Search

Next-generation sequencing (NGS) allows sequencing of a high number of nucleotides in a short time frame at an affordable cost. While this technology has been widely implemented, there are no recommendations from scientific societies about its use in oncology practice. The European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) is proposing three levels of recommendations for the use of NGS. Based on the current evidence, ESMO recommends routine use of NGS on tumour samples in advanced non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), prostate cancers, ovarian cancers and cholangiocarcinoma. In these tumours, large multigene panels could be used if they add acceptable extra cost compared with small panels. In colon cancers, NGS could be an alternative to PCR. In addition, based on the KN158 trial and considering that patients with endometrial and small-cell lung cancers should have broad access to anti-programmed cell death 1 (anti-PD1) antibodies, it is recommended to test tumour mutational burden (TMB) in cervical cancers, well- and moderately-differentiated neuroendocrine tumours, salivary cancers, thyroid cancers and vulvar cancers, as TMB-high predicted response to pembrolizumab in these cancers. Outside the indications of multigene panels, and considering that the use of large panels of genes could lead to few clinically meaningful responders, ESMO acknowledges that a patient and a doctor could decide together to order a large panel of genes, pending no extra cost for the public health care system and if the patient is informed about the low likelihood of benefit. ESMO recommends that the use of off-label drugs matched to genomics is done only if an access programme and a procedure of decision has been developed at the national or regional level. Finally, ESMO recommends that clinical research centres develop multigene sequencing as a tool to screen patients eligible for clinical trials and to accelerate drug development, and prospectively capture the data that could further inform how to optimise the use of this technology.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was published in 2018, and covered the diagnosis, management, treatment and follow-up of early, intermediate and advanced disease. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2018 it was decided by both the ESMO and the Taiwan Oncology Society (TOS) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the Taiwan Joint Cancer Conference (TJCC) in May 2019 in Taipei. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2018 guidelines to take into account both the ethnic and the geographic differences in practice associated with the treatment of HCC in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with intermediate and advanced/relapsed HCC representing the oncology societies of Taiwan (TOS), China (CSCO), India (ISMPO) Japan (JSMO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS) and Singapore (SSO). The voting was based on scientific evidence, and was independent of the current treatment practices, the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

It is increasingly common in oncology practice to perform tumour sequencing using large cancer panels. For pathogenic sequence variants in cancer susceptibility genes identified on tumour-only sequencing, it is often unclear whether they are of somatic or constitutional (germline) origin. There is wide-spread disparity regarding both the extent to which systematic ‘germline-focussed analysis’ is carried out upon tumour sequencing data and for which variants follow-up analysis of a germline sample is carried out. Here we present analyses of paired sequencing data from 17 152 cancer samples, in which 1494 pathogenic sequence variants were identified across 65 cancer susceptibility genes. From these analyses, the European Society of Medical Oncology Precision Medicine Working Group Germline Subgroup has generated (i) recommendations regarding germline-focussed analyses of tumour-only sequencing data, (ii) indications for germline follow-up testing and (iii) guidance on patient information-giving and consent.

Traditionally, the efficacy of cancer treatment in patients with advance or metastatic disease in clinical studies has been studied using overall survival and more recently tumor-based end points such as progression-free survival, measurements of response to treatment. However, these seem not to be the relevant clinical end points in current situation if such end points were no validated as surrogate of overall survival to demonstrate the clinical efficacy. Appropriate, meaningful, primary patient-oriented and patient-reported end points that adequately measure the effects of new therapeutic interventions are then crucial for the advancement of clinical research in metastatic colorectal cancer to complement the results of tumor-based end points. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is effectively an evaluation of quality of life and its relationship with health over time. HRQoL includes the patient report at least of the way a disease or its treatment affects its physical, emotional and social well-being. Over the past few years, several phase III trials in a variety of solid cancers have assessed the incremental value of HRQoL in addition to the traditional end points of tumor response and survival results. HRQoL could provide not only complementary clinical data to the primary outcomes, but also more precise predictive and prognostic value. This end point is useful for both clinicians and patients in order to achieve the dogma of precision medicine. The present article examines the use of HRQoL in phase III metastatic colorectal cancer clinical trials, outlines the importance of HRQoL assessment methods, analysis, and results presentation. Moreover, it discusses the relevance of including HRQoL as a primary/co-primary end point to support the progression-free survival results and to assess efficacy of treatment in the advanced disease setting.

