Search

BACKGROUND: Success of targeted therapy requires expression of the protein. Tumor tissue source can include diagnostic biopsy, surgical samples from initial or follow-up surgeries, fluids e.g. pleural or ascites and circulating tumor cells (CTC). The goal of using CTCs was 1. To determine whether CTC can be used as a "liquid" tumor biopsy and enable gene sequence information at the single cell level and 2. To determine the heterogeneity represented in the circulation compared to that seen in solid tumor by examining single cells (or a small cluster of cells) for the presence of a specific mutation which was detected in tissue tumor source. METHODS: We performed sequencing for mutational analysis on tissue(s) from patients with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC). Tumor sources varied from mastectomy tissue, metastatic site(s) e.g. liver or skin from chest wall disease, pleural fluid and CTC isolated into pure single cell populations (or groups of cells) using Silicon Biosystems DEPArray. Ampli1™ WGA kit was used for CTC amplification. Of the 22 patients sequenced, mastectomy primary tumor was examined in 3, metastatic site skin chest wall disease in 15, other metastatic site in 4, pleural fluid in 2 and CTC collected to investigate p53 mutations in 8. RESULTS: To date 22 patients have had mutational data performed, 14/22 had mutations in p53, 4/22 in RB1, 2/22 in each PI3K and ERBB2, 1/22 in each of BRAC1, BRAC2, ATM, KRAS, Notch 1, MEN1 and ESR1. Numerous amplifications were noted including AKT1, RPTOR, MLC1, MYC, CCND1 and ERBB2. For one patient's chest wall biopsy compared to two single CTCs and a cluster of 10 CTCs the same TP53C229fs*10 mutation was detected revealing the same 2bp deletion. No 2bp deletion was found in single white blood cells. Whereas, another patient which showed a TP53 S215G mutation in her skin biopsy of chest wall disease, only amplifications of AURKA, CCND1, IGF1R, MDM2 and SRC in pleural tumor cells were detected and no mutations in three single CTC, two single pleural tumor cells and in single white blood cells were seen. Primary tumor tissue is being sort for both of these patients. Mutational data reviewed to date suggest that IBC is not one disease but a multiplicity of diseases, revealing a variety of target(s). Aberrations are not consistent across tissue source. CONCLUSIONS: Successful treatment outcomes using standard of care chemotherapy combined with target therapies will require not one, but a panel, of tissue sources for sequencing to guide the selection of appropriate targeted therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Colorectal cancer emerged as the third most prevalent malignancy worldwide, affecting nearly 2 million individuals in the year 2020. This study elucidates the pivotal role of a multidisciplinary team (MDT) in influencing the prognosis, as measured by relative survival rates, depending upon the stage and age. Cases recorded in an Italian Cancer Registry between 2017 and 2018 were included. Relative survival was reported at 1 and 3 years after diagnosis comparing MDT vs. no-MDT approaches. During the study period, 605 CRCs were recorded while 361 (59.7%) were taken care of by an MDT. Compared to no-MDT, MDT patients were younger with earlier stages and received more surgery. One year after diagnosis, survival was 78.7% (90% in MDT vs. 62% in no-MDT); stratifying by stage, in the MDT group there was no survival advantage for stage I (97.2% vs. 89.9%) and II (96.8% vs. 89.4%), but an advantage was observed for stage III (86.4% vs. 56.9%) and stage IV (63.7% vs. 27.4%). Similar values were observed at 3 years where a marked advantage was observed for stages III (69.9% vs. 35.1%) and IV (29.2% vs. 5.1%). The univariable analysis confirmed an excess risk in the no-MDT group (HR 2.6; 95% CI 2.0-3.3), also confirmed in the multivariable regression analysis (HR 2.0; 95% CI 1.5-2.5). Despite the increase in the number of MDT patients in 2018 (from 50% to 69%), this does not correspond to an improvement in outcome., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Background & Aims: Immune-related liver injury (irLI) is commonly observed in patients with cancer treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). We aimed to compare the incidence, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of irLI between patients receiving ICIs for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) vs. other solid tumours., Methods: Two separate cohorts were included: 375 patients with advanced/unresectable HCC, Child-Pugh A class treated with first-line atezolizumab+bevacizumab from the AB-real study, and a non-HCC cohort including 459 patients treated with first-line ICI therapy from the INVIDIa-2 multicentre study. IrLI was defined as a treatment-related increase of aminotransferase levels after exclusion of alternative aetiologies of liver injury. The incidence of irLI was adjusted for the duration of treatment exposure., Results: In patients with HCC, the incidence of any grade irLI was 11.4% over a median treatment exposure of 4.4 months (95% CI 3.7-5.2) vs. 2.6% in the INVIDIa-2 cohort over a median treatment exposure of 12.4 months (95% CI 11.1-14.0). Exposure-adjusted-incidence of any grade irLI was 22.1 per 100-patient-years in patients with HCC and 2.1 per 100-patient-years in patients with other solid tumours (p <0.001), with median time-to-irLI of 1.4 and 4.7 months, respectively. Among patients who developed irLI, systemic corticosteroids were administered in 16.3% of patients with HCC and 75.0% of those without HCC (p <0.001), and irLI resolution was observed in 72.1% and 58.3%, respectively (p = 0.362). In patients with HCC, rates of hepatic decompensation and treatment discontinuation due to irLI were 7%. Grade 1-2 irLI was associated with improved overall survival only in patients with HCC (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.29-0.96)., Conclusions: Despite higher incidence and earlier onset, irLI in patients with HCC is characterised