Search

A woman in her 20s with no medical history was diagnosed with bulky stage II classic Hodgkin's lymphoma after an 8-week history of shortness of breath, cough and lethargy. A regimen of doxorubicin (Adriamycin), bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine (ABVD) was commenced with six cycles planned. During the first cycle, the patient was profoundly hypertensive. She then suffered two self-terminating tonic-clonic seizures.Examination and investigations diagnosed posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome (PRES), which resolved completely in 11 days with strict blood pressure control and withholding chemotherapy. Treatment was further complicated by anthracycline-induced cardiomyopathy, requiring a switch in regimen to gemcitabine BVD.The patient made a full recovery from neurology and cardiology perspectives and completed six cycles of chemotherapy, achieving a complete metabolic response by the tumour. We illustrate the case, describe differential diagnoses and management of PRES, its association with chemotherapy and the successful chemotherapy rechallenge., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Treatment with CHOP-based chemotherapy with consolidative radiotherapy (CRT) for primary mediastinal B cell lymphoma (PMBCL) has been the standard approach in the pre-rituximab era. Overtreatment with CRT for patients who may have already been cured by primary immunochemotherapy in the rituximab era is a significant concern due to the long-term toxicity associated with radiotherapy. Positron emission tomography (PET) may help to identify patients who may not benefit from further CRT., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients treated at the Royal Marsden Hospital between 2003 and 2020 for PMBCL to assess CRT use and survival outcomes., Results: Forty-three patients were identified, with 95% of the patients receiving R-CHOP. CRT was given in 5 patients. Five-year event-free survival was 79% (95% confidence interval: 64%-89%) and 5-year overall survival was 88% (95% confidence interval: 73%-95%). Seven of 9 patients with DS4 did not receive CRT and instead monitored with serial PET scans. None of these 7 patients relapsed in the mediastinum., Conclusion: CRT may be omitted in patients with a negative end of treatment PET scans; however, careful observation may also obviate the need for CRT in PET positive patients., Competing Interests: Disclosure DC has received research funding from MedImmune/Astra Zeneca, Clovis, Eli Lilly, 4SC, Bayer, Celgene, NIHR EME, Leap, Roche and is on the OVIBIO scientific advisory board. IC is on the advisory board for Eli-Lily, Bristol Meyers Squibb, MSD, Roche, Merck-Serono, Astra-Zeneca, OncXerna, Pierre Fabre, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Astella, GSK, Sotio, Eisai, Daiichi-Sankyo, Taiho, Servier, Seagen, Turning Point Therapeutics, he received research funding from Eli-Lilly, Janssen-Cilag and has received honorarium from Eli Lilly, Eisai, Servier, Roche and Bristol Meyers Squibb. MG has received speakers fees from Incyte. AK has received honoraria Abbvie, ASTEX, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Janssen, Kyowa Kiirin. DE-S has received honoraria from Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Gilead, Janssen, Lily, Roche, Takeda, conference/travel support from Abbvie, Novartis, Roche and is on the advisory board for Abbvie, ASTEX, AstraZeneca, Beigene, Janssen, Kyowa Kiirin. SI is on the advisory board for Lilly, Kite Gilead, Takeda, receives honoraria from Takeda, Janssen, received conference/travel support from AbbVie, Takeda, Janssen., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: The BILCAP study described a modest benefit for capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for curatively resected biliary tract cancer (BTC), and capecitabine has become the standard of care. We present the long-term data and novel exploratory subgroup analyses., Methods: This randomized, controlled, multicenter, phase III study recruited patients age 18 years or older with histologically confirmed cholangiocarcinoma or muscle-invasive gallbladder cancer after resection with curative intent and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of < 2. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral capecitabine (1,250 mg/m 2 twice daily on days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle, for eight cycles) or observation. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). This study is registered with EudraCT 2005-003318-13., Results: Between March 15, 2006, and December 4, 2014, 447 patients were enrolled; 223 patients with BTC resected with curative intent were randomly assigned to the capecitabine group and 224 to the observation group. At the data cutoff of January 21, 2021, the median follow-up for all patients was 106 months (95% CI, 98 to 108). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the median OS was 49.6 months (95% CI, 35.1 to 59.1) in the capecitabine group compared with 36.1 months (95% CI, 29.7 to 44.2) in the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.06). In a protocol-specified sensitivity analysis, adjusting for minimization factors, nodal status, grade, and sex, the OS hazard ratio was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.59 to 0.94). We further describe the prognostic impact of R status, grade, nodal status, and sex., Conclusion: This long-term analysis supports the previous analysis, suggesting that capecitabine can improve OS in patients with resected BTC when used as adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery and should be considered as the standard of care., Competing Interests: John BridgewaterHonoraria: Merck Serono, ServierConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Serono, Servier, Roche, Bayer, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Basilea, Taiho OncologySpeakers' Bureau: Celgene, Amgen, Bristol Myers SquibbResearch Funding: Amgen, Incyte (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: MSD Oncology, Merck Serono, Servier, Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, Bristol Myers Squibb Daniel H. PalmerConsulting or Advisory Role: BMS (Inst), MSD, AstraZeneca, Eisai, Sirtex Medical, Roche, Boston Scientific, ViatrisResearch Funding: BMS, Bayer, Sirtex Medical, AstraZeneca, NuCana Darius MirzaStock and Other Ownership Interests: OrganOx Ltd Pippa CorrieHonoraria: Novartis, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Bristol Myers SquibbConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Incyte, Pierre Fabre, Roche, MicrobioticaSpeakers' Bureau: Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Bristol Myers SquibbResearch Funding: MSD (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Array BioPharma (Inst), Celgene (Inst), Halozyme (Inst), Iovance Biotherapeutics (Inst), Lilly (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme Stephen FalkStock and Other Ownership Interests: GlaxoSmithKlineConsulting or Advisory Role: BMSSpeakers' Bureau: Merck Serono, Servier, AmgenResearch Funding: Gilead Sciences (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: CelgeneOther Relationship: Servier Harpreet WasanHonoraria: Merck KGaA, Celgene, Sirtex Medical, Servier, Array BioPharma, Roche/Genentech, ERYTECH Pharma, Incyte, ZymeworksConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche Pharma AG, ERYTECH Pharma, Shire, Incyte, Sirtex medical, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, BayerSpeakers' Bureau: Sirtex Medical, Celgene, Merck KGaA, Servier, IncyteResearch Funding: Sirtex Medical (Inst), Merck KGaA (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst) Paul RossStock and Other Ownership Interests: Perci HealthHonoraria: Sirtex Medical, Roche, AstraZeneca, MerckConsulting or Advisory Role: Sirtex Medical, Roche, AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boston ScientificSpeakers' Bureau: Amgen, Merck, Servier, Boston Scientific, Roche, EisaiResearch Funding: Sanofi (Inst), Bayer (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Ipsen Lucy WallResearch Funding: Merck Serono Jonathan WadsleyConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Roche (Inst), Ipsen (Inst), Bayer (Inst)Speakers' Bureau: Genzyme, EisaiResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Genzyme Thomas R. EvansHonoraria: Eisai (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), NuCana (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Ascelia (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Bicycle Therapeutics (Inst), Medivir (Inst)Consulting or Advisory Role: Karus Therapeutics (Inst)Speakers' Bureau: Eisai (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), NuCana (Inst), United Medical (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Medivir (Inst)Research Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), BeiGene (Inst), Basilea (Inst), Celgene (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), MiNA Therapeutics (Inst), Bicycle Therapeutics (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Janssen (Inst), Johnson & Johnson (Inst), Verastem (Inst), Roche/Genentech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Iovance Biotherapeutics (Inst), Medivir (Inst), Sanofi/Aventis (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Plexxikon (Inst), NuCana (Inst), Sierra Pharma (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Halozyme (Inst), CytomX Therapeutics (Inst), Vertex (Inst), Athenex (Inst), Adaptimmune (Inst), Immunocore (Inst), Modulate Pharma (Inst), Berg Pharma (Inst), Starpharma (Inst), BiolineRx (Inst), iOnctura (Inst), UCB (Inst), Sapience Therapeutics (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst)Expert Testimony: Medivir (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Pierre Fabre, Eisai, NuCanaOther Relationship: Genmab (Inst) Deborah StockenResearch Funding: Abbott Diabetes (Inst) Yuk Ting MaHonoraria: Boston ScientificConsulting or Advisory Role: Eisai, Roche, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Ipsen, Faron PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: Eisai (Inst), AstraZeneca/Merck (Inst), Faron Pharmaceuticals (Inst), MINA Therapeutics (Inst) John NeoptolemosResearch Funding: Dietmar Hopp Stiftung (Inst), Stiftung Deutsche Krebshilfe (Inst), Heidelberger Stiftung Chirurgie (Inst) Timothy IvesonHonoraria: Servier, AmgenConsulting or Advisory Role: Servier, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pierre Fabre, MSD Oncology David CunninghamStock and Other Ownership Interests: OVIBIOConsulting or Advisory Role: OVIBIOResearch Funding: Celgene (Inst), MedImmune (Inst), Bayer (Inst), 4SC (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Roche (Inst), Leap Oncology (Inst) Juan W. ValleHonoraria: IpsenConsulting or Advisory Role: Ipsen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Agios, Pfizer, PCI Biotech, Incyte, Keocyt, QED Therapeutics, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Genoscience Pharma, Mundipharma EDO GmbH, Wren Laboratories, NuCana, SERVIER, Debiopharm Group, Imaging Equipment Limited, Hutchison MediPharma, Zymeworks, Aptitude Health, Sirtex Medical, Baxter, Medivir, Cantargia ABSpeakers' Bureau: Novartis, Ipsen, NuCana, Imaging Equipment Limited, Mylan, Incyte, ServierTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: NuCana, Lilly, Roche, AstraZeneca/MedImmuneNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Patients with high-risk diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) have poor outcomes following first-line cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone, and rituximab (R-CHOP). Evidence shows chemotherapy and immune checkpoint blockade can increase antitumor efficacy. This study investigated durvalumab, a programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitor, combined with R-CHOP or lenalidomide + R-CHOP (R 2 -CHOP) in newly diagnosed high-risk DLBCL. Patients received durvalumab 1125 mg every 21 days for 2-8 cycles + R-CHOP (non-activated B-cell [ABC] subtype) or R 2 -CHOP (ABC), then durvalumab consolidation (1500 mg every 28 days). Of 46 patients, 43 received R-CHOP and three R 2 -CHOP. All patients had the high-risk disease; 14 (30.4%) and eight (17.4%) had double- or triple-hit DLBCL, respectively. Following induction, 20/37 (54.1%) patients receiving durvalumab + R-CHOP achieved complete response (CR), and seven (18.9%) partial response (PR); 25 (67.6% [95% CI 50.2-82.0]) continued to consolidation and were progression-free at 12 months. Among efficacy-evaluable patients with double- or triple-hit DLBCL (n = 12), five achieved CR and five PR. Adverse events were generally consistent with R-CHOP. Correlative analyses did not identify conclusive biomarkers of response. Durvalumab + R-CHOP is feasible in DLBCL with no new safety signals, but the combination provided no greater benefit than R-CHOP., (© 2021. Japanese Society of Hematology.)

