Search

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.)

Purpose: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is established in the management of most resectable esophageal and esophagogastric junction adenocarcinomas. However, assessing the downstaging effects of chemotherapy and predicting response to treatment remain challenging, and the relative importance of tumor stage before and after chemotherapy is debatable., Methods: We analyzed consecutive resections for esophageal or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinomas performed at two high-volume cancer centers in London between 2000 and 2010. After standard investigations and multidisciplinary team consensus, all patients were allocated a clinical tumor stage before treatment, which was compared with pathologic stage after surgical resection. Survival analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier analysis and Cox regression analysis., Results: Among 584 included patients, 400 patients (68%) received neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with downstaged tumors after neoadjuvant chemotherapy experienced improved survival compared with patients without response (P < .001), and such downstaging (hazard ratio, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.31 to 0.59) was the strongest independent predictor of survival after adjusting for patient age, tumor grade, clinical tumor stage, lymphovascular invasion, resection margin status, and surgical resection type. Patients downstaged by chemotherapy, compared with patients with no response, experienced lower rates of local recurrence (6% v. 13%, respectively; P = .030) and systemic recurrence (19% v. 29%, respectively; P = .027) and improved Mandard tumor regression scores (P = .001). Survival was strongly dictated by stage after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, rather than clinical stage at presentation., Conclusion: The stage of esophageal or esophagogastric junction adenocarcinoma after neoadjuvant chemotherapy determines prognosis rather than the clinical stage before neoadjuvant chemotherapy, indicating the importance of focusing on postchemotherapy staging to more accurately predict outcome and eligibility for surgery. Patients who are downstaged by neoadjuvant chemotherapy benefit from reduced rates of local and systemic recurrence.

