Ioannis Varthalitis

XELIRI-bevacizumab versus FOLFIRI-bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: a Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group phase III trial with collateral biomarker analysis

BackgroundThe aim was to compare two standard chemotherapy regimens combined with bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.MethodsPatients previously untreated for metastatic disease were randomized in: group A (irinotecan, capecitabine, bevacizumab, every 3 weeks; XELIRI-bevacizumab) and group B (irinotecan, leucovorin, fluorouracil, bevacizumab, every 2 weeks; FOLFIRI-bevacizumab). Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Plasma concentrations of nitric oxide, osteopontin, TGF-β1 and VEGF-A were measured at baseline and during treatment.ResultsAmong 285 eligible patients, 143 were randomized to group A and 142 to group B. Fifty-five patients (38.5%) in group A and 57 (40.1%) in group B responded (p = 0.81). After a median follow-up of 42 months, median PFS was 10.2 and 10.8 months (p = 0.74), while median OS was 20.0 and 25.3 months (p = 0.099), for groups A and B, respectively. Most frequent grade 3–4 toxicities (group A vs group B) were neutropenia (13% vs 22%, p = 0.053) and diarrhea (19% vs 11%, p = 0.082). Baseline plasma osteopontin concentrations demonstrated prognostic significance for both PFS and OS.ConclusionsThis trial did not show significant differences in efficacy between the groups. However, the toxicity profile was different. Baseline plasma osteopontin concentrations demonstrated independent prognostic significance. (Registration number: ACTRN12610000270011)

Vascular endothelial growth factor polymorphisms and clinical outcome in colorectal cancer patients treated with irinotecan-based chemotherapy and bevacizumab

The aim of the study was to evaluate the association of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) genotypes with treatment efficacy in a randomized trial. This study compared two chemotherapy regimens (FOLFIRI versus XELIRI) combined with bevacizumab, as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. DNA was extracted from blood samples of 173 patients participating in the trial. Genotyping was performed for selected SNPs (VEGF−1154, +936, −634, −2578 and −1498). All candidate genotypes were evaluated for associations with overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and response rate (RR). There were no significant differences with respect to the distribution of genotypes in the treatment groups. The VEGF−1154 GG genotype was more frequent in patients not responding to treatment compared with responders (65.5 versus 39.8%, P=0.032). Furthermore, the VEGF−1154 GG genotype was associated with inferior median OS compared with GA (hazards ratio=1.68; 95% confidence interval: 1.10–2.57; P=0.016) or with the alternative genotypes (GA and AA) combined (hazards ratio=1.62; 95% confidence interval: 1.09–2.40; P=0.017). In multivariate analysis, the VEGF−1154 GG genotype remained a significant adverse factor for OS. Our results support the potential predictive ability of VEGF genotypes in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer receiving irinotecan-based chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, in terms of RR and OS. However, current results should be validated prospectively, in larger cohorts.

A randomized phase III study of the docetaxel/carboplatin combination versus docetaxel single-agent as second line treatment for patients with advanced/metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

BackgroundTo compare the activity and toxicity of docetaxel/carboplatin (DC) doublet vs single agent docetaxel (D) as second-line treatment in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).MethodsPatients pre-treated with front-line platinum-free regimens, were randomized to receive either docetaxel/carboplatin (DC), (docetaxel 50 mg/m2; carboplatin AUC4; both drugs administered on days 1 and 15) or docetaxel single-agent (D), (docetaxel 50 mg/m2 on days 1 and 15).ResultsResponse rate was similar between the two arms (DC vs D: 10.4% vs 7.7%; p = 0.764). After a median follow-up time of 28.0 months for DC arm and 34.5 months for D arm, progression free survival (PFS) was significantly higher in the DC arm (DC vs D:3.33 months vs 2.60 months; p-value = 0.012), while no significant difference was observed in terms of overall survival (OS) (DC vs D: 10.3 months vs 7.70 months; p-value = 0.550). Chemotherapy was well-tolerated and grade III/IV toxicities were relatively infrequent. No toxic deaths were observed.ConclusionsThis study has not achieved its primary objective of significant OS prolongation with docetaxel/carboplatin combination over single-agent docetaxel in patients who had not received front-line docetaxel; however, the docetaxel/carboplatin combination was associated with a significant clinical benefit in terms of PFS.

