Cetuximab plus FOLFIRI improved overall survival compared with bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI in KRAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in FIRE-3, but no corresponding benefit was found for ...progression-free survival. This analysis aimed to determine whether cetuximab improves response and survival versus bevacizumab among response-evaluable patients receiving first-line FOLFIRI for RAS wild-type mCRC and the effect of primary tumour side on outcomes.
The intent-to-treat population included 593 patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type mCRC. Further testing identified 400 patients with extended RAS wild-type disease; of these, 352 (88%) who received ≥3 cycles of therapy and had ≥1 post-baseline scan were evaluable for response and constituted the per-protocol population (169 cetuximab and 183 bevacizumab). Patients received 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) with either weekly cetuximab or biweekly bevacizumab given on day 1 of each 14-day cycle until response, progression or toxicity occurred. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR) in the per-protocol population. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The effect of primary tumour location was evaluated.
Median OS in the RAS wild-type population was 31 vs 26 months in the cetuximab and bevacizumab groups, respectively (HR 0.76, P = 0.012). In the per-protocol population, outcomes favoured cetuximab for ORR (77% vs 65%, P = 0.014) and median OS (33 vs 26 months, HR 0.75, P = 0.011), while PFS was comparable between groups. The advantage of cetuximab over bevacizumab occurred only in patients with left-sided primary tumours.
FOLFIRI plus cetuximab resulted in a significantly higher ORR and longer OS compared to FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab among patients with left-sided tumours. The superior response associated with cetuximab may particularly benefit patients with symptomatic tumours or borderline-resectable metastases. CLINICALTRIALS.
NCT00433927.
Summary Background FIRE-3 compared first-line 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic ...colorectal cancer. The same study also reported an exploratory analysis of a subgroup of patients with tumours that were wild-type at other RAS genes ( KRAS and NRAS exons 2–4). We report here efficacy results for the FIRE-3 final RAS ( KRAS/NRAS , exons 2–4) wild-type subgroup. Moreover, new metrics of tumour dynamics were explored during a centralised radiological review to investigate how FOLFIRI plus cetuximab conferred overall survival benefit in the absence of differences in investigator-assessed objective responses and progression-free survival. Methods FIRE-3 was a randomised phase 3 trial comparing FOLFIRI plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary endpoint of the FIRE-3 study was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 in the intention-to-treat population. A centralised radiological review of CT scans was done in a post-hoc analysis to assess objective response according to RECIST 1.1, early tumour shrinkage, depth of response, duration of response, and time to response in the final RAS wild-type subgroup. Comparisons between treatment groups with respect to objective response rate and early tumour shrinkage were made using Fisher's exact test (two-sided), while differences in depth of response were investigated with a two-sided Wilcoxon test. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00433927. Findings In the final RAS wild-type population (n=400), median overall survival was better in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group than the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group (33·1 months 95% CI 24·5–39·4 vs 25·0 months 23·0–28·1; hazard ratio 0·70 0·54–0·90; p=0·0059), although investigator-assessed objective response and progression-free survival were comparable between treatment groups. Centralised radiological review of CT-assessable patients (n=330) showed that the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (113 of 157, 72·0% 95% CI 64·3–78·8 vs 97 of 173, 56·1% 48·3–63·6; p=0·0029), frequency of early tumour shrinkage (107 of 157, 68·2% 60·3–75·4 vs 85 of 173, 49·1% 41·5–56·8; p=0·0005), and median depth of response (–48·9% –54·3 to −42·0 vs −32·3% –38·2 to −29·2; p<0·0001) were significantly better in extended RAS wild-type patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus those receiving FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. No differences in duration of response and time to response were observed between treatment groups. Interpretation This analysis provides a new framework that connects alternative metrics of response to overall survival. Superior response-related outcome parameters, such as early tumour shrinkage and depth of response, obtained by centralised radiological review correlated with the overall survival benefit conferred by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the extended RAS wild-type subgroup. Funding Merck KGaA and Pfizer.
According to current guidelines, treatment of patients with hepatic oligometastasis in pancreatic cancer is not reflected and systemic chemotherapy is recommended in those patients. Retrospective ...data suggest beneficial outcomes in patients with hepatic oligometastasis, though prospective data from clinical trials addressing this particular patient group is not available.
In this single arm, phase-2 trial, survival data from patients receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by R0/R1 resection will be compared to historic data from patients with oligometastatic adenocarcinoma of the pancreas. The clinical trial will focus on a well-defined patient collective with metastatic load limited to the liver as target organ with a maximum of five metastases. The combination of liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI), oxaliplatin (OX) and 5-fluouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid (FA) (nal-IRI + OX+ 5-FU/FA, NAPOX) was chosen as neoadjuvant chemotherapy; the choice was based on an ongoing clinical study in which NAPOX appeared manageable, with promising anti-tumor activity in first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma. In total 150 patients will be enrolled for this trial with an aim of 55 patients receiving a complete macroscopic synchronous tumor and metastatic resection.
