Search

Background: The multi-centre two-stage SCALOP-2 trial (ISRCTN50083238) assessed whether dose escalation of consolidative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or concurrent sensitization using the protease inhibitor nelfinavir improve outcomes in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) following four cycles of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel., Methods: In stage 1, the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of nelfinavir concurrent with standard-dose CRT (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions) was identified from a cohort of 27 patients. In stage 2, 159 patients were enrolled in an open-label randomized controlled comparison of standard versus high dose (60 Gy in 30 fractions) CRT, with or without nelfinavir at MTD. Primary outcomes following dose escalation and nelfinavir use were respectively overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included health-related quality of life (HRQoL)., Results: High dose CRT did not improve OS (16.9 (60 % confidence interval, CI 16.2-17.7) vs. 15.6 (60 %CI 14.3-18.2) months; adjusted hazard ratio, HR 1.13 (60 %CI 0.91-1.40; p = 0.68)). Similarly, median PFS was not improved by nelfinavir (10.0 (60 %CI 9.9-10.2) vs. 11.1 (60 %CI 10.3-12.8) months; adjusted HR 1.71 (60 %CI 1.38-2.12; p = 0.98)). Local progression at 12 months was numerically lower with high-dose CRT than with standard dose CRT (n = 11/46 (23.9 %) vs. n = 15/45 (33.3 %)). Neither nelfinavir nor radiotherapy dose escalation impacted on treatment compliance or grade 3/4 adverse event rate. There were no sustained differences in HRQoL scores between treatment groups over 28 weeks post-treatment., Conclusions: Dose-escalated CRT may improve local tumour control and is well tolerated when used as consolidative treatment in LAPC but does not impact OS. Nelfinavir use does not improve PFS., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The liver is the most frequent site of metastases in colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to assess the response rate and survival outcomes in metastatic CRC patients with non-liver metastases (NLM) compared to those with liver metastases (LM) across different lines of treatment., Methods: A total of 17,924 mCRC patients included in 26 trials from the ARCAD CRC database were analyzed. The analysis was conducted based on the presence or absence of LM across different treatment groups: chemotherapy (CT) alone, CT + anti-VEGF, CT + anti-EGFR in KRAS wild-type tumors, within the first-line (1 L) and second-line (2 L), and patients enrolled in third-line (≥3 L) trials treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib or placebo. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR)., Results: Out of the 17,924 patients, 14,066 had LM (30.6 % with only liver involvement and 69.4 % with liver and other metastatic sites), while 3858 patients had NLM. In the CT alone and CT + anti-VEGF subgroups, NLM patients showed better OS and PFS in the 1 L and 2 L settings. However, in the CT + anti-EGFR 1 L and 2 L subgroups, there was no significant difference in OS and PFS between NLM and LM patients. In the ≥ 3 L subgroups, better OS and PFS were observed in NLM patients. ORRs were higher in LM patients than in NLM patients across all cohorts treated in the 1 L and only in the anti-EGFR cohort in the 2 L., Conclusion: LM is a poor prognostic factor for mCRC increasing from 1 L to ≥ 3 L except for patients in 1 L and 2 L receiving CT+anti-EGFR. These data justify using LM as a stratification factor in future trials for patients with unresectable mCRC., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest Benoist Chibaudel reports consulting and advisory role from Amgen, Bayer, Beigine, Biocartis, Lilly, Merck, MSD, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Revolution Medicines, Roche, SeqOne, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda. Josep Tabernero reports personal financial interest in form of scientific consultancy role for Array Biopharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardiff Oncology, Chugai, Daiichi Sankyo, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Genentech Inc, HalioDX SAS, Hutchison MediPharma International, Ikena Oncology, Inspirna Inc, IQVIA, Lilly, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merus, MSD, Mirati, Neophore, Novartis, Ona Therapeutics, Orion Biotechnology, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi, Scandion Oncology, Scorpion Therapeutics, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Sotio Biotech, Taiho, Tessa Therapeutics, TheraMyc and Tolremo Therapeutics. Stocks: Oniria Therapeutics and also educational collaboration with Imedex/HMP, Medscape Education, MJH Life Sciences, PeerView Institute for Medical Education and Physicians Education Resource (PER). Qian Shi reports consulting/advisory role from Yiviva Inc, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Hoosier Cancer Research Network, Kronos Bio, and Mirati Therapeutics Inc; Honorarium/speaker role from Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (to myself), research funds from Celgene/BMS, Roche/Genentech, Janssen, Novartis (to institution). Thierry Andre reports attending advisory board meetings and receiving consulting fees from Abbvie, Astellas, Aptitude Health, Bristol Myers Squibb, Gritstone Oncology, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co. Inc., Nordic Oncology, Seagen, Servier, Takeda and Transgène and honoraria from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co. Inc., Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sanofi, Seagen and Servier; and support for meetings from Merck & Co. Inc. and Servier. John Zalcberg reports leadership from ICON Group, Lipotek, PRAXIS; Stock from Biomarin, Ophthea, Amarin, Concert Pharmaceuticals, Frequency Therapeutics, Gilead, Madrigal Pharmaceuticals, UniQure, Zogenix, Orphazyme, Moderna Therapeutics, TWST, Novavax, Teladoc; Honoraria from Gilead Sciences, MSD Oncology, Viatris; Consulting & Advisory Role from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Specialized Therapeutics, CEND, Deciphera, REVOLUTION MEDICINE, FivePHusion, Genorbio, 1Global, Novatech, Alloplex Biotherapeutics Inc, Oncology Republic; Research Funding from BMS, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, IQvia, Mylan, Ipsen, Eisai, Medtronic, MSD Oncology, Servier; Travel from MSD Oncology, ICON Group, PRAXIS.Eric Van Cutsem repors participation to advisory boards for Abbvie, ALX, Amgen, Array, Astellas, Astrazeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi, GSK, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Mirati, Novartis, Nordic, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Takeda, Terumo, Taiho, Zymeworks; research grants from Amgen, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Roche, Servier paid to his institution. Takayuki Yoshino reports honoraria from Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Merck Biopharma Co., Ltd., Bayer Yakuhin, Ltd., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., MSD K.K.; consulting fee from Sumitomo Corp.; research grant from Amgen K.K., Bristol-Myers Squibb K.K., Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Daiichi Sankyo Co., Ltd., Eisai Co., Ltd, FALCO biosystems Ltd., Genomedia Inc., MEDICAL & BIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES CO., LTD., Merus N.V., Molecular Health GmbH, MSD K.K., Nippon Boehringer Ingelheim Co ., Ltd., Ono Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Pfizer Japan Inc.,Roche Diagnostics K.K., Sanofi K.K., Sysmex Corp., Taiho Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Richard Adams reports receiving consulting fees from Takeda, Bayer, GSK; honoraria from Amgen, Bayer, Seagen; Support for attending meetings and/or travel from Servier, Takeda; Participation on Advisory Board from Takeda, Seagen. Carsten Bokemeyer repors receiving consulting fees as advisory boards from Astra Zeneca, Bayer Healthcare, BioNTech, Heaxal, Lindis Biotech, and Sanofi Aventis; as Invited Speaker from AOK Germany, med update, and Roche Pharma; reports honoraria from DGHO, Hamburg Cancer Society, National Network of German Cancer Centers (DKH), Northern German Society of Internal Medicine, DGHO, German Cancer Society. Cornelis J. A. Punt repors receiving consulting fees as advisory boards from Nordic Pharma. Richard M Goldberg receiving consulting fees as advisory boards from Fight for Colorectal Cancer, US NCI. Volker Heinemann repors receiving consulting fees from Merck, Amgen, Roche, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Servier, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, Halozyme, MSD, BMS, GSK, Janssen, Terumo, Sirtex, Oncosil, Nordic, Boehringer-Ingelheim; honoraria from Merck, Amgen, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, AstraZeneca, BMS, MSD, Novartis, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Celgene, Sirtex, Seagen, GSK; support for attending from Merck, Amgen, MSD, Nordic, AstraZeneca, Servier: reports stock from BionTech. Chiara Cremolini repors receiving consulting fees from Nordic Pharma, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Servier, Takeda; reports honoraria from Takeda, MSD, Amgen, Merck, Pierre Fabre, Servier, Bayer; participation to advisory board from Mirat. Miriam Koopman repors receiving consulting fees from Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Personal Genome Diagnostics (PGDx), Pierre Fabre, Roche, Sirtex, Servier and PI participation from the international cohort study PROMETCO with Servier as sponsor; participation to advisory board from Eisai, Nordic Farma, Merck-Serono, Pierre Fabre, Servier; as leadership or fiduciary role in Chair ESMO RWDD working group, co-chair DCCG, PI PLCRC (national observational cohort study), involved in several clinical trials as PI or co-investigator in CRC. Alan Venook repors receiving consulting fees from Amgen, Genentech/Roche, Deciphera; participation on Advisory Board in Amgen, Agenus. Timothy Maughan repors receiving consulting fees from Merck KGAa, Cancer Research UK, Astrazeneca, Ground Truth Laboratories, Perspectum, Nordin Pharma; participation on Advisory Board and leadership in Cancer Research UK, National Cancer Research Institute-University of Liverpool. All remaining authors have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Despite extensive randomized evidence supporting the use of treatment breaks in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), they are not universally offered to patients despite improvements in quality of life without detriment to overall survival (OS). FOCUS4-N was set up to explore the impact of oral maintenance therapy in patients who are responding to first-line therapy., Methods: FOCUS4 was a molecularly stratified trial program that registered patients with newly diagnosed mCRC. The FOCUS4-N trial was offered to patients in whom a targeted subtrial was unavailable or biomarker tests failed. Patients were randomly assigned using a 1:1 ratio between maintenance capecitabine and active monitoring (AM). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) with secondary outcomes including OS toxicity and tolerability., Results: Between March 2014 and March 2020, 254 patients were randomly assigned (127 to capecitabine and 127 to AM) across 88 UK sites. Baseline characteristics were balanced. There was strong evidence of efficacy for PFS (hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75; P < .0001), but no significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.27; P = .66) was observed. Compliance with treatment was good, and toxicity from capecitabine versus AM was as expected with grade ≥ 2 fatigue (25% v 12%), diarrhea (23% v 13%), and hand-foot syndrome (26% v 3%). Quality of life showed little difference between the groups., Conclusion: Despite strong evidence of disease control with maintenance therapy, OS remains unaffected and FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients who are stable or responding to first-line treatment for mCRC. Capecitabine without bevacizumab may be used to extend PFS in the interval after 16 weeks of first-line therapy., Competing Interests: Richard A. AdamsHonoraria: Merck Serono, Servier, AmgenConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Serono, Amgen, Servier, BayerSpeakers' Bureau: Merck SeronoResearch Funding: Merck Sharp & DohmeTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Servier, Amgen, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca Janet GrahamHonoraria: Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, Nucana, BayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck KGaATravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Nucana Jenny F. SeligmannHonoraria: Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, ServierConsulting or Advisory Role: Pierre Fabre, Roche Molecular DiagnosticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex Matthew SeymourResearch Funding: Amgen, AstraZeneca Richard KaplanResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Mahesh ParmarResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Clovis Oncology Philip QuirkeHonoraria: RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Adlai Nortye, Avacta Life Sciences, Amgen, BayerResearch Funding: Roche, GeneFirst, ONIPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Roche have filed a patent jointly with my UniversityTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Bayer, Amgen Rachel ButlerSpeakers' Bureau: Bayer, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Illumina, Lilly, Novartis, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim Ewan BrownResearch Funding: MSD Oncology Fiona CollinsonResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb Stephen FalkStock and Other Ownership Interests: GlaxoSmithKlineSpeakers' Bureau: Merck Serono, Servier, AmgenResearch Funding: Gilead SciencesTravel, 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, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme Kai-Keen ShiuHonoraria: Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Innovent Biologics, Servier, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbHConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD Oncology, Roche, Mirati TherapeuticsResearch Funding: MSD Oncology, Roche Gary MiddletonConsulting or Advisory Role: BMS, D2G, MSDSpeakers' Bureau: Roche, BMS, Servier, PierreFabre, AZTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: BMS Leslie SamuelHonoraria: ServierConsulting or Advisory Role: MerckResearch Funding: Merck, Array BioPharma, Tesaro, Servier, Hutchison MediPharma Richard H. WilsonHonoraria: Servier, Amgen, Bristol Myers SquibbConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, CV6 Therapeutics, Pierre Fabre, Amphista Therapeutics, NucanaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen, Pierre Fabre Louise C. BrownResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Timothy S. MaughanConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Vertex, Pierre FabreResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, PsiOxus Therapeutics, Merck KgAA, Almac DiagnosticsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Chemotherapies administered at normal therapeutic dosages can cause significant side-effects and may result in early treatment discontinuation. Inter-individual variation in toxicity highlights the need for biomarkers to personalise treatment. We sought to identify such biomarkers by conducting 40 genome-wide association studies, together with gene and gene set analyses, for any toxicity and 10 individual toxicities in 1800 patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy ± cetuximab from the MRC COIN and COIN-B trials (385 patients received FOLFOX, 360 FOLFOX + cetuximab, 707 XELOX and 348 XELOX + cetuximab). Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), genes and gene sets that reached genome-wide or suggestive significance were validated in independent patient groups. We found that MROH5 was significantly associated with neutropenia in MAGMA gene analyses in patients treated with XELOX (P = 6.6 × 10 -7 ) and was independently validated in those receiving XELOX + cetuximab; pooled P = 3.7 × 10 -7 . rs13260246 at 8q21.13 was significantly associated with vomiting in patients treated with XELOX (odds ratio = 5.0, 95% confidence interval = 3.0-8.3, P = 9.8 × 10 -10 ) but was not independently replicated. SNPs at 139 loci had suggestive associations for toxicities and lead SNPs at five of these were independently validated (rs6030266 with diarrhoea, rs1546161 with hand-foot syndrome, rs9601722 with neutropenia, rs13413764 with lethargy and rs4600090 with nausea; all with pooled P's < 5.0 × 10 -6 ). In conclusion, the association of MROH5 with neutropenia and five other putative biomarkers warrant further investigation for their potential clinical utility. Despite our comprehensive genome-wide analyses of large, well-characterised, clinical trials, we found a lack of common variants with modest effect sizes associated with toxicities., (© 2021 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Preclinical models of cancer have demonstrated enhanced efficacy of cell-cycle checkpoint kinase inhibitors when used in combination with genotoxic agents. This combination therapy is predicted to be exquisitely toxic to cells with a deficient G 1 -S checkpoint or cells with a genetic predisposition leading to intrinsic DNA replication stress, as these cancer cells become fully dependent on the intra-S and G 2 -M checkpoints for DNA repair and cellular survival. Therefore, abolishing remaining cell-cycle checkpoints after damage leads to increased cell death in a tumor cell-specific fashion. However, the preclinical success of these drug combinations is not consistently replicated in clinical trials. Here, we provide a perspective on the translation of preclinical studies into rationally designed clinical studies. We will discuss successes and failures of current treatment combinations and drug regimens and provide a detailed overview of all clinical trials using ATR, CHK1, or WEE1 inhibitors in combination with genotoxic agents. This highlights the need for revised patient stratification and the use of appropriate pharmacodynamic biomarkers to improve the success rate of clinical trials., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Purpose: The DNA damage immune response (DDIR) assay was developed in breast cancer based on biology associated with deficiencies in homologous recombination and Fanconi anemia pathways. A positive DDIR call identifies patients likely to respond to platinum-based chemotherapies in breast and esophageal cancers. In colorectal cancer, there is currently no biomarker to predict response to oxaliplatin. We tested the ability of the DDIR assay to predict response to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer and characterized the biology in DDIR-positive colorectal cancer., Experimental Design: Samples and clinical data were assessed according to DDIR status from patients who received either 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or 5FUFA (bolus and infusion 5-FU with folinic acid) plus oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) within the FOCUS trial ( n = 361, stage IV), or neoadjuvant FOLFOX in the FOxTROT trial ( n = 97, stage II/III). Whole transcriptome, mutation, and IHC data of these samples were used to interrogate the biology of DDIR in colorectal cancer., Results: Contrary to our hypothesis, DDIR-negative patients displayed a trend toward improved outcome for oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy compared with DDIR-positive patients. DDIR positivity was associated with microsatellite instability (MSI) and colorectal molecular subtype 1. Refinement of the DDIR signature, based on overlapping IFN-related chemokine signaling associated with DDIR positivity across colorectal cancer and breast cancer cohorts, further confirmed that the DDIR assay did not have predictive value for oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in colorectal cancer., Conclusions: DDIR positivity does not predict improved response following oxaliplatin treatment in colorectal cancer. However, data presented here suggest the potential of the DDIR assay in identifying immune-rich tumors that may benefit from immune checkpoint blockade, beyond current use of MSI status., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

