STRATEGIC-1: A multiple-lines, randomized, open-label GERCOR phase III study in patients with unresectable wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The management of unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a comprehensive treatment strategy involving several lines of therapy, maintenance, salvage surgery, and treatment-free intervals. Besides chemotherapy (fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan), molecular-targeted agents such as anti-angiogenic agents (bevacizumab, aflibercept, regorafenib) and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents (cetuximab, panitumumab) have become available. Ultimately, given the increasing cost of new active compounds, new strategy trials are needed to define the optimal use and the best sequencing of these agents. Such new clinical trials require alternative endpoints that can capture the effect of several treatment lines and be measured earlier than overall survival to help shorten the duration and reduce the size and cost of trials. METHODS/DESIGN: STRATEGIC-1 is an international, open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III trial designed to determine an optimally personalized treatment sequence of the available treatment modalities in patients with unresectable RAS wild-type mCRC. Two standard treatment strategies are compared: first-line FOLFIRI-cetuximab, followed by oxaliplatin-based second-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab (Arm A) vs. first-line OPTIMOX-bevacizumab, followed by irinotecan-based second-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab, and by an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody with or without irinotecan as third-line treatment (Arm B). The primary endpoint is duration of disease control. A total of 500 patients will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to one of the two treatment strategies. DISCUSSION: The STRATEGIC-1 trial is designed to give global information on the therapeutic sequences in patients with unresectable RAS wild-type mCRC that in turn is likely to have a significant impact on the management of this patient population. The trial is open for inclusion since August 2013. TRIAL REGISTRATION: STRATEGIC-1 is registered at Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01910610, 23 July, 2013. STRATEGIC-1 is registered at EudraCT-No.: 2013-001928-19, 25 April, 2013

Two consecutive phase II studies of oxaliplatin (L-OHP) for treatment of patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma who were resistant to previous treatment with fluoropyrimidines

Background Oxaliplatin (L-OHP) is a platinum complex that possesses activity against human and murine cells in vitro and in vivo, including colorectal carcinoma-derived cell lines, and cells that have been selected for resistance to cisplatin. We report two consecutive phase H trials of L-OHP for treatment of patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma. Patients and methods: Fifty-eight patients were entered in study I, and 51 patients in study II. All of the patients had tumor progression when they were treated, prior to their enrolment, with a fluoropyrimidine-containing regimen. In both trials treatment consisted of L-OHP, 130 mg/m2 by i.v. infusion for two hours; the treatment was repeated every 21 days. Results Response to therapy: Study I: Fifty-five patients were assessed for response. The response rate was 11% (95% CI, 0.03-0.19). Study II: All 51 patients were assessed for response. The response rate was 10% (95% CI, 0.017-0.18). The overall response rate for the 106 evaluated patients was 10% (95% CI, 0.046-0.16). Times to disease progression in responders were 4, 4, 4.5+, 5, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6+, 9, and 13 months. The dose-limiting toxic effect was sensory peripheral neuropathy. The incidence of severe peripheral neuropathy grades was: Study I: grade 3, 23% of patients, and grade 4, 8% of patients. Study II: grade 3, 14% of patients, and grade 4, 4% of patients. Severe neuropathy had a favorable course in all of the patients who had long-term neurologic follow-up. Diarrhea and myeloid impairment were minor. Conclusion L-OHP produced modest, but definite antitumor activity in patients with advanced colorectal carcinoma who were previously resistant to chemotherapy including fluoropyrirnidines. Toxicity is within acceptable limits of tolerance at the dose and schedule of oxaliplatin used in this tria

