Paulo M. Hoff

Phase II Trial of Infusional Fluorouracil, Irinotecan, and Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Efficacy and Circulating Angiogenic Biomarkers Associated With Therapeutic Resistance

PURPOSE We investigated the efficacy of fluorouracil (FU), leucovorin, irinotecan, and bevacizumab (FOLFIRI + B) in a phase II trial in patients previously untreated for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), and changes during treatment in plasma cytokines and angiogenic factors (CAFs) as potential markers of treatment response and therapeutic resistance. PATIENTS AND METHODS We conducted a phase II, two-institution trial of FOLFIRI + B. Each 14-day cycle consisted of bevacizumab (5 mg/kg), irinotecan (180 mg/m(2)), bolus FU (400 mg/m(2)), and leucovorin (400 mg/m(2)) followed by a 46-hour infusion of FU (2,400 mg/m(2)). Levels of 37 CAFs were assessed using multiplex-bead assays and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay at baseline, during treatment, and at the time of progressive disease (PD). RESULTS Forty-three patients were enrolled. Median progression-free survival (PFS), the primary end point of the study, was 12.8 months. Median overall survival was 31.3 months, with a response rate of 65%. Elevated interleukin-8 at baseline was associated with a shorter PFS (11 v 15.1 months, P = .03). Before the radiographic development of PD, several CAFs associated with angiogenesis and myeloid recruitment increased compared to baseline, including basic fibroblast growth factor (P = .046), hepatocyte growth factor (P = .046), placental growth factor (P < .001), stromal-derived factor-1 (P = .04), and macrophage chemoattractant protein-3 (P < .001). CONCLUSION Efficacy and tolerability of FOLFIRI + B appeared favorable to historical controls in this single arm study. Before radiographic progression, there was a shift in balance of CAFs, with a rise in alternate pro-angiogenic cytokines and myeloid recruitment factors in subsets of patients that may represent mechanisms of resistance.

ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.

Bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy as adjuvant treatment for colon cancer (AVANT): a phase 3 randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Bevacizumab improves the efficacy of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Our aim was to assess the use of bevacizumab in combination with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in the adjuvant treatment of patients with resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma. METHODS Patients from 330 centres in 34 countries were enrolled into this phase 3, open-label randomised trial. Patients with curatively resected stage III or high-risk stage II colon carcinoma were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive FOLFOX4 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2), leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), and fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 1; leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) plus fluorouracil 400 mg/m(2) bolus plus 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion on day 2) every 2 weeks for 12 cycles; bevacizumab 5 mg/kg plus FOLFOX4 (every 2 weeks for 12 cycles) followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks); or bevacizumab 7·5 mg/kg plus XELOX (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 2 weeks plus oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-15) every 3 weeks for eight cycles followed by bevacizumab monotherapy 7·5 mg/kg every 3 weeks (eight cycles over 24 weeks). Block randomisation was done with a central interactive computerised system, stratified by geographic region and disease stage. Surgery with curative intent occurred 4-8 weeks before randomisation. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed for all randomised patients with stage III disease. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00112918. FINDINGS Of the total intention-to-treat population (n=3451), 2867 patients had stage III disease, of whom 955 were randomly assigned to receive FOLFOX4, 960 to receive bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and 952 to receive bevacizumab-XELOX. After a median follow-up of 48 months (range 0-66 months), 237 patients (25%) in the FOLFOX4 group, 280 (29%) in the bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 group, and 253 (27%) in the bevacizumab-XELOX group had relapsed, developed a new colon cancer, or died. The disease-free survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·17 (95% CI 0·98-1·39; p=0·07), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·07 (0·90-1·28; p=0·44). After a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the overall survival hazard ratio for bevacizumab-FOLFOX4 versus FOLFOX4 was 1·27 (1·03-1·57; p=0·02), and for bevacizumab-XELOX versus FOLFOX4 was 1·15 (0·93-1·42; p=0·21). The 573 patients with high-risk stage II cancer were included in the safety analysis. The most common grade 3-5 adverse events were neutropenia (FOLFOX4: 477 [42%] of 1126 patients, bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 416 [36%] of 1145 patients, and bevacizumab-XELOX: 74 [7%] of 1135 patients), diarrhoea (110 [10%], 135 [12%], and 181 [16%], respectively), and hypertension (12 [1%], 122 [11%], and 116 [10%], respectively). Serious adverse events were more common in the bevacizumab groups (bevacizumab-FOLFOX4: 297 [26%]; bevacizumab-XELOX: 284 [25%]) than in the FOLFOX4 group (226 [20%]). Treatment-related deaths were reported in one patient receiving FOLFOX4, two receiving bevacizumab-FOLFOX4, and five receiving bevacizumab-XELOX. INTERPRETATION Bevacizumab does not prolong disease-free survival when added to adjuvant chemotherapy in resected stage III colon cancer. Overall survival data suggest a potential detrimental effect with bevacizumab plus oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in these patients. On the basis of these and other data, we do not recommend the use of bevacizumab in the adjuvant treatment of patients with curatively resected stage III colon cancer. FUNDING Genentech, Roche, and Chugai.

