Search

Background: FGFR alterations are reported across various malignancies and might act as oncogenic drivers in multiple histologies. Erdafitinib is an oral, selective pan-FGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor with activity in FGFR-altered advanced urothelial carcinoma. We aimed to evaluate the safety and activity of erdafitinib in previously treated patients with FGFR-altered advanced solid tumours. Methods: The single-arm, phase 2 RAGNAR study was conducted at 156 investigative centres (hospitals or oncology practices that are qualified oncology study centres) across 15 countries. The study consisted of four cohorts based on tumour histology and patient age; the results reported in this Article are for the primary cohort of the study, defined as the Broad Panel Cohort, which was histology-agnostic. We recruited patients aged 12 years or older with advanced or metastatic tumours of any histology (except urothelial cancer) with predefined FGFR1–4 alterations (mutations or fusions according to local or central testing). Eligible patients had disease progression on at least one previous line of systemic therapy and no alternative standard therapy available to them, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1 (or equivalent for adolescents aged 12–17 years). Patients received once-daily oral erdafitinib (8 mg/day with provision for pharmacodynamically guided up-titration to 9 mg/day) on a continuous 21-day cycle until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was objective response rate by independent review committee according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, or Response Assessment In Neuro-Oncology (RANO). The primary analysis was conducted on the treated population of the Broad Panel Cohort. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT04083976. Findings: Patients were recruited between Dec 5, 2019, and Feb 15, 2022. Of 217 patients treated with erdafitinib, 97 (45%) pa

Background: Enco + cetux (doublet) has been approved in the US, EU, and Japan for the treatment of BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC after progression on 1-2 prior regimens. In the BEACON CRC study (NCT02928224), median OS (95% CI) with the doublet was 9.3 months (8.0-11.3) vs 5.9 months (5.1-7.1) with cetux + irinotecan or FOLFIRI (control) in patients (pts) with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC (HR 0.61 [95% CI: 0.5-0.8]). This post hoc analysis investigates OS by prior therapies to the doublet treatment in pts with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC from the BEACON CRC study. Methods : OS of pts treated with the doublet or control were compared according to prior treatment with bevacizumab, oxaliplatin or FOLFOXIRI and duration of prior anticancer therapy (ACT). Results : Sixty-four per cent and 55% of pts in the doublet and control arm respectively received prior bevacizumab. Of pts who had one prior therapy, 95% and 88% received prior oxaliplatin and 20% and 14% received prior FOLFOXIRI, respectively. In the doublet arm, pts who had bevacizumab < 4 months before start of study treatment had a median OS of 8.3 months (95% CI: 6.2-11.2); those who had bevacizumab >=4 months prior had a median OS of 10.7 (95% CI: 7.5-17.7). Within each treatment arm, OS was similar regardless of prior treatment with oxaliplatin or FOLFOXIRI. The duration of prior ACT was similar across study arms, ranging from 5.6 to 5.8 months for the first line of ACT. Conclusions : In the BEACON CRC study, pts treated with the doublet for BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC demonstrated similar OS regardless of prior therapies or duration of prior therapy use. This exploratory post hoc analysis provides data that reflect the prior treatment landscape clinicians may face when deciding subsequent treatment regimens for pts with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC.

Background: In the BEACON study, encorafenib + binimetinib + cetuximab (enco/bini/cetux; triplet) and enco + cetux (doublet) improved OS and ORR vs standard of care in previously treated BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC pts. Molecular profiling of tumours from this study was performed to identify molecular correlates of outcome. Methods : Baseline tumour samples were analysed by whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole transcriptome sequencing (WTS). BRAF-mutant (BM) and consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) were determined and pathway activities evaluated with gene set variation analysis. Tumour response was evaluated for each subtype. Additional association and interaction analyses between molecular features and outcomes by treatments are ongoing and will be presented. Results : Baseline tumour samples were analysed by WES and/or WTS for 79.2% of pts. Of the 460 pts analysed by WTS (73.7% in the triplet arm, 66.4% in the doublet arm, 67.4% in the control arm), 84.6% were classified as CMS1 or CMS4. Overall 32.2% of pts were classified as BM1 and the majority (84.5%) of these were CMS4. Many of those classified as BM2 (67.8%) were CMS1 (64.7%). In the BM1 and CMS4 tumours, expression of inflammatory response and epithelial mesenchymal transition genes were elevated, and expression of cell cycle genes was reduced. Response rate in pts with CMS4 and/or BM1 tumors was higher in the triplet arm (CMS4: 33.3% [95% CI: 21.7-46.7]; BM1: 33.3% [95% CI: 21.4-47.1]) vs the doublet arm (CMS4: 19.2% [95% CI: 9.6-32.5]; BM1: 14.9% [95% CI: 6.2-28.3]). Conclusions : Molecular characteristics and biological properties observed in BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC suggest a subset of pts with specific molecular features may derive greater clinical benefit from triplet vs doublet therapy. These findings support further investigating the biological landscape in BRAF-mutant mCRC to enable potential hypotheses for pt selection to improve clinical outcome in future studies.

Background: Enco + cetux (doublet) has been approved in the US, EU, and Japan for the treatment of BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC after progression on 1-2 prior regimens. In the BEACON CRC study (NCT02928224), median OS (95% CI) with the doublet was 9.3 months (8.0-11.3) vs 5.9 months (5.1-7.1) with cetux + irinotecan or FOLFIRI (control) in patients (pts) with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC (HR 0.61 [95% CI: 0.5-0.8]). This post hoc analysis investigates OS by prior therapies to the doublet treatment in pts with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC from the BEACON CRC study. Methods : OS of pts treated with the doublet or control were compared according to prior treatment with bevacizumab, oxaliplatin or FOLFOXIRI and duration of prior anticancer therapy (ACT). Results : Sixty-four per cent and 55% of pts in the doublet and control arm respectively received prior bevacizumab. Of pts who had one prior therapy, 95% and 88% received prior oxaliplatin and 20% and 14% received prior FOLFOXIRI, respectively. In the doublet arm, pts who had bevacizumab < 4 months before start of study treatment had a median OS of 8.3 months (95% CI: 6.2-11.2); those who had bevacizumab >=4 months prior had a median OS of 10.7 (95% CI: 7.5-17.7). Within each treatment arm, OS was similar regardless of prior treatment with oxaliplatin or FOLFOXIRI. The duration of prior ACT was similar across study arms, ranging from 5.6 to 5.8 months for the first line of ACT. Conclusions : In the BEACON CRC study, pts treated with the doublet for BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC demonstrated similar OS regardless of prior therapies or duration of prior therapy use. This exploratory post hoc analysis provides data that reflect the prior treatment landscape clinicians may face when deciding subsequent treatment regimens for pts with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC.

