Purpose As cancer survival rates improve, there is growing interest in the role of lifestyle in longer-term health and quality of life (QoL). This study examined the prevalence of health-related ...behaviours, and the associations between health behaviours and QoL, in colorectal cancer survivors. Methods Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer within the last 5 years identified from five London (UK) hospitals (TV = 495) completed a survey that included measures of fruit and vegetable (F& V) intake, physical activity, smoking status and alcohol consumption. The EORTCQLQ-C30 questionnaire was used to index QoL. Results The majority of respondents were overweight/obese (58%), not physically active (< 5 bouts of moderate activity per week; 82%) and ate fewer than five portions of F& V a day (57%). Few were smokers (6%) or heavy drinkers (weekly alcohol units > 21 for men and > 14 for women; 8%). Physical activity showed the strongest association with functional QoL and was also associated with lower fatigue, pain and insomnia (P < 0.05). F& V intake was associated with higher global QoL and physical, role and cognitive function (P<; 0.05). Using a total health behaviour score (calculated by assigning one point for each of the following behaviours: not smoking, consuming ≤5 portions of F& V a day, being physically active and having moderate alcohol consumption), there was a linear relationship with global QoL, physical function and fatigue (P<0.05). Conclusion A high proportion of colorectal cancer survivors in the UK have suboptimal health behaviours, and this is associated with poorer QoL.
Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) variations occur in up to approximately 20% of patients with intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. In the ClarIDHy trial, progression-free survival as determined by ...central review was significantly improved with ivosidenib vs placebo.
To report the final overall survival (OS) results from the ClarIDHy trial, which aimed to demonstrate the efficacy of ivosidenib (AG-120)-a first-in-class, oral, small-molecule inhibitor of mutant IDH1-vs placebo for patients with unresectable or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma with IDH1 mutation.
This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical phase 3 trial was conducted from February 20, 2017, to May 31, 2020, at 49 hospitals across 6 countries among patients aged 18 years or older with cholangiocarcinoma with IDH1 mutation whose disease progressed with prior therapy.
Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive ivosidenib, 500 mg, once daily or matched placebo. Crossover from placebo to ivosidenib was permitted if patients had disease progression as determined by radiographic findings.
The primary end point was progression-free survival as determined by blinded independent radiology center (reported previously). Overall survival was a key secondary end point. The primary analysis of OS followed the intent-to-treat principle. Other secondary end points included objective response rate, safety and tolerability, and quality of life.
Overall, 187 patients (median age, 62 years range, 33-83 years) were randomly assigned to receive ivosidenib (n = 126; 82 women 65%; median age, 61 years range, 33-80 years) or placebo (n = 61; 37 women 61%; median age, 63 years range, 40-83 years); 43 patients crossed over from placebo to ivosidenib. The primary end point of progression-free survival was reported elsewhere. Median OS was 10.3 months (95% CI, 7.8-12.4 months) with ivosidenib vs 7.5 months (95% CI, 4.8-11.1 months) with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.79 95% CI, 0.56-1.12; 1-sided P = .09). When adjusted for crossover, median OS with placebo was 5.1 months (95% CI, 3.8-7.6 months; hazard ratio, 0.49 95% CI, 0.34-0.70; 1-sided P < .001). The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse event (≥5%) reported in both groups was ascites (11 patients 9% receiving ivosidenib and 4 patients 7% receiving placebo). Serious treatment-emergent adverse events considered ivosidenib related were reported in 3 patients (2%). There were no treatment-related deaths. Patients receiving ivosidenib reported no apparent decline in quality of life compared with placebo.
This randomized clinical trial found that ivosidenib was well tolerated and resulted in a favorable OS benefit vs placebo, despite a high rate of crossover. These data, coupled with supportive quality of life data and a tolerable safety profile, demonstrate the clinical benefit of ivosidenib for patients with advanced cholangiocarcinoma with IDH1 mutation.
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02989857.