Background: Perioperative FLOT (fluorouracil plus leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) chemotherapy is a recent regimen used to treat resectable oesophagogastric (OG) adenocarcinoma, associated with improved overall survival versus earlier chemotherapy strategies. This study compared short-term perioperative morbidity in a large tertiary centre series of FLOT to a matched cohort receiving ECX/ECF (epirubicin, cisplatin, capecitabine (X) or 5-fluorouracil (F))., Methods: Consecutive patients completing four perioperative cycles of FLOT and proceeding to surgery with resectable OG adenocarcinoma were included. This was matched to patients from a historic ECX/ECF cohort from the same institution. A propensity score was calculated, and a secondary analysis using a propensity-matched group performed., Results: Cohorts were matched by tumour location and operations performed. In total there were 129 (64.5 per cent) oesophageal and 71 (35.5 per cent) gastric resections (FLOT 57 oesophageal, 43 gastric; ECF/ECX 64 oesophageal, 36 gastric). The median length of stay after surgery was 12 days in the FLOT group versus 15 in ECF/ECX (P = 0.035). There were no significant differences in overall perioperative complications and, specifically, no difference in OG anastomotic leaks, analysed by site (gastric (FLOT 0/79 (0 per cent) versus ECX 2/79 (2.5 per cent); P = 0.123), oesophageal (FLOT 4/121 (3.3 per cent) versus ECX 5/121 (4.1 per cent); P = 0.868) or type of surgery (open FLOT 1/121 (0.8 per cent) versus ECX 3/121 (2.5 per cent); P = 0.368; minimally invasive (FLOT 3/121 (2.5 per cent) versus ECX 2/121 (1.7 per cent); P = 0.555)). There was no statistical difference in leak-related return to theatre, 30-day (FLOT 0 (0 per cent) versus ECX 3/100 (3.0 per cent); P = 0.081), or 90-day (FLOT 0 (0 per cent) versus ECX 2/100 (2.0 per cent); P = 0.155) mortality., Conclusion: In terms of surgical complications, FLOT and ECX/ECF were equally safe in patients undergoing resection for OG adenocarcinoma., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)

Background: Matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP9) selectively cleaves extracellular matrix proteins contributing to tumor growth and an immunosuppressive microenvironment. This study evaluated andecaliximab (ADX), an inhibitor of MMP9, in combination with nivolumab (NIVO), for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer., Methods: Phase 2, open-label, randomized multicenter study evaluating the efficacy, safety, and pharmacodynamics of ADX+NIVO versus NIVO in patients with pretreated metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs). We explored the correlation of efficacy outcomes with biomarkers., Results: 144 patients were randomized; 141 were treated: 81% white, 69% male, median age was 61 years in the ADX+NIVO group and 62 years in the NIVO-alone group. The ORR was 10% (95% CI 4 to 19) in the ADX+NIVO group and 7% (95% CI 2 to 16) in the NIVO-alone group (OR: 1.5 (95% CI 0.4 to 6.1; p=0.8)). There was no response or survival benefit associated with adding ADX. AE rates were comparable in both treatment groups; the most common AEs were fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, and vomiting. Programmed cell death ligand 1, interferon-γ (IFN), and intratumoral CD8+ cell density were not associated with treatment response or survival. The gene signature most correlated with shorter survival was the epithelial-to-mesenchymal gene signature; high transforming growth factor (TGF)-β fibrosis score was negatively associated with OS (p=0.036). Gene expression analysis of baseline tumors comparing long-(1+ years) and short-term (<1 year) survivors showed that GRB7 was associated with survival beyond 1 year. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive disease was associated with significantly longer survival (p=0.0077). Median tumor mutation burden (TMB) was 2.01; patients with TMB ≥median had longer survival (p=0.0025) and improved PFS (p=0.016). Based on a model accounting for TMB, TGF-β fibrosis, and HER2, TMB was the main driver of survival in this patient population., Conclusion: Combination of ADX+NIVO had a favorable safety profile but did not improve efficacy compared with NIVO alone in patients with pretreated metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. HER2 positivity, higher TMB or GRB7, and lower TGF-β were associated with improved outcomes., Trial Registration Number: NCT02864381 or GS-US-296--2013., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MAS has received institutional funding from Bristol Meyers Squibb, Oncolys Biopharma, and Merck, DCu has received grants from MedImmune, Clovis, Eli Lilly, 4SC, Bayer, Celgene, Leap, and Roche, and has participated in a scientific advisory board for OVIBIO. J-PM has received honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme. J-PM, reports honoraria from MSD, EVC reports grants from Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Ipsen, Lily, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, and Servier, and has served as a consultant for Array, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Biocartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Daiichi, Halozyme, GSK, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier, Sirtex, Taiho. ZW reports research support from BMS, Gilead Sciences, Novartis, Plexxikon, and has served as a consultant for AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi, Five Prime, Gilead, Lily, Macrogenic, and Merck. MZ has nothing to disclose. DI has nothing to disclose. JL is an employee of Gilead Sciences, and owns stock in Gilead Sciences, and Roche. SDP is an employee of Gilead Sciences, Inc., and owns stock in Gilead Science, and Amgen. CBB, DT, EE, JH, JZ, K-WL, PB, ST are employees of and own stock in Gilead Sciences. DCa has received consulting fees from Genentech, Roche, Eli Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, BMS, Ono Pharma USA, Five Prime, Seattle Genetics, Amgen, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Astellas Pharma, Gritstone Bio, Pieris Pharmaceutical, Zymeworks, Basilea Pharmaceutica, QED Group, Arcus Biosciences, Foundation Medicine, Pierian Biosciences, Silverback Therapeutics, Servier Pharmaceuticals, Blueprint Medicines, Tempus, Guardant Health, Archer Biosciences, and Natera, and has received honoraria from Genentech, Roche, Eli Lilly, Merck, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Tempus, and Guardant Health., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Most patients presenting with oesophageal cancer do so with advanced disease not suitable for surgery. However, there are examples of encouraging survival following surgery in highly selected patients who respond well to chemotherapy., Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who presented with advanced but nonvisceral metastatic oesophageal cancer. Consecutive patients on a prolonged primary chemotherapy pathway who underwent surgical resection following a favourable response to chemotherapy were included. Survival and recurrence rates were analysed using Cox regression, providing hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)., Results: A total of 57 patients included in the cohort operated between 2007 and 2015, the overall median survival was 44 months and the 5-year survival was 42%. Prechemotherapy cN0/cN1 (HR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.12-0.62) conferred an independent survival advantage compared to cN2 and cN3 disease. Poor differentiation (HR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.11-5.42), R1 resection (HR: 2.43, 95% CI: 1.14-5.19) and advanced nodal status (HR: 3.28, 95% CI: 1.44-7.47) predicted worse survival on univariable analysis. Poor differentiation (HR: 3.93, 95% CI: 1.62-9.56) was independently associated with poor survival when adjusted for other variables., Conclusion: Patients who present with advanced inoperable oesophageal cancer who have a favourable response to chemotherapy represent a limited group of patients who may benefit from surgery., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

FOLFIRINOX, a combination of chemotherapy drugs (Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin, Irinotecan -FOI), provides the best clinical benefit in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) patients. In this study we explore the role of miRNAs (MIR) as modulators of chemosensitivity to identify potential biomarkers of response. We find that 41 and 84 microRNA inhibitors enhance the sensitivity of Capan1 and MiaPaCa2 PDAC cells respectively. These include a MIR1307-inhibitor that we validate in further PDAC cell lines. Chemotherapy-induced apoptosis and DNA damage accumulation are higher in MIR1307 knock-out (MIR1307KO) versus control PDAC cells, while re-expression of MIR1307 in MIR1307KO cells rescues these effects. We identify binding of MIR1307 to CLIC5 mRNA through covalent ligation of endogenous Argonaute-bound RNAs cross-linking immunoprecipitation assay. We validate these findings in an in vivo model with MIR1307 disruption. In a pilot cohort of PDAC patients undergoing FOLFIRONX chemotherapy, circulating MIR1307 correlates with clinical outcome., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Andecaliximab (ADX) is a monoclonal antibody that inhibits matrix metalloproteinase 9, an extracellular enzyme involved in matrix remodeling, tumor growth, and metastases. A phase I and Ib study of modified oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil (mFOLFOX6) with ADX revealed encouraging antitumor activity in patients with gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma., Materials and Methods: This phase III, randomized, double-blinded, placebo (PBO)-controlled multicenter study investigated the efficacy and safety of mFOLFOX6 with and without ADX in patients with untreated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Random assignment was 1:1 to mFOLFOX6 + ADX or mFOLFOX6 + PBO. ADX/PBO 800 mg was infused on days 1 and 15 of each 28-day cycle. Protocol therapy was given until disease progression or intolerance. The primary end point was overall survival (OS), and secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (RECIST 1.1), and safety., Results: Between September 2015 and May 2017, 432 patients were randomly assigned, 218 to ADX and 214 to PBO. The median OS was 12.5 versus 11.8 months in the ADX and PBO groups, respectively. The median PFS was 7.5 versus 7.1 months in the ADX and PBO groups, respectively. The objective response rate was 51% in the ADX group and 41% in the PBO group. Among the subgroup analyses, patients of age ≥ 65 years had an improved OS and PFS with ADX versus PBO; the P values and CIs were not adjusted for multiplicity. There were no meaningful differences in the safety profile of the ADX versus PBO groups., Conclusion: The addition of ADX to mFOLFOX6 did not improve OS in unselected patients with untreated human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma.

We compared the International Prognostic Index (IPI), Revised (R)-IPI and age-adjusted (aa)-IPI as prognostic indices for patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in the UK National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) R-CHOP 14 versus 21 trial (N = 1080). The R-IPI and aa-IPI showed no marked improvement compared to the IPI for overall and progression-free survival, in terms of model fit or discrimination. Similar results were observed in exploratory analyses incorporating the Grupo Español de Linfomas/Transplante de Médula Ósea (GELTAMO)-IPI, where baseline β2-microglobulin data were available (N = 655). Although our findings support current use of the IPI, a novel prognostic tool to better delineate a high-risk DLBCL group in the rituximab era is needed., (© 2020 British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The UK National Cancer Research Institute initiated a prospective study (UKCRN-ID 1760) to assess the prognostic value of early fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG)-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). In total, 189 patients with DLBCL treated with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone) had baseline and post-cycle-2 PET (PET2) within a quality assurance framework. Treatment decisions were based on CT; PET2 was archived for central blinded reporting after treatment completion. The association of PET2 response with end-of-treatment CT, progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) was explored. The end-of-treatment complete response rate on CT was 83·9%, 75·0%, 70·5%, 40·4% and 36·4% for Deauville score (DS) 1 (n = 34), 2 (n = 39), 3 (n = 46), 4 (n = 56) and 5 (n = 14) (P < 0·001); and 64·1% and 50·0% for the maximum standardised uptake value (∆SUV max ) of ≥66% (n = 168) and <66% (n = 21), respectively (P = 0·25). After a median 5·4 years of follow-up, the 5-year PFS was 69·4%, 72·8%, 76·7%, 71·2% and 47·6% by DS 1-5 (P = 0·01); and 72·6% and 57·1% by ∆SUV max of ≥66% and <66% (P = 0·03), respectively. The association with DS remained in multivariable analyses, and was consistent for OS. Early complete metabolic response (DS 1-3) at interim PET/CT after two cycles of R-CHOP in DLBCL was associated with a higher end-of-treatment complete and overall response rate; however, only DS-5 patients had inferior PFS and OS., (© 2020 British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The role of adjuvant therapy in patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma treated by neoadjuvant chemotherapy is contentious. In UK practice, surgical resection margin status is often used to classify patients for receiving adjuvant treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the survival benefit of adjuvant therapy in patients with positive (R1) resection margins., Methods: Two prospectively collected UK institutional databases were combined to identify eligible patients. Adjusted Cox regression analyses were used to compare overall and recurrence-free survival according to adjuvant treatment. Recurrence patterns were assessed as a secondary outcome. Propensity score-matched analysis was also performed., Results: Of 616 patients included in the combined database, 242 patients who had an R1 resection were included in the study. Of these, 112 patients (46·3 per cent) received adjuvant chemoradiotherapy, 46 (19·0 per cent) were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy and 84 (34·7 per cent) had no adjuvant treatment. In adjusted analysis, adjuvant chemoradiotherapy improved recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0·59, 95 per cent c.i. 0·38 to 0·94; P = 0·026), with a benefit in terms of both local (HR 0·48, 0·24 to 0·99; P = 0·047) and systemic (HR 0·56, 0·33 to 0·94; P = 0·027) recurrence. In analyses stratified by tumour response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, non-responders (Mandard tumour regression grade 4-5) treated with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy had an overall survival benefit (HR 0·61, 0·38 to 0·97; P = 0·037). In propensity score-matched analysis, an overall survival benefit (HR 0·62, 0·39 to 0·98; P = 0·042) and recurrence-free survival benefit (HR 0·51, 0·30 to 0·87; P = 0·004) were observed for adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus no adjuvant treatment., Conclusion: Adjuvant therapy may improve overall survival and recurrence-free survival after margin-positive resection. This pattern seems most pronounced with adjuvant chemoradiotherapy in non-responders to neoadjuvant chemotherapy., (© 2020 The Authors. British Journal of Surgery published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJS Society Ltd.)

