Search

Indication for primary tumour resection (PTR) in asymptomatic metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients is unclear. Previous retrospective analyses suggest a survival benefit for patients who underwent PTR. The aim was to evaluate the prognostic value of PTR in patients with synchronous mCRC by analysis of recent large RCTs including systemic therapy with modern targeted agents. Individual patient data (IPD) of 3423 patients enrolled into 8 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with first-line systemic therapy in the ARCAD (Aide et Recherche en Cancérologie Digestive) database were analysed. The number of patients with unresected synchronous mCRC, resected synchronous mCRC and metachronous mCRC was 710 (21%), 1705 (50%) and 1008 (29%), respectively. Adjusting for age, gender, performance status (PS) and prior chemotherapy, the unresected group had a significantly worse median overall survival (16.4 m) compared with the synchronous resected (22.2 m; hazard ratio [HR] 1.60, 95% CI 1.43-1.78) and metachronous (22.4 m; HR 1.81, 95% CI 1.58-2.07) groups. Similarly, median progression-free survival was significantly worse for the unresected group compared with the synchronous resected (HR 1.31, 95% CI 1.19-1.44) and metachronous (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.30-1.66) groups. In a multivariate analysis, the observed associations remained significant. This largest IPD analysis of mCRC trials to date demonstrates an improved survival in synchronous mCRC patients after PTR. These results may be subject to bias since reasons for (non)resection were not available. Until results of ongoing RCTs are available, both upfront PTR followed by systemic treatment and upfront systemic treatment are considered appropriate treatment strategies., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This article summarises the progress that has been made in the adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer over the last decade. In view of the consequent improvements in recurrence rates and in overall survival, the development of effective adjuvant treatments for colorectal cancer is considered as one of the most important to be made in clinical oncology over the last decade. Treatment recommendations based on evidence-based data and on expert opinions are summarised in this manuscript. However, a consensus cannot be reached on all aspects of treatment because of data that is currently emerging that will influence clinical practice and because of the many ongoing clinical trials. Those involved in the treatment of colorectal cancer should therefore be encouraged to continue to provide optimal patient care and to participate in well designed clinical trials in order to increase the evidence upon which they can base their clinical judgements and in order to make further progress.

The Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Liaison Office (GITCLO) was developed in an attempt to organise the increasing body of clinical research in gastrointestinal tumours in Europe. This paper represents an analysis, by tumour localisation, of the trials collected for the second edition of the GITCLO booklet. The list of cooperative groups, chairmen and study coordinators is given with their respective telephone and telefax numbers. A total of 84 trials were collected, conducted by 46 co-operative groups in 14 countries. For each organ and stage of disease, a summary of concepts investigated is given with the references of the study co-ordinator. Obviously, too many questions are raised at the same time. In colorectal cancer, for example, a total of 41 trials exploring 22 concepts are currently open for patients' registration. We hope that the present attempt to clarify the situation of clinical research in the field of gastrointestinal cancers in Europe will speed up therapeutic progress in the best interest of the patients.

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and toxicity of an idarubicin-prednimustine combination in advanced breast cancer. 19 patients received idarubicin 35 mg/m2 day 1 and prednimustine 100 mg/m2 days 2-6, every 21 days. Three objective responses with a median duration of 7 months were observed. Tolerance was good. A further 23 patients were given idarubicin administered at 15 mg/m2 days 1, 2 and 3 and prednimustine at the aforementioned dosage. 8 (35%) showed an objective response (4 CRs, 4 PRs) with a median duration of 6 months. No severe toxicity was observed. Results suggest activity of idarubicin-prednimustine combinations in advanced breast cancer, and further studies are indicated since this regimen is easily administered, especially to elderly patients.

