Search

Metastatic colorectal cancer; Renal impairment; Safety Cáncer colorrectal metastásico; Insuficiencia renal; Seguridad Càncer colorectal metastàtic; Insuficiència renal; Seguretat Background Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) showed clinical benefit, including improved survival and manageable safety in previously treated patients with metastatic colorectal (mCRC) or gastric/gastroesophageal junction (mGC/GEJC) cancer in the phase III RECOURSE and TAGS trials, respectively. A pooled analysis was conducted to further characterize FTD/TPI safety, including management of haematologic toxicities and use in patients with renal or hepatic impairment. Patients and methods Adults with ≥2 prior regimens for advanced mGC/GEJC or mCRC were randomized (2 : 1) to FTD/TPI [35 mg/m2 twice daily days 1-5 and 8-12 (28-day cycle); same dosage in both trials] or placebo plus best supportive care. Adverse events (AEs) were summarized in the safety population (patients who received ≥1 dose) and analysed by renal/hepatic function. Results TAGS and RECOURSE included 335 and 533 FTD/TPI-treated and 168 and 265 placebo-treated patients, respectively. Overall safety of FTD/TPI was similar in TAGS and RECOURSE. Haematologic (neutropenia, anaemia) and gastrointestinal (nausea, diarrhoea) AEs were most commonly observed. Laboratory-assessed grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 37% (TAGS)/38% (RECOURSE) of FTD/TPI-treated patients (median onset: 29 days/55 days), and 96% (TAGS)/97% (RECOURSE) of cases resolved regardless of renal/hepatic function. Supportive medications for neutropenia were received by 17% (TAGS) and 9% (RECOURSE); febrile neutropenia was reported in 2% and 4%, respectively. Overall grade ≥3 AEs were more frequent in patients with moderate renal impairment [81% (TAGS); 85% (RECOURSE)] versus normal renal function (74%; 67%); anaemia and neutropenia were more common in patients with renal impairment. FTD/TPI safety (including haematologic AEs) was consistent across patients with normal and mildly impaired hepatic function. Conclusions These results support FTD/TPI as a well-tolerated treatment in patients with mGC/GEJC or mCRC, with a consistent safety profile. Safety was largely similar in patients with normal or mildly impaired renal/hepatic function; however, patients with renal impairment should be monitored for haematologic toxicities. This work was supported by Taiho Oncology, Inc. and Taiho Pharmaceutical (no grant number). This analysis was funded by Taiho Oncology, Inc. Professional medical writing and editorial assistance were provided by Vasupradha Vethantham, Meredith Kalish, and Jennifer L. Robertson at Ashfield MedComms, an Inizio company, funded by Taiho Oncology, Inc.

Background In the randomised phase III KEYNOTE-062 study, pembrolizumab was non-inferior to chemotherapy for overall survival in patients with programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1)-positive [combined positive score (CPS) ≥1] advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) cancer. We present findings of prespecified health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) analyses for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy in this population. Materials and methods HRQOL, a secondary endpoint, was measured in patients who received ≥1 dose of study treatment and completed ≥1 HRQOL questionnaire [European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) 30-question quality-of-life (QLQ-C30), EORTC 22-question quality-of-life gastric-cancer-specific module (QLQ-STO22)]. Least squares mean (LSM) change (baseline to week 18) in global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL; EORTC QLQ-C30) and time to deterioration (TTD) in GHS/QOL, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss scores (EORTC QLQ-C30) and abdominal pain/discomfort scores (EORTC QLQ-STO22) were evaluated. Results The HRQOL population comprised 495 patients with CPS ≥1 (pembrolizumab, 252; chemotherapy, 243). Compliance rates at week 18 were similar for pembrolizumab and chemotherapy (EORTC QLQ-C30, 87.9% and 81.9%; EORTC QLQ-STO22, 87.9% and 81.3%, respectively). There was no between-arm difference in LSM score change in GHS/QOL [−0.16; 95% confidence interval (CI) −5.01 to 4.69; P = 0.948]. The LSM score change for most subscales showed comparable worsening in both arms. TTD for GHS/QOL [hazard ratio (HR), 0.96; 95% CI, 0.67-1.38; P = 0.826], appetite loss (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.58-1.20; P = 0.314) and pain (HR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.78-1.91; P = 0.381) were similar between arms. Longer TTD was observed for pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for nausea/vomiting (HR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.44-0.85; P = 0.003). Conclusions HRQOL was maintained with first-line treatment with pembrolizumab in patients with PD-L1–positive advanced gastric/GEJ cancer and was similar between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in this population., Highlights • HRQOL was similar between pembrolizumab and chemotherapy in patients with PD-L1-positive advanced gastric/GEJ cancer. • General HRQOL as measured by QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL scores was comparable between treatment arms from baseline to week 18. • The EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale was also equivalent between arms from baseline to week 18.

The most recent version of the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) Clinical Practice Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of gastric cancer (GC) was published in 2016, and covered the management and treatment of local, locoregional, locally advanced and metastatic disease. At the ESMO Asia Meeting in November 2017 it was decided by both ESMO and The Japanese Society of Medical Oncology (JSMO) to convene a special guidelines meeting immediately after the JSMO Annual Meeting in 2018. The aim was to adapt the ESMO 2016 guidelines to take into account the ethnic differences associated with the treatment of metastatic GC in Asian patients. These guidelines represent the consensus opinions reached by experts in the treatment of patients with metastatic GC representing the oncological societies of Japan (JSMO), China (CSCO), Korea (KSMO), Malaysia (MOS), Singapore (SSO) and Taiwan (TOS). The voting was based on scientific evidence and was independent of both the current treatment practices and the drug availability and reimbursement situations in the individual participating Asian countries.

Colorectal cancer; Encorafenib; Quality of life Cáncer colorrectal; Encorafenib; Calidad de vida Càncer colorectal; Encorafenib; Qualitat de vida Background In the BEACON CRC study (NCT02928224), encorafenib plus cetuximab with binimetinib {9.3 versus 5.9 months; hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.60 [0.47-0.75]} or without binimetinib [9.3 versus 5.9 months; HR (95% CI): 0.61 (0.48-0.77)] significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with the previous standard of care (control) in patients with BRAF V600E metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Quality of life (QoL) was a secondary endpoint, assessed using validated instruments. Patients and methods BEACON CRC was a randomized, open-label, phase III study comparing encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib and the investigator’s choice of irinotecan plus cetuximab or FOLFIRI plus cetuximab (chemotherapy control) in patients with previously treated BRAF V600E mCRC. Patient-reported QoL assessments included the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Colorectal (FACT-C). The primary outcome for these tools was time to definitive 10% deterioration. Results Encorafenib plus cetuximab, both with and without binimetinib, was associated with longer median times to definitive 10% deterioration versus the control group in the EORTC Global Health Status scale [HR (95% CI): 0.65 (0.52-0.80) versus 0.61 (0.49-0.75), respectively] and the FACT-C functional well-being subscale [HR (95% CI): 0.62 (0.50-0.76) versus 0.58 (0.47-0.72), respectively]. Consistent results were observed across all subscales of the EORTC and FACT-C instruments. QoL was generally maintained during treatment for the global EORTC and FACT-C scales. Conclusions In addition to improving OS, encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib delays QoL decline in previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC. This study was sponsored by Array BioPharma Inc, which was acquired by Pfizer, United States; National Cancer Institute, United States in July 2019. This work was also supported by the Cancer Center Core Grant [grant number P30 CA 008748] to Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Qualitat de vida relacionada amb la salut; Olaparib; Càncer de pàncrees Calidad de vida relacionada con la salud; Olaparib, Cáncer de páncreas Health-related quality of life; Olaparib; Pancreatic cancer Background Patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer often have a detriment in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In the randomized, double-blind, phase III POLO trial progression-free survival was significantly longer with maintenance olaparib, a poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, than placebo in patients with a germline BRCA1 and/or BRCA2 mutation (gBRCAm) and metastatic pancreatic cancer whose disease had not progressed during first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. The prespecified HRQoL evaluation is reported here. Patients and methods Patients were randomized to receive maintenance olaparib (300 mg b.i.d.; tablets) or placebo. HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item module at baseline, every 4 weeks until disease progression, at discontinuation, and 30 days after last dose. Scores ranged from 0 to 100; a ≥10-point change or difference between arms was considered clinically meaningful. Adjusted mean change from baseline was analysed using a mixed model for repeated measures. Time to sustained clinically meaningful deterioration (TSCMD) was analysed using a log-rank test. Results Of 154 randomized patients, 89 of 92 olaparib-arm and 58 of 62 placebo-arm patients were included in HRQoL analyses. The adjusted mean change in Global Health Status (GHS) score from baseline was

