Patrick Julier

Gefitinib for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy (COG): a phase 3, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial

BACKGROUND Evidence is scarce for the effectiveness of therapies for oesophageal cancer progressing after chemotherapy, and no randomised trials have been reported. We aimed to compare gefitinib with placebo in previously treated advanced oesophageal cancer. METHODS For this phase 3, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, eligible patients were adults with advanced oesophageal cancer or type I/II Siewert junctional tumours, histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma, who had progressed after chemotherapy, with WHO performance status 0-2, and with measurable or evaluable disease on CT scan. Participants were recruited from 48 UK centres and randomly assigned (1:1) to gefitinib (500 mg) or matching placebo by simple randomisation with no stratification factors. Patients, clinicians, and trial office staff were masked to treatment allocation. Treatment continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or patient choice. The primary outcome was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN29580179. FINDINGS Between March 30, 2009, and Nov 18, 2011, 450 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (one patient withdrew consent; 224 patients allocated gefitinib and 225 allocated placebo included in analyses). Overall survival did not differ between groups (median 3·73 months, 95% CI 3·23-4·50, for gefitinib vs 3·67 months, 95% CI 2·97-4·37, for placebo; hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·74-1·09, p=0·29). Among the prespecified patient-reported outcomes (110 patients on gefitinib and 121 on placebo completed both baseline and 4 week questionnaires and were included in analyses), odynophagia was significantly better in the gefitinib group (adjusted mean difference -8·61, 95% CI -14·49 to -2·73; n=227; p=0·004), whereas the other outcomes were not significantly improved compared with placebo: global quality of life (2·69, 95% CI -2·33 to 7·72, n=231, p=0·293), dysphagia (-3·18, 95% CI -8·36 to 2·00, n=231, p=0·228), and eating (-4·11, 95% CI -9·96 to 1·75, n=229, p=0·168). Median progression-free survival was marginally longer with gefitinib than it was with placebo (1·57 months, 95% CI 1·23-1·90 in the gefitinib group vs 1·17 months, 95% CI 1·07-1·37 in the placebo group; HR 0·80, 95% CI 0·66-0·96, p=0·020). The most common toxicities were diarrhoea (36 [16%] of 224 patients on gefitinib vs six [3%] of 225 on placebo) and skin toxicity (46 [21%] vs two [1%]), both mostly grade 2. The commonest grade 3-4 toxicities were fatigue (24 [11%] vs 13 [6%] patients) and diarrhoea (13 [6%] vs two [1%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 109 (49%) of 224 patients assigned to gefitinib and 101 (45%) of 225 on placebo. 54 (24%) of patients in the gefitinib group achieved disease control at 8 weeks, as did 35 (16%) of patients on placebo (p=0·023). INTERPRETATION The use of gefitinib as a second-line treatment in oesophageal cancer in unselected patients does not improve overall survival, but has palliative benefits in a subgroup of these difficult-to-treat patients with short life expectancy. Future research should focus on identification of predictive biomarkers to identify this subgroup of benefiting patients. FUNDING Cancer Research UK.

Phase III Randomized Trial Assessing Rofecoxib in the Adjuvant Setting of Colorectal Cancer: Final Results of the VICTOR Trial

PURPOSE Laboratory and case-control studies suggest a pivotal role for the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) pathway in colorectal carcinogenesis. The purpose of this study was to test whether the COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib could reduce recurrence and improve survival when administered in the adjuvant setting of colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients who had undergone potentially curative surgery and completion of adjuvant therapy for stage II and III CRC were randomly assigned to receive rofecoxib (20 mg daily) or placebo. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Where formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumor tissue samples were available, COX-2 expression was evaluated by immunohistochemistry and correlated with clinical outcome. RESULTS Two thousand four hundred thirty-four patients were entered onto the study. The trial was terminated early because of the worldwide withdrawal of rofecoxib. At this point, 1,167 patients had received rofecoxib and 1,160 patients had received placebo for median treatment durations of 7.4 and 8.2 months, respectively. For the rofecoxib and placebo arms, median follow-up times were 4.84 and 4.85 years, with 241 and 246 deaths and 297 and 329 recurrences, respectively. No difference was demonstrated in OS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.16; P = .75) or recurrence (HR = 0.89; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.04; P = .15) comparing the two groups. Tumor COX-2 expression by immunohistochemistry was assessed for 871 patients, but neither prognostic nor predictive effects were observed. CONCLUSION In this study of abbreviated therapy in the adjuvant setting of CRC, rofecoxib did not improve OS or protect from recurrence in unselected patients. In addition, COX-2 expression did not correlate with prognosis overall or predict effectiveness of COX-2 inhibitors.

