Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a previous phase 3 trial, treatment with trifluridine-tipiracil (FTD-TPI) prolonged overall survival among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Preliminary data from single-group and randomized phase 2 trials suggest that treatment with FTD-TPI in addition to bevacizumab has the potential to extend survival. We randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, adult patients who had received no more than two previous chemotherapy regimens for the treatment of advanced colorectal cancer to receive FTD-TPI plus bevacizumab (combination group) or FTD-TPI alone (FTD-TPI group). The primary end point was overall survival. Secondary end points were progression-free survival and safety, including the time to worsening of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance-status score from 0 or 1 to 2 or more (on a scale from 0 to 5, with higher scores indicating greater disability). A total of 246 patients were assigned to each group. The median overall survival was 10.8 months in the combination group and 7.5 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio for death, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49 to 0.77; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.6 months in the combination group and 2.4 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.54; P<0.001). The most common adverse events in both groups were neutropenia, nausea, and anemia. No treatment-related deaths were reported. The median time to worsening of the ECOG performance-status score from 0 or 1 to 2 or more was 9.3 months in the combination group and 6.3 months in the FTD-TPI group (hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.67). Among patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, treatment with FTD-TPI plus bevacizumab resulted in longer overall survival than FTD-TPI alone. (Funded by Servier and Taiho Oncology; SUNLIGHT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04737187; EudraCT number, 2020-001976-14.).

FIRE-3 compared first-line 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The same study also reported an exploratory analysis of a subgroup of patients with tumours that were wild-type at other RAS genes (KRAS and NRAS exons 2–4). We report here efficacy results for the FIRE-3 final RAS (KRAS/NRAS, exons 2–4) wild-type subgroup. Moreover, new metrics of tumour dynamics were explored during a centralised radiological review to investigate how FOLFIRI plus cetuximab conferred overall survival benefit in the absence of differences in investigator-assessed objective responses and progression-free survival. FIRE-3 was a randomised phase 3 trial comparing FOLFIRI plus cetuximab with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the first-line treatment of patients with KRAS exon 2 wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer. The primary endpoint of the FIRE-3 study was the proportion of patients achieving an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.0 in the intention-to-treat population. A centralised radiological review of CT scans was done in a post-hoc analysis to assess objective response according to RECIST 1.1, early tumour shrinkage, depth of response, duration of response, and time to response in the final RAS wild-type subgroup. Comparisons between treatment groups with respect to objective response rate and early tumour shrinkage were made using Fisher's exact test (two-sided), while differences in depth of response were investigated with a two-sided Wilcoxon test. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00433927. In the final RAS wild-type population (n=400), median overall survival was better in the FOLFIRI plus cetuximab group than the FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab group (33·1 months [95% CI 24·5–39·4] vs 25·0 months [23·0–28·1]; hazard ratio 0·70 [0·54–0·90]; p=0·0059), although investigator-assessed objective response and progression-free survival were comparable between treatment groups. Centralised radiological review of CT-assessable patients (n=330) showed that the proportion of patients achieving an objective response (113 of 157, 72·0% [95% CI 64·3–78·8] vs 97 of 173, 56·1% [48·3–63·6]; p=0·0029), frequency of early tumour shrinkage (107 of 157, 68·2% [60·3–75·4] vs 85 of 173, 49·1% [41·5–56·8]; p=0·0005), and median depth of response (–48·9% [–54·3 to −42·0] vs −32·3% [–38·2 to −29·2]; p<0·0001) were significantly better in extended RAS wild-type patients receiving FOLFIRI plus cetuximab versus those receiving FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab. No differences in duration of response and time to response were observed between treatment groups. This analysis provides a new framework that connects alternative metrics of response to overall survival. Superior response-related outcome parameters, such as early tumour shrinkage and depth of response, obtained by centralised radiological review correlated with the overall survival benefit conferred by FOLFIRI plus cetuximab compared with FOLFIRI plus bevacizumab in the extended RAS wild-type subgroup. Merck KGaA and Pfizer.

Background Multimodal two-stage hepatectomy (mTSH) is used in patients with bilobar colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) that cannot be treated with one surgical procedure due to insufficient future liver remnant. Interval chemotherapy has been proposed to improve disease control in CRLM patients undergoing mTSH. We here present a narrative review of clinical studies on mTSH including the use of interval chemotherapy in patients with CRLM. Methods A systematic literature search of the PubMed databases as well as the ClinicalTrials.gov registry was performed. Results The use of interval chemotherapy during mTSH was reported in 23 studies and applied in 595 out of 1,461 patients with CRLM. Two studies report on the actual effects of this treatment, one study describes a trend towards improved disease progression rate. No serious adverse events caused by interval chemotherapy were observed. There is currently no randomized clinical trial investigating the efficacy and safety of interval chemotherapy during mTSH. Conclusion The currently available data indicate that interval chemotherapy does neither impair liver hypertrophy during mTSH nor cause procedure-associated complications in patients with CRLM. Results from randomized clinical trials on the potential positive effect on disease control are not yet available.