BACKGROUND: RATIONALE 302 (NCT03430843) an open-label, phase III study of second-line treatment of advanced/metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), reported that tislelizumab, relative to investigator-chosen chemotherapy (ICC), was associated with improvements in overall survival and a favorable safety profile. This study assessed the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and ESCC-related symptoms of patients in RATIONALE 302. METHODS: Adults with advanced/metastatic ESCC whose disease progressed following prior systemic therapy were randomized 1 : 1 to receive either tislelizumab or ICC (paclitaxel, docetaxel, or irinotecan). HRQoL was measured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 items (EORTC QLQ-C30), the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire Oesophageal Cancer Module 18 items (QLQ-OES18), and the EuroQoL Five-Dimensions Five-Levels (EQ-5D-5L) visual analogue scale. Mixed effect modeling for repeated measurements examined changes from baseline to weeks 12 and 18. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to examine time to deterioration. RESULTS: Overall, 512 patients were randomized to tislelizumab (n = 256) or ICC (n = 256). The tislelizumab arm maintained QLQ-C30 global health status/quality whereas the ICC arm worsened at week 12 {difference in least square (LS) mean change: 5.8 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.0-9.5], P = 0.0028} and week 18 [difference in LS mean change: 8.1 (95% CI: 3.4-12.8), P = 0.0008]. Physical functioning (week 18) and fatigue (weeks 12 and 18) worsened less in the tislelizumab compared with the ICC arm. The tislelizumab arm improved in reflux symptoms, whereas the ICC worsened at week 12 [difference in LS mean change: -4.1 (95% CI: -7.6 to -0.6), P = 0.0229]. The visual analogue scale remained consistent in the tislelizumab arm whereas it worsened in the ICC arm. The hazard of time to deterioration was lower in tislelizumab patients compared with ICC for physical functioning and reflux. CONCLUSIONS: HRQoL, including fatigue symptoms and physical functioning, was maintained in patients with advanced or metastatic ESCC receiving tislelizumab compared with ICC-treated patients. These results provide additional support for the benefits of tislelizumab in this patient population. ispartof: ESMO OPEN vol:7 issue:4 ispartof: location:England status: published

Carcinoma colorrectal; Ramucirumab; BRAF Carcinoma colorrectal; Ramucirumab; BRAF Colorectal carcinoma; Ramucirumab; BRAF Background Second-line treatment with ramucirumab+FOLFIRI improved overall survival (OS) versus placebo+FOLFIRI for patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (CRC) [hazard ratio (HR)=0.84, 95% CI 0.73–0.98, P = 0.022]. Post hoc analyses of RAISE patient data examined the association of RAS/RAF mutation status and the anatomical location of the primary CRC tumour (left versus right) with efficacy parameters. Patients and methods Patient tumour tissue was classified as BRAF mutant, KRAS/NRAS (RAS) mutant, or RAS/BRAF wild-type. Left-CRC was defined as the splenic flexure, descending and sigmoid colon, and rectum; right-CRC included transverse, ascending colon, and cecum. Results RAS/RAF mutation status was available for 85% of patients (912/1072) and primary tumour location was known for 94.4% of patients (1012/1072). A favourable and comparable ramucirumab treatment effect was observed for patients with RAS mutations (OS HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.71–1.04) and patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type tumours (OS HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.64–1.14). Among the 41 patients with BRAF-mutated tumours, the ramucirumab benefit was more notable (OS HR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.25–1.13), although, as with the other genetic sub-group analyses, differences were not statistically significant. Progression-free survival (PFS) data followed the same trend. Treatment-by-mutation status interaction tests (OS P = 0.523, PFS P = 0.655) indicated that the ramucirumab benefit was not statistically different among the mutation sub-groups, although the small sample size of the BRAF group limited the analysis. Addition of ramucirumab to FOLFIRI improved left-CRC median OS by 2.5 month over placebo (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.68–0.97); median OS for ramucirumab-treated patients with right-CRC was 1.1 month over placebo (HR = 0.97, 95% CI 0.75–1.26). The treatment-by-sub-group interaction was not statistically significant for tumour sidedness (P = 0.276). Conclusions In the RAISE study, the addition of ramucirumab to FOLFIRI improved patient outcomes, regardless of RAS/RAF mutation status, and tumour sidedness. Ramucirumab treatment provided a numerically substantial benefit in BRAF-mutated tumours, although the P-values were not statistically significant. This work was supported by Eli Lilly and Company. No grant number is applicable.

BACKGROUND: Angiogenesis is critical to colorectal cancer (CRC) growth and metastasis. Phase I/II studies have demonstrated the efficacy of nintedanib, a triple angiokinase inhibitor, in patients with metastatic CRC. This global, randomized, phase III study investigated the efficacy and safety of nintedanib in patients with refractory CRC after failure of standard therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, with histologically/cytologically confirmed metastatic/locally advanced CRC adenocarcinoma unamenable to surgery and/or radiotherapy) were randomized 1 : 1 to receive nintedanib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo (twice daily), until disease progression or undue toxicity. Patients were stratified by previous regorafenib, time from onset of metastatic disease to randomization, and region. Co-primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by central review. Secondary end points included objective tumor response and disease control by central review. RESULTS: From October 2014 to January 2016, 768 patients were randomized; 765 were treated (nintedanib n = 384; placebo n = 381). Median follow-up was 13.4 months (interquartile range 11.1-15.7). OS was not improved [median OS 6.4 months with nintedanib versus 6.0 months with placebo; hazard ratio (HR), 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.86-1.19; P = 0.8659]. There was a significant but modest increase in PFS with nintedanib versus placebo (median PFS 1.5 versus 1.4 months, respectively; HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.49-0.69; P

Background and Aim: REGARD and RAINBOW were global, phase 3, randomized, double-blind trials of second-line ramucirumab for metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Exploratory subgroup analyses were described to assess the efficacy and safety of ramucirumab in REGARD and RAINBOW in young (≤45 and

Background: Patients with advanced midgut neuroendocrine tumors who have had disease progression during first-line somatostatin analogue therapy have limited therapeutic options. This randomized, controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lutetium-177 ((177)Lu)-Dotatate in patients with advanced, progressive, somatostatin-receptor-positive midgut neuroendocrine tumors. Methods: We randomly assigned 229 patients who had well-differentiated, metastatic midgut neuroendocrine tumors to receive either (177)Lu-Dotatate (116 patients) at a dose of 7.4 GBq every 8 weeks (four intravenous infusions, plus best supportive care including octreotide long-acting repeatable [LAR] administered intramuscularly at a dose of 30 mg) ((177)Lu-Dotatate group) or octreotide LAR alone (113 patients) administered intramuscularly at a dose of 60 mg every 4 weeks (control group). The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included the objective response rate, overall survival, safety, and the side-effect profile. The final analysis of overall survival will be conducted in the future as specified in the protocol; a prespecified interim analysis of overall survival was conducted and is reported here. Results: At the data-cutoff date for the primary analysis, the estimated rate of progression-free survival at month 20 was 65.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 50.0 to 76.8) in the (177)Lu-Dotatate group and 10.8% (95% CI, 3.5 to 23.0) in the control group. The response rate was 18% in the (177)Lu-Dotatate group versus 3% in the control group (PConclusions: Treatment with (177)Lu-Dotatate resulted in markedly longer progression-free survival and a significantly higher response rate than high-dose octreotide LAR among patients with advanced midgut neuroendocrine tumors. Preliminary evidence of an overall survival benefit was seen in an interim analysis; confirmation will be required in the planned final analysis. Clinically significant myelosuppression occurred in less than 10% of patients in the (177)Lu-Dotatate group. (Funded by Advanced Accelerator Applications; NETTER-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01578239 ; EudraCT number 2011-005049-11 .).

