Explore the vast range of titles available.

Gemcitabine plus a platinum-based agent (eg, cisplatin or oxaliplatin) is the standard of care for advanced biliary cancers. We investigated the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary cancers. In this non-comparative, open-label, randomised phase 2 trial, we recruited patients with locally advanced (non-resectable) or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder carcinoma, or ampullary carcinoma and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1 from 18 hospitals across France and Germany. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally with a minimisation procedure to first-line treatment with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and oxaliplatin (100 mg/m2) with or without cetuximab (500 mg/m2), repeated every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Randomisation was stratified by centre, primary site of disease, disease stage, and previous treatment with curative intent or adjuvant therapy. Investigators who assessed treatment response were not masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were progression-free at 4 months, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00552149. Between Oct 10, 2007, and Dec 18, 2009, 76 patients were assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab and 74 to chemotherapy alone. 48 (63%; 95% CI 52–74) patients assigned to chemotherapy plus cetuximab and 40 (54%; 43–65) assigned to chemotherapy alone were progression-free at 4 months. Median progression-free survival was 6·1 months (95% CI 5·1–7·6) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 5·5 months (3·7–6·6) in the chemotherapy alone group. Median overall survival was 11·0 months (9·1–13·7) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group and 12·4 months (8·6–16·0) in the chemotherapy alone group. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were peripheral neuropathy (in 18 [24%] of 76 patients who received chemotherapy plus cetuximab vs ten [15%] of 68 who received chemotherapy alone), neutropenia (17 [22%] vs 11 [16%]), and increased aminotransferase concentrations (17 [22%] vs ten [15%]). 70 serious adverse events were reported in 39 (51%) of 76 patients who received chemotherapy plus cetuximab (34 events in 19 [25%] patients were treatment-related), whereas 41 serious adverse events were reported in 25 (35%) of 71 patients who received chemotherapy alone (20 events in 12 [17%] patients were treatment-related). One patient died of atypical pneumonia related to treatment in the chemotherapy alone group. The addition of cetuximab to gemcitabine and oxaliplatin did not seem to enhance the activity of chemotherapy in patients with advanced biliary cancer, although it was well tolerated. Gemcitabine and platinum-based combination should remain the standard treatment option. Institut National du Cancer, Merck Serono.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal solid organ tumors. Due to the rising incidence, late diagnosis, and limited treatment options, it is expected to be the second leading cause of cancer deaths in high income countries in the next decade. The multidisciplinary treatment of this disease depends on the stage of cancer at diagnosis (resectable, borderline, locally advanced, and metastatic disease), and combines surgery, chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, and supportive care. The landscape of multidisciplinary pancreatic cancer treatment is changing rapidly, especially in locally advanced disease, and the number of treatment options in metastatic disease, including personalized medicine, innovative targets, immunotherapy, therapeutic vaccines, adoptive T-cell transfer, or stemness inhibitors, will probably expand in the near future. This review summarizes the current literature and provides an overview of how new therapies or new therapeutic strategies (neoadjuvant therapies, conversion surgery) will guide multidisciplinary disease management, future clinical trials, and, hopefully, will increase overall survival.