Background: There is a lack of large-scale randomised data evaluating the impact of sex and age in patients undergoing chemotherapy followed by potentially curative surgery for oesophagogastric cancer., Patients and Methods: Individual patient data from four prospective randomised controlled trials were pooled using a two-stage meta-analysis. For survival analysis, hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for patients aged <70 and ≥ 70 years, as well as between males and females. Mandard tumour regression grade (TRG) and, ≥grade III toxicities were compared using logistic regression models to calculate odds ratios. All analyses were adjusted for the type of chemotherapy received., Results: 3265 patients were included for survival analysis (2668 [82%] male, 597 [18%] female; 2627 (80%) <70 years, 638 (20%) ≥70 years). A significant improvement in overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.78; p < 0.001) and disease-specific survival (DSS) (HR: 0.78; p < 0.001) was observed in females compared with males. No significant differences in OS (HR: 1.11; p = 0.045) or DSS (HR: 1.01; p = 0.821) were observed in older patients compared with younger patients. For patients who underwent resection, older patients (15% vs 10%; p = 0.03) and female patients (14% vs 10%, p = 0.10) were more likely to achieve favourable Mandard TRG scores. Females experienced significantly more ≥grade III nausea (10% vs 5%; p≤0.001), vomiting (10% vs 4%; p≤0.001) and diarrhoea (9% vs 4%; p≤0.001) than males., Conclusions: In this large pooled analysis using prospective randomised trial data, females had significantly improved survival while experiencing more gastrointestinal toxicities. Older patients achieved comparable survival to younger patients and thus, dependent on fitness, should be offered the same treatment paradigm., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement D.C. reports receiving research funding from Amgen, Sanofi, Merrimack, AstraZeneca, Celgene, MedImmune, Bayer, 4SC, Clovis, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck; sits on the scientific advisory board for OVIBIO. R.E.L. reports serving an advisory role for Bayer; receiving research funding from Bayer. I.C. reports serving on the advisory board for Eli-Lilly, Bristol Meyers Squibb, MSD, Bayer, Roche, Merck-Serono, Five Prime Therapeutics, Astra-Zeneca, Oncologie International, and Pierre Fabre; has received research funding from Eli-Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi Oncology, and Merck-Serono; has received an honorarium from Eli-Lilly. N.S. has received research funding from AstraZeneca, BMS, and Pfizer; has received honoraria from Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, and Pierre Fabre; has received travel grants from AstraZeneca, BMS, Eli Lilly, Merck, Roche; has served on the advisory board for Pfizer, AstraZeneca, and Servier. A.A., M.N., D.A., H.I.G. and W.A. declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To compare cisplatin plus fluorouracil (FU) versus carboplatin plus paclitaxel in chemotherapy-naïve advanced anal cancer to establish the optimal regimen., Patients and Methods: Patients who had not received systemic therapy for advanced anal cancer were randomly assigned 1:1 to intravenous cisplatin 60 mg/m 2 (day 1) plus FU 1,000 mg/m 2 (days 1-4) every 21 days or carboplatin (area under the curve, 5; day 1) plus paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 (days 1, 8, and 15) every 28 days for 24 weeks, until disease progression, intolerable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Primary end point was objective response rate (ORR). Primary and secondary end points were assessed in a hierarchic model to compare the regimens and pick the winner., Results: We conducted an international multicenter randomized phase II study in 60 centers between December 2013 and November 2017. Median follow-up was 28.6 months. A total of 91 patients were randomly assigned: 46 to cisplatin plus FU and 45 to carboplatin plus paclitaxel. ORR was 57% (95% CI, 39.4% to 73.7%) for cisplatin plus FU versus 59% (95% CI, 42.1% to 74.4%) for carboplatin plus paclitaxel. More serious adverse events were noted in the cisplatin plus FU arm (62%) compared with the carboplatin plus paclitaxel arm (36%; P = .016). Median progression-free survival was 5.7 months (95% CI, 3.3 to 9.0 months) for cisplatin plus FU compared with 8.1 months (95% CI, 6.6 to 8.8 months) for carboplatin plus paclitaxel. Median overall survival was 12.3 months for cisplatin plus FU (95% CI, 9.2 to 17.7 months) compared with 20 months (95% CI, 12.7 months to not reached) for carboplatin plus paclitaxel (hazard ratio, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.15 to 3.47; P = .014)., Conclusion: This is the first international randomized trial to our knowledge conducted in chemotherapy-naïve advanced anal cancer. Although there was no difference in ORR, the association with clinically relevant reduced toxicity and a trend toward longer survival suggest that carboplatin plus paclitaxel should be considered as a new standard of care.

Great heterogeneity in survival exists for patients newly diagnosed with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Three scoring systems incorporating simple clinical parameters (age, lactate dehydrogenase, number/sites of involvement, stage, performance status) are widely used: the International Prognostic Index (IPI), revised IPI (R-IPI), and National Comprehensive Cancer Network IPI (NCCN-IPI). We evaluated 2124 DLBCL patients treated from 1998 to 2009 with frontline rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone (R-CHOP; or variant) across 7 multicenter randomized clinical trials to determine which scoring system best discriminates overall survival (OS). Median age was 63 years, and 56% of patients were male. Five-year OS estimates ranged from 54% to 88%, from 61% to 93%, and from 49% to 92% using the IPI, R-IPI, and NCCN-IPI, respectively. The NCCN-IPI had the greatest absolute difference in OS estimates between the highest- and lowest-risk groups and best discriminated OS (concordance index = 0.632 vs 0.626 [IPI] vs 0.590 [R-IPI]). For each given IPI risk category, NCCN-IPI risk categories were significantly associated with OS (P ≤ .01); the reverse was not true, and the IPI did not provide additional significant prognostic information within all NCCN-IPI risk categories. Collectively, the NCCN-IPI outperformed the IPI and R-IPI. Patients with low-risk NCCN-IPI had favorable survival outcomes with little room for further improvement. In the rituximab era, none of the clinical risk scores identified a patient subgroup with long-term survival clearly <50%. Integrating molecular features of the tumor and microenvironment into the NCCN-IPI or IPI might better characterize a high-risk group for which novel treatment approaches are most needed., (© 2020 by The American Society of Hematology.)

Background: The RAINBOW trial showed that second-line ramucirumab with paclitaxel prolongs overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) compared with placebo plus paclitaxel for treatment of advanced gastric/gastroesophageal junction cancer. Plasma samples were collected from patients during the trial and tested to identify predictive and prognostic biomarkers., Patients and Methods: Circulating factors in plasma samples from mutually exclusive subsets of RAINBOW patients were assayed using: Intertek assays (24 markers, 380 samples, 57% of patients) and Lilly-developed assay (LDA) platform (5 markers, 257 samples, 39% of patients). Time-trend plots were generated for each marker from the Intertek assays. Baseline patient data were dichotomized into low- and high-marker subgroups. Markers were analyzed for predictive effects using interaction models and for prognostic effects using main-effects models., Results: The Intertek and LDA populations were representative of the full trial population. Plasma levels of VEGF-D and PlGF increased from baseline levels during treatment, then declined after treatment discontinued. Angiopoietin-2 exhibited a decrease during treatment, then increased after treatment discontinuation. No clear time trend was evident with the other markers. Analyses of baseline biomarker expression and its relationship with efficacy variables found no biomarker was predictive for efficacy outcomes, including VEGF-D. However, CRP, HGF, ICAM-3, IL-8, SAA, and VCAM-1 were identified as potential prognostic markers with low baseline levels corresponding to longer OS and PFS., Conclusions: Pharmacodynamic and prognostic relationships were found from the exploratory biomarker analyses in RAINBOW; however, no predictive markers for ramucirumab in gastric cancer were identified in this trial., (Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The interim analysis of the multicentre New EPOC trial in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis showed a significant reduction in progression-free survival in patients allocated to cetuximab plus chemotherapy compared with those given chemotherapy alone. The focus of the present analysis was to assess the effect on overall survival., Methods: New EPOC was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with KRAS wild-type (codons 12, 13, and 61) resectable or suboptimally resectable colorectal liver metastases and a WHO performance status of 0-2 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chemotherapy with or without cetuximab before and after liver resection. Randomisation was done centrally with minimisation factors of surgical centre, poor prognosis cancer, and previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin. Chemotherapy consisted of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m 2 administered intravenously over 2 h, l-folinic acid (175 mg flat dose administered intravenously over 2 h) or d,l-folinic acid (350 mg flat dose administered intravenously over 2 h), and fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m 2 administered intravenously over 5 min, followed by a 46 h infusion of fluorouracil 2400 mg/m 2 repeated every 2 weeks (regimen one), or oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 administered intravenously over 2 h and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m 2 twice daily on days 1-14 repeated every 3 weeks (regimen two). Patients who had received adjuvant oxaliplatin could receive irinotecan 180 mg/m 2 intravenously over 30 min with fluorouracil instead of oxaliplatin (regimen three). Cetuximab was given intravenously, 500 mg/m 2 every 2 weeks with regimen one and three or a loading dose of 400 mg/m 2 followed by a weekly infusion of 250 mg/m 2 with regimen two. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was published previously. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, preoperative response, pathological resection status, and safety. Trial recruitment was halted prematurely on the advice of the Trial Steering Committee on Nov 1, 2012. All analyses (except safety) were done on the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all randomly assigned patients. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 22944367., Findings: Between Feb 26, 2007, and Oct 12, 2012, 257 eligible patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with cetuximab (n=129) or without cetuximab (n=128). This analysis was carried out 5 years after the last patient was recruited, as defined in the protocol, at a median follow-up of 66·7 months (IQR 58·0-77·5). Median progression-free survival was 22·2 months (95% CI 18·3-26·8) in the chemotherapy alone group and 15·5 months (13·8-19·0) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·17, 95% CI 0·87-1·56; p=0·304). Median overall survival was 81·0 months (59·6 to not reached) in the chemotherapy alone group and 55·4 months (43·5-71·5) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (HR 1·45, 1·02-2·05; p=0·036). There was no significant difference in the secondary outcomes of preoperative response or pathological resection status between groups. Five deaths might have been treatment-related (one in the chemotherapy alone group and four in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events reported were: neutrophil count decreased (26 [19%] of 134 in the chemotherapy alone group vs 21 [15%] of 137 in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group), diarrhoea (13 [10%] vs 14 [10%]), skin rash (one [1%] vs 22 [16%]), thromboembolic events (ten [7%] vs 11 [8%]), lethargy (ten [7%] vs nine [7%]), oral mucositis (three [2%] vs 14 [10%]), vomiting (seven [5%] vs seven [5%]), peripheral neuropathy (eight [6%] vs five [4%]), and pain (six [4%] vs six [4%])., Interpretation: Although the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy improves the overall survival in some studies in patients with advanced, inoperable metastatic disease, its use in the perioperative setting in patients with operable disease confers a significant disadvantage in terms of overall survival. Cetuximab should not be used in this setting., Funding: Cancer Research UK., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The NAnoliPOsomaL Irinotecan (NAPOLI-1) study (NCT01494506) was the largest global phase 3 study in a post-gemcitabine metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPAC) population (N = 417). The subanalyses reported here investigated the prognostic effect of tumor characteristics and disease stage, prior treatment characteristics, baseline patient characteristics on survival outcomes in NAPOLI-1, and whether liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) + 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) benefited patients with mPAC across subgroups., Methods: Post hoc analyses were performed in the NAPOLI-1 population (4 across tumor characteristics and disease stage, 6 across prior treatment characteristics, and 4 across patient baseline characteristics). Survival outcomes were estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis and patient safety data were evaluated., Results: Mortality and morbidity risk was lower on nal-IRI+5-FU/LV treatment across subgroups. Exceptions were patients who had received prior nonliposomal irinotecan and those who had undergone prior Whipple procedure (overall survival hazard ratio = 1.25 and 1.23, respectively). Decreased appetite, liver metastases, and number of measurable metastatic lesions seemed to be prognostic of survival in this population. Subgroup safety data were generally comparable with those in the overall NAPOLI-1 safety population., Conclusions: A diverse population of patients with mPAC that progressed on gemcitabine-based therapy benefited from nal-IRI+5-FU/LV versus 5-FU/LV, potentially helping guide treatment decisions for challenging cases.

