Tislelizumab versus chemotherapy as second-line treatment for European and North American patients with advanced or metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: a subgroup analysis of the randomized phase III RATIONALE-302 study

Esophageal squamous cell carcinoma; TislelizumabCarcinoma de células escamosas de esófago; TislelizumabCarcinoma de cèl·lules escamoses d'esòfag; TislelizumabBackground The phase III RATIONALE-302 study evaluated tislelizumab, an anti-programmed cell death protein 1 antibody, as second-line (2L) treatment for advanced/metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC). This prespecified exploratory analysis investigated outcomes in patients from Europe and North America (Europe/North America subgroup). Patients and methods Patients with tumor progression during/after first-line systemic treatment were randomized 1 : 1 to open-label tislelizumab or investigator’s choice of chemotherapy (paclitaxel, docetaxel, or irinotecan). Results The Europe/North America subgroup comprised 108 patients (tislelizumab: n = 55; chemotherapy: n = 53). Overall survival (OS) was prolonged with tislelizumab versus chemotherapy (median: 11.2 versus 6.3 months), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.35-0.87]; HR was similar irrespective of programmed death-ligand 1 score [≥10%: 0.47 (95% CI 0.18-1.21); <10%: 0.55 (95% CI 0.30-1.01)]. Median progression-free survival was 2.3 versus 2.7 months with tislelizumab versus chemotherapy [HR: 0.97 (95% CI 0.64-1.47)]. Overall response rate was greater with tislelizumab (20.0%) versus chemotherapy (11.3%), with more durable response (median duration of response: 5.1 versus 2.1 months). Tislelizumab had a favorable safety profile versus chemotherapy, with fewer patients experiencing ≥grade 3 treatment-related adverse events (13.0% versus 51.0%). Those on tislelizumab experienced less deterioration in health-related quality of life, physical functioning, and/or disease- and treatment-related symptoms (i.e. fatigue, pain, and eating problems) as compared to those on chemotherapy, per the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and QLQ-OES18 scores. Conclusions As a 2L therapy for advanced/metastatic ESCC, tislelizumab improved OS and had a favorable safety profile as compared to chemotherapy in European/North American ESCC patients in the randomized phase III RATIONALE-302 study.This work was supported by BeiGene, Ltd. In collaboration with the academic authors, the sponsor participated in the study design, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, and in the writing of the report. The authors led the writing of the report, with professional medical writing assistance funded by the sponsor, and the authors were responsible for the decision to submit the article for publication

Preoperative chemoradiation with paclitaxel-carboplatin or with fluorouracil-oxaliplatin-folinic acid (FOLFOX) for resectable esophageal and junctional cancer: the PROTECT-1402, randomized phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Often curative treatment for locally advanced resectable esophageal or gastro-esophageal junctional cancer consists of concurrent neoadjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy followed by surgery. Currently, one of the most commonly used chemotherapy regimens in this setting is a combination of a fluoropyrimidin and of a platinum analogue. Due to the promising results of the recent CROSS trial, another regimen combining paclitaxel and carboplatin is also widely used by European and American centers. No clinical study has shown the superiority of one treatment over the other. The objective of this Phase II study is to clarify clinical practice by comparing these two chemotherapy treatments. Our aim is to evaluate, in operable esophageal and gastro-esophageal junctional cancer, the complete resection rate and severe postoperative morbidity rate associated with these two neoadjuvant chemotherapeutic regimens (carboplatin-paclitaxel or fluorouracil-oxaliplatin-folinic acid) when each is combined with the radiation regime utilized in the CROSS trial. METHODS/DESIGN: PROTECT is a prospective, randomized, multicenter, open arms, phase II trial. Eligible patients will have a histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma and be treated with neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy followed by surgery for stage IIB or stage III resectable esophageal cancer. A total of 106 patients will be randomized to receive either 3 cycles of FOLFOX combined to concurrent radiotherapy (41.4 Grays) or carboplatin and paclitaxel with the same radiation regimen, using a 1:1 allocation ratio. DISCUSSION: This ongoing trial offers the unique opportunity to compare two standards of chemotherapy delivered with a common regimen of preoperative radiation, in the setting of operable locally advanced esophageal or gastro-esophageal junctional tumors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02359968 (ClinicalTrials.gov) (registration date: 9 FEB 2015), EudraCT: 2014-000649-62 (registration date: 10 FEB 2014)

T cell-inflamed gene expression profile and PD-L1 expression and pembrolizumab efficacy in advanced esophageal cancer

