Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer: updated analysis of 93 randomized patients - control survival is much better than previously assumed.

AIM: Lung metastases from colorectal cancer are resected in selected patients in the belief that this confers a significant survival advantage. It is generally assumed that the 5-year survival of these patients would be near zero without metastasectomy. We tested the clinical effectiveness of this practice in Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC), a randomized, controlled noninferiority trial. METHOD: Multidisciplinary teams in 14 hospitals recruited patients with resectable lung metastases into a two-arm trial. Randomization was remote and stratified according to site, with minimization for age, sex, primary cancer stage, interval since primary resection, prior liver involvement, number of metastases and carcinoembryonic antigen level. The trial management group was blind to patient allocation until after intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2016, 93 participants were randomized. These patients were 35-86 years of age and had between one and six lung metastases at a median of 2.7 years after colorectal cancer resection; 29% had prior liver metastasectomy. The patient groups were well matched and the characteristics of these groups were similar to those of observational studies. The median survival after metastasectomy was 3.5 (95% CI: 3.1-6.6) years compared with 3.8 (95% CI: 3.1-4.6) years for controls. The estimated unadjusted hazard ratio for death within 5 years, comparing the metastasectomy group with the control group, was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.56-1.56). Use of chemotherapy or local ablation was infrequent and similar in each group. CONCLUSION: Patients in the control group (who did not undergo lung metastasectomy) have better survival than is assumed. Survival in the metastasectomy group is comparable with the many single-arm follow-up studies. The groups were well matched with features similar to those reported in case series

Food Poverty and Christianity in Britain: A Theological Re-assessment

The Christian response to food poverty in Britain has generally been two-fold. Foodbanks have become synonymous with Christianity and exemplify its charitable ethos. However, Christian churches have also called for social justice so that people can buy food in the normal way. Both responses are theologically problematic. The idea of foodbank is borne of a privileged theology that celebrates charitable giving, despite the humiliation it invites on recipients. Although social justice approaches originate in human rights discourse, the location of these rights in food consumerism means that it is equally privileged. Drawing on contextual and liberation theology, as well as ideas from radical orthodoxy, I argue that food poverty is better understood when we assign epistemological privilege to the poor. This leads me to advocate an alternative Christian response to food poverty

Efficacy of Reduced-Intensity Chemotherapy With Oxaliplatin and Capecitabine on Quality of Life and Cancer Control Among Older and Frail Patients With Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: The GO2 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance Older and/or frail patients are underrepresented in landmark cancer trials. Tailored research is needed to address this evidence gap. Objective The GO2 randomized clinical trial sought to optimize chemotherapy dosing in older and/or frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants This multicenter, noninferiority, open-label randomized trial took place at oncology clinics in the United Kingdom with nurse-led geriatric health assessment. Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable because of advanced age and/or frailty. Interventions There were 2 randomizations that were performed: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-21, on a 21-day cycle), Level B (doses 0.8 times A), or Level C (doses 0.6 times A). Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, the patient could instead enter CHEMO-BSC, comparing Level C vs best supportive care. Main Outcomes and Measures First, broad noninferiority of the lower doses vs reference (Level A) was assessed using a permissive boundary of 34 days reduction in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio, HR = 1.34), selected as acceptable by a forum of patients and clinicians. Then, the patient experience was compared using Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxic effects, quality of life, and patient value/acceptability. For CHEMO-BSC, the main outcome measure was overall survival. Results A total of 514 patients entered CHEMO-INTENSITY, of whom 385 (75%) were men and 299 (58%) were severely frail, with median age 76 years. Noninferior PFS was confirmed for Levels B vs A (HR = 1.09 [95% CI, 0.89-1.32]) and C vs A (HR = 1.10 [95% CI, 0.90-1.33]). Level C produced less toxic effects and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in younger or less frail patients. A total of 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomization: overall survival was nonsignificantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6.1 vs 3.0 months (HR = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.32-1.48], P = .34). In multivariate analysis in 522 patients with all variables available, baseline frailty, quality of life, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, and can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of different outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided a better patient experience without significantly compromising cancer control and should be considered for older and/or frail patients. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy but did not identify a group benefiting from higher-dose treatment. Trial Registration isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN4468790

Risk of Bowel Obstruction in Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for High-risk Colon Cancer

Objective: This study aimed to identify risk criteria available before the point of treatment initiation that can be used to stratify the risk of obstruction in patients undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for high-risk colon cancer. Background: Global implementation of NAC for colon cancer, informed by the FOxTROT trial, may increase the risk of bowel obstruction. Methods: A case-control study, nested within an international randomized controlled trial (FOxTROT; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00647530). Patients with high-risk operable colon cancer (radiologically staged T3-4 N0-2 M0) that were randomized to NAC and developed large bowel obstruction were identified. First, clinical outcomes were compared between patients receiving NAC in FOxTROT who did and did not develop obstruction. Second, obstructed patients (cases) were age-matched and sex-matched with patients who did not develop obstruction (controls) in a 1:3 ratio using random sampling. Bayesian conditional mixed-effects logistic regression modeling was used to explore clinical, radiologic, and pathologic features associated with obstruction. The absolute risk of obstruction based on the presence or absence of risk criteria was estimated for all patients receiving NAC. Results: Of 1053 patients randomized in FOxTROT, 699 received NAC, of whom 30 (4.3%) developed obstruction. Patients underwent care in European hospitals including 88 UK, 7 Danish, and 3 Swedish centers. There was more open surgery (65.4% vs 38.0%, P=0.01) and a higher pR1 rate in obstructed patients (12.0% vs 3.8%, P=0.004), but otherwise comparable postoperative outcomes. In the case-control–matched Bayesian model, 2 independent risk criteria were identified: (1) obstructing disease on endoscopy and/or being unable to pass through the tumor [adjusted odds ratio: 9.09, 95% credible interval: 2.34–39.66] and stricturing disease on radiology or endoscopy (odds ratio: 7.18, 95% CI: 1.84–32.34). Three risk groups were defined according to the presence or absence of these criteria: 63.4% (443/698) of patients were at very low risk (10%). Conclusions: Safe selection for NAC for colon cancer can be informed by using 2 features that are available before treatment initiation and identifying a small number of patients with a high risk of preoperative obstruction