Background: The main toxicity of irinotecan in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) is delayed diarrhoea. Intestinal SN-38, released by deconjugation of the parent glucuronide excreted into the bile or produced in situ by intestinal carboxylesterase, is toxic to the intestinal epithelium. The canalicular transport of irinotecan and SN-38G is mediated by ABCC2 (MRP2) and ABCB1 (MDR1) which are both inhibited by ciclosporin. We tested whether irinotecan and ciclosporin was non-inferior for anti-cancer efficacy and superior for toxicity compared with single-agent irinotecan., Methods: Six hundred and seventy-two patients with advanced, measurable CRC following prior fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy were randomised to either irinotecan 3-weekly 350 mg/m(2) (or 300 mg/m(2) if age >70 or performance status (PS)=2) or 3-weekly irinotecan at 140 mg/m(2) (120 mg/m(2) if age >70 or PS=2) with ciclosporin 3mg/kg t.d.s. for three days by mouth starting on the morning before irinotecan. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients alive and progression-free at 12 weeks. The key secondary end-point was the incidence of grade ≥3 diarrhoea within 12 weeks of randomisation., Results: The proportion of patients progression-free at 12 weeks with irinotecan was 53.4% compared to 47.2% with irinotecan plus ciclosporin (difference=-6.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-13.8%, 1.3%]). Since the lower limit of the 95% CI crossed the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -10.6%, non-inferiority of irinotecan plus ciclosporin compared to irinotecan alone was not statistically demonstrated. 15.0% patients developed severe diarrhoea on irinotecan compared to 13.8% on irinotecan plus ciclosporin, a non-significant difference., Interpretation: The pharmacokinetic biomodulation of irinotecan using oral ciclosporin does not improve the therapeutic index of irinotecan in advanced CRC., Funding: The trial was funded by Cancer Research UK and supported by Amgen Pharma., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Therapeutic antibodies targeting EGFR have activity in advanced colorectal cancer, but results from clinical trials are inconsistent and the population in which most benefit is derived is uncertain. Our aim was to assess the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan in pretreated advanced colorectal cancer., Methods: In this open-label, randomised trial, we enrolled patients who had advanced colorectal cancer progressing after fluoropyrimidine treatment with or without oxaliplatin from 60 centres in the UK. From December, 2006 until June, 2008, molecularly unselected patients were recruited to a three-arm design including irinotecan (control), irinotecan plus ciclosporin, and irinotecan plus panitumumab (IrPan) groups. From June 10, 2008, in response to new data, the trial was amended to a prospectively stratified design, restricting panitumumab randomisation to patients with KRAS wild-type tumours; the results of the comparison between the irinotcan and IrPan groups are reported here. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence (stratified by previous EGFR targeted therapy and then minimised by centre, WHO performance status, previous oxaliplatin, previous bevacizumab, previous dose modifications, and best previous response) to randomly allocate patients to either irinotecan or IrPan. Patients in both groups received 350 mg/m(2) intravenous irinotecan every 3 weeks (300 mg/m(2) if aged ≥70 years or a performance status of 2); patients in the IrPan group also received intravenous panitumumab 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients who had not received previous EGFR targeted therapy, analysed by intention to treat. Tumour DNA was pyrosequenced for KRASc.146, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations, and predefined molecular subgroups were analysed for interaction with the effect of panitumumab. This study is registered, number ISRCTN93248876., Results: Between Dec 4, 2006, and Aug 31, 2010, 1198 patients were enrolled, of whom 460 were included in the primary population of patients with KRASc.12-13,61 wild-type tumours and no previous EGFR targeted therapy. 230 patients were randomly allocated to irinotecan and 230 to IrPan. There was no difference in overall survival between groups (HR 1·01, 95% CI 0·83-1·23; p=0·91), but individuals in the IrPan group had longer progression-free survival (0·78, 0·64-0·95; p=0·015) and a greater number of responses (79 [34%] patients vs 27 [12%]; p<0·0001) than did individuals in the irinotecan group. Grade 3 or worse diarrhoea (64 [29%] of 219 patients vs 39 [18%] of 218 patients), skin toxicity (41 [19%] vs none), lethargy (45 [21]% vs 24 [11%]), infection (42 [19%] vs 22 [10%]) and haematological toxicity (48 [22%] vs 27 [12%]) were reported more commonly in the IrPan group than in the irinotecan group. We recorded five treatment-related deaths, two in the IrPan group and three in the irinotecan group., Interpretation: Adding panitumumab to irinotecan did not improve the overall survival of patients with wild-type KRAS tumours. Further refinement of molecular selection is needed for substantial benefits to be derived from EGFR targeting agents., Funding: Cancer Research UK, Amgen Inc., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To compare protracted venous infusion (PVI) fluorouracil (5-FU) with PVI 5-FU plus mitomycin (MMC) in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer in a multicenter, prospectively randomized study., Patients and Methods: Two hundred eight patients were randomized to PVI 5-FU (300 mg/m(2)/d for a maximum of 24 weeks) or PVI 5-FU plus MMC (7 mg/m(2) every 6 weeks for four courses). The major end points were tumor response, survival, toxicity, and quality of life (QOL)., Results: The two treatment groups were balanced for baseline demographic factors, and 62% had metastatic disease. The overall response rate was 8.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]) 3.2% to 13.7% for patients treated with PVI 5-FU alone compared with 17.6%; 95% CI 10.3% to 25.1% for PVI 5-FU plus MMC (P =.04). Median failure-free survival was 2.8 months for PVI 5-FU and 3.8 months for PVI 5-FU plus MMC (P =.14). Median survival was 5.1 months for PVI 5-FU and 6.5 months for PVI 5-FU plus MMC (P =.34). Toxicities in both arms were mild. There was an increased incidence of neutropenia in the 5-FU plus MMC arm (P <.01), although no differences in infection were seen. No patients developed hemolytic uremic syndrome. Global QOL improved significantly after 24 weeks of treatment compared with baseline for patients receiving 5-FU plus MMC, although there was no statistically significant difference in QOL between arms., Conclusion: PVI 5-FU plus MMC resulted in a superior response rate in comparison with PVI 5-FU alone in advanced pancreatic cancer, but this did not translate into a survival advantage. These results emphasize the importance of chemotherapy in this setting and the continuing value of the fluoropyrimidines in pancreatic cancer.

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