Search

Bevacizumab shows inter-individual pharmacokinetic variability, with an exposure-response relationship in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. This study explores whether a double dose of bevacizumab, compared to a standard dose, increases efficacy in mCRC patients treated with bevacizumab-based chemotherapy as first-line therapy and who have a low initial trough concentration of bevacizumab. PHARBEVACOL is a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, two-parallel group trial. All patients will receive first-line bi-weekly 5 mg/kg bevacizumab-based chemotherapy and those with low initial bevacizumab concentrations (≤15.5 mg/L) will be randomized to either continue the standard dose (5 mg/kg every 14 days) or receive a double dose (10 mg/kg every 14 days). The primary objective is to evaluate the effect of doubling dose on progression-free survival (PFS). During a screening phase, the first serum trough concentration will be measured on day 14, before the second infusion of bevacizumab. We hypothesize a 40 % PFS in the control group at 9 months versus 60 % in the study group, corresponding to a hazard ratio of 0.56. With 80 % power, a 5 % two-sided type I error, and a minimum 12-month follow-up, 116 patients need to be included. Since only 50 % of screened patients will be eligible for randomization, approximately 244 patients will be screened. Recruitment is scheduled to begin in February 2025., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest THL received honoraria for speaking or consulting role from Servier, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, BMS, Astra Zeneca, AAA, Sanofi and research funding from Pierre Fabre. CT received honoraria for speaking or consulting role from MSD, BMS, and Servier. MD received honoraria for speaking in symposia or consulting role from Roche, Pierre Fabre, AMGEN, Servier, Beigene, Abcely, Scandion, MSD, BMS, Merck Serono, Esteve, Takeda, and Astellas. His wife is the head of the Oncology business unit of Sandoz France. DT received honoraria for speaking or consulting role from Merck Serono, MSD, BMS, Servier, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Incyte, and Takeda. CL received honoraria for speaking or consulting role from AAA, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Deciphera, and Takeda. RD received honoraria for speaking or consulting role from Pierre Fabre, MSD, and Takeda. PA received honoraria for speaking or consulting role from Servier, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, BMS, MSD, Astra Zeneca, Takeda, and Novartis. CB received research grants from Bayer, Roche, Molecular partner, Servier, Astrazeneca, Boeringher and honoraria for speaking or consulting role from Bayer, Molecular parner, Merck, MSD, Servier, Merck Serrono, and Pierre Fabre. OB received honoraria for speaking or consulting role from Amgen, Astellas, Servier, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, BMS, Deciphera, Takeda, and MSD. TA received honoraria for speaking or consulting role from MSD, BMS, Takeda, Pierre Fabre, Amgen, and Bayer. VH received honoraria for speaking or consulting role for AdAcAp Novartis, Amgen, Deciphera, Esteve, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre and Servier. MM received honoraria for speaking or consulting role from Amgen, Servier, Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono and Takeda.MJ received honoraria for speaking or consulting role from Amgen, Servier, Pierre Fabre, MSD, and BMS KBL received honoraria for speaking or consulting role from BMS, Servier, and AdAcAp Novartis. GP has received funding for his institution from Bayer, Lilly, Lundbeck, MabDesign, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Regeneron. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare in relation to this study., (Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evidence suggests that ctDNA may be a reliable biomarker to monitor metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) evolution. Nevertheless, evidence on the potential of liquid biopsy in this setting is still low quality, mostly consisting of retrospective studies., Methods: COPERNIC is an international, multicenter clinical trial. The pilot study aims to confirm the predictive potential of early on-treatment ctDNA dynamics, and inform the design of a larger ctDNA-driven trial. Advanced CRC patients who are candidates for ≥3rd lines of systemic therapy undergo longitudinal blood sample collection during treatment (day 1, 15 and 29 for 2- or 4-weekly treatment regimens; day 1, 22 and 43 for 3-weekly treatment regimens) and at each imaging assessment. ctDNA analyses are carried out with the FoundationOne Liquid CDx and FoundationOneMonitor assays, and ctDNA changes during treatment are correlated with radiologic response (as assessed every 8-12 weeks by RECIST v1.1). The primary objective is to select the optimal timepoint and cut-off value for early ctDNA changes (at day 15/22) to predict progressive disease as best radiological response with a high positive predictive value. The cut-off value for ctDNA will be defined based on nonparametric ROC-curves with bootstrapping. Based on the expected rate of progressive disease and statistical assumptions, 109 patients are needed to be screened to have 87 assessable patients. COPERNIC is sponsored by the Institut Jules Bordet, and supported by Roche and Foundation Medicine. Recruitment is open in 13 centres across Belgium and France. The study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05487248)., Competing Interests: Disclosure Giacomo Bregni: Support for travel/accomodation from Amgen. Marc Buyse: Stock ownership in International Drug Development Institute (IDDI), Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium. Benoist Chibaudel: Consultancy, advisory roles, honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Beigine, Biocartis, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, SeqOne, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda. Karen Geboes: Consultancy, advisory roles, honoraria from Amgen, BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Servier. Research funding (institutional) from Merck, Ipsen, Servier. Support for travel/accomodation from Ipsen, Servier. Timon Vandamme: Consultancy, advisory roles, honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eisai, Elmedix, Ipsen, Novartis, Roche, Sirtex. Research funding (institutional) from Ipsen and Novartis. Support for travel/accomodation from Ipsen and Servier. Alain Hendlisz: Consultancy, advisory roles, honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Eli Lilly, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Servier, Sirtex. Research funding (institutional) from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Ipsen, Leo Pharma, Merck, Roche, Sanofi, Teva Pharma. Support for travel/accomodation from Merck, Roche, Sirtex. Francesco Sclafani: Consultancy, advisory roles, honoraria from AMAL Therapeutics, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Dragonfly Therapeutics, GSK, Merck, Nordic Pharma, Roche, Servier. Research funding (institutional) from Amgen, Astellas, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, BMS, Merck, MSD, Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Sanofi. Support for travel/accomodation from Amgen, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Lilly, Merck, Roche, Servier. Leadership role: Secretary of the EORTC Gastrointestinal Tract Cancer Group., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Increased survival can be achieved in patients with colorectal cancer peritoneal metastases (CRPM) treated with cytoreductive surgery. The benefit of this strategy remains uncertain when CRPM are associated with extraperitoneal metastases (EPM). The aim of this study was to compare short- and long-term outcomes of patients treated with CRS for CRPM, with or without EPM., Methods: This study included 413 consecutive patients who underwent CRS for CRPM: 120 with EPM (EPM+) and 293 without (EPM-). Patients with isolated ovarian metastases were included in EPM-group (n = 83)., Results: EPM were mainly located to the liver (66 %,n = 79), retroperitoneal lymph nodes (33 %,n = 40); less frequently to the spleen (9 %,n = 12), lung (9 %,n = 10) or pleura (1 %,n = 1). Ovarian metastases were present in 126 patients (83 in EMP-, 43 in EPM+). Peritoneal carcinomatosis index (PCI) was similar in EPM- (8 [4-14]) and EPM+ (8 [3-13],p = 0.335) groups, as postoperative mortality (3 % vs 3 %,p = 1) and major morbidity rates (28 % vs 35 %,p = 0.223). Median overall survival (mOS) and disease-free survival were significantly higher in the EPM-group (58m vs 39m, and 16m vs 10m,p = 0.003). We highlighted 3 prognostic groups 1) EPM-with PCI<10 (mOS 93m), 2) EPM+ with PCI<10 (mOS 57m), 3) EPM-with 1015 regardless EPM (mOS 26m, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: Complete cytoreductive surgery seems to be feasible in patients with EPM, without increase in postoperative morbidity and mortality compared to patients without EPM. This strategy provides prolonged survival in selected patients with limited peritoneal metastases from colorectal cancer., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Background: Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) is approved in third-line treatment of patients with advanced/metastatic gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas (aGA/GEJA). The association of oxaliplatin with FTD/TPI is promising and the combination of FTD/TPI + oxaliplatin + nivolumab has shown a predictable and manageable safety profile., Aims: The aim is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FTD/TPI plus oxaliplatin with or without nivolumab in patients, with HER2 negative aGA/GEJA, unfit for triplet chemotherapy (TFOX/mFLOT regimen), in the first-line metastatic setting in comparison with the standard of care FOLFOX with or without nivolumab., Methods: This study is a prospective randomised, open label, comparative, multicentre, phase II trial designed to include 118 patients. The primary objective is to evaluate the superiority of FTD/TPI plus oxaliplatin with or without nivolumab over FOLFOX regimen with or without nivolumab in terms of PFS in a population of patients non