Search

Aims: BEAWARE investigated the pattern of first-line bevacizumab early interruption in the Italian real-world setting of metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: A total of 386 patients were followed for 15 months after first-line chemotherapy + bevacizumab start. The rate of bevacizumab interruption for progression or adverse drug reactions (ADRs) constituted the primary endpoint. Results: A total of 78.2% of patients interrupted bevacizumab: 56.6% for progression, 7.3% for ADRs, and 36.1% for other reasons. Median treatment duration was 6.7, 2.5, and 4.6 months, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 10.3 months; however, 35.8% of patients were not progressed and were thus censored at the data cutoff of 15 months, while 21.8% were still receiving bevacizumab. Patients discontinuing for progression/ADRs more frequently had metastases in >1 site ( p = .0001), and a shorter median progression-free survival (6.9 vs 13.9 months, p < .0001). Conclusions: In Italy, first-line bevacizumab is interrupted mainly for progression, only 7.3% due to adverse events, and about one third of cases for other reasons. In clinical practice, the attitude to treat until progression as per guidelines might be implemented. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01609075

Purpose The Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest (GONO) conducted a phase III study comparing fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI [irinotecan 165 mg/m2 day 1, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m2 day 1, fluorouracil 3,200 mg/m2 48-hour continuous infusion starting on day 1, every 2 weeks]) with infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI). Methods Selection criteria included unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer, age 18 to 75 years, and no prior chemotherapy for advanced disease. The primary end point was response rate (RR). Results A total of 244 patients were randomly assigned. An increase of grade 2 to 3 peripheral neurotoxicity (0% v 19%; P < .001), and grade 3 to 4 neutropenia (28% v 50%; P < .001) were observed in the FOLFOXIRI arm. The incidence of febrile neutropenia (3% v 5%) and grade 3 to 4 diarrhea (12% v 20%) were not significantly different. Responses, as assessed by investigators, were, for FOLFIRI and FOLFOXIRI, respectively, complete, 6% and 8%; and partial, 35% and 58%, (RR, 41% v 66%; P = .0002). RR confirmed by an external panel was 34% versus 60% (P < .0001). The R0 secondary resection rate of metastases was greater in the FOLFOXIRI arm (6% v 15%; P = .033, among all 244 patients; and 12% v 36%; P = .017 among patients with liver metastases only). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were both significantly improved in the FOLFOXIRI arm (median PFS, 6.9 v 9.8 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; P = .0006; median OS, 16.7 v 22.6 months; HR, 0.70; P = .032). Conclusion The FOLFOXIRI regimen improves RR, PFS, and OS compared with FOLFIRI, with an increased, but manageable, toxicity in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with favorable prognostic characteristics. Further studies of FOLFOXIRI in combination with targeted agents and in the neoadjuvant setting are warranted.

Background Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DoR) predict overall survival (OS) in first-line trials of chemotherapy ± anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). These associations and the predictive accuracy of response measurements for survival parameters were investigated in the phase III TRIBE trial of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (bev) versus FOLFIRI plus bev. Patients and methods A landmark approach was adopted to define the assessable population. The distribution of RECIST response rate, ETS and DoR was compared in the two arms. Associations between response measurements and progression-free survival (PFS), post-progression survival (PPS) and OS were tested by univariate and multivariate Cox models. Prediction performance of each factor was estimated by C-index. Results A significantly higher percentage of patients in the FOLFOXIRI plus bev arm achieved ETS ≥20%, when compared with the control arm (62.7% versus 51.9%, P = 0.025). Also the DoR was significantly higher in the triplet plus bev arm (43.4% versus 37.8%, P = 0.003). Both ETS and DoR were associated with PFS, PPS and OS at the univariate analyses and in the multivariate models stratified for other prognostic variables. Both ETS and DoR were able to predict survival as accurately as RECIST response. Conclusion FOLFOXIRI plus bev improves ETS and DoR when compared with FOLFIRI plus bev. Achieving rapid and deep tumor shrinkage consistently delays tumor progression and prolongs survival in patients treated with first-line chemotherapy plus bev. ETS is a promising and valuable end point for clinical trials' design deserving further investigation.

