Search

Background: The adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) locus on chromosome 5q21-22 shows frequent loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in esophageal carcinomas. However, the prevalence of truncating mutations in the APC gene in esophageal carcinomas is low. Because hypermethylation of promoter regions is known to affect several other tumor suppressor genes, we investigated whether the APC promoter region is hypermethylated in esophageal cancer patients and whether this abnormality could serve as a prognostic plasma biomarker.Methods: We assayed DNA from tumor tissue and matched plasma from esophageal cancer patients for hypermethylation of the promoter region of the APC gene. We used the maximal chi-square statistic to identify a discriminatory cutoff value for hypermethylated APC DNA levels in plasma and used bootstrap-like simulations to determine the P: value to test for the strength of this association. This cutoff value was used to generate Kaplan-Meier survival curves. All P values were based on two-sided tests.Results: Hypermethylation of the promoter region of the APC gene occurred in abnormal esophageal tissue in 48 (92%) of 52 patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma, in 16 (50%) of 32 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and in 17 (39.5%) of 43 patients with Barrett's metaplasia but not in matching normal esophageal tissues. Hypermethylated APC DNA was observed in the plasma of 13 (25%) of 52 adenocarcinoma patients and in two (6.3%) of 32 squamous carcinoma patients. High plasma levels of methylated APC DNA were statistically significantly associated with reduced patient survival (P =.016).Conclusion: The APC promoter region was hypermethylated in tumors of the majority of patients with primary esophageal adenocarcinomas. Levels of hypermethylated APC gene DNA in the plasma may be a useful biomarker of biologically aggressive disease in esophageal adenocarcinoma patients and should be evaluated as a potential biomarker in additional tumor types. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) showed clinical benefit, including improved survival and manageable safety in previously treated patients with metastatic colorectal (mCRC) or gastric/gastroesophageal junction (mGC/GEJC) cancer in the phase III RECOURSE and TAGS trials, respectively. A pooled analysis was conducted to further characterize FTD/TPI safety, including management of haematologic toxicities and use in patients with renal or hepatic impairment., Patients and Methods: Adults with ≥2 prior regimens for advanced mGC/GEJC or mCRC were randomized (2 : 1) to FTD/TPI [35 mg/m 2 twice daily days 1-5 and 8-12 (28-day cycle); same dosage in both trials] or placebo plus best supportive care. Adverse events (AEs) were summarized in the safety population (patients who received ≥1 dose) and analysed by renal/hepatic function., Results: TAGS and RECOURSE included 335 and 533 FTD/TPI-treated and 168 and 265 placebo-treated patients, respectively. Overall safety of FTD/TPI was similar in TAGS and RECOURSE. Haematologic (neutropenia, anaemia) and gastrointestinal (nausea, diarrhoea) AEs were most commonly observed. Laboratory-assessed grade 3-4 neutropenia occurred in 37% (TAGS)/38% (RECOURSE) of FTD/TPI-treated patients (median onset: 29 days/55 days), and 96% (TAGS)/97% (RECOURSE) of cases resolved regardless of renal/hepatic function. Supportive medications for neutropenia were received by 17% (TAGS) and 9% (RECOURSE); febrile neutropenia was reported in 2% and 4%, respectively. Overall grade ≥3 AEs were more frequent in patients with moderate renal impairment [81% (TAGS); 85% (RECOURSE)] versus normal renal function (74%; 67%); anaemia and neutropenia were more common in patients with renal impairment. FTD/TPI safety (including haematologic AEs) was consistent across patients with normal and mildly impaired hepatic function., Conclusions: These results support FTD/TPI as a well-tolerated treatment in patients with mGC/GEJC or mCRC, with a consistent safety profile. Safety was largely similar in patients with normal or mildly impaired renal/hepatic function; however, patients with renal impairment should be monitored for haematologic toxicities., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Background: Metastatic gastric cancer and cancer of the esophagogastric junction (GC/EGJ) is an aggressive disease with poor prognosis. In the TAGS study, trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) improved overall survival (OS) compared with placebo in heavily pre-treated patients. This unplanned, exploratory subgroup analysis of the TAGS study aimed to clarify outcomes when FTD/TPI was used as third-line (3L) treatment and fourth- or later-line (4L+) treatment., Patients and Methods: Patients were divided into a 3L group (126 and 64 in FTD/TPI and placebo arms, respectively) and 4L+ group (211 and 106 in FTD/TPI and placebo arms, respectively). Endpoints included OS, progression-free survival (PFS), time to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) deterioration to ≥2, and safety., Results: Baseline characteristics were generally well balanced between FTD/TPI and placebo for 3L and 4L+ treatment. Median OS (mOS) for FTD/TPI versus placebo was: 6.8 versus 3.2 months {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = 0.68 (0.47-0.97), P = 0.0318} in the 3L group; and 5.2 versus 3.7 months [0.73 (0.55-0.95), P = 0.0192] in the 4L+ group. Median PFS for FTD/TPI versus placebo was 3.1 versus 1.9 months [0.54 (0.38-0.77), P = 0.0004] in the 3L group; and 1.9 versus 1.8 months [0.57 (0.44-0.74), P < 0.0001] in the 4L+ group. Time to deterioration of ECOG PS to ≥2 for FTD/TPI versus placebo was 4.8 versus 2.0 months [HR (95% CI) = 0.60 (0.42-0.86), P = 0.0049] in the 3L group; and 4.0 versus 2.5 months [0.75 (0.57-0.98), P = 0.0329] in the 4L+ group. The safety of FTD/TPI was consistent in all subgroups., Conclusions: This analysis confirms the efficacy and safety of FTD/TPI in patients with GC/EGJ in third and later lines with a survival benefit that seems slightly superior in 3L treatment. When FTD/TPI is taken in 3L as recommended in the international guidelines, physicians can expect to provide patients with an mOS of 6.8 months., Competing Interests: Disclosure JT: