After curative resection, the prognosis of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is poor. This phase III trial was designed to evaluate the benefit in overall survival (OS) of perioperative fluorouracil ...plus cisplatin in resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma.
Overall, 224 patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus, gastroesophageal junction (GEJ), or stomach were randomly assigned to either perioperative chemotherapy and surgery (CS group; n = 113) or surgery alone (S group; n = 111). Chemotherapy consisted of two or three preoperative cycles of intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m(2)) on day 1, and a continuous intravenous infusion of fluorouracil (800 mg/m(2)/d) for 5 consecutive days (days 1 to 5) every 28 days and three or four postoperative cycles of the same regimen. The primary end point was OS.
Compared with the S group, the CS group had a better OS (5-year rate 38% v 24%; hazard ratio HR for death: 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.95; P = .02); and a better disease-free survival (5-year rate: 34% v 19%; HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.89; P = .003). In the multivariable analysis, the favorable prognostic factors for survival were perioperative chemotherapy (P = .01) and stomach tumor localization (P < .01). Perioperative chemotherapy significantly improved the curative resection rate (84% v 73%; P = .04). Grade 3 to 4 toxicity occurred in 38% of CS patients (mainly neutropenia) but postoperative morbidity was similar in the two groups.
In patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the lower esophagus, GEJ, or stomach, perioperative chemotherapy using fluorouracil plus cisplatin significantly increased the curative resection rate, disease-free survival, and OS.
To compare the quality of life (QoL) of patients receiving oxaliplatin, irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRINOX) or gemcitabine as first-line chemotherapy and to assess whether ...pretreatment QoL predicts survival in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.
Three hundred forty-two patients with performance status 0 or 1 were randomly assigned to receive FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, 85 mg/m(2); irinotecan, 180 mg/m(2); leucovorin, 400 mg/m(2); and fluorouracil, 400 mg/m(2) bolus followed by 2,400 mg/m(2) 46-hour continuous infusion, once every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) weekly for 7 of 8 weeks and then weekly for 3 of 4 weeks. QoL was assessed using European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 every 2 weeks.
Improvement in global health status (GHS; P < .001) was observed in the FOLFIRINOX arm and improvement in emotional functioning (P < .001) was observed in both arms, along with a decrease in pain, insomnia, anorexia, and constipation in both arms. A significant increase in diarrhea was observed in the FOLFIRINOX arm during the first 2 months of chemotherapy. Time until definitive deterioration ≥ 20 points was significantly longer for FOLFIRINOX compared with gemcitabine for GHS, physical, role, cognitive, and social functioning, and six symptom domains (fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnea, anorexia, and constipation). Physical functioning, constipation, and dyspnea were independent significant prognostic factors for survival with treatment arm, age older than 65 years, and low serum albumin.
FOLFIRINOX significantly reduces QoL impairment compared with gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Furthermore, baseline QoL scores improved estimation of survival probability when added to baseline clinical and demographic variables.
Summary Background No treatment options are available for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer that progresses after all approved standard therapies, but many patients maintain a good ...performance status and could be candidates for further therapy. An international phase 3 trial was done to assess the multikinase inhibitor regorafenib in these patients. Methods We did this trial at 114 centres in 16 countries. Patients with documented metastatic colorectal cancer and progression during or within 3 months after the last standard therapy were randomised (in a 2:1 ratio; by computer-generated randomisation list and interactive voice response system; preallocated block design (block size six); stratified by previous treatment with VEGF-targeting drugs, time from diagnosis of metastatic disease, and geographical region) to receive best supportive care plus oral regorafenib 160 mg or placebo once daily, for the first 3 weeks of each 4 week cycle. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The study sponsor, participants, and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. Efficacy analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01103323. Findings Between April 30, 2010, and March 22, 2011, 1052 patients were screened, 760 patients were randomised to receive regorafenib (n=505) or placebo (n=255), and 753 patients initiated treatment (regorafenib n=500; placebo n=253; population for safety analyses). The primary endpoint of overall survival was met at a preplanned interim analysis; data cutoff was on July 21, 2011. Median overall survival was 6·4 months in the regorafenib group versus 5·0 months in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·77; 95% CI 0·64–0·94; one-sided p=0·0052). Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 465 (93%) patients assigned regorafenib and in 154 (61%) of those assigned placebo. The most common adverse events of grade three or higher related to regorafenib were hand-foot skin reaction (83 patients, 17%), fatigue (48, 10%), diarrhoea (36, 7%), hypertension (36, 7%), and rash or desquamation (29, 6%). Interpretation Regorafenib is the first small-molecule multikinase inhibitor with survival benefits in metastatic colorectal cancer which has progressed after all standard therapies. The present study provides evidence for a continuing role of targeted treatment after disease progression, with regorafenib offering a potential new line of therapy in this treatment-refractory population. Funding Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.