Background: In the BEACON study, encorafenib + binimetinib + cetuximab (enco/bini/cetux; triplet) and enco + cetux (doublet) improved OS and ORR vs standard of care in previously treated BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC pts. Molecular profiling of tumours from this study was performed to identify molecular correlates of outcome. Methods : Baseline tumour samples were analysed by whole-exome sequencing (WES) and whole transcriptome sequencing (WTS). BRAF-mutant (BM) and consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) were determined and pathway activities evaluated with gene set variation analysis. Tumour response was evaluated for each subtype. Additional association and interaction analyses between molecular features and outcomes by treatments are ongoing and will be presented. Results : Baseline tumour samples were analysed by WES and/or WTS for 79.2% of pts. Of the 460 pts analysed by WTS (73.7% in the triplet arm, 66.4% in the doublet arm, 67.4% in the control arm), 84.6% were classified as CMS1 or CMS4. Overall 32.2% of pts were classified as BM1 and the majority (84.5%) of these were CMS4. Many of those classified as BM2 (67.8%) were CMS1 (64.7%). In the BM1 and CMS4 tumours, expression of inflammatory response and epithelial mesenchymal transition genes were elevated, and expression of cell cycle genes was reduced. Response rate in pts with CMS4 and/or BM1 tumors was higher in the triplet arm (CMS4: 33.3% [95% CI: 21.7-46.7]; BM1: 33.3% [95% CI: 21.4-47.1]) vs the doublet arm (CMS4: 19.2% [95% CI: 9.6-32.5]; BM1: 14.9% [95% CI: 6.2-28.3]). Conclusions : Molecular characteristics and biological properties observed in BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC suggest a subset of pts with specific molecular features may derive greater clinical benefit from triplet vs doublet therapy. These findings support further investigating the biological landscape in BRAF-mutant mCRC to enable potential hypotheses for pt selection to improve clinical outcome in future studies.

BACKGROUND: In the BEACON CRC study (NCT02928224), encorafenib plus cetuximab with binimetinib {9.3 versus 5.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.60 [0.47-0.75]} or without binimetinib [9.3 versus 5.9 months; HR (95% CI): 0.61 (0.48-0.77)] significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with the previous standard of care (control) in patients with BRAF V600E metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Quality of life (QoL) was a secondary endpoint, assessed using validated instruments. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BEACON CRC was a randomized, open-label, phase III study comparing encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib and the investigator's choice of irinotecan plus cetuximab or FOLFIRI plus cetuximab (chemotherapy control) in patients with previously treated BRAF V600E mCRC. Patient-reported QoL assessments included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C). The primary outcome for these tools was time to definitive 10% deterioration. RESULTS: Encorafenib plus cetuximab, both with and without binimetinib, was associated with longer median times to definitive 10% deterioration versus the control group in the EORTC Global Health Status scale [HR (95% CI): 0.65 (0.52-0.80) versus 0.61 (0.49-0.75), respectively] and the FACT-C functional well-being subscale [HR (95% CI): 0.62 (0.50-0.76) versus 0.58 (0.47-0.72), respectively]. Consistent results were observed across all subscales of the EORTC and FACT-C instruments. QoL was generally maintained during treatment for the global EORTC and FACT-C scales. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to improving OS, encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib delays QoL decline in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC.

Background: BEACONCRC is a randomized, phase 3 study which evaluated the triplet of encorafenib (ENCO) + binimetinib (BINI) + cetuximab (CETUX) and the doublet of ENCO + CETUX vs. investigator's choice of irinotecan + CETUX or FOLFIRI + CETUX in patients (pts) with BRAFV600E metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) whose disease had progressed after 1-2 prior regimens in the metastatic setting. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR; by blinded central review) for triplet vs control. In a previous interim analysis, triplet and doublet improvedOS andORRversus standard of care. Here we report on an updated analysis. Method(s): Updated analysis includes 6 months of additional follow-up and response data for all randomized pts. The study is ongoing. Result(s): Patients received triplet (n = 224), doublet (n = 220), or control (n = 221). Median OS was 9.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]:8.2, 10.8) for triplet and 5.9 months (95% CI:5.1-7.1) for control (hazard ratio [HR] (95% CI): 0.60 (0.47-0.75)). Median OS for doublet was 9.3 months (95% CI: 8.0-11.3) (HR vs control: 0.61 (0.48- 0.77). Confirmed ORR was 26.8% (95% CI: 21.1%-33.1%) for triplet, 19.5% (95% CI: 14.5%-25.4%) for doublet, and 1.8% (95% CI: 0.5%- 4.6%) for control. Retrospective subgroup analyses suggested some pts may benefit more from triplet than doublet therapy (Table). Both triplet and doublet showedimprovedOS compared to control in all subgroups. Adverse events were consistent with prior analysis, with grade >=3 adverse events in 65.8%, 57.4%, and 64.2% for triplet, doublet and control, respectively. Conclusion(s): The updated analysis of the BEACON CRC study confirmed that encorafenib + cetuximab with or without binimetinib improved OS and ORR in previously treated pts with BRAF V600E mCRC compared with standard chemotherapy.

Background: BEACONCRC is a randomized, phase 3 study which evaluated the triplet of encorafenib (ENCO) + binimetinib (BINI) + cetuximab (CETUX) and the doublet of ENCO + CETUX vs. investigator's choice of irinotecan + CETUX or FOLFIRI + CETUX in patients (pts) with BRAFV600E metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) whose disease had progressed after 1-2 prior regimens in the metastatic setting. Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR; by blinded central review) for triplet vs control. In a previous interim analysis, triplet and doublet improvedOS andORRversus standard of care. Here we report on an updated analysis. Method(s): Updated analysis includes 6 months of additional follow-up and response data for all randomized pts. The study is ongoing. Result(s): Patients received triplet (n = 224), doublet (n = 220), or control (n = 221). Median OS was 9.3 months (95% confidence interval [CI]:8.2, 10.8) for triplet and 5.9 months (95% CI:5.1-7.1) for control (hazard ratio [HR] (95% CI): 0.60 (0.47-0.75)). Median OS for doublet was 9.3 months (95% CI: 8.0-11.3) (HR vs control: 0.61 (0.48- 0.77). Confirmed ORR was 26.8% (95% CI: 21.1%-33.1%) for triplet, 19.5% (95% CI: 14.5%-25.4%) for doublet, and 1.8% (95% CI: 0.5%- 4.6%) for control. Retrospective subgroup analyses suggested some pts may benefit more from triplet than doublet therapy (Table). Both triplet and doublet showedimprovedOS compared to control in all subgroups. Adverse events were consistent with prior analysis, with grade >=3 adverse events in 65.8%, 57.4%, and 64.2% for triplet, doublet and control, respectively. Conclusion(s): The updated analysis of the BEACON CRC study confirmed that encorafenib + cetuximab with or without binimetinib improved OS and ORR in previously treated pts with BRAF V600E mCRC compared with standard chemotherapy.

