Roberto Labianca

Randomised trial of irinotecan versus fluorouracil by continuous infusion after fluorouracil failure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND In phase II trials, irinotecan is active in patients with advanced colorectal cancer, but the survival and clinical benefit of irinotecan compared with second-line fluorouracil by continuous infusion is not known. METHODS 267 patients who had failed to respond to first-line fluorouracil, or whose disease had progressed after treatment with first-line fluorouracil were randomly allocated irinotecan 300-350 mg/m2 infused once every 3 weeks or fluorouracil by continuous infusion. Treatment was given until disease progression, unacceptable toxic effects, or the patient refused to continue treatment. The primary endpoint was survival, while progression-free survival, response rate, symptom-free survival, adverse events, and quality of life (QoL) were secondary endpoints. FINDINGS 133 patients were randomly allocated irinotecan and 134 were allocated fluorouracil by continuous infusion. Patients treated with irinotecan lived for significantly longer than patients on fluorouracil (p=0.035). Survival at 1 year was increased from 32% in the fluorouracil group to 45% in the irinotecan group. Median survival was 10.8 months in the irinotecan group and 8.5 months in the fluorouracil group. Median progression-free survival was longer with irinotecan (4.2 vs 2.9 months for irinotecan vs fluorouracil, respectively; p=0.030). The median pain-free survival was 10.3 months and 8.5 months (p=0.06) for irinotecan and fluorouracil, respectively. Both treatments were equally well tolerated. QoL was similar in both groups. INTERPRETATION Compared with fluorouracil by continuous infusion second-line irinotecan significantly improved survival in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Gemcitabine in Combination With Oxaliplatin Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Locally Advanced or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Results of a GERCOR and GISCAD Phase III Trial

PURPOSE Gemcitabine (Gem) is the standard treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. Given the promising phase II results obtained with the Gem-oxaliplatin (GemOx) combination, we conducted a phase III study comparing GemOx with Gem alone in advanced pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer were stratified according to center, performance status, and type of disease (locally advanced v metastatic) and randomly assigned to either GemOx (gemcitabine 1 g/m2 as a 100-minute infusion on day 1 and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 as a 2-hour infusion on day 2 every 2 weeks) or Gem (gemcitabine 1 g/m2 as a weekly 30-minute infusion). RESULTS Three hundred twenty-six patients were enrolled; 313 were eligible, and 157 and 156 were allocated to the GemOx and Gem arms, respectively. GemOx was superior to Gem in terms of response rate (26.8% v 17.3%, respectively; P = .04), progression-free survival (5.8 v 3.7 months, respectively; P = .04), and clinical benefit (38.2% v 26.9%, respectively; P = .03). Median overall survival (OS) for GemOx and Gem was 9.0 and 7.1 months, respectively (P = .13). GemOx was well tolerated overall, although a higher incidence of National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria grade 3 and 4 toxicity per patient was observed for platelets (14.0% for GemOx v 3.2% for Gem), vomiting (8.9% for GemOx v 3.2% for Gem), and neurosensory symptoms (19.1% for GemOx v 0% for Gem). CONCLUSION These results confirm the efficacy and safety of GemOx, but this study failed to demonstrate a statistically significant advantage in terms of OS compared with Gem. Because GemOx is the first combined treatment to be superior to Gem alone in terms of clinical benefit, this promising regimen deserves further development.

