Search

Purpose: Nivolumab received US Food and Drug Administration approval as a single agent or in combination with ipilimumab in patients with microsatellite instability-high/mismatch repair-deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that progressed following treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan based on CheckMate 142. Presented are results of nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab in the first-line therapy cohort from the phase II CheckMate 142 study., Patients and Methods: Patients with no prior treatment in the metastatic setting for MSI-H/dMMR CRC were treated with nivolumab every 2 weeks plus low-dose ipilimumab every 6 weeks until disease progression. The primary end point was objective response rate (investigator assessment; RECIST v1.1)., Results: Median age of treated patients was 66 years (N = 45). Median follow-up was 29.0 months. Objective response rate and disease control rate were 69% (95% CI, 53 to 82) and 84% (95% CI, 70.5 to 93.5), respectively, with 13% complete response rate. Median duration of response was not reached; 74% of responders had ongoing responses at data cutoff. Median progression-free survival and median overall survival were not reached with minimum follow-up of 24.2 months (24-month rates, 74% and 79%, respectively). Clinical benefit was observed regardless of baseline demographic and tumor characteristics, including BRAF or KRAS mutation status. In a post hoc analysis, of 14 patients who discontinued treatment and did not receive subsequent therapy, 10 remained progression-free. Patient-reported outcomes were stable over the treatment period. Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events occurred in 22% of patients; 13% discontinued because of any-grade treatment-related adverse events., Conclusion: Nivolumab plus low-dose ipilimumab demonstrated robust and durable clinical benefit and was well tolerated as a first-line treatment for MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. Based on these promising data, randomized studies are warranted., Competing Interests: Heinz-Josef LenzHonoraria: Merck Serono, Roche, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Isofol Medical, GlaxoSmithKlineConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Serono, Roche, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKlineTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck Serono, Bayer Eric Van CutsemConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Lilly, Roche, Servier, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Halozyme, Array BioPharma, Biocartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Daiichi Sankyo, Pierre Fabre, Sirtex Medical, Taiho Pharmaceutical, IncyteResearch Funding: Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, Novartis, Roche, Celgene, Ipsen, Merck, Merck KGaA, Servier, Bristol Myers Squibb Ka Yeung Mark WongConsulting or Advisory Role: Baxalta, Ipsen, Novartis, Roche, MSD OncologySpeakers' Bureau: Sirtex Medical, MSD OncologyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD Oncology, Novartis Alain HendliszConsulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, MSD Oncology, Sirtex MedicalResearch Funding: Sanofi/Aventis, Lilly, Servier/Pfizer, Amgen Massimo AgliettaConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers SquibbResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, PharmaMarTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Merck, Tesaro, Bristol Myers Squibb Pilar García-AlfonsoConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Amgen, Merck Serono, Sanofi, ServierSpeakers' Bureau: Roche, Merck Serono, Amgen, Sanofi, ServierTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Merck Serono Bart NeynsHonoraria: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Merck Sharp & DohmeConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Pfizer/EMD SeronoSpeakers' Bureau: NovartisResearch Funding: Pfizer, NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Novartis, Roche, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen Dana B. CardinHonoraria: OncLive/MJH Life SciencesConsulting or Advisory Role: Rafael PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: Incyte, Celgene, EMD Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, Array BioPharma, Advaxis, Lilly, Rafael Pharmaceuticals, Corcept Therapeutics Tomislav DragovichResearch Funding: Halozyme, Bristol Myers Squibb, Medivir, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, ARMO BioSciences, Berg Pharma, Rgenix, HolyStone Therapeutics, Novocure Sandzhar AbdullaevEmployment: Bristol Myers SquibbStock and Other Ownership Interests: Bristol Myers Squibb Joseph GricarEmployment: Bristol Myers SquibbStock and Other Ownership Interests: Bristol Myers Squibb Jean-Marie LedeineEmployment: Bristol Myers SquibbStock and Other Ownership Interests: Bristol Myers Squibb Michael James OvermanConsulting or Advisory Role: 3D Medicines, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche/Genentech, Gritstone Oncology, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Promega, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Array BioPharma, Janssen, PfizerResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Roche, MedImmune Sara LonardiConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Merck Serono, Lilly, Servier, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSDSpeakers' Bureau: Roche, Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, GlaxoSmithKline, AmgenResearch Funding: Amgen, Merck Serono, Bayer, Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers SquibbNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Background: During the past 20 years, considerable improvement has occurred in the treatment of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). With the introduction of multimodal treatment, refinements in preclinical staging and improvements in surgical skills, local relapse is no longer the major problem for patients with LARC. However, many patients die of metastatic disease. The present phase Ib study aimed to establish the maximum tolerated dose of everolimus combined with 5-fluorouracil and radiotherapy in patients with LARC., Patients and Methods: Patients were sequentially assigned to 4 cohorts with an increasing dose of everolimus, starting from 14 days before 5-fluorouracil and radiotherapy and continuing throughout concomitant treatment. The secondary endpoints were the Dworak tumor regression grade, pathologic complete response rate, neoadjuvant rectal score, biomarker assessment (phosphorylated mTOR [mammalian target of rapamycin] protein and phosphorylated-p70S6K protein)., Results: At the time of this report, 12 patients had been treated, and no dose-limiting toxicity was recorded. The most frequently reported acute toxicities were rectal tenesmus, skin rash, diarrhea, and dysuria. All 12 patients underwent curative R0 resection. Two patients had Dworak tumor regression grade 4 (pathologic complete response). No everolimus-related postoperative complications were observed. No relationship was found between biomarker expression and the clinicopathologic outcomes., Conclusion: Although the addition of everolimus did not appear to worsen the toxicity of chemoradiation in patients with LARC, evaluation of its activity deserves further investigation in larger clinical trials., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To assess patient perception toward oral chemotherapy for solid tumors, the Italian Association of Medical Oncology performed a large multi-institutional national survey., Methods: A 17-item anonymous questionnaire including 7 general and 10 investigational questions with free-text, single-choice, or multiple-choice answers was administered. Analysis of response distribution according to predefined factors was described by summary measures and conducted by χ2 test and other nonparametric tests., Results: From January to June 2010, 581 patients completed the questionnaire; data of 404 patients constituted the final study sample. Three groups could be distinguished according to treatment: IV chemotherapy (IV group, n = 313), oral chemotherapy (oral group, n = 48), or combined therapy (combined group, n = 43). Thirty-one (72%) patients in the combined group and 187 (60%) in the IV group expressed preference for oral therapy (p = 0.028). Limitations in family and work commitment were more frequently perceived by patients on IV than oral chemotherapy (147 (47%) vs 14 (29%) patients, p<0.05, and 134 (43%) vs 11 (23%) patients, p<0.05). A total of 134 (43%) patients on IV chemotherapy versus 15 (31%) patients in the oral group did not point out any limitation for number of tablets per day (p = 0.004)., Conclusions: We observed a propensity from the patient perspective in favor of oral chemotherapy that was considered to have a lower impact on family and work commitments than IV chemotherapy. The treatment that patients were taking when the questionnaire was administered likely influenced their perception and related results.