Aim: Investigate the relationship between response to pembrolizumab and expression of the 18-gene T cell-inflamed gene expression profile (TcellinfGEP) or PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) in esophageal cancer. Materials & methods: This analysis included heavily pretreated patients with advanced/metastatic esophageal/gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma who received pembrolizumab in the single-arm, phase II study KEYNOTE-180. PD-L1 CPS was evaluated with PD-L1 IHC 22C3 pharmDx. Results: In patients with squamous cell carcinoma, trends toward enrichment for responders were observed for patients with PD-L1 CPS ≥10 tumors. In patients with adenocarcinoma, a trend was observed for TcellinfGEP but not for PD-L1. Conclusion: TcellinfGEP and PD-L1 CPS may enrich for responders to pembrolizumab in patients with esophageal cancer. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02559687 (ClinicalTrials.gov

FOLFIRINOX De-Escalationin Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: A MulticenterReal-LifeStudy

International audienceBackground - Our study describes the feasibility and efficacy of a first-line FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil [5FU], folinic acid, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) induction chemotherapy (CT) followed by de-escalation as a maintenance strategy for advanced pancreatic cancer. Materials and methods - This multicenter retrospective study was conducted from January 2011 to December 2018. FOLFIRINOX de-escalation was defined as stopping oxaliplatin and/or irinotecan after at least four cycles of FOLFIRINOX, without evidence of disease progression. Maintenance schedules were fluoropyrimidine monotherapy (intravenous or oral [capecitabine]), FOLFOX (5FU, oxaliplatin), or FOLFIRI (5FU, irinotecan). Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were first progression-free survival (PFS1), second progression-free survival (PFS2), and toxicity. Results - Among 321 patients treated with FOLFIRINOX, 147 (45.8%) were included. Median OS was 16.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.7-20.3) and median PFS1 was 9.4 months (95% CI, 8.5-10.4). The preferred maintenance regimen was FOLFIRI in 66 (45%) patients versus 5FU monotherapy in 52 (35%) and FOLFOX in 25 (17%) patients. Among 118 patients who received maintenance CT with FOLFIRI or 5FU, there was no difference in PFS1 (median, 9.0 vs. 10.1 months, respectively; p = .33) or OS (median, 16.6 vs. 18.7 months; p = .86) between the two maintenance regimens. Reintroduction of FOLFIRINOX was performed in 20.2% of patients, with a median PFS2 of 2.8 months (95% CI, 2.0-22.3). The rates of grade 3-4 toxicity were significantly higher with FOLFIRI maintenance CT than with 5FU (41% vs. 22%; p = .03), especially for neuropathy (73% vs. 9%). Conclusion - 5FU monotherapy maintenance appeared to be as effective as FOLFIRI, in a FOLFIRINOX de-escalation strategy, which is largely used in France. Implications for practice - FOLFIRINOX de-escalation and maintenance is a feasible strategy in advanced pancreatic cancer that decreases chemotherapy toxicity to improve both survival and quality of life. Survivals in patients with maintenance therapy are clinically meaningful. Fluoropyrimidine monotherapy maintenance seems to be as efficient as FOLFIRI and should be a reference arm in future pancreatic cancer maintenance trials

FOLFIRINOX relative dose intensity and disease control in advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

International audienceBackground: Most patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PA) treated with FOLFIRINOX experience adverse events requiring dose reduction. We aimed to assess the association between relative dose intensity (RDI) and disease control in a European setting. Methods: We retrospectively included patients with advanced PA treated with three or more cycles of FOLFIRINOX between 2011 and 2018 in six French centers. We computed the cumulative single-agent RDI (csRDI) before the first reassessment for each FOLFIRINOX agent (oxaliplatin, irinotecan, 5FU bolus, and 5FU intravenous infusion) and the cumulative multi-drug RDI (cmRDI) of their combination. The association between RDI and disease control or objective response at first reassessment was evaluated using multivariable logistic regression models controlling for performance status, liver metastases, and center. Results: We included 243 patients. Median csRDIs were 81%, 79%, 75%, and 85% for oxaliplatin, irinotecan, 5FU bolus, and 5FU intravenous infusion, respectively. Median cmRDI was 80%. None of the RDIs was significantly associated with disease control or objective response. Including RDI in a clinical model did not improve its ability to predict disease control; the area under the curve was 0.79 (95% CI: 0.73-0.85) with RDI versus 0.78 (95% CI: 0.72-0.85) without. Similar results were observed for the objective response. Conclusion: Pragmatic dose adjustments of FOLFIRINOX should be made by oncologists without considering a loss of effect

