Duration of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer

BACKGROUND Since 2004, a regimen of 6 months of treatment with oxaliplatin plus a fluoropyrimidine has been standard adjuvant therapy in patients with stage III colon cancer. However, since oxaliplatin is associated with cumulative neurotoxicity, a shorter duration of therapy could spare toxic effects and health expenditures. METHODS We performed a prospective, preplanned, pooled analysis of six randomized, phase 3 trials that were conducted concurrently to evaluate the noninferiority of adjuvant therapy with either FOLFOX (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) or CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) administered for 3 months, as compared with 6 months. The primary end point was the rate of disease-free survival at 3 years. Noninferiority of 3 months versus 6 months of therapy could be claimed if the upper limit of the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the hazard ratio did not exceed 1.12. RESULTS After 3263 events of disease recurrence or death had been reported in 12,834 patients, the noninferiority of 3 months of treatment versus 6 months was not confirmed in the overall study population (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.15). Noninferiority of the shorter regimen was seen for CAPOX (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.06) but not for FOLFOX (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.26). In an exploratory analysis of the combined regimens, among the patients with T1, T2, or T3 and N1 cancers, 3 months of therapy was noninferior to 6 months, with a 3-year rate of disease-free survival of 83.1% and 83.3%, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90 to 1.12). Among patients with cancers that were classified as T4, N2, or both, the disease-free survival rate for a 6-month duration of therapy was superior to that for a 3-month duration (64.4% vs. 62.7%) for the combined treatments (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.23; P=0.01 for superiority). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stage III colon cancer receiving adjuvant therapy with FOLFOX or CAPOX, noninferiority of 3 months of therapy, as compared with 6 months, was not confirmed in the overall population. However, in patients treated with CAPOX, 3 months of therapy was as effective as 6 months, particularly in the lower-risk subgroup. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others.

Individual Participant Data Network Meta-Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Carcinoma

PURPOSE: The optimal neoadjuvant treatment for resectable carcinoma of the thoracic esophagus (TE) or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) remains a matter of debate. We performed an individual participant data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to study the effect of chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy, with a focus on tumor location and histology subgroups. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All, published or unpublished, RCTs closed to accrual before December 31, 2015 and having compared at least two of the following strategies were eligible: upfront surgery (S), chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS), and chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRS). All analyses were conducted on IPD obtained from investigators. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). The IPD-NMA was analyzed by a one-step mixed-effect Cox model adjusted for age, sex, tumor location, and histology. The NMA was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018107158). RESULTS: IPD were obtained for 26 of 35 RCTs (4,985 of 5,807 patients) corresponding to 12 comparisons for CS-S, 12 for CRS-S, and four for CRS-CS. CS and CRS led to increased OS when compared with S with hazard ratio (HR) = 0.86 (0.75 to 0.99), P = .03 and HR = 0.77 (0.68 to 0.87), P &lt; .001 respectively. The NMA comparison of CRS versus CS for OS gave a HR of 0.90 (0.74 to 1.09), P = .27 (consistency P = .26, heterogeneity P = .0038). For CS versus S, a larger effect on OS was observed for GEJ versus TE tumors (P = .036). For the CRS versus S and CRS versus CS, a larger effect on OS was observed for women (P = .003, .012, respectively). CONCLUSION:Neoadjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy were consistently better than S alone across histology, but with some variation in the magnitude of treatment effect by sex for CRS and tumor location for CS. A strong OS difference between CS and CRS was not identified.</p

Prediction of survival with second-line therapy in biliary tract cancer: Actualisation of the AGEO CT2BIL cohort and European multicentre validations

BACKGROUND: The benefit of second-line chemotherapy (L2) over standard first-line (L1) gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GEMCIS) or oxaliplatin (GEMOX) chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC) is unclear. Our aim was to identify and validate prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) with L2 in aBTC to guide clinical decisions in this setting. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of four prospective patient cohorts: a development cohort (28 French centres) and three validation cohorts from Italy, UK and France. All consecutive patients with aBTC receiving L2 after GEMCIS/GEMOX L1 between 2003 and 2016 were included. The association of clinicobiological data with OS was investigated in univariate and multivariate Cox analyses. A simple score was derived from the multivariate model. RESULTS: The development cohort included 405 patients treated with L1 GEMOX (91%) or GEMCIS. Of them, 55.3% were men, and median age was 64.8 years. Prior surgical resection was observed in 26.7%, and 94.8% had metastatic disease. Performance status (PS) was 0, 1 and 2 in 17.8%, 52.4% and 29.7%, respectively. Among 22 clinical parameters, eight were associated with OS in univariate analysis. In multivariate analysis, four were independent prognostic factors (p &lt; 0.05): PS, reason for L1 discontinuation, prior resection of primary tumour and peritoneal carcinomatosis. The model had the Harrell's concordance index of 0.655, a good calibration and was validated in the three external cohorts (N = 392). CONCLUSION: We validated previously reported predictive factors of OS with L2 and identified peritoneal carcinomatosis as a new pejorative factor in nearly 800 patients. Our model and score may be useful in daily practice and for future clinical trial design