candidate for triplet chemotherapy. Nivolumab will be used for patients whose tumour express PD-L1 with a CPS score ≥5., Discussion: PRODIGE73-UCGI40-LOGICAN study will provide efficacy and safety data on the association of FTD/TPI plus oxaliplatin with or without nivolumab versus FOLFOX regimen with or without nivolumab in first-line palliative setting, in patients with aGA/GEJA (NCT05476796)., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest D.B. reports personal fees as a speaker and/or in an advisory role from Accord Healthcare, Amgen, Sanofi, Servier, and Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work. O.B. reports personal fees as a speaker and/or in an advisory role from Merck, Bayer, Apmonia Therapeutics, Deciphera, Takeda, MSD, Amgen, Servier, and Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work. C.C. reports personal fees as speaker and/or in an advisory role from Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Pierre Fabre, Daiichy Sankyo, BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, Servier, outside the submitted work. O.D. reports personal fees as speaker and/or in an advisory role from Astra-Zeneca, BMS, MSD, Merck Serono, Sanofi, Servier outside the submitted work. DT: Honoraria: Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, MSD, Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Ipsen, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Takeda, BeiGene, Astra Zeneca. Consulting or Advisory Role: Sanofi, MSD, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Takeda. Research Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Servier (Inst), Roche (Inst), MSD (Inst), BTG (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Pierre Fabre. CDLF: Honoraria: Amgen, AstraZeneca,Bayer, BeiGene, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Servier, Roche, Sanofi, Takeda. Consulting or Advisory Role: MSD, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, Takeda. Research Funding: Servier (Inst), Roche (Inst), MSD (Inst). Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Amgen, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Servier., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This article is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of non-metastatic colon cancer (CC), revised in November 2022., Methods: These guidelines represent collaborative work of all French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of CC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B, and C) according to the level of evidence found in the literature published up to November 2022., Results: Initial evaluation of CC is based on clinical examination, colonoscopy, chest-abdomen-pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assay. CC is usually managed by surgery and adjuvant treatment depending on the pathological findings. The use of adjuvant therapy remains a challenging question in stage II disease. For high-risk stage II CC, adjuvant chemotherapy must be discussed and fluoropyrimidine monotherapy or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy proposed according to the type and number of poor prognostic features. Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (FOLFOX or CAPOX) is the current standard for adjuvant therapy of patients with stage III CC. However, these regimens are associated with significant oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity. The results of the recent IDEA study provide evidence that 3 months of treatment with CAPOX is as effective as 6 months of oxaliplatin-based therapy in patients with low-risk stage III CC (T1-3 and N1). A 6-month oxaliplatin-based therapy remains the standard of care for high-risk stage III CC (T4 and/or N2). For patients unfit for oxaliplatin, fluoropyrimidine monotherapy is recommended., Conclusion: French guidelines for non-metastatic CC management help to offer the best personalized therapeutic strategy in daily clinical practice. Each individual case must be discussed within a multidisciplinary tumor board and then the treatment option decided with the patient., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest T. Lecomte: Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, and Servier. D. Tougeron: Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Servier, MSD, BMS, Astra Zeneca, Sanofi, and Roche. F. Bibeau: Astellas, Astra-Zeneca, BMS, Incyte, MSD, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. R. Cohen: MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Mylan Medical, Servier, Exeliom Biosciences, and Enterome Bioscience. T. Aparicio: MSD, Pierre Fabre, BMS, Servier, and Amgen. O. Bouché: Amgen, Apmomia Therapeutics Bayer, Grunenthal, Merck KGaA, MSD, Pierre Fabre, and Servier. The other authors have reported no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Microsatellite instability (MSI) is a negative predictive factor for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in resectable oesogastric adenocarcinoma and a crucial determinant for immunotherapy. We aimed to evaluate reliability of dMMR/MSI status screening performed on preoperative endoscopic biopsies., Methods: Paired pathological samples from biopsies and surgical specimen of oesogastric adenocarcinoma were retrospectively collected between 2009 and 2019. We compared dMMR status obtained by immunohistochemistry (IHC) and MSI status by PCR. dMMR/MSI status on surgical specimen was considered as reference., Results: PCR and IHC were conclusive on biopsies respectively for 53 (96.4%) and 47 (85.5%) of the 55 patients enrolled. IHC was not contributive for 1 surgical specimen. A third reading of IHC was carried out for 3 biopsies. MSI status was observed in 7 (12.5%) surgical specimens. When analyses were contributive, sensitivity and specificity of biopsies for dMMR/MSI were respectively 85% and 98% for PCR vs. 86% and 98% for IHC. Concordance rate between biopsies and surgical specimen was 96.2% for PCR and 97.8% for IHC., Conclusions: Endoscopic biopsies are a suitable source of tissue for dMMR/MSI status determination in oesogastric adenocarcinoma which should be routinely performed at diagnosis to better adapt neoadjuvant treatment., Miniabstract: By comparison of dMMR phenotype obtained by immunohistochemistry and MSI status by PCR between match-paired samples of oesogastric cancer's endoscopic biopsies and surgical specimen, we observed that biopsies are a suitable source of tissue for dMMR/MSI status determination., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest All the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: To examine the relationship between carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) kinetics and prognosis in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients receiving first-line chemotherapy in the PRODIGE9 trial., Methods: Associations between monthly CEA measurements within 6 months since baseline and progression-free survival (PFS) were evaluated using a joint-latent class-mixed model. A validation set was used to test our prognosis model. Correlations between CEA trajectories (classes) and baseline characteristics were also investigated., Results: Three classes were identified. Class 1 had low baseline CEA with small variations. Class 2 had high baseline CEA with a rapid decrease reaching the same CEA level at 6 months as in class 1. Class 3 had high baseline CEA with a transient decrease followed by an increase to reach, at 6 months, the same CEA level as at baseline. Six-month PFS was significantly lower in class 3 than in classes 1 and 2 (57% vs. 91% and 93% respectively; p<0.01). Class 3 was significantly associated with ECOG 2 status, a high LDH level and non-resected primary tumor., Discussion: Variations in CEA kinetics correlate with prognosis in patients receiving first-line chemotherapy for mCRC. We propose here a user-friendly application to classify CEA trajectory., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest DS, MH, KLM and OB have no conflict of interest to declare TA declared Honoraria from Sanofi, Roche, Amgen, Servier, Pierre Fabre and Astra Zeneca ; Consultancy / Advisory role for Bioven, Pierre Fabre, MSD and Sirtec ; Travel accommodations from Roche. CL has received personnal fees of Amgen, Bayer, Ipsen and Pierre Fabre; Consultancy /Advisory role for Advanced Accelerator Applications, Novartis; Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Bayer, Sanofi/Aventis, Merck Serono and Ipsen JT has received personal fees from Amgen, Roche, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, MSD, Sanofi, Servier, Shire, and non-financial support from Amgen, Merck Serono, and Roche OB has received personal fees from Amgen, Apmonia Therapeutics, Bayer, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi and Servier VB reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Merck Serono, personal fees and non-financial support from Bayer, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, non-financial support from Sanofi, personal fees and non-financial support from Ipsen, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck MSD, personal fees from BMS, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Novartis, and personal fees and non-financial support from Amgen outside the submitted work. JMP has received personnal fees of Merck Serono, Roche, Sanofi, Amgen, Lilly, Servier, Bayer; Consultancy / Advisory role for Roche, Merck Serono, Amgen, Servier, Bayer and Sanofi; Research Funding: Roche, Merck Serono; Travel Accommodations/Expenses: Roche, Merck Serono, Bayer, Servier, Sanofi and Amgen JB has received personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Shire, and non-financial support from Amgen, Merck Serono, and Roche LD has received personal fees of Amgen, BMS, Servier, Oseus and Mylan JMG has received personal fees from Abbvie, Janssen Cilag, MSD, Sanofi and Takeda, and non-financial support from Fresinius Kabi and Pfizer, (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Colon adenocarcinoma mainly occurs in older patients. Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy improved disease-free survival after stage III colon cancer resection, but this improvement was not demonstrated in older patients., Methods: The purpose of ADAGE-PRODIGE 34, randomized open phase III trial is to compare in patients over 70 years oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine with fluoropyrimidine alone in fit patients (Group 1) and fluoropyrimidine with observation in frail patients (Group 2) after resection of stage III colon adenocarcinoma. We report a preliminary tolerance analysis on 50% of the first patients enrolled., Results: The analysis was conducted on 491 patients (378 in Group 1 and 113 in Group 2). Patients in Group 2 were older and showed more frailty criteria than those in Group 1. Cumulative grade 3-5 toxicities were more frequent in patients treated with oxaliplatin in Group 1 or with fluoropyrimidine in Group 2 than in patients treated with fluoropyrimidine in Group 1. At least one course was deferred in more than half of the patients in all groups. Early treatment cessation was more frequent in Group 2., Conclusion: No safety concerns were raised for the continuation of accrual. The frailty criteria distribution suggests that the investigator's evaluation for group allocation was accurate., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest Thomas Aparicio declared Honoraria from Sanofi, Roche, Amgen, Servier, Pierre Fabre and Astra Zeneca; Consultancy / Advisory role for Bioven, Pierre Fabre, MSD and Sirtec; Travel accommodations from Roche. Olivier Bouché reports personal fees as a speaker and/or in an advisory role from Merck KGaA, Roche, Bayer, Astra-Zeneca, Grunenthal, MSD, Amgen, Sanofi, Servier, and Pierre Fabre, outside the submitted work. Pierre-Luc Etienne declared Travels and congress accomodations Roche, BMS, Servier, and research honoraria BMS Claire Falandry reported personal fees from Leo Pharma, Pfizer, MSD Oncology, Teva, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Eisai, Janssen Oncology, Novartis, Chugai Pharma, and Astellas Pharma outside the submitted work; grants from Chugai Pharma, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Astellas Pharma outside the submitted work; and non-financial support from Janssen Oncology, Pierre Fabre, AstraZeneca, and Leo Pharma outside the submitted work. Eric Terrebone declared Honoraria from IPSEN, Servier Anthony Turpin declared Honoraria from Pierre Fabre, Servier, Viatris Marc Van den Eynde declared Honoraria from Servier, BMS, MSD, Merck and Amgen. Travel accommodations from MSD. Elisabeth Carola declared Honoraria from EISAI, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, AMGEN, Lilly, Seagen Novartis, Sanofi. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest, (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

A substantial proportion of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma have to face up, sooner or later, to systemic therapy. The current standards as first line systemic therapies are either atezolizumab (anti-PD-L1) plus bevacizumab (anti-VEGF), or durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) plus tremelimumab (anti-CTLA-4). However, the median overall survival remains below 20 months, and a minority of patients become long-term survivors. Of interest in immune-oncology strategies for hepatocellular carcinoma, the objective response seems to be the most reliable surrogate marker of better overall survival. TRIPLET-HCC (NCT05665348) is a multicentre, randomised, open-label phase II-III trial designed to evaluate efficacy and safety of the triple combination by the addition of ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4) to atezolizumab/bevacizumab, versus the double atezolizumab/bevacizumab combination. The main inclusion criteria are histologically proven BCLC-B/C HCC without previous systemic therapy. The primary objective of the phase II is the objective response rate in the triple arm, and OS in the triple versus double arms in the phase III. Secondary endpoints common to the phases II and III are the comparisons of progression-free survival, objective response rates, tolerance and quality of life. In addition, genetic and epigenetic studies from tissue and circulating DNA/RNA will be conducted to assess their prognostic or predictive value., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest • B.G. has participated in consulting and/or advisory boards for Roche, AstraZeneca, BMS, Bayer, Ipsen, and received research grant from Roche. • C.C. has participated in consulting and/or advisory boards for Ipsen, Gilead, Abbvie, Intercept and received research grant from Gilead. • D.T. has participated in consulting and/or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, Ipsen, MSD, BMS, Servier, Sirtex Medical, Novartis and AMGEN • E.A.: Consulting: BMS, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Roche, Ipsen, Incyte, Servier, Boston Scientific, AAA; Travel expense: IPSEN, MSD • H.S. report lecture fee, board membership, or consultancy from Amgen, Fresenius, IPSEN, Actial, Astellas, Danone, THAC, Biose, BiomX, Eligo, Immusmol, Adare, Nestle, Ferring, MSD, Bledina, Pfizer, Biocodex, BMS, Bromatech, Gilead, Janssen, Mayoli, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Abbvie, has stocks from Enterome bioscience and is co-founder of Exeliom Biosciences. • J.C.N. has received research grants from Ipsen and Bayer. • J.E.: Consulting: MSD, Eisai, BMS, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Roche, Ipsen, Basilea, Merck Serono, Incyte, Servier, Beigene, Taiho, Boston Scientific; Travel expense: Amgen; Research funding (institutional): BMS, Beigene, Boston Scientific • J.F.B.: Bayer, Ipsen, Esai, Astra-Zeneca, Roche, BMS, Servier, Incyte, Tahio Oncology • J.M.P. has participated in consulting and/or advisory boards for Roche, AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD, Bayer, Ipsen, Lilly • K.L.M.: No conflict of interests • M.A. has participated in consulting and/or advisory boards for AstraZeneca, Bayer and Roche. • M.B. has participated in consulting and/or advisory boards for Bayer, AstraZeneca, Roche, Ipsen, MSD, BMS, Servier, Sirtex Medical, Eisai, Taiho • M.G.: No conflict of interests • P.M. has participated in consulting and/or advisory boards for Roche, AstraZeneca, Eisai, MSD, Bayer, Ipsen, and received research grants from Genosciences and Ipsen. • P.L.P.: is a consultant/advisory board member for Merck Serono, AstraZeneca Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Biocartis, Roche, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, Servier, and MSD. • T.A.: has participate in consulting and/or advisory boards for Servier, Pierre Fabre, MSD and BMS and received grant from Amgen, (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a dramatic impact on cancer diagnosis and care pathways. Here, we assessed the mid-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults with cancer before, during and after the lockdown period in 2020., Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective, observational, multicentre cohort study of prospectively collected electronic health records. All adults aged 65 or over and having been newly treated for a digestive system cancer in our institution between January 2018 until August 2020 were enrolled., Results: Data on 7,881 patients were analyzed. Although the overall 10-month mortality rate was similar in 2020 vs. 2018-2019, the mortality rate among for patients newly treated in the 2020 post-lockdown period was (after four months of follow-up) significantly higher. A subgroup analysis revealed higher mortality rates for (i) patients diagnosed in the emergency department during the pre-lockdown period, (ii) patients with small intestine cancer newly treated during the post-lockdown period, and (iii) patients having undergone surgery with curative intent during the post-lockdown period. However, when considering individuals newly treated during the lockdown period, we observed lower mortality rates for (i) patients aged 80 and over, (ii) patients with a biliary or pancreatic cancer, and (iii) patients diagnosed in the emergency department., Discussion: There was no overall increase in mortality among patients newly treated in 2020 vs. 2018-2019. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the consequences of the pandemic. A subgroup analysis revealed significant intergroup differences in mortality., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest All authors declare no conflicts of interest with regard to this study., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Data on outcomes of microsatellite instable and/or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR/MSI) digestive non-colorectal tumors are limited., Aims: To evaluate overall survival (OS) of patients with dMMR/MSI digestive non-colorectal tumor., Methods: All consecutive patients with a dMMR/MSI digestive non-colorectal tumor were included in this French retrospective multicenter study., Results: One hundred and sixteen patients were included with a mean age of 63.6 years and 32.6% with a Lynch syndrome. Most tumors were oesophago-gastric (54.3%) or small bowel (32.8%) adenocarcinomas and at a localized stage at diagnosis (86.7%). In patients with localized tumors and R0 resection, median OS was 134.0 ± 64.2 months. Median disease-free survival (DFS) was 100.3 ± 65.7 months. Considering oesophago-gastric tumors, median DFS was improved when chemotherapy was added to surgery (not reached versus 22.8 ± 10.0 months, p = 0.03). In patients with advanced tumors treated by chemotherapy, median OS was 14.2 ± 1.9 months and median progression-free survival was 7.4 ± 1.6 months., Conclusion: dMMR/MSI digestive non-colorectal tumors are mostly diagnosed at a non-metastatic stage with a good prognosis. Advanced dMMR/MSI digestive non-colorectal tumors have a poor prognosis with standard chemotherapy., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None declared., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) targeting Programmed death-1 (PD-1) have shown their efficacy in advanced MSI/dMMR (microsatellite instability/deficient mismatch repair) tumors. The MSI/dMMR status predicts clinical response to ICI. The promising results evaluating ICI in localized MSI/dMMR tumors in neoadjuvant setting need to be confirmed in MSI/dMMR solid tumors. The aim of the IMHOTEP trial is to assess the efficacy of neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 treatment in MSI/dMMR tumors