This is the first clinical study to prospectively evaluate the value of multimodality therapy concepts in oligometastatic pancreatic cancer.
EudraCT 2019-002734-37 ; NCT04617457 .
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Background In the pivotal phase III RECOURSE trial, trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) improved progression-free and overall survival (PFS, OS) of patients with pre-treated metastatic colorectal cancer ...(mCRC). Subsequently, the TALLISUR trial provided post-authorisation efficacy and safety data and patient-reported outcomes on quality of life (QoL) in a German patient cohort. The present analysis reports the final data on efficacy, safety and QoL and investigates the impact of baseline characteristics and associated prognostic subgroups on outcome. Methods In this prospective, multi-centre, Germany-wide, phase IV study, patients with pre-treated mCRC were given the choice to receive either FTD/TPI or best supportive care (BSC). To assess the primary endpoint, QoL, EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaires were employed. Secondary endpoints included QoL assessed through EQ-5D-5L questionnaires, OS, PFS and safety. Additionally, 3 subgroups were defined according to a post-hoc analysis of the RECOURSE trial: best, good and poor prognostic characteristics (BPC, GPC, PPC). Patients with < 3 metastatic sites at inclusion and/or greater than or equal to 18 months from diagnosis to inclusion were considered to have GPC. GPC patients without liver metastasis at inclusion were considered to have BPC. All remaining patients were considered to have PPC. Results Of 195 patients, 186 decided to receive FTD/TPI and 9 to receive BSC. The low number of patients in the BSC-arm did not allow statistically meaningful analyses. Treatment with FTD/TPI was associated with maintained QoL. For all patients, median OS was 6.9 months (95% CI 6.1 - 8.3) and for the defined subgroups (BPC n = 20 vs GPC n = 65 vs PPC n = 121) 12.2, 7.9 and 6.8 months (95% CI 6.0 - 18.2, 6.2 - 13.3, 5.4 - 8.1). The most frequent TEAEs were neutropenia (29.6%), anaemia (24.7%) and nausea (23.7%). Febrile neutropenia occurred in 1.1%. Conclusions Treatment of patients suffering from pre-treated mCRC with FTD/TPI was associated not only with prolonged survival and delayed progression, but also with maintained QoL. Independent of other baseline characteristics such as ECOG performance status and age, low metastatic burden and indolent disease were factors associated with favourable outcome. Clinical trial registration EudraCT-Number 2017-000292-83, first registration 19/06/2017.
Celotno besedilo
Dostopno za:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The XELAVIRI trial investigated the optimal treatment strategy for patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. We tested the noninferiority of initial treatment with a fluoropyrimidine plus ...bevacizumab, followed by the addition of irinotecan at first progression (arm A) versus upfront use of fluoropyrimidine plus irinotecan plus bevacizumab (arm B) in a 1:1 randomized, controlled phase III trial.
The primary efficacy end point was time to failure of the strategy (TFS). Given a 90% CI, a power of 70%, and a one-sided α of .05, the margin for noninferiority was set at 0.8. In the case of demonstrated noninferiority of TFS, an analysis of symptomatic toxicities during TFS would define the superior strategy. Secondary end points included the effect of molecular subgroups on efficacy parameters.
A total of 421 randomly assigned patients (arm A: n = 212; arm B: n = 209) formed the full analysis set. Median age was 71 and 69 years, respectively. Noninferiority of TFS was not shown (hazard ratio HR, 0.86; 90% CI, 0.73 to 1.02). In detail, patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type tumors benefitted from combination chemotherapy (HR, 0.61; 90% CI, 0.46 to 0.82; P = .005), whereas patients with RAS mutant tumors (HR, 1.09; 90% CI, 0.81 to 1.46; P = .58) did not (Cox model for interaction of study arm and RAS status: P = .03). Comparable results were obtained for overall survival.
Noninferiority of sequential escalation therapy compared with initial combination chemotherapy could not be demonstrated for TFS. RAS status may be important to guide therapy as treatment of patients with upfront combination therapy was clearly superior in RAS/BRAF wild-type tumors, whereas sequential escalation chemotherapy seems to provide comparable results in patients with RAS mutant tumors.
Background
Tumor assessments after first-line therapy of
RAS
wild-type mCRC with cetuximab (cet) versus bevacizumab (bev) in combination with FOLFIRI were evaluated for factors influencing ...resectability, conversion to resectability, and survival after best response.