A multicenter randomized phase III trial of vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet versus capecitabine monotherapy in anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated women with metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND The Breast Cancer Study Group of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group conducted a phase III trial of single-agent capecitabine versus the vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of combination treatment in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Women with MBC were randomly assigned to receive either capecitabine (Cap arm: 1250 mg/m2 twice daily, on days 1-14) or vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet (VG arm: vinorelbine 25 mg/m2; gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2; both drugs on days 1 and 15). RESULTS Seventy-four women were treated on each arm and median PFS was 5.4 versus 5.2 months (P = 0.736), for VG and Cap, respectively. Median overall survival was 20.4 months for the VG arm and 22.4 months for the Cap arm (P = 0.319). Overall response rate was 28.4% in the VG arm and 24.3% in the Cap arm (P = 0.576). Both regimens were generally well tolerated. Neutropenia and fatigue were more common with VG arm and hand-foot syndrome with Cap arm. CONCLUSIONS This trial failed to demonstrate superiority of vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet over single-agent capecitabine in terms of PFS. Given the favorable toxicity and convenience of oral administration, single-agent capecitabine is recommended for compliant patients.BACKGROUND The Breast Cancer Study Group of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group conducted a phase III trial of single-agent capecitabine versus the vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) pretreated with anthracyclines and taxanes. The primary objective was to demonstrate superiority of combination treatment in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). PATIENTS AND METHODS Women with MBC were randomly assigned to receive either capecitabine (Cap arm: 1250 mg/m(2) twice daily, on days 1-14) or vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet (VG arm: vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2); gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2); both drugs on days 1 and 15). RESULTS Seventy-four women were treated on each arm and median PFS was 5.4 versus 5.2 months (P = 0.736), for VG and Cap, respectively. Median overall survival was 20.4 months for the VG arm and 22.4 months for the Cap arm (P = 0.319). Overall response rate was 28.4% in the VG arm and 24.3% in the Cap arm (P = 0.576). Both regimens were generally well tolerated. Neutropenia and fatigue were more common with VG arm and hand-foot syndrome with Cap arm. CONCLUSIONS This trial failed to demonstrate superiority of vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet over single-agent capecitabine in terms of PFS. Given the favorable toxicity and convenience of oral administration, single-agent capecitabine is recommended for compliant patients.

A phase II study of metronomic oral vinorelbine administered in the second line and beyond in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a phase II study of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group

Abstract Introduction: Frequent administration of low doses of cytotoxic drugs (metronomic chemotherapy) has been suggested to suppress tumour growth possibly by inhibiting angiogenesis. We evaluated a metronomic regimen of oral vinorelbine in pre-treated patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Methods: Forty-six pre-treated NSCLC patients received oral vinorelbine at a fixed dose of 50 mg three times a week. Results: Treatment was administered as second-line in 12 (26·1%) patients and as third- or further-line in 34 (73·9%). Grade 3–4 neutropenia was observed in 23·9% and febrile neutropenia in 10·9%. Grade 3 fatigue was the most common severe non-hematologic toxicity (10·9%). Response rate was 10·9%; 19·6% achieved disease stabilization. Median tumour progression (TTP) was 2·2 months, median overall survival 9·4 months and the 1-year survival rate was 30·1%. Conclusion: The administration of metronomic oral vinorelbine is feasible and results in acceptable clinical efficacy associated with manageable toxicity in a population consisting mostly of heavily pre-treated NSCLC patients.

A multicenter randomized phase II study of the irinotecan/gemcitabine doublet versus irinotecan monotherapy in previously treated patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer

OBJECTIVES To compare the efficacy and safety profile of irinotecan (I) versus the combination of irinotecan/gemcitabine (IG) as second-line treatment of patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer (SCLC). TREATMENT Patients with SCLC who have received at least one chemotherapy regimen were randomized to receive either the IG regimen (gemcitabine 1000mg/m(2) intravenous (i.v.) on days 1 and 8 and irinotecan 300mg/m(2) i.v. on day 8) or I monotherapy (300mg/m(2) i.v. on day 1) both every 3 weeks. RESULTS Thirty-eight patients were enrolled in the IG and 31 in the I arm. Due to slow accrual an early closure of the study was decided. Response rate was significantly higher in the IG than in I arm (23.7% vs. 0%; p=0.004). The median time to progression (TTP) was 3.9 months (range: 0.5-14.5 months; 95% CI: 1.4-6.6) and 1.7 months (range: 0.5-9.9 months; 95% CI: 1.2-2.3) (p=0.010) for the IG and I arms, respectively. There was no difference in terms of median overall survival between the two arms (6.8 months and 4.6 months for the IG and I arm, respectively). The most frequent toxicities were grade III/IV neutropenia and grade III/IV diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS Although the IG regimen seems to be more active than the I monotherapy, the premature closure of the study prevents the drawing of definitive conclusions.