regarding the pathological complete response rate., Methods: This study is a prospective, multicenter, phase II study including 120 patients with localized MSI/dMMR carcinomas suitable for curative surgery. A single dose of pembrolizumab will be administered before the surgery planned 6 weeks later. Primary objective is to evaluate the efficacy of neoadjuvant pembrolizumab according to pathological complete tumor response. Secondary objectives are to assess safety, recurrence-free survival and overall survival. Ancillary studies will assess molecular and immunological biomarkers predicting response/resistance to ICI. First patient was enrolled in December 2021., Discussion: The IMHOTEP trial will be one of the first clinical trial investigating perioperative ICI in localized MSI/dMMR in a tumor agnostic setting. Assessing neoadjuvant anti-PD-1 is mandatory to improve MSI/dMMR patient's outcomes. The translational program will explore potential biomarker to improve our understanding of immune escape and response in this ICI neoadjuvant setting., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest CC declares a consulting and advisory board for Amgen, Servier, and received honoria from Servier, Amgen. TA received honoraria from Servier, Pierre fabre, Amgen, AstraZeneca and declares consulting for Bioven, Servier, SIRTEC, MSD. RC received honoraria from MSD Oncology, Pierre Fabre, and Bristol-Myers Squibb, declares consulting from Exeliom Biosciences, Enterome Bioscience and received research funding from Servier Institute. OD received honoraria from Amgen, Sanofi, Merck Serono, MSD, Servier, Ipsen, Keocyt and declares consulting for Merck Serono, Sanofi, MSD, AstraZeneca, Novartis. LE declares consulting for BMS and Servier. FG declares research grant from Roche, AstraZeneca and consulting for Astrazenca, Roche, Sanofi, BMS, MSD, Merck-Serono, Amgen. EL declares consulting for Roche, Servier, Ipsen, Bayer, BTG, MSD. CN received honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Baxter, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Fresenius Kabi, Incyte Biosciences, Merck, MSD, Mylan, Novartis, Nutricia, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Servier and research funding from Roche. ES received honoraria from Servier, Amgen, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre Fabre Oncology BMS, Sanofi, Research funding from Bayer, and declares consulting for Pierre Fabre Oncology. YT declares honoraria from MSD, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Amgen, Servier, Ipsen, Pierre Fabre, AAA and consulting for Merck. DT received honoraria from Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck Serono, MSD, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Servier/Pfizer, Ipsen, research funding from AstraZeneca, SERVIER, Roche, MSD, BTG, and declares consulting for Sanofi, MSD, Pierre Fabre, and AstraZeneca. A.Z. declares consulting and/or advisory boards for Amgen, Lilly, Merck, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Baxter, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Havas Life, Alira Health, Zymeworks, and Daiichi. CDLF received honoraria from Amgen, Astra- Zeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Incyte Biosciences, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Pierre Fabre Oncologie, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. FB, MBZ, SK, EC, PR and ES declares no conflicts of interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have high efficacy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) with microsatellite instability (MSI) but not in microsatellite stable (MSS) tumour due to the low tumour mutational burden. Selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) could enhance neoantigen production thus triggering systemic anti-tumoral immune response (abscopal effect). In addition, Oxalipatin can induce immunogenic cell death and Bevacizumab can decrease the exhaustion of tumour infiltrating lymphocyte. In combination, these treatments could act synergistically to sensitize MSS mCRCs to ICI SIRTCI is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, phase II, non-comparative single-arm study evaluating the efficacy and safety of SIRT plus Xelox, Bevacizumab and Atezolizumab (anti-programmed death-ligand 1) in patients with liver-dominant MSS mCRC. The primary objective is progression-free survival at 9 months. The main inclusion criteria are patients with MSS mCRC with liver-dominant disease, initially unresectable disease and with no prior oncologic treatment for metastatic disease. The trial started in November 2020 and has included 10 out of the 52 planned patients., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None declared., (Copyright © 2022 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patients ≥ 70 years old constitute 40% of patients with advanced gastric cancer (GC). Ramucirumab plus Paclitaxel is a therapeutic option validated in the second-line treatment of advanced GC, but as older patients are at higher risk of severe toxicity, due to comorbidities and/or frailty, we aimed to evaluate second-line Ramucirumab alone or combined with Paclitaxel in terms of overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) in patients ≥ 70 years-old with advanced GC., Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, open-label, non-comparative, prospective phase II clinical trial, the main inclusion criteria are: patients ≥ 70 years old, with advanced GC having progressed after first-line chemotherapy or in the six months following the last administration of adjuvant chemotherapy, with WHO performance status <2. They are randomized to receive either ramucirumab alone (arm A) or ramucirumab plus Paclitaxel (arm B). The primary endpoint is 6-month OS and QoL evaluated with the EORTC QLQ-ELD14 questionnaire. The secondary endpoints include other parameters of QoL, time to definitive deterioration (TTDD) in QoL and TTDD in autonomy, treatment toxicities, other parameters of survival and disease control, identification of geriatric and nutritional prognostic scores and predictive factors of treatment safety and efficacy. OS of 60% is expected at 6 months (H0:40%). Using a Simon-minimax design, with one-sided α risk of 2% and 80% power for OS, and considering 5% lost to follow-up, it is necessary to randomize 56 patients in each arm., Perspectives: As older patients are at higher risk of chemotherapy toxicity, ramucirumab alone could be an interesting alternative to Paclitaxel plus ramucirumab, as a second-line therapy for patients ≥ 70 years old with advanced GC, and needs to be evaluated., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest EB, KLM, RB, PLP, BG, DLTA, LMD, RG, MM, CLouvet and CLepage declare no conflicts of interest with regard to this article. TA received honoraria as a speaker or advisory board member from Sirtec, Amgen, Pierre Fabre, Astra, Servier, Bioven, Sanofi, Roche and received travel allowances or subscriptions to congresses from Roche. TL received advisory board fees from Amgen, Servier, Sanofi, Merck-Serono and honoraria from Amgen, Servier, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, Astra Zeneca, Ipsen. ES declares competing interests with Bayer, BMS, Servier, Sanofi, Novartis, Pierre Fabre Oncology, Roche, MSD, Merck. MPG received travel allowances from Roche, Servier, MSD, Amgen, Ipsen, Sanofi and received advisory board fees from Sanofi, BMS, Amgen, Servier. DT received honoraria as a speaker or advisory board member from Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Ipsen, Merck, MSD, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi and Servier and received travel allowances or subscriptions to congresses from Merck, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi. AL received honoraria as a speaker or advisory board member from AAA, Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, BMS, HalioDx, Incyte, Ipsen, Leo-pharma Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, Servier and Viatris, received travel allowances or subscriptions to congresses from Boehringer, Ipsen, Mylan, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche and Servier, and received research funding (paid to the institution) from Bayer, Lilly and Novartis., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has had a dramatic impact on cancer diagnosis and treatment. Most patients newly diagnosed with digestive system cancer are aged 65 and over., Methods: We performed a retrospective, observational, multicentre cohort study based on prospectively collected electronic health records. All adults aged 65 or over and having been newly treated for a digestive system cancer between January 2018 until August 2020 were enroled., Results: Data on 7882 patients were analysed. The first COVID-19 lockdown period led to a 42.4% decrease in newly treated digestive system cancers, and the post-lockdown period was associated with a 17% decrease. The decrease in newly treated digestive system cancer did not differ as a function of age, sex, comorbidities, primary tumour site, and disease stage. The proportion of patients admitted to an emergency department increased during the lockdown period. We do not observe a higher 3-month mortality rate in 2020, relative to the corresponding calendar periods in 2018 and 2019., Conclusion: To avoid a decrease in newly treated cancers during future lockdown periods, access to healthcare will have to be modified. Although 3-month mortality did not increase in any of the patient subgroups, the 2020 cohort must be followed up for long-term mortality., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None declared., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The COVID-19 pandemic has a major impact at all stages of cancer treatment. Risk of death from COVID-19 in patients treated for a cancer is high. COVID-19 vaccines represent a major issue to decrease the rate of severe forms of the COVID-19 cases and to maintain a normal cancer care. It is difficult to define the target population for vaccination due to the limited data available and the lack of vaccine doses available. It appears theoretically important to vaccinate patients with active cancer treatment or treated since less than three years, as well as their family circle. In