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, with a 5-year relative survival of 14% in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients with BRAF V600E mutations, which occur in ∼10%-15% of patients with mCRC, have a poorer prognosis compared with those with wild-type BRAF tumours. The combination of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib with the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor cetuximab currently represents the only chemotherapy-free targeted therapy approved in the USA and Europe for previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC. As a class, BRAF inhibitors are associated with dermatologic, gastrointestinal, and renal events, as well as pyrexia and secondary skin malignancies. Adverse event (AE) profiles of specific BRAF inhibitors vary, however, and are affected by the specific agents given in combination. In patients with mCRC, commonly reported AEs of cetuximab monotherapy include infusion reactions and dermatologic toxicities. Data from the phase III BEACON CRC study indicate that the combination of encorafenib with cetuximab has a distinct safety profile. Here we review the most frequently reported AEs that occurred with this combination in BEACON CRC and best practices for managing and mitigating AEs that require more than standard supportive care.

PURPOSE: BEACON CRC evaluated encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib versus investigators' choice of irinotecan or FOLFIRI plus cetuximab in patients with BRAFV600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), after progression on 1-2 prior regimens. In the previously reported primary analysis, encorafenib, binimetinib plus cetuximab (ENCO/BINI/CETUX; triplet) and encorafenib plus cetuximab (ENCO/CETUX; doublet) regimens improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR; by blinded central review) versus standard of care. The purpose of this analysis was to report updated efficacy and safety data. METHODS: In this open-label, phase III trial, 665 patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive triplet, doublet, or control. Primary end points were OS and independently reviewed ORR comparing triplet to control. OS for doublet versus control was a key secondary end point. Updated analyses include 6 months of additional follow-up and ORR for all randomized patients. RESULTS: Patients received triplet (n = 224), doublet (n = 220), or control (n = 221). Median OS was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 10.8) for triplet and 5.9 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.1) for control (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.75]). Median OS for doublet was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.0 to 11.3) (HR v control, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.77]). Confirmed ORR was 26.8% (95% CI, 21.1% to 33.1%) for triplet, 19.5% (95% CI, 14.5% to 25.4%) for doublet, and 1.8% (95% CI, 0.5% to 4.6%) for control. Adverse events were consistent with the prior primary analysis, with grade ≥ 3 adverse events in 65.8%, 57.4%, and 64.2% for triplet, doublet, and control, respectively. CONCLUSION: In the BEACON CRC study, encorafenib plus cetuximab improved OS, ORR, and progression-free survival in previously treated patients in the metastatic setting compared with standard chemotherapy. Based on the primary and updated analyses, encorafenib plus cetuximab is a new standard ca

Purpose: To test the efficacy of adding cisplatin to first-line treatment for elderly patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) within a combined analysis of two parallel phase III trials, MILES-3 and MILES-4. Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced NSCLC who were older than age 70 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 were randomly assigned to gemcitabine or pemetrexed, without or with cisplatin. In each trial, 382 events were required to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of death of 0.75, with 80% power and two-tailed a of .05. Trials were closed prematurely because of slow accrual, but the joint database allowed us to analyze the efficacy of cisplatin on the basis of intention-to-treat and adjusted by trial, histotype, non-platinum companion drug, stage, performance status, sex, age, and size of the study center. Results: From March 2011 to August 2016, 531 patients (MILES-3, 299; MILES-4, 232) were assigned to gemcitabine or pemetrexed without (n = 268) or with cisplatin (n = 263). Median age was 75 years, 79% were male, and 70% had nonsquamous histology. At a median 2-year follow-up, 384 deaths and 448 progression-free survival events were recorded. Overall survival was not significantly prolonged with cisplatin (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.05; P = .14) and global health status score of quality of life was not improved, whereas progression-free survival (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.92; P = .005) and objective response rate (15.5% v 8.5%; P = .02) were significantly better. Significantly more severe hematologic toxicity, fatigue, and anorexia were found with cisplatin. Conclusion: The addition of cisplatin to single-agent chemotherapy does not significantly prolong overall survival, and it does not improve global health status score of quality of life in elderly patients with advanced NSCLC.

OAK, a phase III advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) trial, compared the investigational drug atezolizumab with the standard chemotherapy agent docetaxel. The patient-reported outcomes data revealed that atezolizumab prolonged the time to the worsening of disease-related symptoms, such as chest pain, and maintained patients’ health-related quality of life. These data further support the use of atezolizumab in the treatment of advanced NSCLC. Background: The randomized phase III OAK (a study of atezolizumab compared with docetaxel in participants with locally advanced or metastatic non–small-cell lung cancer [NSCLC] who have failed platinum-containing therapy) trial investigated the anti–programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody atezolizumab for advanced or metastatic, previously treated, NSCLC. Atezolizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-0.87; P =.0003; median OS, 13.8 vs. 9.6 months, respectively). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were collected to evaluate disease-related symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) to support the finding of a survival benefit. Patients and Methods: The first 850 patients were randomized to receive atezolizumab (1200 mg every 3 weeks) or docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 every 3 weeks). PROs were collected on day 1 of cycle 1, day 1 of every subsequent cycle, and at the end-of-treatment visit for patients who completed ≥ 1 baseline and 1 postbaseline PRO assessment. The European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer QoL questionnaire and lung cancer module were used to assess PROs. Results: Atezolizumab delayed the time to deterioration (TTD) in physical function (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.98) and role function (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.62-1.00) and numerically improved patients’ HRQoL from baseline compared with docetaxel. Atezolizumab also prolonged the TTD in chest pain (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.49-1.05; P =.0823), al

Background: Uncertainty exists about the optimal schedule of adjuvant treatment of breast cancer with aromatase inhibitors and, to our knowledge, no trial has directly compared the three aromatase inhibitors anastrozole, exemestane, and letrozole. We investigated the schedule and type of aromatase inhibitors to be used as adjuvant treatment for hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. Methods: FATA-GIM3 is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial of six different treatments in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive early breast cancer. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed invasive hormone receptor-positive breast cancer that had been completely removed by surgery, any pathological tumour size, and axillary nodal status. Key exclusion criteria were hormone replacement therapy, recurrent or metastatic disease, previous treatment with tamoxifen, and another malignancy in the previous 10 years. Patients were randomly assigned in an equal ratio to one of six treatment groups: oral anastrozole (1 mg per day), exemestane (25 mg per day), or letrozole (2·5 mg per day) tablets upfront for 5 years (upfront strategy) or oral tamoxifen (20 mg per day) for 2 years followed by oral administration of one of the three aromatase inhibitors for 3 years (switch strategy). Randomisation was done by a computerised minimisation procedure stratified for oestrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and HER2 status; previous chemotherapy; and pathological nodal status. Neither the patients nor the physicians were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival. The minimum cutoff to declare superiority of the upfront strategy over the switch strategy was assumed to be a 2% difference in disease-free survival at 5 years. Primary efficacy analyses were done by intention to treat; safety analyses included all patients for whom at least one safety case report form had been completed. Follow-up is ongoing. This trial is regist

