Search

Background: Dysregulated pathways in cancer may be hub addicted. Identifying these dysregulated networks for targeting might lead to novel therapeutic options. Objective: Considering the hypothesis that central hubs are associated with increased lethality, identifying key hub targets within central networks could lead to the development of novel drugs with improved efficacy in advanced metastatic solid tumors. Design: Exploring transcriptomic data (22,000 gene products) from the WINTHER trial ( N = 101 patients with various metastatic cancers), in which both tumor and normal organ-matched tissue were available. Methods: A retrospective in silico analysis of all genes in the transcriptome was conducted to identify genes different in expression between tumor and normal tissues (paired t -test) and to determine their association with survival outcomes using survival analysis (Cox proportional hazard regression algorithm). Based on the biological relevance of the identified genes, hub targets of interest within central networks were then pinpointed. Patients were grouped based on the expression level of these genes ( K -mean clustering), and the association of these groups with survival was examined (Cox proportional hazard regression algorithm, Forest plot, and Kaplan–Meier plot). Results: We identified four key central hub genes— PLOD3, ARHGAP11A, RNF216 , and CDCA8 , for which high expression in tumor tissue compared to analogous normal tissue had the most significant correlation with worse outcomes. The correlation was independent of tumor or treatment type. The combination of the four genes showed the highest significance and correlation with the poorer outcome: overall survival (hazard ratio (95% confidence interval (CI)) = 10.5 (3.43–31.9) p = 9.12E−07 log-rank test in a Cox proportional hazard regression model). Findings were validated in independent cohorts. Conclusion: The expression of PLOD3, ARHGAP11A, RNF216 , and CDCA8 constitute, when combined, a prognostic tool, agnostic of tumor type and previous treatments. These genes represent potential targets for intercepting central hub networks in various cancers, offering avenues for novel therapeutic interventions.

Introduction: Atezolizumab plus bevacizumab significantly improved overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in IMbrave150. Efficacy and safety in patient subpopulations with Vp4 portal vein tumor thrombosis (PVTT) and other high-risk prognostic factors are reported. Methods: IMbrave150 was a global, randomized (2:1), open-label, phase 3 study in systemic treatment–naive patients with unresectable HCC; OS and PFS were co-primary endpoints. Exploratory analyses compared the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab 1,200 mg plus bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks vs sorafenib 400 mg twice daily in patients (i) with and without Vp4 PVTT alone and (ii) with and without high-risk prognostic factors. Results: In patients with Vp4 PVTT, median OS was 7.6 months (95% CI 6.0-13.9) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n=48) and 5.5 months (95% CI 3.4-6.7) with sorafenib (n=25; HR 0.62 [95% CI 0.34-1.11]; descriptive P=0.104). Median PFS in the respective arms was 5.4 months (95% CI 3.6-6.9) and 2.8 months (95% CI 1.5-5.3; HR 0.62 [95% CI 0.35-1.09]; descriptive P=0.094). In patients without Vp4, median OS was 21.1 months (95% CI 18.0-24.6) with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (n=288) and 15.4 months (95% CI 12.6-18.6) with sorafenib (n=140; HR 0.67 [95% CI 0.51-0.88]; descriptive P=0.003). Median PFS in the respective arms was 7.1 months (95% CI 6.1-9.6) and 4.7 months (95% CI 4.2-6.1; HR 0.64 [95% CI 0.51-0.81]; descriptive P

