Arnaud Roth

Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil compared with fluorouracil alone as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised trial

BACKGROUND Irinotecan is active against colorectal cancer in patients whose disease is refractory to fluorouracil. We investigated the efficacy of these two agents combined for first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS 387 patients previously untreated with chemotherapy (other than adjuvant) for advanced colorectal cancer were randomly assigned open-label irinotecan plus fluorouracil and calcium folinate (irinotecan group, n=199) or fluorouracil and calcium folinate alone (no-irinotecan group, n=188). Infusion schedules were once weekly or every 2 weeks, and were chosen by each centre. We assessed response rates and time to progression, and also response duration, survival, and quality of life. Analyses were done on the intention-to-treat population and on evaluable patients. FINDINGS The response rate was significantly higher in patients in the irinotecan group than in those in the no-irinotecan group (49 vs 31%, p<0.001 for evaluable patients, 35 vs 22%, p<0.005 by intention to treat). Time to progression was significantly longer in the irinotecan group than in the no-irinotecan group (median 6.7 vs 4.4 months, p<0.001), and overall survival was higher (median 17.4 vs 14.1 months, p=0.031). Some grade 3 and 4 toxic effects were significantly more frequent in the irinotecan group than in the no-irinotecan group, but effects were predictible, reversible, non-cumulative, and manageable. INTERPRETATION Irinotecan combined with fluorouracil and calcium folinate was well-tolerated and increased response rate, time to progression, and survival, with a later deterioration in quality of life. This combination should be considered as a reference first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Prognostic Role of KRAS and BRAF in Stage II and III Resected Colon Cancer: Results of the Translational Study on the PETACC-3, EORTC 40993, SAKK 60-00 Trial

PURPOSE Mutations within the KRAS proto-oncogene have predictive value but are of uncertain prognostic value in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. We took advantage of PETACC-3, an adjuvant trial with 3,278 patients with stage II to III colon cancer, to evaluate the prognostic value of KRAS and BRAF tumor mutation status in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks (n = 1,564) were prospectively collected and DNA was extracted from tissue sections from 1,404 cases. Planned analysis of KRAS exon 2 and BRAF exon 15 mutations was performed by allele-specific real-time polymerase chain reaction. Survival analyses were based on univariate and multivariate proportional hazard regression models. RESULTS KRAS and BRAF tumor mutation rates were 37.0% and 7.9%, respectively, and were not significantly different according to tumor stage. In a multivariate analysis containing stage, tumor site, nodal status, sex, age, grade, and microsatellite instability (MSI) status, KRAS mutation was associated with grade (P = .0016), while BRAF mutation was significantly associated with female sex (P = .017), and highly significantly associated with right-sided tumors, older age, high grade, and MSI-high tumors (all P < 10(-4)). In univariate and multivariate analysis, KRAS mutations did not have a major prognostic value regarding relapse-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS). BRAF mutation was not prognostic for RFS, but was for OS, particularly in patients with MSI-low (MSI-L) and stable (MSI-S) tumors (hazard ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.4; P = .0003). CONCLUSION In stage II-III colon cancer, the KRAS mutation status does not have major prognostic value. BRAF is prognostic for OS in MS-L/S tumors.

ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.

Mediastinal Lymph Node Clearance After Docetaxel-Cisplatin Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Is Prognostic of Survival in Patients With Stage IIIA pN2 Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Multicenter Phase II Trial

PURPOSE A multicenter, phase II trial investigated the efficacy and toxicity of neoadjuvant docetaxel-cisplatin in locally advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and examined prognostic factors for patients not benefiting from surgery. PATIENTS AND METHODS Ninety patients with previously untreated, potentially operable stage IIIA (mediastinoscopically pN2) NSCLC received three cycles of docetaxel 85 mg/m2 day 1 plus cisplatin 40 mg/m2 days 1 and 2, with subsequent surgical resection. RESULTS Administered dose-intensities were docetaxel 85 mg/m2/3 weeks (range, 53 to 96) and cisplatin 95 mg/m2/3 weeks (range, 0 to 104). The 265 cycles were well tolerated, and the overall response rate was 66% (95% confidence interval [CI], 55% to 75%). Seventy-five patients underwent tumor resection with positive resection margin and involvement of the uppermost mediastinal lymph node in 16% and 35% of patients, respectively (perioperative mortality, 3%; morbidity, 17%). Pathologic complete response occurred in 19% of patients with tumor resection. In patients with tumor resection, downstaging to N0-1 at surgery was prognostic and significantly prolonged event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS; P =.0001). At median follow-up of 32 months, the median EFS and OS were 14.8 months (range, 2.4 to 53.4) and 33 months (range, 2.4 to 53.4), respectively. Local relapse occurred in 27% of patients with tumor resection, with distant metastases in 37%. Multivariate analyses identified mediastinal clearance (hazard ratio, 0.22; P =.0003) and complete resection (hazard ratio, 0.26; P =.0006) as strongly prognostic for increased survival. CONCLUSION Neoadjuvant docetaxel-cisplatin is effective and tolerable in stage IIIA pN2 NSCLC. Resection is recommended only for patients with mediastinal downstaging after chemotherapy.