Precision medicine has revolutionised cancer treatments; however, actionable biomarkers remain scarce. To address this, we develop the Oncology Biomarker Discovery (OncoBird) framework for analysing the molecular and biomarker landscape of randomised controlled clinical trials. OncoBird identifies biomarkers based on single genes or mutually exclusive genetic alterations in isolation or in the context of tumour subtypes, and finally, assesses predictive components by their treatment interactions. Here, we utilise the open-label, randomised phase III trial (FIRE-3, AIO KRK-0306) in metastatic colorectal carcinoma patients, who received either cetuximab or bevacizumab in combination with 5-fluorouracil, folinic acid and irinotecan (FOLFIRI). We systematically identify five biomarkers with predictive components, e.g., patients with tumours that carry chr20q amplifications or lack mutually exclusive ERK signalling mutations benefited from cetuximab compared to bevacizumab. In summary, OncoBird characterises the molecular landscape and outlines actionable biomarkers, which generalises to any molecularly characterised randomised controlled trial. Identifying actionable biomarkers remains a challenge. Here, the authors develop a framework Oncology Biomarker Discovery (OncoBird), apply it to a phase III trial and investigate the molecular and biomarker landscape of metastatic colorectal carcinoma patients.

Purpose CA 19-9 is the only established tumor marker in pancreatic cancer (PC); the prognostic role of other serum markers like CEA, CRP, LDH or bilirubin has not yet been defined. Methods We pooled pre-treatment data on CA 19-9, CEA, CRP, LDH and bilirubin levels from two German multicenter randomized phase II trials together with prospective patient data from one high-volume German Cancer Center. Marker levels were assessed locally before the start of palliative first-line therapy for advanced PC and serially during treatment (for CA 19-9 only). Clinical and biomarker data (overall 12 variables) were correlated with the efficacy endpoints time-to-progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) by using uni- and multivariate Cox models. Results Data from 291 patients were included in this pooled analysis; 253 patients (87 %) received treatment within prospective clinical trials. Median TTP in the study cohort was 5.1 months and median OS 9.0 months. In univariate analysis, pre-treatment CA 19-9 (HR 1.55), LDH (HR 2.04) and CEA (HR 1.89) levels were significantly associated with TTP. Regarding OS, baseline CA 19-9 (HR 1.46), LDH (HR 2.07), CRP (HR 1.69) and bilirubin (HR 1.62) were significant prognostic factors. Within multivariate analyses, pre-treatment log [CA 19-9] (as continuous variable for TTP) and log [bilirubin] as well as log [CRP] (for OS) had an independent prognostic value. A CA 19-9 decline of ≥25 % during the first two chemotherapy cycles was predictive for TTP and OS, independent of the applied CA 19-9 assay. Conclusion Baseline CA 19-9 and CA 19-9 kinetics during first-line chemotherapy are prognostic in advanced PC. Besides that finding other serum markers like CRP, LDH and bilirubin can also provide prognostic information on TTP and OS.

Early tumor shrinkage (ETS) has been highlighted as a favorable prognostic factor related to progression‐free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in cytotoxic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Data from a randomized phase III study comparing infusional 5‐fluorouracil plus irinotecan (FUFIRI) versus irinotecan plus oxaliplatin (mIROX) were evaluated. Patient groups were analyzed according to the relative change in maximum tumor diameter between baseline and after 7 weeks of treatment. The ETS cohort was defined as a decrease of ≥20%. Additionally, the non‐ETS cohort was subdivided into “minor shrinkage” (0–19%), “tumor progression” (any increase) and development of “new metastatic lesions”. Progression‐free survival and OS were estimated in all patient subgroups. Assessment of ETS was possible in 201 patients. Early tumor shrinkage was observed in 47% (94/201) and non‐ETS in 53% (107/201) of patients. Patients with ETS had a more favorable outcome with regard to PFS (9.9 months vs 6.1 months, P = 0.029) and OS (27.5 months vs 17.8 months, P = 0.002). In the non‐ETS subgroups, patients with “minor shrinkage” (PFS 8.4 months, OS 21.6 months) showed a markedly better outcome than patients with “early tumor progression” (PFS 4.0 months, OS 15.3 months) or with “new metastatic lesions (PFS 2.2 months, OS 7.6 months). In conclusion, ETS assessment offers accelerated response evaluation when compared to RECIST. In patients treated with chemotherapy alone, ETS ≥20% is associated with excellent outcome. Non‐ETS is a heterogeneous subgroup where patients with minor shrinkage clearly benefit from treatment, and patients with early progression or development of new lesions have an unfavorable prognosis.