Purpose: To investigate oxaliplatin combined with fluorouracil-based chemoradiotherapy as preoperative treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer., Patients and Methods: Seven hundred forty-seven patients with resectable, locally advanced (cT3-4 and/or cN1-2) adenocarcinoma of the mid-low rectum were randomly assigned to receive pelvic radiation (50.4 Gy in 28 daily fractions) and concomitant infused fluorouracil (225 mg/m(2)/d) either alone (arm A, n = 379) or combined with oxaliplatin (60 mg/m(2) weekly × 6; arm B, n = 368). Overall survival is the primary end point. A protocol-planned analysis of response to preoperative treatment is reported here., Results: Grade 3 to 4 adverse events during preoperative treatment were more frequent with oxaliplatin plus fluorouracil and radiation than with radiation and fluorouracil alone (24% v 8% of treated patients; P < .001). In arm B, 83% of the patients treated with oxaliplatin had five or more weekly administrations. Ninety-one percent, compared with 97% in the control arm, received ≥ 45 Gy (P < .001). Ninety-six percent versus 95% of patients underwent surgery with similar rates of abdominoperineal resections (20% v 18%, arm A v arm B). The rate of pathologic complete responses was 16% in both arms (odds ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.44; P = .904). Twenty-six percent versus 29% of patients had pathologically positive lymph nodes (arm A v arm B; P = .447), 46% versus 44% had tumor infiltration beyond the muscularis propria (P = .701), and 7% versus 4% had positive circumferential resection margins (P = .239). Intra-abdominal metastases were found at surgery in 2.9% versus 0.5% of patients (arm A v arm B; P = .014)., Conclusion: Adding oxaliplatin to fluorouracil-based preoperative chemoradiotherapy significantly increases toxicity without affecting primary tumor response. Longer follow-up is needed to assess the impact on efficacy end points.