Summary Background Bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy is standard treatment for first-line and bevacizumab-naive second-line metastatic colorectal cancer. We assessed continued use ...of bevacizumab plus standard second-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer progressing after standard first-line bevacizumab-based treatment. Methods In an open-label, phase 3 study in 220 centres in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland, patients (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable, histologically confirmed metastatic colorectal cancer progressing up to 3 months after discontinuing first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to second-line chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab 2·5 mg/kg per week equivalent (either 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks or 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks, intravenously). The choice between oxaliplatin-based or irinotecan-based second-line chemotherapy depended on the first-line regimen (switch of chemotherapy). A combination of a permuted block design and the Pocock and Simon minimisation algorithm was used for the randomisation. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00700102. Findings Between Feb 1, 2006, and June 9, 2010, 409 (50%) patients were assigned to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy and 411 (50%) to chemotherapy alone. Median follow-up was 11·1 months (IQR 6·4–15·6) in the bevacizumab plus chemotherapy group and 9·6 months (5·4–13·9) in the chemotherapy alone group. Median overall survival was 11·2 months (95% CI 10·4–12·2) for bevacizumab plus chemotherapy and 9·8 months (8·9–10·7) for chemotherapy alone (hazard ratio 0·81, 95% CI 0·69–0·94; unstratified log-rank test p=0·0062). Grade 3–5 bleeding or haemorrhage (eight 2% vs one <1%), gastrointestinal perforation (seven 2% vs three <1%), and venous thromboembolisms (19 5% vs 12 3%) were more common in the bevacizumab plus chemotherapy group than in the chemotherapy alone group. The most frequently reported grade 3–5 adverse events were neutropenia (65 16% in the bevacizumab and chemotherapy group vs 52 13% in the chemotherapy alone group), diarrhoea (40 10% vs 34 8%, respectively), and asthenia (23 6% vs 17 4%, respectively). Treatment-related deaths were reported for four patients in the bevacizumab plus chemotherapy group and three in the chemotherapy alone group. Interpretation Maintenance of VEGF inhibition with bevacizumab plus standard second-line chemotherapy beyond disease progression has clinical benefits in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. This approach is also being investigated in other tumour types, including metastatic breast and non-small cell lung cancers. Funding F Hoffmann-La Roche.
To compare epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) with fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatments in patients with advanced gastric or esophagogastric junction ...(EGJ) adenocarcinoma.
This open, randomized, phase III study was carried out in 71 centers. Patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or EGJ cancer were randomly assigned to receive either ECX as first-line treatment (ECX arm) or FOLFIRI (FOLFIRI arm). Second-line treatment was predefined (FOLFIRI for the ECX arm and ECX for the FOLFIRI arm). The primary criterion was time-to-treatment failure (TTF) of the first-line therapy. Secondary criteria were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), toxicity, and quality of life.
In all, 416 patients were included (median age, 61.4 years; 74% male). After a median follow-up of 31 months, median TTF was significantly longer with FOLFIRI than with ECX (5.1 v 4.2 months; P = .008). There was no significant difference between the two groups in median PFS (5.3 v 5.8 months; P = .96), median OS (9.5 v 9.7 months; P = .95), or response rate (39.2% v 37.8%). First-line FOLFIRI was better tolerated (overall rate of grade 3 to 4 toxicity, 69% v 84%; P < .001; hematologic adverse events AEs, 38% v 64.5%; P < .001; nonhematologic AEs: 53% v 53.5%; P = .81).
