Search

Malignancies of the peritoneal cavity are associated with a dismal prognosis. Systemic chemotherapy is the gold standard for patients with unresectable peritoneal disease, but its intraperitoneal effect is hampered by the peritoneal-plasma barrier. Intraperitoneal chemotherapy, which is administered repeatedly into the peritoneal cavity through a peritoneal implanted port, could provide a novel treatment modality for this patient population. This review provides a systematic overview of intraperitoneal used drugs, the performed clinical studies so far, and the complications of the peritoneal implemental ports. Several anticancer drugs have been studied for intraperitoneal application, with the taxanes paclitaxel and docetaxel as the most commonly used drug. Repeated intraperitoneal chemotherapy, mostly in combination with systemic chemotherapy, has shown promising results in Phase I and Phase II studies for several tumor types, such as gastric cancer, ovarian cancer, colorectal cancer, and pancreatic cancer. Two Phase III studies for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in gastric cancer have been performed so far, but the results regarding the superiority over standard systemic chemotherapy alone, are contradictory. Pressurized intraperitoneal administration, known as PIPAC, is an alternative way of administering intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and the first prospective studies have shown a tolerable safety profile. Although intraperitoneal chemotherapy might be a standard treatment option for patients with unresectable peritoneal disease, more Phase II and Phase III studies focusing on tolerability profiles, survival rates, and quality of life are warranted in order to establish optimal treatment schedules and to establish a potential role for intraperitoneal chemotherapy in the approach to unresectable peritoneal disease.

INTRODUCTION: The oral fluoropyrimidine S-1 has shown comparable efficacy to capecitabine in Asian and some Western studies on metastatic colorectal cancer. S-1 is associated with a lower incidence of hand-foot syndrome (HFS) and cardiac toxicity. We assessed the long-term tolerability of S-1 in patients who discontinued capecitabine for reasons of HFS or cardiac toxicity.PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who switched from capecitabine to S-1, given as monotherapy or in combination with other agents, were identified in a Dutch prospective cohort study (2016-2021). The incidence and severity of HFS, cardiotoxicity and other toxicities were assessed.RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were identified. The median duration of capecitabine treatment was 81 days (range 4-454). In 19 patients (40%) a dose reduction was applied prior to switch to S-1. Reasons for discontinuation of capecitabine were HFS in 36 (77%) patients, coronary artery vasospasms in 10 (21%) patients, and gastrointestinal toxicities in 1 patient (2%). The median number of S-1 cycles was 6 (range 1-36). The median time between last dose of capecitabine and first dose of S-1 was 11 days (range 1-49). After switch to S-1, all patients with prior HFS developed a lower grade or complete resolution of symptoms, and in all other patients symptoms did not recur. Other S-1-related adverse events were limited to grade 1-2. Six patients (13%) discontinued S-1 due to either known fluoropyrimidine-related or bevacizumab-related toxicities. Switch to S-1 did not appear to compromise treatment efficacy.CONCLUSION: S-1 is a valid alternative to capecitabine in case HFS or cardiotoxicity occurs.

INTRODUCTION: The RECOURSE trial demonstrated a modest benefit in overall survival (OS) for trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) versus placebo in pretreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. Unfortunately, quality of life (QoL) was not assessed. We evaluated QoL and survival of patients treated with FTD/TPI in daily practice.PATIENTS AND METHODS: QUALITAS is a substudy of the Prospective Dutch CRC cohort (PLCRC). From 150 mCRC patients treated with FTD/TPI, QoL (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29) was assessed monthly from study entry, and linked to clinical data of the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Joint models were constructed combining mixed effects models with Cox PH models. Primary endpoint was difference in QoL over time (which was deemed clinically relevant if ≥10 points). Secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), and OS. We analyzed the association between QLQ-C30 Summary Score (QoL-SS) at FTD/TPI initiation (baseline) and survival.RESULTS: There was no clinically relevant change in QoL-SS from baseline to 10 months post-baseline (i.e. the cut-off point after which 90% of patients had discontinued FTD/TPI treatment): -5.3 [95% CI -8.7;-1.5]. Patients who were treated with FTD/TPI for ≥ 3 months (n = 85) reported 6.3 [1.6;11.1] points higher baseline QoL, compared to patients treated < 3 months (n = 65, "poor responders"). In the latter, time to a clinically relevant QoL deterioration was < 2 months. Median PFS, TTF and OS were 2.9 [2.7;3.1], 3.1 [2.9;3.2] and 7.7 [6.6;8.8] months, respectively. Worse baseline QoL-SS was independently associated with shorter OS (HR 0.45 [0.32;0.63]), PFS (0.63 [0.48;0.83]), and TTF (0.64 [0.47;0.86]).CONCLUSION: The maintenance of QoL during FTD/TPI treatment in daily practice supports its use. The QoL deterioration in "poor responders" is likely due to disease progression. The strong association between worse baseline QoL and shorter survival suggests that clinicians should take QoL into account when determining prognosis and treatment strategy for individual patients.

Background Intestinal microbiota might interact with capecitabine and vice versa. Patients and methods 33 mCRC patients collected faecal samples before, during, and after three cycles capecitabine. Results Intestinal microbiota were not affected by capecitabine and not different between responders and non-responders. Conclusions Our study provides insights into challenges and points of attention for the design of upcoming clinical microbiota studies. Background Previous pre-clinical research has indicated that the intestinal microbiota can potentiate anti-tumour efficacy of capecitabine and that capecitabine treatment impacts intestinal microbiota composition and diversity. Using a longitudinal design, this study explores the associations between the intestinal microbiota and treatment response in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) during capecitabine treatment. Patients and methods Patients with mCRC treated with capecitabine were prospectively enrolled in a multicentre cohort study. Patients collected a faecal sample and completed a questionnaire before, during, and after three cycles of capecitabine. Several clinical characteristics, including tumour response, toxicity and antibiotic use were recorded. Intestinal microbiota were analysed by amplicon sequencing of the 16S rRNA V4 gene-region. Results 33 patients were included. After three cycles of capecitabine, six patients (18%) achieved a partial response, 25 (76%) showed stable disease, and one (3%) experienced progressive disease. 90 faecal samples were collected. Microbial diversity (α-diversity), community structure (β-diversity), and bacterial abundance on phylum and genus level were not significantly different between responders and non-responders and were not significantly affected by three cycles of capecitabine. Conclusions This is the first clinical study with longitudinal intestinal microbiota sampling in mCRC patients that explores the role of the intestinal microbiota during treatment with capecitabine. Intestinal microbiota composition and diversity before, during, and after three cycles of capecitabine were not associated with response in this study population. Capecitabine did not induce significant changes in the microbiota composition and diversity during the treatment period. Individual effects of antibiotics during capecitabine treatment were observed.