Purpose: Clinical data suggested that a regimen incorporating doxorubicin to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and cisplatin may be more effective but probably quite toxic for advanced gastric cancer patients. With the aim to maintain efficacy while reducing toxicity, we compared the activity and safety of a combination of 5-FU, cisplatin and pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with a combination of 5-FU, cisplatin and mitomycin-C., Patients and Methods: Seventy-eight patients were randomised to receive 5-FU (400 mg/m(2) bolus, 600 mg/m(2) 22 h continuous infusion day 1 and 2) and cisplatin (50 mg/m(2) day 1) every 2 weeks, combined either with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (20 mg/m(2) day 1 every two weeks) (arm A) or mitomycin-C (7 mg/m(2) every 6 weeks) (arm B)., Results: The overall response rate was 64.1% in arm A and 38.5% in arm B (P = 0.041). The median time to tumour progression and overall survival were 7.93 and 5.14 months (P = 0.04) and 12.1 and 8.3 months (P = 0.02) in arm A and B, respectively. Fourteen patients in arm A and 18 patients in arm B experienced a grade 3/4 toxic effect., Conclusions: A combination of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, cisplatin and 5-FU can be safely administered in gastric cancer patients with a promising efficacy profile.

Background: In patients with colorectal liver metastases (CLM) R0 resection significantly improves overall survival (OS)., Methods: In this report, we present the results of a phase II trial of FOLFOX6+bevacizumab in patients with non-optimally resectable CLM. Patients received six cycles of FOLFOX6+ five of bevacizumab. Patients not achieving resectability received six additional cycles of each. A PET-CT was performed at baseline and again within 1 month after initiating treatment., Results: From September 2005 to July 2009, 21 patients were enrolled (Male/Female: 15/6; median age: 65 years). An objective response (OR) was documented in 12 cases (57.1%; complete responses (CRs): 3, partial response (PR): 9); one patient died from toxicity before surgery. Thirteen patients underwent radical surgery (61.9%). Three (23%) had a pathological CR (pCR). Six patients (46.1%) experienced minor postsurgical complications. After a median 38.8-month follow-up, the median OS was 22.5 months. Patients achieving at least 1 unit reduction in Standard uptake value (SUV)max on PET-CT had longer progression-free survival (PFS) (median PFS: 22 vs 14 months, P=0.001)., Conclusions: FOLFOX6+bevacizumab does not increase postsurgical complications, yields high rates of resectability and pCR. Early changes in PET-CT seem to be predictive of longer PFS.

PURPOSE No established treatment exists for pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (NET) progression after failure of chemotherapy. Everolimus (RAD001), an oral inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin, in combination with octreotide has demonstrated encouraging antitumor activity in patients with NETs. PATIENTS AND METHODS This open-label, phase II study assessed the clinical activity of everolimus in patients with metastatic pancreatic NETs who experienced progression on or after chemotherapy. Patients were stratified by prior octreotide therapy (stratum 1: everolimus 10 mg/d, n = 115; stratum 2: everolimus 10 mg/d plus octreotide long-acting release [LAR], n = 45). Tumor assessments (using Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) were performed every 3 months. Chromogranin A (CgA) and neuron-specific enolase (NSE) were assessed monthly if elevated at baseline. Trough concentrations of everolimus and octreotide were assessed. Results By central radiology review, in stratum 1, there were 11 partial responses (9.6%), 78 patients (67.8%) with stable disease (SD), and 16 patients (13.9%) with progressive disease; median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.7 months. In stratum 2, there were two partial responses (4.4%), 36 patients (80%) with SD, and no patients with progressive disease; median PFS was 16.7 months. Patients with an early CgA or NSE response had a longer PFS compared with patients without an early response. Coadministration of octreotide LAR and everolimus did not impact exposure to either drug. Most adverse events were mild to moderate and were consistent with those previously seen with everolimus. CONCLUSION Daily everolimus, with or without concomitant octreotide LAR, demonstrates antitumor activity as measured by objective response rate and PFS and is well tolerated in patients with advanced pancreatic NETs after failure of prior systemic chemotherapy.