Consulting: Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeiGene, Biocartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chugai Pharma, Foundation Medicine, Genentech, Genmab, HalioDx, Halozyme, Imugene, Inflection Biosciences, Ipsen, Kura Oncology, Lilly, MSD, Menarini, Merck Serono, Merrimack, Merus, Molecular Partners, Novartis, Peptomyc, Pfizer, Pharmacyclics, ProteoDesign, Rafael Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Roche Diagnostics, Sanofi, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Symphogen, Taiho Pharmaceutical, VCN Biosciences. KS: Consulting/honoraria/research funding: Abbvie, Astellas Pharma, BMS, Chugai Pharma, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Lilly, Mediscience Planning, MSD, Novartis, Ono Pharmaceutical, Pfizer, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, Yakult Pharmaceutical. AZ: Consulting/honoraria/expenses/research funding: Amgen, Baxter, Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Roche, Sanofi, Servier, Pierre Fabre, Havas Life, Alira Health, Zymeworks. TD: Consulting/honoraria/research funding: Abbvie, Amgen, Astellas Pharma, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Lilly Japan, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Oncolys BioPharma, Ono Pharmaceutical, Otsuka, Pfizer, Quintiles, Rakuten Medical, Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda. SL: Consulting/expenses/speaker: Amgen, BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier. EVC: Consulting/research funding: Amgen, Array BioPharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biocartis, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, GSK, Halozyme, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, MSD, Merck KGaA, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Servier, Sirtex Medical, Taiho Pharmaceutical. LF: Consulting/honoraria/expenses/research funding: Celgene, Gilead Sciences, Lilly, MSD. DVTC: Consulting/honoraria/speaker: Amgen, Astella Pharma, BMS, Five Prime Therapeutics, Foundation Medicine, Genentech/Roche, Guardant Health, Lilly, Merck, Seattle Genetics, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Tempus. RF, SRM, and PA: Employees of Servier. H-TA: Consulting/honoraria/research funding: Bayer, BeiGene, Bicycle Therapeutics, Guardant Health, iOncologi, Merck KGaA, Roche, Sarah Cannon Research institute, Servier. MA: Consulting/expenses/speaker: Amgen, BMS, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Roche/Genentech, Servier. DHI: Consulting: Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Lilly/ImClone, Merck, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, Roche/Genentech, Taiho Pharmaceutical., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Scope: The management of GOJ cancers remains controversial and may vary between countries. Evidence-based attitudes and guidelines are not easy to elaborate since most of the trials and studies reported mixed cases of oesophageal (both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell tumours), GOJ and gastric cancers. The aim of this expert discussion and position paper is to elaborate practical recommendations that integrate evidence-reported literature and experience-based attitude covering all clinical aspects of GOJ cancer across different specialities and countries in Europe., Methodology: Opinion leaders, selected on scientific merit were asked to answer to a prepared set of questions covering the approach of GOJ tumours from definition to therapeutic strategies. All answers were then discussed during a plenary session and reported here in providing a well-balanced reflection of both clinical expertise and updated evidence-based medicine., Results: Definition, classification, diagnosis and staging of GOJ tumours were updated and debated. Therapeutic aspects including endoscopic therapy, surgical management, both multimodal curative and palliative management were also reviewed for proposing practical and consensual positions and recommendations whenever possible., Conclusion: GOJ tumours deserve specific attention,not only for uniformising clinical management across countries but also for performing specific clinical and translational research,mainly in the curative perioperative setting., (Copyright © 2016 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Pre- and peri-operative strategies are becoming standard for the management of localized gastro-esophageal cancer. For localized gastric/gastro-esophageal junction (GEJ) cancer there are conflicting data that a peri-operative approach with cisplatin-based chemotherapy improves survival, with the benefits seen in esophageal cancer likely less than a 5-10% incremental improvement. Further trends toward improvement in local control and survival, when combined chemotherapy and radiation therapy are given pre-operatively, are suggested by recent phase III trials. In fit patients, a significant survival benefit with pre-operative chemoradiation is seen in those patients who achieve a pathologic complete response. In esophageal/GEJ cancer, definitive chemoradiation is now considered in medically inoperable patients. In squamous cell carcinoma of the esophagus, surgery after primary chemoradiation is not clearly associated with an improved overall survival, however, local control may be better. In localized gastric/GEJ cancer, the integration of bevacizumab with pre-operative chemotherapy is being explored in large randomized studies, and with chemoradiotherapy in pilot trials. The addition of anti-epidermal growth factor receptor and anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 antibody treatment to pre-operative chemoradiation continues to be explored. Early results show the integration of targeted therapy is feasible. Metabolic imaging can predict early response to pre-operative chemotherapy and biomarkers may further predict response to pre-operative chemo-targeted therapy. A multimodality approach to localized gastro-esophageal cancer has resulted in better outcomes. For T3 or node-positive disease, surgery alone is no longer considered appropriate and neo-adjuvant therapy is recommended. The future of neo-adjuvant strategies in this disease will involve the individualization of therapy with the integration of molecular signatures, targeted therapy, metabolic imaging and predictive biomarkers.

