A phase I/II study of gemcitabine and fractionated cisplatin in an outpatient setting using a 21-day schedule in patients with advanced and metastatic bladder cancer

A randomised phase III trial of MVAC (methotrexate, vincristine, doxorubicin, cisplatin) vs gemcitabine and cisplatin (GC) (G 1000 mg m(-2) days 1, 8, and 15 plus C 70 mg m(-2) day 2, q 4 wks) indicated GC had similar efficacy and lower toxicity (JCO 2000). Significant haematologic toxicities in the GC arm occurred on day 15, necessitating dose adjustments in 37% of cycles. We conducted a phase I/II dose escalation trial using GC on a 21-day cycle, with G and C split between days 1 and 8. The objective of the study to define maximum-tolerated dose and dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), objective response rate, and overall survival. In all, 32 patients with locally advanced, relapsed, or metastatic disease received: dose level 1, G/C 1000/35; level 2, 1100/35; level 3, 1200/35; level 4, 1200/45 mg m(-2) (G and C given on days 1 and 8 every 3 wks). A total of 19 patients had glomerular filtration rate <60 ml min(-1) and 19 patients had metastatic disease. Dose-limiting toxicity was haematologic (grade 4 thrombocytopenia) at dose level 2. Of 151 cycles, at day 15, platelets were <100 in 61 cycles; neutrophils <0.5, platelets <50 in 26 cycles. Only seven cycles were deferred due to haematological toxicity; four for renal toxicity (chemotherapy instituted posthydration). Overall response rate was 65.5% on an intention-to-treat analysis (75% [21/28] for assessable patients), with four complete responses (12.5%) and 17 partial responses (53%). After the median follow-up of 17.2 months (range 13.1-32.4 months), 12 patients remain alive. The overall median survival was 16 months (range 10.1-26.6 months). G plus C every 3 weeks is active and well tolerated in an outpatient setting, even in patients receiving prior platinum-based regimens and with poor renal reserve

Life Expectancy in a Large Cohort of Type 2 Diabetes Patients Treated in Primary Care (ZODIAC-10)

Background: Most longitudinal studies showed increased relative mortality in individuals with type 2 diabetes mellitus until now. As a result of major changes in treatment regimes over the past years, with more stringent goals for metabolic control and cardiovascular risk management, improvement of life expectancy should be expected. In our study, we aimed to assess present-day life expectancy of type 2 diabetes patients in an ongoing cohort study. Methodology and Principal Findings: We included 973 primary care type 2 diabetes patients in a prospective cohort study, who were all participating in a shared care project in The Netherlands. Vital status was assessed from May 2001 till May 2007. Main outcome measurement was life expectancy assessed by transforming actual survival time to standardised survival time allowing adjustment for the baseline mortality rate of the general population. At baseline, mean age was 66 years, mean HbA(1c) 7.0%. During a median follow-up of 5.4 years, 165 patients died (78 from cardiovascular causes), and 17 patients were lost to follow-up. There were no differences in life expectancy in subjects with type 2 diabetes compared to life expectancy in the general population. In multivariate Cox regression analyses, concentrating on the endpoints 'all-cause' and cardiovascular mortality, a history of cardiovascular disease: hazard ratio (HR) 1.71 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23-2.37), and HR 2.59 (95% CI 1.56-4.28); and albuminuria: HR 1.72 (95% CI 1.26-2.35), and HR 1.83 (95% CI 1.17-2.89), respectively, were significant predictors, whereas smoking, HbA(1c), systolic blood pressure and diabetes duration were not. Conclusions: This study shows a normal life expectancy in a cohort of subjects with type 2 diabetes patients in primary care when compared to the general population. A history of cardiovascular disease and albuminuria, however, increased the risk of a reduction of life expectancy. These results show that, in a shared care environment, a normal life expectancy is achievable in type 2 diabetes patients

A phase II trial of preoperative chemotherapy with epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine for patients with localised gastro-oesophageal junctional adenocarcinoma

