Search

Background: There is ongoing discussion around the optimal course of treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) following the second line. Trifluridine/tipiracil (T) and regorafenib (R) have been the mainstay of therapy in this situation, as they both increased overall survival (OS) in comparison to a placebo. Despite the paucity of evidence, therapy rechallenge is also recognized as an option for practical use. In the third-line scenario of mCRC, we planned to investigate the survival outcomes using (T) and (R), both with and without prior rechallenge treatment., Materials and Methods: Between 2012 and 2023, we examined the medical records of 1156 patients with refractory mCRC who were enrolled in the multicenter retrospective ReTrITA study. We then separated the patients into two cohorts based on the rechallenge therapy that was given before regorafenib and/or trifluridine/tipiracil at 17 Italian centres., Results: A total of 981 patients underwent T and/or R therapy, while 175 patients had therapy rechallenge before T and/or R. The median overall survival (mOS) for patients treated with T/R and R/T sequences in the rechallenge therapy cohort was 14.5 months and 17.6 months, respectively ( p = 0.1955). A statistically significant survival benefit was observed in patients who received monotheraphy with R (mOS: 6 months) compared to the T group (mOS: 4.2 months) ( p = 0.0332). In the same cohort, a median progression-free survival (mPFS) benefit was demonstrated in favour of the R/T group (11.3 months) vs. 9 months of the reverse sequence ( p = 0.4004). In the no-rechallenge cohort, the mOS was statistically longer in the R/T sequence than in the T/R sequence (16.2 months vs. 12.3 months, respectively; p = 0.0014). In terms of the mPFS, we saw the same significant result for the adoption of R/T treatment (11.5 months vs. 8.4 months, respectively; p < 0.0001). The two monotherapy groups did not reveal any significant differences., Conclusions: This study suggests that rechallenge therapy may improve survival rates in the third-line treatment of mCRC, particularly if it is administered before sequential R/T treatment. This could allow for the extension of mCRC treatment choices until prospective studies are finished or randomised trials are performed.

Background : Patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) rarely receive third-line or further treatment. In this context, regorafenib (R) and trifluridine/tipiracil (T) are two important novel therapeutic choices with statistically significant increases in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control, with different toxicity profiles. This study is a subgroup analysis of our larger retrospective study, already published, whose objective was to assess the outcomes of patients when R and T were given sequentially. Patients and Methods : The study involved thirteen Italian cancer centers on a 10-year retrospective observation (2012-2022). In this subgroup analysis, we focused our attention on the correlation between the first drug treatment duration (<3 months, 3 to <6 months and ≥6 months) and survival outcomes in patients who had received the sequence regorafenib-to-trifluridine/tipiracil, or vice versa. Results : The initial study included 866 patients with mCRC who received sequential T/R, or R/T, or T or R alone. This analysis is focused on evaluating the impact of the duration of the first treatment in the sequence on clinical outcomes (OS, PFS) and includes 146 and 116 patients of the T/R and R/T sequences, respectively. Based on the duration of the first drug treatment, subgroups for the T/R sequence included 27 patients (18.4%) who received T for <3 months, 86 (58.9%) treated for 3 to <6 months, and 33 (22.6%) treated for ≥6 months; in the reverse sequence (R as the first drug), subgroups included 18 patients (15.5%) who received their first treatment for <3 months, 62 (53.4%) treated for 3 to <6 months, and 35 (31.0%) treated for ≥6 months. In patients who received their first drug treatment for a period of 3 to <6 months, the R/T sequence had a significantly longer median OS (13.7 vs. 10.8 months, p = 0.0069) and a longer median PFS (10.8 vs. 8.5 months, p = 0.0003) than the T/R group. There were no statistically significant differences between groups with first drug treatment durations of <3 months and ≥6 months. Conclusions : Our analysis seems to suggest that the administration of R for a period of 3 to <6 months before that of T can prolong both OS and PFS, as compared to the opposite sequence.

Background: Patients with refractory mCRC rarely undergo third-line or subsequent treatment. This strategy could negatively impact their survival. In this setting, regorafenib (R) and trifluridine/tipiracil (T) are two key new treatment options with statistically significant improvements in overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and disease control with different tolerance profiles. This study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents in real-world practice., Materials and Methods: In 2012-2022, 866 patients diagnosed with mCRC who received sequential R and T (T/R, n = 146; R/T, n = 116]) or T (n = 325]) or R (n = 279) only were retrospectively recruited from 13 Italian cancer institutes., Results: The median OS is significantly longer in the R/T group (15.9 months) than in the T/R group (13.9 months) ( p = 0.0194). The R/T sequence had a statistically significant advantage in the mPFS, which was 8.8 months with T/R vs. 11.2 months with R/T ( p = 0.0005). We did not find significant differences in outcomes between groups receiving T or R only. A total of 582 grade 3/4 toxicities were recorded. The frequency of grade 3/4 hand-foot skin reactions was higher in the R/T sequence compared to the reverse sequence (37.3% vs. 7.4%) ( p = 0.01), while grade 3/4 neutropenia was slightly lower in the R/T group than in the T/R group (66.2% vs. 78.2%) ( p = 0.13). Toxicities in the non-sequential groups were similar and in line with previous studies., Conclusions: The R/T sequence resulted in a significantly longer OS and PFS and improved disease control compared with the reverse sequence. R and T given not sequentially have similar impacts on survival. More data are needed to define the best sequence and to explore the efficacy of sequential (T/R or R/T) treatment combined with molecular-targeted drugs.