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.)

Purpose: Genome-wide association studies have identified common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) at 83 loci associated with colorectal cancer (CRC) risk in European populations. Because germline variation can also influence patient outcome, we studied the relationship between these SNPs and CRC survivorship., Experimental Design: For the 83 risk loci, 10 lead SNPs were directly genotyped, 72 were imputed and 1 was not genotyped nor imputed, in 1948 unrelated patients with advanced CRC from the clinical trials COIN and COIN-B (oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy ± cetuximab). A Cox survival model was used for each variant, and variants classified by pathway, adjusting for known prognostic factors. We imposed a Bonferroni threshold of P = 6.6 × 10 -4 for multiple testing. We carried out meta-analyses of published risk SNPs associated with survival., Results: Univariate analysis identified six SNPs associated with overall survival (OS) (P < 0.05); however, only rs9939049 in CDH1 remained significant beyond the Bonferroni threshold (Hazard Ratio [HR] 1.44, 95% Confidence Intervals [CI]: 1.21-1.71, P = 5.0 × 10 -5 ). Fine mapping showed that rs12597188 was the most significant SNP at this locus and remained significant after adjustment for known prognostic factors beyond multiple testing thresholds (HR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.13-1.34, P = 1.9 × 10 -6 ). rs12597188 was also associated with poor response to therapy (OR 0.61, 95% CI: 0.42-0.87, P = 6.6 × 10 -3 ). No combinations of SNPs within pathways were more significantly associated with survival compared with single variants alone, and no other risk SNPs were associated with survival in meta-analyses., Conclusions: The CRC susceptibility SNP rs9939049 in CDH1 influences patient survival and warrants further evaluation as a prognostic biomarker., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Inherited genetic variants may influence response to, and side-effects from, chemotherapy. We sought to generate a comprehensive inherited pharmacogenetic profile for oxaliplatin and 5FU/capecitabine therapy in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC)., Methods: We analysed more than 200 potentially functional, common, inherited variants in genes within the 5FU, capecitabine, oxaliplatin and DNA repair pathways, together with four rare dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) variants, in 2183 aCRC patients treated with oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy with, or without, cetuximab (from MRC COIN and COIN-B trials). Primary end-points were response, any toxicity and peripheral neuropathy. We had >85% power to detect odds ratios (ORs) = 1.3 for variants with minor allele frequencies >20%., Results: Variants in DNA repair genes (Asn279Ser in EXO1 and Arg399Gln in XRCC1) were most associated with response (OR 1.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-2.9, P = 0.004, and OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-0.9, P = 0.003, respectively). Common variants in DPYD (Cys29Arg and Val732Ile) were most associated with toxicity (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.7-1.0, P = 0.008, and OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.1, P = 0.006, respectively). Two rare DPYD variants were associated with increased toxicity (Asp949Val with neutropenia, nausea and vomiting, diarrhoea and infection; IVS14+1G>A with lethargy, diarrhoea, stomatitis, hand-foot syndrome and infection; all ORs > 3). Asp317His in DCLRE1A was most associated with peripheral neuropathy (OR 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.6, P = 0.003). No common variant associations remained significant after Bonferroni correction., Conclusions: DNA repair genes may play a significant role in the pharmacogenetics of aCRC. Our data suggest that both common and rare DPYD variants may be associated with toxicity to fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The addition of cetuximab (CTX) to perioperative chemotherapy (CT) for operable colorectal liver metastases resulted in a shorter progression-free survival. Details of disease progression are described to further inform the primary study outcome., Methods: A total of 257 KRAS wild-type patients were randomised to CT alone or CT with CTX. Data regarding sites and treatment of progressive disease were obtained for the 109 (CT n=48, CT and CTX n=61) patients with progressive disease at the cut-off date for analysis of November 2012., Results: The liver was the most frequent site of progression (CT 67% (32/48); CT and CTX 66% (40/61)). A higher proportion of patients in the CT and group had multiple sites of progressive disease (CT 8%, 4/48; CT and CTX 23%, 14/61 P=0.04). Further treatment for progressive disease is known for 84 patients of whom 69 received further CT, most frequently irinotecan based. Twenty-two patients, 11 in each arm, received CTX as a further line agent., Conclusions: Both the distribution of progressive disease and further treatment are as expected for such a cohort. The pattern of disease progression seen is consistent with failure of systemic micrometastatic disease control rather than failure of local disease control following liver surgery.