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

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.

Purpose There is no consensus on the use of cetuximab in elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. To this end, a survey was carried in 17 Italian oncology centers. Methods The centers answered a 29-item questionnaire structured as follows: (i) demographic characteristics; (ii) medical history; (iii) assessment of RAS/BRAF mutations and DPD/UGT polymorphism before treatment; (iv) treatment schemes and side effects; (v) geriatric assessment and customization of treatment. Results One-third of patients are over 80 years old. The RAS/BRAF mutational status is not primarily evaluated by 17.6% of the centers, while DPD and UGT polymorphism is not evaluated by 82.4% and 76.5% of the centers. The most common therapeutic scheme is cetuximab/FOLFIRI and diarrhea is the main cause of suspension/reduction of treatment. The 70% of centers use systemic tetracyclines for skin toxicity. The 23.5% of the centers do not carry out any geriatric evaluation before the start of the therapy and those who perform it prefer the G8 (70.6%) and VES-13 (29.4%) scales. Conclusions Greater efforts should be made to improve the evaluation of the patient both about mutational and genetic procedures with geriatric evaluation. As for cetuximab in elderly patients, randomized studies are needed to provide guidance to physicians.

Background FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab is considered a standard option in the upfront treatment of clinically selected patients with metastatic colorectal cancer irrespective of RAS and BRAF molecular status. The randomised MACBETH and VOLFI studies showed that a modified FOLFOXIRI regimen in combination with cetuximab or panitumumab, respectively, achieved high therapeutic activity in RAS and BRAF wild-type patients with an acceptable toxicity profile. Drawing from these considerations, we designed TRIPLETE study aiming at comparing two different chemotherapy backbones (mFOLFOXIRI or mFOLFOX6) in combination with panitumumab in the first-line treatment of patients with RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods This is a prospective, open-label, multicentre phase III trial in which initially unresectable and previously untreated RAS and BRAF wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients are randomised to receive a standard treatment with mFOLFOX6 plus panitumumab or an experimental regimen with modified FOLFOXIRI (irinotecan 150 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, L-leucovorin 200 mg/m2, 5-fluoruracil 2400 mg/m2 48-hour continuous infusion) plus panitumumab up to 12 cycles, followed by panitumumab plus 5-fluorouracil and L-leucovorin until disease progression. The primary endpoint is overall response rate according to RECIST 1.1 criteria. Discussion The relative benefit of chemotherapy intensification when using an anti-EGFR-based regimen in molecularly selected patients is unknown; TRIPLETE study aims at filling this gap of knowledge. The study is sponsored by the Gruppo Oncologico Nord Ovest Cooperative Group and is currently ongoing at 42 Italian centres. Clinical trial information NCT03231722.

Background: Immune Modulation and Gemcitabine Evaluation-1, a randomised, open-label, phase II, first-line, proof of concept study (NCT01303172), explored safety and tolerability of IMM-101 (heat-killed Mycobacterium obuense; NCTC 13365) with gemcitabine (GEM) in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Methods: Patients were randomised (2 : 1) to IMM-101 (10 mg ml−l intradermally)+GEM (1000 mg m−2 intravenously; n=75), or GEM alone (n=35). Safety was assessed on frequency and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) were collected. Results: IMM-101 was well tolerated with a similar rate of AE and serious adverse event reporting in both groups after allowance for exposure. Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 6.7 months for IMM-101+GEM v 5.6 months for GEM; while not significant, the hazard ratio (HR) numerically favoured IMM-101+GEM (HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.44–1.04, P=0.074). In a pre-defined metastatic subgroup (84%), OS was significantly improved from 4.4 to 7.0 months in favour of IMM-101+GEM (HR, 0.54, 95% CI 0.33–0.87, P=0.01). Conclusions: IMM-101 with GEM was as safe and well tolerated as GEM alone, and there was a suggestion of a beneficial effect on survival in patients with metastatic disease. This warrants further evaluation in an adequately powered confirmatory study.