France, patients actually defined at "high risk" for priority access to vaccination are those with a cancer treated by chemotherapy. A panel of experts recently defined another "very high-priority" population, which includes patients with curative or palliative first or second-line chemotherapy, as well as patients requiring surgery or radiotherapy involving a large lung volume, lymph nodes and/or of hematopoietic tissue. Ideally, it is best to vaccinate before cancer treatment. Despite the lack of published data, COVID-19 vaccines can also be performed during chemotherapy by avoiding periods of bone marrow aplasia and if possible, to do it in cancer care centers. It is necessary to implement cohorts with immunological and clinical monitoring of vaccinated cancer patients. To conclude, considering the current state of knowledge, the benefit-risk ratio strongly favours COVID-19 vaccination of all cancer patients., (Copyright © 2021 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background: The real impact of bevacizumab maintenance as single agent in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains unclear. SAKK-41/06 and PRODIGE-9 failed to demonstrate the non-inferiority and superiority of bevacizumab versus no maintenance, respectively, while AIO-KRK-0207 showed the non-inferiority of maintenance bevacizumab versus bevacizumab and fluoropyrimidines for time to strategy failure., Methods: Bibliography electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched for English published clinical trials prospectively randomizing mCRC patients to receive bevacizumab maintenance or not after first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab. Individual patients' data (IPD) were provided by investigators for all included trials. Primary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), both from the start of induction and maintenance. Univariate and multivariate analyses for PFS and OS were performed., Results: Three phase III studies - PRODIGE-9, AIO-KRK-0207 and SAKK-41/06 - were included. Considering the different timing of randomization, IPD of patients not progressed during induction and starting maintenance phase entered the analysis. 909 patients were included, 457 (50%) received bevacizumab maintenance. Median PFS from induction start was 9.6 and 8.9 months in bevacizumab group versus no maintenance group, respectively (HR 0.78; 95%CI: 0.68-0.89; p < 0.0001). Subgroups analysis for PFS showed a significant interaction according for RAS status (p = 0.048), with a maintenance benefit limited to RAS wild-type patients. No difference in terms of OS was observed., Conclusions: Despite the statistically significant PFS improvement for bevacizumab maintenance, the absolute benefit appears limited. Subgroup analysis shows a differential effect of bevacizumab maintenance in favor of RAS wild-type patients. Considering these results, maintenance therapy with fluoropyrimidine with or without bevacizumab remains the first option. Single agent bevacizumab maintenance can be considered in selected cases, such as cumulative toxicity or patient's refusal, in particular for RAS wild-type patients., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinomas present poor overall survival (OS). First-line chemotherapy regimen for patients with HER2-negative tumours is based on a doublet or triplet of fluoropyrimidine plus platinum salt ± taxane. Second-line chemotherapy (Docetaxel or Irinotecan) improves OS which nonetheless remains poor (around 5 months). The first results of immune checkpoint inhibitors (anti-PD-1) combined with chemotherapy in metastatic gastric and GEJ cancers were discordant in recent phase III trials. Data on dual-blockade (anti-PD-L1 or anti-PD-1 plus anti-CTLA-4) plus chemotherapy are lacking. DURIGAST is a randomised, multicenter, non-comparative, phase II study, evaluating safety and efficacy of FOLFIRI plus Durvalumab (anti-PD-L1) versus FOLFIRI plus Durvalumab and Tremelimumab (anti-CTLA-4) as second-line treatment of advanced gastric and GEJ adenocarcinoma. The primary objective is the rate of patients alive and without progression at 4 months. The main inclusion criteria are: patients with advanced gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma, pre-treated with fluoropyrimidine + platinum salt ± taxane. Due to a lack of data on FOLFIRI, Durvalumab and Tremelimumab combination, a 2-step safety run-in phase has been performed before the randomised phase II. The safety run-in phase did not show any safety issue and the randomised phase II starts in September 2020., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None declared., (Copyright © 2020 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has major impact of healthcare systems, including cancer care pathways. The aim of this work is to discuss in a multidisciplinary approach the therapeutic and/or strategies adaptations for patients treated for a digestive cancer during the European second wave of COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: A collaborative work was performed by several French societies to answer how to preserve digestive cancer care with no loss of chance during the second wave of COVID-19. In this context, all recommendations are graded as expert's agreement according to level evidence found in literature until October 2020 and the experience of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic., Results: As far as possible, no therapeutic modification should be carried out. If necessary, therapeutic adjustments may be considered if they do not constitute a loss of chance for patients. Considering the level of evidence all therapeutic modifications need to be discussed in multidisciplinary tumor board meeting and with patient consent. By contrast to first wave cancer prevention, cancer screening, supportive care and clinical trials should be continued., Conclusion: Recommendations proposed could limit cancer excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic but should be adapted according to the situation in each hospital., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None declared., (Copyright © 2020 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: FOLFIRI (irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) + aflibercept improves median overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Our aim was to investigate efficacy and tolerability of this combination in the first line., Patients and Methods: Patients with untreated documented mCRC received aflibercept plus FOLFIRI every 14 days until progression or unacceptable toxicity in an open, phase II single-arm, multicenter trial. The primary endpoint was the 6-month PFS rate. Secondary endpoints were OS and tolerability. A 2-step Simon design was used with H 0 : 55% and H 1 = 75%. Data were analyzed in intention to treat., Results: Forty-one patients were included, and 40 were analyzed (1 consent withdrawal) in 9 French centers between October 2014 and February 2017. The median age was 65 years (range, 46-81 years), 55% had ≥ 2 metastatic sites, and 50% and 15% had RAS and BRAF mutations, respectively. Twenty-two (54.5%; 95% confidence interval, 38.9%-68.5%) patients were alive and non-progressive at 6 months. FOLFIRI + aflibercept was considered ineffective, resulting in the cessation of inclusions. The median follow-up was 34 months. The overall response rate was 55%, and the disease control rate was 80%. The median duration of treatment was 5.3 months; the median PFS and OS were 8.2 and 18.6 months, respectively. Grade 3 to 4 adverse events were mainly gastrointestinal (47.5%) and vascular (32.5%). Of the patients, 87.5% had at least 1 dose modification., Conclusion: Although the primary objective was not met, first-line FOLFIRI + aflibercept for mCRC leads to median PFS and OS close to those reported with classical doublet and targeted agents, but with significant toxicities needing dose reduction., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Regorafenib significantly increases overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer previously treated but gives toxicities., Objectives: to assess the efficacy and safety of regorafenib at it's approved dose in the older population., Patients and Methods: This multicenter single-arm phase II enrolled patients ≥70 years old after the failure of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy, anti-VEGF, and anti-EGFR treatment. The primary endpoint was disease control rate (DCR) 2 months after initiation of regorafenib (160 mg/day, 3 weeks on/1 week off)., Results: Forty-three patients were enrolled, with a median age of 77 years. The 2 months DCR was 31.4% in the 35 evaluable patients. For the 42 patients that received at least one dose of regorafenib, median progression-free survival and OS were 2.2 and 7.5 months. The median time to autonomy degradation and quality of life degradation was 3.1 and 3.2 months, respectively. A grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events was observed in 35/42 patients, notably: fatigue (45.2%), hand-foot skin reaction (19.0%), hypertension (21.4%), and diarrhea (7.1%). There is a trend to achieve DCR in patients ≤80 years and a trend to discontinue the study due to toxicity in patients with ECOG ≥1, over 80 years and with impaired baseline autonomy., Conclusion: Treatment with regorafenib in pretreated patients ≥70 years is feasible and demonstrate similar efficacy that was observed in previous studies in young patients. Fatigue is the most frequent severe adverse event. However, caution should be taken for older patients with ECOG ≥1, over 80 years, and with impaired baseline autonomy., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Maintenance treatments with fluoropyrimidine alone or combined with bevacizumab after induction chemotherapy are two standard options in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, no trial has compared these two maintenance regimens., Methods: BEVAMAINT is a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial comparing fluoropyrimidine alone or plus bevacizumab as maintenance treatment after induction polychemotherapy in mCRC. The primary endpoint is the time-to-treatment failure (TTF), calculated from date of randomization to first radiological progression, death, start