Background: Metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is characterized by a poor survival rate, which can be improved by systemic treatment. Consensus on the most optimal first- and second-line palliative systemic treatment is lacking. The aim of this study was to describe the use of first- and second-line systemic treatment, overall survival (OS), and time to failure (TTF) of first- and second-line treatment in metastatic PDAC in a real-world setting. Patients and Methods: Patients with synchronous metastatic PDAC diagnosed between 2015 and 2018 who received systemic treatment were selected from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. OS and TTF were evaluated using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazard analyses. Results: The majority of 1,586 included patients received FOLFIRINOX (65%), followed by gemcitabine (18%), and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (13%) in the first line. Median OS for first-line FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, and gemcitabine monotherapy was 6.6, 4.7, and 2.9 months, respectively. Compared to FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel showed significantly inferior OS after adjustment for confounders (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02–1.41), and gemcitabine monotherapy was independently associated with a shorter OS and TTF (HR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.71–2.30 and HR, 2.31; 95% CI, 1.88–2.83, respectively). Of the 121 patients who received second-line systemic treatment, 33% received gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel, followed by gemcitabine (31%) and FOLFIRINOX (10%). Conclusions: Based on population-based data in patients with metastatic PDAC, treatment predominantly consists of FOLFIRINOX in the first line and gemcitabine with or without nab-paclitaxel in the second line. FOLFIRINOX in the first line shows superior OS compared with gemcitabine with or without nab-paclitaxel.

AIM: This study aims to assess the quality of life and quality of care as experienced by patients with advanced cancer and their relatives while taking their interdependency into account.METHODS: A prospective multicentre observational study (eQuiPe study) was conducted. Quality of life scores (EORTC QLQ-C30) was compared to a matched normative population and logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the relation between high emotional functioning (EF, measured with the EORTC QLQ-C30) and experienced quality of care (IN-PATSAT32, CQ-index PC).RESULTS: In total, 1103 (65%) patients and 831 (71%) relatives completed the baseline questionnaire, including 699 unique patient-relative couples. Patients experienced lower EF than the normative population (78 versus 87, p < .001). Compared to patients, relatives reported clinically relevantly lower EF (69 versus 78, p < .001). Being more satisfied with care in general (p < .05) and clarity about the key health-care provider (p < .05) was positively associated with high EF in patients. For relatives, experienced continuity of care (p < .01) and information for the patient (p < .05) were positively associated with high EF. The EF of patients (p < .001) and relatives (p < .001) were positively associated with each other and continuity of care as perceived by relatives was positively associated with high EF in patients (p < .01).CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced cancer reported low levels of EF but their relatives reported even lower levels of EF. Experienced integrated organisation and satisfaction with care were positively related to EF. The interdependent relation between patients' and relatives' EF and their care experiences suggests that a family-centred approach can optimise palliative cancer care.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The eQuiPe study is registered as NTR6584 in the Netherlands Trial Register.

Aim: To determine the safety, feasibility, pharmacokinetics, and cost of UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan.Patients and methods: In this prospective, multicentre, non-randomised study, patients intended for treatment with irinotecan were pre-therapeutically genotyped for UGT1A1*28 and UGT1A1)93. Homozygous variant carriers (UGT1A1 poor metabolisers; PMs) received an initial 30% dose reduction. The primary endpoint was incidence of febrile neutropenia in the first two cycles of treatment. Toxicity in UGT1A1 PMs was compared to a historical cohort of UGT1A1 PMs treated with full dose therapy, and to UGT1A1 non-PMs treated with full dose therapy in the current study. Secondary endpoints were pharmacokinetics, feasi- bility, and costs.Results: Of the 350 evaluable patients, 31 (8.9%) patients were UGT1A1 PM and received a median 30% dose reduction. The incidence of febrile neutropenia in this group was 6.5% compared to 24% in historical UGT1A1 PMs (P = 0.04) and was comparable to the incidence in UGT1A1 non-PMs treated with full dose therapy. Systemic exposure of SN-38 of reduced dosing in UGT1A1 PMs was still slightly higher compared to a standard-dosed irinotecan patient cohort (difference: thorn 32%). Cost analysis showed that genotype-guided dosing was cost-saving with a cost reduction of V183 per patient.Conclusion: UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing significantly reduces the incidence of febrile neutropenia in UGT1A1 PM patients treated with irinotecan, results in a therapeutically effec- tive systemic drug exposure, and is cost-saving. Therefore, UGT1A1 genotype-guided dosing of irinotecan should be considered standard of care in order to improve individual patient safety. (C) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

ObjectiveThe death of a loved one is considered to be the most stressful of all life events. However, the impact of bereavement on quality of life varies between individuals. The aim of our study was to assess emotional functioning (EF), which is a domain of quality of life, of bereaved relatives after the death of their loved one and its associated factors.MethodA prospective, longitudinal, multicenter, observational study on quality of care and quality of life of patients with advanced cancer and their relatives was conducted (eQuiPe). The association between EF of relatives during bereavement and the following factors was investigated: gender, type of relationship, educational level, pre-bereavement emotional and social functioning and global quality of life, social support pre- and during bereavement, anticipatory complicated grief, support of healthcare professionals during bereavement, age of patient and bereaved relative and duration of survival after primary cancer diagnosis.Results150 bereaved relatives completed the bereavement questionnaire. In 41% of the bereaved relatives EF was ≤71, indicating clinically relevant low EF. Multivariable logistic regression showed that females experienced more often emotional problems (OR = 2.82). Emotional functioning pre-bereavement (OR = 0.96) and social support during bereavement (OR = 0.97) were associated with low EF during bereavement.ConclusionsAlmost half of the bereaved relatives of patients with advanced cancer experienced low EF and this was associated with low EF pre-bereavement and low social support during bereavement. Support for relatives should be initiated before the patient's death. Future research is needed to investigate the impact of such support on relatives' wellbeing during bereavement.

Gastric cancer; Metastasectomy; Oligometastasis Cáncer gástrico; Metastasectomía; Oligometástasis Càncer gàstric; Metastasectomia; Oligometàstasi Background Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. Methods In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). Conclusion The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials.

Aim Positron emission tomography (PET)/CT can be used to monitor the metabolic changes that occur after intensified treatment with induction chemotherapy and chemo(re)irradiation for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). This study aimed to analyse the correlation between the PET/CT response and final histopathological outcomes. Methods All LRRC patients who underwent induction chemotherapy prior to surgery between January 2010 and July 2020 and were monitored with pretreatment and post-treatment PET/CT were included. Visual qualitative analysis was performed, and patients were scored as having achieved a complete metabolic response (CMR), partial metabolic response (PMR) or no response (NR). The histopathological response was assessed according to the Mandard tumour regression (TRG) score and categorized as major (TRG 1-2), partial (TRG 3) or poor (TRG 4-5). The PET/CT and TRG categories were compared, and possible confounders were analysed. Results A total of 106 patients were eligible for analysis; 24 (23%) had a CMR, 54 (51%) had a PMR and 28 (26%) had NR. PET/CT response was a significant predictor of the negative resection margin rate, achieving 96% for CMR, 69% for PMR and 50% for NR. The overall accuracy between PET score and pathological TRG was 45%, and the positive predictive value for CMR was 63%. A longer interval between post-treatment PET/CT and surgery negatively influenced the predictive value. Conclusion Metabolic PET/CT response evaluation after neoadjuvant treatment proves to be a complementary diagnostic tool to standard MRI in assessing tumour response, and may play a role for treatment planning in LRRC patients.