Preoperative cisplatin/fluorouracil is used for the treatment of localised oesophageal carcinoma. This phase II study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of administering preoperative epirubicin/cisplatin/capecitabine (ECX). Patients with stage II or III oesophageal/gastro-oesophageal junctional adenocarcinoma from one institution received 4 cycles of ECX (epirubicin 50 mg m−2 day 1, cisplatin 60 mg m−2 day 1, capecitabine 625 mg m−2 b.i.d. daily) followed by surgery. The primary end point was the pathological complete response (pCR) rate based on a Simon two-stage design. Secondary end points included overall and progression-free survival (OS/PFS). Thirty-four patients were recruited: median age 60 years (range 41–81), 91% male, 97% PS 0/1, 80% T3, 68% N1. Thirty-one patients completed four ECX cycles. Grade 3/4 toxicities ⩾5% included neutropenia (62%), hand–foot syndrome (15%) and nausea/vomiting (9%). Thirteen out of 28 (46%) evaluable patients responded to chemotherapy by EUS (⩾30% reduction in maximal tumour thickness). Twenty-six out of 34 (76%) patients underwent resection (R0=73%, R1=27%). Post-operatively, two patients died within 60 days of surgery. The pCR rate was 5.9% (95% CI 0–14%) in the intent-to-treat population. According to the statistical design, this prompted early study termination. However, with a median follow-up of 34 months the median OS and 1- and 2-year survival rates were 17 months, 67 and 39% respectively. Median PFS was 13 months. Of the 14 relapsed patients, 10 presented with distant metastases. Preoperative ECX is feasible and well tolerated. Although associated with a low pCR rate, survival with ECX was comparable with published studies suggesting that pCR may not correlate with satisfactory outcome from preoperative chemotherapy for localised oesophageal adenocarcinoma

Quality-of-life outcomes in older patients with early-stage rectal cancer receiving organ-preserving treatment with hypofractionated short-course radiotherapy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TREC): non-randomised registry of patients unsuitable for total mesorectal excision

Background Older patients with early-stage rectal cancer are under-represented in clinical trials and, therefore, little high-quality data are available to guide treatment in this patient population. The TREC trial was a randomised, open-label feasibility study conducted at 21 centres across the UK that compared organ preservation through short-course radiotherapy (SCRT; 25 Gy in five fractions) plus transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) with standard total mesorectal excision in adults with stage T1–2 rectal adenocarcinoma (maximum diameter ≤30 mm) and no lymph node involvement or metastasis. TREC incorporated a non-randomised registry offering organ preservation to patients who were considered unsuitable for total mesorectal excision by the local colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team. Organ preservation was achieved in 56 (92%) of 61 non-randomised registry patients with local recurrence-free survival of 91% (95% CI 84–99) at 3 years. Here, we report acute and long-term patient-reported outcomes from this non-randomised registry group. Methods Patients considered by the local colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team to be at high risk of complications from total mesorectal excision on the basis of frailty, comorbidities, and older age were included in a non-randomised registry to receive organ-preserving treatment. These patients were invited to complete questionnaires on patient-reported outcomes (the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life [EORTC-QLQ] questionnaire core module [QLQ-C30] and colorectal cancer module [QLQ-CR29], the Colorectal Functional Outcome [COREFO] questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Level [EQ-5D-3L]) at baseline and at months 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 postoperatively. To aid interpretation, data from patients in the non-randomised registry were compared with data from those patients in the TREC trial who had been randomly assigned to organ-preserving therapy, and an additional reference cohort of aged-matched controls from the UK general population. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN14422743, and is closed. Findings Between July 21, 2011, and July 15, 2015, 88 patients were enrolled onto the TREC study to undergo organ preservation, of whom 27 (31%) were randomly allocated to organ-preserving therapy and 61 (69%) were added to the non-randomised registry for organ-preserving therapy. Non-randomised patients were older than randomised patients (median age 74 years [IQR 67–80] vs 65 years [61–71]). Organ-preserving treatment was well tolerated among patients in the non-randomised registry, with mild worsening of fatigue; quality of life; physical, social, and role functioning; and bowel function 3 months postoperatively compared with baseline values. By 6–12 months, most scores had returned to baseline values, and were indistinguishable from data from the reference cohort. Only mild symptoms of faecal incontinence and urgency, equivalent to less than one episode per week, persisted at 36 months among patients in both groups. Interpretation The SCRT and TEM organ-preservation approach was well tolerated in older and frailer patients, showed good rates of organ preservation, and was associated with low rates of acute and long-term toxicity, with minimal effects on quality of life and functional status. Our findings support the adoption of this approach for patients considered to be at high risk from radical surgery. Funding Cancer Research UK

Risk of Bowel Obstruction in Patients Undergoing Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for High-risk Colon Cancer: A Nested Case-control-matched Analysis of an International, Multicenter, Randomized Controlled Trial (FOxTROT)

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

Long-term results and recurrence patterns from SCOPE-1: a phase II/III randomised trial of definitive chemoradiotherapy +/? cetuximab in oesophageal cancer

