Search

PURPOSE Despite extensive randomized evidence supporting the use of treatment breaks in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), they are not universally offered to patients despite improvements in quality of life without detriment to overall survival (OS). FOCUS4-N was set up to explore the impact of oral maintenance therapy in patients who are responding to first-line therapy. METHODS FOCUS4 was a molecularly stratified trial program that registered patients with newly diagnosed mCRC. The FOCUS4-N trial was offered to patients in whom a targeted subtrial was unavailable or biomarker tests failed. Patients were randomly assigned using a 1:1 ratio between maintenance capecitabine and active monitoring (AM). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) with secondary outcomes including OS toxicity and tolerability. RESULTS Between March 2014 and March 2020, 254 patients were randomly assigned (127 to capecitabine and 127 to AM) across 88 UK sites. Baseline characteristics were balanced. There was strong evidence of efficacy for PFS (hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75; P < .0001), but no significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.27; P = .66) was observed. Compliance with treatment was good, and toxicity from capecitabine versus AM was as expected with grade ≥ 2 fatigue (25% v 12%), diarrhea (23% v 13%), and hand-foot syndrome (26% v 3%). Quality of life showed little difference between the groups. CONCLUSION Despite strong evidence of disease control with maintenance therapy, OS remains unaffected and FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients who are stable or responding to first-line treatment for mCRC. Capecitabine without bevacizumab may be used to extend PFS in the interval after 16 weeks of first-line therapy.

Aim This is the first randomised study to evaluate toxicity and survival outcomes of two neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) regimens for patients with localised oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) or gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) adenocarcinoma. The initial results showed comparable toxicity between regimens and pathological complete response (pCR) rate favouring CarPacRT. Herein, we report survival, progression patterns, and long-term toxicity after a median follow-up of 40.7 months. Methods NeoSCOPE was an open-label, UK multicentre, randomised, phase II trial. Eighty-five patients with resectable OAC or GOJ adenocarcinoma, ≥cT3 and/or ≥cN1 (TNM v7), suitable for neoadjuvant CRT, were recruited between October 2013 and February 2015. Patients were randomised to OxCapRT (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on Days 1, 15, and 29; capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days of radiotherapy [RT]) or CarPacRT (carboplatin AUC2; paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29). RT dose was 45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks. Both arms received induction chemotherapy (two cycles oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on Day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily on Days 1–21) before CRT. Surgery was performed 6–8 weeks after CRT. The primary end-point was pCR. Secondary end-points were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and patterns of progression. Results Eighty-five patients were recruited from 17 UK centres. The median OS was 41.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.6 to not reached) in the OxCapRT arm and was not reached in the CarPacRT arm (multivariable hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48, 95% CIs: 0.24–0.95, P = 0.035). The median PFS was 32.6 months (95% CIs: 17.1 to not reached) in the OxCapRT arm and was not reached in the CarPacRT arm (multivariable HR = 0.54, 95% CIs: 0.29–1.01, P = 0.053). In both arms, the distant progression was twice as common as locoregional progression. Conclusions OS and PFS favoured neoadjuvant CarPacRT over OxCapRT. Distant was more common than locoregional progression; therefore, priority should be given to optimising the systemic treatment component. Clinical trial information EudraCT Number: 2012-000640-10; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01843829., Highlights • Randomised study of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal adenocarcinoma. • The median overall survival was significantly better with CarPacRT. • Across both arms, the distant was more common than locoregional progression.

Mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancers have high mutation loads and many respond to immune checkpoint-inhibitors. We investigated how genetic and immune landscapes co-evolve in these tumors. All cases had high truncal mutation loads. Driver aberrations showed a clear hierarchy despite pervasive intratumor heterogeneity: Those in WNT/βCatenin, mitogen-activated protein kinase and TGFβ receptor family genes were almost always truncal. Immune evasion drivers were predominantly subclonal and showed parallel evolution. Pan-tumor evolution, subclonal evolution, and evolutionary stasis of genetic immune evasion drivers defined three MMRd CRC subtypes with distinct T-cell infiltrates. These immune evasion drivers have been implicated in checkpoint-inhibitor resistance. Clonality and subtype assessments are hence critical for predictive immunotherapy biomarker development. Cancer cell PD-L1 expression was conditional on loss of the intestinal homeobox transcription factor CDX2. This explains infrequent PD-L1 expression by cancer cells and likely contributes to the high recurrence risk of MMRd CRCs with impaired CDX2 expression.

295 Background: The optimum combination curative approach to locally advanced adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophago-gastric junction (AEG) remains controversial, specifically whether multimodal therapy or perioperative chemotherapy is superior. Neo-AEGIS was designed as the first randomized clinical trial (RCT) to directly compare the multimodal CROSS regimen (carboplatin/paclitaxel, 41.4Gy radiation therapy) with a modified MAGIC (epirubicin, cisplatin (oxaliplatin), 5-FU (capecitabine)) regimen (pre-2018) and more latterly the FLOT (docetaxel, 5-FU, leucovorin, oxaliplatin) regimen. Methods: 377 patients with cT2-3N0-3M0 AEG were randomly assigned to CROSS or peri-operative chemotherapy (ECF/ECX/EOF/EOX pre-2018, FLOT option 2019/20) at 24 sites (Ireland, UK, Denmark, France, Sweden). The primary outcome was overall survival. The initial power calculation was based on CROSS superiority of 10%. This was modified after the first futility analysis (70 events) to a non-inferiority margin of 5% for peri-operative chemotherapy. Secondary end points included toxicity, pathologic measures of response, and postoperative complications as per the Esophageal Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) definitions and Clavien-Dindo severity grade. Results: Of 362 evaluable patients, 178 CROSS, 184 MAGIC/FLOT (157/27), 90% were male, median (range) age 64 (35-83), 84% were cT3, and 58% cN1. At a median (range) follow up of 34.2 (0.43-111.8) months, there were 186 deaths, 91 CROSS and 95 MAGIC/FLOT arm, with 3-year estimated survival probability of 57% (95% CI 49,64) and 55% (95% CI 47,62), respectively [(HR 1.03 (95%CI. 0.77-1.38))]. Conclusions: This RCT reveals no evidence that peri-operative chemotherapy is unacceptably inferior to multimodal therapy in the primary outcome of overall survival, notwithstanding greater proxy markers of local tumor response in the CROSS arm. Oncologic and operative outcomes were consistent with optimum modern benchmarks. These data strongly suggest non-inferiority and support equipoise in clinical decision making in modern practice. Clinical trial information: NCT01726452 . [Table: see text]

Background The NICE Quality Standard for Pancreatic Cancer (December 2018) recommends that ‘adults with localised pancreatic cancer on CT(should) have staging using fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/CT(FDG-PET/CT) before they have surgery, radiotherapy or systemic therapy’. Such FDG-PET/CT staging aims to provide additional information to conventional cross-sectional imaging, thus presenting the most accurate staging of disease. However, the sensitivity and specificity of FDG-PET/CT to deliver relevant additional clinical information must be balanced with potential delays to treatment, and additional cost associated with its use, in the management of a time-critical pathology. Methods Consecutive pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma(PDAC) patients deemed resectable on conventional imaging, and therefore referred for FDG-PET/CT assessment, were included for analysis. Data were derived from a single tertiary Hepatopancreaticobiliary(HPB) centre between May 2018 and June 2021. Data were collected and analysed from a combination of prospectively-collated electronic databases and paper patient records. Results Of 89 patients analysed, 55(61.7%) patients were male. Primary pancreatic lesions were PET avid in 81 cases(91%). Median time from request to FDG-PET/CT performance was 11 days(Range 1-35). Additional clinical information from FDG-PET/CT was provided in 61(68.5%) patients. Further investigations to assess FDG-PET/CT findings were arranged in 23 patients(25.8%; including liver MRI and EUS), demonstrating that FDG-PET/CT findings were true-positive in 6(26.1%), false-positive in 15(65.2%) and equivocal in 2(8.7%). There was a median delay of 60.5 days(Range 26 to 256) from FDG-PET/CT to surgery in those undergoing additional investigation. In total, a new diagnosis of metastatic/non-resectable disease was made in 14(15.7%) patients, preventing progression to planned operative intervention. Conclusions FDG-PET/CT provided additional information to conventional imaging that led to cancellation of planned operative resection in 14(15.7%) PDAC patients-8 directly and 6 following further investigation. However, there was a median delay of 11 days to FDG-PET/CT and 60.5 days from FDG-PET/CT to surgery in those undergoing additional investigation. Whilst FDG-PET/CT can lead to avoidance of unnecessary surgical intervention in PDAC patients with unsuspected metastatic/non-resectable disease, it can lead to delay, over-investigation, excess cost and anxiety in resectable patients. HPB units should audit their own findings to assess whether the use of FDG-PET/CT should be considered on a standard or selected basis.

Purpose We previously demonstrated that the median survival of patients with poor prognosis non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) considered unfit for first-line platinum chemotherapy was, Highlights • 83% advanced NSCLC patients unfit for chemotherapy have poor performance status. • VeriStrat (proteomic blood test) is an independent prognostic marker for survival. • Patients classified as VeriStrat Good were less likely to die than those classified as VeriStrat Poor. • VeriStrat can refine patient prognosis in order to alter treatment management.