Background CRC-PIPAC prospectively assessed repetitive oxaliplatin-based pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC-OX) as a palliative monotherapy (i.e., without concomitant systemic therapy in between subsequent procedures) for unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The present study explored patient-reported outcomes (PROs) during trial treatment. Methods In this single-arm phase 2 trial in two tertiary centers, patients with isolated unresectable CPM received 6-weekly PIPAC-OX (92 mg/m2). PROs (calculated from EQ-5D-5L, and EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29) were compared between baseline and 1 and 4 weeks after the first three procedures using linear mixed modeling with determination of clinical relevance (Cohen’s D ≥ 0.50) of statistically significant differences. Results Twenty patients underwent 59 procedures (median 3 [range 1–6]). Several PROs solely worsened 1 week after the first procedure (index value − 0.10, p p p p p p = 0.007; diarrhea + 15, p = 0.002; urinary frequency + 13, p = 0.004; flatulence + 13, p = 0.001). These PROs returned to baseline at subsequent time points. Other PROs worsened 1 week after the first procedure (fatigue + 23, p p p p p p = 0.002), and third procedure (pain + 22, p p = 0.002). Except for appetite loss, all changes were clinically relevant. All analyzed PROs returned to baseline 4 weeks after the third procedure. Conclusions Patients receiving repetitive PIPAC-OX monotherapy for unresectable CPM had clinically relevant but reversible worsening of several PROs, mainly 1 week after the first procedure. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03246321; Netherlands trial register: NL6426.

Purpose: Magnetic resonance imaging-detected extramural venous invasion (mrEMVI) and tumor deposits (TDs) are risk factors for the development of local recurrence and distant metastases (DMs) in rectal cancer. However, little is known about their response to neoadjuvant treatment and its relation to oncologic outcomes. This study evaluated the incidence and features of mrEMVI and TDs before and after neoadjuvant treatment in relation to the development of local recurrence and DMs.Methods and Materials: Patients with cT3/4 rectal cancer without synchronous metastases who underwent surgery in a tertiary referral hospital were retrospectively analyzed. MRI scans were re-evaluated for the presence of mrEMVI, the occurrence of TDs, and response to neoadjuvant therapy (mr-vTRG).Results: In total, 277 patients were included, of whom 163 (58.8%) presented with mrEMVI. TDs were present in 56.4% of mrEMVI-positive and 9.6% of mrEMVI-negative patients (P < .001). The 5-year DM rate was significantly higher in mrEMVI-positive patients with and without TDs (45.2% and 35.9%, respectively) compared with mrEMVI-negative patients (25.7%; P = .012). After neoadjuvant treatment, the 5-year DM rate of patients with mr-vTRG 3-5 was 46.1%, whereas good responders (mr-vTRG 1-2) had a DM rate similar to mrEMVI-negative patients (25.7% and 25.7%, respectively; P = .002). The occurrence of TDs and larger mrEMVI size resulted in a lower likelihood of regression of mrEMVI.Conclusions: The prevalence of mrEMVI and TDs in cT3-4 rectal cancer is high and is associated with worsened oncologic outcomes. mrEMVI regression (mr-vTRG 1-2), which occured in 25% of the cases, leads to oncologic outcomes similar to those in patients without mrEMVI on baseline MRI. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.

Background Despite its increasing use, pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-OX) has never been prospectively investigated as a palliative monotherapy for colorectal peritoneal metastases in clinical trials. This trial aimed to assess the safety (primary aim) and antitumor activity (key secondary aim) of PIPAC-OX monotherapy in patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases. Methods In this two-center, single-arm, phase II trial, patients with isolated unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases in any line of palliative treatment underwent 6-weekly PIPAC-OX (92 mg/m(2)). Key outcomes were major treatment-related adverse events (primary outcome), minor treatment-related adverse events, hospital stay, tumor response (radiological, biochemical, pathological, ascites), progression-free survival, and overall survival. Results Twenty enrolled patients underwent 59 (median 3, range 1-6) PIPAC-OX procedures. Major treatment-related adverse events occurred in 3 of 20 (15%) patients after 5 of 59 (8%) procedures (abdominal pain, intraperitoneal hemorrhage, iatrogenic pneumothorax, transient liver toxicity), including one possibly treatment-related death (sepsis of unknown origin). Minor treatment-related adverse events occurred in all patients after 57 of 59 (97%) procedures, the most common being abdominal pain (all patients after 88% of procedures) and nausea (65% of patients after 39% of procedures). Median hospital stay was 1 day (range 0-3). Response rates were 0% (radiological), 50% (biochemical), 56% (pathological), and 56% (ascites). Median progression-free and overall survival were 3.5 months (interquartile range [IQR] 2.5-5.7) and 8.0 months (IQR 6.3-12.6), respectively. Conclusions In patients with unresectable colorectal peritoneal metastases undergoing PIPAC-OX monotherapy, some major adverse events occurred and minor adverse events were common. The clinical relevance of observed biochemical, pathological, and ascites responses remains to be determined, especially since radiological response was absent.

Contains fulltext : 238268.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access) IMPORTANCE: To date, no randomized clinical trials have investigated perioperative systemic therapy relative to cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) alone for resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and safety of perioperative systemic therapy in patients with resectable CPM and the response of CPM to neoadjuvant treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An open-label, parallel-group phase 2 randomized clinical trial in all 9 Dutch tertiary centers for the surgical treatment of CPM enrolled participants between June 15, 2017, and January 9, 2019. Participants were patients with pathologically proven isolated resectable CPM who did not receive systemic therapy within 6 months before enrollment. INTERVENTIONS: Randomization to perioperative systemic therapy or CRS-HIPEC alone. Perioperative systemic therapy comprised either four 3-week neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin), six 2-week neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin), or six 2-week neoadjuvant cycles of FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) and either four 3-week adjuvant cycles of capecitabine or six 2-week adjuvant cycles of fluorouracil with leucovorin. Bevacizumab was added to the first 3 (CAPOX) or 4 (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) neoadjuvant cycles. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportions of macroscopic complete CRS-HIPEC and Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher postoperative morbidity. Key secondary outcomes were centrally assessed rates of objective radiologic and major pathologic response of CPM to neoadjuvant treatment. Analyses were done modified intention-to-treat in patients starting neoadjuvant treatment (experimental arm) or undergoing upfront surgery (control arm). RESULTS: In 79 patients included in the analysis (43 [54%] men; mean [SD] age, 62 [10] years), experimental (n = 37) and control (n = 42) arms did not differ significantly regarding the proportions of macroscopic complete CRS-HIPEC (33 of 37 [89%] vs 36 of 42 [86%] patients; risk ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.88-1.23; P = .74) and Clavien-Dindo grade 3 or higher postoperative morbidity (8 of 37 [22%] vs 14 of 42 [33%] patients; risk ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.31-1.37; P = .25). No treatment-related deaths occurred. Objective radiologic and major pathologic response rates of CPM to neoadjuvant treatment were 28% (9 of 32 evaluable patients) and 38% (13 of 34 evaluable patients), respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized phase 2 trial in patients diagnosed with resectable CPM, perioperative systemic therapy seemed feasible, safe, and able to induce response of CPM, justifying a phase 3 trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02758951.