Defective Mismatch Repair As a Predictive Marker for Lack of Efficacy of Fluorouracil-Based Adjuvant Therapy in Colon Cancer

PURPOSE Prior reports have indicated that patients with colon cancer who demonstrate high-level microsatellite instability (MSI-H) or defective DNA mismatch repair (dMMR) have improved survival and receive no benefit from fluorouracil (FU) -based adjuvant therapy compared with patients who have microsatellite-stable or proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) tumors. We examined MMR status as a predictor of adjuvant therapy benefit in patients with stages II and III colon cancer. METHODS MSI assay or immunohistochemistry for MMR proteins were performed on 457 patients who were previously randomly assigned to FU-based therapy (either FU + levamisole or FU + leucovorin; n = 229) versus no postsurgical treatment (n = 228). Data were subsequently pooled with data from a previous analysis. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS Overall, 70 (15%) of 457 patients exhibited dMMR. Adjuvant therapy significantly improved DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.93; P = .02) in patients with pMMR tumors. Patients with dMMR tumors receiving FU had no improvement in DFS (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.42 to 2.91; P = .85) compared with those randomly assigned to surgery alone. In the pooled data set of 1,027 patients (n = 165 with dMMR), these findings were maintained; in patients with stage II disease and with dMMR tumors, treatment was associated with reduced overall survival (HR, 2.95; 95% CI, 1.02 to 8.54; P = .04). CONCLUSION Patient stratification by MMR status may provide a more tailored approach to colon cancer adjuvant therapy. These data support MMR status assessment for patients being considered for FU therapy alone and consideration of MMR status in treatment decision making.

Prognostic Role of KRAS and BRAF in Stage II and III Resected Colon Cancer: Results of the Translational Study on the PETACC-3, EORTC 40993, SAKK 60-00 Trial

PURPOSE Mutations within the KRAS proto-oncogene have predictive value but are of uncertain prognostic value in the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. We took advantage of PETACC-3, an adjuvant trial with 3,278 patients with stage II to III colon cancer, to evaluate the prognostic value of KRAS and BRAF tumor mutation status in this setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks (n = 1,564) were prospectively collected and DNA was extracted from tissue sections from 1,404 cases. Planned analysis of KRAS exon 2 and BRAF exon 15 mutations was performed by allele-specific real-time polymerase chain reaction. Survival analyses were based on univariate and multivariate proportional hazard regression models. RESULTS KRAS and BRAF tumor mutation rates were 37.0% and 7.9%, respectively, and were not significantly different according to tumor stage. In a multivariate analysis containing stage, tumor site, nodal status, sex, age, grade, and microsatellite instability (MSI) status, KRAS mutation was associated with grade (P = .0016), while BRAF mutation was significantly associated with female sex (P = .017), and highly significantly associated with right-sided tumors, older age, high grade, and MSI-high tumors (all P < 10(-4)). In univariate and multivariate analysis, KRAS mutations did not have a major prognostic value regarding relapse-free survival (RFS) or overall survival (OS). BRAF mutation was not prognostic for RFS, but was for OS, particularly in patients with MSI-low (MSI-L) and stable (MSI-S) tumors (hazard ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.4 to 3.4; P = .0003). CONCLUSION In stage II-III colon cancer, the KRAS mutation status does not have major prognostic value. BRAF is prognostic for OS in MS-L/S tumors.

Disease-Free Survival Versus Overall Survival As a Primary End Point for Adjuvant Colon Cancer Studies: Individual Patient Data From 20,898 Patients on 18 Randomized Trials

PURPOSE A traditional end point for colon adjuvant clinical trials is overall survival (OS), with 5 years demonstrating adequate follow-up. A shorter-term end point providing convincing evidence to allow treatment comparisons could significantly speed the translation of advances into practice. METHODS Individual patient data were pooled from 18 randomized phase III colon cancer adjuvant clinical trials. Trials included 43 arms, with a pooled sample size of 20,898 patients. The primary hypothesis was that disease-free survival (DFS), with 3 years of follow-up, is an appropriate primary end point to replace OS with 5 years of follow-up. RESULTS The recurrence rates for years 1 through 5 were 12%, 14%, 8%, 5%, and 3%, respectively. Median time from recurrence to death was 12 months. Eighty percent of recurrences were in the first 3 years; 91% of patients with recurrence by 3 years died before 5 years. Correlation between 3-year DFS and 5-year OS was 0.89. Comparing control versus experimental arms within each trial, the correlation between hazard ratios for DFS and OS was 0.92. Within-trial log-rank testing using both DFS and OS provided the same conclusion in 23 (92%) of 25 cases. Formal measures of surrogacy were satisfied. CONCLUSION In patients treated on phase III adjuvant colon clinical trials, DFS and OS are highly correlated, both within patients and across trials. These results suggest that DFS after 3 years of median follow-up is an appropriate end point for adjuvant colon cancer clinical trials of fluorouracil-based regimens, although marginally significant DFS improvements may not translate into significant OS benefits.

Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Potentially Curative Resection of Metastases From Colorectal Cancer: A Pooled Analysis of Two Randomized Trials

PURPOSE Adjuvant systemic chemotherapy administered after surgical resection of colorectal cancer metastases may reduce the risk of recurrence and improve survival, but its benefit has never been demonstrated. Two phase III trials (Fédération Francophone de Cancérologie Digestive [FFCD] Trial 9002 and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group/Gruppo Italiano di Valutazione Interventi in Oncologia [ENG] trial) used a similar design and showed a trend favoring adjuvant chemotherapy, but both had to close prematurely because of slow accrual, thus lacking the statistical power to demonstrate the predefined difference in survival. We report here a pooled analysis based on individual data from these two trials. PATIENTS AND METHODS After complete resection of colorectal liver or lung metastases, patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy (CT arm; fluorouracil [FU] 400 mg/m(2) administered intravenously [IV] once daily plus dl-leucovorin 200 mg/m(2) [FFCD] x 5 days or FU 370 mg/m(2) plus l-leucovorin 100 mg/m(2) IV x 5 days [ENG] for six cycles at 28-day intervals) or to surgery alone (S arm). RESULTS A total of 278 patients (CT, n = 138; S, n = 140) were included in the pooled analysis. Median progression-free survival was 27.9 months in the CT arm as compared with 18.8 months in the S arm (hazard ratio = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.76; P = .058). Median overall survival was 62.2 months in the CT arm compared with 47.3 months in the S arm (hazard ratio = 1.32; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.82; P = .095). Adjuvant chemotherapy was independently associated with both progression-free survival and overall survival in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSION This pooled analysis shows a marginal statistical significance in favor of adjuvant chemotherapy with an FU bolus-based regimen after complete resection of colorectal cancer metastases.

Impact of Chemoradiotherapy After Disease Control With Chemotherapy in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma in GERCOR Phase II and III Studies

PURPOSE The management of locally advanced (LA) pancreatic cancer patients remains controversial. To select patients who could benefit from chemoradiotherapy (CRT), the therapeutic strategy used by the Groupe Coopérateur Multidisciplinaire en Oncologie (GERCOR) consisted of initial chemotherapy (CT) for at least 3 months. The decision to administer CRT or continue CT in nonprogressive patients was the investigators choice. PATIENTS AND METHODS Retrospective analysis of outcome in 181 patients with LA pancreatic cancer (76 women and 105 men; mean age, 61 years; range, 37 to 85 years) enrolled onto prospective phase II and III GERCOR studies was performed to compare the survival of patients who received CRT with that of patients who continued CT alone. RESULTS Median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times for the 181 patients were 6.3 and 11.4 months, respectively. Fifty-three patients (29.3%) had metastatic disease after 3 months of CT and were not eligible for CRT. Among the 128 remaining patients (70.3%) who had no disease progression and who were, therefore, eligible for CRT, 72 (56%) received CRT (group A), whereas 56 (44%) continued with CT (group B). The two groups were balanced for initial characteristics (performance status, sex, age, and type of CT), as well as for induction CT results. In groups A and B, the median PFS times were 10.8 and 7.4 months, respectively (P = .005), and the median OS times were 15.0 and 11.7 months, respectively (P = .0009). CONCLUSION These results suggest that, after control of disease by initial CT, CRT could significantly improve survival in patients with LA pancreatic cancer compared with CT alone. A prospective phase III study is ongoing to evaluate this strategy.