This position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology Cardio-Oncology Study Group in collaboration with the International Cardio-Oncology Society presents practical, easy-to-use and evidence-based risk stratification tools for oncologists, haemato-oncologists and cardiologists to use in their clinical practice to risk stratify oncology patients prior to receiving cancer therapies known to cause heart failure or other serious cardiovascular toxicities. Baseline risk stratification proformas are presented for oncology patients prior to receiving the following cancer therapies: anthracycline chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapies such as trastuzumab, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, second and third generation multi-targeted kinase inhibitors for chronic myeloid leukaemia targeting BCR-ABL, multiple myeloma therapies (proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs), RAF and MEK inhibitors or androgen deprivation therapies. Applying these risk stratification proformas will allow clinicians to stratify cancer patients into low, medium, high and very high risk of cardiovascular complications prior to starting treatment, with the aim of improving personalised approaches to minimise the risk of cardiovascular toxicity from cancer therapies.

Background Atezolizumab is a humanised antiprogrammed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) monoclonal antibody that inhibits PD-L1 and programmed death-1 (PD-1) and PD-L1 and B7-1 interactions, reinvigorating anticancer immunity. We assessed its efficacy and safety versus docetaxel in previously treated patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods We did a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial (OAK) in 194 academic or community oncology centres in 31 countries. We enrolled patients who had squamous or non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer, were 18 years or older, had measurable disease per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients had received one to two previous cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens (one or more platinum based combination therapies) for stage IIIB or IV non-small-cell lung cancer. Patients with a history of autoimmune disease and those who had received previous treatments with docetaxel, CD137 agonists, anti-CTLA4, or therapies targeting the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to intravenously receive either atezolizumab 1200 mg or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 every 3 weeks by permuted block randomisation (block size of eight) via an interactive voice or web response system. Coprimary endpoints were overall survival in the intention-to-treat (ITT) and PD-L1-expression population TC1/2/3 or IC1/2/3 (≥1% PD-L1 on tumour cells or tumour-infiltrating immune cells). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the first 850 of 1225 enrolled patients. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02008227. Findings Between March 11, 2014, and April 29, 2015, 1225 patients were recruited. In the primary population, 425 patients were randomly assigned to receive atezolizumab and 425 patients were assigned to receive docetaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer with atezolizumab in the ITT and PD-L1-expression populations. In the ITT

PURPOSE: To determine the safety and preliminary efficacy of selective combination targeted therapy for BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the safety lead-in phase of the open-label, randomized, three-arm, phase III BEACON Colorectal Cancer trial ( ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02928224; European Union Clinical Trials Register identifier: EudraCT2015-005805-35). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Before initiation of the randomized portion of the BEACON Colorectal Cancer trial, 30 patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC who had experienced treatment failure with one or two prior regimens were to be recruited to a safety lead-in of encorafenib 300 mg daily, binimetinib 45 mg twice daily, plus standard weekly cetuximab. The primary end point was safety, including the incidence of dose-limiting toxicities. Efficacy end points included overall response rate, progression-free survival, and overall survival. RESULTS: Among the 30 treated patients, dose-limiting toxicities occurred in five patients and included serous retinopathy (n = 2), reversible decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (n = 1), and cetuximab-related infusion reactions (n = 2). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were fatigue (13%), anemia (10%), increased creatine phosphokinase (10%), increased AST (10%), and urinary tract infections (10%). In 29 patients with BRAF V600E-mutant tumors (one patient had a non-BRAF V600E-mutant tumor and was not included in the efficacy analysis), the confirmed overall response rate was 48% (95% CI, 29.4% to 67.5%), median progression-free survival was 8.0 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 9.3 months), and median overall survival was 15.3 months (95% CI, 9.6 months to not reached), with median duration of follow-up of 18.2 months (range, 16.6 to 19.8 months). CONCLUSION: In the safety lead-in, the safety and tolerability of the encorafenib, binimetinib, and cetuximab regimen is manageable and acceptable for initiation of the randomized portion of the study. The

Onco-nephrology is an emerging field in medicine. Patients with cancer may suffer from kidney diseases because of the cancer itself and cancer-related therapy. It is critical for nephrologists to be knowledgeable of cancer biology and therapy in order to be fully integrated in the multidisciplinary team and optimally manage patients with cancer and kidney diseases. In a recent international meeting, the key issues in this challenging clinical interface were addressed, including many unresolved basic science questions, such as the high tumor incidence in kidney transplant recipients. To this end, 70 highly qualified faculty members were gathered from all over the world to discuss these issues in 8 plenary sessions, including 5 keynote lectures. In addition, 48 young nephrologists and oncologists were invited to present their original observations that were highlighted in 2 large poster sessions.

The number of cancer patients in Europe is rising and significant advances in basic and applied cancer research are making the provision of optimal care more challenging. The concept of cancer as a systemic, highly heterogeneous and complex disease has increased the awareness that quality cancer care should be provided by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) of highly qualified healthcare professionals. Cancer patients also have the right to benefit from medical progress by receiving optimal treatment from adequately trained and highly skilled medical professionals. Built on the highest standards of professional training and continuing medical education, medical oncology is recognised as an independent medical specialty in many European countries. Medical oncology is a core member of the MDT and offers cancer patients a comprehensive and systemic approach to treatment and care, while ensuring evidence-based, safe and cost-effective use of cancer drugs and preserving the quality of life of cancer patients through the entire ‘cancer journey'. Medical oncologists are also engaged in clinical and translational research to promote innovation and new therapies and they contribute to cancer diagnosis, prevention and research, making a difference for patients in a dynamic, stimulating professional environment. Medical oncologists play an important role in shaping the future of healthcare through innovation and are also actively involved at the political level to ensure a maximum contribution of the profession to Society and to tackle future challenges. This position paper summarises the multifarious and vital contributions of medical oncology and medical oncologists to today's and tomorrow's professional cancer care

