Search

Background: Recommendations for research articles include the use of the term sex when reporting biological factors and gender for identities or psychosocial or cultural factors. There is an increasing awareness of incorporating the effect of sex and gender on cancer outcomes. Thus, these types of analyses for advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma are relevant., Patients and Methods: Patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma from the Spanish AGAMENON-SEOM registry treated with first-line combination chemotherapy were selected. Epidemiology, characteristics of the disease, treatment selection, and results were examined according to sex., Results: This analysis included 3274 advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma patients treated with combination chemotherapy between 2008 and 2021: 2313 (70.7%) men and 961 (29.3%) women. Tumors in females were more frequently HER2-negative (67.8% versus 60.8%; P < 0.0001), grade 3 (45.4% versus 36.8%; P < 0.001), diffuse (43.3% versus 26.5%; P < 0.0001), and signet ring cell histology (40.5 versus 23.9%; P < 0.0001). Peritoneal spread was more common in women (58.6% versus 38.9%; P < 0.0001), while liver burden was lower (58.9% versus 71.1%; P < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in treatment recommendation. Treatment doses, density, and duration were comparable between sexes. Women experienced more diarrhea (46% versus 37%; P < 0.0001), neutropenia (51% versus 43%; P < 0.0001), and anemia (62% versus 57%; P < 0.0001). After a median 59.6-month follow-up [95% confidence interval (CI) 54.5-70.8], there were no statistically significant differences between the sexes in progression-free survival [6.21 months (95% CI 5.8-6.5 months) versus 6.08 months (95% CI 5.8-6.3 months); log-rank test, χ 2  = 0.1, 1 df, P = 0.8] or in overall survival [10.6 months (95% CI 9.8-11.1 months) versus 10.9 months (95% CI 10.4-11.4 months); log-rank test: χ 2  = 0.6, 1 df, P = 0.5]., Conclusion: This sex analysis of patients with advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma from the AGAMENON-SEOM registry receiving first-line polychemotherapy found no differences in survival. Although women had worse prognostic histopathology, metastatic disease pattern, and greater toxicity, treatment allocation and compliance were equivalent., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: We used European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) data from the LUME-Colon 1 study to illustrate different methods of statistical analysis for health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and compared the results., Patients and Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive nintedanib 200 mg twice daily plus best supportive care (n = 386) or matched placebo plus best supportive care (n = 382). Five methods (mean treatment difference averaged over time, using a mixed-effects growth curve model; mixed-effects models for repeated measurements (MMRM); time-to-deterioration (TTD); status change; and responder analysis) were used to analyze EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS)/QoL and scores from functional scales., Results: Overall, GHS/QoL and physical functioning deteriorated over time. Mean treatment difference slightly favored nintedanib over placebo for physical functioning (adjusted mean, 2.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97-4.34) and social functioning (adjusted mean, 2.62; 95% CI, 0.66-4.47). GHS/QoL was numerically better with nintedanib versus placebo (adjusted mean, 1.61; 95% CI, -0.004 to 3.27). MMRM analysis had similar results, with better physical functioning in the nintedanib group at all timepoints. There was no significant delay in GHS/QoL deterioration (10%) and physical functioning (16%) with nintedanib versus placebo (TTD analysis). Status change analysis showed a higher proportion of patients with markedly improved GHS/QoL and physical functioning in the nintedanib versus placebo groups. Responder analysis showed a similar, less pronounced pattern., Conclusion: Analyses of EORTC QLQ-C30 data showed that HRQoL was not impaired by treatment with nintedanib versus placebo. Analysis and interpretation of HRQoL endpoints should consider symptom type and severity and course of disease., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Angiogenesis is critical to colorectal cancer (CRC) growth and metastasis. Phase I/II studies have demonstrated the efficacy of nintedanib, a triple angiokinase inhibitor, in patients with metastatic CRC. This global, randomized, phase III study investigated the efficacy and safety of nintedanib in patients with refractory CRC after failure of standard therapies., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-1, with histologically/cytologically confirmed metastatic/locally advanced CRC adenocarcinoma unamenable to surgery and/or radiotherapy) were randomized 1 : 1 to receive nintedanib (200 mg twice daily) or