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (PIPAC-OX) is increasingly used as a palliative treatment option for patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). The present study aimed to systematically review all clinical studies reporting safety and efficacy outcomes of PIPAC-OX in patients with CPM.. PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, and CINAHL were systematically searched to identify all clinical studies that included at least one patient with CPM treated with PIPAC-OX and reported one of the following outcomes: adverse events, tumor response, quality of life, secondary cytoreductive surgery, progression-free survival, overall survival, and environmental safety of PIPAC-OX. Results were narratively described. Of 28 included studies, only 14 non-comparative studies separately reported at least one outcome of PIPAC-OX for CPM, of which only two studies specifically focused on this group. These 14 studies reported adverse events (5 studies), tumor response (5 studies), secondary cytoreductive surgery (4 studies), progression-free survival (1 study), overall survival (5 studies), and environmental safety (2 studies). Except for 5 studies (describing 26 patients), none of the included studies stratified their results for PIPAC-OX monotherapy and PIPAC-OX with concomitant systemic therapy, and none of the studies reporting survival outcomes stratified results for line of palliative treatment, complicating interpretation. No PIPAC-OX related deaths were reported. No occupational platinum was detected during PIPAC-OX. The available evidence regarding PIPAC-OX for CPM. is limited and difficult to interpret. Despite these limitations, PIPAC-OX appears safe in patients with CPM and safe for operating personnel. To increase insight in the role of PIPAC-OX in this setting, investigators of ongoing and future studies are encouraged to report separate outcomes of PIPAC-OX for CPM, to stratify their results for PIPAC-OX monotherapy and PIPAC-OX with concomitant systemic therapy, and to stratify survival results for line of palliative treatment.

Background: Positive results of randomized trials led to the introduction of FOLFIRINOX in 2012 and gemcitabine with nab-paclitaxel in 2015 for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. It is unknown to which extent these new chemotherapeutic regimens have been implemented in clinical practice and what the impact has been on overall survival. Material and methods: Patients diagnosed with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma between 2007–2016 were included from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Multilevel logistic regression and Cox regression analyses, adjusting for patient, tumor, and hospital characteristics, were used to analyze variation of chemotherapy use. Results: In total, 8726 patients were included. The use of chemotherapy increased from 31% in 2007–2011 to 37% in 2012–2016 (p

In recent years, clinical trials have shown improved survival of patients with metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer. The number of patients participating in clinical trials is limited, and survival improvements observed from clinical trials are unrepresentative for the full population. The aim of our study was to assess trends in survival for the best-case, typical, and worst-case scenarios in patients with metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer.We selected patients with metastatic esophageal or gastric cancer diagnosed between 2006 and 2020 from the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry. Survival was calculated for different percentiles of the survival curve for each incidence year (eg, the 10th percentile [p10] represents the top 10% of patients with the best survival): p10 (best-case), p25 (upper-typical), p50 (median), p75 (lower-typical), and p90 (worst-case). Weighted linear regression analyses were performed to test whether changes in survival were significant.The overall median survival between 2006 and 2020 remained unchanged for patients with esophageal cancer (n=10,448; from 5.2 to 5.2 months, respectively; P=.06) and improved for patients with gastric cancer (n=10,512; from 3.5 to 4.3 months, respectively; P=.001). For patients with esophageal cancer, survival for the best-case scenario (p10; best 10% of patients) significantly improved from 17.2 to 21.0 months (P=.006). For patients with gastric cancer, survival significantly improved for the best-case scenario (p10) from 15.9 to 23.5 months (P.001) and the upper-typical scenario (p25) scenario improved from 7.9 to 9.9 months (P.001).Despite significant survival improvements in clinical trials, survival improvements were not observed for the majority of patients treated in daily clinical practice. An increase in survival was only observed for patients with the best prognosis.

Background This study aimed to investigate the agreement between magnetic resonance tumour regression grade (mrTRG) and pathological regression grade (pTRG) in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC). Also, the reproducibility of mrTRG was investigated. Methods All patients with LRRC who underwent a resection between 2010 and 2018 after treatment with induction chemotherapy and neoadjuvant chemo(re)irradiation in whom a restaging MRI was available were retrospectively selected. All MRI scans were reassessed by two independent radiologists using the mrTRG, and the pTRG was reassessed by an independent pathologist. The interobserver agreement between the radiologists as well as between the radiologists and the pathologist was assessed with the weighted kappa test. A subanalysis was performed to evaluate the influence of the interval between imaging and surgery. Results Out of 313 patients with LRRC treated during the study interval, 124 patients were selected. Interobserver agreement between the radiologists was fair (k = 0.28) using a two-tier grading system (mrTRG 1–2 versus mrTRG 3–5). For the lead radiologist, agreement with pTRG was moderate (k = 0.52; 95 per cent c.i. 0.36 to 0.68) when comparing good (mrTRG 1–2 and Mandard 1–2) and intermediate/poor responders (mrTRG 3–5 and Mandard 3–5), and the agreement was fair between the other abdominal radiologist and pTRG (k = 0.39; 95 per cent c.i. 0.22 to 0.56). A shorter interval (less than 7 weeks) between MRI and surgery resulted in an improved agreement (k = 0.69), compared with an interval more than 7 weeks (k = 0.340). For the lead radiologist, the positive predictive value for predicting good responders was 95 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 71 per cent to 99 per cent), whereas this was 56 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 44 per cent to 66 per cent) for the other radiologist. Conclusion This study showed that, in LRRC, the reproducibility of mrTRG among radiologists is limited and the agreement of mrTRG with pTRG is low. However, a shorter interval between MRI and surgery seems to improve this agreement and, if assessed by a dedicated radiologist, mrTRG could predict good responders.

Oesophageal neoplasm; Oligometastasis; Radiosurgery Neoplàsia esofàgica; Oligometàstasi; Radiocirurgia Neoplasia esofágica; Oligometástasis; Radiocirugía Background Consensus about the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. Objective To assess the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer across multidisciplinary tumour boards (MDTs) in Europe. Material and methods European expert centers (n = 49) were requested to discuss 15 real-life cases in their MDT with at least a medical, surgical, and radiation oncologist present. The cases varied in terms of location and number of metastases, histology, timing of detection (i.e. synchronous versus metachronous), primary tumour treatment status, and response to systemic therapy. The primary outcome was the agreement in the definition of oligometastatic disease at diagnosis and after systemic therapy. The secondary outcome was the agreement in treatment strategies. Treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease were categorised into upfront local treatment (i.e. metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy), systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment or systemic therapy alone. The agreement across MDTs was scored to be either absent/poor (

PURPOSE: When deliberating palliative cancer treatment, insight into patients' attitudes toward striving for quality of life (QL) and length of life (LL) may facilitate goal-concordant care. We investigated the (1) attitudes of patients with advanced cancer toward striving for QL and/or LL and whether these change over time, and (2) characteristics associated with these attitudes (over time). METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial on improving shared decision making (SDM), without differentiation between intervention arms. Patients (n = 173) with advanced cancer, a median life expectancy of < 12 months without anticancer treatment, and a median survival benefit of < 6 months from systemic therapy were included in seven Dutch hospitals. We used audio-recorded consultations and surveys at baseline (T0), shortly after the consultation (T2), at 3 and 6 months (T3 and T4). Primary outcomes were patients' attitudes toward striving for QL and LL (Quality Quantity Questionnaire; T2, T3, and T4). RESULTS: Overall, patients' attitudes toward striving for QL became less positive over 6 months ( P < .01); attitudes toward striving for LL did not change on group level. Studying individual patients, 76% showed changes in their attitudes toward striving for QL and/or LL at some point during the study, which occurred in various directions. More helplessness/hopelessness ( P < .001), less fighting spirit ( P < .05), less state anxiety ( P < .001), and more observed SDM ( P < .05) related to more positive attitudes toward striving for QL. Lower education, less helplessness/hopelessness, more fighting spirit, and more state anxiety ( P < .001) related to more positive attitudes toward striving for LL. CONCLUSION: Oncologists may explore patients' attitudes toward striving for QL and LL repeatedly and address patients' coping style and emotions during SDM to facilitate goal-concordant care throughout the last phase of life.