The complete pathological response after primary chemotherapy could represent an important prognostic factor in patients affected by colorectal liver metastases. In recent studies, increasing complete pathological response seems to be correlated with longer overall survival periods and it is recognized as an important prognostic factor in patients treated with pre-operative chemotherapy. The correlation of radiological information on residual neoplastic disease after neoadjuvant treatment, obtained with CT and PET, has to be evaluated; in fact the complete disappearance of liver metastasis on radiological imaging does not always mean a complete disappearance of tumor tissue on histological examination; when it is documented with surgical procedures and confirmed by pathologist's examination, we can consider the complete pathological response. In recent years the addition of monoclonal antibodies to conventional chemotherapy may further increase the proportion of patients referred for surgery; bevacizumab before surgery has been shown to be feasible and safe, although concerns still exist regarding possible post-surgical and wound healing complications or bleeding. The limitation of the radiologic assessment of response as a surrogate for pathological response is even more relevant when antiangiogenic treatments are used. Excellent responses to bevacizumab-containing regimens do occur and referral to surgical oncology is a crucial step for documentation of complete pathological response.

Background: Cetuximab improves activity of chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Gene copy number (GCN) of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) has been suggested to be a predictive factor of response to cetuximab in patients (pts) with mCRC; on the contrary, K-ras mutation has been associated with cetuximab resistance., Patients and Methods: We have conducted a phase II study with cetuximab administered weekly for 3 weeks as single agent and then with 5-fluorouracil and radiation therapy as neo-adjuvant treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). EGFR immunohistochemistry expression, EGFR GCN and K-ras mutation were evaluated on diagnostic tumor biopsy. Dworak's tumor regression grade (TRG) was evaluated on surgical specimens., Results: Forty pts have been treated; 39 pts are assessable. TRG 3 and 4 were achieved in nine (23.1%) and three pts (7.7%) respectively; TRG 3-4 rate was 55% and 5.3% in case of high and low GCN, respectively (P 0.0016). Pts with K-ras mutated tumors had lower rate of high TRG: 11% versus 36.7% (P 0.12). In pts with wild-type K-ras, TRG 3-4 rate was 58.8% versus 7.7% in case of high or low GCN, respectively (P 0.0012)., Conclusions: In pts with LARC, EGFR GCN is predictive of high TRG to cetuximab plus 5-FU radiotherapy. Moreover, our data suggest that a wild-type K-ras associated with a high EGFR GCN can predict sensitivity to cetuximab-based treatment.

Purpose: Preoperative chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery represents the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Cetuximab has proved activity in advanced colorectal cancer, and its incorporation in preoperative treatment may increase tumor downstaging., Methods and Materials: After biopsy and staging, uT3/uT4 N0/+ LARC received single-agent cetuximab in three doses, followed by weekly cetuximab plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), concomitantly with RT. Sample size was calculated according to Bryant and Day test, a two-stage design with at least 10 pathologic complete remissions observed in 60 patients (pts) able to complete the treatment plan., Results: Forty pts with LARC were entered: male/female = 34/6; median age: 61 (range, 28-77); 12 uT3N0 Ed(30%); 25 uT3N1 (62%); 3 uT4N1 (8%); all Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group = 0. Thirty-five pts completed neoadjuvant treatment; 5 (12%) withdrew therapy after one cetuximab administration: three for hypersensitivity reactions, one for rapid progression, and one for purulent arthritis. They continued 5-FU in continuous infusion in association with RT. Thirty-one pts (77%) presented with acnelike rash; dose reduction/interruption of treatment was necessary in six pts (15%): two for Grade 3 acnelike rash, two for Grade 3 gastrointestinal toxicity, and two for refusal. Thirty-eight pts were evaluable for pathological response (one patient refused surgery, and one was progressed during neoadjuvant treatment). Pathological staging was: pT0N0 three pts (8%), pT1N0 1 pt (3%); pT2N0 13 pts (34%), and pT3 19 pts (50%) (N0:9, N1:5; N2:5); pT4 2 pts (5%)., Conclusions: Preoperative treatment with 5-FU, cetuximab, and pelvic RT is feasible with acceptable toxicities; however, the rate of pathologic responses is disappointingly low.