Background/aim: Regorafenib (REG) and trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) have have been shown to improve overall survival in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer. The aim of our study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of these agents administered in sequence in real world practice., Patients and Methods: Clinical data of patients treated beyond the 2°line with REG or FTD/TPI between January 2016 and August 2020, were retrospectively collected from eight institutes in the Lazio Region., Results: We included 49 patients treated with both drug sequences. A total of 28 G3/G4 toxicity events (53.8%) were recorded in the FTD/TPI-to-REG sequence vs. 24 (46.1%) in the reverse sequence. Median overall survival for the patients included in the FTP/TPI-to-REG group was 20 months (95%CI=16.7-23.3) vs. 27 months in the reverse group (95%CI=17.8-36.2). The disease control rate was 45.0% for patients treated with the REG-to-FTD/TPI sequence vs. 24.1% in those treated with the FTD/TPI-to-REG sequence (p=0.18)., Conclusion: The sequence REG-to-FTD/TPI and vice versa can extend survival, whereas only REG-to-FTD/TPI stabilizes cancer growth., (Copyright © 2021 International Institute of Anticancer Research (Dr. George J. Delinasios), All rights reserved.)

From June 1991 to August 1994, 61 patients with stage III unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC; 16 cases of stage IIIA with N2 bulky disease and 45 cases of stage IIIB) were treated with ifosfamide given i.v. at 3 g/m2 on day 1, carboplatin given i.v. at 200 mg/m2 on days 1 and 2, etoposide given i.v. at 120 mg/m2 on days 1-3 (ICE) and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (rhG-CSF) given s.c. at 5 micrograms/kg on days 4-13. Chemotherapy was given every 3 weeks for up to three cycles and, unless the disease progressed, was followed by thoracic radiotherapy on the tumor volume (total dose 60 Gy) and mediastinum (40 Gy). All patients had measurable or evaluable unresectable disease and a performance status (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) of 0-1. Only 61% of the enrolled patients received the full program of chemoradiotherapy according to the study design. At the end of sequential chemo-radiotherapeutic treatment, 41% of the patients had an objective response (24 partial responses and 1 complete response), 31% showed no change and 28% had progressive disease. The response rate noted for patients in stage IIIA with N2 bulky disease and that recorded for patients in stage IIIB did not differ significantly. The median time to progression was 5.4 months and the median survival was 8.2 months, with the 1-year survival rate being 31%. Sites of progression were mostly intrathoracic. Haematological toxicity was the main side effect, with grade III-IV thrombocytopenia being reported in 24% of the 165 courses of intensive ICE chemotherapy given. Febrile neutropenia was described in six courses (three patients). Non-haematological toxicities and radiotherapy-related side effects were generally mild and easily manageable. In conclusion, in unresectable stage III NSCLC a short program of moderately intensified ICE chemotherapy with rhG-CSF protection followed by sequential radiotherapy failed to increase the percentage of objective responses and reached a median survival comparable with that previously achieved with standard doses.

Background:Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death among cancers of the female genital tract, with poor outcomes despite chemotherapy. There was a persistent socioeconomic gradient in 1-year survival in England and Wales for more than 3 decades (1971-2001). Inequalities in 5-year survival persisted for more than 20 years but have been smaller for women diagnosed around 2000. We explored one possible explanation.Methods:We analysed data on 1406 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during 1991-1998 and recruited to one of two randomised clinical trials. In the second International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm (ICON2) trial, women diagnosed between 1991 and 1996 were randomised to receive either the three-drug combination cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and cisplatin (CAP) or single-agent carboplatin given at optimal dose. In the ICON3 trial, women diagnosed during 1995-1998 were randomised to receive either the same treatments as ICON2, or paclitaxel plus carboplatin.Relative survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was estimated for women in five categories of socioeconomic deprivation. The excess hazard of death over and above background mortality was estimated by fitting multivariable regression models with Poisson error structure and a dedicated link function in a generalised linear model framework, adjusting for the duration of follow-up and the confounding effects of age, Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage and calendar period.Results:Unlike women with ovarian cancer in the general population, no statistically significant socioeconomic gradient was seen for women with ovarian cancer treated in the two randomised controlled trials. The deprivation gap in 1-year relative survival in the general population was statistically significant at −6.7% (95% CI (−8.1, −5.3)), compared with −3.6% (95% CI (−10.4, +3.2)) in the trial population.Conclusions:Although ovarian cancer survival is significantly lower among poor women than rich women in England and Wales, there was no evidence of an association between socioeconomic deprivation and survival among women with ovarian cancer who were treated and followed up consistently in two well-conducted randomised controlled trials. We conclude that the persistent socioeconomic gradient in survival among women with ovarian cancer, at least for 1-year survival, may be due to differences in access to treatment and standards of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]