Outcome of patients with relapsed/refractory (r/r) diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) remains poor, highlighting the need for novel treatment approaches. The multicentre randomised phase II LEGEND trial evaluated lenalidomide in combination with rituximab, methylprednisolone and gemcitabine (R-GEM-L) vs. standard R-GEM-P as second-line treatment of DLBCL. The study closed early to recruitment after the planned interim analysis failed to demonstrate a complete response (CR) rate of ≥ 40% in either arm. Among 34 evaluable patients, 7/18 (38.9%) achieved CR with R-GEM-L and 3/16 (18.8%) with R-GEM-P. Median event-free and overall survival was 3.5/3.8 months and 10.8/8.3 months for R-GEM-L and R-GEM-P, respectively. The incidence of grade ≥ 3 toxicities was 52% in R-GEM-L and 83% in R-GEM-P. Efficacy and tolerability of R-GEM-L seem comparable with R-GEM-P and other standard salvage therapies, but a stringent design led to early trial closure. Combination of lenalidomide with gemcitabine-based regimens should be further evaluated in r/r DLBCL.

Purpose: In the CLASSIC and MAGIC trials, microsatellite instability (MSI)-high status was a favorable prognostic and potential negative predictive factor for neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy in resectable gastric cancer (GC). Given the low prevalence of MSI-high status in GC and its association with other positive prognostic variables, large data sets are needed to draw robust evidence of its prognostic/predictive value., Patients and Methods: We performed a multinational, individual-patient-data meta-analysis of the prognostic/predictive role of MSI in patients with resectable GC enrolled in the MAGIC, CLASSIC, ARTIST, and ITACA-S trials. Prognostic analyses used multivariable Cox models (MVM). The predictive role of MSI was assessed both in an all-comer population and in MAGIC and CLASSIC trials by MVM testing of the interaction of treatment (chemotherapy plus surgery v surgery) with MSI., Results: MSI status was available for 1,556 patients: 121 (7.8%) had MSI-high status; 576 were European, and 980 were Asian. In MSI-high versus MSI-low/microsatellite stable (MSS) comparisons, the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 71.8% (95% CI, 63.8% to 80.7%) versus 52.3% (95% CI, 49.7% to 55.1%); the 5-year overall survival (OS) was 77.5% (95% CI, 70.0% to 85.8%) versus 59.3% (95% CI, 56.6% to 62.1%). In MVM, MSI was associated with longer DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.76; P < .001) and OS (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.73; P = .008), as were pT, pN, ethnicity, and treatment. Patients with MSI-low/MSS GC benefitted from chemotherapy plus surgery: the 5-year DFS compared with surgery only was 57% versus 41% (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.79), and the 5-year OS was 62% versus 53% (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.94). Conversely, those with MSI-high GC did not: the 5-year DFS was 70% versus 77% (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.53 to 3.04), and the 5-year OS was 75% versus 83% (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.55 to 4.12)., Conclusion: In patients with resectable primary GC, MSI is a robust prognostic marker that should be adopted as a stratification factor by clinical trials. Chemotherapy omission and/or immune checkpoint blockade should be investigated prospectively in MSI-high GCs according to clinically and pathologically defined risk of relapse.

Background: Oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy administered over 6 months is the standard adjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk stage II or III colorectal cancer. However, the regimen is associated with cumulative toxicity, characterised by chronic and often irreversible neuropathy., Objectives: To assess the efficacy of 3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer and to compare the toxicity, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the durations., Design: An international, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, Phase III, parallel-group trial., Setting: A total of 244 oncology clinics from six countries: UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand., Participants: Adults aged ≥ 18 years who had undergone curative resection for high-risk stage II or III adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum., Interventions: The adjuvant treatment regimen was either oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil or oxaliplatin and capecitabine, randomised to be administered over 3 or 6 months., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Overall survival, adverse events, neuropathy and health-related quality of life were also assessed. The main cost categories were chemotherapy treatment and hospitalisation. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through incremental cost comparisons and quality-adjusted life-year gains between the options and was reported as net monetary benefit using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year per patient., Results: Recruitment is closed. In total, 6088 patients were randomised (3044 per group) between 27 March 2008 and 29 November 2013, with 6065 included in the intention-to-treat analyses (3-month analysis, n  = 3035; 6-month analysis, n  = 3030). Follow-up for the primary analysis is complete. The 3-year disease-free survival rate in the 3-month treatment group was 76.7% (standard error 0.8%) and in the 6-month treatment group was 77.1% (standard error 0.8%), equating to a hazard ratio of 1.006 (95% confidence interval 0.909 to 1.114; p -value for non-inferiority = 0.012), confirming non-inferiority for 3-month adjuvant chemotherapy. Frequent adverse events (alopecia, anaemia, anorexia, diarrhoea, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, sensory neuropathy, neutropenia, pain, rash, altered taste, thrombocytopenia and watery eye) showed a significant increase in grade with 6-month duration; the greatest difference was for sensory neuropathy (grade ≥ 3 was 4% for 3-month vs.16% for 6-month duration), for which a higher rate of neuropathy was seen for the 6-month treatment group from month 4 to ≥ 5 years ( p  < 0.001). Quality-of-life scores were better in the 3-month treatment group over months 4-6. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed 3-month treatment to cost £4881 less over the 8-year analysis period, with an incremental net monetary benefit of £7246 per patient., Conclusions: The study achieved its primary end point, showing that 3-month oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy is non-inferior to 6 months of the same regimen; 3-month treatment showed a better safety profile and cost less. For future work, further follow-up will refine long-term estimates of the duration effect on disease-free survival and overall survival. The health economic analysis will be updated to include long-term extrapolation for subgroups. We expect these analyses to be available in 2019-20. The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study translational samples may allow the identification of patients who would benefit from longer treatment based on the molecular characteristics of their disease., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59757862 and EudraCT 2007-003957-10., Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This research was supported by the Medical Research Council (transferred to NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre - Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; grant reference G0601705), the Swedish Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK Core Clinical Trials Unit Funding (funding reference C6716/A9894)., Competing Interests: Timothy Iveson reports honoraria from Amgen Inc. (Thousand Oaks, CA, USA), Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany), Bristol-Myers Squibb (New York, NY, USA), Celgene Corporation (Summit, NJ, USA), Pierre-Fabre (Paris, France), Roche (Roche Holding AG, Basel, Switzerland) and Servier (Laboratories Servier, Suresnes, France). Kathleen A Boyd reports grants from the Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study. Mark P Saunders reports personal fees from Servier, Amgen, Merck (Merck and Co., Kenilworth, New Jersey, USA), Eisai (Eisai Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) and Roche outside the submitted work. Jim Cassidy reports grants from the Medical Research Council during the conduct of the study and is currently an employee of Celgene Corporation. Josep Tabernero reports personal fees from Array Biopharma (Boulder, CO, USA), AstraZeneca (Cambridge, UK), Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany), BeiGene (Beijing, China), Boehringer Ingelheim (Ingelheim am Rhein, Germany), Chugai (Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Tokyo, Japan), Genentech, Inc. (South San Francisco, CA, USA), Genmab A/S (Copenhagen, Denmark), Halozyme (Halozyme Therapeutics, San Diego, CA, USA), Imugene Limited (Sydney, NSW, Australia), Inflection Biosciences Limited (Blackrock, Dublin), Ipsen (Paris, France), Kura Oncology (San Diego, CA, USA), Eli Lilly and Company (Indianapolis, IN, USA), Merck, Menarini (The Menarini Group, Florence, Italy), Merck Serono (Rockland, MA, USA), Merrimack Pharmaceuticals (MA, USA), Merus (Utrecht, the Netherlands), Molecular Partners (Molecular Partners AG, Zurich, Switzerland), Novartis (Novartis International AG, Basel, Switzerland), Peptomyc, Pfizer Inc. (New York, NY, USA), Pharmacyclics (Pharmacyclics LLC, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), ProteoDesign SL (Barcelona, Spain), Rafael Pharmaceuticals (Stony Brook, NY, USA), F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Sanofi (Sanofi S. A., Paris, France), Seattle Genetics (Bothwell, WA, USA), Servier, Symphogen (Symphogen A/S, Ballerup, Denmark), Taiho Pharmaceutical (Tokyo, Japan), VCN Biosciences (Barcelona, Spain), Biocartis (Biocartis Group, Mechelen, Belgium), Foundation Medicine (Cambridge, MA, USA), HalioDX (Marseille, France), SAS Pharmaceuticals (Delhi, India) and Roche Diagnostics outside the submitted work. Bengt Glimelius reports support from PledPharma AB for being on advisory boards. Sherif Raouf reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Roche, grants and personal fees from Amgen, and grants and personal fees from Merck outside the submitted work. David Farrugia reports that he received honoraria for speaking in educational events and support for meeting attendance from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Novartis, Ipsen, Amgen, AstraZeneca and Merck. David Cunningham reports grants from 4SC (4SC AG, Planegg, Germany), AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amgen, Celgene, Clovis Oncology (Boulder, CO, USA), Eli Lilly and Company, Janssen Pharmaceuticals (Beerse, Belgium), MedImmune (Gaithersburg, MD, USA), Merck, Merrimack and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Tamish Hickish reports grants from Pfizer, Roche, Pierre Fabre (Paris, France) and personal fees from Eli Lilly and Company during the conduct of the study. John Bridgewater reports funding from the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust/University College London Biomedical Research Centre. David Cunningham reports funding from the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centres at the Royal Marsden.