by higher rates of remission and lower requirement for corticosteroid therapy (vs. irLI in other solid tumours), low risk of hepatic decompensation and treatment discontinuation, not negatively affecting oncological outcomes., Impact and Implications: Immune-related liver injury (irLI) is common in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), but whether irLI is more frequent or it is associated with a worse clinical course in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), compared to other tumours, is not known. Herein, we compared characteristics and outcomes of irLI in two prospective cohorts including patients treated with ICIs for HCC or for other oncological indications. irLI is significantly more common and it occurs earlier in patients with HCC, also after adjustment for duration of treatment exposure. However, outcomes of patients with HCC who developed irLI are not negatively affected in terms of requirement for corticosteroid therapy, hepatic decompensation, treatment discontinuation and overall survival., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Brain metastases (BM) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels above the upper limit of normal (ULN) are associated with poor prognosis in patients with melanoma. Although treatment with the BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib have demonstrated long-term clinical benefit in patients with melanoma, data on their efficacy in patients with BM are limited., Methods: DESCRIBE Italy is an observational, retrospective, real-world study evaluating dabrafenib plus trametinib in 499 patients with BRAF V600 -mutant stage III unresectable or stage IV melanoma from various sites across Italy. Here, we analyzed the clinical outcomes for the subgroup of patients receiving first-line treatment and presenting with BM at diagnosis and assessed the impact of predictive factors such as LDH levels and the presence of other metastases on median progression-free survival (mPFS)., Results: Overall, 325 evaluable patients were on first-line therapy and are the focus of this analysis; of these, 76 patients (23.4%) had BM at baseline. mPFS was lower for patients with BM at baseline compared with overall patients (8.7 months vs 9.3 months, respectively). Patients with BM at diagnosis and LDH >ULN had a considerably shorter mPFS compared with patients with LDH ⩽ULN (5.3 months vs 9.9 months, respectively). mPFS was noticeably longer for patients with cerebral metastases only compared with patients with cerebral and other metastases (15.0 months vs 8.7 months, respectively)., Conclusions: Dabrafenib plus trametinib showed effectiveness in a real-world population of patients with advanced BRAF V600 -mutated melanoma and BM at baseline, supporting its use in this population with poor outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: MA has received research funding from AstraZeneca and Pharmamar; has received consulting fees from Bayer, BMS, Merck and Novartis; and has received travel support from BMS, Merck and Tesaro. VC-S has received honoraria from MDS, Merck Serono and Novartis; has received travel support from BMS, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; and has participated in advisory boards for Pierre Fabre. MGuidoboni has received consulting fees from BMS and Novartis; has received honoraria from BMS and Pierre Fabre; has received travel support from Pierre Fabre; and has participated in advisory boards for BMS. RD has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi. AM has received honoraria from Merck, Pierre Fabre and Sun Pharma, and has participated in advisory boards for BMS, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. FC has received honoraria from BMS, Merck, Novartis and Pierre Fabre, and has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Merck and Novartis. PAA has received research funding from BMS, Pfizer, Roche-Genentech and Sanofi; has received consulting fees from 4SC, AstraZeneca, BMS, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Idera, Immunocore, Italfarmaco, iTeos, Lunaphore, Merck Serono, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Nektar, Nouscom, Novartis, Oncosec, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Regeneron, Roche-Genentech, Sandoz, Sanofi, Seagen and Sun Pharma; and has received travel support from MSD. RM has received consulting fees from BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has received honoraria from BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; has received travel support from BMS, Ipsen, MSD and Novartis; has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Ipsen, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. VF has received honoraria from BMS, MSD, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has received travel support from BMS and Pierre Fabre; and has participated in advisory boards for BMS, MSD and Novartis. MT has received institutional research funding from Novartis; has received honoraria from BMS, Novartis and Pierre Fabre; has received travel support from MSD; and has participated in advisory boards for Novartis. GT has received honoraria from Molteni, Novartis and Pharmamar. MGuida has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, Novartis and Pierre Fabre. MDV has received consulting fees from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; has received honoraria from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; has received travel support from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre and Sanofi. IGM is a Novartis employee. PQ has received consulting fees from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi; has received honoraria from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi; has received travel support from BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi; and has participated in advisory boards for BMS, Merck, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche and Sanofi. MB, PF, RG, GLR, and GR have no conflict of interest to declare.