Summary Background Since the 1990s, fluorouracil-based adjuvant chemotherapy has significantly reduced the risk of tumour recurrence in patients with stage III colon cancer. We aimed to assess ...whether the addition of cetuximab to standard adjuvant oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin chemotherapy (FOLFOX4) in patients with stage III colon cancer improved disease-free survival (DFS). Methods For this open-label, randomised phase 3 study done in nine European countries, we enrolled patients through an interactive voice response system to the central randomisation centre, with a central stratified permuted block randomisation procedure. We randomly assigned patients with resected (R0) stage III disease (1:1) to receive 12 cycles of FOLFOX4 twice a week with or without cetuximab. Patients were stratified by N-status (N1 vs N2), T-status (T1-3 vs T4), and obstruction or perforation status (no obstruction and no perforation vs obstruction or perforation or both). A protocol amendment (applied in June, 2008, after 2096 patients had been randomly assigned to treatment-restricted enrolment to patients with tumours wild-type at codons 12 and 13 in exon 2 of the KRAS gene ( KRAS exon 2 wild-type). The primary endpoint was DFS. Analysis was intention to treat in all patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours. The study is registered at EudraCT, number 2005-003463-23. Findings Between Dec 22, 2005, and Nov 5, 2009, 2559 patients from 340 sites in Europe were randomly assigned. Of these patients, 1602 had KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumours (intention-to-treat population), 791 in the FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab group and 811 in the FOLFOX4 group. Median follow-up was 3·3 years (IQR 3·2–3·4). In the experimental and control groups, DFS was similar in the intention-to-treat population (hazard ratio HR 1·05; 95% CI 0·85–1·29; p=0·66), and in patients with KRAS exon 2/ BRAF wild-type (n=984, HR 0·99; 95% CI 0·76–1·28) or KRAS exon 2-mutated tumours (n=742, HR 1·06; 95% CI 0·82–1·37). We noted heterogeneous responses to the addition of cetuximab in preplanned subgroup analyses. Grade 3 or 4 acne-like rash (in 209 of 785 patients 27% vs four of 805 <1%), diarrhoea (113 14% vs 70 9%), mucositis (63 8% vs 10 1%), and infusion-related reactions (55 7% vs 30 4%) were more frequent in patients treated with FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab than in those patients who received FOLFOX4 alone. Interpretation The addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX4 did not improve DFS compared with FOLFOX4 alone in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type resected stage III colon cancer. This trial cannot conclude on the benefit of cetuximab in the studied population, but the heterogeneity of response suggests that further investigation of the role of FOLFOX4 plus cetuximab in specific patient subgroups is warranted. Funding Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive (FFCD), Merck KGaA, and Sanofi-Aventis.
Summary Background Surgery for colorectal liver metastases results in an overall survival of about 40% at 5 years. Progression-free survival is increased with the addition of oxaliplatin and ...fluorouracil chemotherapy. The addition of cetuximab to these chemotherapy regimens results in an overall survival advantage in patients with advanced disease who have the KRAS exon 2 wild-type tumour genotype. We aimed to assess the benefit of addition of cetuximab to standard chemotherapy in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis. Methods Patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type resectable or suboptimally resectable colorectal liver metastases were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive chemotherapy with or without cetuximab before and after liver resection. Randomisation was done using minimisation with factors of surgical centre, poor prognostic tumour (one or more of: ≥4 metastases, N2 disease, or poor differentiation of primary tumour), and previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin. Chemotherapy consisted of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 intravenously over 2 h and fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m2 intravenously over 5 min, followed by a 46 h infusion of fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 repeated every 2 weeks (regimen one) or oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 intravenously over 2 h and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–14 repeated every 3 weeks (regimen two). Patients who had received adjuvant oxaliplatin could receive irinotecan 180 mg/m2 intravenously over 30 min with fluorouracil instead of oxaliplatin (regimen three). Cetuximab was given as an intravenous dose of 500 mg/m2 every 2 weeks with regimen one and three or a loading dose of 400 mg/m2 followed by a weekly infusion of 250 mg/m2 with regimen two. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. This is an interim analysis, up to Nov 1, 2012, when the trial was closed, having met protocol-defined futility criteria. This trial is registered, ISRCTN22944367. Findings 128 KRAS exon 2 wild-type patients were randomised to chemotherapy alone and 129 to chemotherapy with cetuximab between Feb 26, 2007, and Nov 1, 2012. 