Methods
Conversion to resectability was defined as conversion of initially unresectable to resectable disease at best response as determined by retrospective assessment. Univariate and multivariate logistic models were fitted with resectability at best response as response variable. A Cox model comparing the survival from best response was used to measure the influence of treatment, resectability at best response, and resection. Interaction of resection and treatment arm on survival was tested by likelihood ratio test.
Results
Overall, 270 patients were evaluable (127 cet-arm, 143 bev-arm). Lung metastases (odds ratio OR 0.35, 95% confidence response CI 0.19–0.63),
BRAF
mutation (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.12–0.82), and elevated alkaline phosphatase (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18–0.9) before randomization were associated with less chance of successful conversion and were integrated into a nomogram. Early tumor shrinkage (OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.06–3.3;
p
0.034) and depth of response (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.01–1.03;
p
< 0.001) were associated with successful conversion therapy. Resection of metastases improved post-best-response survival (hazard ratio 0.53, 95% CI 0.29–0.97;
p
= 0.039), predominantely in cet-treated patients (interaction test,
p
= 0.02).
Conclusions
Conversion to resectability is significantly associated with baseline characteristics that can be used in a nomogram to predict conversion. Moreover, early efficacy parameters (ETS and DpR) are associated with successful conversion therapy. In FIRE-3, resection of metastases was associated with improved post-best response survival, this effect originated predominantly from the cetuximab-based study arm.
We explored the association of early tumor shrinkage (ETS) and non‐ETS with efficacy of first‐line and consecutive second‐line treatment in patients with KRAS wild‐type metastatic colorectal cancer ...treated in FIRE‐3. Assessment of tumor shrinkage was based on the sum of longest diameters of target lesions, evaluated after 6 weeks of treatment. Shrinkage was classified as ETS (shrinkage by ≥ 20%), mETS (shrinkage by 0 to <20%), mPD (minor progression >0 to <20%) and PD (progression ≥20%). Overall survival (OS) was 33.2 (95% CI 28.0–38.4) months in ETS patients, while non‐ETS was associated with less favorable outcome (mETS 24.0 (95% CI 21.2–26.9) months, mPD 19.0 (95% CI 13.0–25.0) months, PD 12.8 (95% CI 11.1–14.5) months). Differences in PFS of first‐line therapy were less pronounced. ETS subgroups defined in first‐line therapy also correlated with efficacy of second‐line therapy. Progression‐free survival in second‐line (PFS2nd) was 6.5 months (5.8–7.2) for ETS, and was 5.6 (95% CI 4.7–6.5) months for mETS, 4.9 (95% CI 3.7–6.1) months for mPD and 3.3 (95% CI 2.3–4.3) months for PD. PFS of first‐line and PFS2nd showed a linear correlation (Bravais–Pearson coefficient: 0.16, p = 0.006). While ETS is associated with the most favorable outcome, non‐ETS represents a heterogeneous subgroup with distinct characteristics of less favorable initial tumor response to treatment. This is the first analysis to demonstrate that early tumor response observed during first‐line FOLFIRI‐based therapy may also relate to efficacy of second‐line treatment. Early response parameters may serve as stratification factors in trials recruiting pretreated patients.
What's new?
Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) is linked to favorable survival in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, ETS occurs in only some patients, for reasons that remain unknown while non‐ETS patients represent a heterogeneous subgroup. Here, ETS and non‐ETS subgroups were examined in KRAS wild‐type mCRC patients enrolled in FIRE‐3, a trial comparing first‐line FOLFIRI (5‐fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. Efficacy of first‐line FOLFIRI‐based therapy differed in ETS and non‐ETS subgroups, with the latter generally experiencing less‐favorable initial tumor responses. Patients who benefited from first‐line therapy tended to also benefit from second‐line therapy, supporting a role for efficacy parameters in mCRC patient stratification.
This analysis of the RASH trial (NCT01729481) aimed at gaining a better understanding of the "Burden of Therapy" (BOTh
) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). In the RASH study, 150 patients ...with newly diagnosed metastatic PDAC were treated with gemcitabine plus erlotinib (gem/erlotinib) for four weeks. Patients who developed a skin rash during this four-week run-in phase continued with the gem/erlotinib treatment, while rash-negative patients were switched to FOLFIRINOX. The study demonstrated a 1-year survival rate of rash-positive patients who received gem/erlotinib as first-line treatment that was comparable to previous reports of patients receiving FOLFIRINOX. To understand whether these comparable survival rates may be accompanied by better tolerability of the gem/erlotinib treatment compared to FOLFIRINOX, the BOTh
methodology was used to continuously quantify and depict the burden of therapy generated by treatment emergent events (TEAEs). Sensory neuropathy was significantly more common in the FOLFIRINOX arm, and prevalence as well as severity increased over time. In both arms, the BOTh
associated with diarrhea decreased over the course of treatment. The BOTh
caused by neutropenia was comparable in both arms but decreased in the FOLFIRINOX arm over time, possibly due to chemotherapy dose reductions. Overall, gem/erlotinib was associated with a slightly higher overall BOTh
, but the difference was not statistically significant (
= 0.6735). In summary, the BOTh
analysis facilitates the evaluation of TEAEs. In patients fit for intense chemotherapeutic regimens, FOLFIRINOX is associated with a lower BOTh
than gem/erlotinib.