Immune response gene expression in colorectal cancer carries distinct prognostic implications according to tissue, stage and site: a prospective retrospective translational study in the context of a hellenic cooperative oncology group randomised trial.

Background Although host immune response is an emerging prognostic factor for colorectal cancer, there is no consensus on the optimal methodology, surrogate markers or tissue for study. Patients and Methods Tumour blocks were prospectively collected from 344 patients with stage II/III colorectal cancer (CRC) treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Whole section lymphocytic infiltration was studied along with mRNA expression of CD3Z, CD8, CD4, CXCL9, CXCL13, IGHM, FOXP3, SNAI2 and ESR1 by qRT-qPCR in tissue microarray (TMA) cores from the centre of tumour, invasive margin and adjacent normal mucosa. Results Lymphocytic infiltration, deficient MMR (10.9%), KRAS (40.7%) and BRAF (4.9%) mutations or single mRNA gene expression were not prognostic. Tumour ESR1 gene expression (Hazard Ratio [HR] for relapse 2.33, 95% CI 1.35-4.02; HR for death 1.74, 95% CI 1.02-2.97) and absence of necrosis (HR for relapse 1.71, 95% CI 1.05-2.71; HR for death 1.98, 95% CI 1.14-3.43) were adverse prognostic features. We used CD3Z and CD8 expression in order to devise the mRNA-based Immune Score (mIS) and proceeded to partitioning analysis in 267 patients, with age, stage, tumour site (Right vs Left CRC), KRAS mutation and tumour mIS as input factors. Only in patients with stage III right-sided colon cancer, a low immune response was associated with inferior disease-free survival (mIS-low, HR for relapse 2.28, 95% CI 1.05-8.02). No prognostic significance was seen for tumour mIS in any other stage or site of CRC, or for a similar mIS score derived from adjacent normal mucosa. Independent adverse prognostic significance was retained in multivariable analysis for absence of necrosis, tumour ESR1 expression in all patients and low tumour mIS in stage III right-sided CRC. Conclusions In localised CRC, mRNA-based CD3Z/CD8 profiling of tumour immune response may have stage, site and tissue-specific prognostic significance, along with ESR1 expression. Trial Registration ANZCTR.org.au ACTRN12610000509066

Significance of PIK3CA Mutations in Patients with Early Breast Cancer Treated with Adjuvant Chemotherapy: A Hellenic Cooperative Oncology Group (HeCOG) Study.

Background The PI3K-AKT pathway is frequently activated in breast cancer. PIK3CA mutations are most frequently found in the helical (exon 9) and kinase (exon 20) domains of this protein. The aim of the present study was to examine the role of different types of PIK3CA mutations in combination with molecular biomarkers related to PI3K-AKT signaling in patients with early breast cancer. Methods Tumor tissue samples from 1008 early breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant chemotherapy in two similar randomized trials of HeCOG were examined. Tumors were subtyped with immunohistochemistry (IHC) and FISH for ER, PgR, Ki67, HER2 and androgen receptor (AR). PIK3CA mutations were analyzed by Sanger sequencing (exon 20) and qPCR (exon 9) (Sanger/qPCR mutations). In 610 cases, next generation sequencing (NGS) PIK3CA mutation data were also available. PIK3CA mutations and PTEN protein expression (IHC) were analyzed in luminal tumors (ER and/or PgR positive), molecular apocrine carcinomas (MAC; ER/PgR negative / AR positive) and hormone receptor (ER/PgR/AR) negative tumors. Results PIK3CA mutations were detected in 235/1008 tumors (23%) with Sanger/qPCR and in 149/610 tumors (24%) with NGS. Concordance between the two methods was good with a Kappa coefficient of 0.76 (95% CI 0.69–0.82). Lobular histology, low tumor grade and luminal A tumors were associated with helical domain mutations (PIK3CAhel), while luminal B with kinase domain mutations (PIK3CAkin). The overall incidence of PIK3CA mutations was higher in luminal as compared to MAC and hormone receptor negative tumors (p = 0.004). Disease-free and overall survival did not significantly differ with respect to PIK3CA mutation presence and type. However, a statistically significant interaction between PIK3CA mutation status and PTEN low protein expression with regard to prognosis was identified. Conclusions The present study did not show any prognostic significance of specific PIK3CA mutations in a large group of predominantly lymph-node positive breast cancer women treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Further analyses in larger cohorts are warranted to investigate possible differential effect of distinct PIK3CA mutations in small subgroups of patients.