Purpose: To determine whether adding cetuximab to irinotecan prolongs survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin., Patients and Methods: This multicenter, open-label, phase III study randomly assigned 1,298 patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-expressing mCRC who had experienced first-line fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin treatment failure to cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) day 1 followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly) plus irinotecan (350 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks) or irinotecan alone. Primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and quality of life (QOL)., Results: Median OS was comparable between treatments: 10.7 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 11.3) with cetuximab/irinotecan and 10.0 months (95% CI, 9.1 to 11.3) with irinotecan alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.975; 95% CI, 0.854 to 1.114; P = .71). This lack of difference may have been due to post-trial therapy: 46.9% of patients assigned to irinotecan eventually received cetuximab (87.2% of those who did, received it with irinotecan). Cetuximab added to irinotecan significantly improved PFS (median, 4.0 v 2.6 months; HR, 0.692; 95% CI, 0.617 to 0.776; P

Background: Complete surgical resection of gastric cancer is potentially curative, but long-term survival is poor., Methods: Patients with histologically proven adenocarcinoma of the stomach of stages IB, II, IIIA and B, or IV (T4N2M0) and treated with potentially curative surgery were randomly assigned to follow-up alone or to intravenous treatment with four cycles (repeated every 21 days) of PELF (cisplatin [40 mg/m(2), on days 1 and 5], epirubicin [30 mg/m(2), days 1 and 5], L-leucovorin [100 mg/m(2), days 1-4], and 5-fluorouracil [300 mg/m(2), days 1-4] in a hospital setting. Frequencies and severity of adverse events were determined. Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were compared between the treatment arms using Kaplan-Meier analysis and a Cox proportional hazards regression model. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: From January 1995 through September 2000, 258 patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy (n = 130) or surgery alone (n = 128). Patient characteristics were well balanced between the two arms. Among those who received chemotherapy, grade 3 or 4 toxic effects including vomiting, mucositis, and diarrhea were experienced by 21.1%, 8.4%, and 11.8% of patients, respectively. Leucopenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia of grade 3 or 4 were experienced by 20.3%, 3.3%, and 4.2% of patients, respectively. After a median follow-up of 72.8 months, 128 patients (49.6%) experienced recurrence and 139 (53.9%) deaths were observed, one toxicity-related. Relative to treatment with surgery alone, adjuvant chemotherapy did not increase disease-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] of recurrence = 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 1.27) or overall survival (HR of death = 0.90; 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.26)., Conclusions: Our results failed to provide proof of an effect of adjuvant chemotherapy with PELF on overall survival or disease-free survival. The estimated effect of chemotherapy (10% reduction in the hazard of death or relapse) is modest and consistent with the results of meta-analyses of adjuvant chemotherapy without platinum agents.

Background and Objective: In the recent X-ACT (Xeloda in Adjuvant Colon cancer Therapy) trial, oral capecitabine (Xeloda) demonstrated superior efficacy and an improved safety profile compared with infused fluorouracil + leucovorin (folinic acid) [FU+LV] in patients with Dukes' C colorectal cancer. We used the X-ACT results to determine the cost effectiveness of capecitabine compared with FU+LV from the perspective of the Italian National Health Service (NHS)., Methods: Medical resource use data were collected throughout the treatment period. Unit costs for drug administration, hospitalization, emergency room visits and concomitant medications were obtained using Italian published sources. A health-state transition model was used to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-month (QALM) gains in the intent-to-treat population (1004 and 983 patients in the capecitabine and FU+LV arms, respectively). Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3.5%. Costs were calculated in euros (2005 values)., Results: Administration of capecitabine required fewer clinic visits per patient than FU+LV (7.35 vs 28.0, respectively). Mean acquisition costs per patient for capecitabine were higher than for FU+LV (euro 2533 vs euro 231, respectively), but this difference was offset by the difference in mean chemotherapy administration costs per patient for FU+LV (euro 4338, compared with euro 152 for capecitabine). Mean total hospital days and medication costs for treatment-related adverse events were higher for FU+LV than for capecitabine (euro 352 vs euro 78, respectively). The cost of emergency room visits for the treatment of adverse events did not differ between the treatment groups. With respect to the lifetime horizon, compared with FU+LV, capecitabine is projected to increase QALMs by a mean 6.5 months, with overall cost savings of euro 2234 over the treatment period. These findings show that capecitabine is an economically dominant treatment in this setting., Conclusions: Adjuvant capecitabine for patients with Dukes' C colon cancer has the same activity in terms of outcome when compared with FU+LV but is a lower cost option from the economic perspective of the Italian NHS.