Summary Background Radical surgery via total mesorectal excision might not be the optimal first-line treatment for early-stage rectal cancer. An organ-preserving strategy with selective total mesorectal excision could reduce the adverse effects of treatment without substantially compromising oncological outcomes. We investigated the feasibility of recruiting patients to a randomised trial comparing an organ-preserving strategy with total mesorectal excision. Methods TREC was a randomised, open-label feasibility study done at 21 tertiary referral centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with rectal adenocarcinoma, staged T2 or lower, with a maximum diameter of 30 mm or less; patients with lymph node involvement or metastases were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) by use of a computer-based randomisation service to undergo organ preservation with short-course radiotherapy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery after 8–10 weeks, or total mesorectal excision. Where the transanal endoscopic microsurgery specimen showed histopathological features associated with an increased risk of local recurrence, patients were considered for planned early conversion to total mesorectal excision. A non-randomised prospective registry captured patients for whom randomisation was considered inappropriate, because of a strong clinical indication for one treatment group. The primary endpoint was cumulative randomisation at 12, 18, and 24 months. Secondary outcomes evaluated safety, efficacy, and health-related quality of life assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C30 and CR29 in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN14422743. Findings Between Feb 22, 2012, and Dec 19, 2014, 55 patients were randomly assigned at 15 sites; 27 to organ preservation and 28 to radical surgery. Cumulatively, 18 patients had been randomly assigned at 12 months, 31 at 18 months, and 39 at 24 months. No patients died within 30 days of initial treatment, but one patient randomly assigned to organ preservation died within 6 months following conversion to total mesorectal excision with anastomotic leakage. Eight (30%) of 27 patients randomly assigned to organ preservation were converted to total mesorectal excision. Serious adverse events were reported in four (15%) of 27 patients randomly assigned to organ preservation versus 11 (39%) of 28 randomly assigned to total mesorectal excision (p=0·04, χ2 test). Serious adverse events associated with organ preservation were most commonly due to rectal bleeding or pain following transanal endoscopic microsurgery (reported in three cases). Radical total mesorectal excision was associated with medical and surgical complications including anastomotic leakage (two patients), kidney injury (two patients), cardiac arrest (one patient), and pneumonia (two patients). Histopathological features that would be considered to be associated with increased risk of tumour recurrence if observed after transanal endoscopic microsurgery alone were present in 16 (59%) of 27 patients randomly assigned to organ preservation, versus 24 (86%) of 28 randomly assigned to total mesorectal excision (p=0·03, χ2 test). Eight (30%) of 27 patients assigned to organ preservation achieved a complete response to radiotherapy. Patients who were randomly assigned to organ preservation showed improvements in patient-reported bowel toxicities and quality of life and function scores in multiple items compared to those who were randomly assigned to total mesorectal excision, which were sustained over 36 months’ follow-up. The non-randomised registry comprised 61 patients who underwent organ preservation and seven who underwent radical surgery. Non-randomised patients who underwent organ preservation were older than randomised patients and more likely to have life-limiting comorbidities. Serious adverse events occurred in ten (16%) of 61 non-randomised patients who underwent organ preservation versus one (14%) of seven who underwent total mesorectal excision. 24 (39%) of 61 non-randomised patients who underwent organ preservation had high-risk histopathological features, while 25 (41%) of 61 achieved a complete response. Overall, organ preservation was achieved in 19 (70%) of 27 randomised patients and 56 (92%) of 61 non-randomised patients. Interpretation Short-course radiotherapy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery achieves high levels of organ preservation, with relatively low morbidity and indications of improved quality of life. These data support the use of organ preservation for patients considered unsuitable for primary total mesorectal excision due to the short-term risks associated with this surgery, and support further evaluation of short-course radiotherapy to achieve organ preservation in patients considered fit for total mesorectal excision. Larger randomised studies, such as the ongoing STAR-TREC study, are needed to more precisely determine oncological outcomes following different organ preservation treatment schedules. Funding Cancer Research UK.

Background Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a key determinant of success but is challenging. Trialists and UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) are increasingly exploring the use of digital tools to identify, recruit and retain participants. The aim of this UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) study was to identify what digital tools are currently used by CTUs and understand the performance characteristics required to be judged useful. Methods A scoping of searches (and a survey with NIHR funding staff), a survey with all 52 UKCRC CTUs and 16 qualitative interviews were conducted with five stakeholder groups including trialists within CTUs, funders and research participants. A purposive sampling approach was used to conduct the qualitative interviews during March–June 2018. Qualitative data were analysed using a content analysis and inductive approach. Results Responses from 24 (46%) CTUs identified that database-screening tools were the most widely used digital tool for recruitment, with the majority being considered effective. The reason (and to whom) these tools were considered effective was in identifying potential participants (for both Site staff and CTU staff) and reaching recruitment target (for CTU staff/CI). Fewer retention tools were used, with short message service (SMS) or email reminders to participants being the most reported. The qualitative interviews revealed five themes across all groups: ‘security and transparency’; ‘inclusivity and engagement’; ‘human interaction’; ‘obstacles and risks’; and ‘potential benefits’. There was a high level of stakeholder acceptance of the use of digital tools to support trials, despite the lack of evidence to support them over more traditional techniques. Certain differences and similarities between stakeholder groups demonstrated the complexity and challenges of using digital tools for recruiting and retaining research participants. Conclusions Our studies identified a range of digital tools in use in recruitment and retention of RCTs, despite the lack of high-quality evidence to support their use. Understanding the type of digital tools in use to support recruitment and retention will help to inform funders and the wider research community about their value and relevance for future RCTs. Consideration of further focused digital tool reviews and primary research will help to reduce gaps in the evidence base.

Background: The interim analysis of the multicentre New EPOC trial in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis showed a significant reduction in progression-free survival in patients allocated to cetuximab plus chemotherapy compared with those given chemotherapy alone. The focus of the present analysis was to assess the effect on overall survival. Methods: New EPOC was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with KRAS wild-type (codons 12, 13, and 61) resectable or suboptimally resectable colorectal liver metastases and a WHO performance status of 0–2 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chemotherapy with or without cetuximab before and after liver resection. Randomisation was done centrally with minimisation factors of surgical centre, poor prognosis cancer, and previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin. Chemotherapy consisted of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m 2 administered intravenously over 2 h, l-folinic acid (175 mg flat dose administered intravenously over 2 h) or d,l-folinic acid (350 mg flat dose administered intravenously over 2 h), and fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m 2 administered intravenously over 5 min, followed by a 46 h infusion of fluorouracil 2400 mg/m 2 repeated every 2 weeks (regimen one), or oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 administered intravenously over 2 h and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m 2 twice daily on days 1–14 repeated every 3 weeks (regimen two). Patients who had received adjuvant oxaliplatin could receive irinotecan 180 mg/m 2 intravenously over 30 min with fluorouracil instead of oxaliplatin (regimen three). Cetuximab was given intravenously, 500 mg/m 2 every 2 weeks with regimen one and three or a loading dose of 400 mg/m 2 followed by a weekly infusion of 250 mg/m 2 with regimen two. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was published previously. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, preoperative response, pathological resection status, and safety. Trial recruitment was halted prematurely on the advice of the Trial Steering Committee on Nov 1, 2012. All analyses (except safety) were done on the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all randomly assigned patients. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 22944367. Findings: Between Feb 26, 2007, and Oct 12, 2012, 257 eligible patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with cetuximab (n=129) or without cetuximab (n=128). This analysis was carried out 5 years after the last patient was recruited, as defined in the protocol, at a median follow-up of 66·7 months (IQR 58·0–77·5). Median progression-free survival was 22·2 months (95% CI 18·3–26·8) in the chemotherapy alone group and 15·5 months (13·8–19·0) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·17, 95% CI 0·87–1·56; p=0·304). Median overall survival was 81·0 months (59·6 to not reached) in the chemotherapy alone group and 55·4 months (43·5–71·5) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (HR 1·45, 1·02–2·05; p=0·036). There was no significant difference in the secondary outcomes of preoperative response or pathological resection status between groups. Five deaths might have been treatment-related (one in the chemotherapy alone group and four in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events reported were: neutrophil count decreased (26 [19%] of 134 in the chemotherapy alone group vs 21 [15%] of 137 in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group), diarrhoea (13 [10%] vs 14 [10%]), skin rash (one [1%] vs 22 [16%]), thromboembolic events (ten [7%] vs 11 [8%]), lethargy (ten [7%] vs nine [7%]), oral mucositis (three [2%] vs 14 [10%]), vomiting (seven [5%] vs seven [5%]), peripheral neuropathy (eight [6%] vs five [4%]), and pain (six [4%] vs six [4%]). Interpretation: Although the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy improves the overall survival in some studies in patients with advanced, inoperable metastatic disease, its use in the perioperative setting in patients with operable disease confers a significant disadvantage in terms of overall survival. Cetuximab should not be used in this setting. Funding: Cancer Research UK.

