F. de Braud

Leucovorin and Fluorouracil With or Without Oxaliplatin as First-Line Treatment in Advanced Colorectal Cancer

PURPOSE In a previous study of treatment for advanced colorectal cancer, the LV5FU2 regimen, comprising leucovorin (LV) plus bolus and infusional fluorouracil (5FU) every 2 weeks, was superior to the standard North Central Cancer Treatment Group/Mayo Clinic 5-day bolus 5FU/LV regimen. This phase III study investigated the effect of combining oxaliplatin with LV5FU2, with progression-free survival as the primary end point. PATIENTS AND METHODS Four hundred twenty previously untreated patients with measurable disease were randomized to receive a 2-hour infusion of LV (200 mg/m(2)/d) followed by a 5FU bolus (400 mg/m(2)/d) and 22-hour infusion (600 mg/m(2)/d) for 2 consecutive days every 2 weeks, either alone or together with oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) as a 2-hour infusion on day 1. RESULTS Patients allocated to oxaliplatin plus LV5FU2 had significantly longer progression-free survival (median, 9.0 v 6.2 months; P =.0003) and better response rate (50.7% v 22.3%; P =.0001) when compared with the control arm. The improvement in overall survival did not reach significance (median, 16.2 v 14.7 months; P =. 12). LV5FU2 plus oxaliplatin gave higher frequencies of National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria grade 3/4 neutropenia (41. 7% v 5.3% of patients), grade 3/4 diarrhea (11.9% v 5.3%), and grade 3 neurosensory toxicity (18.2% v 0%), but this did not result in impairment of quality of life (QoL). Survival without disease progression or deterioration in global health status was longer in patients allocated to oxaliplatin treatment (P =.004). CONCLUSION The LV5FU2-oxaliplatin combination seems beneficial as first-line therapy in advanced colorectal cancer, demonstrating a prolonged progression-free survival with acceptable tolerability and maintenance of QoL.

Combined BRAF and MEK Inhibition versus BRAF Inhibition Alone in Melanoma

BACKGROUND Combined BRAF and MEK inhibition, as compared with BRAF inhibition alone, delays the emergence of resistance and reduces toxic effects in patients who have melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. METHODS In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 423 previously untreated patients who had unresectable stage IIIC or stage IV melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation to receive a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg orally twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg orally once daily) or dabrafenib and placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, response rate, response duration, and safety. A preplanned interim overall survival analysis was conducted. RESULTS The median progression-free survival was 9.3 months in the dabrafenib-trametinib group and 8.8 months in the dabrafenib-only group (hazard ratio for progression or death in the dabrafenib-trametinib group, 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.57 to 0.99; P=0.03). The overall response rate was 67% in the dabrafenib-trametinib group and 51% in the dabrafenib-only group (P=0.002). At 6 months, the interim overall survival rate was 93% with dabrafenib-trametinib and 85% with dabrafenib alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.94; P=0.02). However, a specified efficacy-stopping boundary (two-sided P=0.00028) was not crossed. Rates of adverse events were similar in the two groups, although more dose modifications occurred in the dabrafenib-trametinib group. The rate of cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma was lower in the dabrafenib-trametinib group than in the dabrafenib-only group (2% vs. 9%), whereas pyrexia occurred in more patients (51% vs. 28%) and was more often severe (grade 3, 6% vs. 2%) in the dabrafenib-trametinib group. CONCLUSIONS A combination of dabrafenib and trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, improved the rate of progression-free survival in previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; Clinical Trials.gov number, NCT01584648.).