The European Cancer Patient’s Bill of Rights, update and implementation 2016

In this implementation phase of the European Cancer Patient’s Bill of Rights (BoR), we confirm the following three patient-centred principles that underpin this initiative: 1: The right of every European citizen to receive the most accurate information and to be proactively involved in his/her care. 2: The right of every European citizen to optimal and timely access to a diagnosis and to appropriate specialised care, underpinned by research and innovation. 3: The right of every European citizen to receive care in health systems that ensure the best possible cancer prevention, the earliest possible diagnosis of their cancer, improved outcomes, patient rehabilitation, best quality of life and affordable health care. The key aspects of working towards implementing the BoR are: - Agree our high-level goal. The vision of 70% long-term survival for patients with cancer in 2035, promoting cancer prevention and cancer control and the associated progress in ensuring good patient experience and quality of life. - Establish the major mechanisms to underpin its delivery. (1) The systematic and rigorous sharing of best practice between and across European cancer healthcare systems and (2) the active promotion of Research and Innovation focused on improving outcomes; (3) Improving access to new and established cancer care by sharing best practice in the development, approval, procurement and reimbursement of cancer diagnostic tests and treatments. - Work with other organisations to bring into being a Europe based centre that will (1) systematically identify, evaluate and validate and disseminate best practice in cancer management for the different countries and regions and (2) promote Research and Innovation and its translation to maximise its impact to improve outcomes

Effects of preset sequential administrations of sunitinib and everolimus on tumour differentiation in Caki-1 renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Sunitinib (VEGFR/PDGFR inhibitor) and everolimus (mTOR inhibitor) are both approved for advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) as first-line and second-line therapy, respectively. In the clinics, sunitinib treatment is limited by the emergence of acquired resistance, leading to a switch to second-line treatment at progression, often based on everolimus. No data have been yet generated on programmed alternating sequential strategies combining alternative use of sunitinib and everolimus before progression. Such strategy is expected to delay the emergence of acquired resistance and improve tumour control. The aim of our study was to assess the changes in tumours induced by three different sequences administration of sunitinib and everolimus. METHODS: In human Caki-1 RCC xenograft model, sunitinib was alternated with everolimus every week, every 2 weeks, or every 3 weeks. Effects on necrosis, hypoxia, angiogenesis, and EMT status were assessed by immunohisochemistry and immunofluorescence. RESULTS: Sunitinib and everolimus programmed sequential regimens before progression yielded longer median time to tumour progression than sunitinib and everolimus monotherapies. In each group of treatment, tumour growth control was associated with inhibition of mTOR pathway and changes from a mesenchymal towards an epithelial phenotype, with a decrease in vimentin and an increase in E-cadherin expression. The sequential combinations of these two agents in a RCC mouse clinical trial induced antiangiogenic effects, leading to tumour necrosis. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, our study showed that alternate sequence of sunitinib and everolimus mitigated the development of mesenchymal phenotype compared with sunitinib as single agent

Targeted anti-vascular therapies for ovarian cancer: current evidence

Ovarian cancer presents at advanced stage in around 75% of women, and despite improvements in treatments such as chemotherapy, the 5-year survival from the disease in women diagnosed between 1996 and 1999 in England and Wales was only 36%. Over 80% of patients with advanced ovarian cancer will relapse and despite a good chance of remission from further chemotherapy, they will usually die from their disease. Sequential treatment strategies are employed to maximise quality and length of life but patients eventually become resistant to cytotoxic agents. The expansion in understanding of the molecular biology that characterises cancer cells has led to the rapid development of new agents to target important pathways but the heterogeneity of ovarian cancer biology means that there is no predominant defect. This review attempts to discuss progress to date in tackling a more general target applicable to ovary cancer-angiogenesis

Pain in platin-induced neuropathies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Platin-induced peripheral neuropathy (PIPN) is a common cause of PN in cancer patients. The aim of this paper is to systematically review the current literature regarding PIPN, with a particular focus on epidemiological and clinical characteristics of painful PIPN, and to discuss relevant management strategies. METHODS: A systematic computer-based literature search was conducted on the PubMed database. RESULTS: This search strategy resulted in the identification of 353 articles. After the eligibility assessment, 282 articles were excluded. An additional 24 papers were identified by scanning the reference lists. In total, 95 papers met the inclusion criteria and were used for this review. The prevalence of neuropathic symptoms due to acute toxicity of oxaliplatin was estimated at 84.6%, whereas PN established after chemotherapy with platins was estimated at 74.9%. Specifically regarding pain, the reported prevalence of pain due to acute toxicity of oxaliplatin was estimated at 55.6%, whereas the reported prevalence of chronic peripheral neuropathic pain in PIPN was estimated at 49.2%. CONCLUSION: Peripheral neuropathy is a common complication in patients receiving platins and can be particularly painful. There is significant heterogeneity among studies regarding the method for diagnosing peripheral neuropathy. Nerve conduction studies are the gold standard and should be performed in patients receiving platins and complaining of neuropathic symptoms post-treatment