Background NTRK1, NTRK2 and NTRK3 fusions are present in a plethora of malignancies across different histologies. These fusions represent the most frequent mechanism of oncogenic activation of these receptor tyrosine kinases, and biomarkers for the use of TRK small molecule inhibitors. Given the varying frequency of NTRK1/2/3 fusions, crucial to the administration of NTRK inhibitors is the development of optimal approaches for the detection of human cancers harbouring activating NTRK1/2/3 fusion genes. Materials and methods Experts from several Institutions were recruited by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Translational Research and Precision Medicine Working Group (TR and PM WG) to review the available methods for the detection of NTRK gene fusions, their potential applications, and strategies for the implementation of a rational approach for the detection of NTRK1/2/3 fusion genes in human malignancies. A consensus on the most reasonable strategy to adopt when screening for NTRK fusions in oncologic patients was sought, and further reviewed and approved by the ESMO TR and PM WG and the ESMO leadership. Results The main techniques employed for NTRK fusion gene detection include immunohistochemistry, fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), RT-PCR, and both RNA-based and DNA-based next generation sequencing (NGS). Each technique has advantages and limitations, and the choice of assays for screening and final diagnosis should also take into account the resources and clinical context. Conclusion In tumours where NTRK fusions are highly recurrent, FISH, RT-PCR or RNA-based sequencing panels can be used as confirmatory techniques, whereas in the scenario of testing an unselected population where NTRK1/2/3 fusions are uncommon, either front-line sequencing (preferentially RNA-sequencing) or screening by immunohistochemistry followed by sequencing of positive cases should be pursued.

IF 7.191 (2017); International audience; BACKGROUND:Previous studies showed that high and low body mass index (BMI) was associated with worse prognosis in early-stage colorectal cancer (CRC), and low BMI was associated with worse prognosis in metastatic CRC (mCRC). We aimed to assess efficacy outcomes according to BMI.PATIENTS AND METHODS:A pooled analysis of individual data from 2085 patients enrolled in eight FFCD first-line mCRC trials from 1991 to 2013 was performed. Comparisons were made according to the BMI cut-off: Obese (BMI ≥30), overweight patients (BMI ≥ 25), normal BMI patients (BMI: 18.5-24) and thin patients (BMI

BACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a genetically heterogeneous disease and that tumours arising from different sides of the colon (left versus right) have different clinical outcomes. Furthermore, previous analyses comparing the activity of different classes of targeted agents in patients with KRAS wild-type (wt) or RAS wt mCRC suggest that primary tumour location (side), might be both prognostic and predictive for clinical outcome. METHODS: This retrospective analysis investigated the prognostic and predictive influence of the localization of the primary tumour in patients with unresectable RAS wt mCRC included in six randomized trials (CRYSTAL, FIRE-3, CALGB 80405, PRIME, PEAK and 20050181), comparing chemotherapy plus EGFR antibody therapy (experimental arm) with chemotherapy or chemotherapy and bevacizumab (control arms). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with left-sided versus right-sided tumours, and odds ratios (ORs) for objective response rate (ORR) were estimated by pooling individual study HRs/ORs. The predictive value was evaluated by pooling study interaction between treatment effect and tumour side. RESULTS: Primary tumour location and RAS mutation status were available for 2159 of the 5760 patients (37.5%) randomized across the 6 trials, 515 right-sided and 1644 left-sided. A significantly worse prognosis was observed for patients with right-sided tumours compared with those with left-sided tumours in both the pooled control and experimental arms for OS [HRs = 2.03 (95% CI: 1.69-2.42) and 1.38 (1.17-1.63), respectively], PFS [HRs = 1.59 (1.34-1.88) and 1.25 (1.06-1.47)], and ORR [ORs = 0.38 (0.28-0.50) and 0.56 (0.43-0.73)]. In terms of a predictive effect, a significant benefit for chemotherapy plus EGFR antibody therapy was observed in patients with left-sided tumours [HRs = 0.75 (0.67-0.84) and 0.78 (0.70-0.87) for OS and PFS, respectively] compared with no significant benefit for those with right-sided tumours [HRs = 1.12 (0.87-1.45) and 1.12 (0.87-1.44) for OS and PFS, respectively; P value for interaction