Background AZD8931 has equipotent activity against epidermal growth factor receptor, erbB2, and erbB3. Primary objectives were to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of AZD8931 + chemotherapy, and subsequently assess safety/preliminary clinical activity in patients with operable oesophagogastric cancer (OGC). Methods AZD8931 (20 mg, 40 mg or 60 mg bd) was given with Xelox (oxaliplatin + capecitabine) for eight 21-day cycles, continuously or with intermittent schedule (4 days on/3 off every week; 14 days on/7 off, per cycle) in a rolling-six design. Subsequently, patients with OGC were randomised 2:1 to AZD8931 + Xelox at RP2D or Xelox only for two cycles, followed by radical oesophagogastric surgery. Secondary outcomes were safety, complete resection (R0) rate, six-month progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. Results During escalation, four dose-limiting toxicities were observed among 24 patients: skin rash (1) and failure to deliver 100% of Xelox because of treatment-associated grade III-IV adverse events (AEs) (3: diarrhoea and vomiting; vomiting; fatigue). Serious adverse events (SAE) occurred in 15 of 24 (63%) patients. RP2D was 20-mg bd with the 4/3 schedule. In the expansion phase, 2 of 20 (10%) patients in the Xelox + AZD8931 group and 5/10 (50%) patients in the Xelox group had grade III–IV AEs. Six-month PFS was 85% (90% CI: 66%–94%) in Xelox + AZD8931 and 100% in Xelox alone. Seven deaths (35%) occurred with Xelox + AZD8931 and one (10%) with Xelox. R0 rate was 45% (9/20) with Xelox + AZD8931 and 90% (9/10) with Xelox-alone (P = 0.024). Conclusion Xelox + AZD8931 (20 mg bd 4/3 days) has an acceptable safety profile administered as neoadjuvant therapy in operable patients with OGC. (Trial registration: EudraCT 2011-003169-13, ISRCTN-68093791)., Highlights • First study to assess safety and tolerability of the novel pan erbB inhibitor AZD8931 in oesophagogastric cancer (OGC). • Recommended phase II dose schedule determined to be 20-mg bd for 4 days on/3 days off, per cycle. • Feasibility of adding novel targeted therapies to standard-of-care for oesophago-gastric cancer is confirmed.

Background: GO2 sought to optimise chemotherapy dosing in older/frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making. Methods: Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable. Two randomisation options were available: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (doses as used in the standard epirubicin/oxaliplatin/capecitabine regimen), B (0·8x A) or C (0·6x A). Non-inferiority of PFS was assessed using boundary HR=1·34, selected by a forum of patients and clinicians. Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxicity, QL and patient value/acceptability, was scored at nine weeks. Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, they could enter the CHEMO-BSC randomisation, comparing Level C versus best supportive care. Findings: 514 patients entered the CHEMO-INTENSITY randomisation: non-inferior PFS was confirmed for B vs A (HR=1·09 [CI=0·89-1·32]) and C vs A (HR=1·10 [0·90-1·33]). Level C produced less toxicity and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in the younger, fitter patients. 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomisation: overall survival was non-significantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6·1 vs 3·0 months, HR=0·69 [0·32-1·48], p=0·34. In multivariate analysis, baseline frailty, QL and neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, so can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of better or worse outcome. Interpretation: Reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided non-inferior efficacy with an improved patient experience. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy. Trial Registration: [Trial registration: ISRCTN44687907] Funding Statement: Cancer Research UK [CRUK/12/022] Declaration of Interests: Dr. Grabsch reports personal fees from Merck Sharpe Dome, outside the submitted work; all other authors have nothing to declare. Ethics Approval Statement: This study was approved by the UK National Research Ethics Service and overseen by independent Trial Steering and Data Monitoring & Ethics Committees (TSC; IDMC).

Background: Advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC) has a poor prognosis for which cisplatin-gemcitabine is the reference first-line chemotherapy. No robust evidence is available for second-line chemotherapy. Methods: Patients with ABC who progressed on first-line cisplatin-gemcitabine were randomised to active symptom control (ASC) and oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil (FOLFOX) or ASC alone. The primary end-point was overall survival (OS); recruitment of 162 patients was required, to deliver 148 events (hypothesised hazard ratio (HR) 0.63; 80% power; 5% two-sided alpha). Secondary end-points included progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (ASC+FOLFOX arm only). Results: A total of 162 patients were randomised (81 in each arm) between 27-Mar-2014 and 04-Jan-2018). The median age was 65 years (range 26-84); 80 (49%) were male and the primary tumour sites were intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) 72 (44%), extrahepatic CCA 45 (28%), gallbladder 34 (21%) and ampullary cancer 11 (7%). After 150 OS events, the adjusted HR was 0.69 (95%CI-0.50-0.97; p=0.031; ASC+FOLFOX vs ASC). Median OS (months (m)), 6m and 12m OS-rate (%) were 6.2m, 50.6% and 25.9% for the ASC+FOLFOX and 5.3m, 35.5%, 11.4% for the ASC arm, respectively. The median PFS was 4.0 months (95%-CI 3.2-5.0); the response rate was 5% and the disease control rate 33%. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported in 56 (69%) and 42 (52%) patients in the ASC+FOLFOX and ASC arm, respectively, including two chemotherapy-related deaths. Conclusion: FOLFOX improved OS after progression to cisplatin-gemcitabine with a clinically-meaningful increase in 6m and 12m OS rate. FOLFOX should become standard-of-care in second-line for ABC. Trial Registration: NCT01926236, EudraCT: 2013-001812-30. Funding Statement: The study was sponsored by The Christie NHS Foundation Trust. The ABC-6 study was funded by Cancer Research UK (CRUK/13/004), StandUpToCancer, AMMF (The UK Cholangiocarcinoma Charity) and The Christie Charity. The Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation provided funding translational research. Dr Angela Lamarca received funding from ESMO (European Society for Medical Oncology), SEOM (Sociedad Espanola de Oncologia Medica) and Conquer Cancer Foundation (Young Investigator Award) fellowship programs and from The Christie Charity. Declaration of Interests: Dr Angela Lamarca received travel and educational support from Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, AAA, SirtEx, Novartis, Mylan and Delcath; speaker honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Ipsen and Incyte; advisory honoraria from EISAI, Nutricia Ipsen, QED and Roche; she is also a member of the Knowledge Network and NETConnect Initiatives funded by Ipsen. Prof Daniel H Palmer declares research grants from AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Nucana, Sirtex; and Consulting or Advisory roles for AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Eisai, MSD, Servier, Roche. Harpreet Singh Wasan declares no conflict of interest associated to this work. Dr Paul J Ross declares research grants from research grants from Sanofi, Bayer; Consulting or Advisory roles for Bayer, BMS, Eisai, Sirtex, Roche; speaker fees from Amgen, Roche, Servier; Travel grants from Bayer, Roche, Servier. Dr Yuk Ting Ma declares speaker honoraria and advisory roles for Bayer, Eisai and Roche. Dr Arvind Arora declares no conflict of interest. Dr Stephen Flak declares no conflict of interest. Dr Roopinder Gilmore declares no conflict of interest. Prof Jon Wadsley declares research grants from AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Genzyme and Consulting or Advisory roles for Lilly, AstraZeneca, Sanofi Genyme, Eisai, AAA, Roche, Novartis, Ipsen. Dr Kinnari Patel declares no conflict of interest. Alan Anthony declares no conflict of interest. Prof Anthony Maraveyas declares research grants from Pfizer, BMS and Bayer. Speaker fees from BMS. Bayer Ipsen, EUSA Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo and Pfizer and advisory roles for Bayer ,BMS, Leo, Pfizer, Merck and Ipsen. Dr Tim Iveson declares no conflict of interest. Dr Justin S Walters received educational support for travel and conference attendance from Mylan and Ipsen, and speaker honoraria from Mylan. Dr Claire Hobbs declares no conflict of interest. Safia Barber declares no conflict of interest. David Ryder declares no conflict of interest. Prof John Ramage declares research grants, speaker fees and advisory roles for Ipsen, Novartis and AAA. Linda M Davies declares no conflict of interest. Prof John Bridgewater declares Consulting or Advisory role for Merck Serono, SERVIER, Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Incyte and Basilea; travel support from MSD oncology, Merck Serono, Servier and BMS. Prof Juan W Valle declares Consulting or Advisory role for Agios, AstraZeneca, Delcath Systems, Keocyt, Genoscience Pharma, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck, Mundipharma EDO, Novartis, PCI Biotech, Pfizer, PierisPharmaceuticals, QED and Wren Laboratories; Speakers’ Bureau for Imaging Equipment Limited Ipsen Novartis Nucana; and Travel Grants from Celgene and Nucana. Ethics Approval Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the principles of Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. The study protocol was approved by a research ethics committee and all patients were required to provide written informed consent.

Purpose The Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial demonstrated improved progression-free survival with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib relative to placebo in patients with advanced esophageal cancer who had disease progression after chemotherapy. Rapid and durable responses were observed in a minority of patients. We hypothesized that genetic aberration of the EGFR pathway would identify patients benefitting from gefitinib. Methods A prespecified, blinded molecular analysis of Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial tumors was conducted to compare efficacy of gefitinib with that of placebo according to EGFR copy number gain (CNG) and EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutation status. EGFR CNG was determined by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) using prespecified criteria and EGFR FISH-positive status was defined as high polysomy or amplification. Results Biomarker data were available for 340 patients. In EGFR FISH-positive tumors (20.2%), overall survival was improved with gefitinib compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.00; P = .05). In EGFR FISH-negative tumors, there was no difference in overall survival with gefitinib compared with placebo (HR for death, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.18; P = .46). Patients with EGFR amplification (7.2%) gained greatest benefit from gefitinib (HR for death, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.64; P = .006). There was no difference in overall survival for gefitinib versus placebo for patients with EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations, or for any mutation versus none. Conclusion EGFR CNG assessed by FISH appears to identify a subgroup of patients with esophageal cancer who may benefit from gefitinib as a second-line treatment. Results of this study suggest that anti-EGFR therapies should be investigated in prospective clinical trials in different settings in EGFR FISH-positive and, in particular, EGFR-amplified esophageal cancer.

