Search

Background: High rates of venous thromboembolic events (VTEs), mainly in advanced disease, are reported for patients with cancer of the upper gastrointestinal tract (stomach, pancreas) and for treatment with cisplatin.Methods: Exploratory analysis of VTEs reported as adverse events and serious adverse events in a prospective, randomised, multicentre, multimodal phase III trial according to VTEs reported as adverse events and severe adverse events. Patients with resectable oesophageal cancer (T2N1-3, T3-4aNx) were randomized to 2 cycles of chemotherapy with docetaxel 75 mg/m2, cisplatin 75 mg/m2 followed by chemo-radiotherapy (CRT) and subsequent surgery (control arm) or the same treatment with addition of cetuximab (investigational arm).Results: VTEs occurred in 26 of 300 patients included in the trial, resulting in an incidence rate (IR) of 8.7% [95% CI 5.7-12.4%]. A total of 29 VTEs were reported:13 (45%) VTEs were grade 2, 13 (45%) grade 3 and three (10%) fatal grade 5 events. 72% (21/29) of all VTEs occurred preoperatively (IR 6.7%): 14% (4/29) during chemotherapy and 59% (17/29) during CRT. In multivariable logistic regression only adenocarcinoma (IR 11.1%, 21/189 patients) compared to squamous cell cancer (IR 4.5%, 5/111 patients) was significantly associated with VTE-risk during treatment, OR 2.9 [95%CI 1.0-8.4], p = 0.046. Baseline Khorana risk score was 0 in 73% (19/26), 1-2 in 23% (6/26) and 3 in only 4% (1/26) of patients with VTEs.Conclusion: A high incidence of VTEs during preoperative therapy of resectable oesophageal cancer is observed in this analysis, especially in patients with adenocarcinoma. The role of prophylactic anticoagulation during neoadjuvant therapy in resectable esophageal cancer should be further evaluated in prospective clinical trials. According to our data, which are in line with other analysis of VTE-risk in patients with oesophageal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy and CRT, prophylactic anticoagluation could be considered balanced against individual bleeding risks, especially in patients with adenocarcinoma. In addition to the established risk factors, oesophageal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant cisplatin-based therapy may be regarded as a high-risk situation for VTEs.Trial Registration: Registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01107639, on 21 April 2010. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: KRAS mutation testing is mandatory in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer prior to treatment with anti-EGFR antibodies as patients whose tumors express mutant KRAS do not benefit from these agents. Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has recently approved two in-vitro diagnostics kits for determination of KRAS status, there is generally no consensus on the preferred method and new tests are continuously being developed. Most of these techniques focus on the hotspot mutations at codons 12 and 13 of the KRAS gene.Methods: We describe a two-step approach to KRAS codon 12/13 mutation testing involving high resolution melting analysis (HRM) followed by pyrosequencing using the Therascreen KRAS Pyro kit (Qiagen) of only those samples that are not clearly identified as KRAS wildtype or mutant by HRM. First, we determined KRAS status in a panel of 61 colorectal cancer samples using both methods to compare technical performance and concordance of results. Subsequently, we evaluated practicability and costs of our concept in an independent set of 120 colorectal cancer samples in a routine diagnostic setting.Results: HRM and pyrosequencing appeared to be equally sensitive, allowing for clear detection of mutant alleles at a mutant allele frequency ≥12.5 %. Pyrosequencing yielded more exploitable results due to lower input requirements and a lower rate of analysis failures. KRAS codon 12/13 status was called concordantly for 98.2 % (56/57) of all samples that could be successfully analysed by both methods and 100 % (19/19) of samples that were identified mutant by HRM. Reviewing the actual effort and expenses for KRAS mutation testing in our laboratory revealed, that the selective use of pyrosequencing for only those samples that could not be analysed by HRM increased the fraction of valid results from 87.5 % for HRM alone to 99.2 % (119/120) while allowing for a net reduction of operational costs of >75 % compared to pyrosequencing alone.Conclusions: Combination of HRM and pyrosequencing in a two-step diagnostic procedure constitutes a reliable and economic analysis platform for KRAS mutation testing in colorectal cancer in a clinical setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]