SummaryBackgroundThere is no standard second-line treatment after platinum–etoposide chemotherapy for gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab, and FOLFIRI alone, in this setting. MethodsWe did a randomised, non-comparative, open-label, phase 2 trial (PRODIGE 41-BEVANEC) at 26 hospitals in France. We included patients aged 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma or neuroendocrine carcinoma of unknown primary origin, documented progressive disease during or after first-line platinum–etoposide chemotherapy, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1; block size of three), without stratification, to receive FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m 2, calcium folinate 400 mg/m 2 or levofolinate 200 mg/m 2, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m 2 bolus then 2400 mg/m 2 over 46 h) plus bevacizumab 5 mg/kg or FOLFIRI alone, intravenously, every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was overall survival at 6 months after randomisation, evaluated in the modified intention-to-treat population (all enrolled and randomly assigned patients who received at least one cycle of FOLFIRI). This study is now complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02820857. FindingsBetween Sept 5, 2017, and Feb 8, 2022, 150 patients were assessed for eligibility and 133 were enrolled and randomly assigned: 65 to the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 68 to the FOLFIRI group. 126 patients (59 in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 67 in the FOLFIRI group) received at least one cycle of FOLFIRI and were included in the modified intention-to-treat population, 83 (66%) of whom were male and 43 (34%) were female, and the median age of the patients was 67 years (IQR 58–73). The primary tumour location was colorectal in 38 (30%) of 126 patients, pancreatic in 34 (27%), gastro-oesophageal in 22 (17%), and unknown in 23 (18%). After a median follow-up of 25·7 months (95% CI 22·0–38·2), 6-month overall survival was 53% (80% CI 43–61) in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group and 60% (51–68) in the FOLFIRI group. Grade 3–4 adverse events that occurred in at least 5% of patients were neutropenia (eight [14%] patients), diarrhoea (six [10%]), and asthenia (five [8%]) in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group, and neutropenia (seven [10%]) in the FOLFIRI group. One treatment-related death (ischaemic stroke) occurred in the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group. InterpretationThe addition of bevacizumab did not seem to increase the benefit of FOLFIRI with regard to overall survival. FOLFIRI could be considered as a standard second-line treatment in patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine carcinoma. FundingFrench Ministry of Health and Roche SAS.

Background Patient Derived Organoids (PDOs) emerged as the best technology to develop ex vivo tumor avatars. Whether drug testing on PDOs to identify efficient therapies will bring clinical utility by improving patient survival remains unclear. To test this hypothesis in the frame of clinical trials, PDO technology faces three main challenges to be implemented in routine clinical practices: i) generating PDOs with a limited amount of tumor material; ii) testing a wide panel of anti-cancer drugs; and iii) obtaining results within a time frame compatible with patient disease management. We aimed to address these challenges in a prospective study in patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). Methods Fresh surgical or core needle biopsies were obtained from patients with CRC. PDOs were established and challenged with a panel of 25 FDA-approved anti-cancer drugs (chemotherapies and targeted therapies) to establish a scoring method (‘chemogram’) identifying in vitro responders. The results were analyzed at the scale of the cohort and individual patients when the follow-up data were available. Results A total of 25 PDOs were successfully established, harboring 94% concordance with the genomic profile of the tumor they were derived from. The take-on rate for PDOs derived from core needle biopsies was 61.5%. A chemogram was obtained with a 6-week median turnaround time (range, 4–10 weeks). At least one hit (mean 6.16) was identified for 92% of the PDOs. The number of hits was inversely correlated to disease metastatic dissemination and the number of lines of treatment the patient received. The chemograms were compared to clinical data obtained from 8 patients and proved to be predictive of their response with 75% sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions We show that PDO-based drug tests can be achieved in the frame of routine clinical practice. The chemogram could provide clinicians with a decision-making tool to tailor patient treatment. Thus, PDO-based functional precision oncology should now be tested in interventional trials assessing its clinical utility for patients who do not harbor activable genomic alterations or have developed resistance to standard of care treatments.

Over the past two decades, the molecular characterization of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has been revolutionized by the routine implementation of RAS and BRAF tests. As a result, it is now known that patients with mCRC harboring BRAF mutations experience a poor prognosis. Although it accounts for only 10% of mCRC, this group is heterogeneous; only the BRAF-V600E mutation, also observed in melanoma, is associated with a very poor prognosis. In terms of treatment, these patients do not benefit from therapeutics targeting the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR). In first-line chemotherapy, there are two main options; the first one is to use a triple chemotherapy combination of 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin, with the addition of bevacizumab, because post hoc analysis of randomized trials have reported interesting results. The other option is to use double chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, since anti-EGFR seems to have modest activity in these patients. Only a small percentage of patients who experience failure of this first-line treatment receive second-line treatment. Monotherapy with BRAF inhibitors has failed in this setting, and different combinations have also been tested. Using the rationale that BRAF inhibitor monotherapy fails due to feedback activation of the EGFR pathway, BRAF inhibitors have been combined with anti-EGFR agents plus or minus MEK inhibitors; however, the results did not live up to the hopes raised by the concept. To date, the best results in second-line treatment have been obtained with a combination of vemurafenib, cetuximab, and irinotecan. Despite these advances, further improvements are needed.