Introduction: Survival in metastatic colorectal cancer is worse than expected in the United Kingdom. Real-world data are needed to better understand UK-specific treatment practices that may explain this., Patients and Methods: The Avastin ColORectal Non-interventional (ACORN) study is a multicenter, prospective, UK-based, observational, phase 4 study (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01506167) that recruited patients with metastatic colorectal cancer scheduled to receive bevacizumab in combination with first-line chemotherapy as part of routine clinical practice. Primary end points included progression-free survival, overall survival (OS), serious adverse events (AEs), and grade 3 to 5 bevacizumab-related AEs., Results: A total of 714 patients were recruited between August 30, 2012, and February 4, 2014. Median follow-up was 16.4 months. Median first-line chemotherapy duration was 5.6 months, with capecitabine/oxaliplatin (265 [37.1%]) being the most common regimen. Median total chemotherapy duration was 8.1 months and did not vary by geographic location in the UK. Median progression-free survival (95% confidence interval) was 8.7 (8.2-9.1) months, and median OS was 17.8 (16.1-19.3) months. There was no significant difference in efficacy by chemotherapy regimen administered. Ninety-nine patients (13.9%) received bevacizumab after disease progression. The safety profile of bevacizumab was consistent with previous studies., Conclusion: ACORN provided evidence that there were no clear differences observed in outcomes between bevacizumab with capecitabine-based chemotherapy and fluorouracil-based regimens, and confirmed the safety profile of bevacizumab in a real-world UK-based population. The lower-than-expected OS is likely due to the short total chemotherapy duration, less frequent use of bevacizumab after disease progression, and higher rates of in-situ primary tumors., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: DNA methylation signatures describing distinct histological subtypes of oesophageal cancer have been reported. We studied DNA methylation in samples from the MRC OE02 phase III trial, which randomised patients with resectable oesophageal cancer to surgery alone (S) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS)., Aim: The aim of the study was to identify epigenetic signatures predictive of chemotherapy benefit in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) from the OE02 trial and validate the findings in an independent cohort., Methods: DNA methylation was analysed using the Illumina GoldenGate platform on surgically resected OAC specimens from patients in the OE02 trial. Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to select probes predictive of survival in the CS arm. Non-negative matrix factorisation was used to perform clustering and delineate DNA methylation signatures. The findings were validated in an independent cohort of patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy., Results: A total of 229 patients with OAC were analysed from the OE02 trial (118 in the CS arm and 111 in the S arm). There was no difference in DNA methylation status between the CS and S arms. A metagene signature was created by dichotomising samples into two clusters. In cluster 1, patients in the CS arm had significant overall survival (OS) benefit (median OS CS: 931 days vs. S: 536 days [HR: 1.54, P = 0.031]). In cluster 2, patients in the CS arm had similar (or worse) OS compared with patients in the S arm (CS: 348 days vs. S: 472 days [HR: 0.70, P = 0.1], and test of interaction was significant (p = 0.005). In the validation cohort (n = 13), there was no difference in DNA methylation status in paired pre- and post-treatment samples. When the epigenetic signature was applied, cluster 1 samples had better OS (median OS, cluster 1: 1174 days vs. cluster 2: 392 days, HR: 3.47, p = 0.059) CONCLUSIONS: This is the first and largest study of DNA methylation in patients with OAC uniformly treated in a randomised phase III trial. We identified an epigenetic signature that may serve as a predictive biomarker for chemotherapy benefit in OAC., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Primary mediastinal B-cell lymphoma (PMBL) is a rare but aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma with poor outcomes in patients with relapsed/refractory (R/R) disease. PMBL is characterized by high expression of programmed death-1 ligand and variable expression of CD30. Nivolumab, an anti-programmed death-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor, and brentuximab vedotin (BV), an anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate, may have synergistic activity in R/R PMBL., Methods: The expansion cohort of the open-label, phase I/II CheckMate 436 study enrolled patients with confirmed R/R PMBL who were previously treated with either autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation or two or more prior chemotherapy regimens if ineligible for autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation. Patients received nivolumab (240 mg intravenously) and BV (1.8 mg/kg intravenously) every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end points were investigator-assessed objective response rate (ORR) per the Lugano 2014 criteria and safety., Results: Thirty patients with PMBL were treated and evaluable. At a median follow-up of 11.1 months, ORR (95% CI) was 73% (54% to 88%), with a 37% complete remission rate per investigator, and ORR of 70% (51% to 85%), with a 43% complete metabolic response rate per independent review. Median duration of response, median progression-free survival, and median overall survival have not been reached. Eleven responders had consolidation with autologous (n = 5) or allogeneic (n = 6) transplantation. Treatment-related adverse events were reported in 25 patients (83%). Sixteen patients (53%) had grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events; the most common were neutropenia (n = 9), thrombocytopenia (n = 3), and peripheral neuropathy (n = 3). There were no treatment-related deaths., Conclusion: In patients with R/R PMBL, the combination of nivolumab plus BV represents a promising option, with high antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile.

Importance: The patterns of disease recurrence after resection of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma with adjuvant chemotherapy remain unclear., Objective: To define patterns of recurrence after adjuvant chemotherapy and the association with survival., Design, Setting, and Participants: Prospectively collected data from the phase 3 European Study Group for Pancreatic Cancer 4 adjuvant clinical trial, an international multicenter study. The study included 730 patients who had resection and adjuvant chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer. Data were analyzed between July 2017 and May 2019., Interventions: Randomization to adjuvant gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus capecitabine., Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival, recurrence, and sites of recurrence., Results: Of the 730 patients, median age was 65 years (range 37-81 years), 414 were men (57%), and 316 were women (43%). The median follow-up time from randomization was 43.2 months (95% CI, 39.7-45.5 months), with overall survival from time of surgery of 27.9 months (95% CI, 24.8-29.9 months) with gemcitabine and 30.2 months (95% CI, 25.8-33.5 months) with the combination (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.68-0.98; P = .03). The 5-year survival estimates were 17.1% (95% CI, 11.6%-23.5%) and 28.0% (22.0%-34.3%), respectively. Recurrence occurred in 479 patients (65.6%); another 78 patients (10.7%) died without recurrence. Local recurrence occurred at a median of 11.63 months (95% CI, 10.05-12.19 months), significantly different from those with distant recurrence with a median of 9.49 months (95% CI, 8.44-10.71 months) (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.01-1.45; P = .04). Following recurrence, the median survival was 9.36 months (95% CI, 8.08-10.48 months) for local recurrence and 8.94 months (95% CI, 7.82-11.17 months) with distant recurrence (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.09; P = .27). The median overall survival of patients with distant-only recurrence (23.03 months; 95% CI, 19.55-25.85 months) or local with distant recurrence (23.82 months; 95% CI, 17.48-28.32 months) was not significantly different from those with only local recurrence (24.83 months; 95% CI, 22.96-27.63 months) (P = .85 and P = .35, respectively). Gemcitabine plus capecitabine had a 21% reduction of death following recurrence compared with monotherapy (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98; P = .03)., Conclusions and Relevance: There were no significant differences between the time to recurrence and subsequent and overall survival between local and distant recurrence. Pancreatic cancer behaves as a systemic disease requiring effective systemic therapy after resection., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00058201, EudraCT 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN 96397434.

Background: Sex contributes to interpatient variability of chemotherapy metabolism and dose response, potentially influencing both efficacy and toxicity; however, comparative data on its effect on oesophagogastric cancer are lacking., Patients and Methods: Data for patients with advanced oesophagogastric cancer randomised to comparable first-line chemotherapy regimens within four United Kingdom prospective trials were pooled, and key demographic and outcome measures were compared between males and females., Results: A total of 1654 patients were included: 1328 (80.3%) males and 326 (19.7%) females. Female patients were younger, had a significantly higher proportion of gastric tumours as opposed to junctional or oesophageal tumours and experienced significantly higher rates of a number of toxicities including nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea, stomatitis and alopecia. When adjusting for potential confounding factors, the risk of female patients experiencing grade ≥III gastrointestinal toxicity was greater (adjusted odds ratio = 1.50; 95% confidence interval = 1.07-2.12). Females also had a significantly higher incidence of serious adverse events on treatment and received comparatively less cycles of chemotherapy overall than males., Conclusions: This represents the largest pooled analysis of the effect of sex on chemotherapy outcome and toxicity in advanced oesophagogastric cancer. The differential toxicity and adverse event rates observed suggest that sex may be an important modulator of treatment tolerability and safety in this tumour type., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Gastrointestinal cancers are very common cancers with colorectal being the fourth most common type, gastric the sixth, and esophageal the tenth. Although recent advances have been made in management including incorporation of antiangiogenic, anti-EGFR, and anti-HER2 directed therapies, overall their prognosis remains poor. Anti-PD-1 therapy with nivolumab and pembrolizumab are licensed for advanced chemorefractory gastroesophageal cancer and many other checkpoint inhibitor therapies are being assessed alone and in combination in these diseases. One of the challenges posed in assessing response to immunotherapy treatment is the phenomenon of pseudoprogression. This phenomenon, which is well described in patients with malignant melanoma is most frequently described as a size increase of contrast enhancing lesions or appearance of new lesions that stabilize or reduce in size with time. Most other solid tumors have a low incidence of pseudoprogression although cases have been reported for lung, head, and neck cancer and a range of gliomas. Herein we present 6 cases of patients with gastrointestinal cancers who were treated with anti-PD1 (programmed cell death) and anti-PD-L1 (programmed cell death ligand-1) antibodies, and experience pseudoprogression., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Chemotherapy is the mainstay treatment for advanced biliary cancer (ABC). Best supportive care and clinical trials are currently alternative options. The identification of a prognostic score that can be widely applied to daily practice has the potential to better inform clinical management of ABC patients., Methods: A cohort of 123 ABC patients undergoing first-line chemotherapy was used as an exploratory cohort to define the prognostic value of laboratory tests routinely performed in clinical practice. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to investigate the association between the variables and overall survival (OS). Those variables that were statistically significant at the multivariate analysis were combined in a multiplex score. Performance of the novel prognostic score was confirmed in a validation cohort of 60 ABC patients., Results: Baseline actual neutrophil count, lymphocytes-monocytes ratio, neutrophil-lymphocytes ratio and albumin (A.L.A.N.) correlated with OS at the multivariate analysis in the exploratory cohort. When combined in the multiplex, A.L.A.N. score was able to identify three classes of ABC patients with significantly different OS (high-risk: median OS, 5 months; intermediate-risk: median OS, 12 months and low-risk: median OS, 22 months; p:<0.001). The score performed well in the different subtypes of ABC and was independent of stage, performance status and chemotherapy regimen. The performance of the A.L.A.N. score was confirmed in a validation cohort of cholangiocarcinoma patients (high-risk: median OS, 4.3 months; intermediate-risk: median OS 9.3 months, low-risk: median OS 13 months; p:0.005)., Conclusions: The A.L.A.N score can be derived by variables routinely recorded in clinical practice and can provide prognostic assessment of ABC patients considered for first-line treatment., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Gastrointestinal (GI) cancer patients may not be considered for therapy with fluoropyrimidines (FPs) because of previous cardiovascular (CV) toxicity or preexisting risk factors; such patients may benefit from raltitrexed-based therapy., Patients and Methods: Patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics, as well as clinical outcomes of all consecutively treated patients with raltitrexed at the Royal Marsden Hospital between October 1998 and July 2011 were examined. GI cancer patients who developed CV toxicity as a result of FPs and those with significant CV risk factors receiving raltitrexed were included in this analysis., Results: A total of 247 patients (155 and 92 with CV FP-related CV toxicities and significant CV risk factors, respectively) treated with raltitrexed alone or in combination were examined after a median follow-up of 47.1 months. CV toxicity profiles of patients receiving capecitabine (n = 110) and 5-fluorouracil (n = 45) were largely similar. Of raltitrexed-treated patients, 13 (5%) experienced CV toxicities and 1 (< 0.1%) died as a result of myocardial infarction. The median progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 36.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 26.5-48.6) and 44.3 months (95% CI, 33.1-56.8), respectively. The 5-year survival for early stage GI malignancies (n = 140) was 62.0% (95% CI, 50.1-71.9). Median PFS and OS were not reached in this group (interquartile range = 38.4 months to NR); median PFS and OS for advanced GI malignancies (n = 107) were 18.8 (95% CI, 11.9-25.7) and 23.7 months (95% CI, 17.0-26.9), respectively., Conclusion: A raltitrexed-based regimen is well-tolerated therapy with comparable efficacy to FPs in patients with GI malignancies with significant CV toxicities or risk factors., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Loss of ataxia telangiectasia mutated (ATM), a key protein regulating DNA repair signaling, has been suggested to increase sensitivity to DNA damaging agents. We conducted a study analyzing the loss of ATM protein expression in colorectal cancer and correlated this with clinical outcomes., Materials and Methods: The clinical outcomes data and tumor samples from metastatic colorectal cancer patients referred to the Royal Marsden Hospital Drug Development Unit (United Kingdom) from 2012 to 2016 and providing consent for a molecular characterization study were analyzed. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) slides were assessed by a pathologist for nuclear staining intensity of ATM and semiquantitatively scored. ATM loss was defined as a nuclear H-score of ≤ 10., Results: Of 223 colorectal cancer samples, ATM IHC loss was identified in 17 (8%). ATM loss was independent of the RAS and RAF mutational status. ATM loss was associated with superior overall survival after first-line oxaliplatin-based therapy (49 vs. 32 months; hazard ratio [HR], 2.52) but not with irinotecan-based therapy (24 vs. 33 months; HR, 0.72). ATM loss was not prognostic for survival from the diagnosis (50 vs. 44 months; HR, 1.43)., Conclusion: ATM could be considered a biomarker for the development of novel DNA repair targeting agents and treatment of colorectal cancer., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the phase 3 randomised NAPOLI-1 clinical study, a 45% increase in median overall survival (OS) was shown with liposomal irinotecan, 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (nal-IRI+5-FU/LV) versus 5-FU/LV in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer progressing after gemcitabine-based therapy. Here, we report data from a pre-specified, expanded analysis of outcomes in the per-protocol (PP) population., Materials and Methods: The PP population comprised patients receiving ≥80% of planned treatment during the first 6 weeks, with no major protocol violations. A post-hoc analysis of the non-PP population was also performed., Results: For PP patients, median OS was 8.9 (95% confidence interval: 6.4-10.5) months with nal-IRI+5-FU/LV (n = 66) vs 5.1 (4.0-7.2) months with 5-FU/LV (n = 71; unstratified hazard ratio [HR] 0.57, p = 0.011). For non-PP patients, it was 4.4 (3.3-5.3) months with nal-IRI+5-FU/LV (n = 51) vs 2.8 (1.7-3.2) months with 5-FU/LV (n = 48; unstratified HR 0.64, p = 0.0648)., Conclusion: A statistically significant survival advantage was observed with nal-IRI+5-FU/LV vs 5-FU/LV in the PP patient population., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable gastroesophageal cancer, lymph node metastasis is the only validated prognostic variable; however, within lymph node groups there is still heterogeneity with risk of relapse. We hypothesized that gene profiles from neoadjuvant chemotherapy treated resection specimens from gastroesophageal cancer patients can be used to define prognostic risk groups to identify patients at risk for relapse., Patients and Methods: The Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial (n = 202 with high quality RNA) samples treated with perioperative chemotherapy were profiled for a custom gastric cancer gene panel using the NanoString platform. Genes associated with overall survival (OS) were identified using penalized and standard Cox regression, followed by generation of risk scores and development of a NanoString biomarker assay to stratify patients into risk groups associated with OS. An independent dataset served as a validation cohort., Results: Regression and clustering analysis of MAGIC patients defined a seven-Gene Signature and two risk groups with different OS [hazard ratio (HR) 5.1; P < 0.0001]. The median OS of high- and low-risk groups were 10.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) of 6.5 and 13.2 months] and 80.9 months (CI: 43.0 months and not assessable), respectively. Risk groups were independently prognostic of lymph node metastasis by multivariate analysis (HR 3.6 in node positive group, P = 0.02; HR 3.6 in high-risk group, P = 0.0002), and not prognostic in surgery only patients (n = 118; log rank P = 0.2). A validation cohort independently confirmed these findings., Conclusions: These results suggest that gene-based risk groups can independently predict prognosis in gastroesophageal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This signature and associated assay may help risk stratify these patients for post-surgery chemotherapy in future perioperative chemotherapy-based clinical trials.

