John Zalcberg

K-ras Mutations and Benefit from Cetuximab in Advanced Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND Treatment with cetuximab, a monoclonal antibody directed against the epidermal growth factor receptor, improves overall and progression-free survival and preserves the quality of life in patients with colorectal cancer that has not responded to chemotherapy. The mutation status of the K-ras gene in the tumor may affect the response to cetuximab and have treatment-independent prognostic value. METHODS We analyzed tumor samples, obtained from 394 of 572 patients (68.9%) with colorectal cancer who were randomly assigned to receive cetuximab plus best supportive care or best supportive care alone, to look for activating mutations in exon 2 of the K-ras gene. We assessed whether the mutation status of the K-ras gene was associated with survival in the cetuximab and supportive-care groups. RESULTS Of the tumors evaluated for K-ras mutations, 42.3% had at least one mutation in exon 2 of the gene. The effectiveness of cetuximab was significantly associated with K-ras mutation status (P=0.01 and P<0.001 for the interaction of K-ras mutation status with overall survival and progression-free survival, respectively). In patients with wild-type K-ras tumors, treatment with cetuximab as compared with supportive care alone significantly improved overall survival (median, 9.5 vs. 4.8 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.74; P<0.001) and progression-free survival (median, 3.7 months vs. 1.9 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.54; P<0.001). Among patients with mutated K-ras tumors, there was no significant difference between those who were treated with cetuximab and those who received supportive care alone with respect to overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.98; P=0.89) or progression-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.99; P=0.96). In the group of patients receiving best supportive care alone, the mutation status of the K-ras gene was not significantly associated with overall survival (hazard ratio for death, 1.01; P=0.97). CONCLUSIONS Patients with a colorectal tumor bearing mutated K-ras did not benefit from cetuximab, whereas patients with a tumor bearing wild-type K-ras did benefit from cetuximab. The mutation status of the K-ras gene had no influence on survival among patients treated with best supportive care alone. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00079066.)

Progression-free survival in gastrointestinal stromal tumours with high-dose imatinib: randomised trial

BACKGROUND Imatinib is approved worldwide for use in gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST). We aimed to assess dose dependency of response and progression-free survival with imatinib for metastatic GIST. METHODS 946 patients were randomly allocated imatinib 400 mg either once or twice a day. Those assigned the once a day regimen who had progression were offered the option of crossover. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS At median follow-up of 760 days (IQR 644-859), 263 (56%) of 473 patients allocated imatinib once a day had progressed compared with 235 (50%) of 473 who were assigned treatment twice a day (estimated hazard ratio 0.82 [95% CI 0.69-0.98]; p=0.026). Side-effects arose in 465/470 (99%) patients allocated the once daily regimen compared with 468/472 (99%) assigned treatment twice a day. By comparison with the group treated once a day, more dose reductions (77 [16%] vs 282 [60%]) and treatment interruptions (189 [40%] vs 302 [64%]) were recorded in patients allocated the twice daily regimen, but treatment in both arms was fairly well tolerated. 52 (5%) patients achieved a complete response, 442 (47%) a partial response, and 300 (32%) stable disease, with no difference between groups. Median time to best response was 107 days (IQR 58-172). INTERPRETATION If response induction is the only aim of treatment, a daily dose of 400 mg of imatinib is sufficient; however, a dose of 400 mg twice a day achieves significantly longer progression-free survival.