Progression-free survival as surrogate and as true end point: insights from the breast and colorectal cancer literature

Significant achievements in the systemic treatment of both advanced breast cancer and advanced colorectal cancer over the past 10 years have led to a growing number of drugs, combinations, and sequences to be tested. The choice of surrogate and true end points has become a critical issue and one that is currently the subject of much debate. Many recent randomized trials in solid tumor oncology have used progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary end point. PFS is an attractive end point because it is available earlier than overall survival (OS) and is not influenced by second-line treatments. PFS is now undergoing validation as a surrogate end point in various disease settings. The question of whether PFS can be considered an acceptable surrogate end point depends not only on formal validation studies but also on a standardized definition and unbiased ascertainment of disease progression in clinical trials. In advanced breast cancer, formal validation of PFS as a surrogate for OS has so far been unsuccessful. In advanced colorectal cancer, in contrast, current evidence indicates that PFS is a valid surrogate for OS after first-line treatment with chemotherapy. The other question is whether PFS sufficiently reflects clinical benefit to be considered a true end point in and of itself.

Cediranib Plus FOLFOX/CAPOX Versus Placebo Plus FOLFOX/CAPOX in Patients With Previously Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Phase III Study (HORIZON II)

PURPOSE Cediranib is a highly potent inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signaling with activity against all three VEGF receptors. HORIZON II [Cediranib (AZD2171, RECENTIN) in Addition to Chemotherapy Versus Placebo Plus Chemotherapy in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer] assessed infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/capecitabine and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX/CAPOX) with or without cediranib in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients were initially randomly assigned 1:1:1 to receive cediranib (20 or 30 mg per day) or placebo plus FOLFOX/CAPOX. In an early analysis of this and two other cediranib studies (HORIZON I [Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Previously Treated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer] and HORIZON III [Cediranib Plus FOLFOX6 Versus Bevacizumab Plus FOLFOX6 in Patients With Untreated Metastatic Colorectal Cancer]), the 20-mg dose met the predefined criteria for continuation. Subsequent patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to the cediranib 20 mg or placebo arms. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were coprimary end points. RESULTS In all, 860 patients received cediranib 20 mg (n = 502) or placebo (n = 358). The addition of cediranib to FOLFOX/CAPOX resulted in PFS prolongation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% CI, 0.73 to 0.98; P = .0121; median PFS, 8.6 months for cediranib v 8.3 months for placebo) but had no impact on OS (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.12; P = .5707; median OS, 19.7 months for cediranib v 18.9 months for placebo). There were no significant differences in the secondary end points of objective response rate, duration of response, or liver resection rate. Median chemotherapy dose-intensity was decreased by approximately 10% in patients treated with cediranib. Adverse events (AEs) associated with cediranib were manageable. CONCLUSION Addition of cediranib 20 mg to FOLFOX/CAPOX resulted in a modest PFS prolongation, but no significant difference in OS. The cediranib AE profile was consistent with those from previous studies. Because of the lack of improvement in OS, cediranib plus an oxaliplatin-based regimen cannot be recommended as a treatment for patients with mCRC.

The management of hepatocellular carcinoma. Current expert opinion and recommendations derived from the 10th World Congress on Gastrointestinal Cancer, Barcelona, 2008.

This article summarizes the expert discussion on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which took place during the 10th World Gastrointestinal Cancer Congress (WGICC) in Barcelona, June 2008. A multidisciplinary approach to a patient with HCC is essential, to guarantee optimal diagnosis and staging, planning of surgical options and selection of embolisation strategies or systemic therapies. In many patients, the underlying cirrhosis represents a challenge and determines therapeutic options. There is now robust evidence in favour of systemic therapy with sorafenib in patients with advanced HCC with preserved liver function. Those involved in the care for patients with HCC should be encouraged to participate in well-designed clinical trials, to increase evidence-based knowledge and to make further progress.