Liver metastases in colorectal cancer patients decreases the expected 5 year survival rates by a factor close to nine. It is generally accepted that resection of liver metastases should be attempted whenever feasible. This manuscript addresses the optimal therapeutic plan regarding timing of resection of synchronous liver metastases and the use of chemotherapy in combination with resection of synchronous metachronous liver metastases. The aim is to pool all published results in order to attribute a level of evidence to outcomes and identify lacking evidence areas. A systematic search of guidelines, reviews, randomised controlled, observational studies and updating a meta-analysis was performed. Data were extracted and analysed. Data failed to demonstrate an effect of timing of surgery or use of chemotherapy on overall survival. Concomitant resection of liver metastases and the primary tumour may result in lower postoperative morbidity. Systemic peri-operative chemotherapy may improve progression free survival compared to surgery alone.

ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Liver and Other Distant Metastases from Neuroendocrine Neoplasms of Foregut, Midgut, Hindgut, and Unknown Primary

a Division of Hepatology and Gastroenterology, Department of Internal Medicine, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charite-Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Berlin , Germany; b Department of Pathology, Universitatsspital, Zurich , Switzerland; c Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna , Austria; d Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Hadassah University Hospital, Jerusalem , Israel; e Department of Internal Medicine, Philipps University, Marburg , Germany; f Hopital Sirio Libanes, Centro de Oncologia, Sao Paulo , Brazil; g Department of Radiology, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charite, University Medicine Berlin, Berlin , Germany; h Department of Oncology, Institut Catala d’Oncologia (IDIBELL), Barcelona , Spain; i Oxford Centre for Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolism, Churchill Hospital, University of Oxford, Oxford , UK

Many management strategies exist for neuroendocrine liver metastases. These strategies range from surgery to ablation with various interventional radiology procedures, and include both regional and systemic therapy with diverse biological, cytotoxic, or targeted agents. A paucity of biological, molecular, and genomic information and an absence of data from rigorous trials limit the validity of many publications detailing management. This Review represents the views from an international conference, for which 15 expert working groups prepared evidence-based assessments addressing specific questions, and from which an independent jury derived final recommendations. The aim of the conference was to review the existing approaches to neuroendocrine liver metastases, assess the evidence on which management decisions were based, develop internationally acceptable recommendations for clinical practice (when evidence was available), and make recommendations for clinical and research endeavours. This report represents the final clinical statements and proposals for future research. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.

BACKGROUND: The mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway has been implicated in the molecular pathogenesis of human cancers, including metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This provides a rationale for the development of MAPK-targeted agents such as pimasertib. METHODS: Patients with KRAS mutant mCRC were treated in the second-line setting with FOLFIRI (5-fluorouracil/folinic acid/irinotecan) plus pimasertib. The primary objective of the safety run-in phase was to determine the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) and the recommended phase II dose of pimasertib combined with FOLFIRI. RESULTS: Sixteen patients were enrolled in the trial. Ten and six patients were treated daily with 45 and 60 mg of pimasertib plus FOLFIRI, respectively. The MTD was considered to be 45 mg per day. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events were diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting, asthenia and skin/rash event. Of the 15 patients in the efficacy analysis group, two patients had partial response, nine patients had stable disease, three patients had progressive disease as their best overall response and one patient could not be evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: Dose escalation of pimasertib in combination with FOLFIRI was limited by toxicity. At the MTD of 45 mg per day, pimasertib was adequately tolerated in patients with mCRC and no unexpected or new safety signals or concerns were identified. ispartof: British Journal of Cancer vol:112 issue:12 pages:1874-1881 ispartof: location:England status: published

a Department of Gastroenterology, Beaujon Hospital, Clichy , France; b Department of Oncology, Institut Catala d’Oncologia, Barcelona , Spain; c Department of Surgery, Verona University, Verona , Italy; d Department of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Genimatas Hospital, Athens , Greece; e Department of Gastroenterology, Beaujon Hospital, Clichy , France; f Department of Endocrinology, Erasmus MC University, Rotterdam , The Netherlands; g Department of Internal Medicine, Martin University, Martin , Slovakia; h Department of Propaedeutic Internal Medicine, Laiko Hospital, Athens , Greece; i Department of Nuclear Medicine, Erasmus MC University, Rotterdam , The Netherlands; j Department of Gastroenterology, Beaujon Hospital, Clichy , France; k Department of Gastroenterology, Royal Free Hospital, London , UK; l Department of Cell Biology, National Institute of Health, Bethesda, Md. , USA; m Department of Endocrinology, University Hospital, Uppsala , Sweden

IF 2.719; International audience; The management of GOJ cancers remains controversial and may vary between countries. Evidence-based attitudes and guidelines are not easy to elaborate since most of the trials and studies reported mixed cases of oesophageal (both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell tumours), GOJ and gastric cancers. The aim of this expert discussion and position paper is to elaborate practical recommendations that integrate evidence-reported literature and experience-based attitude covering all clinical aspects of GOJ cancer across different specialities and countries in Europe.Opinion leaders, selected on scientific merit were asked to answer to a prepared set of questions covering the approach of GOJ tumours from definition to therapeutic strategies. All answers were then discussed during a plenary session and reported here in providing a well-balanced reflection of both clinical expertise and updated evidence-based medicine.Definition, classification, diagnosis and staging of GOJ tumours were updated and debated. Therapeutic aspects including endoscopic therapy, surgical management, both multimodal curative and palliative management were also reviewed for proposing practical and consensual positions and recommendations whenever possible.GOJ tumours deserve specific attention,not only for uniformising clinical management across countries but also for performing specific clinical and translational research,mainly in the curative perioperative setting.

The RAISE phase III trial demonstrated ramucirumab + FOLFIRI improved survival compared with placebo + FOLFIRI for second-line metastatic colorectal carcinoma patients previously treated with first-line bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine. Analyses reported here found similar efficacy and safety in patients regardless of KRAS mutational status, time to first-line progression, and age., Background The RAISE phase III clinical trial demonstrated that ramucirumab + FOLFIRI improved overall survival (OS) [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.844, P = 0.0219] and progression-free survival (PFS) (HR = 0.793, P < 0.0005) compared with placebo + FOLFIRI for second-line metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC) patients previously treated with first-line bevacizumab, oxaliplatin, and a fluoropyrimidine. Since some patient or disease characteristics could be associated with differential efficacy or safety, prespecified subgroup analyses were undertaken. This report focuses on three of the most relevant ones: KRAS status (wild-type versus mutant), age (

