Search

ImportanceDelivery of adjuvant chemotherapy can differ substantially between trial and real-world populations. Adherence metrics like relative dose intensity (RDI) cannot capture the timing of modifications and mask differences in the total amount of chemotherapy received.ObjectiveTo compare oxaliplatin delivery between MOSAIC trial participants and patients treated in the US Oncology Network with stage III colon cancer using a longitudinal cumulative dose (LCD).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study used secondary data from the MOSAIC trial, an international randomized clinical trial (concluded in 2004), and electronic health records from US Oncology (2009-2018), a network of community oncology practices in the US. It included participants in MOSAIC with stage III colon cancer who were randomized to receive treatment with oxaliplatin and fluorouracil/leucovorin (n = 663) and US Oncology patients with stage III colon cancer who were treated with a modified FOLFOX-6 regimen (n = 2523).ExposuresOxaliplatin and fluorouracil/leucovorin.Outcomes and MeasuresWe evaluated RDI and LCD over time and at the end of treatment in the MOSAIC and US Oncology populations. We used bootstrapping to estimate 95% confidence bands for LCD differences between the populations.ResultsThe 663 MOSAIC participants (296 women [44.7%]) and 2523 US Oncology patients (1245 women [49.4%]) were generally similar with respect to demographic characteristics. Median RDI was lower in US Oncology (80% in MOSAIC vs 70% in US Oncology). The LCD also suggested differences in the total amount of oxaliplatin received between populations; the final median LCD in US Oncology was 10.2% lower than in MOSAIC, equivalent to receiving 1.2 fewer treatment cycles less of oxaliplatin. This difference only began 133 days into treatment and persisted after accounting for covariates, likely in terms of more frequent oxaliplatin treatment discontinuation in US Oncology patients than their MOSAIC counterparts.Conclusions and RelevanceThe study results suggest that real-world patients in community practice in the US treated with modified FOLFOX 6 received less oxaliplatin than their historical counterparts in the MOSAIC trial, with differences manifesting late in the treatment course. The LCD allowed us to identify the amount and extent of these differences, the timing of which was unclear when using RDI alone.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00275210

For over a decade, sorafenib remained the only systemic agent with proven clinical efficacy for patients with advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Recent years have seen a proliferation of agents. In the first line, lenvatinib was found to be non-inferior to sorafenib in terms of overall survival (OS), with significantly better progression-free survival and objective response rate. Meanwhile, encouraging efficacy signals were observed in phase I/II studies of immune checkpoint inhibitors as monotherapy in HCC. Although subsequent phase III trials failed to demonstrate statistically significant benefit in OS, other clinically meaningful outcomes were observed, including long-term disease control with a favorable toxicity profile. In addition, a synergistic response has been postulated based on the interplay between antiangiogenic molecular targeted agents and immunotherapy. On this basis, interest has turned toward combination strategies of immunotherapy with these standard-of-care medications in the hope of improving treatment efficacy for advanced HCC, while maintaining tolerable safety profiles. Indeed, preliminary results from phase I studies of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab and atezolizumab plus bevacizumab have proved favorable, prompting phase III investigations in the frontline setting, and for atezolizumab plus bevacizumab, these positive findings have been substantiated by recent reporting of phase III data from IMbrave150. In this review, we will present the currently available data on combination therapy atezolizumab plus bevacizumab in advanced HCC, and compare these findings to other promising combination treatments, most notably that of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab.

ImportanceTreatment options are limited for patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) beyond first-line 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX), with such individuals commonly being treated with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel.ObjectiveTo determine whether NPC-1C, an antibody directed against MUC5AC, might increase the efficacy of second-line gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in patients with advanced PDAC.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis multicenter, randomized phase II clinical trial enrolled patients with advanced PDAC between April 2014 and March 2017 whose disease had progressed on first-line FOLFIRINOX. Eligible patients had tumors with at least 20 MUC5AC staining by centralized immunohistochemistry review. Statistical analysis was performed from April to May 2022.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and nab-paclitaxel (125 mg/m2) administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of every 4-week cycle, with or without intravenous NPC-1C 1.5 mg/kg every 2 weeks.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), and safety. Pretreatment clinical variables were explored with Cox proportional hazards analysis.ResultsA total of 78 patients (median [range] age, 62 [36-78] years; 32 [41%] women; 9 [12%] Black; 66 [85%] White) received second-line treatment with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (n = 40) or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C (n = 38). Median OS was 6.6 months (95% CI, 4.7-8.4 months) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel vs 5.0 months (95% CI, 3.3-6.5 months; P = .22) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C. Median PFS was 2.7 months (95% CI, 1.9-4.1 months) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel vs 3.4 months (95% CI, 1.9-5.3 months; P = .80) with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C. The ORR was 3.1% (95% CI, 0.4%-19.7%) in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C group and 2.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-18.7%) in the gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel group. No differences in toxicity were observed between groups, except that grade 3 or greater anemia occurred more frequently in patients treated with gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel and NPC-1C than gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel (39% [15 of 38] vs 10% [4 of 40]; P = .003). The frequency of chemotherapy dose reductions was similar in both groups (65% vs 74%; P = .47). Lower performance status, hypoalbuminemia, PDAC diagnosis less than or equal to 18 months before trial enrollment, lymphocyte-to-monocyte ratio less than 2.8, and CA19-9 greater than 2000 IU/mL were independently associated with poorer survival.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this randomized clinical trial of advanced PDAC, NPC-1C did not enhance the efficacy of gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. These data provide a benchmark for future trials investigating second-line treatment of PDAC.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01834235