Summary: Background: Despite the increasing efficacy of chemotherapy (C), the 5-year survival rate for patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CLM) remains around 10%. Liver transplantation (LT) might offer a curative approach for patients with liver-only disease, yet its superior efficacy compared to C alone remains to be demonstrated. Methods: The TransMet randomised multicentre clinical trial (NCT02597348) compares the curative potential of C followed by LT versus C alone in patients with unresectable CLM despite stable or responding disease on C. Patient eligibility criteria proposed by local tumour boards had to be validated by an independent committee via monthly videoconferences. Outcomes reported here are from a non-specified interim analysis. These include the eligibility of patients to be transplanted for non resectable colorectal liver metastases, as well as the feasibility and the safety of liver transplantation in this indication. Findings: From February 2016 to July 2021, 94 (60%) of 157 patients from 20 centres in 3 countries submitted to the validation committee, were randomised. Reasons for ineligibility were mainly tumour progression in 50 (32%) or potential resectability in 13 (8%). The median delay to LT after randomisation was 51 (IQR 30–65) days. Nine of 47 patients (19%, 95% CI: 9–33) allocated to the LT arm failed to undergo transplantation because of intercurrent disease progression. Three of the 38 transplanted patients (8%) were re-transplanted, one of whom (3%) died post-operatively from multi-organ failure. Interpretation: The selection process of potential candidates for curative intent LT for unresectable CLM in the TransMet trial highlighted the critical role of an independent multidisciplinary validation committee. After stringent selection, the feasibility of LT was 81%, as 19% had disease progression while on the waiting list. These patients should be given high priority for organ allocation to avoid dropout from the transplant strategy. Funding: No source of support or funding from any author to disclose for this work. The trial was supported by the Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris (AP-HP).

Abstract Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are heterogeneous malignancies with dismal prognosis due to tumor aggressiveness and poor response to limited current therapeutic options. Tumor exome profiling has allowed to successfully establish targeted therapeutic strategies in the clinical management of cholangiocarcinoma (CCA). Still, whether liquid biopsy profiling could inform on BTC biology and patient management is unknown. In order to test this and generate novel insight into BTC biology, we analyzed the molecular landscape of 128 CCA patients, using a 394-gene NGS panel (Foundation Medicine). Among them, 32 patients had matched circulating tumor (ct) DNA and tumor DNA samples, where both samples were profiled. In both tumor and liquid biopsies, we identified an increased frequency of alterations in genes involved in genome integrity or chromatin remodeling, including ARID1A (15%), PBRM1 (9%), and BAP1 (14%), which were validated using an in-house-developed immunohistochemistry panel. ctDNA and tumor DNA showed variable concordance, with a significant correlation in the total number of detected variants, but some heterogeneity in the detection of actionable mutations. FGFR2 mutations were more frequently identified in liquid biopsies, whereas KRAS alterations were mostly found in tumors. All IDH1 mutations detected in tumor DNA were also identified in liquid biopsies. These findings provide novel insights in the concordance between the tumor and liquid biopsies genomic landscape in a large cohort of patients with BTC and highlight the complementarity of both analyses when guiding therapeutic prescription.

Abstract Background Patient Derived Organoids (PDOs) emerged as the best technology to develop ex vivo tumor avatars. Whether drug testing on PDOs to identify efficient therapies will bring clinical utility by improving patient survival remains unclear. To test this hypothesis in the frame of clinical trials, PDO technology faces three main challenges to be implemented in routine clinical practices: i) generating PDOs with a limited amount of tumor material; ii) testing a wide panel of anti-cancer drugs; and iii) obtaining results within a time frame compatible with patient disease management. We aimed to address these challenges in a prospective study in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods Fresh surgical or core needle biopsies were obtained from patients with CRC. PDOs were established and challenged with a panel of 25 FDA-approved anti-cancer drugs (chemotherapies and targeted therapies) to establish a scoring method (‘chemogram’) identifying in vitro responders. The results were analyzed at the scale of the cohort and individual patients when the follow-up data were available. Results A total of 25 PDOs were successfully established, harboring 94% concordance with the genomic profile of the tumor they were derived from. The take-on rate for PDOs derived from core needle biopsies was 61.5%. A chemogram was obtained with a 6-week median turnaround time (range, 4–10 weeks). At least one hit (mean 6.16) was identified for 92% of the PDOs. The number of hits was inversely correlated to disease metastatic dissemination and the number of lines of treatment the patient received. The chemograms were compared to clinical data obtained from 8 patients and proved to be predictive of their response with 75% sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions We show that PDO-based drug tests can be achieved in the frame of routine clinical practice. The chemogram could provide clinicians with a decision-making tool to tailor patient treatment. Thus, PDO-based functional precision oncology should now be tested in interventional trials assessing its clinical utility for patients who do not harbor activable genomic alterations or have developed resistance to standard of care treatments.