Background: Aggressive treatment of peritoneal metastases from colon cancer by surgical cytoreduction and infusional intraperitoneal (IP) chemotherapy may benefit selected patients. We reviewed our institutional experience to assess patient selection, complications, and outcome., Methods: Patients having surgical debulking and IP 5-fluoro-2'-deoxyuridine (FUDR) plus leucovorin (LV) for peritoneal metastases from 1987 to 1999 were evaluated retrospectively., Results: There were 64 patients with a mean age of 50 years. Primary tumor sites were 47 in the colon and 17 in the appendix. Peritoneal metastases were synchronous in 48 patients and metachronous in 16 patients. Patients received IP FUDR (1000 mg/m2 daily for 3 days) and IP leucovorin (240 mg/m2) with a median cycle number of 4 (range, 1-28). The median number of complications was 1 (range, 0-5), with no treatment related mortality. Only six patients (9%) required termination of IP chemotherapy because of complications. The median follow-up was 17 months (range, 0-132 months). The median survival was 34 months (range, 2-132); 5-year survival was 28%. Lymph node status, tumor grade, and interval to peritoneal metastasis were not statistically significant prognostic factors for survival. Complete tumor resection was significant on multivariate analysis (P = .04), with a 5-year survival of 54% for complete (n = 19) and 16% for incomplete (n = 45) resection., Conclusions: Surgical debulking and IP FUDR for peritoneal metastases from colon cancer can be accomplished safely and has yielded an overall 5-year survival of 28%. Complete resection is associated with improved survival (54% at 5 years) and is the most important prognostic indicator.

Irinotecan (CPT-11, Camptosar) a topoisomerase I inhibitor derived from the Chinese shrub Camptotheca acuminata, has broad activity in varied gastrointestinal malignancies, including pancreatic, biliary, esophageal, and stomach cancers. Using cisplatin (Platinol) plus irinotecan as a backbone for chemotherapy, a combination for which in vitro synergy and possible sequence dependency have been identified, several clinical trials are being conducted combining these two drugs with other chemotherapeutic agents and radiation. This article reviews a recently reported phase II study of cisplatin and irinotecan in esophageal cancer, and provides a preliminary report of two ongoing phase I studies of cisplatin/irinotecan/paclitaxel (Taxol); and cisplatin/irinotecan/fluorouracil (5-FU) in advanced gastrointestinal malignancies. Early results of an ongoing phase I study of cisplatin, irinotecan, and radiation in resectable and locally advanced unresectable esophageal cancer is also discussed. Preliminary data on all of these combinations suggest promising activity in upper gastrointestinal malignancies.