Background: Studies have shown that multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTM) improve diagnostic work-up and treatment-decisions. This study aims to evaluate the influence of implementing a regional-video-Upper-GI-MDTM (uMDTM) for oesophageal cancer (OC) on the number of patients discussed, treatment-decisions, perspectives of involved clinicians and overall survival (OS) in the Eindhoven Upper-GI Network consisting of 1 resection hospital and 5 referring hospitals. Methods: Between 2012 and 2018, patients diagnosed with OC within this region, were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry(n = 1119). From 2014, an uMDTM was gradually implemented and a mixed-method quantitative and qualitative design was used to analyse changes. Quantitative outcomes were described before and after implementation of the uMDTM. Clinicians were interviewed to assess their perspectives regarding the uMDTM. Results: After participation in the uMDTM more patients were discussed in an MDTM (80%–89%,p < 0.0001) and involvement of a resection centre during the uMDTM increased (43%–82%,p < 0.0001). The proportion of patients diagnosed with potentially curable OC (cT1-4a-x, any cN, cM0) remained stable (59%–61%, p = 0.452). Endoscopic or surgical resections were performed more often (28%–34%,p = 0.034) and the use of best supportive care decreased (21%–15%,p = 0.018). In the qualitative part an improved knowledge, collaboration and discussion was perceived due to implementation of the uMDTM. Three-year OS for all OC patients increased after the implementation of the uMDTM (24%–30%,p = 0.025). Conclusions: Implementation of a regional Upper-GI MDTM was associated with an increase in patients discussed with a resection centre, more curative resections and a better OS. It remains to be elucidated which factors in the clinical pathway explain this observed improved survival.

Background: Population-based predictive factors for the effectiveness of second line palliative systemic therapy in gastro-oesophageal cancer are not available. This study investigates the predictive value of effectiveness of first-line treatment for second-line treatment outcomes in gastro-oesophageal cancer in a real-world setting. Methods: Patients with metastatic gastro-oesophageal cancer diagnosed in 2010-2017 who were treated with second-line therapy after disease progression on first-line therapy were identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patients were divided into four groups as per duration of time to treatment failure (TTF) of the first line (0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months), and the association with overall survival (OS) and second-line TTF was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and two-sided multivariable regression models. Results: Median OS since the start of the second line of patients (n Z 611) with first-line TTF of 0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months was 4.0, 4.1, 5.5 and 7.1 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Median second-line TTF of patients with first-line TTF of 0-3, 3-6, 6-9 and >9 months was 2.8, 2.4, 3.0 and 4.5 months, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients with first-line TTF of >9 months showed a longer OS than patients with first-line TTF of 0-3 months (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.90; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46-2.47), 3-6 months (adjusted HR 1.88; 95% CI 1.47-2.39) and 6-9 months (adjusted HR 1.31; 95% CI 1.04-1.65). Results for second-line TTF were similar. Conclusions: This study shows a positive correlation between effectiveness of first-line therapy and outcomes of second-line therapy in gastro-oesophageal cancer. Physicians should take duration of the first line into account when considering second-line palliative systemic therapy. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

BACKGROUND: The aim of this population-based study was to determine the prognostic value of the histologic subtypes mucinous (MAC), non-mucinous (AC) and signet ring cell (SRCC) adenocarcinoma among patients with appendiceal cancer.METHODS AND MATERIALS: Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) of patients with primary appendiceal adenocarcinomas with MAC, AC and SRCC histologic subtype, diagnosed between 2001 and 2015 were used (n = 675). To categorize patients according to the recent histopathological classification, the NCR was linked with the Dutch Pathology Registry (PALGA). Log-rank tests and Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed to estimate overall survival (OS), and the cox proportional hazards model was run to identify prognostic factors.RESULTS: AC was the most frequently encountered histologic subtype (50.9%), followed by MAC (35.8%) and SRCC (13.3%). In locoregional disease, histologic subtype was not a prognostic factor for OS with 5-year survival rates for patients with AC, MAC and SRCC of 60.0%, 60.5% and 69.6% respectively (p = 0.68). Metastatic disease was more common in SRCC (53.8%) than in MAC (38.8%) and AC (23.4%) (p CONCLUSION: Histologic subtype had no prognostic relevance in locoregional or systemic metastatic disease in appendiceal adenocarcinoma. In peritoneal metastases, mucinous histologic subtype was a favorable prognostic factor, compared to non-mucinous and signet ring cell subtype.

Background: A relationship between quality of life (QoL) and survival has been shown for several types of cancer, mostly in clinical trials with highly selected patient groups. The relationship between QoL and survival for patients with pancreatic or periampullary cancer is unclear. Methods: This study analyzed QoL data from a prospective multicenter patient-reported outcome registry in patients with pancreatic or periampullary carcinoma registered in the nationwide Netherlands Cancer Registry (2015–2018). Baseline and delta QoL, between baseline and 3-month follow-up, were assessed with the Happiness, EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), and QLQ-PAN26 questionnaires. The relationship between QoL and survival was assessed using Cox regression models, and additional prognostic value of separate items was assessed using Nagelkerke R2 (explained variance). Results: For the baseline and delta analyses, 233 and 148 patients were available, respectively. Most were diagnosed with pancreatic adenocarcinoma (n=194; 83.3%) and had stage III disease (n=77; 33.0%), with a median overall survival of 13.6 months. Multivariate analysis using baseline scores indicated several scales to be of prognostic value for the total cohort (ie, happiness today, role functioning, diarrhea, pancreatic pain, and body image; hazard ratios all PP5% of the additional explained variance and were of added prognostic value. Multivariate analysis using delta QoL revealed that only constipation was of prognostic value for the total cohort, whereas no association with survival was found for subgroups with or without resection. Conclusions: In a multicenter cohort of patients with pancreatic or periampullary carcinoma, QoL scores predicted survival regardless of patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. QoL scores may thus be used for shared decision-making regarding disease management and treatment choice.

Background: This study sought to assess patient satisfaction and quality of life (QoL) before and after treatment of pancreatic and periampullary cancer. Methods: We conducted a prospective multicenter study of patients treated for pancreatic and periampullary cancer. General patient satisfaction was measured using the EORTC satisfaction with care questionnaire (IN-PATSAT32) at baseline and 3 months after treatment initiation, with a 10-point change on the Likert scale considered clinically meaningful. QoL was measured using the EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). The influence of treatment (curative and palliative) on patient satisfaction and QoL was determined. Results: Of 100 patients, 71 completed follow-up questionnaires. General satisfaction with care decreased from 74.3 before treatment to 61.9 after treatment (PP=.39). Clinically meaningful reductions were also observed for the reported interpersonal skills of doctors (from 73.4 to 63.3) and exchange of information within the care team (from 63.5 to 52.5). Satisfaction scores were lower for patients treated with curative intent than for those treated with palliative intent regarding interpersonal skills of doctors (P=.01), information provision by doctors (P=.004), information provision by nurses (P=.02), availability of nurses (P=.004), exchange of information within the care team (P=.01), and hospital access (P=.02). In multivariable analysis, clinicopathologic or QoL factors were not independently associated with general patient satisfaction. Conclusions: Satisfaction with care, but not QoL, decreased after pancreatic cancer treatment. Improvements in communication and interpersonal skills are needed to maintain patient satisfaction after treatment.