Capecitabine is an orally administered fluoropyrimidine carbamate antineoplastic agent, widely used to treat different tumor types. Eye toxicity is not well established with this type of drug. Here, we report the case of a 57-year-old man with a low rectal cancer whose vision decreased 3 weeks after starting a daily treatment of capecitabine and radiotherapy. After eliminating all other diagnoses, toxicity of antineoplastic agents remains the most likely hypothesis, making it the first case of vision loss induced by this capecitabine.

Background: The current model of clinical drug development in oncology displays major limitations due to a high attrition rate in patient enrollment in early phase trials and a high failure rate of drugs in phase III studies. Objective: Integrating transcriptomics for selection of patients has the potential to achieve enhanced speed and efficacy of precision oncology trials for any targeted therapies or immunotherapies. Methods: Relative gene expression level in the metastasis and normal organ-matched tissues from the WINTHER database was used to estimate in silico the potential clinical benefit of specific treatments in a variety of metastatic solid tumors. Results: As example, high mRNA expression in tumor tissue compared to analogous normal tissue of c-MET and its ligand HGF correlated in silico with shorter overall survival (OS; p

Introduction: The phase III IMbrave150 study established atezolizumab + bevacizumab as the global standard of care in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This exploratory analysis examined the impact of bevacizumab interruption due to bevacizumab adverse events of special interest (AESIs). Methods: Patients in IMbrave150 who were randomized to atezolizumab + bevacizumab and received treatment for ≥6 months (to reduce immortal time bias) were included in group A-1 if bevacizumab had ever been skipped due to bevacizumab AESIs or to group A-2 otherwise. Efficacy analyses included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by whether bevacizumab was skipped (group A-1 vs. A-2). PFS was evaluated per independent review facility (IRF)-assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1 and HCC-modified RECIST (IRF-HCC mRECIST). Safety was also evaluated. Results: Of the 210 patients who received ≥6 months of atezolizumab + bevacizumab, 69 were assigned to group A-1 and 141 to A-2. At data cutoff (August 20, 2020), hazard ratio (HR) for OS was 1.04 (95% CI: 0.64, 1.69) for group A-1 versus A-2. HR for PFS was 1.07 (95% CI: 0.74, 1.55) per IRF-assessed RECIST 1.1 and 1.10 (95% CI: 0.76, 1.59; 15.5 vs. 9.7 months) per IRF-HCC mRECIST for group A-1 versus A-2. Safety profiles for atezolizumab and bevacizumab were largely similar between groups. More group A-1 patients had grade 3/4 adverse events. A separate analysis investigating the impact of immortal time bias in patients who received ≥3 months of atezolizumab + bevacizumab supported the appropriateness of the ≥6-month landmark analysis. Discussion/Conclusion: Efficacy was similar between patients who skipped bevacizumab due to bevacizumab AESIs and those who did not. Although this comparison was nonrandomized and exploratory, results suggest that skipping bevacizumab due to bevacizumab AESIs did not considerably impact the efficacy and safety of atezolizumab + bevacizumab.

Background: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the third leading cause of death by cancer worldwide. Mostly diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic disease, patients lack treatment options. Gene alterations (GAs) are frequently observed in PDAC, some of which are considered for molecular targeted therapies (MTTs), with potential clinical benefits and improved outcomes. However, the applicability of molecular profiling (MP) for precision medicine in PDAC remains to be demonstrated. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients, aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed PDAC, who underwent tumor MP between 2010 and 2020 in our institution as part of personalized medicine trials. The primary study endpoint was overall survival (OS), and (minimal follow-up was 6 months after MP). Results: Of 115 eligible patients, MP was successful in 102 patients (89%). KRAS mutations were the most frequent GAs, mostly G12D. Based on ESCAT classification, actionable GAs were found in 29 patients (28%), involving mainly BRCA1 or BRCA2 (5 (18%)), HER2 (5 (18%)), MTAP (5 (18%)), and FGFR (3 (11%)). Only 12 of these 29 patients (41%, or 10% of the whole population) received MTTs, with a median progression-free survival of 1.6 months. Median OS was 19 months in patients with actionable GAs treated with MTTs (n = 12 (11.8%)), 14 months in patients with actionable GAs treated with standard therapies (n = 17 (16.7%)), and 17 months in patients without actionable GAs treated with standard therapies (n = 73 (71.5%); p = 0.26). The absence of liver metastases was associated with better OS (HR = 0.471, p = 0.01). The highest OS following MTT was observed in patients with BRCA mutations treated with olaparib. Interpretation: Actionable GAs were found in more than a quarter of patients with advanced PDAC. Overall, targeting actionable GAs with MTTs was not associated with improved OS in this retrospective study with limited patient numbers. However, selected GA/MTT combinations (e.g., BRCA mutations/olaparib) were associated with a better outcome.