Background: High body mass index (BMI) plays a key role in the development of colon cancer (CC). Our post-hoc analysis from the TOSCA trial analyzed the association between BMI and survival outcomes in terms of relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in stage II/III CC patients., Patients and Methods: Patients enrolled in the TOSCA trial between 2007-2013 with BMI data entered the study. The prognostic impact of BMI on survival outcomes was investigated through uni- and multivariable Cox regression analyses., Results: Overall, 1455 patients with stage II/III CC patients were included. The median follow-up was of 61.5 months; 16.1% of patients relapsed, 11.2% died and 19.5% patients relapsed or died. No impact of BMI on RFS was detected at univariate or multivariable analyses. By univariate analysis for OS, a significantly impact of a BMI > 30 kg/m 2 was reported (HR [>30 vs <25] 1.57, 95% CI 1.00-2.47, p = 0.049; HR [>30 vs <30] 1.55, 95% CI 1.01-2.37, p = 0.045). Multivariable analyses did not confirm this data. In the subgroup of stage III patients, a negative survival impact of BMI was found in univariate and multivariable models both for RFS and for OS., Conclusions: In our study, obesity with BMI > 30 kg/m 2 was an independent prognostic factor for RFS and OS in CC patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy, regardless of its duration (3 or 6 months). However, the prognostic impact of adiposity and body composition measurement should be considered to better classify patients with high visceral fat and refine their risk assessment., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

In patients with B-RAF-mutated cutaneous melanoma, targeted therapies are the treatment of choice to achieve a rapid response. In this multicentric, prospective, observational study, patients with B-RAF-mutated cutaneous melanoma who were treated with dabrafenib and trametinib were categorized in two cohorts (cohort A: limited disease (n = 104) and cohort B: bulky disease (n = 97)) according to lactate dehydrogenase levels. The primary endpoint was the progression pattern; the secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety data. From baseline to time of progression, there was a progression from nodal to other sites of disease in cohort A and from skin and nodal to other sites in cohort B. In both the cohorts, the number of involved organs and metastases at each location decreased. The median OS was 32.4 months (95% CI: 20.1 months (not estimable)) for cohort A, and 10.5 months (95% CI: 8.3-14.4 months) for cohort B; median PFS was 12.4 months (95% CI: 10.9-17.0 months) for cohort A, and 8.1 months (95% CI: 6.3-9.4 months) for cohort B. No new safety signals were reported. This study describes the patterns of first-line treatment progression with dabrafenib and trametinib in Italian clinical practice. The effectiveness and safety data were consistent with previous trials and extended to a real-world heterogeneous population.

