Search

Background: Previous studies on oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidines as adjuvant therapy in older patients with stage III colon cancer (CC) produced conflicting results. Patients and methods: We assessed the impact of age on time to tumour recurrence (TTR), disease-free survival (DFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS) in 2360 patients with stage III CC (1667 aged

Background Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is associated with increased risk of colon cancer (CC), whereas metformin use seems to be protective. However, the impact of metformin use on the risk of death or disease recurrence after radical surgery for CC remains uncertain. Materials and Methods This is a substudy conducted in patients with high-risk stage II or stage III CC randomized in the TOSCA trial, which compared 3 versus 6 months of fluoropyrimidine-oxaliplatin adjuvant chemotherapy. Objective of the study was to investigate the impact of metformin exposure during adjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival (OS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). We also evaluated the impact of T2DM or metformin dosage on clinical outcomes. Results Out of 3,759 patients enrolled in the TOSCA trial, 133 patients with diabetes (9.2%) and 1,319 without diabetes (90.8%) were recruited in this study. After excluding 13 patients with diabetes without information on metformin exposure, 76 patients with T2DM (63.3%) were defined as metformin users and 44 (36.7%) as metformin nonusers. After a median follow-up of 60.4 months, 26 (21.7%) patients relapsed and 16 (13.3%) died. Metformin use was neither associated with OS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48–4.77; p = .4781) nor with RFS (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 0.69–3.54; p = .2881). Similarly, we found no association between T2DM or metformin dosage and OS or RFS. Conclusions Metformin use and T2DM did not impact on OS or RFS in patients with resected CC treated with adjuvant fluoropyrimidine-oxaliplatin chemotherapy. Larger studies and longer follow-up are required to clarify the potential efficacy of metformin in improving the prognosis of patients with CC. Implications for Practice The role of the antidiabetic drug metformin in colon cancer prevention and treatment is highly debated. While low-dose metformin reduced the incidence of colorectal adenomas in two prospective studies, its effect in patients with already established colon cancer remains unclear. In this study, the potential impact of metformin on the survival of resected colon cancer patients who received adjuvant chemotherapy was investigated in the context of the TOSCA study. We did not find any association between metformin use or dosages and patient survival. Prospective studies are required to draw definitive conclusions about metformin impact on colon cancer recurrence and survival.

The international PRECONNECT Phase IIIb study demonstrated safety and efficacy of trifluridine/tipiracil in the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Post-hoc analyses in a national context are important because of the differences in disease management across countries. Post-hoc safety and efficacy analyses in the PRECONNECT Italian patient subset were conducted. Patients' quality of life was assessed from baseline to end of treatment. In Italy, 161 patients were enrolled. The median age was 64 years, with a performance status of 0–1. The most common hematological drug-related adverse events ≥grade 3 were neutropenia (41.0%) and anemia (13.7%). The median progression-free survival was reached at 3.0 months, with a disease control rate of 28.6%. The Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 score improved in 25.4% of the patients. Safety, efficacy and quality of life results confirmed trifluridine/tipiracil as a feasible and favorable treatment option for metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

Summary Background The triplet FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab showed improved outcomes for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, compared with FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab. However, the actual benefit of the upfront exposure to the three cytotoxic drugs compared with a preplanned sequential strategy of doublets was not clear, and neither was the feasibility or efficacy of therapies after disease progression. We aimed to compare a preplanned strategy of upfront FOLFOXIRI followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression versus a sequence of mFOLFOX6 (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) and FOLFIRI doublets, in combination with bevacizumab. Methods TRIBE2 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised study of patients aged 18–75 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2, with unresectable, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, recruited from 58 Italian oncology units. Patients were stratified according to centre, ECOG performance status, primary tumour location, and previous adjuvant chemotherapy. A randomisation system incorporating a minimisation algorithm was used to randomly assign patients (1:1) via a masked web-based allocation procedure to two different treatment strategies. In the control group, patients received first-line mFOLFOX6 (85 mg/m2 of intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg intravenously over 30 min) followed by FOLFIRI (180 mg/m2 of intravenous irinotecan over 120 min concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin; 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab after disease progression. In the experimental group, patients received FOLFOXIRI (165 mg/m2 of intravenous irinotecan over 60 min; 85 mg/m2 intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 3200 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression. Combination treatments were repeated every 14 days for up to eight cycles followed by fluorouracil and leucovorin (at the same dose administered at the last induction cycle) plus bevacizumab maintenance until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, or consent withdrawal. Patients and investigators were not masked. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival 2, defined as the time from randomisation to disease progression on any treatment given after first disease progression, or death, analysed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. Study recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov , NCT02339116 . Findings Between Feb 26, 2015, and May 15, 2017, 679 patients were randomly assigned and received treatment (340 in the control group and 339 in the experimental group). At data cut-off (July 30, 2019) median follow-up was 35·9 months (IQR 30·1–41·4). Median progression-free survival 2 was 19·2 months (95% CI 17·3–21·4) in the experimental group and 16·4 months (15·1–17·5) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74, 95% CI 0·63–0·88; p=0·0005). During the first-line treatment, the most frequent of all-cause grade 3–4 events were diarrhoea (57 [17%] vs 18 [5%]), neutropenia (168 [50%] vs 71 [21%]), and arterial hypertension (25 [7%] vs 35 [10%]) in the experimental group compared with the control group. Serious adverse events occurred in 84 (25%) patients in the experimental group and in 56 (17%) patients in the control group. Eight treatment-related deaths were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions, two intestinal perforations, two sepsis, one myocardial infarction, and one bleeding) and four in the control group (two occlusions, one perforation, and one pulmonary embolism). After first disease progression, no substantial differences in the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported between the control and experimental groups, with the exception of neurotoxicity, which was only reported in the experimental group (six [5%] of 132 patients). Serious adverse events after disease progression occurred in 20 (15%) patients in the experimental group and 25 (12%) in the control group. Three treatment-related deaths after first disease progression were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions and one sepsis) and four in the control group (one intestinal occlusion, one intestinal perforation, one cerebrovascular event, and one sepsis). Interpretation Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression seems to be a preferable therapeutic strategy to sequential administration of chemotherapy doublets, in combination with bevacizumab, for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer selected according to the study criteria. Funding The GONO Cooperative Group, the ARCO Foundation, and F Hoffmann–La Roche.