Effective systemic therapies for patients with advanced, progressive neuroendocrine tumours of the lung or gastrointestinal tract are scarce. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of everolimus compared with placebo in this patient population.In the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 RADIANT-4 trial, adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with advanced, progressive, well-differentiated, non-functional neuroendocrine tumours of lung or gastrointestinal origin were enrolled from 97 centres in 25 countries worldwide. Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio by an interactive voice response system to receive everolimus 10 mg per day orally or identical placebo, both with supportive care. Patients were stratified by tumour origin, performance status, and previous somatostatin analogue treatment. Patients, investigators, and the study sponsor were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival assessed by central radiology review, analysed by intention to treat. Overall survival was a key secondary endpoint. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01524783.Between April 3, 2012, and Aug 23, 2013, a total of 302 patients were enrolled, of whom 205 were allocated to everolimus 10 mg per day and 97 to placebo. Median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 9·2-13·3) in the everolimus group and 3·9 months (3·6-7·4) in the placebo group. Everolimus was associated with a 52% reduction in the estimated risk of progression or death (hazard ratio [HR] 0·48 [95% CI 0·35-0·67], p0·00001). Although not statistically significant, the results of the first pre-planned interim overall survival analysis indicated that everolimus might be associated with a reduction in the risk of death (HR 0·64 [95% CI 0·40-1·05], one-sided p=0·037, whereas the boundary for statistical significance was 0·0002). Grade 3 or 4 drug-related adverse events were infrequent and included stomatitis (in 18 [9%] of 202 patients in the everolimus group vs 0 of 98 in the placebo group), diarrhoea (15 [7%] vs 2 [2%]), infections (14 [7%] vs 0), anaemia (8 [4%] vs 1 [1%]), fatigue (7 [3%] vs 1 [1%]), and hyperglycaemia (7 [3%] vs 0).Treatment with everolimus was associated with significant improvement in progression-free survival in patients with progressive lung or gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumours. The safety findings were consistent with the known side-effect profile of everolimus. Everolimus is the first targeted agent to show robust anti-tumour activity with acceptable tolerability across a broad range of neuroendocrine tumours, including those arising from the pancreas, lung, and gastrointestinal tract.Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation.

Summary Background Surgical resection alone is regarded as the standard of care for patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer, but relapse is common. We assessed the combination of perioperative chemotherapy and surgery compared with surgery alone for patients with initially resectable liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Methods This parallel-group study reports the trial's final data for progression-free survival for a protocol unspecified interim time-point, while overall survival is still being monitored. 364 patients with histologically proven colorectal cancer and up to four liver metastases were randomly assigned to either six cycles of FOLFOX4 before and six cycles after surgery or to surgery alone (182 in perioperative chemotherapy group vs 182 in surgery group). Patients were centrally randomised by minimisation, adjusting for centre and risk score. The primary objective was to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·71 or less for progression-free survival. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. Analyses were repeated for all eligible (171 vs 171) and resected patients (151 vs 152). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00006479. Findings In the perioperative chemotherapy group, 151 (83%) patients were resected after a median of six (range 1–6) preoperative cycles and 115 (63%) patients received a median six (1–8) postoperative cycles. 152 (84%) patients were resected in the surgery group. The absolute increase in rate of progression-free survival at 3 years was 7·3% (from 28·1% [95·66% CI 21·3–35·5] to 35·4% [28·1–42·7]; HR 0·79 [0·62–1·02]; p=0·058) in randomised patients; 8·1% (from 28·1% [21·2–36·6] to 36·2% [28·7–43·8]; HR 0·77 [0·60–1·00]; p=0·041) in eligible patients; and 9·2% (from 33·2% [25·3–41·2] to 42·4% [34·0–50·5]; HR 0·73 [0·55–0·97]; p=0·025) in patients undergoing resection. 139 patients died (64 in perioperative chemotherapy group vs 75 in surgery group). Reversible postoperative complications occurred more often after chemotherapy than after surgery (40/159 [25%] vs 27/170 [16%]; p=0·04). After surgery we recorded two deaths in the surgery alone group and one in the perioperative chemotherapy group. Interpretation Perioperative chemotherapy with FOLFOX4 is compatible with major liver surgery and reduces the risk of events of progression-free survival in eligible and resected patients. Funding Swedish Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, US National Cancer Institute, Sanofi-Aventis.

Microsatellite instability (MSI) accounts for 15% of all colorectal tumours. Several specific clinicopathologicals (e.g. preference for the proximal colon over the distal colon, improved prognosis and altered response to chemotherapeutics) are described for this subset of tumours. This study aimed to analyse morphological, inflammatory and angiogenic features of MSI vs microsatellite stable (MSS) tumours., SCOPUS: ar.j, info:eu-repo/semantics/published

Pancreatic endocrine tumors (p-NETs) include both pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (p-NETs) associated with a functional syndrome (functional p-NETs) or those associated with no distinct clinical syndrome (non-functional p-NETs) [1,2,3,4]. Non-functional p-NETs frequently secrete pancreatic polypeptide, chromogranin A, neuron-specific enolase, human chorionic gonadotrophin subunits, calcitonin, neurotensin or other peptides, but they do not usually produce specific symptoms and thus are considered clinically to be non-functional tumors [2,3,5,6,7]. Only the functional p-NETs will be considered in this section. The two most common functional p-NETs (gastrinomas, insulinomas) are considered separately, whereas the other well-described and possible rare functional p-NETs are considered together as a group called rare functional p-NETs (RFTs) (table ​(table1)1) [1,2,3,4]. Table 1 Functional pancreatic endocrine tumor (PET) syndromes Gastrinomas are neuroendocrine neoplasms, usually located in the duodenum or pancreas, that secrete gastrin and cause a clinical syndrome known as Zollinger-Ellison syndrome (ZES). ZES is characterized by gastric acid hypersecretion resulting in severe peptic disease (peptic ulcer disease (PUD), gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)) [8,9,10]. In this section, ZES due to both duodenal and pancreatic gastrinomas will be covered together because clinically they are similar [8,10]. Specific points related to gastrinomas associated with the genetic syndrome of Multiple Endocrine Neoplasia type 1 (MEN1) (25% of cases) will also be mentioned [11,12]. Insulinomas are neuroendocrine neoplasms located in the pancreas that secrete insulin, which causes a distinct syndrome characterized by symptoms due to hypoglycemia [2,13,14,15]. The symptoms are typically associated with fasting and the majority of patients have symptoms secondary to hypoglycemic central nervous system (CNS) effects (headaches, confusion, visual disturbances, etc.) or due to catecholamine excess secondary to hypoglycemia (sweating, tremor, palpitations, etc.) [2,3,13,14,15]. RFTs can occur in the pancreas or in other locations (VIPomas, somatostatinomas, GRHomas, ACTHomas, p-NETs causing carcinoid syndrome or hypercalcemia (PTHrp-omas)) (table ​(table1)1) [1,2,3,4,5,7]. Each of the established RFT syndromes is associated with a distinct clinical syndrome reflecting the actions of the ectopically secreted hormone. Other RFTs are listed as causing a possible specific syndrome either because there are too few cases or there is disagreement about whether the described features are actually a distinct syndrome (table ​(table1)1) [1,2,3,4,5,7].

ENETS Consensus Guidelines for the management of patients with digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms : colorectal neuroendocrine neoplasms

a Department of Digestive and Liver Disease, Ospedale Sant’Andrea, Rome , Italy; b Department of Oncology, Royal Free University UFR Bichat-Beaujon-Louis Mourier, Colombes , France; c Digestive Oncology, University Hospital Gasthuisberg/Leuven, Leuven , Belgium; d Institute of Pathology, Catholic University – Policlinic A. Gemelli, Rome , Italy; e Department of Endocrinology, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice , Poland; f Department of Surgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen , Denmark; g Department of Pathology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai , Japan; h Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology, St. Orsola Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna , Italy; i Institut Catala d’Oncologia (IDIBELL), Barcelona , Spain; j Department of Gastroenterology, Beaujon Hospital, Clichy , France

The article summarizes the expert discussion and recommendations on the use of molecular markers and of biological targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), as well as a proposed treatment decision strategy for mCRC treatment. The meeting was conducted during the 11th ESMO/World Gastrointestinal Cancer Congress (WGICC) in Barcelona in June 2009. The manuscript describes the outcome of an expert discussion leading to an expert recommendation. The increasing knowledge on clinical and molecular markers and the availability of biological targeted therapies have major implications in the optimal management in mCRC. Ann Oncol