Background Palliative systematic treatment offers uncertain and often limited benefits, and the burden can be high. Hence, treatment decisions require shared decision making (SDM). This trial examined the independent and combined effect of an oncologist training and a patient communication aid on SDM. Methods In this multicenter randomized controlled trial with four parallel arms (2016–2018), oncologists (n = 31) were randomized to receive SDM communication skills training or not. The training consisted of a reader, two group sessions, a booster session, and a consultation room tool (10 hours). Patients (n = 194) with advanced cancer were randomized to receive a patient communication aid or not. The aid consisted of education on SDM, a question prompt list, and a value clarification exercise. The primary outcome was observed SDM as rated by blinded observers from audio‐recorded consultations. Secondary outcomes included patient‐reported SDM, patient and oncologist satisfaction, patients’ decisional conflict, patient quality of life 3 months after consultation, consultation duration, and the decision made. Results The oncologist training had a large positive effect on observed SDM (Cohen's d = 1.12) and on patient‐reported SDM (d = 0.73). The patient communication aid did not improve SDM. The combination of interventions did not add to the effect of training oncologists only. The interventions affected neither patient nor oncologist satisfaction with the consultation nor patients’ decisional conflict, quality of life, consultation duration, or the decision made. Conclusion Training medical oncologists in SDM about palliative systemic treatment improves both observed and patient‐reported SDM. A patient communication aid does not. The incorporation of skills training in (continuing) educational programs for medical oncologists is likely to stimulate the widely advocated uptake of shared decision making in clinical practice. Trial registration. Netherlands Trial Registry NTR 5489. Implications for Practice Treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and often small benefits, and the burden can be high. Hence, treatment decisions require shared decision making (SDM). SDM is increasingly advocated for ethical reasons and for its beneficial effect on patient outcomes. Few initiatives to stimulate SDM are evaluated in robust designs. This randomized controlled trial shows that training medical oncologists improves both observed and patient‐reported SDM in clinical encounters (n = 194). A preconsultation communication aid for patients did not add to the effect of training oncologists. SDM training effectively changes oncologists’ practice and should be implemented in (continuing) educational programs., Decisions about treatment for advanced cancer require shared decision making, involving both physician and patient. This trial examined the independent and combined effect of oncologist training and a patient communication aid on shared decision making about palliative chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Nearly a quarter of patients with locally advanced (T4 stage) or perforated colon cancer are at risk of developing peritoneal metastases, often without curative treatment options. We aimed to determine the efficacy of adjuvant hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in patients with locally advanced colon cancer.METHODS: This multicentre, open-label trial was done in nine hospitals that specialised in HIPEC in the Netherlands. Patients with clinical or pathological T4N0-2M0-stage tumours or perforated colon cancer were randomly assigned (1:1), with a web-based randomisation application, before resection of the primary tumour, to adjuvant HIPEC followed by routine adjuvant systemic chemotherapy (experimental group) or to adjuvant systemic chemotherapy alone (control group). Patients were stratified by tumour characteristic (T4 or perforation), age (FINDINGS: Between April 1, 2015, and Feb 20, 2017, 204 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (102 in each group). In the HIPEC group, two patients withdrew consent after randomisation. In this group, 19 (19%) of 100 patients were diagnosed with peritoneal metastases: nine (47%) during surgical exploration preceding intentional adjuvant HIPEC, eight (42%) during routine follow-up, and two (11%) during diagnostic laparoscopy at 18-months. In the control group, 23 (23%) of 102 patients were diagnosed with peritoneal metastases, of whom seven (30%) were diagnosed by laparoscopy at 18-months and 16 during regular follow-up (therefore making them ineligible for diagnostic laparoscopy). In the intention-to-treat analysis (n=202), there was no difference in peritoneal-free survival at 18-months (80·9% [95% CI 73·3-88·5] for the experimental group vs 76·2% [68·0-84·4] for the control group, log-rank one-sided p=0·28). 12 (14%) of 87 patients who received adjuvant HIPEC developed postoperative complications and one (1%) encapsulating peritoneal sclerosis.INTERPRETATION: In patients with T4 or perforated colon cancer, treatment with adjuvant HIPEC with oxaliplatin did not improve peritoneal metastasis-free survival at 18 months. Routine use of adjuvant HIPEC is not advocated on the basis of this trial.FUNDING: Organization for Health Research and Development and the Dutch Cancer Society.

The androgen receptor splice variant (AR-V) 7 in circulating tumor cells (CTCs) is a predictor for resistance to anti-AR-targeted treatment, but not to taxane-based chemotherapy in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). In this study, we investigated whether the presence of two constitutively active variants (AR-V3, AR-V7) and two other conditionally activated variants (AR-V1, AR-V9) vs full-length androgen receptor (AR-FL) measured in CTCs from patients with mCRPC were associated with outcome to therapy with the taxane cabazitaxel. Blood was collected at baseline and after two cycles of cabazitaxel from 118 mCRPC patients starting cabazitaxel in a prospective phase II trial. CellSearch-enriched CTCs were enumerated and in parallel characterized for the presence of the AR-Vs by reverse transcription quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Correlations with CTC and prostate-specific antigen response to cabazitaxel as well as associations with overall survival (OS) were investigated. All AR-Vs were frequently present and co-expressed at frequencies of 31-48% at baseline and at 19-40% after two cycles of cabazitaxel. No specific directions of change in the measured variants were detected between the start of treatment and after two cycles of cabazitaxel. No associations between the presence of AR-V3 and AR-V7 and outcome to cabazitaxel were observed. While a reduction in CTCs to < 5 CTCs during treatment (CTC5-response) was less often observed in patients with AR-V9-positive CTCs at baseline (P = 0.004), the CTC5-adjusted detection of AR-V1 after two cycles of cabazitaxel was an independent prognostic factor for OS [HR 2.4 (95% CI 1.1-5.1, P = 0.03)]. These novel findings are expected to contribute to more personalized treatment approaches in mCRPC patients.

PURPOSE Preoperative chemoradiotherapy according to the chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer followed by surgery study (CROSS) has become a standard of care for patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal or junctional cancer. We aimed to assess long-term outcome of this regimen. METHODS From 2004 through 2008, we randomly assigned 366 patients to either five weekly cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel with concurrent radiotherapy (41.4 Gy in 23 fractions, 5 days per week) followed by surgery, or surgery alone. Follow-up data were collected through 2018. Cox regression analyses were performed to compare overall survival, cause-specific survival, and risks of locoregional and distant relapse. The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy beyond 5 years of follow-up was tested with time-dependent Cox regression and landmark analyses. RESULTS The median follow-up was 147 months (interquartile range, 134-157). Patients receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy had better overall survival (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.89). The effect of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy on overall survival was not time-dependent ( P value for interaction, P = .73), and landmark analyses suggested a stable effect on overall survival up to 10 years of follow-up. The absolute 10-year overall survival benefit was 13% (38% v 25%). Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy reduced risk of death from esophageal cancer (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.80). Death from other causes was similar between study arms (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.99). Although a clear effect on isolated locoregional (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.72) and synchronous locoregional plus distant relapse (HR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.72) persisted, isolated distant relapse was comparable (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.13). CONCLUSION The overall survival benefit of patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal or junctional cancer who receive preoperative chemoradiotherapy according to CROSS persists for at least 10 years.