of a new chemotherapy regimen (different from induction or maintenance chemotherapy) or end of maintenance treatment without introduction of further chemotherapy. We expect a 2-month TTF improvement from 6 months in the monotherapy arm to 8 months in the combination arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75). Based on a two-sided α risk of 5% and a power of 80%, using Schoenfeld method, 379 events are required (planned enrolment, 400 patients). Patients with mCRC, whose disease is measurable according to RECIST 1.1 criteria and controlled (objective response or stable disease) - but remains unresectable - after 4 to 6 months of induction polychemotherapy (doublet or triplet chemotherapy with or without anti-EGFR or bevacizumab), and who have recovered from limiting adverse events of induction polychemotherapy are eligible for randomization. Randomization is stratified according to center, response to induction chemotherapy (objective response vs stable disease), ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2), maintenance fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil vs capecitabine) and primary tumor status (resected vs not). Capecitabine or bolus and infusional 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid (simplified LV5FU2 regimen) are both accepted for maintenance chemotherapy, at investigator's discretion. Clinical evaluation, tumor imaging, carcinoembryonic antigen and circulating tumor DNA dosages are planned at enrolment and every 9 weeks. The maintenance treatment will be discontinued in the event of unbearable toxicity, progression or patient refusal. After maintenance discontinuation, reintroduction of induction polychemotherapy is recommended; otherwise a second-line treatment is started. The enrolment has begun in January 2020., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest TA: Honoraria: Roche, Servier, Amgen, Bioven, Sanofi, Ipsen; Travel: Roche, Bayer JLL: Personal Fees: Novartis, Keocyt, Pfizer, Servier. Grant: Sanofi. Non-Financial support: Ipsen, Novartis, Merck Serono, Servier, Keocyt. JMP - Honoraria: travel and hospitality : Merck, Roche, Amgen, Bayer, Sanofi, Servier; Grant: Roche, Merck AL: honoraria for lectures/ consulting/advisory relationship from AAA, Amgen, Bayer, BMS, Celgene, HalioDx, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sandoz and Servier; travel support from AAA, Bayer, Ipsen, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and Servier; research funding from Novartis, Integragen, Incyte VH: honoraria for lectures / consulting / advisory relationship from AAA, Amgen, Ipsen, Merck, Novartis and Servier; Travel support from AAA, Amgen, Bayer, Ipsen, Novartis, Pfizer AT has served in a consulting/advisory role and or received honoraria for Amgen, Merck, Servier, Mylan and has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Astra-Zeneca, Pfizer, Sanofi DT has served in a consulting/advisory role and or received honoraria for MSD, BMS, Amgen, Merck, Servier, Roche, Astra-Zeneca, and has received travel, accommodations, and expenses from Sanofi, Roche, Servier, MSD AZ Funding: Amgen, Roche / Advisory board: Baxter, Merck Serono, MSD, Servier, Sanofi, Lilly / Honoraria: Baxter, Roche, Merck Serono, MSD, Amgen, Servier, Sanofi, Lilly / Travel: Amgen, Merck, Roche, Servier PLP: Personal Fees: Servier, Sanofi, Merck Serono, MSD, Astrazeneca, Amgen, Biocartis, Roche,BMS SM: travel and hospitality: Sirtex Medical Europe GmbH, NOVARTIS PHARMA SAS, MSD France, JANSSEN-CILAG, Lilly France SAS, AMGEN SAS, ROCHE SAS, IPSEN PHARMA, ASTRAZENECA. Funding: Lilly France SAS. DM: Honoraria: Roche, Amgen, Bayer AG, Merck Serono, Servier, Sanofi PM: Consulting or Advisory Role: Roche and Sanofi . LD: personal grants for Clinical research for Ipsen, Lilly, MSD and Sanofi; for Payment for lectures and consultancy for Amgen, Baxalta, Celgene, Lilly, Merck, Sanofi and Roche; travel grants from Celgene, Ipsen and Sanofi., (Copyright © 2020 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Sarcopenia is a prognostic factor of esophageal carcinoma (EC) before surgery, with less convincing data reported before chemoradiotherapy (CRT)., Material and Methods: All patients with a locally advanced EC who had been treated with upfront CRT, between 2010 and 2015, were included. The decision of surgery was made after CRT (40-50 Gy). Muscle mass was measured on a single third lumbar vertebra CT-scan slice. Sarcopenia was internationally defined as skeletal muscle index of ≤39cm2/m2 for women and ≤55cm2/m2 for men. Results were additionally analyzed according to clinical parameters, with a cut-off based on the mean skeletal muscle lumbar index (SMI) of the population studied., Results: Overall, 104 patients were included (male: 69%). Mean SMI was 35cm2/m2 for women and 46cm2/m2 for men, with 81% of patients being sarcopenic (n = 84). The 3-year overall survival (OS) rate, of 34.6%, was not significantly associated with sarcopenia in the whole population. In men, there was, however, a highly significant correlation between SMI and OS (p = 0.003), which remained significant upon multivariate analysis (p = 0.02). When using the mean SMI as cut-off, sarcopenia was significantly associated with 3-year OS (43.3% vs. 26.2%, p = 0.02)., Conclusion: A high sarcopenia level appears negatively associated with OS in male EC patients treated with upfront CRT., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declared that they have no conflict of interest regarding this manuscript., (Copyright © 2020 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patients treated for malignancy are considered at risk of severe COVID-19. This exceptional pandemic has affected countries on every level, particularly health systems which are experiencing saturation. Like many countries, France is currently greatly exposed, and a complete reorganization of hospitals is ongoing. We propose here adaptations of diagnostic procedures, therapies and care strategies for patients treated for digestive cancer during the COVID-19 epidemic., Methods: French societies of gastroenterology and gastrointestinal (GI) oncology carried out this study to answer two main questions that have arisen (i) how can we limit high-risk situations for GI-cancer patients and (ii) how can we limit contact between patients and care centers to decrease patients' risk of contamination while continuing to treat their cancer. All recommendations are graded as experts' agreement according to the level of evidence found in the literature until March 2020., Results: A proposal to adapt treatment strategies was made for the main GI oncology situations. Considering the level of evidence and the heterogeneous progression of the COVID-19 epidemic, all proposals need to be considered by a multidisciplinary team and implemented with patient consent., Conclusion: COVID-19 epidemic may significantly affect patients treated for digestive malignancies. Healthcare teams need to consider adapting treatment sequences when feasible and according to the epidemic situation., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The Authors have no Conflict of interest in digestive oncology topics with COVID-19., (Copyright © 2020 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Several guidelines dedicated to metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are available. Since 2013 no recent guidelines are specifically dedicated to older patients and based on a systematic review., Materials and Methods: A multidisciplinary Task Force with digestive oncologists, geriatricians and methodologists from the SoFOG was formed in 2016 to update recommendations on medical treatment of mCRC based on a systematic review of publications from 2000 to 2018. Search strategy has followed a standardized protocol from the formulation of clinical questions and definition of a search algorithm to the selection of complete articles for recommendations., Results: The four selected key questions were: For which older patients with mCRC can we considered: (1) Any chemotherapy, (2) Mono or poly-chemotherapy, (3) Anti-angiogenic therapy, (4) Other targeted therapy. Main recommendations for older patients are: (1) Omission of chemotherapy should be discussed with a geriatrician for patients with severe comorbidities, advanced dementia, uncontrolled psychiatric disorder or severe loss of autonomy. (2) If tumor response is not the main aim, a mono-chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil combined with bevacizumab is recommended as first-line. (3) For patients with symptoms related to metastases or with a planned metastasis ablation, a doublet chemotherapy combined with bevacizumab or anti-EGFR antibody in the context of a RAS wild type tumor is recommended as first-line. Preliminary data suggest that regorafenib may be used, in its registered indication, in patients under 80 with a performance status of 0 and no autonomy alterations and that trifluridine-tipiracil may be used with a tight supervising of hematological function., (Copyright © 2020 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Perioperative chemotherapy is the standard strategy for localized gastric cancers. Nevertheless, this strategy seems to be inefficient, if not deleterious, for patients with tumors harboring microsatellite instability (MSI) and/or mismatch repair deficiency (dMMR), a tumor phenotype predictive for the efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICKi)., Aim: The GERCOR NEONIPIGA single-arm phase II study (NCT04006262; EUDRACT 2018-004712-22) aims at evaluating the efficacy of a peri-operative strategy with nivolumab and ipilimumab in neoadjuvant setting, then nivolumab alone after surgery for patients with resectable MSI/dMMR gastric cancer., Material and Methods: Main inclusion criteria are: gastric and oesogastric junction adenocarcinoma (GOA), T2-T4, all N stage and M0, MSI/dMMR. Patients will be treated with nivolumab 240mg Q2W, 6 infusions, and ipilimumab 1mg/kg Q6W, 2 infusions in neoadjuvant setting. Following surgery, patients with TRG 1-2-3 (Mandard tumor regression grade), acceptable tolerance of neoadjuvant treatment and postoperative ECOG performance status 0-1, will be treated with adjuvant nivolumab 480mg Q4W, 9 infusions., Results: The primary endpoint is pathological complete response rate (pCR-R). Based on a Fleming design, with α=5% and β=20%, 27 patients have to be evaluated (H0=5%; H1=20%). Secondary endpoints include disease-free survival, overall survival and safety., Conclusion: This study is planned to include 32 patients to evaluate the pCR-R with the combination of nivolumab and ipilimumab in neoadjuvant setting for MSI/dMMR localized GOA. The MSI/MMR status should be systematically assessed on diagnostic biopsies of all GOA. If it meets its primary endpoint, the GERCOR NEONIPIGA study might mark a turning point in the management of localized MSI/dMMR GOA patients., (Copyright © 2020 Société Française du Cancer. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: the obesity survival paradox is an emergent issue in oncology, but its existence remains unclear particularly in older cancer patients. We aimed to assess the obesity survival paradox in older cancer patients., Methods: all consecutive cancer outpatients 65 years and older referred for geriatric assessment (GA) before a decision on cancer treatment between November 2013 and September 2016 were enrolled in the PF-EC cohort study. The main outcome was 6-month mortality. A Cox univariate and multivariate proportional hazard regression models were performed with baseline GA, oncological variables (cancer site, extension and treatment modalities) and C-reactive protein (CRP). We assessed the prognostic value of body mass index categories (i.e. malnutrition <21, 21 ≤ normal weight ≤24.9, 25 ≤ overweight ≤29.9 and obesity ≥30 kg/m 2 ) in the whole study population and according to the metastatic status., Results: 433 patients with a mean age of 81.2 ± 6.0 years were included, 51% were women, 44.3% had digestive cancers, 18% breast cancer and 14.5% lung cancer and 45% metastatic cancers. Eighty-eight of these patients (20.3%) were obese at baseline. Mortality rate was 17% during the 6-month follow-up period. After adjustment for sex, gait speed, Mini-Mental State Examination, cancer site and exclusive supportive care, obesity (compared to normal weight) was independently and negatively associated with 6-month mortality only in metastatic patients (aHR 0.17, 95% CI [0.03-0.92], P = 0.04)., Conclusion: our study confirms the obesity survival paradox in older cancer patients only in the metastatic group., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Data are lacking with regard to curative resection of metastasis from small bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA). This study evaluated outcomes and prognostic factors in patients with curatively resected metastatic SBA., Methods: A series of 34 patients undergoing resection of metastatic SBA from January 2009 to November 2014 at French centers were included into this cohort study. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were recurrence-free survival (RFS) and prognostic factors. Univariate analyses were performed to determine prognostic risk factors., Results: The sites of SBA metastases were peritoneal (29.4%), liver (26.5%), lymph nodes (11.8%), lung (2.9%), multiple (14.7%), and other (14.7%). Thirty (88.2%) patients received adjuvant or perioperative chemotherapy, mainly was oxaliplatin-based (76.5%). The median OS was 28.6 months and RFS was 18.7 months. Fourteen (41.2%) patients survived for more than 36 months. In univariate analysis, poor differentiation (P = 0.006), invaded margins (P = 0.003), and lymphatic invasion in the primary tumor (P = 0.039) were associated with decreased OS., Conclusion: Overall survival of patients after resection of metastatic SBA remains poor, but long-term survivors are observed. Resection of metastatic SBA should be consider if patients are expected to be operated on with curative intent and have moderately or well-differentiated tumors., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Background: Complete cytoreductive surgery (CCRS) followed by hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a validated treatment in selected patients with peritoneal metastases (PM) of intestinal origin. There is an increased risk of Colorectal Cancer (CRC) and Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma (SBA) in Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD). The feasibility and benefit of that surgical approach in IBD patients is unknown., Methods: IBD patients with operated PM complicating CRC or SBA were extracted from a French national multicenter prospective database of patients who underwent surgery for PM in HIPEC expert centers from 1995 to 2016. IBD patients who underwent CCRS plus HIPEC were compared with a cohort of 234 patients who had the same surgery for sporadic colon cancer., Results: 14 patients (male 57%, median age 40 years, 12 Crohn's disease) with CRC (n = 7) and SBA (n = 7) were included. CCRS followed by HIPEC (oxaliplatin 72.7%) was performed in 11 cases (median peritoneal cancer index 7; range 1-30). The control group had the same characteristics except an older age at HIPEC (56.52 vs 45.74; p = 0.003). Overall survival (HR = 4.47; 90% CI, 1.91 to 10.49), Relapse Free Survival (HR = 2.31; 90% CI, 1.17 to 4.56) and Peritoneal Recurrence Free Survival (HR = 3.30; 90% CI, 1.59 to 6.85) were significantly lower in IBD patients. Six of the 11 patients presented major surgical morbidity with no impact on post-operative treatment., Conclusion: CCRS followed by HIPEC is less effective in IBD patients with resectable PM complicating CRC or SBA. More careful selection of those patients is needed., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In advanced gastric cancer, doublet regimen including platinum salts and fluoropyrimidine is considered as a standard first-line treatment. The addition of docetaxel (75 mg/m 2  q3w) to cisplatin (75 mg/m 2  q3w) and 5-fluorouracil has been shown to improve efficacy. However, this regimen (DCF) was associated with frequent severe toxicities (including more complicated neutropenia), limiting its use in clinical practice. Interesting alternative docetaxel-based regimens have been developed that need to be validated., Aim: GASTFOX study is a randomized phase III trial comparing FOLFOX alone or with docetaxel at 50 mg/m 2 (TFOX regimen) in first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer. In both arms, cycle is repeated every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity., Materials and Methods: Main eligibility criteria: histologically proven locally advanced or metastatic gastric or esogastric junction adenocarcinoma, HER negative status, measurable disease, ECOG performance status 0 or 1, and adequate renal, hepatic and bone marrow functions., Results: The primary endpoint is radiological/clinical progression-free survival (PFS). A difference of 2 months for the median PFS in favor of TFOX is expected (HR = 0.73) Based on a two-sided α risk of 5% and a power of 90%, 454 events are required to show this difference. Secondary endpoints included overall survival, overall response rate, safety, quality of life and the therapeutic index., Conclusion: This study is planned to include 506 patients to demonstrate the superiority of TFOX over FOLFOX in first-line advanced gastric cancer treatment (NCT03006432)., (Copyright © 2018 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy is standard of care for radically resected stage III colon cancer and an accepted option for high-risk stage II. Two recent retrospective studies strongly suggested that low-dose aspirin used (100 mg/d) after surgical resection of colorectal cancer with a PIK3CA mutation could act as a targeted therapy with a major protective effect on the risk of recurrence. We propose a double-blind randomized phase III study to evaluate aspirin (100 mg/d during 3 years or until recurrence) versus placebo. Main inclusion criteria are patients aged 18 or 20, stage III or high risk stage II. The primary endpoint of the study is 3-year disease-free survival (DFS). Hypotheses are to improve 3-years DFS from placebo: 72% to aspirin: 83% (HR = 0.56). 94 events and 264 patients with PIK3CA mutation are required. The secondary endpoints are DFS at 5 years, the overall survival rate at 5 years, grade 3-4 severe bleeding., (Copyright © 2017 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of small bowel adenocarcinoma published in October 2016., Method: This collaborative work, co-directed by most French Medical Societies, summarizes clinical practice recommendations (guidelines) on the management of small bowel adenocarcinoma. Given the lack of specific data in the literature, all references are given by analogy with colon cancer. The classification used is the AJCC (American Joint Committee on Cancer) pTNM classification (7th edition 2009)., Results: Small bowel adenocarcinoma has a poor prognosis; less than 30% of patients survive for 5 years after the (first) diagnosis (5-year survival of less than 30%). Due to the rarity of the disease and the retrospective data, most recommendations are based on expert agreement. The initial evaluation is based on chest-abdomen-pelvis CT scan, CEA assay, GI endoscopy and colonoscopy in order detect lesions associated with a predisposing disease. Surgical treatment is currently the only curative option for stage I and II. Adjuvant chemotherapy can be discussed for Stage III and Stage II with T4 (expert agreement). With regard to metastatic tumors, treatment with fluoropyrimidine combined with platinum salts should be considered (expert agreement)., Conclusion: Few specific data exist in the literature on this type of tumor; most of the recommendations come from expert agreements or by analogy with colon cancer. Thus, each case must be discussed within a multidisciplinary team., (Copyright © 2017 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To assess the prevalence of disability and the oncologic factors associated with disability in older outpatients with cancer., Materials and Methods: The Physical Frailty in Elderly Cancer patients (PF-EC) study (France) is a prospective bicentric observational cohort study. Two hundred and ninety outpatients with cancer were included. A cross-sectional analysis of oncologic factors and geriatric variables associated with disability that were collected using a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) was