117 patients in the chemotherapy alone group and 119 in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group were included in the primary analysis. The median follow-up was 21·1 months (95% CI 12·6–33·8) in the chemotherapy alone group and 19·8 months (12·2–28·7) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group. With an overall median follow-up of 20·7 months (95% CI 17·9–25·6) and 123 (58%) of 212 required events observed, progression-free survival was significantly shorter in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group than in the chemotherapy alone group (14·1 months 95% CI 11·8–15·9 vs 20·5 months 95% CI 16·8–26·7, hazard ratio 1·48, 95% CI 1·04–2·12, p=0·030). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were low neutrophil count (15 11% preoperatively in the chemotherapy alone group vs six 4% in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group; four 4% vs eight 8% postoperatively), embolic events (six 4% vs eight 6% preoperatively; two 2% vs three 3% postoperatively), peripheral neuropathy (six 4% vs one 1% preoperatively; two 2% vs four 4% postoperatively), nausea or vomiting (four 3% vs six 4% preoperatively; four 4% vs two 2% postoperatively), and skin rash (two 1% vs 21 15% preoperatively; 0 vs eight 8% postoperatively). There were three deaths in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (one interstitial lung disease and pulmonary embolism, one bronchopneumonia, and one pulmonary embolism) and one in the chemotherapy alone group (heart failure) that might have been treatment related. Interpretation Addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy and surgery for operable colorectal liver metastases in KRAS exon 2 wild-type patients results in shorter progression-free survival. Translational investigations to explore the molecular basis for this unexpected interaction are needed but at present the use of cetuximab in this setting cannot be recommended. Funding Cancer Research UK.
Summary Diarrhoea induced by chemotherapy in cancer patients is common, causes notable morbidity and mortality, and is managed inconsistently. Previous management guidelines were based on poor ...evidence and neglect physiological causes of chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea. In the absence of level 1 evidence from randomised controlled trials, we developed practical guidance for clinicians based on a literature review by a multidisciplinary team of clinical oncologists, dietitians, gastroenterologists, medical oncologists, nurses, pharmacist, and a surgeon. Education of patients and their carers about the risks associated with, and management of, chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea is the foundation for optimum treatment of toxic effects. Adequate—and, if necessary, repeated—assessment, appropriate use of loperamide, and knowledge of fluid resuscitation requirements of affected patients is the second crucial step. Use of octreotide and seeking specialist advice early for patients who do not respond to treatment will reduce morbidity and mortality. In view of the burden of chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea, appropriate multidisciplinary research to assess meaningful endpoints is urgently required.
Summary Background In the UK, chemotherapy is the standard treatment for inoperable, locally advanced, non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. Chemoradiotherapy is also an acceptable treatment option, for ...which gemcitabine, fluorouracil, or capecitabine can be used as concurrent chemotherapy agents. We aimed to assess the activity, safety, and feasibility of both gemcitabine-based and capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy after induction chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. Methods In this open-label, randomised, two-arm, phase 2 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with histologically proven, locally advanced pancreatic cancer (with a tumour diameter of 7 cm or less) were recruited from 28 UK centres between Dec 24, 2009 and Oct 25, 2011. After 12 weeks of induction gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy (three cycles of gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle and capecitabine 830 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle), patients with stable or responding disease, tumour diameter of 6 cm or less, and WHO performance status 0–1 were randomly assigned to receive a further cycle of gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy followed by either gemcitabine (300 mg/m2 once per week) or capecitabine (830 mg/m2 twice daily, Monday to Friday only), both in combination with radiation (50·4 Gy in 28 fractions). Randomisation (1:1) was done via a central computerised system and used stratified minimisation. The primary endpoint was 9-month progression-free survival, analysed by intention to treat including only those patients with valid CT assessments. