Thomas Ruhstaller

Gemcitabine Plus Capecitabine Compared With Gemcitabine Alone in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research and the Central European Cooperative Oncology Group

PURPOSE This phase III trial compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (GemCap) versus single-agent Gem in advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1 to 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m2 by 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks). Patients were stratified according to center, Karnofsky performance score (KPS), presence of pain, and disease extent. RESULTS A total of 319 patients were enrolled between June 2001 and June 2004. Median overall survival (OS) time, the primary end point, was 8.4 and 7.2 months in the GemCap and Gem arms, respectively (P = .234). Post hoc analysis in patients with good KPS (score of 90 to 100) showed a significant prolongation of median OS time in the GemCap arm compared with the Gem arm (10.1 v 7.4 months, respectively; P = .014). The overall frequency of grade 3 or 4 adverse events was similar in each arm. Neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse event in both arms. CONCLUSION GemCap failed to improve OS at a statistically significant level compared with standard Gem treatment. The safety of GemCap and Gem was similar. In the subgroup of patients with good performance status, median OS was improved significantly. GemCap is a practical regimen that may be considered as an alternative to single-agent Gem for the treatment of advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer patients with a good performance status.

Adjuvant Exemestane with Ovarian Suppression in Premenopausal Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND Adjuvant therapy with an aromatase inhibitor improves outcomes, as compared with tamoxifen, in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive breast cancer. METHODS In two phase 3 trials, we randomly assigned premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer to the aromatase inhibitor exemestane plus ovarian suppression or tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression for a period of 5 years. Suppression of ovarian estrogen production was achieved with the use of the gonadotropin-releasing-hormone agonist triptorelin, oophorectomy, or ovarian irradiation. The primary analysis combined data from 4690 patients in the two trials. RESULTS After a median follow-up of 68 months, disease-free survival at 5 years was 91.1% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 87.3% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence, second invasive cancer, or death, 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60 to 0.85; P<0.001). The rate of freedom from breast cancer at 5 years was 92.8% in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, as compared with 88.8% in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group (hazard ratio for recurrence, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.80; P<0.001). With 194 deaths (4.1% of the patients), overall survival did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio for death in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.51; P=0.37). Selected adverse events of grade 3 or 4 were reported for 30.6% of the patients in the exemestane-ovarian suppression group and 29.4% of those in the tamoxifen-ovarian suppression group, with profiles similar to those for postmenopausal women. CONCLUSIONS In premenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive early breast cancer, adjuvant treatment with exemestane plus ovarian suppression, as compared with tamoxifen plus ovarian suppression, significantly reduced recurrence. (Funded by Pfizer and others; TEXT and SOFT ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT00066703 and NCT00066690, respectively.).

CA 19-9 tumour-marker response to chemotherapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer enrolled in a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Several studies in patients undergoing chemotherapy for advanced pancreatic carcinoma have linked a decrease in the concentration of the tumour marker carbohydrate antigen (CA) 19-9 to lengthened survival. The aim of this study was to test the hypotheses that an early decrease in baseline serum CA 19-9 concentration (on day 42, after two cycles of chemotherapy) by at least 50% is associated with lengthened survival, and that a decrease in CA 19-9 concentration of at least 50% from the baseline concentration to the lowest value measured at any time during treatment (nadir) is of prognostic significance, enabling its use as a surrogate endpoint for survival. METHODS CA 19-9 serum concentration was measured at baseline and every 3 weeks thereafter in patients with histologically proven advanced pancreatic carcinoma enrolled in a randomised trial of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus capecitabine. Patients were excluded if baseline serum CA 19-9 concentration was below the upper limit of normal (ULN) in the laboratory or if this measurement was missing. Comparisons of survival between patients with and without a CA 19-9 response were corrected for the guarantee-time bias by the landmark method. The trial on which this study is based is registered on the clinical trials site of the US National Cancer Institute website http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/show/NCT00030732. FINDINGS 247 of 319 randomised patients were assessable for analysis of baseline serum CA 19-9 concentration, and, of these, 175 patients were assessable for tumour-marker response to treatment. Median overall survival for patients with a baseline CA 19-9 concentration equal to or above the median value (ie, 59xULN) was 5.8 months (95% CI 5.1-7.0), which was significantly shorter than that for patients with baseline concentrations below the median value (10.3 months [95% CI 8.6-12.8], p<0.0001). An early decrease in CA 19-9 concentration of at least 50% after two cycles of chemotherapy was not associated with a longer overall survival compared with patients who did not have a decrease of at least 50% (median 10.1 months [9.2-12.7] vs 8.6 months [6.9-11.2], p=0.53; hazard ratio for death 1.11 [0.81-1.52]). Furthermore, a decrease in CA 19-9 concentration of at least 50% reached at the CA 19-9 nadir concentration was not associated with a longer overall survival compared with those patients who did not have a decrease of at least 50% (median 7.8 months [6.5.10.1] vs 6.7 months [5.5-9.8], p=0.74; 0.95 [0.69-1.31]) after adjusting for the guarantee-time bias. INTERPRETATION Pretreatment serum CA 19-9 concentration is an independent prognostic factor for survival, but a decrease in concentration during chemotherapy is not significantly associated with lengthened survival compared with those who did not have a corresponding decrease. Our data suggest that CA 19-9 response during chemotherapy is not a valid surrogate endpoint for survival in clinical trials.