Randomized phase III trial comparing biweekly infusional fluorouracil/leucovorin alone or with irinotecan in the adjuvant treatment of stage III colon cancer: PETACC-3.

PURPOSE The primary objective of this randomized, multicenter, phase III trial was to investigate whether the addition of irinotecan to the de Gramont infusional fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) adjuvant regimen (LV5FU2) would improve disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with stage III colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS After curatively intentioned surgery, patients with stage II and III colon cancer were randomly allocated surgery to receive LV5FU2 (LV 200 mg/m(2) as a 2-hour infusion, followed by FU; as a 400 mg/m(2) bolus and then a 600 mg/m(2) continuous infusion over 22 hours, days 1 and 2, every 2 weeks for 12 cycles: de Gramont regimen) with or without irinotecan (180 mg/m(2) as a 30- to 90-minute infusion, day 1, every 2 weeks). In total, 260 (7.9%) of 3,278 patients received an alternative high-dose infusional FU/LV regimen (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internische Onkologie regimen) with or without irinotecan. Results The principal efficacy analysis was based on 2,094 treated patients with stage III disease, randomly allocated in the LV5FU2 strata. After a median follow-up of 66.3 months, the 5-year DFS rate was 56.7% with irinotecan/LV5FU2 and 54.3% with LV5FU2 alone (primary end point: log-rank P = .106). Combining irinotecan with LV5FU2 did not significantly improve overall survival in this patient group compared with LV5FU2 alone (5-year rate 73.6% v 71.3%, respectively; log-rank P = .094). The addition of irinotecan to LV5FU2 was associated with an increased incidence of grade 3 to 4 GI events and neutropenia. CONCLUSION Irinotecan added to LV5FU2 as adjuvant therapy did not confer a statistically significant improvement in DFS or overall survival in patients with stage III colon cancer compared with LV5FU2 alone.

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and resection of advanced synchronous liver metastases before treatment of the colorectal primary

In many patients with advanced synchronous liver metastases from colorectal tumours, the metastases progress during treatment of the primary, precluding curative treatment. The authors have investigated a management strategy that involves high‐impact chemotherapy first, resection of liver metastases second and finally removal of the primary tumour in patients with adverse prognostic factors.

Docetaxel (Taxotere®)-cisplatin (TC): An effective drug combination in gastric carcinoma

PURPOSE A multi-centric trial was performed to explore the clinical activity, in terms of response and toxicity (primary objectives), duration of response and survival (secondary objectives), of docetaxel with cisplatin in advanced gastric cancer (AGC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with measurable unresectable and/or metastatic gastric carcinoma, performance status < or = 1, normal hematological, hepatic and renal functions and not pretreated for advanced disease by chemotherapy received up to eight cycles of TC (docetaxel 85 mg/m2 dl, cisplatin 75 mg/m2 dl) q3w. Dose escalation to 100 mg/m2 was performed in five patients and was discontinued for excessive toxicity. RESULTS Forty-eight patients were accrued. A median of 5 cycles/patient was given. We observed 2 complete and 25 partial responses for an overall intent to treat response rate of 56% (95% CI: 41%-71%). Twelve patients had stable disease for > or = 9 weeks (3 cycles). The median time to progression and overall survival were 6.6 and 9 months, respectively. Grade > or = 3 toxicities were neutropenia 81%, anemia 32%, thrombocytopenia 4%, alopecia 36%, fatigue 9%, mucositis 9%, diarrhea 6%, nausea/vomiting 4%, neurologic 2%, and one anaphylaxis precluding treatment administration. We recorded nine episodes of non-fatal febrile neutropenia in eight patients, two of them with docetaxel at 100 mg/m2. There were no direct treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS TC is active in AGC with a high response rate in a multicentric trial. Despite its hematotoxicity, this regimen is well tolerated and can be recycled as originally planned in 78% of the cases. These results may serve as basis for further developments of docetaxel containing regimens in this disease.

Docetaxel, Cisplatin, and Fluorouracil; Docetaxel and Cisplatin; and Epirubicin, Cisplatin, and Fluorouracil As Systemic Treatment for Advanced Gastric Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research