Background The role of combination chemotherapy has not yet been established in unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) lacking dedicated randomized trials. Methods This phase II trial tested the efficacy of Nab-paclitaxel (NAB-P)/Gemcitabine (G) versus G alone. Patients were randomized, 1:1 to G 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days versus NAB-P 125 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days plus G 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days. Disease progression rate after three cycles of chemotherapy was the primary end-point. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and response rate were secondary end-points. Findings A total of124 patients were enrolled. The study showed a reduction of a progressive disease from 45.6% with G to 25.4% with NAB-P/G (P = 0.01) at 3 months. Noteworthy, at 6 months in the G arm, 35.6% of patients present a metastatic spread versus 20.8% in the NAB/G arm. The response rate was 5.3% in the G arm and 27% in the NAB/G arm. Median PFS was 4 months for the G arm and 7 months for the NAB-P/G arm. Median OS was 10.6 in the G arm and 12.7 months in the NAB-P/G arm. One patient died during treatment with G due to a stroke. Interpretation. NAB-P/G reduced the rate of LAPC patients progressing after three cycles of chemotherapy compared with G, especially in terms of distant relapses. It positively affects PFS. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial providing evidence that combination chemotherapy is superior to gemcitabine alone in this setting. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02043730 .

Background: The risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) during adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer (CRC) is unknown. We aim to evaluate if the Khorana score (KS) can predict this risk, and if it represents a prognostic factor for overall survival (OS) through a post hoc analysis of the phase III TOSCA trial of different durations (3- versus 6-months) of adjuvant chemotherapy. Methods: A logistic regression model was used to test the associations between the risk of VTE and the KS. The results are expressed as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). To assess the effect of the KS on OS, multivariable analyses using Cox regression models were performed. The results are expressed as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% CI. Results: Among 1380 CRC patients with available data, the VTE risk ( n = 72 events: 5.2%) was similar in the two duration arms (5.5% versus 4.9%), with 0.2% of patients belonging to the high-risk KS group. Rates of VTE were similar in the low- and intermediate-risk groups (4.8% versus 6.4%). KS did not represent an independent predictive factor for VTE occurrence. Chemotherapy duration was not associated with VTE risk. In addition, KS was not prognostic for OS in multivariate analysis (HR: 0.92, 95% CI, 0.63–1.36; p = 0.6835). Conclusions: The use of the KS did not predict VTEs in a low–moderate thromboembolic risk population as CRC. These data did not support the use of KS to predict VTE during adjuvant chemotherapy, and suggest that other risk assessment models should be researched.

Purpose Because the role of the primary tumour location in the adjuvant setting has not been clearly established in colon cancer, we analysed the clinical outcome according to the primary tumour location from three Italian trials assessing adjuvant therapy in colon cancer. Patients and methods Overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) were assessed globally and in each trial, according to right-sided, transverse and left-sided primary colon cancer. Analysis was planned to provide overall and stage-specific results. Results Individual data of 5239 patients were included in this analysis. The right-sided tumours were 1540 (29%), tumours originating in the transverse were 815 (16%) and left-sided tumours were 2884 (55%). At the multivariate analysis, DFS findings from the comparison of the right-sided versus left-sided tumours (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89–1.14) were not statistically associated with clinical outcomes in the overall population. On the contrary, OS findings, from the comparison of the right-sided versus left-sided tumours, were significantly associated with outcomes (HR = 1.20; 95% CI = 1.04–1.39). In stage II patients, there was no difference in terms of DFS and OS among the three different tumour locations, whereas in stage III patients, the left-sided tumours showed an improved prognosis in terms of OS (HR: 1.36 95% CI = 1.14–1.62, p Conclusion This is the largest analysis demonstrating a prognostic effect of the tumour location on patients with colon cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy. Nevertheless, the effect is limited to OS in stage III colon cancer. In stage II tumours, the primary location has a lesser impact. The transverse tumours should be prognostically considered in between the right-sided and left-sided tumours.