Background After curative-intent surgery for colorectal liver metastases (CRLM), liver recurrence occurs in more than 60% of patients, despite the administration of perioperative or adjuvant chemotherapy. This risk is even higher after resection of more than three CRLM. As CRLM are mostly supplied by arterial blood flow, hepatic arterial infusion (HAI) of chemotherapeutic agents after resection of CRLM is an attractive approach. Oxaliplatin-based HAI chemotherapy, in association with systemic fluoropyrimidines, has been shown to be safe and highly active in patients with CRLM. In a retrospective series of 98 patients at high risk of hepatic recurrence (≥4 resected CRLM), adjuvant HAI oxaliplatin combined with systemic chemotherapy was feasible and significantly improved disease-free survival compared to adjuvant, ‘modern’ systemic chemotherapy alone. Methods/Design This study is designed as a multicentre, randomized, phase II/III trial. The first step is a non-comparative randomized phase II trial (power, 95%; one-sided alpha risk, 10%). Patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to adjuvant systemic FOLFOX (control arm) or adjuvant HAI oxaliplatin plus systemic LV5FU2 (experimental arm). A total 114 patients will need to be included. The main objective of this trial is to evaluate the potential survival benefit of adjuvant HAI with oxaliplatin after resection of at least 4 CRLM (primary endpoint: 18-month hepatic recurrence-free survival rate). We also aim to assess the feasibility of delivering at least 4 cycles of HAI (or i.v.) oxaliplatin after surgical treatment of at least 4 CRLM, the toxicity (NCI-CTC v4.0) of adjuvant HAI plus systemic chemotherapy, including HAI catheter-related complications, compared to systemic chemotherapy alone, and the efficacy of adjuvant HAI on hepatic and extra-hepatic recurrence-free (survival and overall survival). Discussion If 18-month hepatic recurrence-free survival is greater than 50% in the experimental arm, the study will be pursued in phase III, for which the primary endpoint will be 3-year recurrence-free survival rate. Patients randomized in the phase II will be included in the phase III, with an additional number of 106 patients. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02494973 . Trial registration date: July 10, 2015.

Although kinase inhibitors raise hope for people with cancer, patients and their clinicians are commonly confronted with the cutaneous side-effects that are associated with the use of these drugs. This review is the result of collaborations between dermatologists, medical oncologists, and pathologists, and discusses the cutaneous side-effects seen after treatment with the inhibitors of epidermal-growth-factor receptor (EGFR), imatinib, sorafenib, and sunitinib. Some of the side-effects caused by these agents are very distressing, partly because they are chronic owing to the long duration of treatment. Therefore, patients need early and appropriate dermatological management. Moreover, several studies have reported a link between the antitumour efficacy of EGFR inhibitors and cutaneous side-effects. Elucidation of this connection could lead to the identification of crucial predictive factors for tumour response.

[...]despite being the largest adjuvant trial in biliary tract cancer so far, the BILCAP study is underpowered, because 2-year overall survival in the observation group (60%) was considerably higher than originally thought (20%). The overall survival benefit became significant in a sensitivity analysis adjusting for sex, disease grade, and nodal status (HR 0·71, 95% CI 0·55–0·92; p=0·010), and in a per-protocol analysis that excluded 17 patients who were either found to be ineligible or were randomly assigned to but did not receive capecitabine (HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·58–0·97; p=0·028). [...]intention-to-treat recurrence-free survival was longer with capecitabine (median 24·4 months [95% CI 18·6–35·9] vs 17·5 months [12·0–23·8] for observation). Additionally, recurrent, capecitabine-resistant disease will potentially retain sensitivity to gemcitabine-platinum chemotherapy.9 Given the negative results of other studies,5,6 adjuvant capecitabine should be proposed to patients after curative-intent resection of biliary tract cancer, and should be considered the control group for future studies.