The increase life expectancy led to an expected increase in skin cancer incidence in older patients. Their treatment can require a complex decision-making process. Limited data are available on characteristics, management and outcome of skin tumours in nonagenarian and centenarian patients. The aim of our study was to describe epidemiology, clinical-pathological features and treatment strategies of skin cancers in a cohort of patients aged ≧95 years. A total of 116 patients ≧95 years of age presented for the evaluation of 225 skin lesions (mean of 1.94 lesions per patient). The mean age was 97.4 years, 57.8% were women. Most patients had an ECOG score of 3 (49.3%) or 4 (32%). Lesions were mainly located on the head and neck area (74.2%), upper (7.1%) and lower (6,2%) limbs. The majority of patients presented with non-melanoma skin cancers (183/225; 81.3%), 25/225 (11.1%) had actinic keratosis, 5 (2.2%) melanoma and 2 (0.9%) atypical fibroxanthoma. Forty-eight lesions (21.3%) were treated with surgery, 58 (25.8%) with radiotherapy. The management of 73 lesion (32.4%) was discussed at the multidisciplinary tumour board meeting. One patient died for the progression of a squamous cell carcinoma; 74 patients died for causes unrelated to skin tumours, 36 are still alive after a mean follow-up of 27.27 months. This cohort study confirms that age is not per se a contraindication for treatment of skin cancers in elderly patients. Our results support the importance of a patient-centred care approach that should take into consideration patient's preferences, comorbidities, compliance and possible adverse events., (© 2022 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Regorafenib is a key agent in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but no validated factors predicting longer survival are available., Patients and Methods: REALITY was a retrospective multicenter trial in regorafenib-treated mCRC patients with overall survival (OS) ≥ 6 months. We aimed to assess the association between clinical parameters and outcome to define a panel identifying long term survivors among regorafenib candidates. Primary and secondary endpoints were OS and progression free survival (PFS), respectively. Statistical analysis was performed with MedCalc (survival distribution: Kaplan-Meier; survival comparison: log-rank test; independent role of significant variables at univariate analysis: logistic regression)., Results: Hundred regorafenib-treated mCRC patients with OS ≥ 6 months were enrolled. Median OS was 11.5 m (95%CI:9.60-12.96); median PFS was 4.2 months (95% CI:3.43-43.03). The absence of liver progression and of dose and/or schedule changes during the first 4 cycles (mainly for good tolerability) were independently correlated at multivariate analysis with OS (Exp(b)1.8869, P= .0277and Exp(b)2.2000, P = .0313) and PFS (Exp(b)2.1583, P = .0065 and Exp(b)2.3036, P= .0169). Patients with neither of these variables had a significantly improved OS (n = 14, 20.8 months; 95% CI:12.967-55.267) versus others (n = 86, 10 months; 95% CI:8.367-12.167; HR = 0.4902, P = .0045) and PFS (11.3 months, 95%CI:4.267-35.8 vs. 3.9 months, 95% CI:3.167-43.033; HR = 0.4648, P = .0086)., Conclusion: These 2 factors might allow clinicians to better identify patients more likely to benefit from regorafenib. Toxicity management remains crucial., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Real-world data on extended follow-up of patients with BRAF V600-mutant metastatic melanoma are limited. We investigated dabrafenib plus trametinib (dab + tram) outside of a clinical trial setting (Individual Patient Program; DESCRIBE Italy)., Objective: To describe the baseline features, treatment patterns, efficacy, and safety outcomes in patients with BRAF V600-mutant unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received dab + tram as part of the Managed Access Program (MAP) in Italy., Patients and Methods: An observational, retrospective chart review was conducted in Italian patients with BRAF V600-mutant unresectable stage III/IV melanoma receiving dab + tram as part of the MAP. Baseline features, treatment patterns, efficacy, and safety outcomes were evaluated., Results: Overall, 499 patients were included in this analysis. BRAF V600E mutation was seen in 81.4% of patients. Overall response rate achieved in 243 of the 390 evaluable patients was 62.3% (95% CI 57.5-67.1). Median progression-free survival (PFS) was 9.3 months (95% CI 8.6-10.6). Subgroup analyses revealed that patients with normal lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) and ≤ three metastatic sites without brain metastases at baseline had better outcomes. With normal LDH at baseline, median PFS for patients with one or two metastatic sites other than cerebral was 18 months. No new safety signals were observed. Treatment was permanently discontinued because of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in 9.2% of patients, and pyrexia (27.3%) was the most common TEAE, with a lower incidence than that in the phase 3 studies of dab + tram., Conclusion: Treatment of BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic melanoma with dab + tram in the real-world setting was effective and safe, including the unselected population with several patients having a high tumor burden - concordant with the results of the pivotal phase 3 studies of dab + tram., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