Survival benefits from neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy in oesophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Resectable oesophageal cancer is often treated with surgery alone or with preoperative (neoadjuvant) chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy. We aimed to clarify the benefits of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy versus surgery alone by a meta-analysis of randomised trial data. METHODS Eligible trials were identified first from earlier published meta-analyses and systematic reviews. We also used MEDLINE, Cancerlit, and EMBASE databases to identify additional studies and published abstracts from major scientific meetings since 1980. Only randomised studies with an analysis by an intention-to-treat principle were included, and searches were restricted to those databases citing articles in English. We used published hazard ratios if available or estimates from other survival data or survival curves. Treatment effects by type of tumour and treatment sequencing were also investigated. FINDINGS Ten randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1209) and eight of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1724) in patients with local operable oesophageal carcinoma were identified. The hazard ratio for all-cause mortality with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone was 0.81 (95% CI 0.70-0.93; p=0.002), corresponding to a 13% absolute difference in survival at 2 years, with similar results for different histological tumour types: 0.84 (0.71-0.99; p=0.04) for squamous-cell carcinoma (SCC), and 0.75 (0.59-0.95; p=0.02) for adenocarcinoma. The hazard ratio for neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 0.90 (0.81-1.00; p=0.05), which indicates a 2-year absolute survival benefit of 7%. There was no significant effect on all-cause mortality of chemotherapy for patients with SCC (hazard ratio 0.88 [0.75-1.03]; p=0.12), although there was a significant benefit for those with adenocarcinoma (0.78 [0.64-0.95]; p=0.014). INTERPRETATION A significant survival benefit was evident for preoperative chemoradiotherapy and, to a lesser extent, for chemotherapy in patients with adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus. The findings provide an evidence-based framework for the use of neoadjuvant treatment in management decisions.

Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND In a previous meta-analysis, we identified a survival benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy before surgery in patients with resectable oesophageal carcinoma. We updated this meta-analysis with results from new or updated randomised trials presented in the past 3 years. We also compared the benefits of preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. METHODS To identify additional studies and published abstracts from major scientific meetings, we searched Medline, Embase, and Central (Cochrane clinical trials database) for studies published since January, 2006, and also manually searched for abstracts from major conferences from the same period. Only randomised studies analysed by intention to treat were included, and searches were restricted to those databases citing articles in English. We used published hazard ratios (HRs) if available or estimates from other survival data. We also investigated treatment effects by tumour histology and relations between risk (survival after surgery alone) and effect size. FINDINGS We included all 17 trials from the previous meta-analysis and seven further studies. 12 were randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1854), nine were randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1981), and two compared neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=194) in patients with resectable oesophageal carcinoma; one factorial trial included two comparisons and was included in analyses of both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n=78) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=81). The updated analysis contained 4188 patients whereas the previous publication included 2933 patients. This updated meta-analysis contains about 3500 events compared with about 2230 in the previous meta-analysis (estimated 57% increase). The HR for all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was 0.78 (95% CI 0.70-0.88; p<0.0001); the HR for squamous-cell carcinoma only was 0.80 (0.68-0.93; p=0.004) and for adenocarcinoma only was 0.75 (0.59-0.95; p=0.02). The HR for all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 0.87 (0.79-0.96; p=0.005); the HR for squamous-cell carcinoma only was 0.92 (0.81-1.04; p=0.18) and for adenocarcinoma only was 0.83 (0.71-0.95; p=0.01). The HR for the overall indirect comparison of all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy was 0.88 (0.76-1.01; p=0.07). INTERPRETATION This updated meta-analysis provides strong evidence for a survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy over surgery alone in patients with oesophageal carcinoma. A clear advantage of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over neoadjuvant chemotherapy has not been established. These results should help inform decisions about patient management and design of future trials. FUNDING Cancer Australia and the NSW Cancer Institute.