Backgroud The R98 trial explores the addition of irinotecan to a 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus leucovorin (5-FU/LV) adjuvant regimen in optimally resected stages II–III rectal cancers. We report the updated long-term results. Disease-free survival (DFS) was the primary end point. Patienst and methods Between March 1999 and December 2005, 357 patients were randomized: 178 in 5-FU/LV and 179 in LV5-FU2 + irinotecan arm. The trial was stratified by control arm: Mayo Clinic regimen or LV5-FU2 regimen. Results Three hundred and fifty-seven randomized patients were evaluable for efficacy. With a follow-up of 156 months, the DFS was in favour of experimental arm but did not reach statistical significance [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.80, P = 0.154]. The same was observed for overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.87, P = 0.433). The 5-year DFS was 58% in the control arm and 63% in the experimental arm. The 5-year OS was 74% in the control arm and 75% in the experimental arm. Patients allocated to the experimental arm had more grade 3–4 neutropenia when compared with the LV5-FU2 arm (33% versus 6%, P = 0.03), but not when compared with the Mayo Clinic arm (33% versus 36%, P = 0.84). Grade 3–4 diarrhoea tended to be higher in the experimental arm, but analyses stratified by control arm or by radiotherapy failed to show significant differences across strata (test for interaction P = 0.44). Conclusion Even though a benefit of irinotecan in subgroups of patients cannot be excluded, due to early termination and lack of power, the study does not support the addition of irinotecan to 5-FU/LV in routine in patients with resected stage II–III rectal cancer.

This phase II trial was performed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a new combination of Uracil/Ftorafur (UFT)/leucovorin (LV) and oxaliplatin in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) who had not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Between February 2002 and October 2002, 64 patients received UFT 300 mg m(-2) day(-1) and LV 90 mg day(-1) from day 1 to day 14 combined with oxaliplatin 130 mg m(-2) on day 1, every 3 weeks. All patients were evaluable for safety analysis and 58 of 64 patients were eligible for efficacy. Responses were reviewed by an independent review committee. Of the 58 per-protocol defined assessable patients, 1 complete response and 20 partial responses were observed yielding a response rate of 34% (95% CI: 22-47). The median response duration was 8.74 months (range 1.6-14). The median time to progression and the median survival were 5.88 months (95% CI: 4.34-8.21) and 18.2 months (95% CI: 10-20.7), respectively. Diarrhoea and peripheral neuropathy were the most frequent and predictable toxicities. These events were reversible, noncumulative and manageable. Grade 3 diarrhoea occurred in only 11% of the patients. No grade 4 gastrointestinal toxicity was reported in the study. The incidence of grade 3/4 (National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria 2: NCI-CTC 2) peripheral neuropathy was 15%. Haematological toxicity was of mild to moderate intensity with 10% of the patients with Grade 3/4 neutropenia without any episode of complication. The TEGAFOX regimen, a new combination using UFT/LV and oxaliplatin every 3 weeks is feasible on an outpatient basis. The combination is safe and active and may offer a promising alternative to the intravenous route. Nevertheless this efficacy results should be confirmed by randomized phase III trials.