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/m 2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days versus NAB-P 125 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8 and 15 every 28 days plus G 1000 mg/m 2 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., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement Dr Cascinu reports grants from Celegne during the conduct of the study; other from Celegne; other from Servier, outside the submitted work; and the remaining authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This prospective, multicentre, observational INVIDIa-2 study is investigating the clinical efficacy of influenza vaccination in advanced-cancer patients receiving immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), enrolled in 82 Italian centres, from October 2019 to January 2020. The primary endpoint was the incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI) until 30 April 2020. All the ILI episodes, laboratory tests, complications, hospitalizations and pneumonitis were recorded. Therefore, the study prospectively recorded all the COVID-19 ILI events., Patients and Methods: Patients were included in this non-prespecified COVID-19 analysis, if alive on 31 January 2020, when the Italian government declared the national emergency. The prevalence of confirmed COVID-19 cases was detected as ILI episode with laboratory confirmation of SARS-CoV-2. Cases with clinical-radiological diagnosis of COVID-19 (COVID-like ILIs), were also reported., Results: Out of 1257 enrolled patients, 955 matched the inclusion criteria for this unplanned analysis. From 31 January to 30 April 2020, 66 patients had ILI: 9 of 955 cases were confirmed COVID-19 ILIs, with prevalence of 0.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.3-2.4], a hospitalization rate of 100% and a mortality rate of 77.8%. Including 5 COVID-like ILIs, the overall COVID-19 prevalence was 1.5% (95% CI: 0.5-3.1), with 100% hospitalization and 64% mortality. The presence of elderly, males and comorbidities was significantly higher among patients vaccinated against influenza versus unvaccinated ( p =  0.009, p <  0.0001, p <  0.0001). Overall COVID-19 prevalence was 1.2% for vaccinated (six of 482 cases, all confirmed) and 1.7% for unvaccinated (8 of 473, 3 confirmed COVID-19 and 5 COVID-like), p =  0.52. The difference remained non-significant, considering confirmed COVID-19 only ( p =  0.33)., Conclusion: COVID-19 has a meaningful clinical impact on the cancer-patient population receiving ICIs, with high prevalence, hospitalization and an alarming mortality rate among symptomatic cases. Influenza vaccination does not protect from SARS-CoV-2 infection., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: The Federation of Italian Cooperative Oncology Groups (FICOG) received funding for the present study by Seqirus and Roche S.p.A.; the Federation also received funding during the conduct of the present study by Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Sanofi. Melissa Bersanelli received funding for the present study by Seqirus and Roche S.p.A. (FICOG as Institution, no personal fees). She also received, outside the present work, research funding from Pfizer and Novartis (Institution), honoraria as speaker at scientific events (personal fees) by Astra Zeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Novartis and Pfizer; as consultant for advisory role (personal fees) by Novartis, BMS and Pfizer. Ugo De Giorgi received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Roche, MSD, Pfizer, GSK, Clovis, Incyte and research funding from Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer. Dr Di Maio reports personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Janssen, personal fees from Astellas, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Eisai, personal fees from Takeda, grants from Tesaro GSK, outside the submitted work. Sebastiano Buti received honoraria as speaker at scientific events and advisory role by BMS, Pfizer; MSD, Ipsen, Roche S.p.A., Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca and Novartis; he also received research funding from Novartis. Marcello Tiseo received honoraria (personal fees) by MSD, BMS, Boehringer (BI), Takeda, AstraZeneca, and research funding by AstraZeneca (Institution). Vieri Scotti participated, with personal fees, to advisory boards and speaker’s bureaus for Roche S.p.A. Dr Cortellini reports grants from AstraZeneca, grants from MSD, grants from BMS, grants from Roche, during the conduct of the study; grants from AstraZeneca, grants from MSD, grants from BMS, grants from Roche, grants from Novartis, outside the submitted work. Saverio Cinieri declared international board for Eli Lilly international. Paolo Andrea Zucali acts in a consultant or advisory role for Sanofi, BMS, Pfizer, MSD, Astellas, Janssen, Ipsen, Novartis, all outside the scope of work. Sergio Bracarda declares to have acted as advisory board member (uncompensated) for: Janssen, Astellas, Pfizer, MSD, BMS, Merck, AstraZeneca, AAA, Ipsen, Bayer, Roche/Genentech. Francesco Carozza declared personal fees from Janssen. Sara Pilotto reports personal fees from AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merk & Co, Roche, outside the submitted work. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (© The Author(s), 2020.)