FOLFIRI as first-line treatment for advanced gastric and EGJ cancer demonstrated significantly better TTF than did ECX. Other outcome results indicate that FOLFIRI is an acceptable first-line regimen in this setting and should be explored as a backbone regimen for targeted agents.
Summary Background Tumour mutational status is an important determinant of the response of metastatic colorectal cancer to targeted treatments. However, the genotype of the tissue obtained at the ...time of diagnosis might not accurately represent tumour genotype after multiple lines of treatment. This retrospective exploratory analysis investigated the clinical activity of regorafenib in biomarker subgroups of the CORRECT study population defined by tumour mutational status or plasma protein levels. Methods We used BEAMing technology to identify KRAS, PIK3CA , and BRAF mutations in DNA obtained from the plasma of 503 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who enrolled in the CORRECT trial. We quantified total human genomic DNA isolated from plasma samples for 503 patients using a modified version of human long interspersed nuclear element-1 (LINE-1) quantitive real-time PCR. We also measured the concentration of 15 proteins of interest—angiopoietin 2, interleukin 6, interleukin 8, placental growth factor, soluble TIE-1, soluble VEGFR1, VEGF-A, VEGF-C, VEGF-D, VEGF-A isoform 121, bone morphogenetic protein 7, macrophage colony-stimulating factor, stromal cell-derived factor-1, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 2, and von Willebrand factor—in plasma samples from 611 patients. We did correlative analyses of overall survival and progression-free survival in patient subgroups based on mutational status, circulating DNA concentration, and protein concentrations. The CORRECT trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT01103323. Findings Tumour-associated mutations were readily detected with BEAMing of plasma DNA, with KRAS mutations identified in 349 (69%) of 503 patients, PIK3CA mutations in 84 (17%) of 503 patients, and BRAF mutations in 17 (3%) of 502 patients. We did not do correlative analysis based on BRAF genotype because of the low mutational frequency detected for this gene. Some of the most prevalent individual hot-spot mutations we identified included: KRAS ( KRAS G12D, 116 28% of 413 mutations; G12V, 72 17%; and G13D, 67 16%) and PIK3CA ( PIK3CA E542K, 27 30% of 89 mutations; E545K, 37 42%; and H1047R, 12 14%). 41 (48%) of 86 patients who had received anti-EGFR therapy and whose archival tumour tissue DNA was KRAS wild-type in BEAMing analysis were identified as having KRAS mutations in BEAMing analysis of fresh plasma DNA. Correlative analyses suggest a clinical benefit favouring regorafenib across patient subgroups defined by KRAS and PIK3CA mutational status (progression-free survival with regorafenib vs placebo: hazard ratio HR 0·52, 95% CI 0·35–0·76 for KRAS wild-type; HR 0·51, 95% CI 0·40–0·65 for KRAS mutant KRAS wild type vs mutant, pinteraction =0·74; HR 0·50, 95% CI 0·40–0·63 for PIK3CA wild-type; HR 0·54, 95% CI 0·32–0·89 for PIK3CA mutant PIK3CA wild-type vs mutant, pinteraction =0·85) or circulating DNA concentration (progression-free survival with regorafenib vs placebo: HR 0·53, 95% CI 0·40–0·71, for low circulating DNA concentrations; HR 0·52, 95% CI 0·40–0·70, for high circulating DNA concentrations; low vs high circulating DNA, pinteraction =0·601). With the exception of von Willebrand factor, assessed with the median cutoff method, plasma protein concentrations were also not associated with regorafenib activity in terms of progression-free survival. In univariable analyses, the only plasma protein that was associated with overall survival was TIE-1, high concentrations of which were associated with longer overall survival compared with low TIE-1 concentrations. This association was not significant in multivariable analyses. Interpretation BEAMing of circulating DNA could be a viable approach for non-invasive analysis of tumour genotype in real time and for the identification of potentially clinically relevant mutations that are not detected in archival tissue. Additionally, the results show that regorafenib seems to be consistently associated with a clinical benefit in a range of patient subgroups based on mutational status and protein biomarker concentrations. Funding Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.
