Andrew Scarfe

Body Composition as an Independent Determinant of 5-Fluorouracil–Based Chemotherapy Toxicity

Purpose: Evidence suggests that lean body mass (LBM) may be useful to normalize doses of chemotherapy. Data from a prospective study were used to determine if the highest doses of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) per kilogram LBM would be associated with dose-limiting toxicity in stage II/III colon cancer patients treated with 5-FU and leucovorin. Experimental Design: Toxicity after cycle 1 was graded according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, version 2.0. Muscle tissue was measured by computerized tomography. An extrapolation to the LBM compartment of the whole body was employed. Results: Mean values of 5-FU/LBM of the entire population were different in terms of presence or absence of toxicity (P = 0.036). A cut point of 20 mg 5-FU/kg LBM seemed to be a threshold for developing toxicity (P = 0.005). This observation was pertinent to women (odds ratio, 16.73; P = 0.021). Women in this study had a relatively low proportion of LBM relative to their body surface area. Conclusion: Our study shows that low LBM is a significant predictor of toxicity in female patients administered 5-FU using the convention of dosing per unit of body surface area. We conclude that variation in toxicity between females and males may be partially explained by this feature of body composition.

Effect of Adjuvant Chemotherapy With Fluorouracil Plus Folinic Acid or Gemcitabine vs Observation on Survival in Patients With Resected Periampullary Adenocarcinoma: The ESPAC-3 Periampullary Cancer Randomized Trial

CONTEXT Patients with periampullary adenocarcinomas undergo the same resectional surgery as that of patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Although adjuvant chemotherapy has been shown to have a survival benefit for pancreatic cancer, there have been no randomized trials for periampullary adenocarcinomas. OBJECTIVE To determine whether adjuvant chemotherapy (fluorouracil or gemcitabine) provides improved overall survival following resection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS The European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer (ESPAC)-3 periampullary trial, an open-label, phase 3, randomized controlled trial (July 2000-May 2008) in 100 centers in Europe, Australia, Japan, and Canada. Of the 428 patients included in the primary analysis, 297 had ampullary, 96 had bile duct, and 35 had other cancers. INTERVENTIONS One hundred forty-four patients were assigned to the observation group, 143 patients to receive 20 mg/m2 of folinic acid via intravenous bolus injection followed by 425 mg/m2 of fluorouracil via intravenous bolus injection administered 1 to 5 days every 28 days, and 141 patients to receive 1000 mg/m2 of intravenous infusion of gemcitabine once a week for 3 of every 4 weeks for 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome measure was overall survival with chemotherapy vs no chemotherapy; secondary measures were chemotherapy type, toxic effects, progression-free survival, and quality of life. RESULTS Eighty-eight patients (61%) in the observation group, 83 (58%) in the fluorouracil plus folinic acid group, and 73 (52%) in the gemcitabine group died. In the observation group, the median survival was 35.2 months (95%% CI, 27.2-43.0 months) and was 43.1 (95%, CI, 34.0-56.0) in the 2 chemotherapy groups (hazard ratio, 0.86; (95% CI, 0.66-1.11; χ2 = 1.33; P = .25). After adjusting for independent prognostic variables of age, bile duct cancer, poor tumor differentiation, and positive lymph nodes and after conducting multiple regression analysis, the hazard ratio for chemotherapy compared with observation was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.57-0.98; Wald χ2 = 4.53, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with resected periampullary adenocarcinoma, adjuvant chemotherapy, compared with observation, was not associated with a significant survival benefit in the primary analysis; however, multivariable analysis adjusting for prognostic variables demonstrated a statistically significant survival benefit associated with adjuvant chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00058201.

Pancreatic cancer hENT1 expression and survival from gemcitabine in patients from the ESPAC-3 trial

BACKGROUND Human equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (hENT1) levels in pancreatic adenocarcinoma may predict survival in patients who receive adjuvant gemcitabine after resection. METHODS Microarrays from 434 patients randomized to chemotherapy in the ESPAC-3 trial (plus controls from ESPAC-1/3) were stained with the 10D7G2 anti-hENT1 antibody. Patients were classified as having high hENT1 expression if the mean H score for their cores was above the overall median H score (48). High and low hENT1-expressing groups were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, and Cox proportional hazards models. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS Three hundred eighty patients (87.6%) and 1808 cores were suitable and included in the final analysis. Median overall survival for gemcitabine-treated patients (n = 176) was 23.4 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 18.3 to 26.0) months vs 23.5 (95% CI = 19.8 to 27.3) months for 176 patients treated with 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (χ(2) 1=0.24; P = .62). Median survival for patients treated with gemcitabine was 17.1 (95% CI = 14.3 to 23.8) months for those with low hENT1 expression vs 26.2 (95% CI = 21.2 to 31.4) months for those with high hENT1 expression (χ(2)₁= 9.87; P = .002). For the 5-fluorouracil group, median survival was 25.6 (95% CI = 20.1 to 27.9) and 21.9 (95% CI = 16.0 to 28.3) months for those with low and high hENT1 expression, respectively (χ(2)₁ = 0.83; P = .36). hENT1 levels were not predictive of survival for the 28 patients of the observation group (χ(2)₁ = 0.37; P = .54). Multivariable analysis confirmed hENT1 expression as a predictive marker in gemcitabine-treated (Wald χ(2) = 9.16; P = .003) but not 5-fluorouracil-treated (Wald χ(2) = 1.22; P = .27) patients. CONCLUSIONS Subject to prospective validation, gemcitabine should not be used for patients with low tumor hENT1 expression.