The optimum use of cytotoxic drugs for advanced colorectal cancer has not been defined. Our aim was to investigate whether combination treatment is better than the sequential administration of the same drugs in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients (1:1 ratio) with advanced, measurable, non-resectable colorectal cancer and WHO performance status 0–2 to receive either first-line treatment with bolus (400 mg/m2) and infusional (2400 mg/m2) fluorouracil plus leucovorin (400 mg/m2) (simplified LV5FU2 regimen), second-line LV5FU2 plus oxaliplatin (100 mg/m2) (FOLFOX6), and third-line LV5FU2 plus irinotecan (180 mg/m2) (FOLFIRI) or first-line FOLFOX6 and second-line FOLFIRI. Chemotherapy was administered every 2 weeks. Randomisation was done centrally using minimisation (minimisation factors were WHO performance status, previous adjuvant chemotherapy, number of disease sites, and centre). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival after two lines of treatment. Analyses were by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00126256. 205 patients were randomly assigned to the sequential group and 205 to the combination group. 161 (79%) patients in the sequential group and 161 (79%) in the combination group died during the study. Median progression-free survival after two lines was 10·5 months (95% CI 9·6–11·5) in the sequential group and 10·3 months (9·0–11·9) in the combination group (hazard ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·77–1·16; p=0·61). All six deaths caused by toxic effects of treatment occurred in the combination group. During first-line chemotherapy, significantly fewer severe (grade 3–4) haematological adverse events (12 events in 203 patients in sequential group vs 83 events in 203 patients in combination group; p<0·0001) and non-haematological adverse events (26 events vs 186 events; p<0·0001) occurred in the sequential group than in the combination group. Upfront combination chemotherapy is more toxic and is not more effective than the sequential use of the same cytotoxic drugs in patients with advanced, non-resectable colorectal cancer. Sanofi-Aventis France.

ObjectiveThe BEACON CRC randomised controlled trial (NCT02928224) in BRAF-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients showed improved overall survival for the combination treatment of encorafenib (BRAF inhibitor) with cetuximab (EGFR inhibitor) compared with cetuximab with chemotherapy (FOLFIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil and irinotecan) or irinotecan). We aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab in adult patients with BRAF-mutant mCRC after prior systemic therapy, from the perspective of the French healthcare system.DesignA partitioned survival analysis model was developed to assess the cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab using data from BEACON CRC (encorafenib with cetuximab and cetuximab with FOLFIRI or irinotecan). For two further comparator treatments (FOLFIRI alone and bevacizumab with FOLFIRI), a systemic literature review identified appropriate clinical trial data for indirect comparison. Piecewise modelling extrapolation was used to fulfil a lifetime horizon in the model. A discount rate of 2.5% was used. Treatment-emergent adverse events ≥grade 3 with an incidence of ≥2% were included, as well as relative dose intensity and utility values.Outcome measuresThe effectiveness outcomes of the model were expressed in terms of incremental life years gained and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALY) gained. The cost-effectiveness of encorafenib with cetuximab was assessed using the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results were presented probabilistically to account for parametric uncertainty. Deterministic and scenario analyses were conducted.ResultsThe ICER for encorafenib with cetuximab versus cetuximab with FOLFIRI or irinotecan, FOLFIRI alone and bevacizumab with FOLFIRI was €69 823/QALY, €70 421/QALY and €72 336/QALY, respectively. Encorafenib with cetuximab was considered cost-effective compared with the three comparators at a willingness to pay threshold of €90 000/QALY, with probabilities of being cost-effective of 89.8%, 98.2% and 86.4%, respectively.ConclusionsThis analysis showed encorafenib with cetuximab to be a cost-effective treatment in mCRC patients with a BRAF V600E mutation.