Irinotecan (Camptosar) has shown activity in several solid tumor malignancies, including gastric and pancreatic cancer. In vitro studies suggest antitumor activity in esophageal cancer cell lines. Sequence-dependent synergy has been demonstrated in vitro between irinotecan and cisplatin. A phase I trial conducted at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) has demonstrated the safety and tolerability of cisplatin plus irinotecan. A phase II study of this combination in patients with previously untreated, advanced esophageal cancer, also at MSKCC, has demonstrated promising results. Current trials at MSKCC are attempting to combine this regimen with either paclitaxel (Taxol), fluorouracil (5-FU), or radiation therapy.

Background: The adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) locus on chromosome 5q21-22 shows frequent loss of heterozygosity (LOH) in esophageal carcinomas. However, the prevalence of truncating mutations in the APC gene in esophageal carcinomas is low. Because hypermethylation of promoter regions is known to affect several other tumor suppressor genes, we investigated whether the APC promoter region is hypermethylated in esophageal cancer patients and whether this abnormality could serve as a prognostic plasma biomarker., Methods: We assayed DNA from tumor tissue and matched plasma from esophageal cancer patients for hypermethylation of the promoter region of the APC gene. We used the maximal chi-square statistic to identify a discriminatory cutoff value for hypermethylated APC DNA levels in plasma and used bootstrap-like simulations to determine the P: value to test for the strength of this association. This cutoff value was used to generate Kaplan-Meier survival curves. All P values were based on two-sided tests., Results: Hypermethylation of the promoter region of the APC gene occurred in abnormal esophageal tissue in 48 (92%) of 52 patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma, in 16 (50%) of 32 patients with esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and in 17 (39.5%) of 43 patients with Barrett's metaplasia but not in matching normal esophageal tissues. Hypermethylated APC DNA was observed in the plasma of 13 (25%) of 52 adenocarcinoma patients and in two (6.3%) of 32 squamous carcinoma patients. High plasma levels of methylated APC DNA were statistically significantly associated with reduced patient survival (P =.016)., Conclusion: The APC promoter region was hypermethylated in tumors of the majority of patients with primary esophageal adenocarcinomas. Levels of hypermethylated APC gene DNA in the plasma may be a useful biomarker of biologically aggressive disease in esophageal adenocarcinoma patients and should be evaluated as a potential biomarker in additional tumor types.

Purpose: In a phase II trial of paclitaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil in metastatic esophageal cancer, we identified significant activity for the combination of agents, but there was severe associated toxicity. We therefore undertook a phase II trial of paclitaxel and cisplatin without fluorouracil., Patients and Methods: Thirty-eight patients with carcinoma of the esophagus or gastroesophageal junction were treated. No patient who underwent prior chemotherapy was allowed to take part in the study. The majority (33 patients) had adenocarcinoma, and most (36 patients, 95%) had metastatic disease. Paclitaxel, 200 to 250 mg/m2, was given by 24-hour infusion on day 1, followed by cisplatin, 75 mg/m2, on day 2, with granulocyte colony stimulating factor support. Treatment was cycled every 21 days in the outpatient setting. The first 16 patients received paclitaxel at 250 mg/m2, but because of toxicity and treatment-related deaths, the dose was reduced to 200 mg/m2., Results: Thirty-two patients were evaluable for response. Six patients were evaluated for toxicity after receiving only one cycle (due to toxicity or treatment-related death). Partial responses were seen in 14 patients (44%); responses occurred in 13/28 patients with adenocarcinoma (46%) and in one of four patients with squamous carcinoma (25%). Median duration of response was 3.9 months, and median survival was 6.9 months. Of twenty-five patients with dysphagia before therapy, eighteen patients (72%) had complete resolution of dysphagia, and two (8%) had partial resolution. Toxicity included grade 3/4 fatigue in 35% of patients and grade 4 neutropenia in 47% of patients. Nineteen patients (50%) required hospitalization for toxicity, and four patients (11%) died from therapy-related complications., Conclusion: The combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin has significant activity in esophageal adenocarcinoma. Because of hospitalization for toxicity and deaths resulting from treatment, the combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin used in this trial cannot be recommended. The optimal dose and schedule of paclitaxel/cisplatin combination therapy remain to be established.

