Naureen Starling

Capecitabine and Oxaliplatin for Advanced Esophagogastric Cancer

BACKGROUND We evaluated capecitabine (an oral fluoropyrimidine) and oxaliplatin (a platinum compound) as alternatives to infused fluorouracil and cisplatin, respectively, for untreated advanced esophagogastric cancer. METHODS In a two-by-two design, we randomly assigned 1002 patients to receive triplet therapy with epirubicin and cisplatin plus either fluorouracil (ECF) or capecitabine (ECX) or triplet therapy with epirubicin and oxaliplatin plus either fluorouracil (EOF) or capecitabine (EOX). The primary end point was noninferiority in overall survival for the triplet therapies containing capecitabine as compared with fluorouracil and for those containing oxaliplatin as compared with cisplatin. RESULTS For the capecitabine-fluorouracil comparison, the hazard ratio for death in the capecitabine group was 0.86 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80 to 0.99); for the oxaliplatin-cisplatin comparison, the hazard ratio for the oxaliplatin group was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.80 to 1.10). The upper limit of the confidence intervals for both hazard ratios excluded the predefined noninferiority margin of 1.23. Median survival times in the ECF, ECX, EOF, and EOX groups were 9.9 months, 9.9 months, 9.3 months, and 11.2 months, respectively; survival rates at 1 year were 37.7%, 40.8%, 40.4%, and 46.8%, respectively. In the secondary analysis, overall survival was longer with EOX than with ECF, with a hazard ratio for death of 0.80 in the EOX group (95% CI, 0.66 to 0.97; P=0.02). Progression-free survival and response rates did not differ significantly among the regimens. Toxic effects of capecitabine and fluorouracil were similar. As compared with cisplatin, oxaliplatin was associated with lower incidences of grade 3 or 4 neutropenia, alopecia, renal toxicity, and thromboembolism but with slightly higher incidences of grade 3 or 4 diarrhea and neuropathy. CONCLUSIONS Capecitabine and oxaliplatin are as effective as fluorouracil and cisplatin, respectively, in patients with previously untreated esophagogastric cancer. (Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN51678883 [controlled-trials.com].).

Meta-Analyses of Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced and Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer

PURPOSE There are a large number of randomized controlled trials involving chemotherapy in the management of advanced pancreatic cancer. Several chemotherapeutic agents, either alone or in combination with other chemotherapy or novel agents, have been used. The aim of these meta-analyses was to examine the different therapeutic approaches, and the comparisons examined were as follows: chemotherapy versus best supportive care; fluorouracil (FU) versus FU combination chemotherapy; gemcitabine versus FU; and gemcitabine versus gemcitabine combination chemotherapy. METHODS Relevant trials were identified by searching databases, trial registers, and conference proceedings. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS One hundred thirteen randomized controlled trials were identified, of which 51 trials involving 9,970 patients met the inclusion criteria. Chemotherapy improved survival compared with best supportive care (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.98). FU-based combination chemotherapy did not result in better overall survival compared with FU alone (HR = 0.94; 95% CI, 0.82 to 1.08). There was insufficient evidence of a survival difference between gemcitabine and FU, but the wide CI includes clinically important differences in both directions, making a clear conclusion difficult (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.42 to 1.31). Survival was improved after gemcitabine combination chemotherapy compared with gemcitabine alone (HR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85 to 0.97). CONCLUSION There was a significant survival benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care and gemcitabine combinations over gemcitabine alone. This supports the use of gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy in the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer.

Systematic review, including meta-analyses, on the management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer using radiation/combined modality therapy.