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 96169987. Findings 114 patients were registered and 74 were randomly allocated (38 to the gemcitabine group and 36 to the capecitabine group). After 9 months, 22 of 35 assessable patients (62·9%, 80% CI 50·6–73·9) in the capecitabine group and 18 of 35 assessable patients (51·4%, 39·4–63·4) in the gemcitabine group had not progressed. Median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·9–19·2) in the capecitabine group and 13·4 months (95% CI 11·0–15·7) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted hazard ratio HR 0·39, 95% CI 0·18–0·81; p=0·012). 12-month overall survival was 79·2% (95% CI 61·1–89·5) in the capecitabine group and 64·2 (95% CI 46·4–77·5) in the gemcitabine group. Median progression-free survival was 12·0 months (95% CI 10·2–14·6) in the capecitabine group and 10·4 months (95% CI 8·9–12·5) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·32–1·12; p=0·11). Eight patients in the capecitabine group had an objective response at 26 weeks, as did seven in the gemcitabine group. More patients in the gemcitabine group than in the capecitabine group had grade 3–4 haematological toxic effects (seven 18% vs none, p=0·008) and non-haematological toxic effects (ten 26% vs four 12%, p=0·12) during chemoradiation treatment; the most frequent events were leucopenia, neutropenia, and fatigue. Two patients in the capecitabine group progressed during the fourth cycle of induction chemotherapy. Of the 34 patients in the capecitabine group who received chemoradiotherapy, 25 (74%) received the full protocol dose of radiotherapy, compared with 26 (68%) of 38 patients in the gemcitabine group. Quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the treatment groups. Interpretation Our results suggest that a capecitabine-based regimen might be preferable to a gemcitabine-based regimen in the context of consolidation chemoradiotherapy after a course of induction chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution because the difference in the primary endpoint was non-significant and the number of patients in the trial was small. Funding Cancer Research UK.
Futibatinib, a covalently-binding inhibitor of fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR)1-4 gained approval for the treatment of refractory, advanced intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) harboring ...an FGFR2 fusion/other rearrangement. An integrated analysis was performed to evaluate safety and provide guidance on the management of futibatinib-associated adverse events (AEs) in patients with unresectable/metastatic tumors, including iCCA.
Data from three global phase I or II studies of futibatinib (NCT02052778; JapicCTI-142552) were pooled. AEs were graded per NCI CTCAE v4.03, where applicable. Safety was analyzed for patients receiving any futibatinib starting dose (overall population) and in those receiving the approved starting dose of 20 mg once every day.
In total, 469 patients with one of 33 known tumor types were analyzed, including 318 patients who received futibatinib 20 mg every day. AEs of clinical interest (AECI; any grade/grade ≥3) in the overall population included hyperphosphatemia (82%/19%), nail disorders (27%/1%), hepatic AEs (27%/11%), stomatitis (19%/3%), palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome (PPES; 13%/3%), rash (9%/0%), retinal disorders (8%/0%), and cataract (4%/1%). Median time to onset of grade ≥3 AECIs ranged from 9 days (hyperphosphatemia) to 125 days (cataract). Grade ≥3 hyperphosphatemia, hepatic AEs, PPES, and nail disorders resolved to grade ≤2 within a median of 7, 7, 8, and 28 days, respectively. Discontinuations due to treatment-related AEs were rare (2%), and no treatment-related deaths occurred. AE management included phosphate-lowering medication and dose adjustments.
Futibatinib showed a consistent and manageable safety profile across patients with various tumor types. AECIs were mostly reversible with appropriate clinical management.
The phase III COntinuous or INtermittent (COIN) trial failed to show non-inferiority of intermittent compared with continuous chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer in overall survival (OS). The ...present analysis evaluated whether the derived neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio (dNLR) could predict the effect of intermittent vs continuous chemotherapy on OS in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.
A post hoc exploratory analysis of COIN arms A and C was performed. Landmark analysis was conducted on all patients with available WBC and neutrophils data. The dNLR was calculated using a formula which has previously demonstrated predictive power in cancer patients: dNLR = ANC/(WBC-ANC). A high dNLR was defined using a cut-off value of ⩾ 2.22. Derived neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio was then correlated with clinical outcomes. Survival curves were generated based on dNLR using the Kaplan-Meier method. Comparison between groups was performed using Cox regression.
A total of 1630 patients were assigned to the continuous (N = 815) or intermittent (N = 815) arms. There was a strong association between dNLR level and OS. The median survival times in the ITT population were 18.6 months and 12.5 months for patients with low and high dNLR, respectively (HR = 1.70; 95% CI = 1.52-1.90; P < 0.001). The estimate of the hazard ratio did not alter substantially (HR = 1.54) after adjusting for treatment, tumour status, number of metastatic sites, alkaline phosphate and platelet count.