Background: Advanced biliary tract carcinomas are associated with a poor prognosis, and palliative chemotherapy has only modest benefit. This multi-centre phase II study was conducted to determine the efficacy of capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin in patients with inoperable gall bladder or biliary tract cancer., Methods: This was a Phase II, non-randomised, two-stage Simon design, multi-centre study. Ethics approval was sought and obtained by the North West MREC, and then locally by the West Glasgow Hospitals Research Ethics Committee. Eligible patients with inoperable locally advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the gall bladder or biliary tract and with adequate performance status, haematologic, renal, and hepatic function were treated with capecitabine (1000 mg/m(2) po, twice daily, days 1-14) and oxaliplatin (130 mg/m(2) i.v., day 1) every 3 weeks for up to six cycles. The primary objective of the study was to determine the objective tumour response rates (complete and partial). The secondary objectives included assessment of toxicity, progression-free survival, and overall survival., Results: Forty-three patients were recruited between July 2003 and December 2005. The regimen was well tolerated with no grade 3/4 neutropenia or thrombocytopenia. Grade 3/4 sensory neuropathy was observed in six patients. Two-thirds of patients received their chemotherapy without any dose delays. Overall response rate was 23.8% (95% CI 12.05-39.5%). Stable disease was observed in a further 13 patients (31%) and progressive disease observed in 12 (28.6%) of patients. The median progression-free survival was 4.6 months (95% CI 2.8-6.4 months; Fig. 1) and the median overall survival 7.9 months (95% CI 5.3-10.4 months; Fig. 2). Fig. 1 Progression-free survival Fig. 2 Overall survival, Conclusion: Capecitabine combined with oxaliplatin has a lower disease control and shorter overall survival than the combination of cisplatin with gemcitabine which has subsequently become the standard of care in this disease. However, capecitabine in combination with oxaliplatin does have modest activity in this disease, and can be considered as an alternative treatment option for patients in whom cisplatin and/or gemcitabine are contra-indicated.

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies (MAb) in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) have reported conflicting results., Methods: A systematic review of RCTs comparing standard treatments±anti-EGFR MAbs was conducted. Hazard ratios (HR) for progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were derived for patients with wild-type (WT) and mutant KRAS. Prespecified analyses were conducted for line of treatment, MAb used, chemotherapy regimen, and choice of fluouropyrimidine. Trials using bevacizumab on both arms were included in a sensitivity analysis., Results: Fourteen eligible RCTs were identified, with results by KRAS status available for ten RCTs. For third line treatment, the effect of anti-EGFR MAbs depended on KRAS status (interaction p<0.00001), with a PFS benefit for patients with WT KRAS only (HR=0.43, 95% CI 0.35-0.52, p<0.00001). For first and second line treatment, the effect also appeared to depend on KRAS status (interaction p=0.0003), again with the PFS benefit only for patients with WT KRAS (HR=0.83, 95% CI 0.76-0.90, p<0.0001). Differences between trial results (heterogeneity p=0.02, I(2)=62%) were best explained by the fluouropyrimidine used, with PFS benefits confined to trials combining MAbs alongside 5FU-based chemotherapy (HR=0.77, 95% CI 0.70-0.85, p<0.00001). There was no evidence of a PFS benefit when MAbs were given with bevacizumab., Conclusions: For aCRC patients with WT KRAS, there are clear benefits of anti-EGFR MAbs in the third line and in the first and second line, when used alongside infusional 5FU-based regimens. However, there is no benefit for patients with KRAS mutations., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: COIN compared first-line continuous chemotherapy with the same chemotherapy given intermittently or with cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC)., Methods: Choice between oxaliplatin/capecitabine (OxCap) and oxaliplatin/leucovorin (LV)/infusional 5-FU (OxFU) was by physician and patient choice and switching regimen was allowed. We compared OxCap with OxFU and OxCap+cetuximab with OxFU+cetuximab retrospectively in patients and examined efficacy, toxicity profiles and the effect of mild renal impairment., Results: In total, 64% of 2397 patients received OxCap(± cetuximab). Overall survival, progression free survival and overall response rate were similar between OxCap and OxFU but rate of radical surgeries was higher for OxFU. Progression free survival was longer for OxFU+cetuximab compared with OxCap+cetuximab but other efficacy measures were similar. Oxaliplatin/LV/infusional 5-FU (± cetuximab) was associated with more mucositis and infection whereas OxCap(± cetuximab) caused more gastrointestinal toxicities and palmar-plantar erythema. In total, 118 patients switched regimen, mainly due to toxicity; only 16% came off their second regimen due to intolerance. Patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) 50-80 ml min(-1) on OxCap(± cetuximab) or OxFU+cetuximab had more dose modifications than those with better renal function., Conclusions: Overall, OxFU and OxCap are equally effective in treating aCRC. However, the toxicity profiles differ and switching from one regimen to the other for poor tolerance is a reasonable option. Patients with CrCl 50-80 ml min(-1) on both regimens require close toxicity monitoring.