Second-line pazopanib in patients with relapsed and refractory small-cell lung cancer: a multicentre phase II study of the Hellenic Oncology Research Group

Background:Pazopanib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor with antiangiogenic activity. Vascular endothelial growth factor expression is increased in SCLC and is correlated with poor prognosis. The efficacy and tolerance of second-line pazopanib in SCLC was evaluated.Patients and methods:Patients with platinum-sensitive (cohort A; n=39) and -resistant/refractory (cohort B; n=19) SCLC were enrolled in a multicentre phase II study. The primary end point was the progression-free survival rate (PFS-R) at week 8 in each cohort. Pazopanib (800 mg per day per os) was administered until progressive disease (PD). Circulating tumour cells (CTCs) were enumerated using the Cellsearch assay.Results:All patients were evaluable for response and toxicity. In the intention-to-treat analysis, eight (13.8%) patients achieved partial response (PR) (95% confidence interval (CI): 5.0–22.7), 20 (34.5%) stable disease (SD) and 30 (51.7%) PD. Accrual in cohort B was halted because the hard-stop rule was met; in cohort A, the PFS-R was 59% (95% CI: 43.5–74.4; PR=7, SD=16). Nine (23.1%) patients received pazopanib for >6 months and 3 of them for >12 months. One pazopanib cycle resulted to a significant decrease to the number of patients with ⩾5 CTCs/7.5 ml of blood (20%) compared with baseline (50%). The median PFS and OS for all patients was 2.5 months (95% CI: 1.9–3.1 months) and 6.0 months (95% CI: 3.8–8.2 months), respectively (cohort A: PFS=3.7 months and OS=8.0 months). No unexpected toxicity was observed.Conclusions:Second-line treatment with pazopanib in platinum-sensitive SCLC is well tolerated and resulted in promising objective responses and disease control; CTC enumeration might serve as a reliable surrogate biomarker of response.

Utilization of Systemic Chemotherapy in Advanced Urothelial Cancer: A Retrospective Collaborative Study by the Hellenic Genitourinary Cancer Group (HGUCG)

BACKGROUND Advanced urothelial cancer (AUCa) is associated with poor long-term survival. Two major concerns are related to nonexposure to cisplatin-based chemotherapy and poor outcome after relapse. Our purpose was to record patterns of practice in AUCa in Greece, focusing on first-line treatment and management of relapsed disease. METHODS Patients with AUCa treated from 2011 to 2013 were included in the analysis. Fitness for cisplatin was assessed by recently established criteria. RESULTS Of 327 patients treated with first-line chemotherapy, 179 (55%) did not receive cisplatin. Criteria for unfitness for cisplatin were: Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) ≥ 2, 21%; creatinine clearance ≤ 60 mL/min, 55%; hearing impairment, 8%; neuropathy, 1%; and cardiac failure, 5%. Forty-six patients (27%) did not fulfill any criterion for unfitness for cisplatin. The main reasons for these deviations were comorbidities (28%) and advanced age (32%). Seventy-four (68%) of 109 patients who experienced a relapse received second-line chemotherapy. The most frequent reason for not offering second-line chemotherapy was poor PS or limited life expectancy (66%). CONCLUSION In line with international data, approximately 50% of Greek patients with AUCa do not receive cisplatin-based chemotherapy, although 27% of them were suitable for such treatment. In addition, about one third of patients with relapse did not receive second-line chemotherapy because of poor PS or short life expectancy. Enforcing criteria for fitness for cisplatin and earlier diagnosis of relapse represent 2 targets for improvement in current treatment practice for AUCa.