IMPORTANCE: In locally advanced pancreatic cancer, the role of chemoradiotherapy is controversial and the efficacy of erlotinib is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether chemoradiotherapy improves ...overall survival of patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer controlled after 4 months of gemcitabine-based induction chemotherapy and to assess the effect of erlotinib on survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In LAP07, an international, open-label, phase 3 randomized trial, 449 patients were enrolled between 2008 and 2011. Follow-up ended in February 2013. INTERVENTIONS: In the first randomization, 223 patients received 1000 mg/m2 weekly of gemcitabine alone and 219 patients received 1000 mg/m2 of gemcitabine plus 100 mg/d of erlotinib. In the second randomization involving patients with progression-free disease after 4 months, 136 patients received 2 months of the same chemotherapy and 133 underwent chemoradiotherapy (54 Gy plus capecitabine). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was overall survival from the date of the first randomization. Secondary outcomes were the effect of erlotinib and quality assurance of radiotherapy on overall survival, progression-free survival of gemcitabine-erlotinib and erlotinib maintenance with gemcitabine alone at the second randomization, and toxic effects. RESULTS: A total of 442 of the 449 patients (232 men; median age, 63.3 years) enrolled underwent the first randomization. Of these, 269 underwent the second randomization. Interim analysis was performed when 221 patients died (109 in the chemoradiotherapy group and 112 in the chemotherapy group), reaching the early stopping boundaries for futility. With a median follow-up of 36.7 months, the median overall survival from the date of the first randomization was not significantly different between chemotherapy at 16.5 months (95% CI, 14.5-18.5 months) and chemoradiotherapy at 15.2 months (95% CI, 13.9-17.3 months; hazard ratio HR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.79-1.34; P = .83). Median overall survival from the date of the first randomization for the 223 patients receiving gemcitabine was 13.6 months (95% CI, 12.3-15.3 months) and was 11.9 months (95% CI, 10.4-13.5 months) for the 219 patients receiving gemcitabine plus erlotinib (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.97-1.45; P = .09; 188 deaths vs 191 deaths). Chemoradiotherapy was associated with decreased local progression (32% vs 46%, P = .03) and no increase in grade 3 to 4 toxicity, except for nausea. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this open-label, randomized trial involving patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer with disease controlled after 4 months of induction chemotherapy, there was no significant difference in overall survival with chemoradiotherapy compared with chemotherapy alone and there was no significant difference in overall survival with gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine plus erlotinib used as maintenance therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00634725
This document is a summary of the French Intergroup guidelines regarding the management of gastric cancer published in October 2016, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology ...(SNFGE) (www.tncd.org), updated in October 2017.
This collaborative work was realized under the auspices of several French medical societies involved in management of gastric cancer. Recommendations are graded in three categories (A–C), according to the amount of evidence found in the literature until July 2017.
There are several known risk factors for gastric cancer, including Helicobacter pylori and genetic predispositions, both requiring a specific screening for patients and their relatives. The diagnosis and staging evaluation are essentially based on gastroscopy plus biopsies and computed tomography scan. The endoscopic ultrasonography can be used for superficial tumors in case of discussion for endoscopic resection (T1N0). For local disease (N+ and/or T > T1), the strategic therapy is based on surgery associated with perioperative chemotherapy. In the absence of preoperative treatment (for any raison), the postoperative chemoradiotherapy (or chemotherapy) should be discussed for patients with stage II or III tumor. For metastatic disease, the treatment is based on “palliative” chemotherapy consisting in a doublet or triplet regimens depending of age, performance status and HER2 tumor status. For patients with limited metastatic disease, surgical resection could be discussed in multidisciplinary meeting in case of stable disease after chemotherapy.
These guidelines in gastric cancer are done to help decision for daily clinical practice. These recommendations are permanently being reviewed. Each individual case must be discussed within a multidisciplinary team.
This document is a summary of the French Intergroup guidelines regarding the management of digestive neuroendocrine neoplasms (NEN) published in February 2020 (www.tncd.org).
All French medical ...societies involved in the management of NEN took part in this work. Recommendations were graded into four categories (A, B, C or D), according to the level of evidence found in the literature until May 2019.