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.

Nadroparin for the prevention of thromboembolic events in ambulatory patients with metastatic or locally advanced solid cancer receiving chemotherapy: a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind study

BACKGROUND Clinical trials are needed to assess the clinical benefit of antithrombotic prophylaxis in patients with cancer who are receiving chemotherapy, since these patients are at an increased risk of developing a thromboembolism. We did a trial to assess the clinical benefit of the low-molecular-weight heparin nadroparin for the prophylaxis of thromboembolic events in ambulatory patients receiving chemotherapy for metastatic or locally advanced solid cancer. METHODS Between October, 2003, and May, 2007, ambulatory patients with lung, gastrointestinal, pancreatic, breast, ovarian, or head and neck cancer were randomly assigned in a double-blind manner to receive subcutaneous injections of nadroparin (3800 IU anti-Xa once a day, n=779) or placebo (n=387), in a 2:1 ratio. Study treatment was given for the duration of chemotherapy up to a maximum of 4 months. The primary study outcome was the composite of symptomatic venous or arterial thromboembolic events, as assessed by an independent adjudication committee. All randomised patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in the efficacy and safety analyses (modified intention-to-treat population). The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT 00951574. FINDINGS 1150 patients were included in the primary efficacy and safety analyses: 769 patients in the nadroparin group and 381 patients in the placebo group. 15 (2.0%) of 769 patients treated with nadroparin and 15 (3.9%) of 381 patients treated with placebo had a thromboembolic event (single-sided p=0.02). Five (0.7%) of 769 patients in the nadroparin group and no patients in the placebo group had a major bleeding event (two-sided p=0.18). The incidences of minor bleeding were 7.4% (57 of 769) with nadroparin and 7.9% (30 of 381) with placebo. There were 121 (15.7%) serious adverse events in the nadroparin goup and 67 (17.6%) serious adverse events in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION Nadroparin reduces the incidence of thromboembolic events in ambulatory patients with metastatic or locally advanced cancer who are receiving chemotherapy. Future studies should focus on patients who are at a high risk for thromboembolic events. FUNDING Italfarmaco SpA, Milan, Italy.

Meta-analysis of randomized trials: evaluation of benefit from gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy applied in advanced pancreatic cancer.

BackgroundSingle-agent gemcitabine (GEM) is a standard treatment for advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. This study examines the question whether GEM-based combination chemotherapy can further improve treatment efficacy.MethodsA meta-analysis was performed to evaluate randomized trials comparing GEM versus GEM+X (X = cytotoxic agent). Fifteen trials including 4465 patients were eligible for an analysis of overall survival, the primary end-point of this investigation.ResultsThe meta-analysis revealed a significant survival benefit for GEM+X with a pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85 – 0.97, p = 0.004). The overall test for heterogeneity resulted in p = 0.82 (I2 = 0%). The analysis of platinum-based combinations indicated a HR of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76 – 0.96, p = 0.010), while for fluoropyrimidine-based combinations the HR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81 – 0.99, p = 0.030). No risk reduction was observed in the group of trials combining GEM with irinotecan, exatecan or pemetrexed (HR = 0.99). A meta-analysis of the trials with adequate information on baseline performance status (PS) was performed in five trials with 1682 patients. This analysis indicated that patients with a good PS had a marked survival benefit when receiving combination chemotherapy (HR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.67 – 0.87; p < 0.0001). By contrast, application of combination chemotherapy to patients with an initially poor PS appeared to be ineffective (HR = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.90 – 1.29, p = 0.40).ConclusionThe meta-analysis of randomized trials indicated a significant survival benefit when GEM was either combined with platinum analogs or fluoropyrimidines. Based on a preliminary subgroup analysis (representing 38% of all patients included in this meta-analysis), pancreatic cancer patients with a good PS appear to benefit from GEM-based cytotoxic combinations, whereas patients with a poor PS seem to have no survival benefit from combination chemotherapy.