Optimal Duration and Timing of Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Definitive Surgery for Ductal Adenocarcinoma of the Pancreas: Ongoing Lessons From the ESPAC-3 Study

PURPOSE Adjuvant chemotherapy improves patient survival rates after resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma, but the optimal duration and time to initiate chemotherapy is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma treated within the international, phase III, European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer-3 (version 2) study were included if they had been randomly assigned to chemotherapy. Overall survival analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis, retaining patients in their randomized groups, and adjusting the overall treatment effect by known prognostic variables as well as the start time of chemotherapy. RESULTS There were 985 patients, of whom 486 (49%) received gemcitabine and 499 (51%) received fluorouracil; 675 patients (68%) completed all six cycles of chemotherapy (full course) and 293 patients (30%) completed one to five cycles. Lymph node involvement, resection margins status, tumor differentiation, and completion of therapy were all shown by multivariable Cox regression to be independent survival factors. Overall survival favored patients who completed the full six courses of treatment versus those who did not (hazard ratio [HR], 0.516; 95% CI, 0.443 to 0.601; P < .001). Time to starting chemotherapy did not influence overall survival rates for the full study population (HR, 0.985; 95% CI, 0.956 to 1.015). Chemotherapy start time was an important survival factor only for the subgroup of patients who did not complete therapy, in favor of later treatment (P < .001). CONCLUSION Completion of all six cycles of planned adjuvant chemotherapy rather than early initiation was an independent prognostic factor after resection for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. There seems to be no difference in outcome if chemotherapy is delayed up to 12 weeks, thus allowing adequate time for postoperative recovery.

Characteristics of patients with stage III colon adenocarcinoma who fail to receive guideline-recommended treatment†

Many patients with stage III colon adenocarcinoma do not receive adjuvant chemotherapy despite the proven survival advantage it offers. To enhance the provision of optimal cancer care, patient characteristics associated with not receiving guideline‐adherent treatment must be identified among patients with operable, stage III colon adenocarcinoma.

Association between receipt and timing of adjuvant chemotherapy and survival for patients with stage III colon cancer in Alberta, Canada.

Surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy has been standard treatment for stage III colon cancer since 1990. However, to date, clinical trials have not been conducted to determine the definitive outer time limit by which adjuvant chemotherapy should be received for optimal survival benefit. The objective of the current study was to assess the association between the receipt/timing of adjuvant chemotherapy and patient survival in clinical practice.

Reasons physicians do not recommend and patients refuse adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer: a population based chart review

BackgroundSurgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy has been the standard of care for the treatment of stage III colon cancer since the early 1990’s. Despite this, large proportions of patients do not receive adjuvant chemotherapy. We aimed to identify physicians’ and patients’ reasons for treatment decisions.MethodsA retrospective population based study was conducted that included all surgically treated stage III colon cancer patients diagnosed in Alberta between 2002 and 2005 who had an oncologist-consult to discuss post-surgical treatment options. Patient demographics and stage were obtained from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Chart reviews were conducted to extract treatment details, the oncologists’ reasons for not recommending chemotherapy, and patients’ reasons for refusing chemotherapy. The number and proportion of patients who were not recommended or refused chemotherapy were calculated.ResultsA total of 613 patients had surgery followed by an oncologist-consult. Overall, 168 (27%) patients did not receive chemotherapy. It was not recommended for 111 (18%) patients; the most frequent reason was presence of one or more co-morbidities (34%) or combination of co-morbidity and age or frailty (22%). Fifty-eight (9%) patients declined chemotherapy, 22% of whom declined due to concerns about toxicity.ConclusionSome co-morbidities are clinical indications for not receiving adjuvant chemotherapy, however, the high percentage of patients who were not recommended adjuvant chemotherapy due to co-morbidities according to clinical notes but who had a low Charlson co-morbidity score suggests variation in practice patterns of consulting oncologists. In addition, patients’ reasons for refusing treatment need to be systematically assessed to ensure patients’ preferences and treatment benefits are properly weighed when making treatment decisions.