Efficacy according to biomarker status of cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: the OPUS study

BACKGROUND The randomized phase II OPUS (Oxaliplatin and Cetuximab in First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer) study showed that tumor KRAS mutation status was predictive for outcome in patients receiving cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 (oxaliplatin/5-fluorouracil/folinic acid) as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS The biomarker analysis was extended through the use of additional DNA samples extracted from stained tissue sections. KRAS and BRAF tumor mutation status was determined for new (and for BRAF, existing) samples using a PCR technique. Clinical outcome was reassessed according to mutation status. Overall survival data are presented. RESULTS Of 315 KRAS evaluable patient samples (93%), 179 tumors (57%) were KRAS wild type. Eleven of 309 (4%) KRAS/BRAF evaluable tumors (all KRAS wild type) carried BRAF mutations. The addition of cetuximab to FOLFOX-4 significantly improved progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.567, P = 0.0064) and response (odds ratio 2.551, P = 0.0027) in patients with KRAS wild-type tumors. A favorable effect on survival was also observed. CONCLUSIONS These results confirm the efficacy of cetuximab plus FOLFOX-4 in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC and confirm KRAS mutation status as an effective predictive biomarker. The small number of tumors with BRAF mutations precluded the drawing of definitive conclusions concerning the predictive or prognostic utility of this biomarker.

Totally implantable central venous access ports for long-term chemotherapy A prospective study analyzing complications and costs of 333 devices with a minimum follow-up of 180 days

BACKGROUND A few data are available from analyses of the complications and costs of central venous access ports for chemotherapy. This prospective study deals with the complications and global costs of central venous ports connected to a Groshong catheter for deliverance of long-term chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with a variety of solid neoplastic diseases requiring chemotherapy who were undergoing placement of implantable ports over a 30-month period (1 October 1994 to 31 March 1997) have been prospectively studied. Follow-up continued until the device was removed or the study was closed (30 September 1997); patients with uneventful implant experience and subsequent follow-ups of less than 180 days were not considered for this study. A single port, constructed of titanium and silicone rubber (Dome Port, Bard Inc., Salt Lake City, USA), was used, connected to an 8 F silastic Groshong catheter tubing (Bard Inc., Salt Lake City, USA). Two-hundred ninety-six devices were placed in the operating room under fluoroscopic control even in the patients treated and monitored in a day-hospital setting: 37 of them were in an angiographic suite. A central venous access form was filled in by the operator after the procedure and all ports were followed prospectively for device-related and overall complications. The average purchase cost of the device was obtained from the hospital charges, based on the costs applied during the 30-month period of the study. Insertion and maintenance costs were estimated by obtaining the charges for an average TIAP implant and its subsequent use; the costs of complication management were assessed analytically. The total cost of each device was defined as the purchase cost plus the insertion cost plus the maintenance cost plus the cost of treatment of the complications, if any. The cost of removing the TIAP was also included in the economic analysis when required by the treatment of the complication. RESULTS Three hundred thirty-three devices, for a total of 79,178 days in situ, were placed in 328 patients. Five patients received second devices after removal of the first. In all cases the follow-up was appropriate (median 237 days, range 180-732). Early complications included 10 pneumothoraxes (3.4%; six tube-thoracostomies were applied, 1.8%) and six revisions for port and/or catheter malfunction (overall early complications = 16, 4.48%). Late complications comprised five instances of catheter rupture and embolization (1.5%, 0.063 episodes/1000 days of use), five of venous thrombosis (1.5%, 0.063 episodes/1000 days of use), one of pocket infection (0.3%, 0.012 episodes/1000 days of use), and eight of port-related bacteremia (2.4%, 0.101 episodes/1000 days of use). The infections were caused by coagulase-negative Staphylococcus aureus (five cases), Bacillus subtilis (one case), Streptococcus lactaceae (one case) and an unknown agent (one case); port removal was necessary in six of eight cases. The total cost per patient treated for a six-month period, consisting of the costs of purchase and implantation, treatment of early and late complications, and of maintenance of the device, is US

Oxaliplatin as single agent in previously untreated colorectal carcinoma patients: A phase II multicentric study

1,970. CONCLUSIONS This study represents the largest published series of patients with totally implantable access ports connected to a Groshong catheter. We have shown that US

Vatalanib for metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) resistant to imatinib: final results of a phase II study

2,000 are sufficient to cover six months of chemotherapy in one patient using the most expensive commercially available implantable port. According to the present study, totally implantable access ports connected to a Groshong catheter are associated with high purchase and insertion costs, a low complication rate and low maintenance costs. These data support their increasing use in current oncologic medical practice.