Limited information on salvage treatment in patients affected by pancreatic cancer is available. At failure, about half of the patients present good performance status (PS) and are candidate for further treatment. Patients >18 years, PS >or=50, with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-containing chemotherapy, and progression-free survival (PFS) <12 months received a combination of raltitrexed (3 mg m(-2)) and oxaliplatin (130 mg m(-2)) every 3 weeks until progression, toxicity, or a maximum of six cycles. A total of 41 patients received 137 cycles of chemotherapy. Dose intensity for both drugs was 92% of the intended dose. Main grade >2 toxicity was: neutropenia in five patients (12%), thrombocytopenia, liver and vomiting in three (7%), fatigue in two (5%). In total, 10 patients (24%) yielded a partial response, 11 a stable disease. Progression-free survival at 6 months was 14.6%. Median survival was 5.2 months. Survival was significantly longer in patients with previous PFS >6 months and in patients without pancreatic localisation. A clinically relevant improvement of quality of life was observed in numerous domains. Raltitrexed-oxaliplatin regimen may constitute a treatment opportunity in gemcitabine-resistant metastatic pancreatic cancer. Previous PFS interval may allow the identification of patients who are more likely to benefit from salvage treatment.

Gemcitabine is considered the gold standard treatment for unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Intra-arterial drug administration had shown some interesting results in small phase II studies. In this study, patients were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine at a dose of 1,000 mg/m2 over 30 minutes intravenously weekly for 7 weeks, followed by 1 week of rest, then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks or FLEC: 5-fluoruracil 1,000 mg/m2, leucovorin 100 mg/m2, epirubicin 60 mg/m2, carboplatin 300 mg/m2 infused bolus intra-arterially into celiac axis at a 3-week interval 3 times or 5-fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 plus folinic acid 20 mg/m2 for 5 days every 4 weeks for 6 cycles. The primary endpoint was overall survival, while time to treatment failure, response rate, clinical benefit response were secondary endpoints. Sixty-seven patients were randomly allocated gemcitabine and 71 were allocated FLEC intra-arterially. Patients treated with FLEC lived for significantly longer than patients on gemcitabine (p=0.036). Survival at 1 year increased from 21% in the gemcitabine group to 35% in the FLEC group. Median survival was 7.9 months in the FLEC group and 5.8 months in the gemcitabine group. Median time to treatment failure was longer with FLEC (5.3 vs 4.2 months for FLEC vs gemcitabine respectively; p=0.013). Clinical benefit was similar in both groups (17.9% for gemcitabine and 26.7% for FLEC; p=NS). CT-scan partial response was similar in both groups (5.9% for gemcitabine and 14% for FLEC; p=NS). Toxicity profiles were different. Compared with gemcitabine, the FLEC regimen given intra-arterially improved survival in patients with unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Gemcitabine is considered the golden standard treatment for unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Intra-arte-rial drug administration had shown a deep rationale with some interesting results. In a multicenter phase III trial, we compared gemcitabine given weekly with a combination of 5-fluoruracil, leucovorin, epirubicin, carboplatin (FLEC) administered intra-arteriously as first-line therapy in unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Patients were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine at a dose of 1,000 mg/m2 over 30 minutes intravenously weekly for 7 weeks, followed by 1 week of rest, then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks or 5-fluoruracil 1,000 mg/m2, leucovorin 100 mg/m2, epirubicin 60 mg/m2, carboplatin 300 mg/m2 infused bolus intra-arteriously at three-weekly interval for 3 times. The primary end point was overall survival, while time to treatment failure, response rate, clinical benefit response were secondary endpoints. Sixty-seven patients were randomly allocated gemcitabine and 71 were allocated FLEC intra-arterially. Patients treated with FLEC lived for significantly longer than patients on gemcitabine (p=.036). Survival at 1 year was increased from 21% in the gemcitabine group to 35% in the FLEC group. Median survival was 7.9 months in the FLEC group and 5.8 months in the gemcitabine group. Median time to treatment failure was longer with FLEC (5.3 vs 4.2 months for FLEC vs gemcitabine respectively; p=.013). Clinical benefit was similar in both groups (17.9% for gemcitabine and 26.7% for FLEC; p=NS). CT-scan partial response was similar in both group (5.9% for gemcitabine and 14% for FLEC; p=NS). Toxicity profiles were different. Compared with gemcitabine, FLEC regimen given intra-arteriously, improved survival in patient with unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