Contains fulltext : 171312.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 165965.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer whose disease has progressed on oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-containing regimens may benefit from EGFR-inhibiting monoclonal antibodies if they do not contain mutations in the KRAS gene (are "wild type"). It is unknown whether these antibodies, such as cetuximab, are more efficacious in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer as monotherapy, or in combination with irinotecan. Lack of mutation in KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA predicts response to EFGR-inhibitors. The ICECREAM trial examines the question of monotherapy versus combination with chemotherapy in two groups of patients: those with a "quadruple wild type" tumour genotype (no mutations in KRAS, NRAS, PI3KCA or BRAF genes) and those with the specific KRAS mutation in codon G13D, for whom possibly EGFR-inhibitor efficacy may be equivalent. METHODS AND DESIGN: ICECREAM is a randomised, phase II, open-label, controlled trial comparing the efficacy of cetuximab alone or with irinotecan in patients with "quadruple wild type" or G13D-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer, whose disease has progressed on, or who are intolerant of oxaliplatin- and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is the 6-month progression-free survival benefit of the treatment regimen. Secondary endpoints are response rate, overall survival, and quality of life. The tertiary endpoint is prediction of outcome with further biological markers. International collaboration has facilitated recruitment in this prospective trial of treatment in these infrequently found molecular subsets of colorectal cancer. DISCUSSION: This unique trial will yield prospective information on the efficacy of cetuximab and whether this is further enhanced with chemotherapy in two distinct populations of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the "quadruple wild type", which may 'superselect' for tumours sensitive to EGFR-inhibition, and the rare KRAS G13D mutated tumours, which are also postulated to b

Contains fulltext : 165965.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.

Contains fulltext : 171312.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 165965.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.

Contains fulltext : 171312.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Background: Cetuximab plus chemotherapy is a first-line treatment option in metastatic KRAS and NRAS wild-type colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. No data are currently available on continuing anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy beyond progression. Patients and methods: We did this open-label, 1:1 randomized phase II trial at 25 hospitals in Italy to evaluate the efficacy of cetuximab plus 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) as second-line treatment of KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic CRC patients treated in first line with 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab. Patients received FOLFOX plus cetuximab (arm A) or FOLFOX (arm B). Primary end point was progressionfree survival (PFS). Tumour tissues were assessed by next-generation sequencing (NGS). This report is the final analysis. Results: Between 1 February 2010 and 28 September 2014, 153 patients were randomized (74 in arm A and 79 in arm B). Median PFS was 6.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 4.7-8.0] versus 4.5 months (95% CI 3.3-5.7); [hazard ratio (HR), 0.81; 95% CI 0.58-1.12; P = 0.19], respectively. NGS was performed in 117/153 (76.5%) cases; 66/117 patients (34 in arm A and 32 in arm B) had KRAS, NRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA wild-type tumours. For these patients, PFS was longer in the FOLFOX plus cetuximab arm [median 6.9 (95% CI 5.5-8.2) versus 5.3 months (95% CI 3.7-6.9); HR, 0.56 (95% CI 0.33-0.94); P = 0.025]. There was a trend in better overall survival: median 23.7 [(95% CI 19.4-28.0) versus 19.8 months (95% CI 14.9-24.7); HR, 0.57 (95% CI 0.32-1.02); P = 0.056]. Conclusions: Continuing cetuximab treatment in combination with chemotherapy is of potential therapeutic efficacy in molecularly selected patients and should be validated in randomized phase III trials.

Contains fulltext : 155297.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), PURPOSE: The phase III CRYSTAL study demonstrated that addition of cetuximab to fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS codon 12/13 (exon 2) wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Outcome was reassessed in subgroups defined by extended RAS mutation testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Existing DNA samples from KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumors from CRYSTAL study patients were reanalyzed for other RAS mutations in four additional KRAS codons (exons 3 and 4) and six NRAS codons (exons 2, 3, and 4) using beads, emulsion, amplification, and magnetics technology. No tissue microdissection was performed. A >/= 5% mutant allele cutoff was used to call mutations. RESULTS: Mutation status was evaluable in 430 (64.6%) of 666 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumors. Other RAS mutations were detected in 63 (14.7%) of 430 patients. In those with RAS wild-type tumors, a significant benefit across all efficacy end points was associated with the addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI. In patients with other RAS tumor mutations, no difference in efficacy outcomes between treatment groups was seen. The safety profile in RAS subgroups was similar and in line with expectations. CONCLUSION: In the first-line treatment of mCRC, patients with RAS wild-type tumors derived a significant benefit from the addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI; patients with RAS tumor mutations did not. Molecular testing of tumors for all activating RAS mutations is essential before considering anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy, thereby allowing the further tailoring of cetuximab administration to maximize patient benefit.

Contains fulltext : 155255.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: The OPUS study demonstrated that addition of cetuximab to 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) significantly improved objective response and progression-free survival (PFS) in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In patients with KRAS exon 2 mutations, a detrimental effect was seen upon addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX4. The current study reports outcomes in subgroups defined by extended RAS testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Samples from OPUS study KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours were reanalysed for other RAS mutations in four additional KRAS codons (exons 3-4) and six NRAS codons (exons 2-4) using BEAMing. A cutoff of 5% mutant/wild-type sequences was selected to define RAS status; we also report an analysis using a cutoff based on the technical lower limit for mutation identification (0.1%). RESULTS: Other RAS mutations were detected in 31/118 (26%) evaluable patients. In the extended analysis of RAS wild-type tumours (n=87), objective response was significantly improved by addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX4 (58% versus 29%; odds ratio 3.33 [95% confidence interval 1.36-8.17]; P=0.0084); although limited by population size, there also appeared to be trends favouring the cetuximab arm in terms of PFS and overall survival in the RAS wild-type group compared with the RAS evaluable group. There was no evidence that patients with other RAS mutations benefited from cetuximab, but small numbers precluded precise estimations of treatment effects. In the combined population of patients with any RAS mutation (KRAS exon 2 or other RAS), a clear detrimental effect was associated with addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX4. CONCLUSION: Patients with RAS-mutant mCRC, as defined by mutations in KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4, derive no benefit and may be harmed by the addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX4. Restricting cetuximab administration to patients with RAS wild-type tumours will further tailor therapy to

While they account for one-fifth of new cancer cases, rare cancers are difficult to study. A higher than average degree of uncertainty should be accommodated for clinical as well as for population-based decision making. Rules of rational decision making in conditions of uncertainty should be rigorously followed and would need widely informative clinical trials. In principle, any piece of new evidence would need to be exploited in rare cancers. Methodologies to explicitly weigh and combine all the available evidence should be refined, and the Bayesian logic can be instrumental to this end. Likewise, Bayesian-design trials may help optimize the low number of patients liable to be enrolled in clinical studies on rare cancers, as well as adaptive trials in general, with their inherent potential of flexibility when properly applied. While clinical studies are the mainstay to test hypotheses, the potential of electronic patient records should be exploited to generate new hypotheses, to create external controls for future studies (when internal controls are unpractical), to study effectiveness of new treatments in real conditions. Framework study protocols in specific rare cancers to stepwisely test sets of new agents, as from the early post-phase I dev