Most non-small cell lung cancers occur in elderly and frequently comorbid patients. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the efficacy of biomodulatory active therapy regimen, concertedly ...interfering with tumor-associated homeostatic pathways to achieve tumor control paralleled by modest toxicity profiles.
The ModuLung trial is a national, multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomized phase II trial in patients with histologically confirmed stage IIIB/IV squamous (
= 11) and non-squamous non-small cell (
= 26) lung cancer who failed first-line platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned on a 1:1 ratio to the biomodulatory or control group, treated with nivolumab. Patients randomized to the biomodulatory group received an all-oral therapy consisting of treosulfan 250 mg twice daily, pioglitazone 45 mg once daily, clarithromycin 250 mg twice daily, until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.
The study had to be closed pre-maturely due to approval of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICi) in first-line treatment. Thirty-seven patients, available for analysis, were treated in second to forth-line. Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly inferior for biomodulation (
= 20) vs. nivolumab (
= 17) with a median PFS (95% confidence interval) of 1.4 (1.2-2.0) months vs. 1.6 (1.4-6.2), respectively; with a hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 1.908 0.962; 3.788;
= 0.0483. Objective response rate was 11.8% with nivolumab vs. 5% with biomodulation, median follow-up 8.25 months. The frequency of grade 3-5 treatment related adverse events was 29% with nivolumab and 10% with biomodulation. Overall survival (OS), the secondary endpoint, was comparable in both treatment arms; biomodulation with a median OS (95% confidence interval) of 9.4 (6.0-33.0) months vs. nivolumab 6.9 (4.6-24.0), respectively; hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) of 0.733 0.334; 1.610;
= 0.4368. Seventy-five percent of patients in the biomodulation arm received rescue therapy with checkpoint inhibitors.
This trial shows that the biomodulatory therapy was inferior to nivolumab on PFS. However, the fact that OS was similar between groups gives rise to the hypothesis that the well-tolerable biomodulatory therapy may prime tumor tissues for efficacious checkpoint inhibitor therapy, even in very advanced treatment lines where poor response to ICi might be expected with increasing line of therapy.
Background:
Pemetrexed and cisplatin is a first-line standard in non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer without targetable mutations. It became the backbone of checkpoint-inhibitor–chemotherapy ...combinations. Single high doses of cisplatin pose toxicity risks and require hyperhydration, potentially prolonging outpatient application. The aim of this study was to compare efficacy, safety and tolerability of split-dose cisplatin with the standard schedule.
Methods:
Patients with metastatic non-squamous non-small-cell lung cancer were randomly assigned to up to six 21-day cycles of pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 (arm A), or pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 (day 1) and cisplatin 40 mg/m2 (day 1 + 8, arm B), followed by pemetrexed maintenance. Primary endpoint was objective response rate. Secondary objectives were overall survival, progression-free survival, time to progression, treatment compliance, toxicity profile, and quality of life.
Results:
We enrolled 130 patients (129 evaluable). Median cycle numbers in A and B were six (1–6) and five (1–6). Dose intensities were comparable between arms. More patients in A received pemetrexed maintenance (24.2% versus 11.1%). With 16 (24.2%) in A and 19 (30.2%) patients in B achieving objective responses odds ratio 0.74 (0.34–1.62), p = 0.55 the primary endpoint was met. Overall survival was not different between arms (median 14.4 versus 14.9 months); HR = 1.07; (0.68–1.68), p = 0.78. Median progression-free survival was 7.0 months in A and 6.2 months in B HR = 1.63; (1.17–2.38); p = 0.01. Adverse events of CTCAE grade ⩾3, particularly hematological, were more frequent in B. No difference in grade 4 and 5 infections between arms was noted. Treatment-related asthenia and nausea/vomiting of any grade were more frequent in A. Global health status, fatigue and constipation measured on day 1 of cycle 4 demonstrated superior scores in B.
Conclusion:
Pemetrexed and split-dose cisplatin is safe and effective. Advantages of split-dose cisplatin with regard to specific toxicities allow personalization of this important chemotherapy backbone.
Trial Registration:
European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT) number 2011-001963-37.
PDF