There is no consensus on the management of locally advanced pancreatic cancer, with either chemotherapy or combined modality approaches being employed (Maheshwari and Moser, 2005). No published meta-analysis (Fung et al, 2003; Banu et al, 2005; Liang, 2005; Bria et al, 2006; Milella et al, 2006) has included randomised controlled trials employing radiation therapy. The aim of this systematic review was to compare the following: (i) chemoradiation followed by chemotherapy (combined modality therapy) vs best supportive care (ii) radiotherapy vs chemoradiation (iii) radiotherapy vs combined modality therapy (iv) chemotherapy vs combined modality therapy (v) 5FU-based combined modality treatment vs another-agent-based combined modality therapy. Relevant randomised controlled trials were identified by searching databases, trial registers and conference proceedings. The primary end point was overall survival and secondary end points were progression-free survival/time-to-progression, response rate and adverse events. Survival data were summarised using hazard ratio (HR) and response-rate/adverse-event data with relative risk. Eleven trials involving 794 patients met the inclusion criteria. Length of survival with chemoradiation was increased compared with radiotherapy alone (two trials, 168 patients, HR 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51–0.94), but chemoradiation followed by chemotherapy did not lead to a survival advantage over chemotherapy alone (two trials, 134 patients, HR 0.79; CI 0.32–1.95). Meta-analyses could not be performed for the other comparisons. A survival benefit was demonstrated for chemoradiation over radiotherapy alone. Chemoradiation followed by chemotherapy did not demonstrate any survival advantage over chemotherapy alone, but important clinical differences cannot be ruled out due to the wide CI.

Thromboembolism in Patients With Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer Treated With Anthracycline, Platinum, and Fluoropyrimidine Combination Chemotherapy: A Report From the UK National Cancer Research Institute Upper Gastrointestinal Clinical Studies Group

PURPOSE Data concerning the prevalence of and outcomes related to thromboembolic events (TEs) in patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer who are undergoing chemotherapy are limited. PATIENTS AND METHODS This was a prospective, exploratory analysis of TEs in a randomized, controlled trial of 964 patients recruited between 2000 and 2005 and treated with epirubicin/platinum/fluoropyrimidine combination chemotherapy for advanced/locally advanced gastroesophageal cancer. Regimens were epirubicin (E), cisplatin (C), fluorouracil (F; ECF); E, C, capecitabine (X; ECX); E, F, oxaliplatin (O; EOF); and EOX. Continuously infused F was administered via a central venous access device (CVAD) with 1 mg of warfarin for thromboprophylaxis. The principal outcome was the incidence of TEs (venous and arterial) in the whole treated patient cohort, according to chemotherapy, associated with CVADs and TE-related prognoses. RESULTS The incidences of any, of venous, and of arterial TEs among 964 treated patients were 12.1% (95% CI, 10.7 to 14.3), 10.1% (95% CI, 8.3 to 12.3), and 2.2% (95% CI, 1.4 to 3.4) respectively. There were fewer TEs in the O compared with the cisplatin groups (EOF/EOX v ECF/ECX: 7.6% v 15.1%; P = .0003). C was identified as a risk factor for TE in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.76; P = .001). There was no difference in the incidence of TEs for the F group compared with the capecitabine groups. The incidence of CVAD-related thrombosis was 7.0% (ECF/EOF arms). Overall survival was worse for patients who experienced TEs versus no TEs (median survival, 7.4 v 10.5 months; HR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.99; P = .043). CONCLUSION This analysis has prospectively quantified the incidence/pattern of TEs among patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer who were treated with four triplet regimens, has demonstrated a differential thrombogenic effect according to platinum use, and has noted a poorer outcome associated with TE during treatment. Chemotherapy-related TE should contribute to the risk/benefit assessment of treatment.

Treatment of colorectal cancer in older patients. International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) consensus recommendations 2013

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most commonly diagnosed cancers in Europe and worldwide, with the peak incidence in patients >70 years of age. However, as the treatment algorithms for the treatment of patients with CRC become ever more complex, it is clear that a significant percentage of older CRC patients (>70 years) are being less than optimally treated. This document provides a summary of an International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) task force meeting convened in Paris in 2013 to update the existing expert recommendations for the treatment of older (geriatric) CRC patients published in 2009 and includes overviews of the recent data on epidemiology, geriatric assessment as it relates to surgery and oncology, and the ability of older CRC patients to tolerate surgery, adjuvant chemotherapy, treatment of their metastatic disease including palliative chemotherapy with and without the use of the biologics, and finally the use of adjuvant and palliative radiotherapy in the treatment of older rectal cancer patients. An overview of each area was presented by one of the task force experts and comments invited from other task force members.

Matuzumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) compared with epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine alone as first-line treatment in patients with advanced oesophago-gastric cancer: a randomised, multicentre open-label phase II study

BACKGROUND Clinical data showed promising antitumour activity with feasible tolerability for matuzumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy in untreated advanced oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer. The aim was to evaluate the efficacy of matuzumab plus ECX versus ECX alone. PATIENTS AND METHODS In this multicentre, randomised open-label phase II study, 72 patients with metastatic OG cancer were randomly assigned to either 800 mg matuzumab weekly plus epirubicin 50 mg/m², cisplatin 60 mg/m² on day 1 and capecitabine 1250 mg/m² daily in a 21-day cycle (ECX) or the same ECX regimen alone. The primary end point was objective response. Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), quality of life, safety and tolerability. RESULTS Following random assignment, 35 patients (median age 59 years) received ECX/matuzumab and 36 patients (median age 64 years) ECX. The addition of matuzumab to ECX did not improve objective response: 31% for ECX/matuzumab [95% confidence interval (CI) 17-49] compared with 58% for the ECX arm (95% CI 41-74) P = 0.994 (one sided). There was no significant difference in median PFS: 4.8 months (95% CI 2.9-8.1) for ECX/matuzumab versus 7.1 months (95% CI 4.4-8.5) for ECX, or in median OS: 9.4 months (95% CI 7.5-16.2), compared with 12.2 months (95% CI 9.8-13.8 months). Grade 3/4 treatment-related toxicity was observed in 27 and 25 patients in the ECX/matuzumab and ECX groups, respectively. CONCLUSION Matuzumab 800 mg weekly combined with ECX chemotherapy does not increase response or survival for patients with advanced OG cancer. Therefore, ECX/matuzumab should not be examined further in phase III trials.

Meta-analyses of chemotherapy for locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer: results of secondary end points analyses

In advanced pancreatic cancer, level one evidence has established a significant survival advantage with chemotherapy, compared to best supportive care. The treatment-associated toxicity needs to be evaluated. This study examines the secondary outcome measures for chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer using meta-analyses. A systematic review was undertaken employing Cochrane methodology, with search of databases, conference proceedings and trial registers. The secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS)/time to progression (TTP) (summarised using the hazard ratio (HR)), response rate and toxicity (summarised using relative risk). There was no significant advantage of 5FU combinations vs 5FU alone for TTP (HR=1.02; 95% CI=0.85–1.23) and toxicity. Progression-free survival (HR 0.78; CI 0.70–0.88), TTP (HR=0.85; 95% CI=0.72–0.99) and overall response rate (RR=0.56; 95% CI=0.46–0.68) were significantly better for gemcitabine combination chemotherapy, but offset by the greater grade 3/4 toxicity thrombocytopenia (RR=1.94; 95% CI=1.32–2.84), leucopenia (RR=1.46; 95% CI=1.15–1.86), neutropenia (RR=1.48; 95% CI=1.07–2.05), nausea (RR=1.77; 95% CI=1.37–2.29), vomiting (RR=1.64; 95% CI=1.24–2.16) and diarrhoea (RR=2.73; 95% CI=1.87–3.98). There is no significant advantage on secondary end point analyses for administering 5FU in combination over 5FU alone. There is improved PFS/TTP and response rate, with gemcitabine-based combinations, although this comes with greater toxicity.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of cetuximab/irinotecan vs active/best supportive care for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer patients who have failed previous chemotherapy treatment