Ramucirumab monotherapy for previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (REGARD): an international, randomised, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and VEGF receptor-2 (VEGFR-2)-mediated signalling and angiogenesis can contribute to the pathogenesis and progression of gastric cancer. We aimed to assess whether ramucirumab, a monoclonal antibody VEGFR-2 antagonist, prolonged survival in patients with advanced gastric cancer. METHODS We did an international, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial between Oct 6, 2009, and Jan 26, 2012, at 119 centres in 29 countries in North America, Central and South America, Europe, Asia, Australia, and Africa. Patients aged 24-87 years with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma and disease progression after first-line platinum-containing or fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy were randomly assigned (2:1), via a central interactive voice-response system, to receive best supportive care plus either ramucirumab 8 mg/kg or placebo, intravenously once every 2 weeks. The study sponsor, participants, and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00917384. FINDINGS 355 patients were assigned to receive ramucirumab (n=238) or placebo (n=117). Median overall survival was 5·2 months (IQR 2·3-9·9) in patients in the ramucirumab group and 3·8 months (1·7-7·1) in those in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·776, 95% CI 0·603-0·998; p=0·047). The survival benefit with ramucirumab remained unchanged after multivariable adjustment for other prognostic factors (multivariable HR 0·774, 0·605-0·991; p=0·042). Rates of hypertension were higher in the ramucirumab group than in the placebo group (38 [16%] vs nine [8%]), whereas rates of other adverse events were mostly similar between groups (223 [94%] vs 101 [88%]). Five (2%) deaths in the ramucirumab group and two (2%) in the placebo group were considered to be related to study drug. INTERPRETATION Ramucirumab is the first biological treatment given as a single drug that has survival benefits in patients with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma progressing after first-line chemotherapy. Our findings validate VEGFR-2 signalling as an important therapeutic target in advanced gastric cancer. FUNDING ImClone Systems.

Association of KRAS p.G13D Mutation With Outcome in Patients With Chemotherapy-Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Cetuximab

CONTEXT Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who have KRAS codon 12- or KRAS codon 13-mutated tumors are presently excluded from treatment with the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody cetuximab. OBJECTIVE To test the hypothesis that KRAS codon 13 mutations are associated with a better outcome after treatment with cetuximab than observed with other KRAS mutations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS We studied the association between KRAS mutation status (p.G13D vs other KRAS mutations) and response and survival in a pooled data set of 579 patients with chemotherapy-refractory colorectal cancer treated with cetuximab between 2001 and 2008. Patients were included in the CO.17, BOND, MABEL, EMR202600, EVEREST, BABEL, or SALVAGE clinical trials or received off-study treatment. Univariate and multivariate analyses, adjusting for possible prognostic factors and data set, were performed. The effect of the different mutations was studied in vitro by constructing isogenic cell lines with wild-type KRAS, p.G12V, or p.G13D mutant alleles and treating them with cetuximab. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The main efficacy end point was overall survival. Secondary efficacy end points were response rate and progression-free survival. RESULTS In comparison with patients with other KRAS-mutated tumors, patients with p.G13D-mutated tumors (n = 32) treated with cetuximab had longer overall survival (median, 7.6 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 5.7-20.5] months vs 5.7 [95% CI, 4.9-6.8] months; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.50; 95% CI, 0.31-0.81; P = .005) and longer progression-free survival (median, 4.0 [95% CI, 1.9-6.2] months vs 1.9 [95% CI, 1.8-2.8] months; adjusted HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.32-0.81; P = .004). There was a significant interaction between KRAS mutation status (p.G13D vs other KRAS mutations) and overall survival benefit with cetuximab treatment (adjusted HR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.14-0.67; P = .003). In vitro and mouse model analysis showed that although p.G12V-mutated colorectal cells were insensitive to cetuximab, p.G13D-mutated cells were sensitive, as were KRAS wild-type cells. CONCLUSIONS In this analysis, use of cetuximab was associated with longer overall and progression-free survival among patients with chemotherapy-refractory colorectal cancer with p.G13D-mutated tumors than with other KRAS-mutated tumors. Evaluation of cetuximab therapy in these tumors in prospective randomized trials may be warranted.

Delivering affordable cancer care in high-income countries

The burden of cancer is growing, and the disease is becoming a major economic expenditure for all developed countries. In 2008, the worldwide cost of cancer due to premature death and disability (not including direct medical costs) was estimated to be US

Randomized Trial of Short-Course Radiotherapy Versus Long-Course Chemoradiation Comparing Rates of Local Recurrence in Patients With T3 Rectal Cancer: Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group Trial 01.04