Contains fulltext : 155297.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), PURPOSE: The phase III CRYSTAL study demonstrated that addition of cetuximab to fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS codon 12/13 (exon 2) wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Outcome was reassessed in subgroups defined by extended RAS mutation testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Existing DNA samples from KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumors from CRYSTAL study patients were reanalyzed for other RAS mutations in four additional KRAS codons (exons 3 and 4) and six NRAS codons (exons 2, 3, and 4) using beads, emulsion, amplification, and magnetics technology. No tissue microdissection was performed. A >/= 5% mutant allele cutoff was used to call mutations. RESULTS: Mutation status was evaluable in 430 (64.6%) of 666 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumors. Other RAS mutations were detected in 63 (14.7%) of 430 patients. In those with RAS wild-type tumors, a significant benefit across all efficacy end points was associated with the addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI. In patients with other RAS tumor mutations, no difference in efficacy outcomes between treatment groups was seen. The safety profile in RAS subgroups was similar and in line with expectations. CONCLUSION: In the first-line treatment of mCRC, patients with RAS wild-type tumors derived a significant benefit from the addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI; patients with RAS tumor mutations did not. Molecular testing of tumors for all activating RAS mutations is essential before considering anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy, thereby allowing the further tailoring of cetuximab administration to maximize patient benefit.

Contains fulltext : 155255.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND: The OPUS study demonstrated that addition of cetuximab to 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4) significantly improved objective response and progression-free survival (PFS) in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). In patients with KRAS exon 2 mutations, a detrimental effect was seen upon addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX4. The current study reports outcomes in subgroups defined by extended RAS testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Samples from OPUS study KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours were reanalysed for other RAS mutations in four additional KRAS codons (exons 3-4) and six NRAS codons (exons 2-4) using BEAMing. A cutoff of 5% mutant/wild-type sequences was selected to define RAS status; we also report an analysis using a cutoff based on the technical lower limit for mutation identification (0.1%). RESULTS: Other RAS mutations were detected in 31/118 (26%) evaluable patients. In the extended analysis of RAS wild-type tumours (n=87), objective response was significantly improved by addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX4 (58% versus 29%; odds ratio 3.33 [95% confidence interval 1.36-8.17]; P=0.0084); although limited by population size, there also appeared to be trends favouring the cetuximab arm in terms of PFS and overall survival in the RAS wild-type group compared with the RAS evaluable group. There was no evidence that patients with other RAS mutations benefited from cetuximab, but small numbers precluded precise estimations of treatment effects. In the combined population of patients with any RAS mutation (KRAS exon 2 or other RAS), a clear detrimental effect was associated with addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX4. CONCLUSION: Patients with RAS-mutant mCRC, as defined by mutations in KRAS and NRAS exons 2-4, derive no benefit and may be harmed by the addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX4. Restricting cetuximab administration to patients with RAS wild-type tumours will further tailor therapy to

Contains fulltext : 155297.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access), PURPOSE: The phase III CRYSTAL study demonstrated that addition of cetuximab to fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) significantly improved overall survival, progression-free survival, and objective response in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS codon 12/13 (exon 2) wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Outcome was reassessed in subgroups defined by extended RAS mutation testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Existing DNA samples from KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumors from CRYSTAL study patients were reanalyzed for other RAS mutations in four additional KRAS codons (exons 3 and 4) and six NRAS codons (exons 2, 3, and 4) using beads, emulsion, amplification, and magnetics technology. No tissue microdissection was performed. A >/= 5% mutant allele cutoff was used to call mutations. RESULTS: Mutation status was evaluable in 430 (64.6%) of 666 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumors. Other RAS mutations were detected in 63 (14.7%) of 430 patients. In those with RAS wild-type tumors, a significant benefit across all efficacy end points was associated with the addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI. In patients with other RAS tumor mutations, no difference in efficacy outcomes between treatment groups was seen. The safety profile in RAS subgroups was similar and in line with expectations. CONCLUSION: In the first-line treatment of mCRC, patients with RAS wild-type tumors derived a significant benefit from the addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI; patients with RAS tumor mutations did not. Molecular testing of tumors for all activating RAS mutations is essential before considering anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy, thereby allowing the further tailoring of cetuximab administration to maximize patient benefit.

While they account for one-fifth of new cancer cases, rare cancers are difficult to study. A higher than average degree of uncertainty should be accommodated for clinical as well as for population-based decision making. Rules of rational decision making in conditions of uncertainty should be rigorously followed and would need widely informative clinical trials. In principle, any piece of new evidence would need to be exploited in rare cancers. Methodologies to explicitly weigh and combine all the available evidence should be refined, and the Bayesian logic can be instrumental to this end. Likewise, Bayesian-design trials may help optimize the low number of patients liable to be enrolled in clinical studies on rare cancers, as well as adaptive trials in general, with their inherent potential of flexibility when properly applied. While clinical studies are the mainstay to test hypotheses, the potential of electronic patient records should be exploited to generate new hypotheses, to create external controls for future studies (when internal controls are unpractical), to study effectiveness of new treatments in real conditions. Framework study protocols in specific rare cancers to stepwisely test sets of new agents, as from the early post-phase I development stage, should be encouraged. Also the compassionate and the off-label settings should be exploited to generate new evidence, and flexible regulatory innovations such as adaptive licensing could convey new agents early to rare cancer patients, while generating evidence. Though validation of surrogate end points is problematic in rare cancers, the use of an updated notion of tumor response may be of great value in the single patient to optimize the use of therapies, all the more the new ones. Disease-based communities, involving clinicians and patients, should be regularly consulted by regulatory bodies when setting their policies on drug approval and reimbursement in specific rare cancers .

Heterogeneity of KRAS, NRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer and potential effects on therapy in the CAPRI GOIM trial

The number of cancer patients in Europe is rising and significant advances in basic and applied cancer research are making the provision of optimal care more challenging. The concept of cancer as a systemic, highly heterogeneous and complex disease has increased the awareness that quality cancer care should be provided by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) of highly qualified healthcare professionals. Cancer patients also have the right to benefit from medical progress by receiving optimal treatment from adequately trained and highly skilled medical professionals. Built on the highest standards of professional training and continuing medical education, medical oncology is recognised as an independent medical specialty in many European countries. Medical oncology is a core member of the MDT and offers cancer patients a comprehensive and systemic approach to treatment and care, while ensuring evidence-based, safe and cost-effective use of cancer drugs and preserving the quality of life of cancer patients through the entire 'cancer journey'. Medical oncologists are also engaged in clinical and translational research to promote innovation and new therapies and they contribute to cancer diagnosis, prevention and research, making a difference for patients in a dynamic, stimulating professional environment. Medical oncologists play an important role in shaping the future of healthcare through innovation and are also actively involved at the political level to ensure a maximum contribution of the profession to Society and to tackle future challenges. This position paper summarises the multifarious and vital contributions of medical oncology and medical oncologists to today's and tomorrow's professional cancer care.