Purpose: To evaluate the response, toxicity, survival, and quality of life in patients with unresectable or metastatic esophageal cancer treated with weekly irinotecan and cisplatin., Patients and Methods: Thirty-five patients with metastatic or unresectable esophageal adenocarcinoma (23 patients) or squamous cell carcinoma (12 patients) were treated. No prior chemotherapy was allowed. The majority of patients had metastatic and bidimensionally measurable disease (34 patients each [97%]). Patients were treated with cisplatin 30 mg/m(2) and irinotecan 65 mg/m(2), repeated weekly for 4 weeks, followed by a 2-week rest period. Treatment was recycled every 6 weeks. Degree of dysphagia relief was monitored, and quality of life was measured prospectively using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C-30 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General instruments., Results: Thirty-five patients were assessable for response and toxicity. Major objective responses were observed in 20 patients (57%; 95% confidence interval, 41% to 73%), including two complete responses (6%). Similar response rates were observed for adenocarcinoma (12 of 23 patients; 52%) and squamous carcinoma (eight of 12 patients; 66%). The median duration of response was 4.2 months (range, 1 to 8.8+ months). Median actuarial survival was 14.6 months (range, 1 to 15.2+ months). In 20 patients with dysphagia assessable at baseline, 18 (90%) noted either improvement or resolution of dysphagia on chemotherapy. Global quality of life improved in responding patients, primarily because of improvements in pain, emotional state, and relationships with family and friends. Toxicity was relatively mild and included only three patients (9%) with grade 4 neutropenia and four (11%) with grade 3 diarrhea. There were no treatment-related deaths., Conclusion: The combination of weekly cisplatin plus irinotecan had significant activity in metastatic esophageal carcinoma and resulted in significant relief of dysphagia. The regimen was well tolerated, with acceptable myelosuppression and rare treatment-related diarrhea. Further evaluation of the combination of weekly irinotecan and cisplatin, including the addition of other agents to this regimen, is indicated.

The incidence of esophageal cancer continues to increase due to a rapid increase in adenocarcinoma of the distal esophagus and gastroesophageal junction. At least 50% of patients present with metastatic cancer and most patients with localized disease will develop metastases despite potentially curative local therapy. Thus, the majority of esophageal cancer patients will become candidates for palliative chemotherapy. Traditionally, single agents effective in this disease have included cisplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and mitomycin. The combination of cisplatin and continuous-infusion 5-fluorouracil is the standard for both squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma, with a 25% to 35% response rate in metastatic disease. More recently, paclitaxel has shown favorable results as a single agent or in combination with cisplatin in both disease histologies. One-hour weekly paclitaxel, a promising schedule with little toxicity, is under active investigation. Weekly irinotecan and cisplatin is a highly effective new regimen in both adenocarcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma with relatively little toxicity. Vinorelbine has demonstrated response in squamous cell carcinoma and has less toxicity than its predecessor, vindesine. Use of newer agents in combination with concurrent radiotherapy in locally advanced disease is the subject of ongoing clinical trials.

We defined the antitumor activity, toxicity, and tolerability of a combined chemoimmunotherapy approach in patients with advanced malignant mesothelioma using daily low-dose interferon alpha-2a and carboplatin given every 4 weeks. This was a phase II study of 15 patients with surgically unresectable or metastatic malignant mesothelioma. All patients had measurable or assessable disease. No prior chemotherapy or immunotherapy was allowable. Carboplatin was given at 150 mg/m2 daily on days 1-3 and interferon alpha-2a at 3 million units subcutaneously daily throughout the study. Treatment was recycled every 28 days. Therapy was continued until disease progression. Fifteen patients were assessable for toxicity and 14 for response. One partial response (7%, 95% CI, 0-20%), with a response duration of 40 weeks, was seen. Most patients had early progression of disease. Toxicity was tolerable, and grade III/IV toxicity was uncommon. The median time to progression was 14 weeks (range, 1-52 weeks). The median survival was 25 weeks (range, 8-66 weeks). The combination of low-dose interferon alpha-2a and carboplatin did not result in greater antitumor activity than that reported for single-agent carboplatin in advanced malignant mesothelioma. Although toxicity was mild, carboplatin and low-dose interferon, given at this dose and schedule, cannot be recommended for this patient group.