KRAS testing is relevant for the choice of the most appropriate first-line therapy of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Strategies for preventing unequal access to the test should be implemented, but their relevance in the practice is related to economic sustainability. The study adopted the Delphi technique to reach a consensus on several topics. Issues related to execution of KRAS testing were identified by an expert's board and proposed to 108 Italian oncologists and pathologists through two subsequent questionnaires. The emerging proposal was evaluated by decision analyses models employed by technology assessment agencies in order to assess cost-effectiveness. Alternative therapeutic strategies included most commonly used chemotherapy regimens alone or in combination with cetuximab or bevacizumab. The survey indicated that time interval for obtaining KRAS test should not exceed 15 days, 10 days being an optimal interval. To assure the access to proper treatment, a useful strategy should be to anticipate the test after radical resection in patients at high risk of relapse. Early KRAS testing in high risk CRC patients generates incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between 6,000 and 13,000 Euro per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained. In extensive sensitivity analyses ICER's were always below 15,000 Euro per QALY gained, far within the threshold of 60,000 Euro/QALY gained accepted by regulatory institutions in Italy. In metastatic CRC a time interval higher than 15 days for result of KRAS testing limits access to therapeutic choices. Anticipating KRAS testing before the onset of metastatic disease in patients at high risk does not affect the sustainability and cost-effectiveness profile of cetuximab in first-line mCRC. Early KRAS testing may prevent this inequality in high-risk patients, whether they develop metastases, and is a cost-effective strategy. Based on these results, present joined recommendations of Italian societies of Oncology and Pathology should be updated including early KRAS testing. © 2014 Barone et al.

Background The ACCENT group previously established disease-free survival (DFS) with 2 or 3 years median follow-up to predict 5 year overall survival (5 year OS) in stage II and III colon cancer. ACCENT further proposed (1) a stronger association between DFS and OS in stage III than II, and (2) 6 or 7 years necessary to demonstrate DFS/OS surrogacy in recent trials. The relationship between end-points in trials with oral fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin and irinotecan is unknown. Methods Associations between the treatment effect hazard ratios (HRs) on 2 and 3 years DFS, and 5 and 6 years OS were examined in 6 phase III trials not included in prior analyses from 1997 to 2002. Individual data for 12,676 patients were analysed; two trials each tested oxaliplatin, irinotecan and oral treatment versus 5-FU/LV. Findings Overall association between 2/3 year DFS and 5/6 year OS HRs was modest to poor (simple R2 measures: 0.58–0.76, model-based R2: 0.17–0.49). In stage III patients, the association increased (model-based R2 ⩾ 0.79). Observed treatment effects on 2 year DFS accurately 5/6 year OS effects overall and in stage III patients. Interpretation In recent trials of cytotoxic chemotherapy, 2 or 3 years DFS HRs are highly predictive of 5 and 6 years OS HRs in stage III but not stage II patients. In all patients the DFS/OS association is stronger for 6 year OS, thus at least 6 year follow-up is recommended to assess OS benefit. These data support DFS as the primary end-point for stage III colon cancer trials testing cytotoxic agents.

ENETS consensus guidelines for the management of brain, cardiac and ovarian metastases from neuroendocrine tumors

International audience; BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: During the first decade of the 21st century a number of important European randomized studies were published. In order to help shape clinical practice based on best scientific evidence from the literature, the International Conference on 'Multidisciplinary Rectal Cancer Treatment: Looking for an European Consensus' (EURECA-CC2) was organized in Italy under the endorsement of European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), and European Society of Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO). METHODS: Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. The document was available to all Committee members as a web-based document customized for the consensus process. Eight chapters were identified: epidemiology, diagnostics, pathology, surgery, radiotherapy and chemotherapy, treatment toxicity and quality of life, follow-up, and research questions. Each chapter was subdivided by a topic, and a series of statements were developed. Each member commented and voted, sentence by sentence thrice. Sentences upon which an agreement was not reached after voting round # 2 were openly debated during a Consensus Conference in Perugia (Italy) from 11 December to 13 December 2008. A hand-held televoting system collected the opinions of both the Committee members and the audience after each debate. The Executive Committee scored percentage consensus based on three categories: "large consensus", "moderate consensus", and "minimum consensus". RESULTS: The total number of the voted sentences was 207. Of the 207, 86% achieved large consensus, 13% achieved moderate consensus, and only 3 (1%) resulted in minimum consensus. No statement was disagreed by more than 50% of the members. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the members, and the majority was voted on by >85%. CONCLUSIONS: This Consensus Conference represents an expertise opinion process that may help shape future programs, investigational protocols, and guidelines for staging and treatment of rectal cancer throughout Europe.

The past 5 years have seen the clear recognition that the administration of chemotherapy to patients with initially unresectable colorectal liver metastases can increase the number of patients who can undergo potentially curative secondary liver resection. Coupled with this, recent data have emerged that show that perioperative chemotherapy confers a disease-free survival advantage over surgery alone in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients with initially resectable liver disease. The purpose of this paper is to build on the existing knowledge and review the issues surrounding the use of chemotherapy +/- targeted agents combined with surgery in the treatment of CRC patients with liver metastases, with a view to providing clinical recommendations. An international panel of 21 experts in colorectal oncology comprising liver surgeons and medical oncologists reviewed the available evidence. In a major change to clinical practice, the panel's recommendation was that the majority of patients with CRC liver metastases should be treated up front with chemotherapy, irrespective of the initial resectability status of their metastases.

Phase III studies have shown irinotecan prolongs survival significantly when compared with either best supportive care or best infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy in patients with 5-FU-resistant colorectal cancer. Phase I/II studies are investigating the combination of irinotecan with 5-FU, with thymidylate synthase inhibitors, notably raltitrexed, and with the oral fluoropyrimidines. Preliminary results suggest irinotecan and raltitrexed can safely be combined in the clinic and that this combination is active. The combination of irinotecan with the oral fluoropyrimidines also has produced promising results. A phase I study of irinotecan plus 5-FU/folinic acid showed high activity in first-line metastatic disease and further trials using the doses of 80 mg/m2 irinotecan plus 2 g 5-FU weekly are recommended. The combination of irinotecan with the De Gramont 5-FU regimen is feasible and active in patients with 5-FU-resistant metastatic disease. Alternating exposure to irinotecan and 5-FU may be as active as either treatment alone, and has been associated with overall response rates (ORRs) greater than 30% and encouraging median survival. The combination of irinotecan with oxaliplatin is also feasible and levels of response rates are in the region of 50% (especially with a 2-weekly administration schedule). In patients with advanced gastric cancer (including those with pretreated disease) ORRs of around 50% have been reported following administration of either cisplatin plus irinotecan or cisplatin plus docetaxel.

Quality of health care is a hot topic, especially with regard to cancer. Although rectal cancer is, in many aspects, a model oncologic entity, there seem to be substantial differences in quality of care between countries, hospitals and physicians. PROCARE, a Belgian multidisciplinary national project to improve outcome in all patients with rectum cancer, identified a set of quality of care indicators covering all aspects of the management of rectal cancer. This set should permit national and international benchmarking, i.e. comparing results from individual hospitals or teams with national and international performances with feedback to participating teams. Such comparison could indicate whether further improvement is possible and/or warranted.

Colorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths worldwide, with a 5-year relative survival of 14% in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients with BRAF V600E mutations, which occur in ∼10%-15% of patients with mCRC, have a poorer prognosis compared with those with wild-type BRAF tumours. The combination of the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib with the epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor cetuximab currently represents the only chemotherapy-free targeted therapy approved in the USA and Europe for previously treated patients with BRAF V600E-mutated mCRC. As a class, BRAF inhibitors are associated with dermatologic, gastrointestinal, and renal events, as well as pyrexia and secondary skin malignancies. Adverse event (AE) profiles of specific BRAF inhibitors vary, however, and are affected by the specific agents given in combination. In patients with mCRC, commonly reported AEs of cetuximab monotherapy include infusion reactions and dermatologic toxicities. Data from the phase III BEACON CRC study indicate that the combination of encorafenib with cetuximab has a distinct safety profile. Here we review the most frequently reported AEs that occurred with this combination in BEACON CRC and best practices for managing and mitigating AEs that require more than standard supportive care., Highlights • Encorafenib + cetuximab has a distinct safety profile in patients with BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. • Effective management strategies can mitigate the impact of AEs, prolonging treatment duration and benefits. • We provide guidance on managing gastrointestinal, skin, and renal AEs. • Specific guidance is given for the management of arthralgia, myalgia, fatigue, asthenia, headache, and pyrexia.

PURPOSE BEACON CRC evaluated encorafenib plus cetuximab with or without binimetinib versus investigators' choice of irinotecan or FOLFIRI plus cetuximab in patients with BRAFV600E–mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), after progression on 1-2 prior regimens. In the previously reported primary analysis, encorafenib, binimetinib plus cetuximab (ENCO/BINI/CETUX; triplet) and encorafenib plus cetuximab (ENCO/CETUX; doublet) regimens improved overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR; by blinded central review) versus standard of care. The purpose of this analysis was to report updated efficacy and safety data. METHODS In this open-label, phase III trial, 665 patients with BRAF V600E–mutant mCRC were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive triplet, doublet, or control. Primary end points were OS and independently reviewed ORR comparing triplet to control. OS for doublet versus control was a key secondary end point. Updated analyses include 6 months of additional follow-up and ORR for all randomized patients. RESULTS Patients received triplet (n = 224), doublet (n = 220), or control (n = 221). Median OS was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.2 to 10.8) for triplet and 5.9 months (95% CI, 5.1 to 7.1) for control (hazard ratio [HR], 0.60 [95% CI, 0.47 to 0.75]). Median OS for doublet was 9.3 months (95% CI, 8.0 to 11.3) (HR v control, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.48 to 0.77]). Confirmed ORR was 26.8% (95% CI, 21.1% to 33.1%) for triplet, 19.5% (95% CI, 14.5% to 25.4%) for doublet, and 1.8% (95% CI, 0.5% to 4.6%) for control. Adverse events were consistent with the prior primary analysis, with grade ≥ 3 adverse events in 65.8%, 57.4%, and 64.2% for triplet, doublet, and control, respectively. CONCLUSION In the BEACON CRC study, encorafenib plus cetuximab improved OS, ORR, and progression-free survival in previously treated patients in the metastatic setting compared with standard chemotherapy. Based on the primary and updated analyses, encorafenib plus cetuximab is a new standard care regimen for previously treated patients with BRAF V600E mCRC.

Actividad antitumoral; Calidad de vida con cáncer; PARP Activitat antitumoral; Qualitat de vida amb càncer; PARP Antitumor activity; Quality of life with cancer; PARP BACKGROUND Patients with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation make up a small subgroup of those with metastatic pancreatic cancer. The poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib has had antitumor activity in this population. METHODS We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial to evaluate the efficacy of olaparib as maintenance therapy in patients who had a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and metastatic pancreatic cancer and disease that had not progressed during first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 3:2 ratio, to receive maintenance olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival, which was assessed by blinded independent central review. RESULTS Of the 3315 patients who underwent screening, 154 underwent randomization and were assigned to a trial intervention (92 to receive olaparib and 62 to receive placebo). The median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the placebo group (7.4 months vs. 3.8 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35 to 0.82; P=0.004). An interim analysis of overall survival, at a data maturity of 46%, showed no difference between the olaparib and placebo groups (median, 18.9 months vs. 18.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.46; P=0.68). There was no significant between-group difference in health-related quality of life, as indicated by the overall change from baseline in the global quality-of-life score (on a 100-point scale, with higher scores indicating better quality of life) based on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (between-group difference, −2.47 points; 95% CI, −7.27 to 2.33). The incidence of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 40% in the olaparib group and 23% in the placebo group (between-group difference, 16 percentage points; 95% CI, −0.02 to 31); 5% and 2% of the patients, respectively, discontinued the trial intervention because of an adverse event. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with a germline BRCA mutation and metastatic pancreatic cancer, progression-free survival was longer with maintenance olaparib than with placebo. Supported by AstraZeneca (as part of an alliance between AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck) and by a grant (P30-17 CA008748) from the National Institutes of Health National Cancer Institute Cancer Center.

Summary Background Since the 1990s, fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy has significantly reduced the risk of tumour recurrence in patients with stage III colon cancer. We aimed to assess whether the addition of cetuximab to standard adjuvant oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin chemotherapy (FOLFOX4) in patients with stage III colon cancer improved disease-free survival (DFS). Methods For this open-label, randomised phase 3 study done in nine European countries, we enrolled patients through an interactive voice response system to the central randomisation centre, with a central stratified permuted block randomisation procedure. We randomly assigned patients with resected (R0) stage III disease (1:1) to receive 12 cycles of FOLFOX4 twice a week with or without cetuximab. Patients were stratified by N-status (N1 vs N2), T-status (T1-3 vs T4), and obstruction or perforation status (no obstruction and no perforation vs obstruction or perforation or both). A protocol amendment (applied in June, 2008, after 2096 patients had been randomly assigned to treatment-restricted enrolment to patients with tumours wild-type at codons 12 and 13 in exon 2 of the KRAS gene ( KRAS exon 2 wild-type). The primary endpoint was DFS. Analysis was intention to treat in all patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours. The study is registered at EudraCT, number 2005-003463-23. Findings Between Dec 22, 2005, and Nov 5, 2009, 2559 patients from 340 sites in Europe were randomly assigned. Of these patients, 1602 had KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours (intention-to-treat population), 791 in the FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab group and 811 in the FOLFOX4 group. Median follow-up was 3·3 years (IQR 3·2–3·4). In the experimental and control groups, DFS was similar in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio [HR] 1·05; 95% CI 0·85–1·29; p=0·66), and in patients with KRAS exon 2/ BRAF wild-type (n=984, HR 0·99; 95% CI 0·76–1·28) or KRAS exon 2-mutated tumours (n=742, HR 1·06; 95% CI 0·82–1·37). We noted heterogeneous responses to the addition of cetuximab in preplanned subgroup analyses. Grade 3 or 4 acne-like rash (in 209 of 785 patients [27%] vs four of 805 [ vs 70 [9%]), mucositis (63 [8%] vs 10 [1%]), and infusion-related reactions (55 [7%] vs 30 [4%]) were more frequent in patients treated with FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab than in those patients who received FOLFOX4 alone. Interpretation The addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX4 did not improve DFS compared with FOLFOX4 alone in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type resected stage III colon cancer. This trial cannot conclude on the benefit of cetuximab in the studied population, but the heterogeneity of response suggests that further investigation of the role of FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab in specific patient subgroups is warranted. Funding Federation Francophone de Cancerologie Digestive (FFCD), Merck KGaA, and Sanofi-Aventis.