placebo (twice daily), until disease progression or undue toxicity. Patients were stratified by previous regorafenib, time from onset of metastatic disease to randomization, and region. Co-primary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) by central review. Secondary end points included objective tumor response and disease control by central review., Results: From October 2014 to January 2016, 768 patients were randomized; 765 were treated (nintedanib n = 384; placebo n = 381). Median follow-up was 13.4 months (interquartile range 11.1-15.7). OS was not improved [median OS 6.4 months with nintedanib versus 6.0 months with placebo; hazard ratio (HR), 1.01; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.86-1.19; P = 0.8659]. There was a significant but modest increase in PFS with nintedanib versus placebo (median PFS 1.5 versus 1.4 months, respectively; HR 0.58; 95% CI 0.49-0.69; P < 0.0001). There were no complete or partial responses. Adverse events (AEs) occurred in 97% of 384 nintedanib-treated patients and 93% of 381 placebo-treated patients. The most frequent grade ≥3 AEs were liver-related AEs (nintedanib 16%; placebo 8%) and fatigue (nintedanib 9%; placebo 6%)., Conclusions: The study failed to meet both co-primary end points. Nintedanib did not improve OS and was associated with a significant but modest increase in PFS versus placebo. Nintedanib was well tolerated., Clinicaltrials.gov Number: NCT02149108 (LUME-Colon 1).

Introduction: The effect of surgery for metastases in patients with esophagogastric cancer is unknown, given the lack of randomized clinical trials; likewise, the criteria for selecting eligible patients remain to be determined., Methods: This registry evaluates the results of patients with advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach, distal esophagus, or gastro-esophageal junction from 32 centers. To assess selection criteria and prognostic factors, a state arrival extended Markov proportional hazards (PH) model was used., Results: 1792 subjects were analyzed, 5% of whom (n = 92) underwent surgery for metastasis. The most common surgeries were peritoneal (29%), hepatic (24%), and distant lymph nodes (11%). Subjects chosen for metastasectomy had higher survival rates, HR 0.34 (95% CI, 0.06-0.80, p = 0.021). Patients who underwent surgery had a mOS since metastasectomy of 16.7 months (95% CI, 12.5-22.4). The 1- and 3-year relapse rates following R0 resection were 58% and 65%, respectively. Median time since R0 metastasectomy until relapse was 8.4 months (95% CI, 7.6-23.7). The 3-year OS after surgery was 30.6% (95% CI, 19.3-40.4). Duration of chemotherapy prior to surgery (months) increased mortality (HR 1.04 [95% CI, 1.01-1.07]), p = 0.009. The only significant interaction involved the use of anti-HER2 therapy., Conclusion: The AGAMENON registry suggests that subjects with limited metastatic disease, selected on a clinical basis, can benefit from early surgeries. Prospective trials are needed to confirm these data., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd, BASO ~ The Association for Cancer Surgery, and the European Society of Surgical Oncology. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with axitinib versus placebo following induction therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)., Patients and Methods: In this double-blinded, phase II trial, patients with mCRC who had not progressed after 6 to 8 months of first-line chemotherapy were randomized to receive axitinib (5 mg twice a day) (arm A) or placebo (arm B)., Results: Forty-nine patients were included: 25 in arm A and 24 in arm B. The median follow-up was 26.07 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 18.44-31.73 months). Progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 6 months was 40.00% (95% CI, 21.28%-58.12%) in the axitinib arm versus 8.33% (95% CI, 1.44%-23.30%) in the placebo arm (P = .0141). The median PFS was statistically significantly longer in the axitinib group than in the placebo group (4.96 vs. 3.16 months; hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.25-0.86; P = .0116). Median overall survival was also longer in the axitinib arm but did not reach statistical significance (27.61 vs. 19.99 months; hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.31-1.48; P = .3279). Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related toxicities were experienced by 7 patients (28%) in cohort A and 1 patient (4%) in cohort B (P = .0488). The most frequent grade 3 to 4 treatment-related toxicities were hypertension, diarrhea, and asthenia. There were no toxic deaths. The study was prematurely closed because of slow recruitment., Conclusions: In our study, maintenance treatment with axitinib monotherapy showed a significant increase in PFS and a good safety profile. Axitinib should be further explored as a possible option for first-line chemotherapy maintenance treatment in patients with mCRC., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)