BACKGROUND: In the TRIBE study, FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab significantly improved progression-free survival of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer compared with FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab. In this updated analysis, we aimed to provide mature results for overall survival-a secondary endpoint-and report treatment efficacy in RAS and BRAF molecular subgroups. METHODS: TRIBE was an open-label, multicentre, phase 3 randomised study of patients (aged 18-70 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] performance status of 2 or less and aged 71-75 years with an ECOG performance status of 0) with unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer who were recruited from 34 Italian oncology units. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a web-based procedure to receive FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab or FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab. Bevacizumab was given as a 5 mg/kg intravenous dose. FOLFIRI consisted of a 180 mg/m2 intravenous infusion of irinotecan for 60 min followed by a 200 mg/m2 intravenous infusion of leucovorin for 120 min, a 400 mg/m2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil, and a 2400 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 46 h. FOLFOXIRI consisted of a 165 mg/m2 intravenous infusion of irinotecan for 60 min, followed by an 85 mg/m2 intravenous infusion of oxaliplatin given concurrently with 200 mg/m2 leucovorin for 120 min, followed by a 3200 mg/m2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h. Tissue samples for RAS and BRAF mutational status analyses were centrally collected. In this updated analysis, we assessed the secondary endpoint of overall survival in the main cohort and treatment efficacy in RAS and BRAF molecular subgroups. All analyses were by intention to treat. TRIBE was concluded on Nov 30, 2014. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00719797. FINDINGS: Between July 17, 2008, and May 31, 2011, 508 patients were randomly assigned. At a median follow-up of 48·1 months (IQR 41·7-55·6), median overall survival was 29·8 months (95% CI 26·0-34·3) in the FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab group compared with 25·8 months (22·5-29·1) in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·80, 95% CI 0·65-0·98; p=0·03). Median overall survival was 37·1 months (95% CI 29·7-42·7) in the RAS and BRAF wild-type subgroup compared with 25·6 months (22·4-28·6) in the RAS-mutation-positive subgroup (HR 1·49, 95% CI 1·11-1·99) and 13·4 months (8·2-24·1) in the BRAF-mutation-positive subgroup (HR 2·79, 95% CI 1·75-4·46; likelihood-ratio test p

5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) plus cisplatin (C) can be considered a standard option for advanced gastric cancer (AGC). Irinotecan (Ir) and docetaxel (D) are active agents with no complete cross-resistance with C and 5-FU. Concomitant combination of Ir or D with C and 5-FU is feasible, but with substantial toxicities. A different way to include all active agents in first-line treatment of AGC may be to use them sequentially. We aimed to evaluate the activity and the safety profile of sequential chemotherapy with 5-FU-based doublets with C, Ir and D in the first-line treatment of AGC. We conducted a phase II study of first-line sequential chemotherapy in metastatic GC. Treatment consisted of 3 cycles of C + infused 5-FU and leucovorin (CFL) followed by 3 cycles of Ir + 5-FU/LV (IrFL) followed by 3 cycles of D + 5-FU/LV (DFL). Primary end-point was response rate. Forty-six patients were enrolled, median age 60 years, sites of disease (single/multiple) = 9/37, PS 0/1 = 27/19, gastric/gastro-oesophageal junction = 39/7. Median number of cycles was 9. Main grade 3–4 toxicities were neutropenia (37%), febrile neutropenia (2%), diarrhoea (4%), stomatitis (9%). Response rate after the planned 9 cycles was 45% (15 partial and 5 complete responses among 43 evaluable patients). Median PFS and OS: 6.8 and 11.1 months, respectively. This sequential treatment is feasible with a favourable safety profile and produced encouraging results in terms of activity and efficacy.