Clinical Practice Points • Severe toxicity of the fluoropyrimidine drugs 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and its oral prodrug capecitabine is associated with deficiency of the primary inactivating enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD). • Pretreatment screening for DPD deficiency is applied followed by initial dose reduction in DPD-deficient patients in order to prevent severe toxicity Nonetheless, severe toxicity may still occur and therefore, new treatment options are highly warranted. • Trifluridine/tipiracil is a new anticancer drug that is registered for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer in patients who have been previously treated with, or have contraindications for 5-FU-based chemotherapy. Importantly, its metabolism is completely independent of DPD. • Thereby, trifluridine/tipiracil may offer a new treatment paradigm for the safe treatment of DPD-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

IntroductionDespite its increasing use, first-line palliative systemic therapy alternated with electrostatic pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy with oxaliplatin (ePIPAC-OX), hereinafter referred to as first-line bidirectional therapy, has never been prospectively investigated in patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases (CPM). As a first step to address this evidence gap, the present study aims to assess the safety, feasibility, antitumour activity, patient-reported outcomes, costs and systemic pharmacokinetics of first-line bidirectional therapy in patients with isolated unresectable CPM.Methods and analysisIn this single-arm, phase II study in two Dutch tertiary referral centres, 20 patients are enrolled. Key eligibility criteria are a good performance status, pathologically proven isolated unresectable CPM, no previous palliative systemic therapy for colorectal cancer, no (neo)adjuvant systemic therapy ≤6 months prior to enrolment and no previous pressurised intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC). Patients receive three cycles of bidirectional therapy. Each cycle consists of 6 weeks first-line palliative systemic therapy at the medical oncologists’ decision (CAPOX-bevacizumab, FOLFOX-bevacizumab, FOLFIRI-bevacizumab or FOLFOXIRI-bevacizumab) followed by ePIPAC-OX (92 mg/m2) with an intraoperative bolus of intravenous leucovorin (20 mg/m2) and 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m2). Study treatment ends after the third ePIPAC-OX. The primary outcome is the number of patients with—and procedures leading to—grade ≥3 adverse events (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events V.5.0) up to 4 weeks after the last procedure. Key secondary outcomes include the number of bidirectional cycles in each patient, treatment-related characteristics, grade ≤2 adverse events, tumour response (histopathological, cytological, radiological, biochemical, macroscopic and ascites), patient-reported outcomes, systemic pharmacokinetics of oxaliplatin, costs, progression-free survival and overall survival.Ethics and disseminationThis study is approved by the Dutch competent authority, a medical ethics committee and the institutional review boards of both study centres. Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented to patients and healthcare professionals.Trial registration numberNL8303.

We assessed the feasibility of adjuvant S-1 and oxaliplatin following neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and esophagectomy. Patients treated with nCRT (paclitaxel, carboplatin) and esophagectomy received six 21-day cycles with oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2) on day 1 and S-1 (25 mg/m2 twice daily) on days 1–14. The primary endpoint was feasibility, defined as ≥50% completing treatment. We performed exploratory propensity-score matching to compare survival, ERCC1 and Thymidylate Synthase (TS) immunohistochemistry analyses, proteomics biomarker discovery and 5-FU pharmacokinetic analyses. Forty patients were enrolled and 48% completed all adjuvant cycles. Median dose intensity was 98% for S-1 and 62% for oxaliplatin. The main reason for early discontinuation was toxicity (67%). The median recurrence-free and overall survival were 28.3 months and 40.8 months, respectively (median follow-up 29.1 months). Survival was not significantly prolonged compared to a matched cohort (p = 0.09). Patients with ERCC1 negative tumor expression had significantly better survival compared to ERCC1 positivity (p = 0.01). Our protein signature model was predictive of survival [p = 0.04, Area under the curve (AUC) 0.80]. Moreover, 5-FU pharmacokinetics significantly correlated with treatment-related toxicity. To conclude, six cycles adjuvant S-1 and oxaliplatin were not feasible in pretreated esophageal adenocarcinoma. Although the question remains whether additional treatment with chemotherapy should be provided in the adjuvant setting, subgroups such as patients with ERCC1 negativity could potentially benefit from adjuvant SOX based on our exploratory biomarker research.

BackgroundMetastatic colorectal cancer patients with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR mCRC) benefit from immunotherapy. Interpretation of the single-arm immunotherapy trials is complicated by insignificant survival data during systemic non-immunotherapy. We present survival data on a large, comprehensive cohort of dMMR mCRC patients, treated with or without systemic non-immunotherapy.MethodsTwo hundred and eighty-one dMMR mCRC patients (n = 54 from three prospective Phase 3 CAIRO trials;n = 227 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry). Overall survival was analysed from diagnosis of mCRC (OS), from initiation of first-line (OS1) and second-line (OS2) systemic treatment. Cox regression analysis examined prognostic factors. As comparison for OS 2746 MMR proficient mCRC patients were identified.ResultsOf 281 dMMR patients, 62% received first-line and 26% second-line treatment. Median OS was 16.0 months (13.8–19.6) with antitumour therapy and 2.5 months (1.8–3.5) in untreated patients. OS1 was 12.8 months (10.7–15.2) and OS2 6.2 months (5.4–8.9) in treated dMMR patients. Treated dMMR patients had a 7.6-month shorter median OS than pMMR patients.ConclusionAvailable data from immunotherapy trials lack a control arm with standard systemic treatment. Given the poor outcome compared to the immunotherapy results, our data strongly suggest a survival benefit of immunotherapy in dMMR mCRC patients.

Pseudomyxoma Peritonei (PMP) and Peritoneal Mesothelioma (PM) are both rare peritoneal malignancies. Currently, affected patients may be treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy offering long-term survival or even cure in selected patients. However, many issues regarding the optimal treatment strategy are currently under debate. To aid physicians involved in the treatment of these patients in clinical decision making, the PSOGI executive committee proposed to create a consensus statement on PMP and PM. This manuscript describes the methodology of the consensus process. The Delphi technique is a reliable method for attaining consensus on a topic that lacks scientific evidence through multiple voting rounds which feeds back responses to the participants in between rounds. The GRADE system provides a structured framework for presenting and grading the available evidence. Separate questionnaires were created for PMP and PM and sent during two voting rounds to 80 and 38 experts, respectively. A consensus threshold of 51.0% was chosen. After the second round, consensus was reached on 92.9%-100.0% of the questions. The results were presented and discussed in the plenary session at the PSOGI 2018 international meeting in Paris. A third round for the remaining issues is currently in progress. In conclusion, using the Delphi technique and GRADE methodology, consensus was reached in many issues regarding the treatment of PM and PMP amongst an international panel of experts. The main results will be published in the near future.