Statistical methodology for risk prediction and prongnostic score construction in oncology and kidney transplantation : a cornerstone of prcision medicine

Le pronostic est depuis longtemps un concept de base de la médecine. Hippocrate envisageait déjà le pronostic des maladies par l’étude des circonstances passées, l’établissement des faits présents, et enfin la prédiction des phénomènes à venir. Pour lui, tout l’art du pronostic était de savoir interpréter intelligemment ces informations, et ainsi moduler le pronostic en fonction de leur valeur relative. Une recherche à visée pronostique consiste toujours actuellement en l’examen des relations entre un état de santé connu au moment de l’investigation et un évènement futur. L’augmentation de l’espérance de vie implique que de plus en plus de personnes vivent avec une ou plusieurs maladies ou problèmes altérant leur santé. Dans ce contexte, l’étude du pronostic n’a jamais été aussi importante. Cependant, contrairement au domaine des essais cliniques randomisés dans lequel les recommandations CONSORT sont appliquées depuis plus de 20 ans et garantissent une recherche de qualité, la recherche pronostique commence seulement à se doter d’initiatives similaires. En effet, des recommandations TRIPOD ont été élaborées en 2015 et un groupe de travail, PROGRESS, s’est constitué en 2013 au Royaume-Uni et a fait le constat que les recherches a visée pronostique sont réalisées de façon très hétérogènes et malheureusement ne respectent pas toujours des standards de qualité nécessaires pour supporter leurs conclusions et garantir la reproductibilité des résultats (...)Prognosis is historically a basic concept of medicine. Hippocrates already considered the prognosis of disease as the study of the past circumstances, the establishment of the present state of health and finally the prediction of future events. He presented the prognosis as the ability to interpret these elements and to adapt the prognosis regarding their relative values. Currently, the prognostic research is still based on the examination of the relationship between a well-established health condition at the time of the investigation and the occurrence of an event. The increase in life expectancy implies that more and more people are living with one or more diseases or with problems that can impair their health status. In this context, the study of the prognosis has never been more important. However, in comparison with the field of randomized clinical trials in which the CONSORT statement recommendations are implemented for more than 20 years in order to guarantee quality research, the prognostic research only begins to develop similar initiatives. Indeed, in 2015 the TRIPOD statement recommendations were provided and in 2013 a working group called PROGRESS was constituted in the United Kingdom and its members made the observation that prognostic researches are developed with considerable heterogeneity in the methodology used and unfortunately do not always meet the quality standards required to support their conclusions and their reproducibility (...

Méthodologie statistique pour la prédiction du risque et la construction de score pronostique en transplantation rénale et en oncologie : une pierre angulaire de la médecine de précision

Prognosis is historically a basic concept of medicine. Hippocrates already considered the prognosis of disease as the study of the past circumstances, the establishment of the present state of health and finally the prediction of future events. He presented the prognosis as the ability to interpret these elements and to adapt the prognosis regarding their relative values. Currently, the prognostic research is still based on the examination of the relationship between a well-established health condition at the time of the investigation and the occurrence of an event. The increase in life expectancy implies that more and more people are living with one or more diseases or with problems that can impair their health status. In this context, the study of the prognosis has never been more important. However, in comparison with the field of randomized clinical trials in which the CONSORT statement recommendations are implemented for more than 20 years in order to guarantee quality research, the prognostic research only begins to develop similar initiatives. Indeed, in 2015 the TRIPOD statement recommendations were provided and in 2013 a working group called PROGRESS was constituted in the United Kingdom and its members made the observation that prognostic researches are developed with considerable heterogeneity in the methodology used and unfortunately do not always meet the quality standards required to support their conclusions and their reproducibility (...)Le pronostic est depuis longtemps un concept de base de la médecine. Hippocrate envisageait déjà le pronostic des maladies par l’étude des circonstances passées, l’établissement des faits présents, et enfin la prédiction des phénomènes à venir. Pour lui, tout l’art du pronostic était de savoir interpréter intelligemment ces informations, et ainsi moduler le pronostic en fonction de leur valeur relative. Une recherche à visée pronostique consiste toujours actuellement en l’examen des relations entre un état de santé connu au moment de l’investigation et un évènement futur. L’augmentation de l’espérance de vie implique que de plus en plus de personnes vivent avec une ou plusieurs maladies ou problèmes altérant leur santé. Dans ce contexte, l’étude du pronostic n’a jamais été aussi importante. Cependant, contrairement au domaine des essais cliniques randomisés dans lequel les recommandations CONSORT sont appliquées depuis plus de 20 ans et garantissent une recherche de qualité, la recherche pronostique commence seulement à se doter d’initiatives similaires. En effet, des recommandations TRIPOD ont été élaborées en 2015 et un groupe de travail, PROGRESS, s’est constitué en 2013 au Royaume-Uni et a fait le constat que les recherches a visée pronostique sont réalisées de façon très hétérogènes et malheureusement ne respectent pas toujours des standards de qualité nécessaires pour supporter leurs conclusions et garantir la reproductibilité des résultats (...