A candidate gene study of capecitabine-related toxicity in colorectal cancer identifies new toxicity variants at DPYD and a putative role for ENOSF1 rather than TYMS.

Objective Capecitabine is an oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) pro-drug commonly used to treat colorectal carcinoma and other tumours. About 35% of patients experience dose-limiting toxicity. The few proven genetic biomarkers of 5-FU toxicity are rare variants and polymorphisms, respectively, at candidate loci dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) and thymidylate synthase (TYMS). Design We investigated 1456 polymorphisms and rare coding variants near 25 candidate 5-FU pathway genes in 968 UK patients from the QUASAR2 clinical trial. Results We identified the first common DPYD polymorphisms to be consistently associated with capecitabine toxicity, rs12132152 (toxicity allele frequency (TAF)=0.031, OR=3.83, p=4.31×10−6) and rs12022243 (TAF=0.196, OR=1.69, p=2.55×10−5). rs12132152 was particularly strongly associated with hand-foot syndrome (OR=6.1, p=3.6×10−8). The rs12132152 and rs12022243 associations were independent of each other and of previously reported DPYD toxicity variants. Next-generation sequencing additionally identified rare DPYD variant p.Ala551Thr in one patient with severe toxicity. Using functional predictions and published data, we assigned p.Ala551Thr as causal for toxicity. We found that polymorphism rs2612091, which lies within an intron of ENOSF1, was also associated with capecitabine toxicity (TAF=0.532, OR=1.59, p=5.28×10−6). ENSOF1 is adjacent to TYMS and there is a poorly characterised regulatory interaction between the two genes/proteins. Unexpectedly, rs2612091 fully explained the previously reported associations between capecitabine toxicity and the supposedly functional TYMS variants, 5′VNTR 2R/3R and 3′UTR 6 bp ins-del. rs2612091 genotypes were, moreover, consistently associated with ENOSF1 mRNA levels, but not with TYMS expression. Conclusions DPYD harbours rare and common capecitabine toxicity variants. The toxicity polymorphism in the TYMS region may actually act through ENOSF1.

Adjuvant capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine alone in patients with colorectal cancer (QUASAR 2): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Antiangiogenic agents have established efficacy in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. We investigated whether bevacizumab could improve disease-free survival in the adjuvant setting after resection of the primary tumour. METHODS For the open-label, randomised, controlled QUASAR 2 trial, which was done at 170 hospitals in seven countries, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with WHO performance status scores of 0 or 1 who had undergone potentially curative surgery for histologically proven stage III or high-risk stage II colorectal cancer. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive eight 3-week cycles of oral capecitabine alone (1250 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days followed by a break for 7 days) or the same regimen of oral capecitabine plus 16 cycles of 7·5 mg/kg bevacizumab by intravenous infusion over 90 min on day 1 of each cycle. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated schedule with use of minimisation with a random element stratified by age, disease stage, tumour site, and country. The study was open label and no-one was masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Toxic effects were assessed in patients who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN45133151. FINDINGS Between April 25, 2005, and Oct 12, 2010, 1952 eligible patients were enrolled, of whom 1941 had assessable data (968 in the capecitabine alone group and 973 in the capecitabine and bevacizumab group). Median follow-up was 4·92 years (IQR 4·00-5·16). Disease-free survival at 3 years did not differ between the groups (75·4%, 95% CI 72·5-78·0 in the capecitabine and bevacizumab group vs 78·4%, 75·7-80·9 in the capecitabine alone group; hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·89-1·25, p=0·54). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hand-foot syndrome (201 [21%] of 963 in the capecitabine alone group vs 257 [27%] of 959 in the capecitabine and bevacizumab group) and diarrhoea (102 [11%] vs 104 [11%]), and, with the addition of bevacizumab, expected increases were recorded in all-grade hypertension (320 [33%] vs 75 [8%]), proteinuria (197 [21%] vs 49 [5%]), and wound healing problems (30 [3%] vs 17 [2%]). 571 serious adverse events were reported (221 with capecitabine alone and 350 with capecitabine and bevacizumab). Most of these were gastrointestinal (n=245) or cardiovascular (n=169). 23 deaths within 6 months of randomisation were classified as being related to treatment, eight in the capecitabine alone group and 15 in the capecitabine and bevacizumab group. INTERPRETATION The addition of bevacizumab to capecitabine in the adjuvant setting for colorectal cancer yielded no benefit in the treatment of an unselected population and should not be used. FUNDING Roche.