Introduction: Intra-arterial hepatic (IAH) treatment has shown promising results in the management of patients with unresectable colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) the prognosis of which is poor. Bevacizumab adjunction to standard chemotherapy has been shown to improve survival of this patient population. This prospective study was conducted to assess the efficacy and safety of IAH bevacizumab combined to systemic chemotherapy after first-line treatment failure in patients with CRLM. Methods: Included patients had dominant or isolated unresectable CRLM progressing after standard first-line treatment for metastases of colorectal cancer. Three patients had less than 30% liver invasion, three patients between 30 and 50%, two more than 50% and data was missing in two patients. An intra-hepatic catheter was implanted surgically or percutaneously. Bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg was administered once every 3 weeks in combination with capecitabine 2000 mg/m² per day for 2 weeks and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m² or irinotecan 200 mg/m² once every 3 weeks. The primary end-point was the objective response rate. Results: Between June 2013 and February 2015, 10 patients were included. The trial was prematurely closed because of the lack of financial support and poor accrual. The patients had a median of 6 [1–9] cycles of treatment. Partial response was achieved in 2 patients (20%) and a R0 liver metastases resection in one another. All patients died of disease progression. The median overall and progression-free survival rates were respectively 14.0 (95% IC [4.8 – 25.8] and 5.4 months (95% IC [1.6 – 6.2]). Four patients had severe side effects but no toxic death occurred. Conclusion: IAH bevacizumab combined to systemic chemotherapy is feasible and safe in patients with unresectable isolated or dominant CRLM progressing after a first-line systemic treatment. Based on the low number of patients included in our study, our results suggest that this treatment does not increase dramatically the response rate versus an adapted systemic treatment. However, considering the safety data provided in this study, arterial infusion of bevacizumab in adjunction to chemotherapeutic agents could be evaluated in the future.

Background/Purpose: This analysis reports safety and effectiveness data from the Taiwanese cohort of the CORRELATE study. Methods: CORRELATE was a prospective, observational study to assess the safety and effectiveness of regorafenib for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) in real-world clinical practice that was conducted in 13 different countries in Asia, Europe and Latin America. The primary endpoint of the study was incidence of all treatment-emergent AEs (TEAEs), and secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control rate (DCR). Results: The global study population (N = 1037) included 128 Taiwanese patients with a median age of 64 years, median weight of 62.02 kg and 66.41% were male. Reduced initiating doses of regorafenib and dose interruptions were common in Taiwanese patients (71.87% and 50.00%, respectively). The safety profile of regorafenib was consistent with that seen in Asian patients in the clinical development trials, including the CORRECT and CONCUR studies, with hand–foot–skin reactions (HFSR) of any grade occurring in 33.59% of patients. Median OS was 11.64 months in the Taiwanese patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.36–13.82) and median PFS was 2.17 months (95% CI, 1.97–2.89). Conclusion: The safety and effectiveness of regorafenib in this real-world study was generally consistent with the known efficacy and safety profile in Asian patients in clinical trials. Trial registration: NCT02042144.