Chapter 7 discusses the upper gastrointestinal tract, and addresses the technical challenges of these cancersin relation to tumour volumes, anatomical situation, and poor normal tissue tolerance, particularly of the intra-abdominal contents. More contemporaneous treatment techniques such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy and stereotactic ablative radiotherapy have not currently made significant impact in the routine treatment of upper gastrointestinal tumours in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in multidisciplinary management, patients with biliary tract cancer have a poor outcome. Only 20% of patients are eligible for surgical resection with curative intent, with 5-year overall survival of less than 10% for all patients. To our knowledge, no studies have described a benefit of adjuvant therapy. We aimed to determine whether adjuvant capecitabine improved overall survival compared with observation following surgery for biliary tract cancer.METHODS: This randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study was done across 44 specialist hepatopancreatobiliary centres in the UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed cholangiocarcinoma or muscle-invasive gallbladder cancer who had undergone a macroscopically complete resection (which includes liver resection, pancreatic resection, or, less commonly, both) with curative intent, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of less than 2. Patients who had not completely recovered from previous surgery or who had previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy for biliary tract cancer were also excluded. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral capecitabine (1250 mg/m 2 twice daily on days 1–14 of a 21-day cycle, for eight cycles) or observation commencing within 16 weeks of surgery. Treatment was not masked, and allocation concealment was achieved with a computerised minimisation algorithm that stratified patients by surgical centre, site of disease, resection status, and performance status. The primary outcome was overall survival. As prespecified, analyses were done by intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-003318-13.FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2006, and Dec 4, 2014, 447 patients were enrolled; 223 patients with biliary tract cancer resected with curative intent were randomly assigned to the capecitabine group and 224 to the observation group. The data cutoff for this analysis was March 6, 2017. The median follow-up for all patients was 60 months (IQR 37–60). In the intention-to-treat analysis, median overall survival was 51·1 months (95% CI 34·6–59·1) in the capecitabine group compared with 36·4 months (29·7–44·5) in the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·63–1·04; p=0·097). In a protocol-specified sensitivity analysis, adjusting for minimisation factors and nodal status, grade, and gender, the overall survival HR was 0·71 (95% CI 0·55–0·92; p=0·010). In the prespecified per-protocol analysis (210 patients in the capecitabine group and 220 in the observation group), median overall survival was 53 months (95% CI 40 to not reached) in the capecitabine group and 36 months (30–44) in the observation group (adjusted HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·58–0·97; p=0·028). In the intention-to-treat analysis, median recurrence-free survival was 24·4 months (95% CI 18·6–35·9) in the capecitabine group and 17·5 months (12·0–23·8) in the observation group. In the per-protocol analysis, median recurrence-free survival was 25·9 months (95% CI 19·8–46·3) in the capecitabine group and 17·4 months (12·0–23·7) in the observation group. Adverse events were measured in the capecitabine group only, and of the 213 patients who received at least one cycle, 94 (44%) had at least one grade 3 toxicity, the most frequent of which were hand-foot syndrome in 43 (20%) patients, diarrhoea in 16 (8%) patients, and fatigue in 16 (8%) patients. One (INTERPRETATION: Although this study did not meet its primary endpoint of improving overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, the prespecified sensitivity and per-protocol analyses suggest that capecitabine can improve overall survival in patients with resected biliary tract cancer when used as adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery and could be considered as standard of care. Furthermore, the safety profile is manageable, supporting the use of capecitabine in this setting.FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and Roche.

Background Preoperative Long-course chemoradiation (LCCRT) is the standard-of-care in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). This phase I/II trial in two sequential studies aimed to evaluate the activity and safety of the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) monoclonal antibody cetuximab administered weekly-prior to, and following LCCRT. Patients and Methods All patients had magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) defined cT3/cT4 or node-positive rectal adenocarcinoma and treatment with LCCRT (capecitabine 825 mg/m2 bid on Monday-Friday for 5 weeks during radiotherapy [45Gy in 25 daily fractions] followed by total mesorectal excision (TME). In Phase I patients received weekly induction cetuximab 400mg/m2 loading, then 250mg/m2 once weekly for 4 weeks prior to standard LCCRT. In phase II 10 patients were randomised to receive: arm A standard LCCRT alone or arm B (sandwich) LCCRT with additional induction cetuximab 250mg/m2 weekly prior to LCCRT and consolidation for 5 weeks following. Results In Phase I all 12 patients proceeded to surgery with a single pCR (8%) reported. This pCR rate together with acceptable compliance (100%) and toxicity (4 Grade 3 toxicities, 2 skin rash, 1 pain and 1 pulmonary embolus) and the absence of severe surgical complications allowed continuation to phase II. In Phase II, 10 patients were recruited and five patients were randomly assigned to each treatment arm. One additional patient allocated cetuximab/CRT chose to withdraw from the trial and received no treatment. In Arm B 4/5 patients proceeded to surgery with one pCR compared to three of five patients proceeding to surgery with two achieving pCR in Arm A. The Trial closed after studies in metastatic disease reported efficacy depended on selection according to K-RAS/NRAs mutational status. Conclusions: In unselected patients without enrichment according to KRAS/NRAS/BRAF status, the addition of induction and consolidation cetuximab to pre-operative LCCRT provided modest efficacy with good compliance and manageable toxicity.

Importance: Older and/or frail patients are underrepresented in landmark cancer trials. Tailored research is needed to address this evidence gap. Objective: The GO2 randomized clinical trial sought to optimize chemotherapy dosing in older and/or frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, noninferiority, open-label randomized trial took place at oncology clinics in the United Kingdom with nurse-led geriatric health assessment. Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable because of advanced age and/or frailty. Interventions: There were 2 randomizations that were performed: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m 2twice daily on days 1-21, on a 21-day cycle), Level B (doses 0.8 times A), or Level C (doses 0.6 times A). Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, the patient could instead enter CHEMO-BSC, comparing Level C vs best supportive care. Main Outcomes and Measures: First, broad noninferiority of the lower doses vs reference (Level A) was assessed using a permissive boundary of 34 days reduction in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio, HR = 1.34), selected as acceptable by a forum of patients and clinicians. Then, the patient experience was compared using Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxic effects, quality of life, and patient value/acceptability. For CHEMO-BSC, the main outcome measure was overall survival. Results: A total of 514 patients entered CHEMO-INTENSITY, of whom 385 (75%) were men and 299 (58%) were severely frail, with median age 76 years. Noninferior PFS was confirmed for Levels B vs A (HR = 1.09 [95% CI, 0.89-1.32]) and C vs A (HR = 1.10 [95% CI, 0.90-1.33]). Level C produced less toxic effects and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in younger or less frail patients. A total of 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomization: overall survival was nonsignificantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6.1 vs 3.0 months (HR = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.32-1.48], P =.34). In multivariate analysis in 522 patients with all variables available, baseline frailty, quality of life, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, and can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of different outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided a better patient experience without significantly compromising cancer control and should be considered for older and/or frail patients. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy but did not identify a group benefiting from higher-dose treatment. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN44687907.

3504 Background: There is extensive randomised evidence supporting the use of treatment breaks in mCRC, but breaks from treatment are not universally offered to patients despite reductions in toxicity, without detriment to OS. Prior trials have shown that the combination of Cp and bevacizumab extend PFS but not OS. FOCUS4-N explores oral maintenance Cp monotherapy in patients with disease control on first line therapy. Methods: FOCUS4 was a molecularly stratified trial programme registering patients with newly diagnosed mCRC from 88 hospitals in the UK. Whilst undergoing 16 wks of first line treatment, a sample of tumour was sent for laboratory testing to stratify their disease into molecular subtypes: MSI, BRAF, PIK3CA, TP53 and RAS mutations. For some molecular groups, a targeted therapy subtrial was available but entry into the FOCUS4-N trial was offered to those in whom a targeted subtrial was unavailable. Patients were randomised 1:1 between maintenance Cp therapy or AM. The primary outcome was PFS assessed using 8-wkly RECIST reported CT scans with quality of life (using EQ5D 8 weekly) and OS as secondary outcomes. Toxicity and tolerability were assessed 4-wkly. On progression, from the nadir, patients recommenced first line treatment. Cox regression was used to assess efficacy by intention-to-treat (ITT) with adjustment for tumour location, WHO status, metastatic burden, first line treatment and biomarker subtype. Results: Between March 2014 and March 2020, 254 patients were randomised (127 to Cp and 127 to AM). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups but event rates were higher than anticipated in the AM group and the final analysis was triggered early as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic halting recruitment. The table presents results for PFS and OS. Compliance with treatment was good with per-protocol analysis results very similar to ITT (PFS HR=0.38 (95% CI 0.28-0.51)). Toxicity from Cp v AM was as expected with G≥2 fatigue (25% v 12%), diarrhoea (23% v 13%) and hand-foot syndrome (26% v 3%). Quality of life showed no statistically significant differences between the two arms. Conclusions: Despite strong evidence of prolongation of PFS with maintenance therapy, OS remains unaffected and FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as a safe management alternative for patients who are stable or responding well to first line treatment for mCRC. Cp without bevacizumab may be used to extend PFS, in the interval after 16 weeks of combination therapy. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN#90061546. [Table: see text]