The incidence of colorectal cancer increases with age and the population is aging, making treatment of elderly patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) an increasingly common part of oncology practice. We review the literature regarding systemic treatment of colorectal cancer in the elderly population. Most of the data for toxicity and efficacy of systemic therapies for mCRC in older patients comes from subgroup analysis of pooled phase II and III trials of both chemotherapy and targeted agents. These studies suggest that combination chemotherapy and targeted therapy are well-tolerated in fit elderly patients with slightly increased risk of toxicity. Assessment of functional status independent of age can help differentiate which patients are candidates for combination chemotherapy, single-agent chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or supportive care. Fit, elderly patients should be treated as younger patients. Dose-reduced doublet therapy with dose escalation as tolerated is a safe and effective way to treat less-fit elderly patients. Most targeted therapies appear to be safe in the elderly population without significant concerns for increased toxicity.

Fluoropyrimidines (fluorouracil, capecitabine, and other analogs) are highly used anticancer drugs worldwide. However, patients with cancer treated with these drugs might experience severe, life-threatening toxicity because of germline genetic variation in the

Background: In non-metastatic colorectal cancer, a body mass index (BMI) paradox is observed where overweight and early obese patients experience improved outcomes compared to patients with normal, low, or morbidly obese BMI. The influence of obesity on patients with advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is relatively unexplored. Methods: We conducted a prospective BMI companion study in CALGB (now Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology)/SWOG 80405, a phase III mCRC treatment trial. BMI was measured at trial registration. Primary and secondary endpoints were overall and progression-free survival, respectively. To minimize confounding by poor and rapidly declining health, we used Cox proportional hazards regression to adjust for known prognostic factors, comorbidities, physical activity, and weight loss, and excluded individuals with low BMI Results: In this sub-study of a phase III mCRC trial, BMI was recorded for all 2,323 patients enrolled. Following adjustment for confounders, there were no significant associations between BMI and overall or progression-free survival (excluding BMI 20% experienced an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.46 for all-cause mortality (95% confidence interval 1.15 to 1.85, Ptrend Conclusion: In this prospective study of patients with mCRC, BMI at time of first-line chemotherapy initiation was not associated with patient outcome. Weight loss prior to study entry was associated with increased risk of patient mortality and disease progression. Citation Format: Brendan Guercio, Sui Zhang, Alan P. Venook, Fang-Shu Ou, Donna Niedzwiecki, Heinz-Josef Lenz, Federico Innocenti, Hanna Sanoff, Michelle R. Mahoney, Bert H. O'Neil, James E. Shaw, Blase N. Polite, Howard S. Hochster, James N. Atkins, Richard M. Goldberg, Robert J. Mayer, Charles D. Blanke, Charles S. Fuchs, Jeffrey A. Meyerhardt. Body mass index, weight loss, and progression and mortality in metastatic colorectal cancer: Results from CALGB/SWOG 80405 (Alliance) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2019; 2019 Mar 29-Apr 3; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(13 Suppl):Abstract nr 3285.

The majority of new colorectal cancer diagnoses occur in adults 65 and older a rapidly growing segment of the U.S. population. Older adults are a markedly heterogeneous group, and although recent clinical trials in locally advanced colorectal cancer have incorporated limited numbers of older patients, the data can not be generalized to most older patients. In particular, patients who are not “fit”—those with poor functional reserve, major comorbidities, or who otherwise meet criteria for frailty or “prefrailty”—are poorly represented in published trials. Population-based data demonstrate that older adults are much less likely to be treated in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant settings for stage II/III colorectal cancer, but it is unclear what the basis should be for withholding potentially curative therapy. Age and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) are frequently used to determine eligibility for treatment, but data increasingly suggest these are inadequate; the emerging definition of a spectrum of “fit” to “frail” older patients may provide additional guidance. Available data suggest that fit older patients may benefit as much from curative-intent therapy as younger patients. For frail or vulnerable (prefrail) patients, on the other hand, the benefit must be carefully weighed against the risk of toxicity and competing risks from their comorbidities. Life expectancy and patient preferences should always be elucidated. Geriatrician comanagement may be helpful in determining priorities, providing a comprehensive assessment, and modifying competing risk factors. Even many vulnerable or frail patients can successfully complete (and derive benefit from) carefully considered treatment regimens.

Cellular aging is characterized by telomere shortening, which can lead to uncapping of chromosome ends (telomere dysfunction) and activation of DNA damage responses. There is some evidence that DNA damage accumulates during human aging and that lifestyle factors contribute to the accumulation of DNA damage. Recent studies have identified a set of serum markers that are induced by telomere dysfunction and DNA damage, and these markers showed an increased expression in blood during human aging. Here, we investigated the influence of lifestyle factors (such as exercise, smoking, body mass) on the aging-associated expression of serum markers of DNA damage (CRAMP, EF-1alpha, stathmin, n-acetyl-glucosaminidase and chitinase) in comparison with other described markers of cellular aging (p16(INK4a) upregulation and telomere shortening) in human peripheral blood. The study shows that lifestyle factors have an age-independent impact on the expression level of biomarkers of DNA damage. Smoking and increased body mass indices were associated with elevated levels of biomarkers of DNA damage independent of the age of the individuals. In contrast, exercise was associated with an age-independent reduction in the expression of biomarkers of DNA damage in human blood. The expression of biomarkers of DNA damage correlated positively with p16(INK4a) expression and negatively with telomere length in peripheral blood T-lymphocytes. Together, these data provide experimental evidence that both aging and lifestyle impact on the accumulation of DNA damage during human aging.