Background The prognosis of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) who have progressed on gemcitabine plus cisplatin is dismal. Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) and irinotecan have proven efficacy in different gastrointestinal malignancies. We therefore hypothesized that this combination might improve the therapeutic outcome in patients with BTC after failure of first line treatment. Methods TRITICC is an interventional, prospective, open-label, non-randomised, exploratory, multicentre, single-arm phase IIA clinical trial done in 6 sites with expertise in managing biliary tract cancer across Germany. A total of 28 adult patients (aged ≥ 18 years) with histologically verified locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer (including cholangiocarcinoma and gallbladder or ampullary carcinoma) with documented radiological disease progression to first-line gemcitabine based chemotherapy will be included to receive a combination of FTD/TPI plus irinotecan according to previously published protocols. Study treatment will be continued until disease progression according to RECIST 1.1 criteria or occurrence of unacceptable toxicity. The effect of FTD/TPI plus irinotecan on progression-free survival will be analyzed as primary endpoint. Safety (according to NCI-CTCAE), response rates and overall survival are secondary endpoints. In addition, a comprehensive translational research program is part of the study and might provide findings about predictive markers with regard to response, survival periods and resistance to treatment. Discussion The aim of TRITICC is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of FTD/TPI plus irinotecan in patients with biliary tract cancer refractory to previous Gemcitabine based treatment. Trial registration EudraCT 2018–002936-26; NCT04059562

The randomized FIRE‐4.5 (AIO KRK0116) trial compared first‐line therapy with FOLFOXIRI (folinic acid, fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus either cetuximab or bevacizumab in B‐Raf proto‐oncogene, serine/threonine kinase (BRAF) V600E‐mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. This study was accompanied by a prospective translational project analyzing cell‐free circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in plasma to test whether ctDNA analysis may help to guide clinical treatment decision making. FIRE‐4.5 included mCRC patients with BRAF V600E mutation detected by tissue‐based analyses. Liquid biopsies (LBs) were collected at baseline (pre‐treatment) and during therapy. Digital droplet PCR (ddPCR) technology was applied for determination of BRAF mutations and the in vitro diagnostics (IVD)‐certified ONCOBEAM RAS procedure for analysis of RAS mutations. The BRAF V600E variants in ctDNA were analyzable in 66 patients at start of the therapy, at baseline. No BRAF V600E mutations were detected in 26% (17/66) of patients and was associated with a significantly longer progression‐free survival (PFS: 13.2 vs 6.5 months; HR 0.47; P = 0.014) and overall survival (OS: 36.8 vs 13.2 months; HR 0.35; P = 0.02) as compared to ctDNA mutant patients. Patients with detectable BRAF mutations showed a clear superiority of FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab with regard to PFS (10.4 vs 5.7 months; HR 0.4; P = 0.009) and OS (16.6 vs 11.6 months; HR 0.5; P = 0.15), while this was not the case for BRAF wild‐type patients. Follow‐up LBs were obtained from 51 patients. Patients converting from BRAF V600E mutant to a BRAF V600 wild‐type status (36%, N = 18) had a superior PFS (8.6 vs 2.3 months; P = 0.0002) and OS (17.4 vs 5.1 months; P < 0.0001) compared to patients with stable or increased mutational allele frequency (12%, N = 6). Those patients also achieved a significantly greater disease control rate (89% vs 20%; P = 0.008). In conclusion, LB evaluating ctDNA is informative and may help to guide treatment in patients with BRAF V600E‐mutated mCRC. Liquid biopsy evaluating circulating tumor DNA as a prognostic and predictive biomarker is informative and may help to guide treatment in patients with BRAF V600E mutated colorectal cancer. In patients with a detectable BRAF V600E variant in ctDNA, chemotherapy with bevacizumab showed superiority in terms of PFS and OS, while this was not the case in BRAF wild‐type patients.

Background It has not yet been defined if KRAS has a prognostic value or is a predictive biomarker for the efficacy of erlotinib in advanced pancreatic cancer (PC). Methods AIO-PK0104 was a phase III trial comparing gemcitabine/erlotinib followed by capecitabine with capecitabine/erlotinib followed by gemcitabine in advanced PC. For this post hoc subgroup analysis, biomarker data on the KRAS exon 2 mutation status were correlated with objective response to 1st-line therapy and with overall survival after start of 2nd-line chemotherapy (OSc). Results KRAS codon 12 was mutated in 121 of 173 (70 %) patients. The KRAS status showed no association with objective response ( p  = 0.40), but KRAS wildtype patients had an improved OS (HR 1.68, p  = 0.005). A trend for a survival benefit was also observed during (non-erlotinib containing) 2nd-line chemotherapy, with a HR of 1.47 ( p  = 0.10) for the OSc. Conclusion This post hoc analysis of AIO-PK0104 supports the assumption that KRAS is rather a prognostic than a predictive biomarker in PC.