198 Background: Optimal neoadjuvant (NA) treatment for adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction is unknown. This study aims to evaluate an approach of offering NA chemoradiotherapy (CRT) to T3/T4 tumours with a threatened circumferential resection margin (CRM) on staging imaging (computerized tomography/endoscopic ultrasound/positron emission tomography) and NA chemotherapy (CT) to T3/T4 tumours with a non-threatened CRM. Methods: Cases with clinically staged T3/T4 tumours who underwent a radical esophagectomy at a single tertiary referral centre between 2013 and 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. NA CRT was given as 41.4Gqy in 23 fractions with weekly carboplatin/paclitaxel and NA CT was given as a platinum based combination. Survival outcomes are described using the Kaplan-Meier method and calculated from NA treatment start. Results: 81 patients were identified - 18 (22%) received CRT and 63 (78%) received CT. More cases had Stage IVA disease in the CRT group (28% vs. 8%). CT consisted of a platinum/fluoropyrimidine doublet (43%), triplet with epirubicin (51%) or FLOT (6%). Median follow up was 68 months. Median length of post-operative stay (11 days for both) and rate of death within 90 days of surgery (6% vs. 3%) were similar. Rates of R0 resection (100% vs. 67%) and tumour regression grade 1/2 (55% vs. 14%) favoured CRT. There was no difference in overall survival (HR 0.92 (95%CI: 0.45-1.87), p=0.81). Estimated 3 year relapse-free survival was 39% (95%CI: 14-64) for CRT and 45% (95%CI: 33-58) for CT. Location of first relapse was local, distant or both in 0%, 75% and 25% for CRT and 6%, 50% and 44% for CT. In the CT group, overall survival was inferior for patients with an R1 resection (HR: 6.30 (95%CI 3–14), p

TPS149 Background: METamp is a secondary, or co-driving, genetic change in pts with mCRC and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR therapy, which can contribute to disease progression. In EGFR-resistant pts with mCRC and METamp, MET inhibition + an anti-EGFR agent could achieve disease control by targeting emerging MET pathway activation and maintaining EGFR pathway inhibition. Tepotinib is an oral, once-daily, highly selective, potent MET tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI). Tepotinib + the EGFR TKI gefitinib demonstrated improved outcomes in pts with EGFR-mutant METamp non-small cell lung cancer and acquired EGFR TKI resistance vs chemotherapy (INSIGHT: NCT01982955). In these pts, progression-free survival (PFS) was 16.6 vs 4.2 months (HR = 0.13; 90% CI: 0.04, 0.43) and overall survival (OS) was 37.3 vs 13.1 months (HR = 0.08; 90% CI: 0.01, 0.51). In pts with mCRC and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR antibody therapy due to METamp, tepotinib + anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab may be active and therefore provide an effective therapeutic option. Methods: This Phase II, multicenter, single-arm, open-label study will assess preliminary antitumor activity, safety and tolerability, and explore pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of tepotinib + cetuximab in pts with RAS/BRAF wild-type left-sided mCRC and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR antibody-targeted therapy due to METamp. A safety run-in (6-12 pts) will evaluate the recommended Phase II dose of tepotinib to be used in combination with cetuximab (endpoint:dose-limiting toxicities). Enrollment is based on a confirmed advanced left-sided CRC diagnosis, with RAS/BRAF wild-type, documented previous anti-EGFR therapy and acquired resistance on the most recent anti-EGFR antibody and METamp confirmed by liquid and/or tissue biopsy. Pts must be ≥18 years old and have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0/1 and normal organ function. The study will screen sufficient pts to account for setting-specific METamp heterogenicity. Approximately 42 pts are planned to receive study treatment: ~22 in Cohort A (tepotinib second-line, outside US) and 20 in Cohort B (tepotinib ≥third-line, US only). Primary endpoint:investigator-assessed objective response (RECIST 1.1). Secondary endpoints are investigator-assessed duration of response (DoR) and PFS (RECIST 1.1), OS, tolerability and safety (NCI-CTCAE v5.0) and cetuximab immunogenicity (measured by antidrug antibody assays at the start and end of treatment). Additional endpoints include assessment of tepotinib and cetuximab PK profiles and expression of biomarkers of resistance (from blood and/or tissue samples). Retrospective assessment of best overall response, DoR and PFS by an independent review committee may be conducted. No formal statistical hypothesis will be tested in this exploratory study. Clinical trial information: NCT04515394.

LBA4006 Background: The ESPAC-3 trial compared adjuvant GEM with 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid for resected pancreatic cancer. GEM is the standard of care based on similar survival and less toxicity. ESPAC-4 aimed to determine whether combination chemotherapy with GEM/CAP improved survival compared to GEM monotherapy. Methods: Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were randomized within 12 weeks of surgery (stratified for R0/R1 resection margin status and country) to have either six 4 week cycles of IV GEM alone or GEM with oral CAP. The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints were toxicity, relapse free survival, 2 and 5 year survival and quality of life. 722 patients (480 expected events), 361 in each arm, were needed to detect a 10% difference in 2 year survival rates with 90% power (log-rank test with 5% two-sided alpha). Results: Between Nov 10 2008 and Sep 11 2014, 732 patients were randomized with 730 included in the full analysis set (366 GEM, 364 GEM/CAP). Median age was 65 years, 57% were men. WHO performance status was 0, 1 or 2 in 42% 55% and 3% respectively. Postoperative median CA19-9 was 19 kU/L. Median maximum tumor size was 30 mm, 60% were R1 resections, 80% were node positive and 40% were poorly differentiated. On Dec 11 2015 the Independent Trial Steering Committee requested that the trial proceed to full analysis. The data freeze was on March 2 2016. Median survival (months) for patients treated with GEM/CAP was 28.0 (95% CI, 23.5 – 31.5) and 25.5 (22.7 – 27.9) for GEM. Stratified log-rank analysis revealed an HR=0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 – 0.98]; χ2 (1) = 4.61, P=0.032. 196 out of 366 GEM patients in the safety set reported 481 grade 3/4 adverse events, while 226 out of 359 GEM/CAP patients reported 608 grade 3/4 adverse events ( P=0.242). Conclusions: Adjuvant GEM/CAP for pancreatic cancer had a statistically significant improvement in survival compared to GEM monotherapy. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN96397434.

4101 Background: Phase II studies reported high pathological complete response (pCR) rates and acceptable toxicity using irinotecan and fluoropyrimidine chemoradiation in LARC (ISRCTN:09351447). Methods: This phase III, multicentre, open-label trial funded by Cancer Research UK, randomly assigned (1:1) patients with MRI defined LARC threatening or involving resection margins without metastases, to pre-operative radiotherapy (RT) 45Gy/25 fractions combined with either capecitabine 900mg/m2(CRT) or 650 mg/m2 bd weekdays with Irinotecan iv once-weekly 60mg/m2 weeks 1-4 (IrCRT). The primary endpoint is disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints include treatment compliance, safety and pCR. Results: 75 UK sites randomised 564 eligible patients from Oct/11 to July/18; 284 to CRT and 280 to IrCRT. 370 (66%) male; median age 61 years (range:29-83). Staging in both arms was similar: mrT3 (432/564(77%), mrT4 (89/564(16%); mrCRM involved (275/564(49%); threatened ≤1mm (215/564(38%). Compared with CRT, IrCRT patients were less likely to receive 45Gy RT (207/276(75%) vs 251/283(89%), p < 0.001) or receive ≥90% capecitabine dose in 188/276(68%) vs 253/283(89.4%)p < 0.001). A total of 204/276(74%) received ≥90% irinotecan dose. The grade 3-4 gastrointestinal adverse event rate was 21%(58/276) with IrCRT and 12%(34/283) with CRT (p = 0.004). Patients receiving IrCRT had significantly more diarrhoea 38/276(13.8%) vs 10/283(3.5%)p < 0.001) and neutropenia 27/276(9.8%) vs 3/283 (1.1%) p < 0.001). Two CRT and three IrCRT patients experienced a treatment related death. 237/276(86%) IrCRT and 241/283(85%) CRT patients had surgery. The median time from end of RT to surgery(10.6 weeks), the surgical procedure APE 262/478(55%), AR 189/478(40%), Hartmann’s 10/478(2%); and the surgical complications(any event) 38%(181/478) were similar in both arms. The pCR rate is available in > 95% patients and is 20.2%(46/228) for IrCRTvs.17.4%(40/230) for CRT (p = 0.45), A > 84% CRM-ve resection rate is similar in both arms. Conclusions: For patients with MRI defined high risk LARC low rates of CRM involvement were observed in both arms reflecting high quality multidisciplinary care. The addition of irinotecan did not significantly improve the pCR rate, was associated with a decrease in the RT and capecitabine compliance and a higher rate of adverse events. Surgical procedure or complications were unaffected. Longer follow-up is required to assess DFS and translational data. Clinical trial information: 09351447 .

