx M0 (or T2 Nx distal anterior rectum). Two neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy regimens were randomized: CAP45 (RT 45 Gy + capecitabine) and CAPOX50 (RT 50 Gy + capecitabine and oxaliplatin). Main end point was sterilization of the operative specimen. Acute and late toxicities were prospectively analyzed with dedicated questionnaires. RESULTS: Between November 2005 and July 2008, 598 patients were included in the trial. After a median follow-up of 60.2 months, there was no difference between treatment arms in multivariate analysis either for disease-free survival or overall survival (OS) [P = 0.9, hazard ratio (HR)=1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.76-1.36 and P = 0.3, HR = 0.87; 95% CI, 0.66-1.15, respectively]. There was also no difference of local control in univariate analysis (P = 0.7, HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.51-1.66). Late toxicities were acceptable with 1.6% G3 anal incontinence, and <1% G3 diarrhea, G3 rectal bleeding, G3 stenosis, G3-4 pain, G3 urinary incontinence, G3 urinary retention and G3 skeletal toxicity. There was a slight increase of erectile dysfunction over time with a 63% rate of erectile dysfunction at 5 years. There was no significant statistical difference for these toxicities between treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS: The CAPOX50 regimen did not improve local control, disease-free survival and overall survival in the ACCORD12 trial. Late toxicities did not differ between treatment arms.

Safety and efficacy of FOLFIRINOX in elderly patients with metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: FOLFIRINOX is a polychemotherapy regimen currently used to treat inoperable pancreatic cancer in patients with a good performance status (PS). FOLFIRINOX lengthens overall survival time (OS), but no specific data are available in elderly patients. METHODS: All cases of inoperable pancreatic adenocarcinoma in patients over 70 years old treated with FOLFIRINOX were retrospectively reviewed between 2008 and 2015 in five institutions in France. The primary objective was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of FOLFIRINOX in the elderly. RESULTS: Forty-two patients with a median age of 73 years (range: 70-79) and a median PS of 1 (range: 0-2) were included. 88% of patients treated with FOLFIRINOX were enrolled between 2012 and 2015. 24 patients (57%) needed a primary dose reduction but this did not impact OS (median OS 11.7 months (6.9-16.4) compared to 16.6 months (0.37-32.8) without dose reduction, p = 0.69). Twelve patients (29%) experienced grade 3 toxicity. Sensory neuropathy occurred most often (56%). Primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony stimulating factor (GCSF) was administered to 14 patients (33%). One treatment-related death occurred (septic shock), although this patient had not had primary prophylaxis with GCSF. Median follow-up was 86 months. Median OS was 11.6 months (95%CI: 8.9-14.3). CONCLUSION: Median OS observed in the elderly was similar to OS previously reported in younger patients in the ACCORD 11 trial. FOLFIRINOX is effective in selected, fit elderly patients but with greater grade 3 neurotoxicity. Primary dose reduction and primary GCSF prophylaxis may control tolerance.

Randomized phase III trial in elderly patients comparing LV5FU2 with or without irinotecan for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (FFCD 2001-02).