Background: In the Medical Research Council (MRC) COIN trial, the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted antibody cetuximab was added to standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer with the aim of assessing effect on overall survival., Methods: In this randomised controlled trial, patients who were fit for but had not received previous chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy (arm A), the same combination plus cetuximab (arm B), or intermittent chemotherapy (arm C). The choice of fluoropyrimidine therapy (capecitabine or infused fluouroracil plus leucovorin) was decided before randomisation. Randomisation was done centrally (via telephone) by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation. Treatment allocation was not masked. The comparison of arms A and C is described in a companion paper. Here, we present the comparison of arm A and B, for which the primary outcome was overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. Analysis was by intention to treat. Further analyses with respect to NRAS, BRAF, and EGFR status were done. The trial is registered, ISRCTN27286448., Findings: 1630 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (815 to standard therapy and 815 to addition of cetuximab). Tumour samples from 1316 (81%) patients were used for somatic molecular analyses; 565 (43%) had KRAS mutations. In patients with KRAS wild-type tumours (arm A, n=367; arm B, n=362), overall survival did not differ between treatment groups (median survival 17·9 months [IQR 10·3-29·2] in the control group vs 17·0 months [9·4-30·1] in the cetuximab group; HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·87-1·23, p=0·67). Similarly, there was no effect on progression-free survival (8·6 months [IQR 5·0-12·5] in the control group vs 8·6 months [5·1-13·8] in the cetuximab group; HR 0·96, 0·82-1·12, p=0·60). Overall response rate increased from 57% (n=209) with chemotherapy alone to 64% (n=232) with addition of cetuximab (p=0·049). Grade 3 and higher skin and gastrointestinal toxic effects were increased with cetuximab (14 vs 114 and 67 vs 97 patients in the control group vs the cetuximab group with KRAS wild-type tumours, respectively). Overall survival differs by somatic mutation status irrespective of treatment received: BRAF mutant, 8·8 months (IQR 4·5-27·4); KRAS mutant, 14·4 months (8·5-24·0); all wild-type, 20·1 months (11·5-31·7)., Interpretation: This trial has not confirmed a benefit of addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Cetuximab increases response rate, with no evidence of benefit in progression-free or overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients or even in patients selected by additional mutational analysis of their tumours. The use of cetuximab in combination with oxaliplatin and capecitabine in first-line chemotherapy in patients with widespread metastases cannot be recommended., Funding: Cancer Research UK, Cancer Research Wales, UK Medical Research Council, Merck KGgA., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Elderly and frail patients with cancer, although often treated with chemotherapy, are under-represented in clinical trials. We designed FOCUS2 to investigate reduced-dose chemotherapy options and to seek objective predictors of outcome in frail patients with advanced colorectal cancer., Methods: We undertook an open, 2 × 2 factorial trial in 61 UK centres for patients with previously untreated advanced colorectal cancer who were considered unfit for full-dose chemotherapy. After comprehensive health assessment (CHA), patients were randomly assigned by minimisation to: 48-h intravenous fluorouracil with levofolinate (group A); oxaliplatin and fluorouracil (group B); capecitabine (group C); or oxaliplatin and capecitabine (group D). Treatment allocation was not masked. Starting doses were 80% of standard doses, with discretionary escalation to full dose after 6 weeks. The two primary outcome measures were: addition of oxaliplatin ([A vs B] + [C vs D]), assessed with progression-free survival (PFS); and substitution of fluorouracil with capecitabine ([A vs C] + [B vs D]), assessed by change from baseline to 12 weeks in global quality of life (QoL). Analysis was by intention to treat. Baseline clinical and CHA data were modelled against outcomes with a novel composite measure, overall treatment utility (OTU). This study is registered, number ISRCTN21221452., Findings: 459 patients were randomly assigned (115 to each of groups A-C, 114 to group D). Factorial comparison of addition of oxaliplatin versus no addition suggested some improvement in PFS, but the finding was not significant (median 5·8 months [IQR 3·3-7·5] vs 4·5 months [2·8-6·4]; hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·69-1·01, p=0·07). Replacement of fluorouracil with capecitabine did not improve global QoL: 69 of 124 (56%) patients receiving fluorouracil reported improvement in global QoL compared with 69 of 123 (56%) receiving capecitabine. The risk of having any grade 3 or worse toxic effect was not significantly increased with oxaliplatin (83/219 [38%] vs 70/221 [32%]; p=0·17), but was higher with capecitabine than with fluorouracil (88/222 [40%] vs 65/218 [30%]; p=0·03). In multivariable analysis, fewer baseline symptoms (odds ratio 1·32, 95% CI 1·14-1·52), less widespread disease (1·51, 1·05-2·19), and use of oxaliplatin (0·57, 0·39-0·82) were predictive of better OTU., Interpretation: FOCUS2 shows that with an appropriate design, including reduced starting doses of chemotherapy, frail and elderly patients can participate in a randomised controlled trial. On balance, a combination including oxaliplatin was preferable to single-agent fluoropyrimidines, although the primary endpoint of PFS was not met. Capecitabine did not improve QoL compared with fluorouracil. Comprehensive baseline assessment holds promise as an objective predictor of treatment benefit., Funding: Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs when blood clots in the leg, pelvic or other deep vein (deep vein thrombosis) with or without transport of the thrombus into the pulmonary arterial circulation (pulmonary embolus). VTE is common in patients with cancer and is increased by surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and disease progression. Low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is routinely used to treat VTE and some evidence suggests that LMWH may also have an anticancer effect, by reduction in the incidence of metastases. The FRAGMATIC trial will assess the effect of adding dalteparin (FRAGMIN), a type of LMWH, to standard treatment for patients with lung cancer., Methods/design: The study design is a randomised multicentre phase III trial comparing standard treatment and standard treatment plus daily LMWH for 24 weeks in patients with lung cancer. Patients eligible for this study must have histopathological or cytological diagnosis of primary bronchial carcinoma (small cell or non-small cell) within 6 weeks of randomisation, be 18 or older, and must be willing and able to self-administer 5000 IU dalteparin by daily subcutaneous injection or have it administered to themselves or by a carer for 24 weeks. A total of 2200 patients will be recruited from all over the UK over a 3 year period and followed up for a minimum of 1 year after randomisation. Patients will be randomised to one of the two treatment groups in a 1:1 ratio, standard treatment or standard treatment plus dalteparin. The primary outcome measure of the trial is overall survival. The secondary outcome measures include venous thrombotic event (VTE) free survival, serious adverse events (SAEs), metastasis-free survival, toxicity, quality of life (QoL), levels of breathlessness, anxiety and depression, cost effectiveness and cost utility., Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN80812769.