Background: To determine whether the addition of leucovorin to the combination 5-fluorouracil plus levamisole prolongs disease-free survival and overall survival in patients with radically resected colon cancer (Dukes' B(2-3) and C)., Patients and Methods: Patients (1703) were accrued between March 1992 and February 1995 in a large-scale clinical trial within five Italian cooperative groups. After stratification for center, patients were randomized as follows: arm A, 5-fluorouracil [450 mg/m(2) intravenous (i.v.) bolus on days 1-5] and levamisole (150 mg orally for 3 days, every 14 days for 6 months) versus arm B, 6-S-leucovorin (100 mg/m(2) i.v. bolus on days 1-5) followed by 5-fluorouracil (370 mg/m(2) i.v. bolus on days 1-5), plus levamisole (as arm A), every 4 weeks for six cycles., Results: After a median follow-up of 6.4 years no significant difference was seen for either disease-free survival (58% versus 60%, not significant) or 5-year overall survival (68% versus 71%, not significant), respectively. Gastrointestinal toxicity (World Health Organization grade 3/4) was more frequent in arm B (8% versus 18%, not significant)., Conclusions: In this trial the schedules used showed no statistically significant differences in terms of disease-free survival or overall survival in the treatment of colorectal cancer.

Aims and Background: To determine the efficacy and safety of the FOLFOX 2 regimen in patients with pretreated advanced colorectal cancer., Methods: In this single-arm phase II study, 28 patients with heavily pretreated advanced colorectal cancer received the following drug combination: oxaliplatin (100 mg/m2 for 2 hrs on day 1), folinic acid (250 mg/m2 for 2 hrs on day 1) and 5-flluorouracil (1500 mg/m2 for 22 hrs continuous infusion on days 1 and 2) every 2 weeks (one cycle). The treatment was continued until unacceptable toxicity occurred or at most for 10 cycles., Results: Nine patients (32%) had a partial response and 5 (18%) stable disease, with a median duration of tumor control of 24 weeks (range, 8-44). The median survival of patients with a partial response or stable disease was 32 weeks (range, 12-52), whereas the median overall survival was 32 weeks (range, 8-72). A clinical benefit was achieved in 32% (9/21) of the patients. Severe (grade 3-4) non-hematological toxicity included diarrhea (1 patient), nausea/vomiting (7%) and peripheral neuropathy (1 patient). Severe hematological toxicities were rare (4%)., Conclusions: Our phase II study confirmed the therapeutic effectiveness and safety of the FOLFOX 2 regimen in pretreated advanced colorectal cancer patients.

Purpose: The object of our study was to apply percutaneous stop-flow technique to advanced pelvic cancer in order to evaluate its feasibility, standardize the procedure and obtain preliminary results., Material and Methods: April to December 1997 we submitted ten patients with advanced pelvic cancer to percutaneous stop-flow technique. Seven patients had a pelvic recurrence from carcinoma of the rectum, two patients had inoperable recto-sigmoid cancer, and another one had a local recurrence of ovarian cancer. All treatments were performed under general anesthesia. A stop-flow balloon catheter was placed via a transfemoral arterial and venous access above the aortocaval bifurcation and below the emergence of renal arteries and veins. The pelvic district was isolated by filling the balloon catheters and pneumatic cuffs at the thigh, and the antineoplastic agents (cisplatinum, 80 mg/m2 followed by mitomycin C, 30 mg/m2) were sequentially infused by means of an extracorporeal circuit. Blood flow was interrupted for a maximum of 20 min to limit tissue damage, especially of the anal sphincter. Hemofiltration was run during the last 3 min of stop-flow and in the following minutes, achieving at least 5 liters of ultrafiltration. Morphological response was evaluated by CT or MR scan performed prior to and 40 days after the treatment., Results: Over a 2-year follow-up 2 of our 10 patients are alive and 8/10 have died (median survival 9.6 months). Death followed tumor progression in 6 cases; one patient died during the procedure and another one after 7 days, both secondary to pulmonary embolism. Complications included intra-arterial rupture of the balloon in one case and a large inguinal hematoma 10 days after the treatment, requiring hospitalization. No patient showed positive morphological response; two patients only showed stable disease., Conclusions: This trial supports the feasibility of using the percutaneous stop-flow procedure in an angiography room setting; the stop-flow technique failed to permit the effective control of the tumors.