BRAF codons 594 and 596 mutations identify a new molecular subtype of metastatic colorectal cancer at favorable prognosis

BACKGROUND Oxaliplatin is a new cytotoxic agent from the diaminocyclohexane family with proven antitumor activity against colon cancer cell lines. Activity in patients with colorectal carcinoma previously treated with 5-fluorouracil has been studied in three single-agent phase II trials, showing a reproducible response rate of 10%. Here we report a phase II trial with oxaliplatin as a first-line chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Twenty-five patients were entered in the study. All of them had metastatic disease without previous chemotherapy, and at least one lesion had to be measurable by computed tomography (CT). Therapy consisted of a two-hour infusion of oxaliplatin at a dose of 130 mg/m2 every 21 days. RESULTS The overall response rate determined by investigators was 20% (95% CI, 6.8%-40.7%). Eight patients (32%) had stable disease. The median time to disease progression in responders was six months (range four to nine). The median progression-free survival was four months and median overall survival 14.5 months (95% CI, 10-20 months). The main toxic effects were peripheral neuropathy (92%) and laryngopharyngeal dysesthesia (75%). No severe grade 3-4 neurotoxicities (NCI-CTC) were found. Gastrointestinal and hematological toxicities were mild. CONCLUSIONS Oxaliplatin is an active agent in first-line chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer. It was well tolerated, caused no toxic deaths, had low hematotoxicity, well controlled gastrointestinal toxicity, and frequent but mild peripheral neurological symptoms. Therefore, it is of interest to associate oxaliplatin with other active compounds.

Reply to FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab as first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer-subgroup analysis of patients with KRAS-mutated tumours in the randomised German AIO study KRK-0306.

Background:Vatalanib (PTK787/ZK 222584) inhibits a few tyrosine kinases including KIT, platelet-derived growth factor receptors (PDGFRs) and vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs). We report efficacy and safety results of vatalanib in advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour (GIST) resistant to imatinib or both imatinib and sunitinib.Patients and methods:Forty-five patients whose metastatic GIST had progressed on imatinib were enrolled. Nineteen (42.2%) patients had received also prior sunitinib. Vatalanib 1250 mg was administered orally daily.Results:Eighteen patients (40.0%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 25.7–54.3%) had clinical benefit including 2 (4.4%) confirmed partial remissions (PR; duration, 9.6 and 39.4 months) and 16 (35.6%) stabilised diseases (SDs; median duration, 12.5 months; range, 6.0–35.6+ months). Twelve (46.2%) out of the 26 patients who had received prior imatinib only achieved either PR or SD compared with 6 (31.6%, all SDs) out of the 19 patients who had received prior imatinib and sunitinib (P=0.324). The median time to progression was 5.8 months (95% CI, 2.9–9.5 months) in the subset without prior sunitinib and 3.2 (95% CI, 2.1–6.0) months among those with prior imatinib and sunitinib (P=0.992). Vatalanib was generally well tolerated.Conclusion:Vatalanib is active despite its narrow kinome interaction spectrum in patients diagnosed with imatinib-resistant GIST or with imatinib and sunitinib-resistant GIST.

Dabrafenib plus trametinib versus dabrafenib monotherapy in patients with metastatic BRAF V600E/K-mutant melanoma: long-term survival and safety analysis of a phase 3 study