Adding cetuximab to capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research SAKK

BACKGROUND To determine the activity and tolerability of adding cetuximab to the oxaliplatin and capecitabine (XELOX) combination in first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS In a multicenter two-arm phase II trial, patients were randomized to receive oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 and capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks alone or in combination with standard dose cetuximab. Treatment was limited to a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS Seventy-four patients with good performance status entered the trial. Objective partial response rates after external review and radiological confirmation were 14% and 41% in the XELOX and in the XELOX + Cetuximab arm, respectively. Stable disease has been observed in 62% and 35% of the patients, with 76% disease control in both arms. Cetuximab led to skin rash in 65% of the patients. The median overall survival was 16.5 months for arm A and 20.5 months for arm B. The median time to progression was 5.8 months for arm A and 7.2 months for arm B. CONCLUSION Differences in response rates between the treatment arms indicate that cetuximab may improve outcome with XELOX. The correct place of the cetuximab, oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine combinations in first-line treatment of MCC has to be assessed in phase III trials.

Cetuximab in Combination With Chemoradiotherapy Before Surgery in Patients With Resectable, Locally Advanced Esophageal Carcinoma : a Prospective, Multicenter Phase IB/II Trial (SAKK 75/06)

PURPOSE This multicenter phase IB/II trial investigated cetuximab added to preoperative chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with resectable, locally advanced esophageal cancer received two 3-week cycles of induction chemoimmunotherapy (cisplatin 75 mg/m(2) day 1, docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) day 1, cetuximab 250 mg/m(2) days 1, 8,15 [400 mg/m(2) loading dose]) followed by chemoimmunoradiation therapy (CIRT) and surgery. CIRT consisted of 45 Gy radiotherapy (RT) plus concurrent cisplatin 25 mg/m(2) and cetuximab 250 mg/m(2) weekly for 5 weeks in cohort 1. If fewer than three of seven patients experienced limiting toxicity (LT), the next seven patients also received docetaxel (20 mg/m(2) weekly × 5). If fewer than three patients experienced LTs, 13 additional patients were treated at this dose. RESULTS In total, 28 patients (median age, 64 years) with predominantly node-positive (82%) esophageal adenocarcinoma (15 patients) or squamous cell carcinoma (13 patients) were enrolled and 24 (86%) completed the entire trimodal therapy. During CIRT, no LT occurred, rash was not exacerbated within the RT field, and the main grade 3 toxicities were esophagitis (seven patients), anorexia (three), fatigue (three), and thrombosis (two). Surgery (R0 resection) was performed in 25 patients. Anastomotic leakage occurred in three patients: two recovered spontaneously and one successfully underwent re-operation. There were no deaths at 30 days and no treatment-related mortality after 12 months. Nineteen patients (68%) showed complete or near complete pathologic regression. CONCLUSION Adding cetuximab to preoperative chemoradiotherapy is feasible without increasing postoperative mortality. Phase III investigation has begun based on the high histopathologic response and R0 resection rate.

Clinical benefit and quality of life in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine versus gemcitabine alone: a randomized multicenter phase III clinical trial--SAKK 44/00-CECOG/PAN.1.3.001.