Introduction: Tislelizumab (anti-programmed cell death protein 1 antibody) showed preliminary antitumor activity and tolerability in patients with advanced solid tumors, including hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of tislelizumab in patients with previously treated advanced HCC. Methods: The multi-regional phase 2 study, RATIONALE-208, examined single-agent tislelizumab (200 mg intravenously every three weeks) in patients with advanced HCC with Child-Pugh A, Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer stage B or C, and who had received one or more prior lines of systemic therapy. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), radiologically confirmed per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 by Independent Review Committee. Safety was assessed in patients who received ≥1 dose of tislelizumab. Results: Between April 9, 2018 and February 27, 2019, 249 eligible patients were enrolled and treated. After a median study follow-up of 12.7 months, ORR was 13% (n = 32/249; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9–18), including five complete and 27 partial responses. Number of prior lines of therapy did not impact ORR (one prior line, 13% [95% CI, 8–20]; two or more prior lines, 13% [95% CI, 7–20]). Median duration of response was not reached. Disease control rate was 53% and median overall survival was 13.2 months. Of the 249 total patients, grade ≥3 treatment-related adverse events were reported in 38 (15%) patients; the most common was liver transaminase elevations in 10 (4%) patients. Treatment-related adverse events led to treatment discontinuation in 13 (5%) patients or dose delay in 46 (19%) patients. No deaths were attributed to the treatment per investigator assessment. Conclusion: Tislelizumab demonstrated durable objective responses, regardless of the number of prior lines of therapy, and acceptable tolerability in patients with previously treated advanced HCC.

Introduction: In the Phase 3 IMbrave150 trial (NCT03434379), atezolizumab + bevacizumab demonstrated a clinically meaningful survival benefit over sorafenib in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), including those with hepatitis B virus (HBV) or hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection. We used IMbrave150 data to investigate the safety and risk of viral reactivation or flare in infected patients treated with atezolizumab + bevacizumab or sorafenib. Methods: Patients with unresectable HCC not previously treated with systemic therapy were randomized 2:1 to atezolizumab + bevacizumab or sorafenib. In this exploratory analysis, safety was continually evaluated, including for hepatic adverse events. Patients were monitored for HBV and HCV reactivation and flare at screening, the beginning of Cycles 5 and 9, and at treatment discontinuation. Results: Of 501 enrolled patients, 485 were included in the safety population; 329 (68%) received atezolizumab + bevacizumab and 156 (32%) sorafenib. Overall, 150 (31%) and 58 (12%) patients had HBV and HCV infection, respectively. The safety profiles of atezolizumab + bevacizumab and sorafenib were consistent across patients regardless of viral infection. Overall, hepatic serious adverse events occurred in 11% of patients receiving atezolizumab + bevacizumab and 8% receiving sorafenib. HBV or HCV reactivation occurred in 2% or 16% of atezolizumab + bevacizumab–treated patients, respectively, vs 7% or 14% with sorafenib. There were no instances of hepatitis flare with atezolizumab + bevacizumab. Conclusions: Atezolizumab + bevacizumab had a similar hepatic safety profile in patients with and without HBV or HCV infection. Viral reactivation rates were similar between arms. Overall, these data support the use of atezolizumab + bevacizumab in patients with HCC and HBV or HCV infection without any special precaution.

Introduction: Atezolizumab + bevacizumab showed survival benefit in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vs sorafenib in the Phase III IMbrave150 study. This exploratory analysis examined the prognostic impact of baseline albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) score. Methods: Patients with treatment-naïve unresectable HCC, ≥1 measurable untreated lesion and Child-Pugh Class A liver function were randomized 2:1 to receive atezolizumab 1200 mg + bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 3 weeks or sorafenib 400 mg twice daily. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were assessed in the intention-to-treat population by ALBI/modified (m)ALBI grade. Time to deterioration (TTD; defined as time to 0.5-point increase from baseline ALBI score over 2 visits or death) of liver function and safety were investigated. Results: Of 501 enrolled patients, 336 were randomized to receive atezolizumab + bevacizumab (ALBI Grade (G) 1: n=191; G2: n=144 (mALBI G2a: n=72, G2b: n=72); missing ALBI Grade: n=1) and 165 to sorafenib (ALBI G1: n=87; G2: n=78 (mALBI G2a: n=37; G2b: n=41)). Median follow-up was 15.6 months. OS and PFS improved with atezolizumab + bevacizumab vs sorafenib in patients with ALBI G1 (OS HR, 0.50 (95% CI: 0.35, 0.72); PFS HR, 0.61 (95% CI: 0.45, 0.82)). In patients with ALBI G2 or mALBI G2a or G2b, PFS was numerically longer with atezolizumab + bevacizumab vs sorafenib but no OS benefit was seen. Median TTD in the intention-to-treat population was 10.2 months (95% CI: 8.0, 11.0) with atezolizumab + bevacizumab vs 8.6 months (95% CI: 6.2, 11.8) with sorafenib (HR, 0.82 (95% CI: 0.65, 1.03)). Safety profiles of atezolizumab and bevacizumab were consistent with previous analyses, regardless of ALBI grade. Discussion/Conclusion: ALBI grade appeared to be prognostic for outcomes with both atezolizumab + bevacizumab and sorafenib treatment in patients with HCC. Atezolizumab + bevacizumab preserved liver function for a numerically longer duration than sorafenib.

