Search

Better predictive markers are needed to deliver individualized care for patients with primary esophagogastric cancer. This exploratory study aimed to assess whether pre-treatment imaging parameters from dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) PET/CT are associated with response to neoadjuvant therapy or outcome. Following ethical approval and informed consent, prospective participants underwent dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and 18F-FDG PET/CT prior to neoadjuvant chemotherapy/chemoradiotherapy ± surgery. Vascular dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI and metabolic 18F-FDG PET parameters were compared by tumor characteristics using Mann Whitney U test and with pathological response (Mandard tumor regression grade), recurrence-free and overall survival using logistic regression modelling, adjusting for predefined clinical variables. 39 of 47 recruited participants (30 males; median age 65 years, IQR: 54, 72 years) were included in the final analysis. The tumor vascular-metabolic ratio was higher in patients remaining node positive following neoadjuvant therapy (median tumor peak enhancement/SUV max ratio: 0.052 vs. 0.023, p = 0.02). In multivariable analysis adjusted for age, gender, pre-treatment tumor and nodal stage, peak enhancement (highest gadolinium concentration value prior to contrast washout) was associated with pathological tumor regression grade. The odds of response decreased by 5% for each 0.01 unit increase (OR 0.95; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.00, p = 0.04). No 18F-FDG PET/CT parameters were predictive of pathological tumor response. No relationships between pre-treatment imaging and survival were identified. Pre-treatment esophagogastric tumor vascular and metabolic parameters may provide additional information in assessing response to neoadjuvant therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Peri-operative chemotherapy improves survival in patients with locally advanced oesophago-gastric adenocarcinoma. Two regimens with proven survival benefits are epirubicin, cisplatin plus capecitabine or fluorouracil (Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy, MAGIC) and fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT). This study aimed to compare the effect of these regimens on survival (primary aim) and pathological response, surgical complications, adverse events and chemotherapy completion rates. Cohort study including 946 patients treated with FLOT (n = 257) or MAGIC (n = 689) who underwent surgical resection for oesophageal (n = 743) or gastric (n = 203) adenocarcinoma between 2002 and 2021 at St Thomas' Hospital or The Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. Survival analysis was performed using multivariable Cox regression, providing hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for age, sex, clinical T-stage, clinical N-stage, tumour grade and presence of signet ring cells. Patients treated with FLOT had better overall survival (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.50–0.94) and disease-free survival (HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.58–0.98) than MAGIC. Patients treated with FLOT were more likely to have a complete pathological response (9.5% FLOT versus 5.5% MAGIC, p = 0.027) and were less likely to have a positive resection margin (19.1% FLOT versus 32.2% MAGIC, p < 0.001). The stratified analysis revealed similar results for oesophageal and gastric tumours. Rates of surgical complications, chemotherapy-associated adverse events and completion were similarly distributed between treatment groups. Patients with oesophageal or gastric adenocarcinoma treated with peri-operative FLOT had better survival and pathological response than those treated with peri-operative MAGIC. Rates of surgical complications, adverse events and chemotherapy completion were comparable. • Better survival in patients treated with fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin and docetaxel. • Better pathological and radiological response to chemotherapy with FLOT. • Higher rates of complete pathological response in patients treated with FLOT. • Patients treated with FLOT were less likely to have a positive resection margin. • Comparable rates of surgical complications, adverse events and chemo completion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The main toxicity of irinotecan in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) is delayed diarrhoea. Intestinal SN-38, released by deconjugation of the parent glucuronide excreted into the bile or produced in situ by intestinal carboxylesterase, is toxic to the intestinal epithelium. The canalicular transport of irinotecan and SN-38G is mediated by ABCC2 (MRP2) and ABCB1 (MDR1) which are both inhibited by ciclosporin. We tested whether irinotecan and ciclosporin was non-inferior for anti-cancer efficacy and superior for toxicity compared with single-agent irinotecan. Methods: Six hundred and seventy-two patients with advanced, measurable CRC following prior fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy were randomised to either irinotecan 3-weekly 350mg/m2 (or 300mg/m2 if age >70 or performance status (PS)=2) or 3-weekly irinotecan at 140mg/m2 (120mg/m2 if age >70 or PS=2) with ciclosporin 3mg/kg t.d.s. for three days by mouth starting on the morning before irinotecan. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients alive and progression-free at 12 weeks. The key secondary end-point was the incidence of grade ⩾3 diarrhoea within 12 weeks of randomisation. Results: The proportion of patients progression-free at 12 weeks with irinotecan was 53.4% compared to 47.2% with irinotecan plus ciclosporin (difference=−6.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [−13.8%, 1.3%]). Since the lower limit of the 95% CI crossed the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of −10.6%, non-inferiority of irinotecan plus ciclosporin compared to irinotecan alone was not statistically demonstrated. 15.0% patients developed severe diarrhoea on irinotecan compared to 13.8% on irinotecan plus ciclosporin, a non-significant difference. Interpretation: The pharmacokinetic biomodulation of irinotecan using oral ciclosporin does not improve the therapeutic index of irinotecan in advanced CRC. Funding: The trial was funded by Cancer Research UK and supported by Amgen Pharma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Therapeutic antibodies targeting EGFR have activity in advanced colorectal cancer, but results from clinical trials are inconsistent and the population in which most benefit is derived is uncertain. Our aim was to assess the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan in pretreated advanced colorectal cancer. Methods: In this open-label, randomised trial, we enrolled patients who had advanced colorectal cancer progressing after fluoropyrimidine treatment with or without oxaliplatin from 60 centres in the UK. From December, 2006 until June, 2008, molecularly unselected patients were recruited to a three-arm design including irinotecan (control), irinotecan plus ciclosporin, and irinotecan plus panitumumab (IrPan) groups. From June 10, 2008, in response to new data, the trial was amended to a prospectively stratified design, restricting panitumumab randomisation to patients with KRAS wild-type tumours; the results of the comparison between the irinotcan and IrPan groups are reported here. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence (stratified by previous EGFR targeted therapy and then minimised by centre, WHO performance status, previous oxaliplatin, previous bevacizumab, previous dose modifications, and best previous response) to randomly allocate patients to either irinotecan or IrPan. Patients in both groups received 350 mg/m2 intravenous irinotecan every 3 weeks (300 mg/m2 if aged ≥70 years or a performance status of 2); patients in the IrPan group also received intravenous panitumumab 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients who had not received previous EGFR targeted therapy, analysed by intention to treat. Tumour DNA was pyrosequenced for KRAS c.146, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations, and predefined molecular subgroups were analysed for interaction with the effect of panitumumab. This study is registered, number ISRCTN93248876. Results: Between Dec 4, 2006, and Aug 31, 2010, 1198 patients were enrolled, of whom 460 were included in the primary population of patients with KRAS c.12–13,61 wild-type tumours and no previous EGFR targeted therapy. 230 patients were randomly allocated to irinotecan and 230 to IrPan. There was no difference in overall survival between groups (HR 1·01, 95% CI 0·83–1·23; p=0·91), but individuals in the IrPan group had longer progression-free survival (0·78, 0·64–0·95; p=0·015) and a greater number of responses (79 [34%] patients vs 27 [12%]; p<0·0001) than did individuals in the irinotecan group. Grade 3 or worse diarrhoea (64 [29%] of 219 patients vs 39 [18%] of 218 patients), skin toxicity (41 [19%] vs none), lethargy (45 [21]% vs 24 [11%]), infection (42 [19%] vs 22 [10%]) and haematological toxicity (48 [22%] vs 27 [12%]) were reported more commonly in the IrPan group than in the irinotecan group. We recorded five treatment-related deaths, two in the IrPan group and three in the irinotecan group. Interpretation: Adding panitumumab to irinotecan did not improve the overall survival of patients with wild-type KRAS tumours. Further refinement of molecular selection is needed for substantial benefits to be derived from EGFR targeting agents. Funding: Cancer Research UK, Amgen Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]