The role of bevacizumab in colorectal cancer: understanding its benefits and limitations

Introduction: Angiogenesis is a key factor in the development of aberrant blood vessels required for malignant growth, invasion and progression. Inhibiting VEGF is by far the most clinically advanced anti-angiogenic target. Bevacizumab (BV), the only humanized mAb directed against VEGF, is approved for use in multiple tumor types after successful clinical trial results demonstrated benefits in progression-free survival and/or overall survival when combined with common cytotoxic chemotherapies. Areas covered: The review focuses on the use of BV in colorectal cancer, discusses the clinical trial data supporting its increasing use and explores its limitations. Readers will gain a succinct description of the trial data demonstrating a modest survival benefit in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and the lack of benefit of BV when utilized in the adjuvant setting. A review of common BV toxicities and a discussion about possible BV resistance mechanisms are also provided. Expert opinion: Although BV has demonstrated efficacy in mCRC, there is an urgent need to improve the understanding of its mechanism of action and the development of BV resistance. Furthermore, there is a need for delineating predictive markers of BV efficacy and toxicity.

Association of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Capecitabine Efficacy in Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: Secondary Analysis of the TRIO-013/LOGiC Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance Capecitabine is an oral cytotoxic chemotherapeutic commonly used across cancer subtypes. As with other oral medications though, it may suffer from drug interactions that could impair its absorption. Objective To determine if gastric acid suppressants such as proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may impair capecitabine efficacy. Design, Setting, and Participants This secondary analysis of TRIO-013, a phase III randomized trial, compares capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CapeOx) with or without lapatinib in 545 patients with ERBB2/HER2-positive metastatic gastroesophageal cancer (GEC); patients were randomized 1:1 between CapeOx with or without lapatinib. Proton pump inhibitor use was identified by medication records. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between patients treated with PPIs vs patients who were not. Specific subgroups were accounted for, such as younger age (<60 years), Asian ethnicity, female sex, and disease stage (metastatic/advanced) in multivariate Cox proportional hazards modeling. The TRIO-013 trial accrued and randomized patients between June 2008 and January 2012; this analysis took place in January 2014. Interventions Patients were divided based on PPI exposure. Main Outcomes and Measures Primary study outcome was PFS and OS between patients treated with PPIs vs patients who were not. Secondary outcomes included disease response rates and toxicities. Results Of the 545 patients with GEC (median age, 60 years; 406 men [74%]) included in the study, 229 received PPIs (42.0%) and were evenly distributed between arms. In the placebo arm, PPI-treated patients had poorer median PFS, 4.2 vs 5.7 months (hazard ratio [HR], 1.55; 95% CI, 1.29-1.81, P < .001); OS, 9.2 vs 11.3 months (HR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.06-1.62; P = .04); and disease control rate (83% vs 72%; P = .02) vs patients not treated with PPIs. In multivariate analysis considering age, race, disease stage, and sex, PPI-treated patients had poorer PFS (HR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.42-1.94; P < .001) and OS (HR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.71; P = .001). In patients treated with CapeOx and lapatinib, PPIs had less effect on PFS (HR, 1.08; P = .54) and OS (HR, 1.26; P = .10); however, multivariate analysis in this group demonstrated a significant difference in OS (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.06-1.66; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance Proton pump inhibitors negatively effected capecitabine efficacy by possibly raising gastric pH levels, leading to altered dissolution and absorption. These results are consistent with previous erlotinib and sunitinib studies. Whether PPIs affected lapatinib is unclear given concurrent capecitabine. Given capecitabine’s prevalence in treatment breast cancer and colon cancer, further studies are under way. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00680901

Timeliness of cancer care from diagnosis to treatment: a comparison between patients with breast, colon, rectal or lung cancer

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to assess the value in measuring specific time intervals across cancer sites to identify potentially important variation in the timeliness of cancer care that may inform needed changes and/or improvements in coordination of care. DESIGN Retrospective population-level study. Demographic and treatment information were obtained from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Date of oncologist-consult was obtained from cancer medical records. SETTING Alberta, Canada. PARTICIPANTS All patients diagnosed in 2005 with breast, colon, rectal or lung cancer who were residents of Alberta, Canada. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES (i) Number of days from diagnosis to first treatment by treatment modality and cancer site, (ii) number of days from surgery to post-surgery consultation and subsequent treatment and (iii) relationship between clinical and demographic factors and the cancer-specific provincial median time for outcome measures (i) and (ii). RESULTS Time from diagnosis to surgery, if first treatment, was ∼4 months for lung cancer compared with 1-2 months for breast and colorectal cancers. Factors associated with this time interval for breast and colorectal cancers was stage at diagnosis but was region of residence for lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS Important variation within and across cancer sites identified in the care intervals evaluated in this study provides relevant information to inform local areas for improvement. Comparisons of these intervals across healthcare systems may also provide insights into strengths of different models for coordinating care.