Comparison of the Efficacy, Toxicity, and Pharmacokinetics of a Uracil/Tegafur (UFT) Plus Oral Leucovorin (LV) Regimen Between Japanese and American Patients With Advanced Colorectal Cancer: Joint United States and Japan Study of UFT/LV

PURPOSE To compare the efficacy, toxicities, and pharmacokinetics of an oral regimen consisting of uracil/tegafur (UFT) and leucovorin (LV) between Japanese patients and patients in the United States with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Forty-four Japanese patients and 45 patients in the United States were enrolled in concurrent nonrandomized phase II trials. UFT 300 mg/m2/d and leucovorin 75 mg/d were administered orally for 28 days followed by a 7-day rest period. The total daily dose of each drug was divided into three equal doses. Treatment was repeated every 5 weeks until disease progression. Blood samples for the pharmacokinetic study were obtained after the initial dose on day 1 of the first course. RESULTS The response rate for the Japanese patients and the patients in the United States was 36.4% (95% CI, 22.4% to 52.2%) and 34.1% (95% CI, 20.5% to 49.9%), respectively. The only major toxicity was diarrhea, and other toxicities were mild in both populations. The incidence of grade 3 or higher diarrhea in the Japanese and Americans was 9% and 22%, respectively. Although the area under the curve and maximum concentration of fluorouracil were found to be slightly higher in the Japanese patients than the patients in the United States, and area under the curve-adjusted body surface area appeared to be comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION The efficacy and pharmacokinetic parameters of UFT and LV are comparable in Japanese and American patients; however, a difference in toxicity profile, specifically diarrhea, was noted. This oral regimen of UFT and LV is considered to have similar activity against metastatic colorectal cancer and to have acceptable toxicity in patients in both countries.

Bevacizumab: overview of the literature.

Inhibiting the angiogenic process is a clever method of cancer care. Over the last decade, some antiangiogenic compounds have been developed and approved for cancer treatment. Bevacizumab is a humanized monoclonal antibody that inhibits VEGF activity. When used in combination with chemotherapy, it has an important role for treating many types of advanced cancer, including colorectal cancer, renal cell carcinoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, breast cancer, ovarian cancer and glioblastoma multiforme. In this paper we review the basic science behind this molecule’s development, as well the major clinical trials in which bevacizumab was involved in oncology.

Efficacy of capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil in colorectal and gastric cancers: a meta-analysis of individual data from 6171 patients

BACKGROUND To compare the effects of oral capecitabine-containing chemotherapy regimens with i.v. 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-containing chemotherapy regimens on overall survival in patients with gastrointestinal cancers. METHODS A meta-analysis, based on individual patient data from six randomised non-inferiority trials, was carried out at the request of regulatory authorities to compare the effects of single-agent capecitabine or capecitabine-containing chemotherapy versus matched 5-FU-based regimens in terms of overall survival in patients with stage III colon, metastatic colorectal or advanced gastric cancer. RESULTS Data from a total of 6171 patients with stage III colon cancer (n = 1987), metastatic colorectal cancer (n = 3868) or advanced gastric cancer (n = 316) were included. A total of 3097 patients were treated with capecitabine-containing chemotherapy and 3074 patients with 5-FU-containing chemotherapy. The unadjusted hazard ratio for overall survival for capecitabine-containing chemotherapy versus 5-FU-containing chemotherapy was 0.94 (95% confidence interval 0.89-1.00; P = 0.0489). CONCLUSIONS Oral capecitabine is at least equivalent to i.v. 5-FU in terms of overall survival in patients with gastrointestinal cancers. Capecitabine and 5-FU can be used interchangeably in these patient populations.

Comprehensive cancer-gene panels can be used to estimate mutational load and predict clinical benefit to PD-1 blockade in clinical practice

Cancer gene panels (CGPs) are already used in clinical practice to match tumors genetic profile with available targeted therapies. We aimed to determine if CGPs could also be applied to estimate tumor mutational load and predict clinical benefit to PD-1 and CTLA-4 checkpoint blockade therapy. Whole-exome sequencing (WES) mutation data obtained from melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients published by Snyder et al. 2014 and Rizvi et al. 2015, respectively, were used to select nonsynonymous somatic mutations occurring in genes included in the Foundation Medicine Panel (FM-CGP) and in our own Institutional Panel (HSL-CGP). CGP-mutational load was calculated for each patient using both panels and was associated with clinical outcomes as defined and reported in the original articles. Higher CGP-mutational load was observed in NSCLC patients presenting durable clinical benefit (DCB) to PD-1 blockade (FM-CGP P=0.03, HSL-CGP P=0.01). We also observed that 69% of patients with high CGP-mutational load experienced DCB to PD-1 blockade, as compared to 20% of patients with low CGP-mutational load (FM-CGP and HSL-CGP P=0.01). Noteworthy, predictive accuracy of CGP-mutational load for DCB was not statistically different from that estimated by WES sequencing (P=0.73). Moreover, a high CGP-mutational load was significantly associated with progression-free survival (PFS) in patients treated with PD-1 blockade (FM-CGP P=0.005, HR 0.27, 95% IC 0.105 to 0.669; HSL-CGP P=0.008, HR 0.29, 95% IC 0.116 to 0.719). Similar associations between CGP-mutational load and clinical benefit to CTLA-4 blockade were not observed. In summary, our data reveals that CGPs can be used to estimate mutational load and to predict clinical benefit to PD-1 blockade, with similar accuracy to that reported using WES.