Background: Although American Society of Clinical Oncology and European Society for Medical Oncology guidelines have identified the negative prognostic factors that clinicians have to consider when treating their patients with stage II colon cancer (CC), the role of histological subtype is controversial., Subjects, Materials, and Methods: The randomized, multicenter, phase III TOSCA trial compared 3 versus 6 months of fluoropyrimidine-oxaliplatin adjuvant chemotherapy in 3,759 patients with high-risk stage II or stage III CC. The objective of this substudy was to evaluate the influence of histological subtypes on the impact of the treatment duration of adjuvant chemotherapy in terms of relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in 85 mucinous adenocarcinoma (MUC) and 389 nonmucinous adenocarcinoma (NMUC) patients with high-risk stage II, grade 3 CC., Results: A significant interaction between treatment duration and histology was observed in both RFS (p = .027) and OS (p = .017). In the subgroup of patients with MUC, worse RFS (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-15.17; p = .045) and OS (HR, 9.56; 95% CI, 1.14-79.98; p = .037) were detected for patients treated in the 3-month arm. No statistically significant differences were found in the subgroup of patients with NMUC., Conclusion: Patients with MUC, grade 3, stage II CC require special attention and may need 6 months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. Larger studies are required to assess the combined use of histology and other prognostic/predictive factors to define the administration of chemotherapy in patients with stage II CC and to improve their prognosis., Implications for Practice: Although ASCO and ESMO guidelines define the prognostic factors for patients with stage II colon cancer to establish the use of adjuvant chemotherapy, the influence of histological subtypes is controversial in this population. This study underscores that patients with grade 3 mucinous adenocarcinomas may need adjuvant chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidines for a duration of 6 months rather than 3 months., (© AlphaMed Press 2020.)

Importance: The addition of oxaliplatin to the standard 6-month fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II colorectal cancer has been reported to reduce the risk of relapse although it does not increase survival. The Three or Six Colon Adjuvant (TOSCA) trial compared 3 months with 6 months of adjuvant fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with stage III colon cancer. The utility remains unknown., Objective: To assess the noninferiority and toxic effects of 3 vs 6 months of FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin) adjunct chemotherapy among patients with high-risk stage II resected colorectal cancer enrolled in the TOSCA trial., Design, Setting, and Participants: The TOSCA study was a noninferiority phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted from June 2007 to March 2013 in 130 Italian centers. Included patients had resected colorectal cancer located 12 cm from the anal verge by endoscopy or above the peritoneal reflection at surgery. In this preplanned study assessing the per-protocol population, 5-year relapse-free survival was evaluated in 1254 patients with high-risk stage II resected colorectal cancer who had received adjuvant FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine plus oxaliplatin)., Interventions: Patients were originally randomized (1:1) in the TOSCA trial to receive 3 months (experimental group) or 6 months (control) of standard doses of FOLFOX or CAPOX at the discretion of the treating physician., Main Outcome and Measures: A hazard ratio of at least 1.2 between the 3-month and 6-month chemotherapy groups was set to reject the null hypothesis of noninferiority., Results: Overall, 1254 patients (mean [SD] age, 62.4 [9.8] years; 565 women [45.1%]) with clinical high-risk stage II resected colorectal cancer were analyzed at a median follow-up of 62 months (interquartile range, 53-71) months. Of them, 301 patients (24.0%) had pT4N0M0 tumors, and the remaining 953 patients (76.0%) had high-risk pT3N0M0 tumors; 776 patients (61.9%) received FOLFOX and 478 (38.1%) received CAPOX. The 5-year relapse-free survival was 82.2% for the 3-month arm and 88.2% for the 6-month arm, with an estimated hazard ratio of 1.41 (95% CI, 1.05-1.89; P = .86 for noninferiority). For CAPOX, the 5-year relapse-free survival was similar in the 2 arms (difference, 0.76% favoring the 6-month arm; 95% CI, -6.28% to 7.80%), whereas for FOLFOX, the difference was pronounced: 8.56% in favor of the longer-duration arm (95% CI, 3.45%-13.67%). Nevertheless, the test for an interaction between duration and regimen was not statistically significant. Neurotoxicity was approximately 5 times lower in the shorter duration arm than in the longer duration arm., Conclusions and Relevance: In the 3-month arm, the treatment was significantly less toxic than in the 6-month arm. Noninferiority was not shown for 5-year relapse-free survival. However, a possible regimen effect was observed, suggesting that either 3 months of CAPOX or 6 months of FOLFOX therapy can be used whenever an oxaliplatin doublet is indicated for treatment of patients with stage II colorectal cancer., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0064660.