The number of cancer patients in Europe is rising and significant advances in basic and applied cancer research are making the provision of optimal care more challenging. The concept of cancer as a systemic, highly heterogeneous and complex disease has increased the awareness that quality cancer care should be provided by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) of highly qualified healthcare professionals. Cancer patients also have the right to benefit from medical progress by receiving optimal treatment from adequately trained and highly skilled medical professionals. Built on the highest standards of professional training and continuing medical education, medical oncology is recognised as an independent medical specialty in many European countries. Medical oncology is a core member of the MDT and offers cancer patients a comprehensive and systemic approach to treatment and care, while ensuring evidence-based, safe and cost-effective use of cancer drugs and preserving the quality of life of cancer patients through the entire 'cancer journey'. Medical oncologists are also engaged in clinical and translational research to promote innovation and new therapies and they contribute to cancer diagnosis, prevention and research, making a difference for patients in a dynamic, stimulating professional environment. Medical oncologists play an important role in shaping the future of healthcare through innovation and are also actively involved at the political level to ensure a maximum contribution of the profession to Society and to tackle future challenges. This position paper summarises the multifarious and vital contributions of medical oncology and medical oncologists to today's and tomorrow's professional cancer care.© The Author 2013.Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. 25 1 9 15

Standard-of-care for resectable gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer includes surgery and neoadjuvant-adjuvant 5-fluorouracil-leucovorin-oxaliplatin-docetaxel (FLOT) chemotherapy. Early-phase clinical studies support further clinical development of the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI); durvalumab, an anti-PD-L1 antibody, in patients with gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer. Accumulating evidence indicates that ICIs combined with FLOT chemotherapy improve clinical outcomes in patients with advanced or metastatic cancer. We describe the rationale for and the design of MATTERHORN, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III study investigating the efficacy and safety of neoadjuvant-adjuvant durvalumab and FLOT chemotherapy followed by adjuvant durvalumab monotherapy in patients with resectable gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer. The planned sample size is 900 patients, the primary end point is event-free survival and safety and tolerability will be evaluated. Clinical trial registration: NCT04592913 (ClinicalTrials.gov). ispartof: FUTURE ONCOLOGY vol:18 issue:20 pages:2465-2473 ispartof: location:England status: published

Background Therapeutic options are limited in patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. The use of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab (TT-B) in this setting was evaluated in the TASCO1 trial; here, we present the final overall survival (OS) results. Methods TASCO1 was an open-label, non-comparative phase II trial. Patients (n = 153) were randomised 1:1 to TT-B (trifluridine/tipiracil 35 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1–5 and 8–12, and bevacizumab intravenously 5 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle) or capecitabine plus bevacizumab (C-B; capecitabine, 1250 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1–14 and bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg intravenously on day 1 of each 21-day cycle). Final OS was analysed when all patients had either died or withdrawn from the study. Adjusted multivariate regression was used to investigate the effects of pre-specified variables on OS. Results At 1 September 2020, median OS was 22.3 months (95% CI: 18.0–23.7) with TT-B and 17.7 months (95% CI: 12.6–19.8) with C-B (adjusted HR 0.78; 95% CI: 0.55–1.10). No variables negatively affected OS with TT-B. Safety results were consistent with prior findings. Conclusions TT-B is a promising therapeutic regimen in mCRC patients ineligible for intensive chemotherapy. Clinical trial information NCT02743221 (clinicaltrials.gov)

Ibrutinib; Metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma; Phase III Ibrutinib; Adenocarcinoma de páncreas metastásico; Fase III Ibrutinib; Adenocarcinoma de pàncrees metastàtic; Fase III First-line treatment of metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) includes nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine. Ibrutinib, a Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor, exhibits antitumor activity through tumor microenvironment modulation. The safety and efficacy of first-line ibrutinib plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine treatment in patients with PDAC were evaluated. Patients and methods RESOLVE (NCT02436668) was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients (histologically-confirmed PDAC; stage IV diagnosis ≥6 weeks of randomization; Karnofsky performance score ≥70) were randomized to once-daily oral ibrutinib (560 mg) or placebo plus nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2). Primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS); overall response rate and safety were assessed. Results In total, 424 patients were randomized (ibrutinib arm, n = 211; placebo arm, n = 213). Baseline characteristics were balanced across arms. After a median follow-up of 25 months, there was no significant difference in OS between ibrutinib plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine versus placebo plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (median of 9.7 versus 10.8 months; P = 0.3225). PFS was shorter for ibrutinib plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine compared with placebo plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (median 5.3 versus 6.0 months; P < 0.0001). Overall response rates were 29% and 42%, respectively (P = 0.0058). Patients in the ibrutinib arm had less time on treatment and received lower cumulative doses for all agents compared with the placebo arm. The most common grade ≥3 adverse events for ibrutinib versus placebo arms included neutropenia (24% versus 35%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (17% versus 8%), and anemia (16% versus 17%). Primary reasons for any treatment discontinuation were disease progression and adverse events. Conclusions Ibrutinib plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine did not improve OS or PFS for patients with PDAC. Safety was consistent with known profiles for these agents. This work was supported by Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company (no grant number).

Adenocarcinoma; Gastroesophageal junction cancer; Pembrolizumab Adenocarcinoma; Cáncer de la unión gastroesofágica; Pembrolizumab Adenocarcinoma; Càncer de la unió gastroesofàgica; Pembrolizumab Current guidelines recommend two-drug cytotoxic chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine (fluorouracil or capecitabine) and a platinum-based agent (oxaliplatin or cisplatin) as first-line treatment for advanced gastric cancer. Pembrolizumab monotherapy has demonstrated durable antitumor activity in patients with advanced programmed death ligand 1-positive (combined positive score ≥1) gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Accumulating evidence indicates that combining pembrolizumab with standard-of-care chemotherapy for the treatment of advanced or metastatic cancer improves clinical outcomes. We describe the rationale for and the design of the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase III KEYNOTE-859 study, which is investigating pembrolizumab in combination with chemotherapy as first-line treatment for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative advanced unresectable or metastatic gastric/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. The planned sample size is 1542 patients, and the primary end point is overall survival.

PURPOSE KEYNOTE-164 (NCT02460198) evaluated the antitumor activity of pembrolizumab in previously treated, metastatic, microsatellite instability–high/mismatch repair–deficient (MSI-H/dMMR) colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS This phase II open-label study involved 128 centers worldwide. Eligible patients were age ≥ 18 years and had metastatic MSI-H/dMMR CRC treated with ≥ 2 prior lines of standard therapy, including fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan with or without anti–vascular endothelial growth factor/epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody (cohort A) or ≥ 1 prior line of therapy (cohort B). MSI-H/dMMR status was assessed locally. Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 2 years until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. The primary end point was objective response rate by RECIST version 1.1 by independent central review. Secondary end points were duration of response, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS A total of 124 patients with MSI-H/dMMR CRC (61 in cohort A, 63 in cohort B) enrolled. At data cutoff, median follow-up was 31.3 months (range, 0.2-35.6 months) for cohort A and 24.2 months (range, 0.1-27.1 months) for cohort B. Objective response rate was 33% (95% CI, 21% to 46%) and 33% (95% CI, 22% to 46%), respectively, with median duration of response not reached in either cohort. Median PFS was 2.3 months (95% CI, 2.1 to 8.1 months) and 4.1 months (95% CI, 2.1 to 18.9 months). Median overall survival was 31.4 months (95% CI, 21.4 months to not reached) and not reached (95% CI, 19.2 months to not reached). Treatment-related grade 3-4 adverse events occurred in 10 patients (16%) in cohort A and 8 (13%) in cohort B, with the most common occurring in ≥ 2 patients being pancreatitis, fatigue, increased alanine aminotransferase, and increased lipase (2 patients each; 3%) in cohort A. CONCLUSION Pembrolizumab is effective with a manageable safety profile in patients with MSI-H/dMMR CRC.

Bevacizumab; Càncer colorectal metastàtic; Trifluridine/tipiracil Bevacizumab; Cáncer colorrectal metastásico; Trifluridine/tipiracil Bevacizumab; Metastatic colorectal cancer; Trifluridine/tipiracil Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) is an orally active formulation of trifluridine, a thymidine-based nucleoside analog, and tipiracil hydrochloride, a thymidine phosphorylase inhibitor that increases the bioavailability of trifluridine. Preliminary studies of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab have produced encouraging results in the treatment of refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. Here, we describe the design of the multinational Phase III SUNLIGHT, an open-label study of FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab as third-line treatment for patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer. A total of 490 patients will be randomized 1:1 to receive either FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab, or FTD/TPI monotherapy. The primary objective is to significantly improve overall survival with FTD/TPI plus bevacizumab compared with FTD/TPI monotherapy. The first patient was enrolled in November 2020.