Derived neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio is strongly prognostic for survival in the COIN intermittent vs continuous treatment arms. Derived neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio does not predict for detrimental survival in patients treated with intermittent therapy.
Real-world data on treatment patterns/outcomes for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPAC) are limited. This study aims to assess real-world treatment patterns, survival outcomes, and ...prognostic/predictive factors in patients with mPAC.
Retrospective, observational, chart-review involving medical oncologists and gastroenterologists from five European countries. Physicians reported information on disease and patient characteristics, diagnosis, and treatment for patients diagnosed with mPAC from January-October 2016. Outcomes included median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS), and the impact of baseline performance status on survival. Univariate/multivariate regression analyses were undertaken to identify prognostic/predictive factors.
Three hundred four physicians and 3432 patients were included. First-line therapies included modified (m)FOLFIRINOX (28.4%), gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (28.0%), and gemcitabine monotherapy (23.0%). Frequent second-line therapies were gemcitabine monotherapy (25.0%), fluorouracil (5-FU) + oxaliplatin (21.8%), and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (16.7%). Most frequent first- to second-line treatment sequences were gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel followed by fluoropyrimidine combinations. Longest unadjusted estimated mOS was observed with (m)FOLFIRINOX followed by gemcitabine-based combinations (19.1 months). Multivariate analysis identified significant prognostic/predictive factors for OS and PFS including performance status and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) levels.
Treatment and treatment sequences were generally in accordance with guidelines at the time of the study. Identification of prognostic/predictive factors for survival may help inform the individualised management of mPAC patients in the future.
Summary Background In the Medical Research Council (MRC) COIN trial, the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted antibody cetuximab was added to standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment ...of advanced colorectal cancer with the aim of assessing effect on overall survival. Methods In this randomised controlled trial, patients who were fit for but had not received previous chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy (arm A), the same combination plus cetuximab (arm B), or intermittent chemotherapy (arm C). The choice of fluoropyrimidine therapy (capecitabine or infused fluouroracil plus leucovorin) was decided before randomisation. Randomisation was done centrally (via telephone) by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation. Treatment allocation was not masked. The comparison of arms A and C is described in a companion paper. Here, we present the comparison of arm A and B, for which the primary outcome was overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. Analysis was by intention to treat. Further analyses with respect to NRAS, BRAF , and EGFR status were done. The trial is registered, ISRCTN27286448. Findings 1630 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (815 to standard therapy and 815 to addition of cetuximab). Tumour samples from 1316 (81%) patients were used for somatic molecular analyses; 565 (43%) had KRAS mutations. In patients with KRAS wild-type tumours (arm A, n=367; arm B, n=362), overall survival did not differ between treatment groups (median survival 17·9 months IQR 10·3–29·2 in the control group vs 17·0 months 9·4–30·1 in the cetuximab group; HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·87–1·23, p=0·67). Similarly, there was no effect on progression-free survival (8·6 months IQR 5·0–12·5 in the control group vs 8·6 months 5·1–13·8 in the cetuximab group; HR 0·96, 0·82–1·12, p=0·60). Overall response rate increased from 57% (n=209) with chemotherapy alone to 64% (n=232) with addition of cetuximab (p=0·049). Grade 3 and higher skin and gastrointestinal toxic effects were increased with cetuximab (14 vs 114 and 67 vs 97 patients in the control group vs the cetuximab group with KRAS wild-type tumours, respectively). Overall survival differs by somatic mutation status irrespective of treatment received: BRAF mutant, 8·8 months (IQR 4·5–27·4); KRAS mutant, 14·4 months (8·5–24·0); all wild-type, 20·1 months (11·5–31·7). Interpretation This trial has not confirmed a benefit of addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Cetuximab increases response rate, with no evidence of benefit in progression-free or overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients or even in patients selected by additional mutational analysis of their tumours. The use of cetuximab in combination with oxaliplatin and capecitabine in first-line chemotherapy in patients with widespread metastases cannot be recommended. Funding Cancer Research UK, Cancer Research Wales, UK Medical Research Council, Merck KGgA.
PDF