The management of NEN is challenging because of their heterogeneity and the increasing complexity of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Pathological analysis is required for their diagnostic and prognostic characterization, which mainly relies on differentiation, grade and stage. The two main emergency situations are functioning syndromes and poorly-differentiated carcinoma. Chromogranin A is the main biochemical marker of NET, although of limited clinical interest. Initial characterization relies on morphological and isotopic imaging. The treatment of localized NET relies on watchful follow-up and local or surgical resection depending on its supposed aggressiveness. Treatment options for metastatic disease include surgery, somatostatin analogues, chemotherapy, targeted therapies, organ-driven locoregional therapies and peptide-receptor radionuclide therapy. As specific predictive factors of treatment efficacy are yet to be identified and head-to-head comparisons have not or only rarely been performed, the therapeutic strategy currently depends on prognostic factors. Cumulative toxicity and the impact of treatment on quality of life must be considered since survival is relatively long in most patients with NET.
These guidelines are proposed to achieve the most beneficial therapeutic strategy in clinical practice as the therapeutic landscape of NEN is becoming ever more complex. These recommendations are permanently being reviewed.
Summary Background Definitive chemoradiotherapy is a curative treatment option for oesophageal carcinoma, especially in patients unsuitable for surgery. The PRODIGE5/ACCORD17 trial aimed to assess ...the efficacy and safety of the FOLFOX treatment regimen (fluorouracil plus leucovorin and oxaliplatin) versus fluorouracil and cisplatin as part of chemoradiotherapy in patients with localised oesophageal cancer. Methods We did a multicentre, randomised, open-label, parallel-group, phase 2/3 trial of patients aged 18 years or older enrolled from 24 centres in France between Oct 15, 2004, and Aug 25, 2011. Eligible participants had confirmed stage I–IVA oesophageal carcinoma (adenocarcinoma, squamous-cell, or adenosquamous), Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status 0–2, sufficient caloric intake, adequate haematological, renal, and hepatic function, and had been selected to receive definitive chemoradiotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either six cycles (three concomitant to radiotherapy) of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 , leucovorin 200 mg/m2 , bolus fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 , and infusional fluorouracil 1600 mg/m2 (FOLFOX) over 46 h, or four cycles (two concomitant to radiotherapy) of fluorouracil 1000 mg/m2 per day for 4 days and cisplatin 75 mg/m2 on day 1. Both groups also received 50 Gy radiotherapy in 25 fractions (five fractions per week). Random allocation to treatment groups was done by a central computerised randomisation procedure by minimisation, stratified by centre, histology, weight loss, and ECOG status, and was achieved independently from the study investigators. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Data analysis was primarily done by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00861094. Findings 134 participants were randomly allocated to the FOLFOX group and 133 to the fluorouracil and cisplatin group (intention-to-treat population), and 131 patients in the FOLFOX group and 128 in the fluorouracil and cisplatin group actually received the study drugs (safety population). Median follow-up was 25·3 months (IQR 15·9–36·4). Median progression-free survival was 9·7 months (95% CI 8·1–14·5) in the FOLFOX group and 9·4 months (8·1–10·6) in the fluorouracil and cisplatin group (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·70–1·24; p=0·64). One toxic death occurred in the FOLFOX group and six in the fluorouracil–cisplatin group (p=0·066). No significant differences were recorded in the rates of most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events between the treatment groups. Of all-grade adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of patients, paraesthesia (61 47% events in 131 patients in the FOLFOX group vs three 2% in 128 patients in the cisplatin–fluorouracil group, p<0·0001), sensory neuropathy (24 18% vs one 1%, p<0·0001), increases in aspartate aminotransferase concentrations (14 11% vs two 2%, p=0·002), and increases in alanine aminotransferase concentrations (11 8% vs two 2%, p=0·012) were more common in the FOLFOX group, whereas serum creatinine increases (four 3% vs 15 12%, p=0·007), mucositis (35 27% vs 41 32%, p=0·011), and alopecia (two 2% vs 12 9%, p=0·005) were more common in the fluorouracil and cisplatin group. Interpretation Although chemoradiotherapy with FOLFOX did not increase progression-free survival compared with chemoradiotherapy with fluorouracil and cisplatin, FOLFOX might be a more convenient option for patients with localised oesophageal cancer unsuitable for surgery. Funding UNICANCER, French Health Ministry, Sanofi-Aventis, and National League Against Cancer.
PDF