Radiochemotherapy Versus Surgery in Nonmetastatic Anorectal Neuroendocrine Carcinoma

International audienceNeuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC) of the anus or the rectum are a rare disease, accounting for less than 1% of all digestive malignancies. Most are metastatic at diagnosis and treated with a platinum-based chemotherapy. No guidelines for localized tumors exist. The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics of anorectal localized NEC, their management and their outcomes., We retrospectively reviewed patients from 11 French centers with anorectal localized NEC. We compared 2 therapeutic managements: surgery (group A) versus chemotherapy with or without radiation (group B). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated with the Kaplan–Meier method., A total of 24 patients were identified with a median follow-up of 25 months (3–60 months). Median age was 63 years old and 17 had a rectal tumor (71%). Mean Ki-67 was 72% (range: 20–100), and 75% of the tumors had a high proliferative index (Ki-67 \textgreater 50%). Global PFS and OS were 13.1 and 44.1 months, respectively. Thirty-seven percent of patients were in group A and 63% in group B. There was no difference between group A and group B, whether in terms of PFS (13.0 months vs. 13.2 months, P = 0.75) or OS (49.1 months vs. 39.2 months, P = 0.42)., In patients with anorectal localized NEC, chemotherapy with or without radiation obtained a similar outcome as surgery and this conservative approach could be deemed a reasonable optio

Safety of FOLFIRI + Durvalumab +/− Tremelimumab in Second Line of Patients with Advanced Gastric Cancer: A Safety Run-In from the Randomized Phase II Study DURIGAST PRODIGE 59

Efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) as monotherapy in 2nd line treatment for gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma is low, with no evaluation of efficacy and safety of ICI combined with chemotherapy. The DURIGAST PRODIGE 59 study is a randomised, multicentre, phase II study designed to assess the efficacy and safety of the combination of FOLFIRI + Durvalumab +/− Tremelimumab as 2nd line treatment of patients with advanced gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Here, we report data from the safety run-in phase with FOLFIRI Durvalumab (arm A) or FOLFIRI Durvalumab and Tremelimumab (arm B). Among the 11 patients included, 63.6% experienced at least one grade 3–4 adverse events (AEs) related to the treatment, most frequently neutropenia (36.4%). There was only one immune-related AE (grade 2 hyperthyroidism). Ten serious AEs were described among six patients, but only two were related to the treatment, due to the chemotherapy. One seizure epilepsy related to a brain metastasis was observed, but was not related by the investigator to the treatment. However, the Independent Data Monitoring Committee recommended brain imaging at inclusion. This safety run-in phase demonstrates an expected safety profile of FOLFIRI with Durvalumab +/− Tremelimumab combination allowing the randomised phase II

Erythrocyte-encapsulated asparaginase (eryaspase) combined with chemotherapy in second-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer: An open-label, randomized Phase IIb trial

International audiencePURPOSE: This Phase IIb (NCT02195180) open-label study evaluated erythrocyte-encapsulated asparaginase (eryaspase) in combination with chemotherapy in second-line advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma.METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized 2:1 to either eryaspase in combination with gemcitabine or mFOLFOX6 (eryaspase arm), or to gemcitabine or mFOLFOX6 alone (control arm). Co-primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with low asparagine synthetase (ASNS) expression. Secondary endpoints included OS and PFS in the entire population.RESULTS: 141 patients were randomized (eryaspase arm, n = 95; control arm, n = 46). Median OS and PFS in patients with low ASNS expression were 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.1-8.8) in the eryaspase arm versus 4.9 months (3.1-7.1) in the control arm (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.39-1.01; P = 0.056) and 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.8-3.4) in the eryaspase arm versus 1.8 months (1.4-3.8) in the control arm (HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.40-1.12; P = 0.127), respectively. In the entire population, median OS and PFS for the eryaspase arm versus control were 6.0 months versus 4.4 months (HR, 0.60; P = 0.008) and 2.0 months versus 1.6 months (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37-0.84; P = 0.005), respectively. The combination of eryaspase and chemotherapy was well tolerated. The most frequent Grade 3/4 adverse events in the eryaspase arm (n = 93) were gamma-glutamyltransferase increase (16 [17.2%]), neutropenia (12 [12.9%]), and physical health deterioration (12 [12.9%]).CONCLUSION: Eryaspase in combination with chemotherapy is associated with improvements in OS and PFS, irrespective of ASNS expression in second-line advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. A Phase III trial is underway