The objective of this trial was to evaluate the activity and tolerability of biomodulation of 5-fluorouracil by leucovorin, methotrexate, and platinum in patients with advanced measurable disease. Thirty-five patients with histologically or cytologically proven adenocarcinoma of the pancreas were treated with methotrexate (100 mg/m2 in 500 ml 5% dextrose in a 2-hour infusion, day 1), 5-fluorouracil (800 mg/m2/day, i.v. in continuous infusion from days 2 to 5) plus 1-leucovorin (7.5 mg/m2 given per os every 6 hours, from days 2 to 5) and platinum (60 mg/m2 i.v., day 2), every 28 days. Four partial responses (12%; exact 95% confidence interval: 1-23%) were obtained in 34 evaluable patients with a median survival time of 49 weeks (range, 20-77 weeks). Ten (29%) of 34 patients had stable disease. Median time to treatment failure from the beginning of therapy was 11 weeks (range, 4-59 weeks) and median survival time was 20 weeks (range, 4-77 weeks). The most common grade III-IV toxicities were diarrhea (15%), stomatitis (41%), and vomiting (17%). Hematologic toxicity was mild. There were no therapy-related deaths. In conclusion, this trial did not report an increase or improvement in response rate and survival rates, and this regimen cannot be recommended as effective therapy for advanced pancreatic cancer.

Patients with histologically confirmed advanced colorectal cancer were randomized to receive folinic acid (FA; 500 mg/mq in 2-hour intravenous infusion) and 5-fluorouracil (5FU; 600 mg/mq given as an intravenous bolus 1 hour after FA), beginning every week for 6 weeks, followed by a 2-week rest period, either without hydroxyurea (HU, arm A) or with HU (35 mg/kg per day) given orally in three administrations (every 8 hours) starting 6 hours after 5FU administration (arm B). Six weekly doses were considered one course. One hundred eighty-two patients were randomized in this trial and 162 (89%) were evaluable for response: 81 patients in arm A and 81 patients in arm B. Objective response was observed in 18 (one complete response and 17 partial responses) of 81 evaluable patients (22%; 95% confidence interval, 13-31%) in arm A, and 24 (nine complete responses and 15 partial responses) of 81 patients (30%; 95% confidence interval, 20-40%) in arm B. There was no difference in terms of median time to progression and median survival. Gastrointestinal toxicity was the most frequently observed toxicity in both arms. The double modulation of 5FU, FA plus HU does not appear to be better than the classic 5FU plus FA schedule. This trial confirms that 5FU and FA reached a plateau of 20% to 30%.

Purpose: The combination of cisplatin, epirubicin, and leucovorin preceding fluorouracil (PELF) includes three novel agents compared with the standard combination of fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and mitomycin (FAM) in the treatment of advanced gastric carcinoma. We report the results of a prospective randomized comparison of the two combinations in previously untreated patients., Patients and Methods: One hundred thirty assessable patients were entered onto the trial; 52 received FAM and 85 PELF. A 1:2 unbalanced randomization in favor of the experimental treatment was chosen. Approximately 90% of patients had measurable tumor masses., Results: The overall response rates (complete responses [CRs] and partial responses [PRs]) were 15% and 43% for the FAM and the PELF regimens, respectively, with a statistically significant advantage for the experimental treatment (P = .001). Time to progression (median, 2.6 and 4.7 months), duration of response (median, 10.7 and 10.2 months), and survival durations (median, 5.6 and 8.1 months) were not significantly different between the FAM and PELF regimens, respectively. The PELF combination was more toxic compared with FAM, but generally tolerable., Conclusion: This study showed that the PELF combination is about three times more effective than the FAM combination in inducing objective responses. Due to tolerability, it is not recommended for routine clinical use. However, it should be considered, among other second-generation chemotherapy combinations, in future randomized studies aimed to improve the therapeutic outcome in gastric carcinoma.