Correlation between efficacy endpoints in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer treated by systemic second-line therapies: Analysis of aggregated data from a systematic literature review

International audienceBACKGROUND: Overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) are commonly used as endpoints for phase II trials. However, the ultimate goal is to bring survival benefit for the patients. We aimed to assess the correlation between ORR, median PFS and overall survival (OS) using aggregated data from a systematic review of second-line systemic therapies in advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients. METHODS: Clinical trials were identified using Medline database. Studies only enrolling patients with gallbladder cancer were not included. Searches were last updated on April 2020. Eligible studies reported OS, PFS and/or ORR data for BTC patients receiving second-line systemic chemotherapy. Pearson weighted correlation was estimated between OS and ORR and between median OS and PFS. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (N = 912 patients) were selected. There was a strong correlation between median OS/ORR in the overall analysis (r = 0.85; P &lt; 0.0001), both for trials with chemotherapy (r = 0.90; P=0.0152) and targeted therapy (r = 0.84; P = 0.0006). In contrast, the correlation between median OS/PFS, albeit significant in the overall analysis (r = 0.80; P &lt; 0.0001), remained significant only for targeted therapies in the sensitivity analysis (r = 0.83; P = 0.0009). CONCLUSIONS: ORR seems to be a more interesting intermediate endpoint in BTC in second line for both chemotherapy and targeted therapies, while PFS may be relevant only for targeted therapy trials. Further well-designed studies for surrogacy evaluation should be performed to confirm this observation

Correlation between efficacy endpoints in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer treated by systemic second-line therapies: Analysis of aggregated data from a systematic literature review

International audienceBACKGROUND: Overall response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) are commonly used as endpoints for phase II trials. However, the ultimate goal is to bring survival benefit for the patients. We aimed to assess the correlation between ORR, median PFS and overall survival (OS) using aggregated data from a systematic review of second-line systemic therapies in advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) patients. METHODS: Clinical trials were identified using Medline database. Studies only enrolling patients with gallbladder cancer were not included. Searches were last updated on April 2020. Eligible studies reported OS, PFS and/or ORR data for BTC patients receiving second-line systemic chemotherapy. Pearson weighted correlation was estimated between OS and ORR and between median OS and PFS. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (N = 912 patients) were selected. There was a strong correlation between median OS/ORR in the overall analysis (r = 0.85; P &lt; 0.0001), both for trials with chemotherapy (r = 0.90; P=0.0152) and targeted therapy (r = 0.84; P = 0.0006). In contrast, the correlation between median OS/PFS, albeit significant in the overall analysis (r = 0.80; P &lt; 0.0001), remained significant only for targeted therapies in the sensitivity analysis (r = 0.83; P = 0.0009). CONCLUSIONS: ORR seems to be a more interesting intermediate endpoint in BTC in second line for both chemotherapy and targeted therapies, while PFS may be relevant only for targeted therapy trials. Further well-designed studies for surrogacy evaluation should be performed to confirm this observation

Resectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma neo-adjuvant FOLF(IRIN)OX-based chemotherapy - a multicenter, non-comparative, randomized, phase II trial (PANACHE01-PRODIGE48 study)

Abstract Background At time of diagnosis, less than 10% of patients with pancreatic adenocarcinomas (PDAC) are considered to be immediately operable (i.e. resectable). Considering their poor overall survival (OS), only tumours without vascular invasion (NCCN 2017) should be considered for resection, i.e. those for which resection with disease-free margins (R0) is theoretically possible in absence of presurgery treatment. With regard to high R1 rates and undetectable locoregional and/or metastatic spreading prior to surgery explain (at least in part) the observed 1-year relapse and mortality rates of 50 and 25%, respectively. Today, upfront surgery followed by adjuvant chemotherapy is the reference treatment in Europe. The main limitation of the adjuvant approach is the low rate of completion of the full therapeutic sequence. Indeed, only 47 to 60% patients received any adjuvant therapy after resection compared to more than 75% for neoadjuvant therapy. No previous prospective study has compared this approach to a neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or FOLFOX chemotherapy for resectable PDAC. Methods PANACHE01-PRODIGE48 is a prospective multicentre controlled randomized non comparative Phase II trial, evaluating the safety and efficacy of two regimens of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (4 cycles of mFOLFIRINOX or FOLFOX) relative to the current reference treatment (surgery and then adjuvant chemotherapy) in patients with resectable PDAC. The main co-primary endpoints are OS rate at 12 months and the rate of patients undergoing the full therapeutic sequence. Discussion The “ideal” cancer treatment for resectable PDAC would have the following characteristics: administration to the highest possible proportion of patients, ability to identify fast-progressing patients (i.e. poor candidates for surgery), a low rate of R1 resections (through optimisation of local disease control), and an acceptable toxicity profile. The neoadjuvant approach may meet all these criteria. With respect to published data on the efficacy of FOLFOX and mFOLFIRINOX, these two regimens are potential candidates for neoadjuvant use in the aim to optimising oncological outcomes in resectable PDAC. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02959879. Trial registration date: November 9, 2016