The treatment of colorectal cancer is rapidly becoming a significant financial burden to health-care systems within economically developed nations. A current challenge for oncologists and health-care payers is to integrate new, often high-cost, biologic therapies into clinical practice. Inherent to this process is the consideration of cost-effectiveness. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cetuximab plus irinotecan with an appropriate comparator from a National Health Service (NHS) perspective. This economic evaluation is a trial-based study of cetuximab vs active/best supportive care. Effectiveness estimates for the treatment groups were modelled from key clinical trials. Cunningham et al (2004) compared cetuximab/irinotecan with cetuximab monotherapy; Cunningham et al (1998) compared irinotecan monotherapy in a second-line setting with supportive care. Modelling was necessary owing to an absence of head-to-head clinical trial data of cetuximab/irinotecan vs current standard care. Costs were calculated for the study drugs received, associated administration, palliative chemotherapy for patients in the standard care arm and other nonchemotherapy resources. The discounted life-expectancy of patients treated with cetuximab/irinotecan was 0.91 life-years, and 0.47 discounted life-years for patients receiving active/best supportive care. Patients treated with cetuximab/irinotecan accumulated mean additional costs of £18 901 per patient relative to the comparator arm, with £11 802 attributable to cetuximab. The incremental cost per life-year gained with cetuximab/irinotecan therapy compared with active/best supportive care was £42 975. The incremental cost per quality adjusted life-year gained was £57 608. The incremental cost per life-year gained for cetuximab/irinotecan is relatively high compared with other health-care interventions. However, this result should be considered in the context of a number of factors specific to the treated patient population.

Phase I study of epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine plus matuzumab in previously untreated patients with advanced oesophagogastric cancer

To evaluate the safety, tolerability, efficacy, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the humanised antiepidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody matuzumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) in patients as first-line treatment for advanced oesophagogastric cancer that express epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). This was a phase I dose escalation study of matuzumab at 400 and 800 mg weekly and 1200 mg every 3 weeks combined with ECX (epirubicin 50 mg m−2, cisplatin 60 mg m−2 on day 1 and capecitabine 1000 mg m−2 daily). Patients were treated until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or for a maximum of eight cycles. Twenty-one patients were treated with matuzumab at three different dose levels (DLs) combined with ECX. The main dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was grade 3 lethargy at 1200 mg matuzumab every 3 weeks and thus 800 mg matuzumab weekly was the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD). Other common toxicities included rash, nausea, stomatitis and diarrhoea. Pharmacokinetic evaluation demonstrated that the coadministration of ECX did not alter the exposure of matuzumab. Pharmacodynamic studies on skin biopsies demonstrated inhibition of the EGFR pathway. Objective response rates of 65% (95% confidence interval (CI): 43–82), disease stabilisation of 25% (95% CI: 11–47) and a disease control rate (CR+PR+SD) of 90% were achieved overall. The MTD of matuzumab in combination with ECX was 800 mg weekly, and at this DL it was well-tolerated and showed encouraging antitumour activity. At the doses evaluated in serial skin biopsies, matuzumab decreased phosphorylation of EGFR and MAPK, and increased phosphorylation of STAT-3.

Patient-derived organoids model treatment response of metastatic gastrointestinal cancers

Cancer organoids to model therapy response Cancer organoids are miniature, three-dimensional cell culture models that can be made from primary patient tumors and studied in the laboratory. Vlachogiannis et al. asked whether such “tumor-in-a-dish” approaches can be used to predict drug responses in the clinic. They generated a live organoid biobank from patients with metastatic gastrointestinal cancer who had previously been enrolled in phase I or II clinical trials. This allowed the authors to compare organoid drug responses with how the patient actually responded in the clinic. Encouragingly, the organoids had similar molecular profiles to those of the patient tumor, reinforcing their value as a platform for drug screening and development. Science, this issue p. 920 Organoids can recapitulate patient responses in the clinic, with potential for drug screening and personalized medicine. Patient-derived organoids (PDOs) have recently emerged as robust preclinical models; however, their potential to predict clinical outcomes in patients has remained unclear. We report on a living biobank of PDOs from metastatic, heavily pretreated colorectal and gastroesophageal cancer patients recruited in phase 1/2 clinical trials. Phenotypic and genotypic profiling of PDOs showed a high degree of similarity to the original patient tumors. Molecular profiling of tumor organoids was matched to drug-screening results, suggesting that PDOs could complement existing approaches in defining cancer vulnerabilities and improving treatment responses. We compared responses to anticancer agents ex vivo in organoids and PDO-based orthotopic mouse tumor xenograft models with the responses of the patients in clinical trials. Our data suggest that PDOs can recapitulate patient responses in the clinic and could be implemented in personalized medicine programs.