BACKGROUND While the negative prognostic role of BRAF V600E mutation in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is well established, the impact of BRAF codons 594 and 596 mutations, occurring in <1% of CRCs, is completely unknown. The present work aims to describe clinical, pathological and molecular features and prognosis of BRAF codons 594 and 596 mutant mCRCs, compared with BRAF V600E mutant and wild-type ones. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients treated for mCRC at three Italian Institutions between October 2006 and October 2014, with available KRAS and NRAS codon 12, 13, 59, 61, 117 and 146 and BRAF codon 594, 596 and 600 mutational status, as detected by means of direct sequencing or matrix assisted laser desorption ionization time-of-flight MassArray, were included. RESULTS Ten patients bearing BRAF codons 594 or 596 mutated tumors were identified and compared with 77 and 542 patients bearing BRAF V600E mutated and BRAF wild-type tumors, respectively. While BRAF V600E mutated tumors were more frequently right-sided, mucinous and with peritoneal spread, BRAF 594 or 596 mutated were more frequently rectal, nonmucinous and with no peritoneal spread. All BRAF 594 or 596 mutated tumors were microsatellite stable. Patients with BRAF codons 594 or 596 mutated tumors had markedly longer overall survival (OS) when compared with BRAF V600E mutated [median OS: 62.0 versus 12.6 months; hazard ratio: 0.36 (95% confidence interval 0.20-0.64), P = 0.002], both at univariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS BRAF codon 594 or 596 mutated mCRCs are different from BRAF V600E ones in terms of molecular features, pathological characteristics and clinical outcome. This is consistent with preclinical evidences of a kinase inactivating effect of these mutations. The role of CRAF in transducing the intracellular signal downstream BRAF 594 or 596 mutated proteins opens the way to further preclinical investigation.

Digital PCR quantification of MGMT methylation refines prediction of clinical benefit from alkylating agents in glioblastoma and metastatic colorectal cancer

We read with great interest the article of Stintzing et al. published in Annals of Oncology on July 2012 [1] and would make a few remarks. The results of this unplanned retrospective analysis, carried out on 96 KRAS-mutated colorectal cancer patients, did not show any substantial difference in terms of response rate, progression-free and overall survival between anti-epidermal growth factor receptorand anti-vascular endothelial growth factor-based treatments. These results may be just related to operative bias: for example, the similar response rate observed in the cetuximab and bevacizumab arms is explainable by the lack of independent radiological review and the limitation of standard radiological assessment for anti-angiogenic treatments, which may delay disease progression mainly through disease stabilization: in fact, biological response is often characterized by a reduction of lesions’ density, without a substantial RECIST response [2]. Overall survival seemed to favour cetuximab over bevacizumab (22.7 versus 18.7 months), although this difference was not statistically significant (HR = 0.86, 95% CI, 0.55–1.35; P = 0.55). Since cetuximab arm was affected by a higher and earlier dropout rate, it is possible that lower median treatment duration in the cetuximab arm may have led to earlier initiation of effective bevacizumab-based second-line treatment. In fact, half of the patients treated with FOLFIRI plus cetuximab received subsequent bevacizumab-based regimens. Not surprisingly, a combination of bevacizumab and oxaliplatin-based regimens was shown to prolong overall survival in the second-line setting [3]. Even though the addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI regimen seems to be at least not detrimental for progression-free survival in KRAS-mutated patients, [4] the apparent lack of benefit from the addition of bevacizumab could also derive from confounding factors and imbalance between prognostic factors rather than KRAS mutation itself. For example, the rate of patients undergoing surgery was twice as high in the cetuximab arm: although this is clearly not attributable to treatment (given the identical response rate in both the arms), a multimodality strategy may have improved progression-free and overall survival in patients treated with the cetuximabbased combination. The authors stated that KRAS G13D mutations, found in 20% of cases, may be associated with poorer prognosis independently of the treatment arm. However, in the recently published pooled analysis of CRYSTAL and OPUS trials, KRAS G13D-mutated patients receiving first-line chemotherapy alone failed to show a statistically significant difference in terms of progression-free survival and overall survival, when compared with other KRAS-mutated subtypes [5]. We believe that the study of Stintzing et al. is particularly valuable because it stimulates the investigation on the predictive role of KRAS mutation in bevacizumab-based treatment. However, given the small sample and evidence of great benefit of bevacizumab independently of KRAS status, [6] the preliminary nature of these results add a few more to what was previously known and any conclusions about the present analysis should be drawn very carefully.