373 Background: Initial results of the NEOSCOPE trial comparing pre-operative CarPac vs OxCap based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or oesophagogastric junction showed comparable toxicity and improvement in pathological complete response (pCR) in favour of the CarPacRT. Here we report survival after a median follow-up of 40.7 months (95% CI: 45.1-53.6). Methods: NEOSCOPE was an open, randomised, ‘pick a winner’ phase II trial. Patients with resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma ≥ cT3 and/or ≥ cN1 were randomised to OxCapRT (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 day 1, 15, 29; capecitabine 625 mg/m2 bd on days of RT) or CarPacRT (carboplatin AUC2; paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 day 1, 8, 15, 22, 29). RT dose was 45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks. Induction OxCap (2 cycles) was given prior to CRT. Surgery was performed 6–8 weeks after CRT.The primary endpoint was pCR, secondary endpoints were toxicity, PFS and OS. Results: Between Oct 2013 and Feb 2015, 85 patients were recruited from 17 UK centres. Median OS was not reached in the CarPacRT group and was 41.72 months (95% CI 19.58-.)in the OxCap group (HR 0.56[95% CI 0.29-1.07]; p=0.079). 3-year and 5-year OS rates were 74% (95% CI 58%-85%) and 54% (95% CI 34%-71%) (CarPacRT), and 52% (95% CI 35%-67%) and 39% (95% CI 21%-56%) (OxCapRT). Median PFS (not reached vs 35.3 months, HR=0.61 [95% CI 0.33-1.12]; p=0.111) and metastatic PFS (not reached vs 39.0 months, HR=0.61 [95% CI 0.32-1.14], p=0.118) both favoured the CarPacRT arm. Local recurrence rate was low (OxCapRT= 10%; CarPacRT= 7%). The OS benefit for CarPacRT was consistent across subgroups but not statistically significant. Conclusions: In this longer term analysis there was some evidence that induction OxCap followed by switch to CarPacRT was superior to continuing OxCapRT, with efficacy similar to that seen in other published studies such as ‘CROSS’ and ‘FLOT’. Taken together with the previously published pCR results CarPacRT rather than OxCapRT warrants inclusion in future trials. Funding: Cancer Research UK (C44694/A14614). Clinical trial information: NCT01843829.

Background GISTs are rare tumours with an incidence of around 1/100000/year. The principle treatment in localised disease remains resection. If an R0 resection is not expected, Imatinib can be used in the NA setting to shrink tumours and improve chances of a complete resection. Current guidelines suggest Imatinib should be used for 6-12 months in the NA setting. Methods Data were collected for patients treated for GISTs with Imatinib in either the NA or palliative (PA) setting in two UK tertiary centres to assess response in the primary tumour volume (PTV). This study aimed to find the time to maximum reduction of PTV in NA and PA settings. Results 29 patients were treated with Imatinib over a 3 year period; 13 in the PA setting and 16 in the NA setting. In the NA setting, 10 patients proceeded to surgery, 2 patients declined surgery and 4 patients remained inoperable. All patients deemed operable at baseline underwent surgery after NA Imatinib. The median time to surgery was 7.2mths (Range (R) 1.6 – 28.9mths). Overall, 10 patients died (none in the NA setting), 5 on treatment and 5 post-treatment. At baseline, the median PTV was 199.3cm3 (R 4.0 – 10472.0cm3). The median time to best response was 7.6mths (R 1.4 – 46.2mths) for all patients, 4.7mths (R 1.4 – 21.6mths) in NA patients and 14.1mths (R 3.3 – 46.2mths) in PA patients. As the majority of NA patients did not have progressive disease (PD) prior to surgery, the maximum response may not have been reached and therefore the results in PA patients may better reflect the time to best response. 9 patients had PD, 2 in NA setting with 1 patient proceeding to surgery. The median time to PD for all patients was 19.6mths (R 1 – 51.4mts). The overall response rate to Imatinib was 85.2%. The median reduction in PTV was 65.3% (R -182.7 – 93.4%). In NA patients the median reduction in PTV was 62.7% (R -182.7 – 93.4%) and in PA patients the median reduction in PTV was 57.6% (R 20 – 82.4%). Conclusions Imatinib has high response rates in both the NA and PA settings. This study suggests the maximum reduction in PTV can be achieved after greater than 12mths of treatment. For patients responding to NA Imatinib who have ongoing concerns regarding resectability, a more prolonged course of treatment may further reduce PTV to facilitate an R0 resection. Legal entity responsible for the study Sharath Gangadhara. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

BACKGROUND:Limited data describe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of localised oesophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy(CRT). The phase 2/3 SCOPE-1 trial assessed the effectiveness of CRT±cetuximab. The trial for the first time provided an opportunity to describe PROs from a multi-centre group of patients treated with CRT that are presented here.METHODS:Patients undergoing CRT±cetuximab within the SCOPE-1 trial (258 patients from 36 UK centres) completed generic-, disease- and treatment-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL) questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-OES18, Dermatology Life-Quality Index (DLQI)) at baseline and at 7, 13, 24, 52 and 104 weeks. Mean EORTC functional scale scores (>15 point change significant), DLQI scores (>4 point change significant) and proportions of patients (>15% significant) with 'minimal' or 'severe' symptoms are presented.RESULTS:Questionnaire response rates were good. At baseline, EORTC functional scores were high (>75%) and few symptoms were reported except for severe problems with fatigue, insomnia and eating-related symptoms (e.g., appetite loss, dysphagia, dry mouth) in both groups(>15%). Functional aspects of health deteriorated and symptoms increased with treatment and by week 13 global quality of life, physical, role and social function significantly deteriorated and more problems with fatigue, dyspnoea, appetite loss and trouble with taste were reported. Recovery occurred by 6 months (except severe fatigue and insomnia in >15% of patients) and maintained at follow-up with no differences between groups.CONCLUSIONS:CRT for localised oesophageal cancer has a significant detrimental impact on many aspects of HRQL; however, recovery is achieved by 6 months and maintained with the exception of persisting problems with severe fatigue and insomnia. The data suggest that the HRQL recovery after definitive CRT is quicker, and there is little lasting deficit compared with treatment including surgery. These data need to be compared with HRQL data from studies evaluating treatments including surgery for oesophageal cancer.

A substantial change in trial methodology for solid tumours has taken place, in response to increased understanding of cancer biology. FOCUS4 is a phase 2-3 trial programme testing targeted agents in patients with advanced colorectal cancer in molecularly stratified cohorts. Here, we aimed to test the hypothesis that combined inhibition of EGFR, HER2, and HER3 signalling with the tyrosine kinase inhibitor AZD8931 will control growth of all wild-type tumours.In FOCUS4-D, we included patients from 18 hospitals in the UK with newly diagnosed advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer whose tumour was wild-type for BRAF, PIK3CA, KRAS, and NRAS. After 16 weeks of first-line therapy, patients with stable or responding tumours were randomised to oral AZD8931 (40 mg twice a day) or placebo. Randomisation was done by minimisation with a random element of 20%, minimisation by hospital site, site of primary tumour, WHO performance status, 16-week CT scan result, number of metastatic sites, and first-line chemotherapy regimen. The primary outcome was progression-free-survival. CT scans were assessed by local radiologists according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1. Preplanned interim analyses were assessed per protocol and were agreed using multiarm multistage (MAMS) trial design methodology triggered by occurrence of progression-free survival events in the placebo group. The final analysis was assessed by intention to treat. This trial is registered at controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN 90061546.Between July 7, 2014, and March 7, 2016, 32 patients were randomised to study treatment, 16 to AZD8931 and 16 to placebo. At the first preplanned interim analysis (March, 2016), the independent data monitoring committee (IDMC) recommended closure of FOCUS4-D because of a lack of activity. At the final analysis (Aug 1, 2016), 31 patients had had a progression-free survival event (15 with AZD8931 and 16 with placebo). Median progression-free survival was 3·48 months (95% CI 1·51-5·09) in the placebo group and 2·96 months (1·94-5·62) in the AZD8931 group. No progression-free survival benefit of AZD8931 compared with placebo was noted (hazard ratio [HR] 1·10, 95% CI 0·47-3·57; p=0·95). The most common grade 3 adverse event in the AZD8931 group was skin rash (three [20%] of 15 patients with available data vs none of 16 patients in the placebo group), and in the placebo group it was diarrhoea (one [7%] vs one [6%]). No grade 4 adverse events were recorded and no treatment-related deaths were reported.The MAMS trial design for FOCUS4 has shown efficiency and effectiveness in trial outcome delivery, informing the decision to proceed or stop clinical evaluation of a targeted treatment within a molecularly defined cohort of patients. The overarching FOCUS4 trial is now aiming to open a replacement arm in the cohort with all wild-type tumours.Medical Research Council (MRC) and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, Cancer Research UK, NIHR Clinical Trials Research Network, Health and Care Research Wales, and AstraZeneca.