We present the preliminary toxicity data from the MRC COIN trial, a phase III randomised controlled trial of first-line therapy in advanced colorectal cancer, with particular reference to the addition of cetuximab to an oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine combination. A total of 804 patients were randomised between March 2005 and July 2006 from 78 centres throughout the United Kingdom. Patients were allocated to oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy with or without the addition of weekly cetuximab. The choice of fluoropyrimidine (either 5-fluorouracil (5FU) or capecitabine) was decided by the treating physician and patient before randomisation. Toxicity data were collected from all patients. Two hundred and three patients received 5FU plus oxaliplatin (OxMdG, 25%), 333 oxaliplatin+capecitabine (Xelox, 41%), 102 received OxMdG+cetuximab (OxMdG+C, 13%) and 166 Xelox+cetuximab (21%). Percent grade 3/4 toxicities included diarrhoea 6, 15, 13 and 25%, nausea/vomiting 3, 7, 7 and 14% for OxMdG, Xelox, OxMdG+C and Xelox+C, respectively. Sixty-day all-cause mortality was 6, 5, 5 and 7%. Statistically significant differences were evident for patients receiving Xelox+cetuximab vs Xelox alone: diarrhoea relative risk (RR) 1.69 (1.17, 2.43, P=0.005) and nausea/vomiting RR 2.01 (1.16, 3.47, P=0.012). The excess toxicity observed in the oxaliplatin-, capecitabine-, cetuximab-treated patients led the trial management group to conclude that a capecitabine dose adjustment was required to maintain safety levels when using this regimen.

Purpose: Uncertainty exists about whether elderly patients benefit to the same extent as younger patients from combination therapy with irinotecan in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC)., Patients and Methods: Combined analysis was carried out with source data from the fluorouracil (FU)/folinic acid (FA) and the irinotecan/FU/FA arms of four first-line, phase III trials of CRC to investigate the efficacy and safety of combination and monotherapy in elderly (age > or = 70 years; n = 599) compared with younger (age < 70 years; n = 2,092) patients., Results: Response rates were improved with irinotecan-based combination therapy compared with FU/FA in patients both younger than 70 years and > or = 70 years (46.6% v 29.0% P < .0001; and 50.5% v 30.3%, P < .0001, respectively). With irinotecan/FU/FA, progression-free survival was better for both younger (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.85; P < .0001) and elderly patients (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.90; P = .0026). In younger patients, overall survival was improved with combination therapy (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.92; P = .0003). The same trend was observed in elderly patients (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.05; P = .15). There was no significant interaction between treatment arm and age in the regression analysis. The expected differences in toxicity between combination and monotherapy in elderly and younger patients were observed. A significant interaction between treatment and age (cutoff, 70 years) for vomiting and hepatotoxicity was not confirmed by analysis that used age as a continuous variable., Conclusion: Patients older than 70 years of age who were selected for inclusion in phase III trials derived similar benefits as younger patients from irinotecan-containing chemotherapy, and the risk of toxicity was similar.

Background: In the non-curative setting, the sequence in which anticancer agents are used, singly or in combination, may be important if patients are to receive the maximum period of disease control with the minimum of adverse effects. We compared sequential and combination chemotherapy strategies in patients with unpretreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, who were regarded as not potentially curable irrespective of response., Methods: We studied patients with advanced colorectal cancer, starting treatment with non-curative intent. 2135 unpretreated patients were randomly assigned to three treatment strategies in the ratio 1:1:1. Strategy A (control group) was single-agent fluorouracil (given with levofolinate over 48 h every 2 weeks) until failure, then single-agent irinotecan. Strategy B was fluorouracil until failure, then combination chemotherapy. Strategy C was combination chemotherapy from the outset. Within strategies B and C, patients were randomly assigned to receive, as the combination regimen, fluorouracil plus irinotecan (groups B-ir and C-ir) or fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin (groups B-ox and C-ox). The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 79877428., Results: Median survival of patients allocated to control strategy A was 13.9 months. Median survival of each of the other groups was longer (B-ir 15.0, B-ox 15.2, C-ir 16.7, and C-ox 15.4 months). However, log-rank comparison of each group against control showed that only C-ir--the first-line combination strategy including irinotecan--satisfied the statistical test for superiority (p=0.01). Overall comparison of strategy B with strategy C was within the predetermined non-inferiority boundary of HR=1.18 or less (HR=1.06, 90% CI 0.97-1.17)., Interpretation: Our data challenge the assumption that, in this non-curative setting, maximum tolerable treatment must necessarily be used first-line. The staged approach of initial single-agent treatment upgraded to combination when required is not worse than first-line combination, and is an alternative option for discussion with patients.