Although the description and interpretation of cancer genetics has been at the core of cancer research for more than a century, in this decade genomic medicine is set to profoundly transform every aspect of cancer care. Already, the anecdotal cases of individuals who have not responded to conventional chemotherapy but for whom whole genome sequencing has identified a gene target for directed therapy with remarkable clinical effect [1], point to a time in the not-too-distant future when cancer genome sequencing will be a routine adjunct to the clinico-pathological 'work-up' of a newly diagnosed cancer. For now, the identification of genes central to cancer biology is generating highly relevant diagnostic, prognostic and therapeutic information that has already translated to the clinic. The extraordinary pace of change is set to continue. The new era of personalised cancer medicine will touch every aspect of cancer care-from patient counselling, to cancer diagnosis, tumour classification, treatment and outcome-that demands a new level of in-depth education and collaboration between researchers, cancer specialists, patients and other stakeholders. In this position paper, ESMO sets out the current status in the field of personalised cancer medicine and addresses issues and challenges for the medical oncology community.

Contains fulltext : 142755.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Molecular testing of tumor samples to guide treatment decisions is of increasing importance. Several drugs have been approved for treatment of molecularly defined subgroups of patients, and the number of agents requiring companion diagnostics for their prescription is expected to rapidly increase. The results of such testing directly influence the management of individual patients, with both false-negative and false-positive results being harmful for patients. In this respect, external quality assurance (EQA) programs are essential to guarantee optimal quality of testing. There are several EQA schemes available in Europe, but they vary in scope, size and execution. During a conference held in early 2012, medical oncologists, pathologists, geneticists, molecular biologists, EQA providers and representatives from pharmaceutical industries developed a guideline to harmonize the standards applied by EQA schemes in molecular pathology. The guideline comprises recommendations on the organization of an EQA scheme, defining the criteria for reference laboratories, requirements for EQA test samples and the number of samples that are needed for an EQA scheme. Furthermore, a scoring system is proposed and consequences of poor performance are formulated. Lastly, the contents of an EQA report, communication of the EQA results, EQA databases and participant manual are given.

Contains fulltext : 118506.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Molecular pathology is an integral part of daily diagnostic pathology and used for classification of tumors, for prediction of prognosis and response to therapy, and to support treatment decisions. For these reasons, analyses in molecular pathology must be highly reliable and hence external quality assessment (EQA) programs are called for. Several EQA programs exist to which laboratories can subscribe, but they vary in scope, number of subscribers, and execution. The guideline presented in this paper has been developed with the purpose to harmonize EQA in molecular pathology. It presents recommendations on how an EQA program should be organized, provides criteria for a reference laboratory, proposes requirements for EQA test samples, and defines the number of samples needed for an EQA program. Furthermore, a system for scoring of the results is proposed as well as measures to be taken for poorly performing laboratories. Proposals are made regarding the content requirements of an EQA report and how its results should be communicated. Finally, the need for an EQA database and a participant manual are elaborated. It is the intention of this guideline to improve EQA for molecular pathology in order to provide more reliable molecular analyses as well as optimal information regarding patient selection for treatment.

Contains fulltext : 142755.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Molecular testing of tumor samples to guide treatment decisions is of increasing importance. Several drugs have been approved for treatment of molecularly defined subgroups of patients, and the number of agents requiring companion diagnostics for their prescription is expected to rapidly increase. The results of such testing directly influence the management of individual patients, with both false-negative and false-positive results being harmful for patients. In this respect, external quality assurance (EQA) programs are essential to guarantee optimal quality of testing. There are several EQA schemes available in Europe, but they vary in scope, size and execution. During a conference held in early 2012, medical oncologists, pathologists, geneticists, molecular biologists, EQA providers and representatives from pharmaceutical industries developed a guideline to harmonize the standards applied by EQA schemes in molecular pathology. The guideline comprises recommendations on the organization of an EQA scheme, defining the criteria for reference laboratories, requirements for EQA test samples and the number of samples that are needed for an EQA scheme. Furthermore, a scoring system is proposed and consequences of poor performance are formulated. Lastly, the contents of an EQA report, communication of the EQA results, EQA databases and participant manual are given.

Contains fulltext : 118506.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Molecular pathology is an integral part of daily diagnostic pathology and used for classification of tumors, for prediction of prognosis and response to therapy, and to support treatment decisions. For these reasons, analyses in molecular pathology must be highly reliable and hence external quality assessment (EQA) programs are called for. Several EQA programs exist to which laboratories can subscribe, but they vary in scope, number of subscribers, and execution. The guideline presented in this paper has been developed with the purpose to harmonize EQA in molecular pathology. It presents recommendations on how an EQA program should be organized, provides criteria for a reference laboratory, proposes requirements for EQA test samples, and defines the number of samples needed for an EQA program. Furthermore, a system for scoring of the results is proposed as well as measures to be taken for poorly performing laboratories. Proposals are made regarding the content requirements of an EQA report and how its results should be communicated. Finally, the need for an EQA database and a participant manual are elaborated. It is the intention of this guideline to improve EQA for molecular pathology in order to provide more reliable molecular analyses as well as optimal information regarding patient selection for treatment.

Contains fulltext : 142755.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Molecular testing of tumor samples to guide treatment decisions is of increasing importance. Several drugs have been approved for treatment of molecularly defined subgroups of patients, and the number of agents requiring companion diagnostics for their prescription is expected to rapidly increase. The results of such testing directly influence the management of individual patients, with both false-negative and false-positive results being harmful for patients. In this respect, external quality assurance (EQA) programs are essential to guarantee optimal quality of testing. There are several EQA schemes available in Europe, but they vary in scope, size and execution. During a conference held in early 2012, medical oncologists, pathologists, geneticists, molecular biologists, EQA providers and representatives from pharmaceutical industries developed a guideline to harmonize the standards applied by EQA schemes in molecular pathology. The guideline comprises recommendations on the organization of an EQA scheme, defining the criteria for reference laboratories, requirements for EQA test samples and the number of samples that are needed for an EQA scheme. Furthermore, a scoring system is proposed and consequences of poor performance are formulated. Lastly, the contents of an EQA report, communication of the EQA results, EQA databases and participant manual are given.