This multicentre, randomised, double-blind study was designed to compare the anti-emetic efficacy and safety of single oral doses of dolasetron mesilate with that of the approved oral, multiple-dose regimen of ondansetron in 399 cancer patients receiving moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Single oral doses of 25, 50, 100 or 200 mg of dolasetron mesilate were administered 1 h prior to the initiation of moderately emetogenic chemotherapy. Multiple doses of ondansetron (8 mg x 3 or 8 mg x 4) capsules, or matching placebo for patients randomised to dolasetron, were given 1.5 h before and 6.5, 14.5 and 22.5 h after the start of chemotherapy (total dose = 32 mg). Efficacy was evaluated for 24 h after the initiation of chemotherapy. The most frequently used moderately emetogenic chemotherapeutic agents included cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and carboplatin (28.4, 23.1 and 20.6% of patients, respectively). A statistically significant (P < 0.001) linear dose-response relationship was observed over the entire dolasetron dosage range for all efficacy parameters. Complete response rates were 45.0, 49.4, 60.5 and 76.3% for 25, 50, 100 and 200 mg dolasetron mesilate, respectively, and 72.3% of ondansetron patients. A single oral 200 mg dolasetron mesilate dose was therapeutically equivalent to ondansetron for all efficacy parameters and patient satisfaction was high. Overall, there were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse events between any of the dolasetron mesilate doses, or between dolasetron and ondansetron. Headache was most frequently reported (approximately 15% for each drug). No clinically important changes in vital signs or clinical laboratory parameters were observed with either drug. In conclusion, a single oral 200 mg dolasetron mesilate dose was therapeutically equivalent to multiple-dose ondansetron in the prevention of emesis and nausea following moderately emetogenic chemotherapy.

This multicentre, double-blind, double-dummy, randomised trial was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of single intravenous doses of dolasetron mesilate and granisetron in the prevention of acute emesis and nausea due to high-dose (> or = 80 mg/m2) cisplatin. Single intravenous doses of 1.8 or 2.4 mg/kg of dolasetron mesilate or 3 mg of granisetron hydrochloride were administered in a volume of 50 ml over a 5-min period, beginning 30 min prior to cisplatin (> or = 80 mg/m2) administration. The number and timing of emetic episodes, time to administration of escape anti-emetic medication, severity of nausea by visual analogue scale (VAS), and safety were monitored for 24 h after the start of cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. Investigators' evaluations of overall efficacy and patients' satisfaction with therapy were recorded at the end of the 24-h study period. Of the 474 patients evaluable for efficacy, complete responses were achieved by 54, 47 and 48% of patients given dolasetron mesilate 1.8 mg/kg, dolasetron mesilate 2.4 mg/kg and granisetron, respectively. Statistically, treatment groups had comparable complete and complete plus major responses, times to first emesis, and use of escape medication; patient maximum nausea severity and treatment satisfaction ratings; and physician nausea severity and overall efficacy assessments. For the majority of efficacy endpoints, 1.8 mg/kg dolasetron mesilate produced numerically superior responses compared with the 2.4 mg/kg dose. Gender and prior chemotherapy were significant predictors of complete response; males and chemotherapy-naive patients had higher responses. The overall incidences of adverse events were comparable among the treatment groups; headache and diarrhoea were most common. In conclusion, 1.8 and 2.4 mg/kg of dolasetron mesilate and granisetron (3 mg) were equally effective in preventing nausea and vomiting induced by highly emetogenic cisplatin-containing chemotherapy. In addition, because no additional benefit was observed with 2.4 mg/kg of dolasetron mesilate and numerically greater responses were observed with the 1.8 mg/kg dose, the lower dose of 1.8 mg/kg is optimal for further clinical development.

The maintenance of the antiemetic efficacy of a combined protocol (intravenous methylprednisolone, oral thiethylperazine and oral amitriptyline) during six consecutive courses of adjuvant FAC chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil, doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide) was analysed in 107 female breast cancer patients who completed the six planned courses of treatment. A continuous decrease in complete (no vomiting episodes) and major protection rate (0-2 vomiting episodes) was evident during chemotherapy. Complete protection rate decreased from 62.6% in the first course to 48.6% in the sixth (P less than 0.05, chi 2 test). The respective figures for major protection rate were 76.6% and 58% (P less than 0.01, chi 2 test). These data, together with other from the literature, should be taken into consideration when reviewing the overall results of current antiemetic trials, which usually only mention the results obtained in the first course of chemotherapy.

18 patients with advanced colorectal cancer entered a phase I-II study of high-dose 48 h continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) for 6 weeks. 7 patients were included at the first dose level (3 g/m2) and only 1 had serious toxicity (grade 3 diarrhoea and mucositis). 7 patients were included at the second dose level (3.5 g/m2). 6 had a good tolerance to treatment, while the remaining patient had grade 4 leukopenia. 4 patients received 4 g/m2: 3 had severe toxicity (grade 4 diarrhoea, myelosuppression, mucositis, central nervous system), such that the entry of new patients was stopped. Anti-tumour activity was seen in 33% (95% confidence interval 13-59%) of the overall population. Only patients who had not had previous chemotherapy responded to treatment (response rate in this subgroup [43%, 18-71%]). The optimal dose of 5-FU was 3.5 g/m2 weekly for six cycles.