Anti-angiogenic therapy for cancer: Current progress, unresolved questions and future directions

Tumours require a vascular supply to grow and can achieve this via the expression of pro-angiogenic growth factors, including members of the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) family of ligands. Since one or more of the VEGF ligand family is overexpressed in most solid cancers, there was great optimism that inhibition of the VEGF pathway would represent an effective anti-angiogenic therapy for most tumour types. Encouragingly, VEGF pathway targeted drugs such as bevacizumab, sunitinib and aflibercept have shown activity in certain settings. However, inhibition of VEGF signalling is not effective in all cancers, prompting the need to further understand how the vasculature can be effectively targeted in tumours. Here we present a succinct review of the progress with VEGF-targeted therapy and the unresolved questions that exist in the field: including its use in different disease stages (metastatic, adjuvant, neoadjuvant), interactions with chemotherapy, duration and scheduling of therapy, potential predictive biomarkers and proposed mechanisms of resistance, including paradoxical effects such as enhanced tumour aggressiveness. In terms of future directions, we discuss the need to delineate further the complexities of tumour vascularisation if we are to develop more effective and personalised anti-angiogenic therapies. © 2014 The Author(s)

A ‘modified de Gramont’ regimen of fluorouracil, alone and with oxaliplatin, for advanced colorectal cancer

The standard de Gramont (dG) regimen of fortnightly leucovorin, bolus fluorouracil and 22-h infusion of fluorouracil, d1+2, and the same regimen plus oxaliplatin, are effective but also cumbersome. We therefore present simplified ‘Modified de Gramont’ (MdG) regimens. Forty-six advanced gastrointestinal cancer patients entered a dose-exploring study of MdG, including an expanded cohort of colorectal cancer patients at optimum dose. Treatment (fortnightly) comprised: 2-h i.v.i. leucovorin (350 mg d,l-LV or 175 mg l-LV, not adjusted for patient surface area); bolus fluorouracil (400 mg m−2), then ambulatory 46-h fluorouracil infusion (2000–3600 mg m−2, cohort escalation). Subsequently, 62 colorectal patients (25 unpretreated; 37 fluorouracil-resistant) received MdG plus oxaliplatin (OxMdG) 85 mg m−2. Fluorouracil pharmacokinetics during MdG were compared with dG. The optimum fluorouracil doses for MdG alone were determined as 400 mg m−2 bolus + 2800 mg m−2 46-h infusion. A lower dose of 400 mg m−2 bolus + 2400 mg m−2 infusion which, like dG produces minimal toxicity, was chosen for the OxMdG combination. Fluorouracil exposure (AUC0–48 h) at this lower dose is equivalent to dG. With OxMdG, grade 3–4 toxicity was rare (neutropenia 2.8% cycles; vomiting or diarrhoea <1% cycles), but despite this there were two infection-associated deaths. Oxaliplatin was omitted for cumulative neurotoxicity in 17 out of 62 patients. Objective responses in colorectal cancer patients were: 1st-line MdG (22 assessable): PR=36%, NC=32%, PD=32%. 1st-line OxMdG (24 assessable): CR/PR=72%; NC=20%; PD=8%; 2nd line OxMdG (34 assessable): PR=12%; NC=38%; PD=50%. MdG and OxMdG are convenient and well-tolerated. OxMdG was particularly active as 1st-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer. Both regimens are being further evaluated in the current UK MRC phase III trial