PURPOSE To compare clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality of life (QOL) in patients receiving gemcitabine (Gem) plus capecitabine (Cap) versus single-agent Gem for advanced/metastatic pancreatic cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive GemCap (oral Cap 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus Gem 1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks) or Gem (1,000 mg/m(2) in a 30-minute infusion weekly for 7 weeks, followed by a 1-week break, and then weekly for 3 weeks every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks or until progression. CBR criteria and QOL indicators were assessed over this period. CBR was defined as improvement from baseline for >or= 4 consecutive weeks in pain (pain intensity or analgesic consumption) and Karnofsky performance status, stability in one but improvement in the other, or stability in pain and performance status but improvement in weight. RESULTS Of 319 patients, 19% treated with GemCap and 20% treated with Gem experienced a CBR, with a median duration of 9.5 and 6.5 weeks, respectively (P < .02); 54% of patients treated with GemCap and 60% treated with Gem had no CBR (remaining patients were not assessable). There was no treatment difference in QOL (n = 311). QOL indicators were improving under chemotherapy (P < .05). These changes differed by the time to failure, with a worsening 1 to 2 months before treatment failure (all P < .05). CONCLUSION There is no indication of a difference in CBR or QOL between GemCap and Gem. Regardless of their initial condition, some patients experience an improvement in QOL on chemotherapy, followed by a worsening before treatment failure.

Highlights of the EORTC St. Gallen International Expert Consensus on the primary therapy of gastric, gastroesophageal and oesophageal cancer – Differential treatment strategies for subtypes of early gastroesophageal cancer

The 1st St. Gallen EORTC Gastrointestinal Cancer Conference 2012 Expert Panel clearly differentiated treatment and staging recommendations for the various gastroesophageal cancers. For locally advanced gastric cancer (≥T3N+), the preferred treatment modality was pre- and postoperative chemotherapy. The majority of panel members would also treat T2N+ or even T2N0 tumours with a similar approach mainly because pretherapeutic staging was considered highly unreliable. It was agreed that adenocarcinoma of the gastroesophageal junction (AEG) is classified best according to Siewert et al. Preoperative radiochemotherapy (RCT) is the preferred treatment for AEG type I and II tumours. For AEG type III, i.e. tumours which may be considered as gastric cancer, perioperative chemotherapy is the majority approach. For resectable squamous cell cancer of the oesophagus a clear majority recommended radiochemotherapy followed by surgery as optimal approach, irrespective of tumour size. In contrast, definitive RCT was judged appropriate for advanced tumours with extended lymph node involvement (N2) or for cancers of the upper oesophagus. Additional recommendations are presented on the use of endosonography, PET-CT scan and laparoscopy for staging and on the preferred approach to surgery.

Bevacizumab-associated osteonecrosis of the jaw

A 63-year-old woman suffered a local relapse of breast cancer. Baseline bone scan was normal and she had never received bisphosphonates previously. While being treated with liposomal doxorubicin and bevacizumab, she experienced left-sided maxillary pain after 1 month of therapy. A tooth infection was diagnosed and teeth number 25 and 26 were extracted. One month later, a mouth-antrum fistula was surgically revised and occluded. Shortly afterward the patient suffered from a trigeminal neuralgia. X-ray and computed tomography scan showed maxillary sinusitis and signs of osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ; Figure 1). The jaw lesion was carefully extirpated and the maxillary sinus was drained. Histological work-up verified the clinical diagnosis of ONJ, and an infiltration from the cancer was excluded. At 3 months of follow-up, the patient remains free of lesions and symptoms. Figure 1. Left-sided maxillary sinusitis and osteonecrosis of the jaw prior to surgical revision. ONJ came up in connection with the use of bisphosphonates. The pathogenesis of ONJ remains unclear. More than half of all cases occur after dentoalveolar surgery due to a malfunctioning healing process. [1] Suppression of bone turnover, and inhibition of angiogenesis are the most likely contributing factors. Bisphosphonates block angiogenesis through inhibition of cell proliferation and vessel sprouting, as well as by decreasing circulating vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels. [2] Bevacizumab, a recombinant humanized mAb, achieves the same effect on binding to VEGF. [3] Known toxic effects associated with bevacizumab include hypertension, proteinuria, hemorrhage, wound-healing complications, thromboembolic events, and gastrointestinal perforations. Recently two cases of ONJ related to bevacizumab were published. [4] Our patient is the third published case with a bevacizumab-associated ONJ. She developed a ‘classical’ ONJ (tooth infection followed by dentoalveolar surgery) without prior bisphosphonate exposure. Therefore other causes come into consideration. Infrequently, osteonecrosis has been recognized as a potential complication in patients having received radiotherapy or steroid-containing chemotherapy. Neither radiotherapy to the jaw nor corticosteroids had been administered in our patient. Liposomal doxorubicin is not known for causing ONJ. One patient receiving this drug developed necrosis of a distal phalange in the context of a severe hand–foot skin reaction. [5] Other possible contributing factors for ONJ, such as smoking, diabetes, vasculitis, or peripheral vascular disease, were not present in our patient. Therefore, we suspect bevacizumab, which hampers wound healing and possibly bone remodeling, as causative agent. If more cases of bevacizumab-associated ONJ are reported, special dental management (jaw x-ray, optimal dental health, and good oral hygiene) should become standard before patients start bevacizumab.