Introduction: The Phase III IMbrave150 study established atezolizumab + bevacizumab as standard of care in patients with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This exploratory analysis reports efficacy and safety results in patients with baseline Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) Stage B disease. Methods: Patients with systemic treatment-naive unresectable HCC and Child-Pugh Class A liver function were randomized 2:1 to receive 1200 mg of atezolizumab plus 15 mg/kg of bevacizumab or 400 mg of sorafenib. Co-primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) per independent review facility (IRF)–assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1 in the BCLC Stage B subgroup. Patients in this analysis had BCLC Stage B disease at baseline per electronic case report form. Secondary efficacy endpoints included objective response rate (ORR) and change in the sum of longest diameter (SLD) of target lesions from baseline per IRF RECIST 1.1 and modified RECIST (mRECIST) for HCC. Results: Of 501 enrolled patients, 74 (15%) had BCLC Stage B disease at baseline (atezolizumab + bevacizumab, n=49; sorafenib, n=24). For this group, median follow-up was 19.7 months. A trend toward improved OS and PFS per IRF RECIST 1.1 was observed with atezolizumab + bevacizumab vs sorafenib (OS: HR, 0.63; 95% CI: 0.29, 1.34; PFS: HR, 0.64; 95% CI: 0.36, 1.12). ORRs per IRF RECIST 1.1 and HCC mRECIST were 43% and 50% with atezolizumab + bevacizumab and 26% and 30% with sorafenib, respectively. Percentage change in SLD of target lesions from baseline per IRF RECIST 1.1 and HCC mRECIST showed durable responses with atezolizumab + bevacizumab treatment. Safety data were consistent with known profiles of atezolizumab and bevacizumab, as seen in the overall study population. Discussion/Conclusion: Efficacy benefits were observed with atezolizumab + bevacizumab in patients with baseline BCLC Stage B disease, consistent with the intention-to-treat population.

Abstract Background Studies over the past 10 years strongly support an association between skeletal muscle mass (SMM) depletion and outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Factors influencing SMM changes over time are, however, poorly studied. We analyzed the impact of SMM on overall survival and chemotherapy toxicities in mCRC patients treated with first-line chemotherapy. Changes in weight and body composition were evaluated during follow-up. Methods Patients enrolled in the randomized phase II ACCORD trial comparing two chemotherapy regimens were screened. Body composition parameters (SMM, adipose tissue) were assessed prospectively with computed tomography (CT) imaging, and toxicities were recorded. Mixed models were used to assess weight and BC changes during 4 months of treatment follow-up. Results Among 145 patients included in ACCORD, 76 had available baseline CT scans and were included in the current study. Mean age was 60.6 ± 10.0 years, 50% were women, 82% had colon cancer, and 62% had two or more metastatic sites. At baseline, 49% had lost at least 5% of their initial weight, including 26% who had lost more than 10%; 53% had SMM depletion. In this homogenous cohort, there were no statistically significant associations between SMM depletion and overall survival, progression-free survival or chemotherapy toxicity. There were no decreases in weight or SMM during follow-up. Weight and SMM changes were not influenced by diarrhea either grade 3–4 or any grade (reported in 74% of patients). For patients with weight loss ≥10% at baseline, SMM increased significantly after 4 months of follow-up and after disease stabilization following chemotherapy (P = 0.008). Conclusions In a homogenous mCRC cohort, SMM depletion was not associated with survival or chemotherapy toxicity. Despite most patient experiencing diarrhea, no changes in weight or SMM were found during 4 months of follow-up. However, hypotheses deriving from our exploratory study have to be tested in further larger sample size studies. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00423696 (2011).