conducted. Disability was defined as impairment in activities of daily living (ADL) and/or instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), simplified to four items. Univariate and multivariate logistic models of disabled patients were performed. The three final multivariate models were compared using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC/ROC) of the logistic model., Results: The mean age was 80.6years, and 51% of the patients were women with various types of cancer. The prevalence of disability was 67.6%. No oncologic factors (cancer site, cancer extension) were associated with disability. Impaired mobility, poor functional status, depressive mood, cognitive impairment and polypharmacy were independently associated with disability (P<0.05). The AUC/ROC of the final models was similar., Conclusion: Disability was highly prevalent in older cancer outpatients before cancer treatment but was not associated with oncologic factors. Impaired mobility, depressed mood, cognitive impairment and polypharmacy were the geriatric variables significantly and independently associated with disability. Identifying these factors prior to cancer treatment could enable the implementation of corrective actions to improve patient autonomy before treatment and during follow-up., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Perioperative chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin, with or without epirubicin, improves overall survival in resectable gastroesophageal junction and gastric adenocarcinoma. The aim of this retrospective multicenter study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of perioperative chemotherapy with a FOLFOX-based regimen., Patients and Methods: We enrolled patients with resectable gastric or gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, who had at least 3 cycles of a pre-operative FOLFOX-based regimen. The primary end point was the feasibility of the peri-operative chemotherapy., Results: We enrolled 109 patients from 2007 to 2012 in 12 centres. Their median age was 66, 67% were men and 73% had gastric tumours. The median number of chemotherapy courses was 6 with a median of 4 pre-operative cycles and 2 post-operative cycles. Twenty-three patients received at least 8 cycles of chemotherapy. In univariate analysis, the Karnofsky index at inclusion was the only factor associated with 8 cycles of chemotherapy. An R0 resection was achieved in 100 patients (95.2%)., Conclusion: The FOLFOX-based perioperative regimen achieves favourable results in real life practice. The optimal number of chemotherapy cycle remains to be determined. FOLFOX regimen may be used as an alternative treatment option to a cisplatin-based regimen in resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. A prospective randomized trial is needed to confirm these results., (Copyright © 2016 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Colorectal cancers are common in elderly patients. However, cancer screening is poorly used after 75. Elderly patients form a heterogeneous population with specific characteristics. Standards of care cannot therefore be transposed from young to elderly patients. Tumour resection is frequently performed but adjuvant chemotherapy is rarely prescribed as there are no clearly established standards of care. In a metastatic setting, recent phase III studies have demonstrated that doublet front-line chemotherapy provided no survival benefit. Moreover, several studies have established the benefit of bevacizumab in association with chemotherapy. There is a lack of evidence for the efficacy of anti-epidermal growth factor antibodies in elderly patients. Geriatric assessments could help to select the adequate treatment strategy for individual patients. Geriatric oncology is now the challenge we have to face, and more specific trials are needed., (Copyright © 2016 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Colorectal cancer (CRC) occurs mostly in the elderly. However, the biology of CRC in elderly has been poorly studied. This study examined the prevalence of deficient mismatch repair phenotype (dMMR) and BRAF mutations according to age., Patients and Methods: MMR phenotype was prospectively determined by molecular analysis in patients of all ages undergoing surgery for CRC. BRAF V600E mutation status was analysed in a subset of dMMR tumours., Results: A total of 754 patients who underwent surgery between 2005 and 2008 were included in the study. Amongst them, 272 (36%) were ≥75years old. The proportion of women <75 was 38% and that ≥75 was 53% (p<0.0001). The prevalence of dMMR was 19.4% in patients ≥75 and 10.7% in patients <75 (p=0.0017). For patients ≥75, the prevalence of dMMR was significantly higher in women than in men (27% vs 10.2%, respectively; p=0.003) but was similar in women and men <75 (12.5% vs 9.7%, respectively; p=0.4). We examined BRAF mutation status in 80 patients with dMMR tumours. The V600E BRAF mutation was significantly more frequent in patients ≥75 than in patients <75 (72.2% vs 11.4%, respectively; p<0.001). In patients ≥75, there was no difference in the prevalence of the BRAF V600E mutation according to sex (78% in women and 70% in men, p=0.9)., Conclusions: The prevalence of dMMR in CRC is high in patients over 75. In elderly patients, dMMR tumours are significantly more frequent in women than in men. The BRAF mutation is frequent in elderly patients with CRC., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Small bowel adenocarcinomas are rare tumours, but their incidence is increasing. Their most common primary location is the duodenum. The few studies that have collected data regarding small bowel adenocarcinoma are not homogeneous and are widely spread over time. Even though these tumours are most often sporadic, some predisposing diseases have been identified, among which Crohn's disease and genetic syndromes. Early diagnosis of small bowel adenocarcinoma remains difficult despite significant radiological and endoscopic progress. After surgical resection the main prognostic factor is node invasion; in this case, adjuvant chemotherapy can be expected to be beneficial, although this has not been established by randomised trials. For metastatic disease, platinum-based chemotherapy seems to be the most effective treatment. Targeted therapies have not yet been evaluated in this type of cancer., (Copyright © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: About 15% of colorectal adenocarcinomas have a deficient DNA mismatch repair phenotype. The frequency of deficient DNA mismatch repair tumours increases with age due to the hypermethylation of hMLH1 promoter. The study aimed to determine the prognostic value of deficient DNA mismatch repair phenotype in elderly patients., Design: Mismatch repair phenotype was retrospectively determined by molecular analysis in consecutive resected colorectal adenocarcinoma specimens from patients over 75 years of age from 4 Oncology centres., Results: 231 patients (median age: 81, range: 75-100) were enrolled from 2005 to 2008. Mean prevalence of deficient DNA mismatch repair phenotype was 22.5%, and 36% for patients over 85 years. Deficient DNA mismatch repair status was significantly associated with older age, female sex, proximal colon primary and high grade tumour. For stage II tumours no deficient DNA mismatch repair tumours had a recurrence at end of follow-up compared to 17% for tumours with proficient phenotype. The proficient phenotype status was significantly associated with worse age-adjusted overall survival [HR 2.60; 95% CI 1.05-6.44; p=0.039]. For stage III tumours a trend for less recurrence was observed for deficient DNA mismatch repair phenotype (16%) compared to proficient phenotype (36%)., Conclusion: deficient DNA mismatch repair phenotype is a prognostic factor in stage II colorectal tumour in elderly patients. Our results suggest that mismatch repair phenotype should be taken in consideration for adjuvant chemotherapy decision in elderly patients., (Copyright © 2012 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

A number of guidelines on the management of gastro-intestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) have been published, mostly based on expert consensus. However, these guidelines have generally failed to address the specific problem of GISTs of limited size (i.e. those measuring a few centimetres in diameter) with which gastroenterologists are increasingly confronted. The aim of the present work was to draw up proposals for the diagnosis and treatment of GISTs measuring less than 5 cm in diameter. For this purpose, a number of practical questions were put to a panel of French experts., (Copyright © 2011 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background & Aims: Pancreatic exocrine insufficiency (PEI) impairs fat absorption, but few data are available on protein absorption. We investigated this question in patients with chronic pancreatitis, both in the absence and presence of enzyme therapy, using a stable isotope sensitive method., Methods: Eleven patients with sustained PEI and regular enzyme substitution were investigated at hospital, after a washout period without enzyme substitution, and later after reintroduction of substitution. The digestibility and postprandial metabolism of dietary protein were characterized after the ingestion of a semi-synthetic single meal containing 20 g (15)N-labeled casein., Results: At baseline, 20 ± 8% of dietary nitrogen was transferred to the metabolic pools vs. 24.5 ± 7% under enzyme treatment (P = 0.04). After treatment, the transfer of dietary nitrogen tended to increase in plasma amino acids, and increased significantly in plasma proteins and the deamination pool. In contrast, the fecal excretion of dietary nitrogen did not demonstrate any treatment effect. In patients not receiving insulin for diabetes, the treatment stimulated insulin secretion., Conclusions: Protein malabsorption was mostly undetectable using standard fecal tests. The study of the postprandial fate of dietary protein revealed a moderate increase of its transfer to metabolic pools after enzyme substitution., (2011 Elsevier Ltd and European Society for Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism. All rights reserved.)