[Background] In the phase III CORRECT trial, regorafenib significantly improved survival in treatment‐refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The CONSIGN study was designed to further characterize regorafenib safety and allow patients access to regorafenib before market authorization., [Methods] This prospective, single‐arm study enrolled patients in 25 countries at 186 sites. Patients with treatment‐refractory mCRC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≤1 received regorafenib 160 mg once daily for the first 3 weeks of each 4‐week cycle. The primary endpoint was safety. Progression‐free survival (PFS) per investigator assessment was the only efficacy evaluation., [Results] In total, 2,872 patients were assigned to treatment and 2,864 were treated. Median age was 62 years, ECOG PS 0/1 was 47%/53%, and 74% had received at least three prior regimens for metastatic disease. Median treatment duration was three cycles. Treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs) led to dose reduction in 46% of patients. Regorafenib‐related TEAEs led to treatment discontinuation in 9%. Grade 5 regorafenib‐related TEAEs occurred in, [Conclusion] In CONSIGN, the frequency and severity of TEAEs were consistent with the known safety profile of regorafenib. PFS was similar to reports of phase III trials. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01538680. [Implications for Practice] Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who fail treatment with standard therapies, including chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies targeting vascular endothelial growth factor or epidermal growth factor receptor, have few treatment options. The multikinase inhibitor regorafenib was shown to improve survival in patients with treatment‐refractory mCRC in the phase III CORRECT (N = 760) and CONCUR (N = 204) trials. However, safety data on regorafenib for mCRC in a larger number of patients were not available. The CONSIGN trial, carried out prospectively in more than 2,800 patients across 25 countries, confirmed the safety profile of regorafenib from the phase III trials and reinforced the importance of using treatment modifications to manage adverse events., This study was sponsored by Bayer. Editorial assistance in the preparation of this manuscript was provided by Ann Contijoch (Bayer) and Jennifer Tobin (SuccinctChoice Medical Communications, London, UK, with financial support from Bayer).

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) is a key enzyme in the metabolic catabolism of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and its derivatives (capecitabine and tegafur). Complete or partial deficiency of DPD activity has been demonstrated to induce severe toxicities in cancer patients treated with fluoropyrimidine therapy. We analyzed 180 individuals that were candidates for a treatment with 5-FU class drugs for the most common DPD mutation, IVS14+1G>A, and detected four heterozygous patients. We recorded the toxicities for all 180 individuals after the first two chemotherapy cycles and found that three of the four patients, although they were treated with a dose reduction in 50 % on the basis of the genetic analysis, all showed severe toxicities that resulted in hospitalization of patient and premature discontinuation of treatment. One patient with mutated DPD was not treated with chemotherapy upon the clinician's decision because of his DPD mutated genotype and the presence of microsatellite instability. Our data suggest that greater dose reductions or alternative therapies are needed for patients with DPD IVS14+1G>A mutations. © 2013 SIMI

Background. Sorafenib has proven survival benefits in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). The viability of continuing sorafenib at a higher dosage in patients who experienced radiologic disease progression was investigated. Methods. Patients who experienced disease progression while on sorafenib 400 mg twice daily were randomized to sorafenib 600 mg twice daily (n = 49) or best supportive care (n = 52). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Time to progression, overall survival, and safety were also evaluated. Results. The study did not meet its primary end point. The difference in PFS between the sorafenib arm (3.91 months) and the best supportive care arm (2.69 months) did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.086). Adverse events were mainly grade 1–2 and similar across both groups. In the sorafenib arm, the most frequent events were diarrhea (80%), weight loss (75%), fatigue (67%), hand-foot-skin reaction (49%), abdominal pain (37%), and stomatitis (26%). Conclusions. Escalated-dose sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC who progressed while on sorafenib, failed to provide any clinical benefit. Second-line treatment still remains an open issue to be explored in appropriate clinical trials.

Background Sorafenib has shown survival benefits in patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and Child-Pugh (CP) class A liver function. There are few prospective data on sorafenib in patients with HCC and CP class B. Patients and methods A consecutive prospective series of 300 patients with CP class A or B HCC were enrolled in a dual-phase trial to determine survival and safety data according to liver function (class A or B) in patients receiving oral sorafenib 800 mg daily. [Results of this study were presented in part at the ASCO 2012 Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, 19–21 January 2012. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30 (Suppl 4): abstract 306.] Results Overall progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were 3.9, 4.1 and 9.1 months, respectively. For patients with CP class A versus B status, PFS was 4.3 versus 2.1 months, TTP was 4.2 versus 3.8 months and OS was 10.0 versus 3. 8 months. Extrahepatic spread was associated with worse outcomes but taken together with CP class, liver function played a greater role in reducing survival. Adverse events for the two CP groups were similar. Conclusion Although patients with HCC and CP class B liver function have poorer outcomes than those with CP class A function, data suggest that patients with CP class B liver function can tolerate treatment and may still benefit from sorafenib.