Olivier Bouché

A phase I/II, open-label, randomised study of nintedanib plus mFOLFOX6 versus bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer patients

BACKGROUND This randomised, open-label, phase I/II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of nintedanib, an oral, triple angiokinase inhibitor, combined with chemotherapy, relative to bevacizumab plus chemotherapy as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with histologically confirmed mCRC (adenocarcinoma), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 2 and adequate organ function were included. Patients were randomised 2:1 to receive nintedanib 150 mg or 200 mg b.i.d. plus mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), l-leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) or d,l-leucovorin 400 mg/m(2), 5-fluoruracil bolus 400 mg/m(2) followed by 2400 mg/m(2), every 2 weeks) or bevacizumab (5 mg/kg every 2 weeks) plus mFOLFOX6. During phase I, patients underwent a 3 + 3 dose-escalation schema to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of nintedanib in combination with mFOLFOX6. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 9 months. Objective response (OR) was a secondary end point. RESULTS The nintedanib recommended phase II dose was 200 mg b.i.d. plus mFOLFOX6 based on safety data from phase I (n = 12). Of 128 patients randomised in the phase II part, 126 received treatment (nintedanib plus mFOLFOX6, n = 85; bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6, n = 41). PFS at 9 months was 62.1% with nintedanib and 70.2% with bevacizumab [difference: -8.1% (95% confidence interval -27.8 to 11.5)]. Confirmed ORs were recorded in 63.5% and 56.1% of patients in the nintedanib and bevacizumab groups, respectively. The incidence of adverse events (AEs) considered related to treatment was 98.8% with nintedanib and 97.6% with bevacizumab; the incidence of serious AEs was 37.6% with nintedanib and 53.7% with bevacizumab. The pharmacokinetics of nintedanib and the components of mFOLFOX6 were unaffected by their combination. CONCLUSIONS Nintedanib in combination with mFOLFOX6 showed efficacy as first-line therapy in patients with mCRC with a manageable safety profile and further studies in this population are warranted.

Radiological imaging markers predicting clinical outcome in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma treated with regorafenib: post hoc analysis of the CORRECT phase III trial (RadioCORRECT study)

Objective To identify imaging markers predicting clinical outcomes to regorafenib in metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC). Methods The RadioCORRECT study is a post hoc analysis of a cohort of patients with mCRC treated within the phase III placebo-controlled CORRECT trial of regorafenib. Baseline and week 8 contrast-enhanced CT were used to assess response by RECIST 1.1, changes in the sum of target lesion diameters (ΔSTL), lung metastases cavitation and liver metastases density. Primary and secondary objectives were to develop ex novo univariable and multivariable models to predict overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), respectively. Results 202 patients were enrolled, 134 (66.3%) treated with regorafenib and 68 (33.7%) with placebo. In the univariate analysis, PFS predictors were lung metastases cavitation at baseline (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.92, p=0.03) and at week 8 (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.93, p=0.02). Baseline cavitation (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.66, p=0.007), RECIST 1.1 (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.4, p <0.0001) and ΔSTL (HR 1.16, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.27, p=0.002) predicted OS. We found an increase of 9% of diameter as the best threshold for discriminating OS (HR 2.64, 95% CI 1.61 to 4.34, p <0.001). In the multivariate analysis, baseline and week 8 cavitation remained significant PFS predictors. Baseline cavitation, RECIST 1.1 and ΔSTL remained predictors of OS in exploratory multivariable models. Assessment of liver metastases density did not predict clinical outcome. Conclusions RECIST 1.1 and ΔSTL predict favourable outcome to regorafenib. In contrast to liver metastases density that failed to be a predictor, lung metastases cavitation represents a novel radiological marker of favourable outcome that deserves consideration.

Taking into account successive treatment lines in the analysis of a colorectal cancer randomised trial

The FFCD 2000-05 randomised trial included 410 patients with advanced colorectal cancer and compared a sequential arm S treated with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (LV5FU2) followed by FOLFOX (LV5FU2+oxaliplatin) and then FOLFIRI (LV5FU2+irinotecan) and a combination arm C that begins directly with FOLFOX followed by FOLFIRI. The first aim of this study was to analyse the prognostic effects on overall survival of disease progression, and of toxicities under first-line therapy. We also studied the benefit of introducing irinotecan in each arm. Finally, we compared the effect of treatment on repeated progression and toxicities. For this purpose, we used Cox regression models with time-dependent variables and shared gamma frailty regression models. We found that early on during follow-up, the prognostic effect on survival of progression under first-line therapy was greater in C (hazard ratio [HR]=18.0 [7.9-41.2]) than in S (HR=7.7 [3.9-17.4]). This difference was significant, but it decreased over time. The prognostic effect of severe toxicities was greater in S (HR=2.0 [1.4-2.9]) than in C (HR=1.3 [0.9-1.9]). Introducing irinotecan was significantly more beneficial in S (HR=0.2 [0.1-0.4]) than in C (HR=0.3 [0.2-1.5]). The risk of repeated progression was not significantly different between the two groups (HR=0.9 [0.8-1.1]) whereas the risk of toxicities was greater in C (HR=1.7 [1.4-2.1]). Overall, this study suggests that starting with less toxic first-line treatment is a valid option since it does not exert a deleterious effect on the risk of overall progression or death.

Metastatic Gastrointestinal Cancer: Safety of Cisplatin Combined with Continuous 5-FU Versus Bolus 5-FU and Leucovorin (Methodology)

Esophageal, gastric, and pancreatic cancers remain frequent digestive carcinomas, and are among the main causes of cancer death worldwide. At the metastatic stage, the prognosis is very poor in most cases. Most of the 5-Fluorouracile (5-FU) based regimens are widely used in esophageal and gastric locations and were common for pancreatic cancer before the advent of gemcitabine. Attempts to improve the antitumor efficacy of 5-FU in the gastrointestinal cancers have included biomodulation with various agents such as folinic acid, previously tested by Machover et al. (1986) and Poon et al. (1991) in colorectal cancer treatment. The combination of 5-Fluorouracil with cisplatin has proven to significantly increase the efficacy and survival of patients. The synergistic activity of this latter combination has been demonstrated in both experimental models by Etienne et al. (1991) and clinical studies by Kim et al. (1993). The association of 5-FU with cisplatin is still widely used in advanced gastric cancer; the FP regimen (using 5-FU 800–1,000 mg/m2/day in continuous infusion for 5 days with cisplatin 100 mg/m2/day on day 2) has been well documented in three large phase II trials reported by Lacave et al. (1991), Rougier et al. (1994), and Ohtsu et al. (1994), and yielded overall response rate of 41%, 43%, and 43%, respectively, with median survival times of 10.6, 9, and 7 months, respectively. In advanced pancreatic carcinoma, the same FP regimen has been explored in a monocentric phase II study by Rougier et al. (1993). The response rate was 26.5% with a median survival of 7 months. At the time of commencing our study, this FP schedule was evaluated in two phase III trials, one in advanced gastric cancer by Vanhoefer et al. (2000) and another in advanced pancreatic cancer by Ducreux et al. (2002). Finally the combination 5-FUcisplatin was considered to be the standard treatment in esophageal location, based on the randomized phase II study by Bleiberg et al. (1997). Recently, various authors as 2 Metastatic Gastrointestinal Cancer: Safety of Cisplatin Combined with Continuous 5-FU Versus Bolus 5-FU and Leucovorin (Methodology)