Background: The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study is an international, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy, toxicity, and cost-effectiveness of 3 months (3 M) versus the usually given 6 months (6 M) of adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer., Methods: In total, 6088 patients with fully resected high-risk stage II or stage III colorectal cancer were randomised and followed up for 3-8 years. The within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis from a UK health-care perspective is presented using the resource use data, quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), time on treatment (ToT), disease-free survival after treatment (DFS) and overall survival (OS) data. Quality-adjusted partitioned survival analysis and Kaplan-Meier Sample Average Estimator estimated QALYs and costs. Probabilistic sensitivity and subgroup analysis was undertaken., Results: The 3 M arm is less costly (-£4881; 95% CI: -£6269; -£3492) and entails (non-significant) QALY gains (0.08; 95% CI: -0.086; 0.230) due to a better significant quality of life. The net monetary benefit was significantly higher in 3 M under a wide range of monetary values of a QALY. The subgroup analysis found similar results for patients in the CAPOX regimen. However, for the FOLFOX regimen, 3 M had lower QALYs than 6 M (not statistically significant)., Conclusions: Overall, 3 M dominates 6 M with no significant detrimental impact on QALYs. The results provide the economic case that a 3 M treatment strategy should be considered a new standard of care.

Background/aim: Cisplatin-based radical chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is utilised in oesophagogastric (OG) cancer but the toxicity profile of cisplatin limits its use. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients treated with either cisplatin or carboplatin based CRT at our institution., Materials and Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of patients with localised OG cancer undergoing CRT with cisplatin/fluoropyrimidine (CX/F) or carboplatin/fluoropyrimidine (CarboX/F) between January 2001 and December 2014., Results: A total of 91 eligible patients were included. Median age was 65 years (IQR=57-75) for CX/F and 77 years (IQR=69-80) for CarboX/F. Adenocarcinoma histology and Charlson comorbidity index were higher in the CarboX/F group. Endoscopic complete response (CR) was achieved in 64% of CX/F group and 48% of CarboX/F group (p=0.19). The median PFS for CX/F was 31.0 months (95%CI=18.2-NE) vs. 18.7 months for CarboX/F (95%CI=13.5-30.4; HR=1.49, p=0.21)., Conclusion: Despite significant differences in baseline clinical characteristics, patients treated with carboplatin CRT demonstrated no significant difference in PFS or endoscopic CR rate, compared to those treated with cisplatin., (Copyright© 2018, International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

Background: Although progress has been made in the molecular stratification of esophagogastric adenocarcinoma, the outlook for advanced disease remains poor. The present evaluation of over 500 patients treated at a single European high-volume tertiary center during a 6-year period gives important information on current and developing "real-world" treatment patterns and outcomes., Results: The overall survival for the whole cohort was 11.5 months, with a range of treatments used in first-, second-, and third-line settings. Treatment with sequential lines of therapy was associated with better outcomes, although only 39% and 14% of patients subsequently received treatment in the second- and third-line setting, respectively. Treatment within a therapeutic clinical trial was associated with significantly improved survival., Conclusion: At present, a substantial proportion of patients with advanced esophagogastric adenocarcinoma will not proceed beyond first-line therapy, and for this group refinement of initial systemic therapies are required to improve outcomes. Although a number of established first- and second-line treatment options are now available, the therapeutic landscape of the disease continues to change, most notably in the application of immunotherapy and increasing interest in establishing evidence-based interventions in the third-line setting and beyond. A small but growing proportion of patients will benefit from sequential treatment approaches incorporating multiple lines of therapy, and improved selection of such patients will be a key challenge for clinicians moving forwards. Data such as these provide an overview of current treatment patterns and outcomes which can be used to inform planning of future research effectively within existing treatment frameworks., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with first-line anthracycline-based immunochemotherapy and remaining in remission at 2 years have excellent outcomes. This study assessed overall survival (OS) stratified by progression-free survival (PFS) at 24 months (PFS24) using individual patient data from patients with DLBCL enrolled in multi-center, international randomized clinical trials as part of the Surrogate Endpoint for Aggressive Lymphoma (SEAL) Collaboration., Patients and Methods: PFS24 was defined as being alive and PFS24 after study entry. OS from PFS24 was defined as time from identified PFS24 status until death due to any cause. OS was compared with each patient's age-, sex-, and country-matched general population using expected survival and standardized mortality ratios (SMRs)., Results: A total of 5853 patients enrolled in trials in the SEAL database received rituximab as part of induction therapy and were included in this analysis. The median age was 62 years (range 18-92), and 56% were greater than 60 years of age. At a median follow-up of 4.4 years, 1337 patients (23%) had disease progression, 1489 (25%) had died, and 5101 had sufficient follow-up to evaluate PFS24. A total of 1423 assessable patients failed to achieve PFS24 with a median OS of 7.2 months (95% CI 6.8-8.1) after progression; 5-year OS after progression was 19% and SMR was 32.1 (95% CI 30.0-34.4). A total of 3678 patients achieved PFS24; SMR after achieving PFS24 was 1.22 (95% CI 1.09-1.37). The observed OS versus expected OS at 3, 5, and 7 years after achieving PFS24 was 93.1% versus 94.4%, 87.6% versus 89.5%, and 80.0% versus 83.7%, respectively., Conclusion: Patients treated with rituximab containing anthracycline-based immunochemotherapy on clinical trials who are alive without progression at 24 months from the onset of initial therapy have excellent outcomes with survival that is marginally lower but clinically indistinguishable from the age-, sex-, and country-matched background population for 7 years after achieving PFS24.

We evaluated the outcomes for patients with peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) undergoing front-line chemotherapy at our institutions between 2002 and 2012. One hundred and fifty-six patients were eligible, comprising PTCL not otherwise specified (NOS) (n = 50, 32.0%), angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma (AITL) (n = 44, 28.2%), anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL) ALK negative (n = 23, 14.7%), ALCL ALK positive (n = 16, 10.3%), and other (n = 23, 14.7%). Most patients received CHOP (66.0%) and 13.0% received an autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell transplant (HPCT). With a median follow-up of 63.4 months, 5-year overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) was 38.8% and 19.8% respectively. Independent risk factors for inferior OS were age >60 years, International Prognostic Index (IPI) ≥ 2 and lack of complete response to induction. When responding patients were compared by receipt of an autologous HPCT versus not, HPCT was associated with improved PFS (p = .001) and OS (p = .046) and remained significant for PFS in multivariate analysis suggesting a possible therapeutic benefit.

Background: Outcomes with CHOP (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisolone) or CHOP-like chemotherapy in peripheral T-cell lymphoma are poor. We investigated whether the regimen of gemcitabine, cisplatin, and methylprednisolone (GEM-P) was superior to CHOP as front-line therapy in previously untreated patients., Methods: We did a phase 2, parallel-group, multicentre, open-label randomised trial in 47 hospitals: 46 in the UK and one in Australia. Participants were patients aged 18 years and older with bulky (tumour mass diameter >10 cm) stage I to stage IV disease (WHO performance status 0-3), previously untreated peripheral T-cell lymphoma not otherwise specified, angioimmunoblastic T-cell lymphoma, anaplastic lymphoma kinase-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma, enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma, or hepatosplenic γδ T-cell lymphoma. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) stratified by subtype of peripheral T-cell lymphoma and international prognostic index to either CHOP (intravenous cyclophosphamide 750 mg/m 2 , doxorubicin 50 mg/m 2 , and vincristine 1·4 mg/m 2 [maximum 2 mg] on day 1, and oral prednisolone 100 mg on days 1-5) every 21 days for six cycles; or GEM-P (intravenous gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8, and 15, cisplatin 100 mg/m 2 on day 15, and oral or intravenous methylprednisolone 1000 mg on days 1-5) every 28 days for four cycles. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with a CT-based complete response or unconfirmed complete response on completion of study chemotherapy, to detect a 20% superiority of GEM-P compared with CHOP, assessed in all patients who received at least one cycle of treatment and had an end-of-treatment CT scan or reported clinical progression as the reason for stopping trial treatment. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study medication. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01719835) and the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT 2011-004146-18)., Findings: Between June 18, 2012, and Nov 16, 2016, we randomly assigned 87 patients to treatment, 43 to CHOP and 44 to GEM-P. A planned unmasked review of efficacy data by the independent data monitoring committee in November, 2016, showed that the number of patients with a confirmed or unconfirmed complete response with GEM-P was non-significantly inferior compared with CHOP and the trial was closed early. At a median follow-up of 27·4 months (IQR 16·6-38·4), 23 patients (62%) of 37 assessable patients assigned to CHOP had achieved a complete response or unconfirmed complete response compared with 17 (46%) of 37 assigned to GEM-P (odds ratio 0·52, 95% CI 0·21-1·31; p=0·164). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse in both groups were neutropenia (17 [40%] with CHOP and nine [20%] with GEM-P), thrombocytopenia (4 [10%] with CHOP and 13 [30%] with GEM-P, and febrile neutropenia (12 [29%] with CHOP and 3 [7%] with GEM-P). Two patients (5%) died during the study, both in the GEM-P group, from lung infections., Interpretation: The number of patients with a complete response or unconfirmed complete response did not differ between the groups, indicating that GEM-P was not superior for this outcome. CHOP should therefore remain the reference regimen for previously untreated peripheral T-cell lymphoma., Funding: Bloodwise and the UK National Institute of Health Research., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The potential of preoperative chemotherapy in rectal cancer is the subject of investigation in a number of global randomized trials. In this overview and expert discussion, Professor Cervantes summarizes the findings of numerous Phase II trials testing neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The crucial points in the next phase of trials include: patient selection, whether radiotherapy can be omitted altogether and whether chemotherapy can be used to augment the initial response to chemoradiotherapy. Finally, with the emergence of Magnetic Resonance Tumour Regression Grade a reliable method for assessing response after initial chemoradiotherapy, we ask if this can be used to drive the use of further selective chemotherapy to augment response., (Colorectal Disease © 2018 The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland.)