Background: The SCOPE-1 study tested the role of adding cetuximab to conventional definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT), and demonstrated greater toxicity and worse survival outcomes. We present the long-term outcomes and patterns of recurrence. Methods: SCOPE-1 was a phase II/III trial in which patients were randomised to cisplatin 60mgm�2 (day 1) and capecitabine 625mgm�2 bd (days 1–21) for four cycles þ/� cetuximab 400mgm�2 day 1 then by 250mgm�2 weekly. Radiotherapy consisted of 50 Gy/25# given concurrently with cycles 3 and 4. Recruitment was between February 2008 and February 2012, when the IDMC recommended closure on the basis of futility. Results: About 258 patients (dCRT¼129; dCRTþcetuximab (dCRTþC)¼129) were recruited from 36 centres. About 72.9% (n¼188) had squamous cell histology. The median follow-up (IQR) was 46.2 (35.9–48.3) months for surviving patients. The median overall survival (OS; months; 95% CI) was 34.5 (24.7–42.3) in dCRT and 24.7 (18.6–31.3) in dCRTþC (hazard ratio (HR)¼1.25, 95% CIs: 0.93–1.69, P¼0.137). Median progression-free survival (PFS; months; 95% CI) was 24.1 (15.3–29.9) and 15.9 (10.7–20.8) months, respectively (HR¼1.28, 95% CIs: 0.94–1.75; P¼0.114). On multivariable analysis only earlier stage, full-dose RT, and higher cisplatin dose intensity were associated with improved OS. Conclusions: The mature analysis demonstrates that the dCRT regimen used in the study provided useful survival outcomes despite its use in patients who were largely unfit for surgery or who had inoperable disease. Given the competing risk of systemic and local failure, future studies should continue to focus on enhancing local control as well as optimising systemic therapy

Quality-of-life outcomes in older patients with early-stage rectal cancer receiving organ-preserving treatment with hypofractionated short-course radiotherapy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TREC): non-randomised registry of patients unsuitable for total mesorectal excision

Background Older patients with early-stage rectal cancer are under-represented in clinical trials and, therefore, little high-quality data are available to guide treatment in this patient population. The TREC trial was a randomised, open-label feasibility study conducted at 21 centres across the UK that compared organ preservation through short-course radiotherapy (SCRT; 25 Gy in five fractions) plus transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) with standard total mesorectal excision in adults with stage T1–2 rectal adenocarcinoma (maximum diameter ≤30 mm) and no lymph node involvement or metastasis. TREC incorporated a non-randomised registry offering organ preservation to patients who were considered unsuitable for total mesorectal excision by the local colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team. Organ preservation was achieved in 56 (92%) of 61 non-randomised registry patients with local recurrence-free survival of 91% (95% CI 84–99) at 3 years. Here, we report acute and long-term patient-reported outcomes from this non-randomised registry group. Methods Patients considered by the local colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team to be at high risk of complications from total mesorectal excision on the basis of frailty, comorbidities, and older age were included in a non-randomised registry to receive organ-preserving treatment. These patients were invited to complete questionnaires on patient-reported outcomes (the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life [EORTC-QLQ] questionnaire core module [QLQ-C30] and colorectal cancer module [QLQ-CR29], the Colorectal Functional Outcome [COREFO] questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Level [EQ-5D-3L]) at baseline and at months 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 postoperatively. To aid interpretation, data from patients in the non-randomised registry were compared with data from those patients in the TREC trial who had been randomly assigned to organ-preserving therapy, and an additional reference cohort of aged-matched controls from the UK general population. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN14422743, and is closed. Findings Between July 21, 2011, and July 15, 2015, 88 patients were enrolled onto the TREC study to undergo organ preservation, of whom 27 (31%) were randomly allocated to organ-preserving therapy and 61 (69%) were added to the non-randomised registry for organ-preserving therapy. Non-randomised patients were older than randomised patients (median age 74 years [IQR 67–80] vs 65 years [61–71]). Organ-preserving treatment was well tolerated among patients in the non-randomised registry, with mild worsening of fatigue; quality of life; physical, social, and role functioning; and bowel function 3 months postoperatively compared with baseline values. By 6–12 months, most scores had returned to baseline values, and were indistinguishable from data from the reference cohort. Only mild symptoms of faecal incontinence and urgency, equivalent to less than one episode per week, persisted at 36 months among patients in both groups. Interpretation The SCRT and TEM organ-preservation approach was well tolerated in older and frailer patients, showed good rates of organ preservation, and was associated with low rates of acute and long-term toxicity, with minimal effects on quality of life and functional status. Our findings support the adoption of this approach for patients considered to be at high risk from radical surgery. Funding Cancer Research UK

International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome

Aim: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. Method: This international patient–provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS. Results: Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. Conclusion: This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention

International consensus definition of low anterior resection syndrome

Aim: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. Method: This international patient–provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS. Results: Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. Conclusion: This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention

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