4006 Background: Many pts with aGOAC are elderly and/or frail. We previously compared epirubin/ oxaliplatin/ capecitabine (EOCap) vs OCap vs Cap in a pick-the-winner study and found OCap best. GO2 was designed to find the optimum dose of OCap and to explore the use of an objective baseline geriatric assessment to individualize doses for maximum Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), a composite of clinical benefit, tolerability, QL and patient value. Methods: Pts with aGOAC were eligible if unsuitable for full-dose EOCap due to age or frailty, but fit for OCap; GFR ≥ 30, bili 2d1, Cap 625 mg/m2bd d1-21, q21d), B (80% Level A doses) or C (60% Level A doses). Pts with GFR 30-50 ml/min or bili 1.5-2.0 xULN received 75% of the allocated dose of Cap. At 9 wks, pts were scored for OTU. Continuation thereafter was based on clinical judgement. Non-inferiority (vs A) was assessed using PFS censored at 12 months, with boundary HR 1.34 (based on discussion with pts and clinicians), needing 284 PFS events per 2-way comparison. Baseline fitness was assessed as predictive of OTU, overall and by interaction with dose level. Results: 514 pts were randomised, 2014-17, at 61 UK centres. Clinical trial information: 44687907. Non-inferiority of PFS is confirmed for Level B vs A (HR 1.09, CI 0.89-1.32) and for Level C vs A (HR 1.10, CI 0.90-1.33). Level C pts had less toxicity and better OTU outcomes than A or B. When analysed by baseline age, frailty and PS, Level C produced the best OTU even in younger, less frail and better PS patients; no group was identified who benefit more from the higher dose levels. Conclusions: This is the largest RCT to date specifically investigating frail and/or elderly aGOAC pts, and should guide future treatment. The lowest dose tested was non-inferior in terms of PFS and produced less toxicity and better overall treatment utility.[Table: see text]

4022 Background: No large scale randomised data exists evaluating the impact of age and sex in patients (pts) undergoing potentially curative surgery and CTx for OG cancer. However, differences in age and sex may be contributing factors to variability in CTx dose-response and toxicity which could also impact survival. Methods: Data from four prospective randomised controlled trials were pooled using a two-stage meta-analysis. For survival data, hazard ratios were calculated for pts

4003 Background: Level A evidence supports use of CisGem as first-line chemotherapy for ABC; no robust evidence is available for second-line chemotherapy. Methods: Pts diagnosed with ABC with disease progression after prior CisGem were randomised (1:1) to either ASC+mFOLFOX or ASC. Randomisation was stratified by serum albumin levels ( < 35 vs ≥35 g/L), platinum sensitivity (determined from first-line CisGem) and disease extent (locally advanced vs metastatic). Pts with ECOG PS0-1, adequate haematological, renal and liver function, and adequate biliary drainage were eligible. Primary end-point was overall survival (OS) (multivariable Cox regression adjusted for stratification factors); sample size: 162 pts delivering 148 events were required (80% power; 5% two-sided alpha) for a hypothesised hazard ratio (HR) of 0.63. Assumed median survival for ASC was 4 months. Results: 162 pts (81 in each arm) were randomised (27 March ‘14 - 04 Jan ‘18); median age 65 yrs (range 26-84); sex: 80 (49%) male, 82 (51%) female; primary site: intrahepatic 72 (44%), extrahepatic 45 (28%), gallbladder 34 (21%) and ampullary 11 (7%). Baseline characteristics were balanced between arms except platinum sensitivity (ASC+mFOLFOX 27 pts (33%); ASC 34 pts (42%)). After 150 OS events, the adjusted HR was 0.69 (95% CI 0.50-0.97; p = 0.031; ASC+mFOLFOX vs ASC). Median OS (months (m)), 6m and 12m OS-rate (%) were 6.2m, 50.6% and 25.9% for the ASC+mFOLFOX and 5.3m, 35.5%, 11.4% for the ASC arm, respectively. Grade 3/4 toxicities were reported in 48 (59%) and 32 (39%) pts in the ASC+mFOLFOX and ASC arm, respectively; these were balanced between arms except for fatigue and neutropenia (more frequent in ASC+mFOLFOX arm); data cleaning is ongoing. No chemotherapy-related deaths were reported. Conclusion: Survival with ASC was greater than assumed; ASC+mFOLFOX improved OS after progression to CisGem with a clinically meaningful increase in 6m and 12m OS rate. ASC+mFOLFOX should become standard of care in second-line for ABC. Clinical trial information: NCT01926236.

Summary Background The ESPAC-3 trial showed that adjuvant gemcitabine is the standard of care based on similar survival to and less toxicity than adjuvant 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. Other clinical trials have shown better survival and tumour response with gemcitabine and capecitabine than with gemcitabine alone in advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. We aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine and capecitabine compared with gemcitabine monotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer. Methods We did a phase 3, two-group, open-label, multicentre, randomised clinical trial at 92 hospitals in England, Scotland, Wales, Germany, France, and Sweden. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had undergone complete macroscopic resection for ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (R0 or R1 resection). We randomly assigned patients (1:1) within 12 weeks of surgery to receive six cycles of either 1000 mg/m 2 gemcitabine alone administered once a week for three of every 4 weeks (one cycle) or with 1660 mg/m 2 oral capecitabine administered for 21 days followed by 7 days' rest (one cycle). Randomisation was based on a minimisation routine, and country was used as a stratification factor. The primary endpoint was overall survival, measured as the time from randomisation until death from any cause, and assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Toxicity was analysed in all patients who received trial treatment. This trial was registered with the EudraCT, number 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN96397434. Findings Of 732 patients enrolled, 730 were included in the final analysis. Of these, 366 were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine and 364 to gemcitabine plus capecitabine. The Independent Data and Safety Monitoring Committee requested reporting of the results after there were 458 (95%) of a target of 480 deaths. The median overall survival for patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group was 28·0 months (95% CI 23·5–31·5) compared with 25·5 months (22·7–27·9) in the gemcitabine group (hazard ratio 0·82 [95% CI 0·68–0·98], p=0·032). 608 grade 3–4 adverse events were reported by 226 of 359 patients in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group compared with 481 grade 3–4 adverse events in 196 of 366 patients in the gemcitabine group. Interpretation The adjuvant combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine should be the new standard of care following resection for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Funding Cancer Research UK.

BackgroundThe addition of cetuximab to perioperative chemotherapy for operable colorectal liver metastases resulted in a shorter progression free survival. Details of disease progression are described to further inform the primary study outcome.MethodsA total of 257 KRAS wild-type patients were randomised to chemotherapy alone or chemotherapy with cetuximab. Data regarding sites and treatment of progressive disease were obtained for the 109 (chemotherapy n=48, chemotherapy and cetuximab n=61) patients with progressive disease at the cut-off date for analysis of November 2012. ResultsThe liver was the most frequent site of progression (chemotherapy 67% (32/48); chemotherapy and cetuximab 66% (40/61)). A higher proportion of patients in the cetuximab group had multi-site/other sites of progressive disease (chemotherapy 8%, 4/48; chemotherapy and cetuximab 23%, 14/61 p=0.04). Further treatment for progressive disease is known for 84 patients of whom 69 received further chemotherapy, most frequently irinotecan based. Twenty two patients, 11 in each arm, received cetuximab as a further line agent. ConclusionBoth the distribution of progressive disease and further treatment are as expected for such a cohort. The pattern of disease progression seen is consistent with failure of systemic micrometastatic disease control rather than failure of local disease control following liver surgery.

BackgroundLocalised oesophageal cancer can be curatively treated with surgery (oesophagectomy) but the procedure is complex with a risk of complications, negative effects on quality of life and a recovery period of 6–9 months. Minimal-access surgery may accelerate recovery.ObjectivesThe ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study aimed to establish the feasibility of, and methodology for, a definitive trial comparing minimally invasive and open surgery for oesophagectomy. Objectives were to quantify the number of eligible patients in a pilot trial; develop surgical manuals as the basis for quality assurance; standardise pathological processing; establish a method to blind patients to their allocation in the first week post surgery; identify measures of postsurgical outcome of importance to patients and clinicians; and establish the main cost differences between the surgical approaches.DesignPilot parallel three-arm randomised controlled trial nested within feasibility work.SettingTwo UK NHS departments of upper gastrointestinal surgery.ParticipantsPatients aged ≥ 18 years with histopathological evidence of oesophageal or oesophagogastric junctional adenocarcinoma, squamous cell cancer or high-grade dysplasia, referred for oesophagectomy or oesophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy.InterventionsOesophagectomy, with patients randomised to open surgery, a hybrid open chest and minimally invasive abdomen or totally minimally invasive access.Main outcome measureThe primary outcome measure for the pilot trial was the number of patients recruited per month, with the main trial considered feasible if at least 2.5 patients per month were recruited.ResultsDuring 21 months of recruitment, 263 patients were assessed for eligibility; of these, 135 (51%) were found to be eligible and 104 (77%) agreed to participate, an average of five patients per month. In total, 41 patients were allocated to open surgery, 43 to the hybrid procedure and 20 to totally minimally invasive surgery. Recruitment is continuing, allowing a seamless transition into the definitive trial. Consequently, the database is unlocked at the time of writing and data presented here are for patients recruited by 31 August 2014. Random allocation achieved a good balance between the arms of the study, which, as a high proportion of patients underwent their allocated surgery (69/79, 87%), ensured a fair comparison between the interventions. Dressing patients with large bandages, covering all possible incisions, was successful in keeping patients blind while pain was assessed during the first week post surgery. Postsurgical length of stay and risk of adverse events were within the typical range for this group of patients, with one death occurring within 30 days among 76 patients. There were good completion rates for the assessment of pain at 6 days post surgery (88%) and of the patient-reported outcomes at 6 weeks post randomisation (74%).ConclusionsRapid recruitment to the pilot trial and the successful refinement of methodology indicated the feasibility of a definitive trial comparing different approaches to oesophagectomy. Although we have shown a full trial of open compared with minimally invasive oesophagectomy to be feasible, this is necessarily based on our findings from the two clinical centres that we could include in this small preliminary study.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN59036820.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The optimal time of rectal resection after long-course chemoradiotherapy (CRT) remains unclear. A feasibility study was undertaken for a multi-centre randomized controlled trial evaluating the impact of the interval after chemoradiotherapy on the technical complexity of surgery. Patients with rectal cancer were randomized to either a 6- or 12-week interval between CRT and surgery between June 2012 and May 2014 (ISRCTN registration number: 88843062). For blinded technical complexity assessment, the Observational Clinical Human Reliability Analysis technique was used to quantify technical errors enacted within video recordings of operations. Other measured outcomes included resection completeness, specimen quality, radiological down-staging, tumour cell density down-staging and surgeon-reported technical complexity. Thirty-one patients were enrolled: 15 were randomized to 6 and 16–12 weeks across 7 centres. Fewer eligible patients were identified than had been predicted. Of 23 patients who underwent resection, mean 12.3 errors were observed per case at 6 weeks vs. 10.7 at 12 weeks (p = 0.401). Other measured outcomes were similar between groups. The feasibility of measurement of operative performance of rectal cancer surgery as an endpoint was confirmed in this exploratory study. Recruitment of sufficient numbers of patients represented a challenge, and a proportion of patients did not proceed to resection surgery. These results suggest that interval after CRT may not substantially impact upon surgical technical performance.