Background: 6 months of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is usually given as adjuvant treatment for stage 3 colorectal cancer. We investigated whether 3 months of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy would be non-inferior to the usual 6 months of treatment., Methods: The SCOT study was an international, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 244 centres. Patients aged 18 years or older with high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer underwent central randomisation with minimisation for centre, choice of regimen, sex, disease site, N stage, T stage, and the starting dose of capecitabine. Patients were assigned (1:1) to receive 3 months or 6 months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy. The chemotherapy regimens could consist of CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) or FOLFOX (bolus and infused fluorouracil with oxaliplatin). The regimen was selected before randomisation in accordance with choices of the patient and treating physician. The primary study endpoint was disease-free survival and the non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio of 1·13. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in patients who started study treatment. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN59757862, and follow-up is continuing., Findings: 6088 patients underwent randomisation between March 27, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013. The intended treatment was FOLFOX in 1981 patients and CAPOX in 4107 patients. 3044 patients were assigned to 3 month group and 3044 were assigned to 6 month group. Nine patients in the 3 month group and 14 patients in the 6 month group did not consent for their data to be used, leaving 3035 patients in the 3 month group and 3030 patients in the 6 month group for the intention-to-treat analyses. At the cutoff date for analysis, there had been 1482 disease-free survival events, with 740 in the 3 month group and 742 in the 6 month group. 3 year disease-free survival was 76·7% (95% CI 75·1-78·2) for the 3 month group and 77·1% (75·6-78·6) for the 6 month group, giving a hazard ratio of 1·006 (0·909-1·114, test for non-inferiority p=0·012), significantly below the non-inferiority margin. Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or worse was more common in the 6 month group (237 [58%] of 409 patients for the subset with safety data) than in the 3 month group (103 [25%] of 420) and was long-lasting and associated with worse quality of life. 1098 serious adverse events were reported (492 reports in the 3 month group and 606 reports in the 6 month group) and 32 treatment-related deaths occurred (16 in each group)., Interpretation: In the whole study population, 3 months of oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy was non-inferior to 6 months of the same therapy for patients with high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer and was associated with reduced toxicity and improved quality of life. Despite the fact the study was underpowered, these data suggest that a shorter duration leads to similar survival outcomes with better quality of life and thus might represent a new standard of care., Funding: Medical Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, NETSCC, and Cancer Research UK., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Somatic v-Raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) mutation, present in approximately 10% of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) cases, is associated with poor prognosis. Patient outcome outside of clinical trials has only been reported in small series. We report real-world data on treatment and survival for BRAF-mutated (MT) patients at a single tertiary center, compared with a matched BRAF wild type (WT) control group., Patients and Methods: All colorectal cancer patients tested for BRAF mutation, from October 2010 to November 2014 were identified. BRAF-MT mCRC cases were compared with an age and sex-matched BRAF-WT control group. Clinicopathological data were collected and survival calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparisons made using Cox regression., Results: Forty-three of 503 patients (8.5%) tested had BRAF-MT mCRC and were compared with 88 BRAF-WT controls. Median overall survival (mOS) was 18.2 months for BRAF-MT and 41.1 months for BRAF-WT mCRC patients (hazard ratio, 2.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-4.70; P < .001). Progression-free survival for BRAF-MT and WT patients, respectively, was: 8.1 months versus 9.2 months (P = .571) first-line, 5.5 months versus 8.3 months (P = .074) second-line, and 1.8 months versus 5.6 months (P = .074) third-line. Treatment using sequential fluoropyrimidine-based doublet chemotherapy was similar between both groups. Anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy was mainly given third-line with progressive disease in 90% (n = 9 of 10) of BRAF-MT patients at first restaging., Conclusion: In this case-control study, the poor mOS of BRAF-MT mCRC was associated with reduced treatment benefit beyond first-line. Sequential doublet chemotherapy remains a reasonable option in appropriately selected patients. BRAF-MT patients did not benefit from anti-EGFR therapy in this study. Recruitment to clinical trials is recommended to improve outcomes in BRAF-MT mCRC., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Brentuximab vedotin is an anti-CD30 antibody-drug conjugate that has been approved for relapsed and refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma., Methods: We conducted an open-label, multicenter, randomized phase 3 trial involving patients with previously untreated stage III or IV classic Hodgkin's lymphoma, in which 664 were assigned to receive brentuximab vedotin, doxorubicin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (A+AVD) and 670 were assigned to receive doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine (ABVD). The primary end point was modified progression-free survival (the time to progression, death, or noncomplete response and use of subsequent anticancer therapy) as adjudicated by an independent review committee. The key secondary end point was overall survival., Results: At a median follow-up of 24.6 months, 2-year modified progression-free survival rates in the A+AVD and ABVD groups were 82.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78.8 to 85.0) and 77.2% (95% CI, 73.7 to 80.4), respectively, a difference of 4.9 percentage points (hazard ratio for an event of progression, death, or modified progression, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.98; P=0.04). There were 28 deaths with A+AVD and 39 with ABVD (hazard ratio for interim overall survival, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.45 to 1.18]; P=0.20) [corrected]. All secondary efficacy end points trended in favor of A+AVD. Neutropenia occurred in 58% of the patients receiving A+AVD and in 45% of those receiving ABVD; in the A+AVD group, the rate of febrile neutropenia was lower among the 83 patients who received primary prophylaxis with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor than among those who did not (11% vs. 21%). Peripheral neuropathy occurred in 67% of patients in the A+AVD group and in 43% of patients in the ABVD group; 67% of patients in the A+AVD group who had peripheral neuropathy had resolution or improvement at the last follow-up visit. Pulmonary toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported in less than 1% of patients receiving A+AVD and in 3% of those receiving ABVD. Among the deaths that occurred during treatment, 7 of 9 in the A+AVD group were associated with neutropenia and 11 of 13 in the ABVD group were associated with pulmonary-related toxicity., Conclusions: A+AVD had superior efficacy to ABVD in the treatment of patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin's lymphoma, with a 4.9 percentage-point lower combined risk of progression, death, or noncomplete response and use of subsequent anticancer therapy at 2 years. (Funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals and Seattle Genetics; ECHELON-1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01712490 ; EudraCT number, 2011-005450-60 .).

There are limited data on circulating, cell-free, tumour (ct)DNA analysis in locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). Digital droplet (dd)PCR was used to investigate KRAS/BRAF mutations in ctDNA from baseline blood samples of 97 LARC patients who were treated with CAPOX followed by chemoradiotherapy, surgery and adjuvant CAPOX ± cetuximab in a randomised phase II trial. KRAS mutation in G12D, G12V or G13D was detected in the ctDNA of 43% and 35% of patients with tumours that were mutant and wild-type for these hotspot mutations, respectively, according to standard PCR-based analyses on tissue. The detection rate in the ctDNA of 10 patients with less common mutations was 50%. In 26 cases ctDNA analysis revealed KRAS mutations that were not previously found in tissue. Twenty-two of these (84.6%) were detected following repeat tissue testing by ddPCR. Overall, the ctDNA detection rate in the KRAS mutant population was 66%. Detection of KRAS mutation in ctDNA failed to predict prognosis or refine patient selection for cetuximab. While this study confirms the feasibility of ctDNA analysis in LARC and the high sensitivity of ddPCR, larger series are needed to better address the role of ctDNA as a prognostic or predictive tool in this setting.

Background: Rilotumumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that selectively targets the ligand of the MET receptor, hepatocyte growth factor (HGF). We aimed to assess the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics of rilotumumab combined with epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine, and to assess potential biomarkers, in patients with advanced MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma., Methods: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study was done at 152 centres in 27 countries. We recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0 or 1, MET-positive tumours (≥25% of tumour cells with membrane staining of ≥1+ staining intensity), and evaluable disease, who had not received previous systemic therapy. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a computerised voice response system to receive rilotumumab 15 mg/kg intravenously or placebo in combination with open-label chemotherapy (epirubicin 50 mg/m 2 intravenously; cisplatin 60 mg/m 2 intravenously; capecitabine 625 mg/m 2 orally twice daily) in 21-day cycles for up to ten cycles. After completion of chemotherapy, patients continued to receive rilotumumab or placebo monotherapy until disease progression, intolerability, withdrawal of consent, or study termination. Randomisation was stratified by disease extent and ECOG performance status. Both patients and physicians were masked to study treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. We report the final analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01697072., Findings: Between Nov 7, 2012, and Nov 21, 2014, 609 patients were randomly assigned to rilotumumab plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (rilotumumab group; n=304) or placebo plus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (placebo group; n=305). Study treatment was stopped early after an independent data monitoring committee found a higher number of deaths in the rilotumumab group than in the placebo group; all patients in the rilotumumab group subsequently discontinued all study treatment. Median follow-up was 7·7 months (IQR 3·6-12·0) for patients in the rilotumumab group and 9·4 months (5·3-13·1) for patients in the placebo group. Median overall survival was 8·8 months (95% CI 7·7-10·2) in the rilotumumab group compared with 10·7 months (9·6-12·4) in the placebo group (stratified hazard ratio 1·34, 95% CI 1·10-1·63; p=0·003). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events in the rilotumumab and placebo groups were neutropenia (86 [29%] of 298 patients vs 97 [32%] of 299 patients), anaemia (37 [12%] vs 43 [14%]), and fatigue (30 [10%] vs 35 [12%]). The frequency of serious adverse events was similar in the rilotumumab and placebo groups (142 [48%] vs 149 [50%]). More deaths due to adverse events occurred in the rilotumumab group than the placebo group (42 [14%] vs 31 [10%]). In the rilotumumab group, 33 (11%) of 298 patients had fatal adverse events due to disease progression, and nine (3%) had fatal events not due to disease progression. In the placebo group, 23 (8%) of 299 patients had fatal adverse events due to disease progression, and eight (3%) had fatal events not due to disease progression., Interpretation: Ligand-blocking inhibition of the MET pathway with rilotumumab is not effective in improving clinical outcomes in patients with MET-positive gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma., Funding: Amgen., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Central nervous system (CNS) relapse of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) is associated with a dismal prognosis. Here, we report an analysis of CNS relapse for patients treated within the UK NCRI phase III R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisolone) 14 versus 21 randomised trial., Patients and Methods: The R-CHOP 14 versus 21 trial compared R-CHOP administered two- versus three weekly in previously untreated patients aged ≥18 years with bulky stage I-IV DLBCL (n = 1080). Details of CNS prophylaxis were retrospectively collected from participating sites. The incidence and risk factors for CNS relapse including application of the CNS-IPI were evaluated., Results: 177/984 patients (18.0%) received prophylaxis (intrathecal (IT) methotrexate (MTX) n = 163, intravenous (IV) MTX n = 2, prophylaxis type unknown n = 11 and IT MTX and cytarabine n = 1). At a median follow-up of 6.5 years, 21 cases of CNS relapse (isolated n = 11, with systemic relapse n = 10) were observed, with a cumulative incidence of 1.9%. For patients selected to receive prophylaxis, the incidence was 2.8%. Relapses predominantly involved the brain parenchyma (81.0%) and isolated leptomeningeal involvement was rare (14.3%). Univariable analysis demonstrated the following risk factors for CNS relapse: performance status 2, elevated lactate dehydrogenase, IPI, >1 extranodal site of disease and presence of a 'high-risk' extranodal site. Due to the low number of events no factor remained significant in multivariate analysis. Application of the CNS-IPI revealed a high-risk group (4-6 risk factors) with a 2- and 5-year incidence of CNS relapse of 5.2% and 6.8%, respectively., Conclusion: Despite very limited use of IV MTX as prophylaxis, the incidence of CNS relapse following R-CHOP was very low (1.9%) confirming the reduced incidence in the rituximab era. The CNS-IPI identified patients at highest risk for CNS recurrence., Clinicaltrials.gov: ISCRTN number 16017947 (R-CHOP14v21); EudraCT number 2004-002197-34., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: There is an on-going debate whether 2- or 3-weekly administration of R-CHOP is the preferred first-line treatment for elderly patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). The UK NCRI R-CHOP14v21 randomized phase 3 trial did not demonstrate a difference in outcomes between R-CHOP-14 and R-CHOP-21 in newly diagnosed DLBCL patients aged 19-88 years, but data on elderly patients have not been reported in detail so far. Here, we provide a subgroup analysis of patients ≥60 years treated on the R-CHOP14v21 trial with extended follow-up., Patients and Methods: Six hundred and four R-CHOP14v21 patients ≥60 years were included in this subgroup analysis, with a median follow-up of 77.7 months. To assess the impact of MYC rearrangements (MYC-R) and double-hit-lymphoma (DHL) on outcome in elderly patients, we performed a joint analysis of cases with available molecular data from the R-CHOP14v21 (N = 217) and RICOVER-60 (N = 204) trials., Results: Elderly DLBCL patients received high dose intensities with median total doses of ≥98% for all agents. Toxicities were similar in both arms with the exception of more grade ≥3 neutropenia (P < 0.0001) and fewer grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia (P = 0.05) in R-CHOP-21 versus R-CHOP-14. The elderly patient population had a favorable 5-year overall survival (OS) of 69% (95% CI: 65-73). We did not identify any subgroup of patients that showed differential response to either regimen. In multivariable analysis including individual factors of the IPI, gender, bulk, B2M and albumin levels, only age and B2M were of independent prognostic significance for OS. Molecular analyses demonstrated a significant impact of MYC-R (HR = 1.96; 95% CI: 1.22-3.16; P = 0.01) and DHL (HR = 2.21; 95% CI: 1.18-4.11; P = 0.01) on OS in the combined trial cohorts, independent of other prognostic factors., Conclusions: Our data support equivalence of both R-CHOP application forms in elderly DLBCL patients. Elderly MYC-R and DHL patients have inferior prognosis and should be considered for alternative treatment approaches., Trial Numbers: ISCRTN 16017947 (R-CHOP14v21); NCT00052936 (RICOVER-60)., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology.)