BACKGROUND: Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) frequently occurs in elderly patients. However, data from a geriatric tailored randomized trial about tolerance to and the efficacy of doublet chemotherapy (CT) with irinotecan in the elderly are lacking. The benefit of first-line CT intensification remains an issue in elderly patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Elderly patients (75+) with previously untreated mCRC were randomly assigned in a 2 × 2 factorial design (four arms) to receive 5-FU (5-fluorouracil)-based CT, either alone (FU: LV5FU2 or simplified LV5FU2) or in combination with irinotecan [IRI: LV5FU2-irinotecan or simplified LV5FU2-irinotecan (FOLFIRI)]. The CLASSIC arm was defined as LV5FU2 or LV5FU2-irinotecan and the SIMPLIFIED arm as simplified LV5FU2 or FOLFIRI. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points were overall survival (OS), safety and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: From June 2003 to May 2010, 71 patients were randomly assigned to LV5FU2, 71 to simplified LV5FU2, 70 to LV5FU2-irinotecan and 70 to FOLFIRI. The median age was 80 years (range 75-92 years). No significant difference was observed for the median PFS: FU 5.2 months versus IRI 7.3 months, hazard ratio (HR) = 0.84 (0.66-1.07), P = 0.15 and CLASSIC 6.5 months versus SIMPLIFIED 6.0 months, HR = 0.85 (0.67-1.09), P = 0.19. The ORR was superior in IRI (P = 0.0003): FU 21.1% versus IRI 41.7% and in CLASSIC (P = 0.04): CLASSIC 37.1% versus SIMPLIFIED 25.6%. Median OS was 14.2 months in FU versus 13.3 months in IRI, HR = 0.96 (0.75-1.24) and 15.2 months in CLASSIC versus 11.4 months in SIMPLIFIED, HR = 0.71 (0.55-0.92). More patients presented grade 3-4 toxicities in IRI (52.2% versus 76.3%). CONCLUSION: In this elderly population, adding irinotecan to an infusional 5-FU-based CT did not significantly increase either PFS or OS. Classic LV5FU2 was associated with an improved OS compared with simplified LV5FU2. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT00303771.

A phase I/II, open-label, randomised study of nintedanib plus mFOLFOX6 versus bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: This randomised, open-label, phase I/II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nintedanib, an oral, triple angiokinase inhibitor, combined with chemotherapy, relative to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed mCRC (adenocarcinoma), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 and adequate organ function were included. Patients were randomised 2:1 to receive nintedanib 150 mg or 200 mg b.i.d. plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), l-leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) or d,l-leucovorin 400 mg/m(2), 5-fluoruracil bolus 400 mg/m(2) followed by 2400 mg/m(2), every 2 weeks) or bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every 2 weeks) plus mFOLFOX6. During phase I, patients underwent a 3 + 3 dose-escalation schema to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of nintedanib in combination with mFOLFOX6. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 9 months. Objective response (OR) was a secondary end point. RESULTS: The nintedanib recommended phase II dose was 200 mg b.i.d. plus mFOLFOX6 based on safety data from phase I (n = 12). Of 128 patients randomised in the phase II part, 126 received treatment (nintedanib plus mFOLFOX6, n = 85; bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6, n = 41). PFS at 9 months was 62.1% with nintedanib and 70.2% with bevacizumab [difference: -8.1% (95% confidence interval -27.8 to 11.5)]. Confirmed ORs were recorded in 63.5% and 56.1% of patients in the nintedanib and bevacizumab groups, respectively. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) considered related to treatment was 98.8% with nintedanib and 97.6% with bevacizumab; the incidence of serious AEs was 37.6% with nintedanib and 53.7% with bevacizumab. The pharmacokinetics of nintedanib and the components of mFOLFOX6 were unaffected by their combination. CONCLUSIONS: Nintedanib in combination with mFOLFOX6 showed efficacy as first-line therapy in patients with mCRC with a manageable safety profile and further studies in this population are warranted.

Sorafenib and irinotecan (NEXIRI) as second- or later-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and KRAS-mutated tumours: a multicentre Phase I/II trial.

BACKGROUND: This trial evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of combined sorafenib and irinotecan (NEXIRI) as second- or later-line treatment of patients with KRAS-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), who had progressed after irinotecan-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In Phase I, in a 3+3 dose escalation schedule, patients received irinotecan (125, 150 or 180 mg m(-2) every 2 weeks), in combination with 400 mg sorafenib b.d. The primary end point was the maximum-tolerated dose of irinotecan. In Phase II, the primary end point was disease control rate (DCR). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. RESULTS: Phase I included 10 patients (median age 63 (49-73)); no dose-limiting toxicity was seen. In Phase II, 54 patients (median age 60 (43-80) years) received irinotecan 180 mg m(-)(2) every 2 weeks with sorafenib 400 mg b.d. Nine patients (17%) remained on full-dose sorafenib. The DCR was 64.9% (95% CI, 51-77). Median PFS and OS were 3.7 (95% CI, 3.2-4.7) and 8.0 (95% CI, 4.8-9.7) months, respectively. Toxicities included Grade 3 diarrhoea (37%), neutropenia (18%), hand-foot syndrome (13%) and Grade 4 neutropenia (17%). CONCLUSION: The NEXIRI regimen showed promising activity as second- or later-line treatment in this heavily pretreated mCRC population (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00989469).

