Bevacizumab plus XELOX as first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: The OBELIX study

AIM: To confirm the efficacy and safety of bevacizumab/XELOX combination for the treatment of locally advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) in Italy. METHODS: This multicentric, prospective, open-label study included patients with CRC previously untreated with chemotherapy. Patients were administered bevacizumab in combination with XELOX. The primary efficacy end-point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end-points included time to overall response (TOR), duration of response (DOR), time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS). The incidence and type of adverse events AEs and severe AEs were evaluated. Also, the mutational status of BRAF and KRAS was assessed by high resolution melting and direct sequencing, and quality of life (QoL) was measured by the EuroQoL EQ-5D questionnaire at baseline and at the last visit. RESULTS: The intention-to-treat population included 197 patients (mean age: 62.3 ± 9.9 years, 56.4% males). At baseline, 16/34 evaluable subjects (47.1%) harbored a KRAS and/or a BRAF mutation; the mean QoL index was 80.2 ± 14.3. First-line therapy was given for 223.7 ± 175.9 d, and after a mean follow-up of 387.7 ± 238.8 d all patients discontinued from the study mainly for disease progression (PD, 45.4%) and AEs (25.4%). Median PFS was 9.7 mo (95%CI: 8.4-10.5) and the median values for secondary end-points were: TOR = 3.9 mo (95%CI: 2.6-4.7), DOR = 8.5 mo (95%CI: 7.3-10.3), TTF = 6.7 mo (95%CI: 6.0-7.7) and OS = 23.2 mo (95%CI: 20.1-27.2). Patients carrying at least one lesion had a lower overall response rate (66.7% vs 88.9%) and a lower probability of achieving complete or partial response than those without mutations, but the difference in relative risk was not statistically significant (P = 0.2). Mean EQ-5D-3L raw index score significantly decreased to 74.9 ± 19.1 at the last visit (signed-rank test, P = 0.0076), but in general the evaluation on QoL perceived by patients was good. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of bevacizumab in combination with XELOX in terms of PFS in patients with aCRC or mCRC in Italy was confirmed, with acceptable toxicity

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 < 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

Optimizing First-Line Chemotherapy in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: Efficacy of FOLFIRINOX versus Nab-Paclitaxel Plus Gemcitabine

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is one of the most lethal tumors in Europe with an overall 5-year survival rate of 5%. Since 1992, gemcitabine (Gem) has been the treatment of choice for metastatic disease with significant improvement in median overall survival (OS) compared to fluorouracil. A good performance status (PS) at diagnosis appears to be a strong predictive factor for better survival. Overall, 50% of PC are metastatic or locally advanced at diagnosis, and more than 70% of the resected patients will experience a recurrence, with a median OS ranging from 4 to 10 months (mos). FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin) and Nab-paclitaxel (Nab-p) plus Gem have recently increased survival of patients with metastatic PC, over Gem. Treatment with FOLFIRINOX is generally considered more effective with respect to the doublet, with toxicity concerns, FOLFIRINOX achieves an overall response rate (ORR) of 31.6%, while for Nab-p plus Gem ORR is 23%; however, FOLFIRINOX was associated with higher rates of grade 3 and higher adverse events. Although the international guidelines indicate that both regimens can be used as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic PC, FOLFIRINOX is the most widely used; Nab-p plus Gem is more frequently used in patients with lower PS. In this review, we critically analyze these two regimens to give a pragmatic guide to treatment options