Contains fulltext : 118506.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Molecular pathology is an integral part of daily diagnostic pathology and used for classification of tumors, for prediction of prognosis and response to therapy, and to support treatment decisions. For these reasons, analyses in molecular pathology must be highly reliable and hence external quality assessment (EQA) programs are called for. Several EQA programs exist to which laboratories can subscribe, but they vary in scope, number of subscribers, and execution. The guideline presented in this paper has been developed with the purpose to harmonize EQA in molecular pathology. It presents recommendations on how an EQA program should be organized, provides criteria for a reference laboratory, proposes requirements for EQA test samples, and defines the number of samples needed for an EQA program. Furthermore, a system for scoring of the results is proposed as well as measures to be taken for poorly performing laboratories. Proposals are made regarding the content requirements of an EQA report and how its results should be communicated. Finally, the need for an EQA database and a participant manual are elaborated. It is the intention of this guideline to improve EQA for molecular pathology in order to provide more reliable molecular analyses as well as optimal information regarding patient selection for treatment.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common tumour type in both sexes combined in Western countries. Although screening programmes including the implementation of faecal occult blood test and colonoscopy might be able to reduce mortality by removing precursor lesions and by making diagnosis at an earlier stage, the burden of disease and mortality is still high. Improvement of diagnostic and treatment options increased staging accuracy, functional outcome for early stages as well as survival. Although high quality surgery is still the mainstay of curative treatment, the management of CRC must be a multi-modal approach performed by an experienced multi-disciplinary expert team. Optimal choice of the individual treatment modality according to disease localization and extent, tumour biology and patient factors is able to maintain quality of life, enables long-term survival and even cure in selected patients by a combination of chemotherapy and surgery. Treatment decisions must be based on the available evidence, which has been the basis for this consensus conference-based guideline delivering a clear proposal for diagnostic and treatment measures in each stage of rectal and colon cancer and the individual clinical situations. This ESMO guideline is recommended to be used as the basis for treatment and management decisions.

Contains fulltext : 111010pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common tumour type in both sexes combined in Western countries. Although screening programmes including the implementation of faecal occult blood test and colonoscopy might be able to reduce mortality by removing precursor lesions and by making diagnosis at an earlier stage, the burden of disease and mortality is still high. Improvement of diagnostic and treatment options increased staging accuracy, functional outcome for early stages as well as survival. Although high quality surgery is still the mainstay of curative treatment, the management of CRC must be a multi-modal approach performed by an experienced multi-disciplinary expert team. Optimal choice of the individual treatment modality according to disease localization and extent, tumour biology and patient factors is able to maintain quality of life, enables long-term survival and even cure in selected patients by a combination of chemotherapy and surgery. Treatment decisions must be based on the available evidence, which has been the basis for this consensus conference-based guideline delivering a clear proposal for diagnostic and treatment measures in each stage of rectal and colon cancer and the individual clinical situations. This ESMO guideline is recommended to be used as the basis for treatment and management decisions.

Contains fulltext : 111010pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common tumour type in both sexes combined in Western countries. Although screening programmes including the implementation of faecal occult blood test and colonoscopy might be able to reduce mortality by removing precursor lesions and by making diagnosis at an earlier stage, the burden of disease and mortality is still high. Improvement of diagnostic and treatment options increased staging accuracy, functional outcome for early stages as well as survival. Although high quality surgery is still the mainstay of curative treatment, the management of CRC must be a multi-modal approach performed by an experienced multi-disciplinary expert team. Optimal choice of the individual treatment modality according to disease localization and extent, tumour biology and patient factors is able to maintain quality of life, enables long-term survival and even cure in selected patients by a combination of chemotherapy and surgery. Treatment decisions must be based on the available evidence, which has been the basis for this consensus conference-based guideline delivering a clear proposal for diagnostic and treatment measures in each stage of rectal and colon cancer and the individual clinical situations. This ESMO guideline is recommended to be used as the basis for treatment and management decisions.

Contains fulltext : 111010pub.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common tumour type in both sexes combined in Western countries. Although screening programmes including the implementation of faecal occult blood test and colonoscopy might be able to reduce mortality by removing precursor lesions and by making diagnosis at an earlier stage, the burden of disease and mortality is still high. Improvement of diagnostic and treatment options increased staging accuracy, functional outcome for early stages as well as survival. Although high quality surgery is still the mainstay of curative treatment, the management of CRC must be a multi-modal approach performed by an experienced multi-disciplinary expert team. Optimal choice of the individual treatment modality according to disease localization and extent, tumour biology and patient factors is able to maintain quality of life, enables long-term survival and even cure in selected patients by a combination of chemotherapy and surgery. Treatment decisions must be based on the available evidence, which has been the basis for this consensus conference-based guideline delivering a clear proposal for diagnostic and treatment measures in each stage of rectal and colon cancer and the individual clinical situations. This ESMO guideline is recommended to be used as the basis for treatment and management decisions.

[Background:] The EGFR-dependent growth pathway plays a key role in colorectal cancer. Gene mutations in EGFR downstream intracellular effectors correlate with resistance to EGFR targeting agents. Approximately 40% of colorectal cancers carry an activating K-RAS gene mutation mostly in codons 12 or 13; whereas in about 5 to 8% cases an activating V600E B-RAF gene mutation is observed. These mutations are mutually exclusive, whereas PI3KCA mutations (5-15%) can occur independently. We aimed to evaluate the role of AZD6244, a MEK1/2 inhibitor, in colon cancer cell lines with different mutation profiles in these three genes. [Methods:] Western blots were performed to evaluate the expression of total and activated EGFR, RAS, MAPK and AKT proteins in a panel of six (GEO, HCT15, HCT116, SW620, SW480 and LS174T) colon cancer cell lines. The antiproliferative effects of AZD6244 and gefitinib, a selective EGFR inhibitor, were determined using MTT assays. Induction of apoptosis was quantified by flow cytometry. [Results:] Different levels of total and phosphorylated EGFR were detected in five out of six colon cancer cell lines (except in SW620 cells). Four colon cancer cell lines were sensitive to AZD6244-induced growth inhibition, whereas two (HCT15 and LS174T) cell lines were resistant. In AZD6244-sensitive colon cancer cell lines, AZD6244 treatment induced early apoptosis (within 24 hours), which was enhanced between 48 and 72 hours. No correlation between sensitivity to AZD6244 and the expression of total and activated EGFR, RAS, MAPK and AKT proteins was observed. Of note, AZD6244 activity correlated with gene mutation status. K-RAS gene was mutated in GEO, HCT15, HCT116, SW480 and LS174T cells. PI3KCA was mutated in HCT15 and LS174T cells. All cancer cell lines harboured a wild type B-RAF gene. Cancer cells sensitive to AZD6244-induced growth inhibition carried a normal, wild type PI3KCA gene with either a wild type or a mutated K-RAS gene. On the contrary, the two AZD6