Masitinib in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after failure of imatinib: a randomized controlled open-label trial.

BACKGROUND: Masitinib is a highly selective tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity against the main oncogenic drivers of gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST). Masitinib was evaluated in patients with advanced GIST after imatinib failure or intolerance. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. Patients with inoperable, advanced imatinib-resistant GIST were randomized (1 : 1) to receive masitinib (12 mg/kg/day) or sunitinib (50 mg/day 4-weeks-on/2-weeks-off) until progression, intolerance, or refusal. Primary efficacy analysis was noncomparative, testing whether masitinib attained a median progression-free survival (PFS) (blind centrally reviewed RECIST) threshold of >3 months according to the lower bound of the 90% unilateral confidence interval (CI). Secondary analyses on overall survival (OS) and PFS were comparative with results presented according to a two-sided 95% CI. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were randomized to receive masitinib (n = 23) or sunitinib (n = 21). Median follow-up was 14 months. Patients receiving masitinib experienced less toxicity than those receiving sunitinib, with significantly lower occurrence of severe adverse events (52% versus 91%, respectively, P = 0.008). Median PFS (central RECIST) for the noncomparative primary analysis in the masitinib treatment arm was 3.71 months (90% CI 3.65). Secondary analyses showed that median OS was significantly longer for patients receiving masitinib followed by post-progression addition of sunitinib when compared against patients treated directly with sunitinib in second-line [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.27, 95% CI 0.09-0.85, P = 0.016]. This improvement was sustainable as evidenced by 26-month follow-up OS data (HR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.16-0.96, P = 0.033); an additional 12.4 months survival advantage being reported for the masitinib treatment arm. Risk of progression while under treatment with masitinib was in the same range as for sunitinib (HR = 1.1, 95% CI 0.6-2.2, P = 0.833). CONCLUSIONS: Primary efficacy analysis ensured the masitinib treatment arm could satisfy a prespecified PFS threshold. Secondary efficacy analysis showed that masitinib followed by the standard of care generated a statistically significant survival benefit over standard of care. Encouraging median OS and safety data from this well-controlled and appropriately designed randomized trial indicate a positive benefit-risk ratio. Further development of masitinib in imatinib-resistant/intolerant patients with advanced GIST is warranted.

Circulating tumor cells in locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma: the ancillary CirCe 07 study to the LAP 07 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic carcinoma is one of the leading causes of cancer-related mortality. At the time of diagnosis, 30% of patients present with a locally advanced pancreatic carcinoma (LAPC). As circulating tumor cells (CTCs) count may be a surrogate of the cancer metastatic abilities, CTC detection rates and prognostic value were studied in a prospective cohort of LAPC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: An LAP07 international multicenter randomized study assesses in patients whose LAPC is controlled after 4 months of chemotherapy whether chemoradiotherapy could increase survival versus continuation of chemotherapy. A subgroup of patients included in the LAP07 trial was screened for CTCs (CellSearch®) before the start of the chemotherapy and after 2 months of treatment. Patient characteristics and survival were obtained prospectively and were correlated with CTC detection. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients were included. One or more CTCs/7.5 ml were detected in 5% of patients before treatment and in 9% of patients after 2 months of treatment (overall detection rate: 11% of patients). CTC positivity was associated with poor tumor differentiation (P = 0.04), and with shorter overall survival (OS) in multivariable analysis (RR = 2.5, P = 0.01), together with anemia. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation of micrometastatic disease using CTC detection appears as a promising prognostic tool in LAPC patients.