Phase II study of capecitabine and oxaliplatin given prior to and concurrently with preoperative pelvic radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer

This multicentre phase II study evaluated the efficacy and safety of preoperative capecitabine plus oxaliplatin and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (T3/T4 rectal adenocarcinoma with or without nodal involvement). Treatment consisted of one cycle of XELOX (capecitabine 1000 mg m−2 bid on days 1–14 and oxaliplatin 130 mg m−2 on day 1), followed by RT (1.8 Gy fractions 5 days per week for 5 weeks) plus CAPOX (capecitabine 825 mg m−2 bid on days 22–35 and 43–56, and oxaliplatin 50 mg m−2 on days 22, 29, 43 and 50). Surgery was recommended 5 weeks after completion of chemoradiotherapy. The primary end point was pathological complete tumour response (pCR). Sixty patients were enrolled. In the intent-to-treat population, the pCR rate was 23% (95% CI: 13–36%). 58 patients underwent surgery; R0 resection was achieved in 57 (98%) patients, including all 5 patients with T4 tumours. Sphincter preservation was achieved in 49 (84%) patients. Tumour and/or nodal downstaging was observed in 39 (65%) patients. The most common grade 3/4 adverse events were diarrhoea (20%) and lymphocytopaenia (43%). Preoperative capecitabine, oxaliplatin and RT achieved encouraging rates of pCR, R0 resection, sphincter preservation and tumour downstaging in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

Patient-reported outcomes with adjuvant exemestane versus tamoxifen in premenopausal women with early breast cancer undergoing ovarian suppression (TEXT and SOFT): a combined analysis of two phase 3 randomised trials

BACKGROUND The combined efficacy analysis of the TEXT and SOFT trials showed a significant disease-free survival benefit with exemestane plus ovarian function suppression (OFS) compared with tamoxifen plus OFS. We present patient-reported outcomes from these trials. METHODS Between Nov 7, 2003, and April 7, 2011, 4717 premenopausal women with hormone-receptor positive breast cancer were enrolled in TEXT or SOFT to receive unmasked adjuvant treatment with 5 years of exemestane plus OFS or tamoxifen plus OFS. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue triptorelin, bilateral oophorectomy, or bilateral ovarian irradiation were used to achieve OFS. Chemotherapy use was optional. Randomisation with permuted blocks was done with the International Breast Cancer Study Groups internet-based system and was stratified by chemotherapy use and status of lymph nodes. Patients completed a quality of life (QoL) form comprising several global and symptom indicators at baseline, every 6 months for 24 months, and then every year during years 3 to 6. Differences in the change of QoL from baseline between the two treatments were tested at 6 months, 24 months, and 60 months with mixed-models for repeated measures for each trial with and without chemotherapy and overall. The analysis was by intention to treat. At the time of analysis, the median follow-up was 5·7 years (IQR 3·7-6·9); treatment and follow-up of patients continue. The trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, as NCT00066703 (TEXT) and NCT00066690 (SOFT). FINDINGS Patients on tamoxifen plus OFS were more affected by hot flushes and sweats over 5 years than were those on exemestane plus OFS, although these symptoms improved. Patients on exemestane plus OFS reported more vaginal dryness, greater loss of sexual interest, and difficulties becoming aroused than did patients on tamoxifen plus OFS; these differences persisted over time. An increase in bone or joint pain was more pronounced, particularly in the short term, in patients on exemestane plus OFS than patients on tamoxifen plus OFS. Changes in global QoL indicators from baseline were small and similar between treatments over the 5 years. INTERPRETATION Overall, from a QoL perspective, there is no strong indication to favour either exemestane plus OFS or tamoxifen plus OFS. The distinct effects of the two treatments on the burden of endocrine symptoms need to be addressed with patients individually. FUNDING Pfizer, International Breast Cancer Study Group, and US National Cancer Institute.