895 billion. This is not simply due to an increase in absolute numbers, but also the rate of increase of expenditure on cancer. What are the drivers and solutions to the so-called cancer-cost curve in developed countries? How are we going to afford to deliver high quality and equitable care? Here, expert opinion from health-care professionals, policy makers, and cancer survivors has been gathered to address the barriers and solutions to delivering affordable cancer care. Although many of the drivers and themes are specific to a particular field-eg, the huge development costs for cancer medicines-there is strong concordance running through each contribution. Several drivers of cost, such as over-use, rapid expansion, and shortening life cycles of cancer technologies (such as medicines and imaging modalities), and the lack of suitable clinical research and integrated health economic studies, have converged with more defensive medical practice, a less informed regulatory system, a lack of evidence-based sociopolitical debate, and a declining degree of fairness for all patients with cancer. Urgent solutions range from re-engineering of the macroeconomic basis of cancer costs (eg, value-based approaches to bend the cost curve and allow cost-saving technologies), greater education of policy makers, and an informed and transparent regulatory system. A radical shift in cancer policy is also required. Political toleration of unfairness in access to affordable cancer treatment is unacceptable. The cancer profession and industry should take responsibility and not accept a substandard evidence base and an ethos of very small benefit at whatever cost; rather, we need delivery of fair prices and real value from new technologies.

Capecitabine, bevacizumab, and mitomycin in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: Results of the Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group randomized phase III MAX study

PURPOSE To compare the local recurrence (LR) rate between short-course (SC) and long-course (LC) neoadjuvant radiotherapy for rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients had ultrasound- or magnetic resonance imaging-staged T3N0-2M0 rectal adenocarcinoma within 12 cm from anal verge. SC consisted of pelvic radiotherapy 5 × 5 Gy in 1 week, early surgery, and six courses of adjuvant chemotherapy. LC was 50.4 Gy, 1.8 Gy/fraction, in 5.5 weeks, with continuous infusional fluorouracil 225 mg/m(2) per day, surgery in 4 to 6 weeks, and four courses of chemotherapy. RESULTS Three hundred twenty-six patients were randomly assigned; 163 patients to SC and 163 to LC. Median potential follow-up time was 5.9 years (range, 3.0 to 7.8 years). Three-year LR rates (cumulative incidence) were 7.5% for SC and 4.4% for LC (difference, 3.1%; 95% CI, -2.1 to 8.3; P = .24). For distal tumors (< 5 cm), six of 48 SC patients and one of 31 LC patients experienced local recurrence (P = .21). Five-year distant recurrence rates were 27% for SC and 30% for LC (log-rank P = 0.92; hazard ratio [HR] for LC:SC, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.56). Overall survival rates at 5 years were 74% for SC and 70% for LC (log-rank P = 0.62; HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.67). Late toxicity rates were not substantially different (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer G3-4: SC, 5.8%; LC, 8.2%; P = .53). CONCLUSION Three-year LR rates between SC and LC were not statistically significantly different; the CI for the difference is consistent with either no clinically important difference or differences in favor of LC. LC may be more effective in reducing LR for distal tumors. No differences in rates of distant recurrence, relapse-free survival, overall survival, or late toxicity were detected.

Randomized Trial of Coordinated Psychosocial Interventions Based on Patient Self-Assessments Versus Standard Care to Improve the Psychosocial Functioning of Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE To determine whether adding bevacizumab, with or without mitomycin, to capecitabine monotherapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in an open-label, three-arm randomized trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Overall, 471 patients in Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom with previously untreated, unresectable mCRC were randomly assigned to the following: capecitabine; capecitabine plus bevacizumab (CB); or capecitabine, bevacizumab, and mitomycin (CBM). We compared CB with capecitabine and CBM with capecitabine for progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), toxicity, response rate (RR), and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS Median PFS was 5.7 months for capecitabine, 8.5 months for CB, and 8.4 months for CBM (capecitabine v CB: hazard ratio [HR], 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.79; P < .001; C v CBM: HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.75; P < .001). After a median follow-up of 31 months, median OS was 18.9 months for capecitabine and was 16.4 months for CBM; these data were not significantly different. Toxicity rates were acceptable, and all treatment regimens well tolerated. Bevacizumab toxicities were similar to those in previous studies. Measures of overall QOL were similar in all groups. CONCLUSION Adding bevacizumab to capecitabine, with or without mitomycin, significantly improves PFS without major additional toxicity or impairment of QOL.