PURPOSE This randomized phase II trial evaluated two docetaxel-based regimens to see which would be most promising according to overall response rate (ORR) for comparison in a phase III trial with epirubicin-cisplatin-fluorouracil (ECF) as first-line advanced gastric cancer therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Chemotherapy-naïve patients with measurable unresectable and/or metastatic gastric carcinoma, a performance status <or= 1, and adequate hematologic, hepatic, and renal function randomly received <or= eight 3-weekly cycles of ECF (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) on day 1, cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) on day 1, and fluorouracil [FU] 200 mg/m(2)/d on days 1 to 21), TC (docetaxel initially 85 mg/m(2) on day 1 [later reduced to 75 mg/m(2) as a result of toxicity] and cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) on day 1), or TCF (TC plus FU 300 mg/m(2)/d on days 1 to 14). Study objectives included response (primary), survival, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS ORR was 25.0% (95% CI, 13% to 41%) for ECF, 18.5% (95% CI, 9% to 34%) for TC, and 36.6% (95% CI, 23% to 53%) for TCF (n = 119). Median overall survival times were 8.3, 11.0, and 10.4 months for ECF, TC, and TCF, respectively. Toxicity was acceptable, with one toxic death (TC arm). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred in more treatment cycles with docetaxel (TC, 49%; TCF, 57%; ECF, 34%). Global health status/QOL substantially improved with ECF and remained similar to baseline with both docetaxel regimens. CONCLUSION Time to response and ORR favor TCF over TC for further evaluation, particularly in the neoadjuvant setting. A trend towards increased myelosuppression and infectious complications with TCF versus TC or ECF was observed.

Gene expression patterns unveil a new level of molecular heterogeneity in colorectal cancer

The recognition that colorectal cancer (CRC) is a heterogeneous disease in terms of clinical behaviour and response to therapy translates into an urgent need for robust molecular disease subclassifiers that can explain this heterogeneity beyond current parameters (MSI, KRAS, BRAF). Attempts to fill this gap are emerging. The Cancer Genome Atlas (TGCA) reported two main CRC groups, based on the incidence and spectrum of mutated genes, and another paper reported an EMT expression signature defined subgroup. We performed a prior free analysis of CRC heterogeneity on 1113 CRC gene expression profiles and confronted our findings to established molecular determinants and clinical, histopathological and survival data. Unsupervised clustering based on gene modules allowed us to distinguish at least five different gene expression CRC subtypes, which we call surface crypt‐like, lower crypt‐like, CIMP‐H‐like, mesenchymal and mixed. A gene set enrichment analysis combined with literature search of gene module members identified distinct biological motifs in different subtypes. The subtypes, which were not derived based on outcome, nonetheless showed differences in prognosis. Known gene copy number variations and mutations in key cancer‐associated genes differed between subtypes, but the subtypes provided molecular information beyond that contained in these variables. Morphological features significantly differed between subtypes. The objective existence of the subtypes and their clinical and molecular characteristics were validated in an independent set of 720 CRC expression profiles. Our subtypes provide a novel perspective on the heterogeneity of CRC. The proposed subtypes should be further explored retrospectively on existing clinical trial datasets and, when sufficiently robust, be prospectively assessed for clinical relevance in terms of prognosis and treatment response predictive capacity. Original microarray data were uploaded to the ArrayExpress database (http://www.ebi.ac.uk/arrayexpress/) under Accession Nos E‐MTAB‐990 and E‐MTAB‐1026.

EURECCA colorectal: Multidisciplinary management: European consensus conference colon & rectum

BACKGROUND Care for patients with colon and rectal cancer has improved in the last 20years; however considerable variation still exists in cancer management and outcome between European countries. Large variation is also apparent between national guidelines and patterns of cancer care in Europe. Therefore, EURECCA, which is the acronym of European Registration of Cancer Care, is aiming at defining core treatment strategies and developing a European audit structure in order to improve the quality of care for all patients with colon and rectal cancer. In December 2012, the first multidisciplinary consensus conference about cancer of the colon and rectum was held. The expert panel consisted of representatives of European scientific organisations involved in cancer care of patients with colon and rectal cancer and representatives of national colorectal registries. METHODS The expert panel had delegates of the European Society of Surgical Oncology (ESSO), European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO), European Society of Pathology (ESP), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), European Society of Radiology (ESR), European Society of Coloproctology (ESCP), European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), European Oncology Nursing Society (EONS) and the European Colorectal Cancer Patient Organisation (EuropaColon), as well as delegates from national registries or audits. Consensus was achieved using the Delphi method. For the Delphi process, multidisciplinary experts were invited to comment and vote three web-based online voting rounds and to lecture on the subjects during the meeting (13th-15th December 2012). The sentences in the consensus document were available during the meeting and a televoting round during the conference by all participants was performed. This manuscript covers all sentences of the consensus document with the result of the voting. The consensus document represents sections on diagnostics, pathology, surgery, medical oncology, radiotherapy, and follow-up where applicable for treatment of colon cancer, rectal cancer and metastatic colorectal disease separately. Moreover, evidence based algorithms for diagnostics and treatment were composed which were also submitted to the Delphi process. RESULTS The total number of the voted sentences was 465. All chapters were voted on by at least 75% of the experts. Of the 465 sentences, 84% achieved large consensus, 6% achieved moderate consensus, and 7% resulted in minimum consensus. Only 3% was disagreed by more than 50% of the members. CONCLUSIONS Multidisciplinary consensus on key diagnostic and treatment issues for colon and rectal cancer management using the Delphi method was successful. This consensus document embodies the expertise of professionals from all disciplines involved in the care for patients with colon and rectal cancer. Diagnostic and treatment algorithms were developed to implement the current evidence and to define core treatment guidance for multidisciplinary team management of colon and rectal cancer throughout Europe.