We established an international consortium to review and discuss relevant clinical evidence in order to develop expert consensus statements related to cancer management during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2-related disease (COVID-19) pandemic. The steering committee prepared 10 working packages addressing significant clinical questions from diagnosis to surgery. During a virtual consensus meeting of 62 global experts and one patient advocate, led by the European Society for Medical Oncology, statements were discussed, amended and voted upon. When consensus could not be reached, the panel revised statements until a consensus was reached. Overall, the expert panel agreed on 28 consensus statements that can be used to overcome many of the clinical and technical areas of uncertainty ranging from diagnosis to therapeutic planning and treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pegvorhyaluronidase alfa (PEGPH20) plus nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (AG) in patients with hyaluronan-high metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDA). PATIENTS AND METHODS HALO 109-301 was a phase III, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Patients ≥ 18 years of age with untreated, metastatic, hyaluronan-high PDA were randomly assigned 2:1 to PEGPH20 plus AG or placebo plus AG. Treatment was administered intravenously in 4-week cycles (3 weeks on, 1 week off) until progression or intolerable adverse events: PEGPH20 3.0 µg/kg twice per week for cycle 1 and once per week thereafter; nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 once per week; and gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 once per week. The primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Response was independently assessed per RECIST v1.1. RESULTS At data cutoff, 494 patients were randomly assigned, with 492 (327 for PEGPH20 and 165 for placebo) included in intention-to-treat analyses. Baseline characteristics were balanced for PEGPH20 plus AG versus placebo plus AG. There were 330 deaths, with a median OS of 11.2 months for PEGPH20 plus AG versus 11.5 months for placebo plus AG (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.27; P = .97); median PFS was 7.1 months versus 7.1 months (HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.26]); ORR was 47% versus 36% (ORR ratio, 1.29 [95% CI, 1.03 to 1.63]). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events with a ≥ 2% higher rate with PEGPH20 plus AG than with placebo plus AG included fatigue (16.0% v 9.6%), muscle spasms (6.5% v 0.6%), and hyponatremia (8.0% v 3.8%). CONCLUSION The addition of PEGPH20 to AG increased the ORR but did not improve OS or PFS. The safety profile of PEGPH20 plus AG was consistent with that found in previous studies. These results do not support additional development of PEGPH20 in metastatic PDA.

INTRODUCTION: LUME-Colon 1 (NCT02149108) was a global, placebo-controlled phase III study of nintedanib in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Pre-specified biomarker analyses investigated the association of CRC consensus molecular subtypes (CMS) and tumor genomic and circulating biomarkers with clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Archival tumor tissue, cell-free DNA (cfDNA), and plasma samples were collected for genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic analyses to investigate potential associations between CRC CMS and other biomarkers with nintedanib response and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Of the 765 treated patients, 735, 245, and 192 patient samples were analyzed in the circulating protein, tumor tissue, and cfDNA datasets, respectively. Patients were classified as CMS1 (1.7%), CMS2 (27.7%), CMS3 (0.9%), CMS4 (51.5%), or unclassified (18.2%). Unclassified/mixed CMS was associated with longer overall survival (OS) with nintedanib vs. CMS2 or CMS4 (interaction P-value = .0086); no association was observed for CMS4. Gene expression-based pathway analysis revealed an association between vascular endothelial growth factor-related signaling and OS for nintedanib (P = .0498). The most frequently detected somatic mutations were APC (72.0% [tumor tissue] vs. 56.8% [cfDNA]), TP53 (47.1% vs. 34.9%), KRAS (40.8% vs. 28.6%), and PIK3CA (16.6% vs. 11.5%); concordance rates were > 80%. Median OS differences were observed for APC and TP53 mutations vs. wild-type in cfDNA, indicating a potential prognostic value. Circulating ANG-2, CA-9, CEACAM1, collagen-IV, IGFBP-1, ICAM-1, IL-8, and uPAR were potentially prognostic for both OS and progression-free survival. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated the feasibility of large-scale biomarker analyses and CMS classification within a global clinical trial, and identified signals suggesting a potential for greater nintedanib treatment response in the unclassified/mixed CMS subgroup, despite these tumors showing heterogeneous patterns of CMS mixtures. Our results revealed a high degree of concordance in somatic mutations between tumor tissue and cfDNA. Associations with prognosis for cfDNA somatic mutations, as well as several protein-based biomarkers, may warrant further investigation in future trials. ispartof: CLINICAL COLORECTAL CANCER vol:20 issue:1 pages:84-+ ispartof: location:United States status: published

Bevacizumab; Teràpia intensiva; Càncer colorectal metastàtic Bevacizumab; Terapia intensiva; Cáncer colorrectal metastásico Bevacizumab; Intensive therapy; Metastatic colorectal cancer Background We designed an open-label, noncomparative phase II study to assess the safety and efficacy of first-line treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab (TT–B) and capecitabine plus bevacizumab (C–B) in untreated patients with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who were not candidates for combination with cytotoxic chemotherapies. Patients and methods From 29 April 2016 to 29 March 2017, 153 patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either TT–B (N = 77) or C–B (N = 76). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The primary PFS analysis was performed after 100 events (radiological progression or death) were observed. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), quality of life (QoL; QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29 questionnaires), and safety. Results Median (range) duration of treatment was 7.8 (6.0–9.7) months and 6.2 (4.1–9.1) months in the TT–B and C–B groups, respectively. Median (range) PFS was 9.2 (7.6–11.6) and 7.8 (5.5–10.1) months, respectively. Median (range) OS was 18 (15.2 to NA) and 16.2 (12.5 to NA) months, respectively. QoL questionnaires showed no relevant changes over time for either treatment. Therapies were well tolerated. Patients receiving TT–B had more grade ≥3 neutropenia (47% versus 5% with C–B). Patients receiving C–B had more grade ≥3 hand–foot syndrome (12% versus 0% with TT–B) and grade ≥3 diarrhea (8% versus 1% with TT–B), consistent with the known safety profiles of these agents. Conclusion TT–B treatment showed promising clinical activity in untreated patients with unresectable mCRC ineligible for intensive therapy, with an acceptable safety profile and no clinically relevant changes in QoL. This study was funded by Servier and Taiho.

BACKGROUND: The RAINBOW trial showed that second-line ramucirumab with paclitaxel prolongs overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo plus paclitaxel for treatment of advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer. Plasma samples were collected from patients during the trial and tested to identify predictive and prognostic biomarkers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Circulating factors in plasma samples from mutually exclusive subsets of RAINBOW patients were assayed using: Intertek assays (24 markers, 380 samples, 57% of patients) and Lilly-developed assay (LDA) platform (5 markers, 257 samples, 39% of patients). Time-trend plots were generated for each marker from the Intertek assays. Baseline patient data were dichotomized into low- and high-marker subgroups. Markers were analyzed for predictive effects using interaction models and for prognostic effects using main-effects models. RESULTS: The Intertek and LDA populations were representative of the full trial population. Plasma levels of VEGF-D and PlGF increased from baseline levels during treatment, then declined after treatment discontinued. Angiopoietin-2 exhibited a decrease during treatment, then increased after treatment discontinuation. No clear time trend was evident with the other markers. Analyses of baseline biomarker expression and its relationship with efficacy variables found no biomarker was predictive for efficacy outcomes, including VEGF-D. However, CRP, HGF, ICAM-3, IL-8, SAA, and VCAM-1 were identified as potential prognostic markers with low baseline levels corresponding to longer OS and PFS. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacodynamic and prognostic relationships were found from the exploratory biomarker analyses in RAINBOW; however, no predictive markers for ramucirumab in gastric cancer were identified in this trial. ispartof: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER vol:127 pages:150-157 ispartof: location:England status: published