The objective of this study was to evaluate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended dose of irinotecan administered as a 5-day schedule synchronously with 5-fluorouracil (5FU), leucovorin (LV) and preoperative pelvic radiation (45 Gy) for primary borderline/unresectable, locally advanced rectal cancer. The study used escalating doses of intravenous irinotecan (6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 mg m(-2)) administered on days 1-5 and 29-33 followed by low dose LV (20 mg m(-2)) and 5FU (350 mg m(-2) over 1 h) in sequential cohorts. Preoperative pelvic radiotherapy using a three- or four-field technique and megavoltage photons comprised 45 Gy given in 25 fractions, 1.8 Gy per fraction. Surgery in the form of mesorectal excision was performed 6-10 weeks later. Histopathological examination of the resected specimen was performed according to techniques of Quirke, and compared with clinical staging. A distance of 1 mm or less between the peripheral extent of the tumour and the radial resection margin defined an involved circumferential resection margin (CRM). The MTD was determined as the dose causing more than a third of patients to have a dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) defined as specific grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Once the MTD was reached, a further 14 patients were treated at the dose level below the MTD. In total, 57 patients received irinotecan at the eight dose levels. The final cohort reached DLT after only four patients had been enrolled. The median age was 62 years (range 26-75), 37 male and 20 female subjects. The MTD of irinotecan in this schedule was 20 mg m(-2) when three out of four patients experienced DLT. Dose limiting grade 3 or 4 diarrhoea was reported in seven out of 57 patients, three at the 20 mg m(-2) dose level. Serious haematological toxicity (grade 3) was minimal and reported in only three patients; one grade 3 neutropaenia, one grade 4 neutropaenia and one grade 3 febrile neutropaenia and anaemia. Compliance was good with 93 and 89% of patients completing radiotherapy and chemotherapy, respectively. The remaining patients had only minor deviations from protocol therapy. Eight patients did not proceed to surgery, in six cases because they remained unresectable or had developed metastatic disease, one patient was unfit for surgery and one died as a result of complications from radiotherapy. Forty-nine patients underwent a potentially curative surgical resection. Histopathological examination of the resected specimen demonstrated pCR 12 out of 49 (24%) and 12 out of 57 (21%) overall. A histologically confirmed clear circumferential resection margin (CRM) was achieved in 39 out of 49 (80%) of those resected, and 39 out of 57 (68%) overall. In conclusion, MTD with this scheduled regimen of irinotecan is 20 mg m(-2) (days 1-5 and 29-33). The acceptable toxicity and compliance at 18 mg m(-2) recommend testing this dose in future phase III studies. The tumour downstaging and complete resection rates (negative CRM) are encouragingly high for this very locally advanced group.

Oral capecitabine (Xeloda) is an effective drug with favourable safety in adjuvant and metastatic colorectal cancer. Oxaliplatin-based therapy is becoming standard for Dukes' C colon cancer in patients suitable for combination therapy, but is not yet approved by the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in the adjuvant setting. Adjuvant capecitabine is at least as effective as 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV), with significant superiority in relapse-free survival and a trend towards improved disease-free and overall survival. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of adjuvant capecitabine from payer (UK National Health Service (NHS)) and societal perspectives. We used clinical trial data and published sources to estimate incremental direct and societal costs and gains in quality-adjusted life months (QALMs). Acquisition costs were higher for capecitabine than 5-FU/LV, but higher 5-FU/LV administration costs resulted in 57% lower chemotherapy costs for capecitabine. Capecitabine vs 5-FU/LV-associated adverse events required fewer medications and hospitalisations (cost savings pound3653). Societal costs, including patient travel/time costs, were reduced by >75% with capecitabine vs 5-FU/LV (cost savings pound1318), with lifetime gain in QALMs of 9 months. Medical resource utilisation is significantly decreased with capecitabine vs 5-FU/LV, with cost savings to the NHS and society. Capecitabine is also projected to increase life expectancy vs 5-FU/LV. Cost savings and better outcomes make capecitabine a preferred adjuvant therapy for Dukes' C colon cancer. This pharmacoeconomic analysis strongly supports replacing 5-FU/LV with capecitabine in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer in the UK.

Purpose: To determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of continuous oral capecitabine plus oxaliplatin and pre-operative pelvic radiotherapy (XELOX-RT)., Patients and Methods: Patients with clinically unresectable rectal cancer or for whom resection with histologically clear (R0) surgical margins was unlikely received continuous capecitabine (500-825 mg/m2 twice daily, 7 days/week), oxaliplatin 2-h intravenous infusion (130 mg/m2 days 1 and 29) and pelvic radiotherapy (Monday-Friday for 5 weeks, total dose 45 Gy in 25 daily 1.8 Gy fractions). The MTD was the capecitabine dose causing dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs; treatment-related grade 3/4 toxicities) in one-third or more of patients treated per dose level., Results: Eighteen patients received three dose levels. The MTD was capecitabine 825 mg/m2 twice daily: DLTs occurred in two of six patients (grade 3 diarrhoea, rectal pain with local skin reaction). No DLTs occurred in six patients receiving capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice daily. Grade 3/4 toxicity was rare, with minimal myelosuppression. Although predominantly a dose-finding study, XELOX-RT showed promising activity. Fourteen patients had histologically confirmed R0 resections and five had a pathological complete response., Conclusions: The recommended dose for further study is capecitabine 650 mg/m2 twice daily with oxaliplatin and radiotherapy. XELOX-RT showed promising antitumour activity. Further evaluation is underway.

We performed a retrospective study of 90 consecutive cases with inoperable carcinoma of the oesophagus treated with definitive chemoradiation at a single cancer centre between 1995 and 2002. For the last 4 years, 73 patients have received therapy according to an agreed protocol. This outpatient-based regimen involves four cycles of chemotherapy, cycles 3 and 4 given concurrently with 50 Gy external beam radiotherapy (XRT) delivered in 25 fractions over 5 weeks. Cisplatin 60 mg m(-2) day(-1) is given every 3 weeks together with continuous infusional 5-fluorouracil 300 mg m(-2) day(-1), reduced to 225 mg m(-2) day(-1) during the XRT. In all, 45 (50%) patients suffered one or more WHO grade 3/4 toxicity, grade 3 in 93% cases. Patients received more than 90% of the planned chemoradiation schedule. The median overall survival was 26 (15, >96) months, 51% (41, 64) and 26% (13, 52) surviving 2 and 5 years, respectively. Advanced stage, particularly T4 disease, was associated with a worse prognosis. Patients considered not suitable for surgery for reasons other than their disease, mainly co-morbidity, had a significantly better outcome, median survival 40 (26, >96) months, 2- and 5-year survivals 67% (54, 84) and 32% (13, 79), respectively (P<0.001). This schedule is a feasible, tolerable and effective treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer considered unsuitable for surgery.

Background: Policies of UK clinicians regarding the duration of chemotherapy for patients with advanced colorectal cancer are not consistent. We aimed to compare effectiveness of continuous and intermittent chemotherapy in such patients., Methods: Patients who responded or had stable disease after receiving 12 weeks of the regimens described by de Gramont and Lokich, or raltitrexed chemotherapy, were randomised to either intermittent (a break in chemotherapy, re-starting on the same drug on progression), or continuous chemotherapy until progression., Findings: 354 patients (178 intermittent, 176 continuous) were enrolled from 42 UK centres. At randomisation, 41% of participants had part or complete response; 59% were stable. Only 66 (37%) patients allocated to intermittent treatment restarted as planned, after a median of 130 days. Median time on treatment after restarting was 84 days. Patients in the continuous group remained on treatment for a median of a further 92 days. Similar proportions of patients in both groups received second-line therapy. Patients on intermittent chemotherapy had significantly fewer toxic effects and serious adverse events than those in the continuous group. There was no clear evidence of a difference in overall survival (hazard ratio 0.87 favouring intermittent, 95% CI 0.69-1.09, p=0.23)., Interpretation: Our findings provided no clear evidence of a benefit in continuing therapy indefinitely until disease progression. They showed that it is safe to stop chemotherapy after 12 weeks and re-start the same treatment on progression in patients with chemosensitive advanced colorectal cancer.