Abstract Background Several new treatment options have become available for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), but the support for their use for resectable, borderline resectable and locally advanced PDAC is unclear. Methods A survey was distributed to the members of the European-African Hepato-Pancreato Biliary Association (E-AHPBA) and the pancreas group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) regarding 1) definitions of local resectability, 2) indications for neoadjuvant therapy and 3) case-vignettes regarding the resectability and treatment of PDAC. Results In total, 114 participants from 37 countries were registered. About 35% of respondents, each, were of the opinion that borderline resectability is defined by any venous tumor contact and venous involvement 180°, respectively. The majority (75.4%) of participants believed that borderline resectable PDAC has a high risk for R1 resection and that neoadjuvant therapy might increase the R0-resection rate (79.8%) and improve oncological patient selection (84.2%). Chemotherapy was regarded useful to convert locally advanced to resectable PDAC by 55.7% of respondents. In the cases with resectable, borderline resectable, and locally advanced PDAC, 10 (8.8%), 78 (68.4%), 55 (48.2%) of participants would start with chemotherapy, respectively. Conclusions Although definitions for borderline resectability differ among European surgeons, there seems to be a rather strong support for preoperative chemotherapy in PDAC aiming at minimizing R1 resections while increasing resection rates.

Abstract Purpose A substantial proportion of cancer survivors experience fatigue after diagnosis. Physical activity (PA) can impact fatigue after cancer. In this study, we evaluated the prevalence and association of fatigue and the practice of PA in a population with early cancer. Methods Using the national population‐based French cross‐sectional study Vie après le cancer 2, we included 1984 patients with early breast (61.1%), prostate (21.5%), and colorectal (17.4%) cancer. Severe fatigue at 2 years postdiagnosis was defined by a score ≥40 in the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30) fatigue subscale. PA was defined as (a) self‐reported PA before diagnosis (active/inactive) and (b) change in PA since diagnosis (increased/maintained exposure vs decreased exposure/remaining inactive). Multivariate regression examined associations of severe fatigue with PA, adjusting for baseline clinical and treatment variables. Results Median age was 52 years. 51.5% of patients experienced severe fatigue 2 years post‐diagnosis. 87.7% reported to be physically active before cancer diagnosis; 53.3% of patients either decreased PA or remained inactive at 2 years postdiagnosis. At 2 years postdiagnosis, severe fatigue was associated with a change in PA since diagnosis: patients with decreasing PA/remaining inactive from pre‐ to postdiagnosis had a higher risk of severe fatigue vs those with increasing/maintaining PA (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval] 2.32 [1.85‐2.90]). Conclusion Fatigue continues to be a substantial problem for cancer survivors 2 years after cancer diagnosis and is associated with PA decreasing/remaining inactive since diagnosis. Interventions to maintain or increase PA for cancer survivors should be tested to mitigate long‐term fatigue after cancer.

Abstract Background After curative-intent surgery for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), liver recurrence occurs in more than 60% of patients, despite the administration of perioperative or adjuvant chemotherapy. This risk is even higher after resection of more than three CRLM. As CRLM are mostly supplied by arterial blood flow, hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of chemotherapeutic agents after resection of CRLM is an attractive approach. Oxaliplatin-based HAI chemotherapy, in association with systemic fluoropyrimidines, has been shown to be safe and highly active in patients with CRLM. In a retrospective series of 98 patients at high risk of hepatic recurrence (≥4 resected CRLM), adjuvant HAI oxaliplatin combined with systemic chemotherapy was feasible and significantly improved disease-free survival compared to adjuvant, ‘modern’ systemic chemotherapy alone. Methods/Design This study is designed as a multicentre, randomized, phase II/III trial. The first step is a non-comparative randomized phase II trial (power, 95%; one-sided alpha risk, 10%). Patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to adjuvant systemic FOLFOX (control arm) or adjuvant HAI oxaliplatin plus systemic LV5FU2 (experimental arm). A total 114 patients will need to be included. The main objective of this trial is to evaluate the potential survival benefit of adjuvant HAI with oxaliplatin after resection of at least 4 CRLM (primary endpoint: 18-month hepatic recurrence-free survival rate). We also aim to assess the feasibility of delivering at least 4 cycles of HAI (or i.v.) oxaliplatin after surgical treatment of at least 4 CRLM, the toxicity (NCI-CTC v4.0) of adjuvant HAI plus systemic chemotherapy, including HAI catheter-related complications, compared to systemic chemotherapy alone, and the efficacy of adjuvant HAI on hepatic and extra-hepatic recurrence-free (survival and overall survival). Discussion If 18-month hepatic recurrence-free survival is greater than 50% in the experimental arm, the study will be pursued in phase III, for which the primary endpoint will be 3-year recurrence-free survival rate. Patients randomized in the phase II will be included in the phase III, with an additional number of 106 patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02494973. Trial registration date: July 10, 2015.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal solid organ tumors. Due to the rising incidence, late diagnosis, and limited treatment options, it is expected to be the second leading cause of cancer deaths in high income countries in the next decade. The multidisciplinary treatment of this disease depends on the stage of cancer at diagnosis (resectable, borderline, locally advanced, and metastatic disease), and combines surgery, chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, and supportive care. The landscape of multidisciplinary pancreatic cancer treatment is changing rapidly, especially in locally advanced disease, and the number of treatment options in metastatic disease, including personalized medicine, innovative targets, immunotherapy, therapeutic vaccines, adoptive T-cell transfer, or stemness inhibitors, will probably expand in the near future. This review summarizes the current literature and provides an overview of how new therapies or new therapeutic strategies (neoadjuvant therapies, conversion surgery) will guide multidisciplinary disease management, future clinical trials, and, hopefully, will increase overall survival.

