No abstract

Oral capecitabine achieved an at least equivalent efficacy compared with IV 5-FU/LV. Capecitabine demonstrated clinically meaningful safety advantages and the convenience of an oral agent.

BackgroundCirculating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is a potential source for tumor genome analysis. We explored the concordance between the mutational status of RAS in tumor tissue and ctDNA in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients to establish eligibility for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) therapy.Patients and methodsA prospective-retrospective cohort study was carried out. Tumor tissue from 146 mCRC patients was tested for RAS status with standard of care (SoC) PCR techniques, and Digital PCR (BEAMing) was used both in plasma and tumor tissue.ResultsctDNA BEAMing RAS testing showed 89.7% agreement with SoC (Kappa index 0.80; 95% CI 0.71 − 0.90) and BEAMing in tissue showed 90.9% agreement with SoC (Kappa index 0.83; 95% CI 0.74 − 0.92). Fifteen cases (10.3%) showed discordant tissue-plasma results. ctDNA analysis identified nine cases of low frequency RAS mutations that were not detected in tissue, possibly due to technical sensitivity or heterogeneity. In six cases, RAS mutations were not detected in plasma, potentially explained by low tumor burden or ctDNA shedding. Prediction of treatment benefit in patients receiving anti-EGFR plus irinotecan in second- or third-line was equivalent if tested with SoC PCR and ctDNA. Forty-eight percent of the patients showed mutant allele fractions in plasma below 1%.ConclusionsPlasma RAS determination showed high overall agreement and captured a mCRC population responsive to anti-EGFR therapy with the same predictive level as SoC tissue testing. The feasibility and practicality of ctDNA analysis may translate into an alternative tool for anti-EGFR treatment selection.

EGFR TK mutational analysis is a novel predictive test for selecting lung adenocarcinoma patients for targeted therapy with EGFR TK inhibitors.

Background:The choice of chemotherapy in HER2-negative gastric cancer is based on centre’s preferences and adverse effects profile. No schedule is currently accepted as standard, nor are there any factors to predict response, other than HER2 status. We seek to evaluate whether Lauren type influences the efficacy of various chemotherapies and on patient overall survival (OS).Methods:We have conducted a multicenter study in 31 hospitals. The eligibility criteria include diagnosis of stomach or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, HER2 negativity, and chemotherapy containing 2–3 drugs. Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for confounding factors, with tests of ‘treatment-by-histology’ interaction, was used to estimate treatment effect.Results:Our registry contains 1303 tumours analysable for OS end points and 730 evaluable for overall response rate (ORR). A decrease in ORR was detected in the presence of a diffuse component: odds ratio 0.719 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.525–0.987), P=0.039. Anthracycline- or docetaxel-containing schedules increased ORR only in the intestinal type. The diffuse type displayed increased mortality with hazard ratio (HR) of 1.201 (95% CI, 1.054–1.368), P=0.0056. Patients receiving chemotherapy with docetaxel exhibited increased OS limited to the intestinal type: HR 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49–0.87), P=0.024, with no increment in OS for the subset having a diffuse component. With respect to progression-free survival (PFS), a significant interaction was seen in the effect of docetaxel-containing schedules, with better PFS limited to the intestinal type subgroup, in the comparison against any other schedule: HR 0.65 (95% CI, 0.50–0.85), P=0.015, and against anthracycline-based regimens: HR 0.64 (95% CI, 0.46–0.88), P=0.046.Conclusions:As a conclusion, in this registry, Lauren classification tumour subtypes predicted survival and responded differently to chemotherapy. Future clinical trials should stratify effect estimations based on histology.

Background:Immune Modulation and Gemcitabine Evaluation-1, a randomised, open-label, phase II, first-line, proof of concept study (NCT01303172), explored safety and tolerability of IMM-101 (heat-killed Mycobacterium obuense; NCTC 13365) with gemcitabine (GEM) in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.Methods:Patients were randomised (2 : 1) to IMM-101 (10 mg ml−l intradermally)+GEM (1000 mg m−2 intravenously; n=75), or GEM alone (n=35). Safety was assessed on frequency and incidence of adverse events (AEs). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) were collected.Results:IMM-101 was well tolerated with a similar rate of AE and serious adverse event reporting in both groups after allowance for exposure. Median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 6.7 months for IMM-101+GEM v 5.6 months for GEM; while not significant, the hazard ratio (HR) numerically favoured IMM-101+GEM (HR, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.44–1.04, P=0.074). In a pre-defined metastatic subgroup (84%), OS was significantly improved from 4.4 to 7.0 months in favour of IMM-101+GEM (HR, 0.54, 95% CI 0.33–0.87, P=0.01).Conclusions:IMM-101 with GEM was as safe and well tolerated as GEM alone, and there was a suggestion of a beneficial effect on survival in patients with metastatic disease. This warrants further evaluation in an adequately powered confirmatory study.

CTC detection was not associated with worse DFS and OS in patients with stage III CRC. Given the scarcity of CTC in these patients, it is likely that CTC determined by CellSearch system does not have a prognostic role in this setting. However, a longer follow-up is needed.

We sought to determine the impact of bevacizumab on reduction of tumor size prior to chemoradiotherapy in unresected glioblastoma patients. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive temozolomide (TMZ arm) or temozolomide plus bevacizumab (TMZ + BEV arm). In both arms, neoadjuvant treatment was temozolomide (85 mg/m(2), days 1-21, two 28-day cycles), concurrent radiation plus temozolomide, and six cycles of adjuvant temozolomide. In the TMZ + BEV arm, bevacizumab (10 mg/kg) was added on days 1 and 15 of each neoadjuvant cycle and on days 1, 15 and 30 of concurrent treatment. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed response to neoadjuvant treatment. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and the impact on outcome of MGMT methylation in tumor and serum. One hundred and two patients were included; 43 in the TMZ arm and 44 in the TMZ + BEV arm were evaluable for response. Results favored the TMZ + BEV arm in terms of objective response (3 [6.7 %] vs. 11 [22.9 %]; odds ratio 4.2; P = 0.04). PFS and OS were longer in the TMZ + BEV arm, though the difference did not reach statistical significance. MGMT methylation in tumor, but not in serum, was associated with outcome. More patients experienced toxicities in the TMZ + BEV than in the TMZ arm (P = 0.06). The combination of bevacizumab plus temozolomide is more active than temozolomide alone and may well confer benefit in terms of tumor shrinkage in unresected patients albeit at the expense of greater toxicity.