Background: The potential of chemotherapy as salvage treatment after failure of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has never been explored. We conducted a single-center, retrospective analysis to address this question., Patients and Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed LARC who were inoperable or candidates for extensive (i.e., beyond total mesorectal excision [TME]) surgery after long-course chemoradiotherapy and who received salvage chemotherapy were included. The primary objective was to estimate the proportion of patients who became suitable for TME after chemotherapy., Results: Forty-five patients were eligible (39 candidates for extensive surgery and 6 unresectable). Previous radiotherapy was given concurrently with chemotherapy in 43 cases (median dose: 54.0 Gy). Oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-based salvage chemotherapy was administered in 40 (88.9%) and 5 (11.1%) cases, respectively. Eight patients (17.8%) became suitable for TME after chemotherapy, 10 (22.2%) ultimately underwent TME with clear margins, and 2 (4.4%) were managed with a watch and wait approach. Additionally, 13 patients had extensive surgery with curative intent. Three-year progression-free survival and 5-year overall survival in the entire population were 30.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 15.0-46.0) and 44.0% (95% CI: 26.0-61.0), respectively. For the curatively resected and "watch and wait" patients, these figures were 52.0% (95% CI: 27.0-73.0) and 67.0% (95% CI: 40.0-84.0), respectively., Conclusion: Systemic chemotherapy may be an effective salvage strategy for LARC patients who fail to respond to chemoradiotherapy and are inoperable or candidates for beyond TME surgery. According to our study, one out of five patients may become resectable or be spared from an extensive surgery after systemic chemotherapy., Implications for Practice: High-quality evidence to inform the optimal management of rectal cancer patients who are inoperable or candidates for beyond total mesorectal excision surgery following standard chemoradiotherapy is lacking. We show for the first time that systemic chemotherapy may be beneficial and result in one out of five poor prognosis patients becoming resectable or being spared from an extensive surgical approach. Although mores studies are needed to confirm these data, administering salvage systemic chemotherapy in this setting may have the potential to minimize morbidity associated with extensive surgical procedures and improve long-term oncological outcome., Competing Interests: Disclosures of potential conflicts of interest may be found at the end of this article., (© AlphaMed Press 2017.)

Importance: Dysregulation of the mesenchymal-epithelial transition (MET) signaling pathway is associated with poor prognosis in gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (GEC). We report results of METGastric, a phase 3 trial of the MET inhibitor onartuzumab plus standard first-line chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, MET-positive, advanced GEC., Objective: To determine whether the addition of onartuzumab to first-line fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (mFOLFOX6) improves efficacy compared with mFOLFOX6 plus placebo in HER2-negative, MET-positive GEC., Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, multicenter trial conducted from November 2012 to March 2014. Patients were 18 years or older with an adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction with metastatic disease not amenable for curative therapy. Tumor samples were centrally tested for MET expression using Ventana anti-Total c-MET (SP44) rabbit monoclonal antibody, HER2 status, and Lauren histologic subtype. MET-positive tumors were defined as at least 50% of tumor cells showing weak, moderate, and/or strong staining intensity (MET 1+/2+/3+, respectively) by immunohistochemistry., Interventions: Patients with HER2-negative, MET-positive GEC were enrolled and randomized 1:1 to receive mFOLFOX6 with or without onartuzumab (10 mg/kg)., Main Outcomes and Measures: Co-primary end points: overall survival in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population and in patients with MET 2+/3+ GEC. Secondary end points: progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and safety., Results: Enrollment was stopped early due to sponsor decision, which was agreed with an independent data monitoring committee. At the data cutoff (April 25, 2014) there were 562 patients in the ITT population (n = 283 placebo plus mFOLFOX6 [median age, 58 y; 65% male]; n = 279 onartuzumab plus mFOLFOX6 [median age, 60 y; 67% male]); 109 (38.5%) and 105 (37.6%) of the ITT population were MET 2+/3+, respectively. Addition of onartuzumab to mFOLFOX6 did not significantly improve OS, PFS, or ORR vs placebo plus mFOLFOX6 in the ITT (OS hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.59-1.15; P = .24; PFS HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.71-1.16; P = .43; ORR, 46.1% vs 40.6%) or MET 2+/3+ populations (OS HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.40-1.03; P = .06; PFS HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.54-1.15; P = .22; ORR, 53.8% vs 44.6%). Safety was as expected for onartuzumab., Conclusions and Relevance: Addition of onartuzumab to first-line mFOLFOX6 did not significantly improve clinical benefits in the ITT or MET 2+/3+ populations., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01662869.

Background: Outcomes in younger (<40 years) and elderly (≥70 years) patients with advanced biliary cancer (ABC) receiving palliative chemotherapy are unclear. This study assessed outcomes in those receiving monotherapy or combination therapy in thirteen prospective systemic-therapy trials., Methods: Multivariable analysis explored the impact of therapy on progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in two separate age cohort groups: <70 years and ≥70 years, and <40 years and ≥40 years., Results: Overall, 1163 patients were recruited (Jan 1997-Dec 2013). Median age of entire cohort: 63 years (range 23-85); 36 (3%) were <40, 260 (22%); ≥70. Combination therapy was platinum-based in nine studies. Among patients <40 and ≥70 years, 23 (64%) and 182 (70%) received combination therapy, respectively. Median follow-up was 42 months (95%-CI 37-51). Median PFS for patients <40 and ≥40 years was 3.5 and 5.9 months (P = 0.12), and OS was 10.8 and 9.7 months, respectively (P = 0.55). Median PFS for those <70 and ≥70 years was 6.0 and 5.0 months (P = 0.53), and OS was 10.2 and 8.8 months, respectively (P = 0.08). For the entire cohort, PFS and OS were significantly better in those receiving combination therapy: Hazard Ratio [HR]-0.66, 95%-CI 0.58-0.76, P < 0.0001 and HR-0.72, 95%-CI 0.63-0.82, P < 0.0001, respectively; and in patients ≥70 years: HR-0.54 (95%-CI 0.38-0.77, P = 0.001) and HR-0.60 (95%-CI 0.43-0.85, P = 0.004), respectively. There was no evidence of interaction between age and treatment for PFS (P = 0.58, P = 0.66) or OS (P = 0.18, P = 0.75)., Conclusions: In ABC, younger patients are rare, and survival in elderly patients in receipt of systemic therapy for advanced disease, whether monotherapy or combination therapy, is similar to that of non-elderly patients, therefore age alone should not influence decisions regarding treatment.

Background: Erlotinib is an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has shown a significant but only marginally improved median overall survival when combined with gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. Vandetanib is a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR2, RET, and EGFR, all of which are in involved in the pathogenesis of pancreatic cancer. We investigated the clinical efficacy of vandetanib when used in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer., Methods: The Vandetanib in Pancreatic Cancer (ViP) trial was a phase 2 double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial in previously untreated adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas confirmed by cytology or histology. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0-2 and a documented life expectancy of at least 3 months. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vandetanib plus gemcitabine (vandetanib group) or placebo plus gemcitabine (placebo group) according to pre-generated sequences produced on the principle of randomly permuted blocks with variable block sizes of two and four. Patients were stratified at randomisation by disease stage and ECOG performance status. All patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 as a 30-min intravenous infusion, weekly, for 7 weeks followed by a 1-week break, followed by a cycle of 3 weeks of treatment with a 1-week break, until disease progression, and either oral vandetanib 300 mg per day once daily or matching placebo. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome measure was overall survival (defined as the difference in time between randomisation and death from any cause or the censor date) in the intention-to-treat population. This trial has been completed and the final results are reported. The study is registered at EudraCT, number 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN96397434., Findings: Patients were screened and enrolled between Oct 24, 2011, and Oct 7, 2013. Of 381 patients screened, 142 eligible patients were randomly assigned to treatment (72 to the vandetanib group and 70 to the placebo group). At database lock on July 15, 2015, at a median follow-up of 24·9 months (IQR 24·3 to not attainable), 131 patients had died: 70 (97%) of 72 in the vandetanib group and 61 (87%) of 70 in the placebo group. The median overall survival was 8·83 months (95% CI 7·11-11·58) in the vandetanib group and 8·95 months (6·55-11·74) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·21, 80·8% CI 0·95-1·53; log rank χ 2 1df 1·1, p=0·303). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [49%] of 72 patients in the vandetanib group vs 22 [31%] of 70 in the placebo group), thrombocytopenia (20 [28%] vs 16 [23%]), hypertension (nine [13%] vs 11 [16%]), leucopenia (12 [17%] vs 13 [19%]), and fatigue (17 [24%] vs 15 [21%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study., Interpretation: The addition of vandetanib to gemcitabine monotherapy did not improve overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors might still have potential in the treatment of pancreatic cancer but further development requires the identification of biomarkers to specifically identify responsive cancer subtypes., Funding: Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)