Over the past two decades, the molecular characterization of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been revolutionized by the routine implementation of RAS and BRAF tests. As a result, it is now known that patients with mCRC harboring BRAF mutations experience a poor prognosis. Although it accounts for only 10% of mCRC, this group is heterogeneous; only the BRAF- V600E mutation, also observed in melanoma, is associated with a very poor prognosis. In terms of treatment, these patients do not benefit from therapeutics targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). In first-line chemotherapy, there are two main options; the first one is to use a triple chemotherapy combination of 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin, with the addition of bevacizumab, because post hoc analysis of randomized trials have reported interesting results. The other option is to use double chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, since anti-EGFR seems to have modest activity in these patients. Only a small percentage of patients who experience failure of this first-line treatment receive second-line treatment. Monotherapy with BRAF inhibitors has failed in this setting, and different combinations have also been tested. Using the rationale that BRAF inhibitor monotherapy fails due to feedback activation of the EGFR pathway, BRAF inhibitors have been combined with anti-EGFR agents plus or minus MEK inhibitors; however, the results did not live up to the hopes raised by the concept. To date, the best results in second-line treatment have been obtained with a combination of vemurafenib, cetuximab, and irinotecan. Despite these advances, further improvements are needed.

Michel DucreuxGastro-Intestinal Unit, Institut Gustave-Roussy, Villejuif Cedex, France; Department of Oncology, Paul Brousse University Hospital, Villejuif, France; Paris-Sud XI University, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, FranceIntroduction: Treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), employing various schedules, combinations, and regimens utilizing 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), irinotecan, oxaliplatin, capecitabine, bevacizumab, and cetuximab, currently achieves an overall survival that extends to approximately two years. Major questions regarding optimal management of mCRC await resolution.Methods: A thorough review was conducted of all mCRC abstracts, posters, and other presentations at the 2007 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Information was analyzed in relationship to previously published research to determine the potential impact of new data on current and future mCRC management strategies and patient outcomes. Updated data presented at ASCO 2008 relevant to these findings was also analyzed.Discussion: Ongoing challenges in mCRC treatment include defining the optimal role of targeted agents such as cetuximab and bevacizumab, elaborating the mechanisms underlying their toxicities, resolving the benefits of adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients who are candidates for surgical resection, establishing whether there are substantive differences between sequential and combination chemotherapy regimens, and determining the safety and tolerability of chemotherapy in elderly subjects.Conclusion: Recent reports presented at ASCO 2007 and 2008 indicate incremental improvements in care of patients with mCRC. Nevertheless, irinotecan, oxaliplatin, 5-FU, and to an increasing extent the targeted biologic agents bevacizumab and cetuximab continue unchallenged as first-line and later selections.Keywords: chemotherapy, combination chemotherapy, irinotecan, bevacizumab, cetuximab