Background: Cediranib is a highly potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signalling with activity against all three VEGF receptors. Bevacizumab is an anti-VEGF-A monoclonal antibody with clinical benefit in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Methods: Patients with mCRC who had progressed following first-line therapy were randomised 1 : 1 : 1 to modified (m)FOLFOX6 plus cediranib (20 or 30 mg day−1) or bevacizumab (10 mg kg−1 every 2 weeks). The primary objective was to compare progression-free survival (PFS) between treatment arms. Results: A total of 210 patients were included in the intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis (cediranib 20 mg, n=71; cediranib 30 mg, n=73; bevacizumab, n=66). Median PFS in the cediranib 20 mg, cediranib 30 mg and bevacizumab groups was 5.8, 7.2 and 7.8 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between treatment arms for PFS (cediranib 20 mg vs bevacizumab: HR=1.28 (95% CI, 0.85–1.95; P=0.29); cediranib 30 mg vs bevacizumab: HR=1.17 (95% CI, 0.77–1.76; P=0.79)) or overall survival (OS). Grade ⩾3 adverse events were more common with cediranib 30 mg (91.8%) vs cediranib 20 mg (81.4%) or bevacizumab (84.8%). Conclusion: There were no statistically significant differences between treatment arms for PFS or OS. When combined with mFOLFOX6, the 20 mg day−1 dose of cediranib was better tolerated than the 30 mg day−1 dose.

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: This multicenter adjuvant phase III trial evaluated the addition of irinotecan to LV5FU2 in colon cancer patients at high risk of relapse. Patients and methods: A total of 400 patients with histologically proven primary colon cancer with postoperative N1 detected by occlusion/perforation or N2 were randomised to: A-LV5FU2 [leucovorin 200 mg/m 2 , 2-h infusion, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 400 mg/m 2 bolus, 600 mg/m 2 22-h continuous infusion, days 1 and 2] or B-LV5FU2 + IRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m 2 90-min infusion day 1 + LV5FU2) fortnightly for 12 cycles. Primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Results: Median follow-up was 63 months. Significantly more T4 tumours and 15 or more positive lymph nodes were observed in arm B. 5-FU relative dose intensity (RDI) was >0.80 for 94% and 77% in arms A and B, respectively (P 0.80 for 70% patients. There were more grades 3 and 4 neutropenia in arm B (4% versus 28%, P < 0.001). The 3-year DFS was 60% [95% confidence interval (Cl) 53% to 66%] and 51 % (95% Cl 44% to 58) in arms A and B, respectively. No difference was observed [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.12, 95% Cl 0.85-1.47, P = 0.42] even when adjusted for prognostic factors (adjusted HR = 0.98, 95% Cl 0.74-1.31, P = 0.92). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 67% (95% Cl 59% to 73%) and 61% (95% Cl 53% to 67%) in arms A and B, respectively. Conclusion: Adjuvant LV5FU2 + IRI compared with LV5FU2 alone in patients at high risk of relapse showed no improvement in DFS and OS.

The activity of glufosfamide (beta-D-glucosylisophosphoramide mustard) was tested in a multicentre phase II clinical trial in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who had received one prior line of platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were treated with 5000 mg/m(2) glufosfamide by a 1-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion every 3 weeks following registration at the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Data Center. Patients were randomised between hydration and no hydration to evaluate the nephroprotective effects of forced diuresis. Patients experiencing greater than or equal to35 mumol/l increase of serum creatinine compared with baseline values were taken off the treatment. The Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) criteria were applied for the response assessment. Blood sampling was performed for a pharmacokinetic analysis. 39 patients from seven institutions were registered and a median of three cycles was given (range 0-6) cycles; 20 patients were randomised to the hydration arm. Haematological toxicity was mild, but treatment-related metabolic and electrolytic abnormalities and increases of serum creatinine occurred in several patients. Hydration did not have any significant influence on the plasma pharmacokinetics of glufosfamide and did not show any nephroprotective effect. Only one confirmed partial remission was observed (response rate 3%, 95% (Confidence Interval (CI) 0-14) and 18 cases with stable disease (49%) were recorded as assessed by an independent panel. Median survival of all patients treated was 5.8 months (95% Cl 4.2-7.9). In conclusion, glufosfamide administered by a 1-h infusion every 3 weeks has modest activity in advanced NSCLC patients after one prior platinum-based chemotherapy. (C) 2003 Published by Elsevier Ltd.