Introduction: Since current studies on locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) mainly report from single, high-volume centers, it is unclear if outcomes can be translated to daily clinical practice. This study provides treatment strategies and clinical outcomes within a multicenter cohort of unselected patients with LAPC.Materials and methods: Consecutive patients with LAPC according to Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Group criteria, were prospectively included in 14 centers from April 2015 until December 2017. A centralized expert panel reviewed response according to RECIST v1.1 and potential surgical resectability. Primary outcome was median overall survival (mOS), stratified for primary treatment strategy.Results: Overall, 422 patients were included, of whom 77% (n = 326) received chemotherapy. The majority started with FOLFIRINOX (77%, 252/326) with a median of six cycles (IQR 4-10). Gemcitabine monotherapy was given to 13% (41/326) of patients and nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine to 10% (33/326), with a median of two (IQR 3-5) and three (IQR 3-5) cycles respectively. The mOS of the entire cohort was 10 months (95%CI 9-11). In patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, gemcitabine monotherapy, or nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine, mOS was 14 (95%CI 13-15), 9 (95%CI 8-10), and 9 months (95%CI 8-10), respectively. A resection was performed in 13% (32/252) of patients after FOLFIRINOX, resulting in a mOS of 23 months (95%CI 12-34).Conclusion: This multicenter unselected cohort of patients with LAPC resulted in a 14 month mOS and a 13% resection rate after FOLFIRINOX. These data put previous results in perspective, enable us to inform patients with more accurate survival numbers and will support decision-making in clinical practice. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Background: Beyond first-line palliative systemic treatment can be beneficial to selected oesophagogastric cancer patients, but experience with its administration may be limited and vary among hospitals. In a population-based study, we analysed the association between hospital systemic treatment volume and administration of beyond first-line treatment in oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma, as well as the effect on overall survival (OS).Methods: Synchronous metastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma patients (2010-2017) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Hospitals were categorised in volumes quartiles. The association between hospital systemic treatment volume and the use of beyond first-line treatment was assessed using trend and multivariable logistic regression analyses. OS was compared between hospitals with high and low beyond first-line treatment administration and treatment strategies using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank test and multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression.Results: Beyond first-line treatment was administered in 606 of 2,466 patients who received first-line treatment, and increased from 20% to 31% between 2010 and 2017 (P Conclusion: Higher hospital volume was associated with increased beyond first-line treatment administration in oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Second-line paclitaxel/ramucirumab resulted in longer survival compared to taxane monotherapy. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Background As small-bowel adenocarcinoma (SBA) is scarce, no standard systemic regimen in metastatic disease has been defined. Objective To obtain insights into the use and effects of palliative chemotherapy in patients with metastatic SBA in a population-based setting. Methods Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry of patients with metastatic SBA between 2007 and 2016 were used (n = 522). For patients treated with palliative chemotherapy, differences in treatment regimens and survival were evaluated. Results Palliative chemotherapy was received by 38% of patients (n = 199). First-line combination chemotherapy was administered to 80% of patients, mainly CAPOX/FOLFOX. Single-agent chemotherapy mostly consisted of capecitabine. Second-line treatment, mostly irinotecan-based (58%), was prescribed to 27% of patients. Age 70 years or older was an adverse predictive factor for receiving first-line combination chemotherapy (odds ratio (OR) 0.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08-0.62) and second-line therapy (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.10-0.72). Median overall survival with palliative chemotherapy was 9.3 months, compared with 3.0 months without. In subanalyses, patients who received only first-line treatment had a median overall survival of 5.6 and 7.0 months after single-agent and combination chemotherapy, respectively. Conclusion A minority of patients were treated with palliative chemotherapy. First-line treatment consisted predominantly of oxaliplatin-based combination chemotherapy, whereas second-line treatment was mainly irinotecan-based. Population-based median overall survival for selected patients treated with chemotherapy amounted to nine months.

Until recently, many classifications existed for the terminology and histopathologic classification of appendiceal mucinous neoplasms, mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinomas, and pseudomyxoma peritonei (PMP). A major accomplishment was achieved by consensus-based histopathologic classifications on behalf of the Peritoneal Surface Oncology Group International regarding mucinous appendiceal tumours and PMP. As different classifications were used over the years and also owing to the rare nature of these tumors, many clinicians are not familiar with the terminology and the impact on patient management. Hence, an overview concerning mucinous appendiceal neoplasms, mucinous appendiceal adenocarcinomas, and PMP is provided to serve as an introduction into the basic morphology of these tumors with tentative recommendations for management.

Capecitabine is an oral fluoropyrimidine used as adjuvant and palliative chemotherapy in patients with colorectal cancer. Diarrhea is a well-known side effect of capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil agents. We present a case with terminal ileitis as a rare adverse event of capecitabine treatment. Capecitabine-induced terminal ileitis is likely to be underreported. It should be considered more often as a cause of severe and atypical complaints of diarrhea during treatment with capecitabine or other 5-fluorouracil agents.

261 Background: Recent clinical trials of novel systemic therapies showed improved survival of patients with metastatic esophageal cancer (EC) and gastric cancer (GC). Survival improvements observed in clinical trials might be unrepresentative for the total population as the percentage of patients whom participate in clinical trials is limited and more than half of all patients receive best supportive care (BSC). The aim of our study is to assess the best-case, typical and worst-case survival scenarios in patients with metastatic esophagogastric cancer. Methods: We selected patients with metastatic EC (including junction) or GC diagnosed in 2006-2019 from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Survival scenarios were calculated based on percentiles of the survival curve stratified by tumor location and treatment (tumor-directed therapy or BSC). Survival scenarios were calculated for the 10th (best-case), 25th (upper-typical), 75th (lower-typical) and 90th (worst-case) percentiles. Linear trend analysis was performed to test if changes in survival over the diagnosis years were significant. Results: We identified 12739 patients with EC and 6833 patients with GC. Percentage of patients receiving tumor-directed therapy increased from 34% to 47% and 30% to 45% for patients with EC and GC, respectively. The median survival remained unchanged for patients with EC (5.0 months) and improved slightly for patients with GC (3.1 to 3.7 months; P=0.006). For patients with EC survival of the best-case scenario improved (17.4 to 22.8 months; P=0.001), whereas the other scenarios remained unchanged: upper-typical 11.2 to 11.7 (P=0.11), lower-typical 2.1 to 2.0 (P=0.10) and worst-case 0.9 to 0.8 months (P=0.22). For patients with GC survival improved for the best-case (13.1 to 19.5; P=0.005) and upper-typical scenario (6.7 to 10.6 months; P=0.002), whereas the lower-typical (1.2 to 1.4 months; P=0.87) and worst-case (0.6 to 0.6 months; P=0.60) remained unchanged. For patients with EC receiving tumor-directed therapy survival in all scenarios remained unchanged while for patients receiving BSC survival decreased: best-case 11.8 to 9.8 (P=0.005), upper-typical 6.0 to 5.0 (P=0.002), lower-typical 1.4 to 1.0 (P=0.003) and worst-case 0.7 to 0.5 months (P=0.03). For patients with GC receiving tumor-directed therapy survival improved for all scenarios: best-case 19.8 to 30.4 (P=0.005), upper-typical 6.4 to 10.3 (P=0.002), lower-typical 3.6 to 5.4 (P