Background: This randomised trial compared three chemotherapy regimens in the first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer, in terms of their effect on overall and progression-free survival; other endpoints included toxicity, symptom palliation, and quality of life., Methods: 905 patients were randomly assigned the de Gramont regimen (n=303; folinic acid 200 mg/m(2), fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m(2), and infusion 600 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 2, repeated every 14 days), the Lokich regimen (n=301; protracted venous infusion of fluorouracil 300 mg/m(2) daily), or raltitrexed (n=301; 3 mg/m(2) intravenously every 21 days). Analyses were by intention to treat., Findings: Median follow-up of survivors was 67 weeks. For the de Gramont, Lokich, and raltitrexed groups, respectively, median survival was 294, 302, and 266 days. The hazard ratios for overall survival were 0.88 (95% CI 0.70-1.12, p=0.17) for de Gramont versus Lokich, and 0.99 (0.79-1.25, p=0.94) for de Gramont versus raltitrexed. An increase in treatment-related deaths was seen on raltitrexed (de Gramont one, Lokich two, raltitrexed 18) due to combined gastrointestinal and haematological toxicity. Patients' assessment of quality of life showed that raltitrexed was inferior to the fluorouracil-based regimens, especially in terms of palliation and functioning., Interpretation: The deGramont and Lokich regimens were similar in terms of survival, quality of life, and response rates. The Lokich regimen was associated with more central line complications and hand-foot syndrome. Raltitrexed showed similar response rates and overall survival to the de Gramont regimen and was easier to administer, but resulted in greater toxicity and inferior quality of life.

High response rates have been reported in the treatment of advanced gastric cancer with epirubicin, cisplatin and continuous infusion 5-fluorouracil (ECF), including instances of unresectable disease being rendered operable by chemotherapy. We report our experience with ECF as neoadjuvant treatment in gastric and lower oesophageal carcinoma. Twenty-seven patients were treated, of whom ten (37%) had carcinoma of the stomach and 17 (63%) tumours of the lower oesophagus. Histology in the majority of cases, 21 (78%), was adenocarcinoma. Before chemotherapy ten patients (37%) had evidence of initially unresectable locally advanced disease, 16 (59%) had localised disease only and one patient (4%) had a localised primary with a single liver metastasis. Epirubicin (50 mg m(-2) i.v.) and cisplatin (60 mg m(-2) i.v.) were administered every 3 weeks for four cycles together with a continuous 12 week infusion of 5-fluorouracil (200 mg m(-2) day(-1)). Fifteen of 24 assessable patients (62%) had symptomatic improvement on chemotherapy. On combined surgical and/or radiological assessment, 15 of the 27 patients (56%) had objective evidence of tumour response. In all patients assessment for radical surgery was made following chemotherapy. Eighteen patients (67%) proceeded to operation: of these, 11 had complete resection of their disease, one had a histologically incomplete resection and six were found to have unresectable disease. No pathological complete responses were observed. Only one of the ten patients with locally advanced disease achieved complete surgical resection after chemotherapy. At a median follow-up of 36 months from date of diagnosis (range 30-47 months), 19 of the 27 patients (70%) have died. Of 11 patients who had a complete surgical resection, one died post-operatively, three have subsequently relapsed (of whom two have died) and seven remain disease free. Toxicity from treatment was mild and included emesis, myelosuppression, stomatitis and exfoliation. Myelosuppression caused modification of treatment in 14 of 108 chemotherapy cycles (13%). There was one surgical death but no chemotherapy-related deaths. These early results show encouraging symptomatic and objective responses of gastro-oesophageal carcinoma to ECF, but provide no instances of ECF achieving complete pathological response. Only randomised trials can establish the role of neoadjuvant ECF chemotherapy in both initially resectable and unresectable carcinoma of the stomach and lower oesophagus.

We have conducted a retrospective study of high-dose folinic acid and 5-fluorouracil in 96 patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Patients received 200 mg m-2 (maximum 300-350 mg) folinic acid by infusion over 2 h followed by an i.v. bolus of 5-fluorouracil 400 mg m-2 then an infusion of 5-fluorouracil 600 mg m-2 over 22 h. This was repeated over the next 24 h. The schedule was given every 2 weeks for four cycles; thereafter patients with objective response continued to a maximum of eight cycles. The overall response rate was 10.6% in 85 evaluable patients. The median duration of response was 11 months. The median survival was 6 months. Toxicity was low, only one patient experiencing toxicity greater than WHO grade II (grade IV platelet toxicity). Diarrhoea, nausea, vomiting and mucositis also occurred but were mild and infrequent. Our low response rate may be related to factors such as patient characteristics or duration of treatment.

In some clinical situations the endogenous production of glutamine may be insufficient to maintain optimal tissue structure and function such that glutamine becomes a conditionally essential amino acid. Studies in laboratory animals have demonstrated that glutamine supplementation can reduce the incidence and severity of cytotoxic-induced mucositis. This study examined the role of oral glutamine supplementation in the management of mucositis caused by 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and folinic acid. Twenty-eight patients with gastrointestinal cancers were randomised to receive 16 g of glutamine per day for 8 days, or placebo, in a randomised double-blind trial before crossing over to the alternative supplement during the second treatment cycle. The supplement was well tolerated with no apparent adverse effects, but failed to have any significant effect on oral mucositis assessed by the patients or investigator. The possible reasons for this apparent lack of benefit are discussed.

A total of 25 patients with small cell lung cancer (SCLC) were treated with carboplatin and Adriamycin (CA) following symptomatic relapse after initial therapy, or because of static or progressive disease during primary treatment. Nine patients had disease within the thorax, and 16 had extensive metastases at relapse. The overall response rate to CA was 64% (20% complete response: CR; 44% partial response: PR). Survival from presentation in 22 of the patients who have died was 6-36 months (median 13 months), and the median survival from the commencement of CA was 23 weeks (range 1 week-11.5 months). The duration of CR was 4-8 months, and of PR 2-7 months. Hospital admission was required following 12% of cycles for management of the complications of treatment. The increasing use of first line regimens of short duration means that reassessment should be made of the activity of further therapy at relapse.