Feasibility of preoperative chemotherapy for locally advanced, operable colon cancer: The pilot phase of a randomised controlled trial

Summary: Background Preoperative (neoadjuvant) chemotherapy and radiotherapy are more eff ective than similar postoperative treatment for oesophageal, gastric, and rectal cancers, perhaps because of more eff ective micrometastasis eradication and reduced risk of incomplete excision and tumour cell shedding during surgery. The FOxTROT trial aims to investigate the feasibility, safety, and effi cacy of preoperative chemotherapy for colon cancer. Methods In the pilot stage of this randomised controlled trial, 150 patients with radiologically staged locally advanced (T3 with ≥5 mm invasion beyond the muscularis propria or T4) tumours from 35 UK centres were randomly assigned (2:1) to preoperative (three cycles of OxMdG [oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², l-folinic acid 175 mg, fl uorouracil 400 mg/m² bolus, then 2400 mg/m² by 46 h infusion] repeated at 2-weekly intervals followed by surgery and a further nine cycles of OxMdG) or standard postoperative chemotherapy (12 cycles of OxMdG). Patients with KRAS wild-type tumours were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive panitumumab (6 mg/kg; every 2 weeks with the fi rst 6 weeks of chemotherapy) or not. Treatment allocation was through a central randomisation service using a minimised randomisation procedure including age, radiological T and N stage, site of tumour, and presence of defunctioning colostomy as stratifi cation variables. Primary outcome measures of the pilot phase were feasibility, safety, and tolerance of preoperative therapy, and accuracy of radiological staging. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN 87163246. Findings 96% (95 of 99) of patients started and 89% (85 of 95) completed preoperative chemotherapy with grade 3–4 gastrointestinal toxicity in 7% (seven of 94) of patients. All 99 tumours in the preoperative group were resected, with no signifi cant diff erences in postoperative morbidity between the preoperative and control groups: 14% (14 of 99) versus 12% (six of 51) had complications prolonging hospital stay (p=0·81). 98% (50 of 51) of postoperative chemotherapy patients had T3 or more advanced tumours confi rmed at post-resection pathology compared with 91% (90 of 99) of patients following preoperative chemotherapy (p=0·10). Preoperative therapy resulted in signifi cant downstaging of TNM5 compared with the postoperative group (p=0·04), including two pathological complete responses, apical node involvement (1% [one of 98] vs 20% [ten of 50], p<0·0001), resection margin involvement (4% [ four of 99] vs 20% [ten of 50], p=0·002), and blinded centrally scored tumour regression grading: 31% (29 of 94) vs 2% (one of 46) moderate or greater regression (p=0·0001). Interpretation Preoperative chemotherapy for radiologically staged, locally advanced operable primary colon cancer is feasible with acceptable toxicity and perioperative morbidity. Proceeding to the phase 3 trial, to establish whether the encouraging pathological responses seen with preoperative therapy translates into improved long-term oncological outcome, is appropriate

Adjuvant bevacizumab for melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence: survival analysis of the AVAST-M trial

Background: Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanised monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor shown to improve survival in advanced solid cancers. We evaluated the role of adjuvant bevacizumab in melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence. Patients and methods: Patients with resected AJCC stage IIB, IIC and III cutaneous melanoma were randomised to receive either adjuvant bevacizumab (7.5?mg/kg i.v. 3 weekly for 1?year) or standard observation. The primary end point was detection of an 8% difference in 5-year overall survival (OS) rate; secondary end points included disease-free interval (DFI) and distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI). Tumour and blood were analysed for prognostic and predictive markers. Results: Patients (n=1343) recruited between 2007 and 2012 were predominantly stage III (73%), with median age 56?years (range 18-88?years). With 6.4-year median follow-up, 515 (38%) patients had died [254 (38%) bevacizumab; 261 (39%) observation]; 707 (53%) patients had disease recurrence [336 (50%) bevacizumab, 371 (55%) observation]. OS at 5?years was 64% for both groups [hazard ratio (HR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.16, P?=?0.78). At 5?years, 51% were disease free on bevacizumab versus 45% on observation (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74-0.99, P?=?0.03), 58% were distant metastasis free on bevacizumab versus 54% on observation (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.07, P?=?0.25). Forty four percent of 682 melanomas assessed had a BRAFV600 mutation. In the observation arm, BRAF mutant patients had a trend towards poorer OS compared with BRAF wild-type patients (P?=?0.06). BRAF mutation positivity trended towards better OS with bevacizumab (P?=?0.21). Conclusions: Adjuvant bevacizumab after resection of high-risk melanoma improves DFI, but not OS. BRAF mutation status may predict for poorer OS untreated and potential benefit from bevacizumab. Clinical Trial Information: ISRCTN 81261306; EudraCT Number: 2006-005505-64