Whilst advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal (SCCA) is a rare disease incidence has risen by 2%/year for the past decade. There is no consensus on management of these pts who generally have a poor overall survival (OS) and to date no randomised trial has been completed. The combination of fluoropyrimidine /platinum agents is often considered standard 1st line therapy whilst taxanes have shown activity. We conducted a randomised phase II study to establish a standard of care.

Purpose Chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) provides survival benefits but may result in considerable toxicity. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) measurements during CRT have not been widely reported. This paper reports HRQL data from the Selective Chemoradiation in Advanced Localised Pancreatic Cancer (SCALOP) trial, including validation of the QLQ-PAN26 tool in CRT. Methods and Materials Patients with locally advanced, inoperable, nonmetastatic carcinoma of the pancreas were eligible. Following 12 weeks of induction gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEMCAP) chemotherapy, patients with stable and responding disease were randomized to a further cycle of GEMCAP followed by capecitabine- or gemcitabine-based CRT. HRQL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the EORTC Pancreatic Cancer module (PAN26). Results A total of 114 patients from 28 UK centers were registered and 74 patients randomized. There was improvement in the majority of HRQL scales during induction chemotherapy. Patients with significant deterioration in fatigue, appetite loss, and gastrointestinal symptoms during CRT recovered within 3 weeks following CRT. Differences in changes in HRQL scores between trial arms rarely reached statistical significance; however, where they did, they favored capecitabine therapy. PAN26 scales had good internal consistency and were able to distinguish between subgroups of patients experiencing toxicity. Conclusions Although there is deterioration in HRQL following CRT, this resolves within 3 weeks. HRQL data support the use of capecitabine- over gemcitabine-based chemoradiation. The QLQ-PAN26 is a reliable and valid tool for use in patients receiving CRT.

3502 Background: Six months of oxaliplatin-based treatment has been the mainstay of adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer for the last 13 years. Neurotoxicity from oxaliplatin is cumulative, dose limiting, and potentially irreversible. A shorter duration of treatment would save patients significant toxicity/time and substantially reduce the costs of the drug, its administration, and treatment of adverse effects. Methods: SCOT is a non-inferiority randomised study designed to determine whether 3 months of adjuvant chemotherapy with OxMdG or Xelox (physician/patient choice) in Stage III/high risk Stage II colorectal cancer is as effective as 6 months treatment. Non-inferiority was determined to be a maximum 2.5% fall in 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) on the 3 month arm (from 78% on the 6 month arm) corresponding to a hazard ratio upper limit of 1.13. The study was designed with 90% power at the 2.5% 1-sided level of statistical significance and aimed to recruit 9500 patients to observe 2,750 DFS events (relapses/deaths/new colorectal cancers). Analysis used a Cox model adjusted for study minimisation factors. Results: 6088 patients (60% male, median age 65) with Stage III/high risk Stage II cancers of the colon or rectum were randomised between 27th March 2008 and 29th November 2013. The arms were balanced for clinical and pathological factors. Intended treatment was OxMdG for 1981 and Xelox for 4107 patients. There were 1469 DFS events (734 in 3 month arm and 735 in 6 month arm) giving the study 66% power. 3 year DFS was 76.8% (se = .8%) for the 3 month arm and 77.4% (se = .8%) for the 6 month arm (HR 1.008, 95% CI 0.910-1.117, test for non-inferiority p = 0.014). Non-inferiority appeared stronger for Xelox than OxMdG (test for heterogeneity, p = .059). Results will be shown broken down by stage, site, age, gender and achieved duration of treatment. Conclusions: The SCOT study has shown that 3 months adjuvant treatment is not inferior to 6 months treatment. However the SCOT study is part of the IDEA consortium and the results from the 6 studies in the IDEA consortium addressing the same duration question will also be presented at ASCO 2017. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN59757862.

4006 Background: Despite improvements in multidisciplinary management, BTC has a poor outcome. Approximately 20% of cases are suitable for surgical resection with a 5 year survival of < 10%. BILCAP aimed to determine whether capecitabine (Cape) improves overall survival (OS) compared to observation (Obs) following radical surgery. Methods: Patients with completely-resected cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) or gallbladder cancer (including liver and pancreatic resection, as appropriate), with adequate biliary drainage, no ongoing infection, adequate renal, haematological and liver function, and ECOG PS ≤2, were randomized 1:1 to Cape (1250 mg/m2 D1-14 every 21 days, for 8 cycles) or Obs. Randomization was minimized on tumor site, resection status, ECOG PS and surgical center. The primary outcome was OS in the intention to treat (ITT) population. 410 patients were needed to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.69 (2-sided α = 0.05 and 80% power). HR was estimated by Cox survival model with adjustment for the minimization factors. Primary analysis performed with at least 24 months (m) follow-up. Results: 447 participants were randomized to Cape (n = 223) or Obs (n = 224) from 44 UK sites between 2006-2014. Median age was 63y (IQR 55, 69) and 201 (45%), 232 (52%), and 14 (3%) patients were ECOG PS 0, 1 and 2 respectively. Primary site: 84 (19%) intrahepatic, 128 (28%) hilar, 156 (35%) extrahepatic CCA and 79 (18%) muscle-invasive gallbladder cancers. Resection margins: R0 in 279 (62%) and R1 in 168 (38%); 207 (46%) were node-negative. Follow up was at least 36m in > 80% of surviving patients. By ITT analysis (n = 447), median OS was 51m (95%CI 35, 59) for Cape and 36m (95%CI 30, 45) for Obs, HR 0.80 (95%CI 0.63, 1.04; p = 0.097). Sensitivity analyses with adjustment for nodal status, grade of disease and gender indicated HR 0.71 (95%CI 0.55, 0.92 p < 0.01). In the per-protocol analysis (Cape n = 210, Obs n = 220) median OS was 53m (95%CI 40, NR) for Cape and 36m (95%CI 30, 44) for Obs, HR 0.75 (95%CI 0.58, 0.97; p = 0.028). Median RFS (ITT) was 25m (95%CI 19, 37) for Cape and 18m (95%CI 13, 28) for Obs. Grade 3-4 toxicity was less than anticipated. Conclusions: Cape improves OS in BTC when used as adjuvant and should become standard of care. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN72785446.

4100 Background: NabP+GEM chemotherapy improves survival compared with GEM monotherapy as treatment for mPDAC. A PDAC mouse model suggested that nabP potentiates GEM activity by reducing cytidine deaminase levels and scheduling may be critical to optimise clinical benefit. Methods: Patients (pts) were randomised to receive standard concomitant (CON) nabP+GEM or sequential (SEQ) administration, with nabP given 24 hours before GEM. After 6 cycles, pts benefiting from treatment could continue the same regimen until disease progression. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1; secondary endpoints included safety, objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL). Serial blood and baseline tumour samples were collected for exploratory biomarkers. Results: Between March 2014 and 2016, 146 pts (71 SEQ, 75 CON) were recruited. Median age (range) was 66 (45-82) years; Karnofsky performance status was 70 (in 12% pts), 80 (27%), 90 (38%) or 100 (24%); 47% had pancreatic head primaries; 84% had liver metastases. Median no. cycles received was 4 SEQ, 3 CON; 51 pts (35%) received ≥6 cycles of treatment (42% SEQ, 28% CON). A 24+2hr interval was achieved in > 90% SEQ admin. Grade ≥3 adverse events experienced by ≥10% pts (SEQ, CON) were neutropaenia (54%, 30%; p = 0.003), febrile neutropaenia (12%, 12%), fatigue (22%, 15%), vomiting (7%, 11%) and anaemia (10%, 5%). G-CSF was administered at local investigator's discretion to 35 pts (23 SEQ, 12 CON; p = 0.015). To date, 112 pts have died. 6 month (m) PFS by SEQ and CON arms were 47% and 33%; median PFS were 5.8 and 4.0m; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.46-0.95; 12m OS by SEQ and CON arms were 29% and 26%; median OS were 10.1 and 7.9m; HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.61-1.29. ORR was 50% SEQ and 33% CON (p = 0.065). Mean baseline QoL Global health status score was 60.6 SEQ and 63.4 CON. The mean change in QoL score from baseline at 24 weeks was -2.1 SEQ and -12.1 CON. Conclusions: Sequential delivery of nabP combined with GEM trended towards improving all clinically relevant efficacy end points: PFS, OS, and ORR. Translational correlates will be reported in due course. Clinical trial information: ISRCTN71070888.