14 research outputs found
Immune checkpoint inhibition as a strategy in the neoadjuvant treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer
The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has seen major advances over the past 3 decades, with multimodality treatment now standard of care. Combining surgical resection with radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy can reduce local recurrence from around 20% to approximately 5%. Despite improvements in local control, distant recurrence and subsequent survival rates have not changed. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved patient outcomes in several solid tumor types in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and advanced disease setting; however, in colorectal cancer, most clinical trials have been performed in the metastatic setting and the benefits confined to microsatellite instability–high tumors. In this article, we review the current preclinical and clinical evidence for using immune checkpoint inhibition in the treatment of LARC and discuss the rationale for specifically exploring the use of this therapy in the neoadjuvant setting. We summarize and discuss relevant clinical trials that are currently in setup and recruiting to test this treatment strategy and reflect on unanswered questions that still need to be addressed within future research efforts
Systemic inflammation and outcome in 2295 patients with stage I-III colorectal cancer from Scotland and Norway: First results from the ScotScan Colorectal Cancer Group
Background:
Systemic inflammatory response (SIR) is an adverse prognostic marker in colorectal cancer (CRC) patients. The ScotScan Colorectal Cancer Group was established to examine how markers of the SIR differ between populations and may be utilised to guide prognosis.
Patients and Methods:
Patients undergoing resection of stage I–III CRC from two prospective datasets in Scotland and Norway were included. The relationship between the modified Glasgow Prognostic Score (mGPS; combination of C-reactive protein and albumin) and overall survival (OS) was examined. The relationship between OS, adjuvant chemotherapy regime and mGPS was examined in patients with stage III colon cancer.
Results:
A total of 2295 patients were included. Patients from Scotland were more inflamed despite controlling for associated characteristics using multivariate logistic regression or propensity score matching (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.98–4.01, p < 0.001). mGPS had similar independent prognostic value in both cohorts (Scotland: HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.12–1.45; Norway: HR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01–1.49) and stratified survival independent of TNM group in the whole cohort. In patients with stage III colon cancer receiving adjuvant therapy, there appeared to be a survival benefit in systemically inflamed patients receiving oxaliplatin but not single-agent 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine.
Conclusions:
The SIR differs between populations from different countries; however prognostic value remains similar. The present study strongly supports the routine reporting of the mGPS in patients with CRC
Histological phenotypic subtypes predict recurrence risk and response to adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III colorectal cancer
Histological ‘phenotypic subtypes’ that classify patients into four groups (immune, canonical, latent and stromal) have previously been demonstrated to stratify survival in a stage I–III colorectal cancer (CRC) pilot cohort. However, clinical utility has not yet been validated. Therefore, this study assessed prognostic value of these subtypes in additional patient cohorts along with associations with risk of recurrence and response to chemotherapy. Two independent stage I–III CRC patient cohorts (internal and external cohort) were utilised to investigate phenotypic subtypes. The primary endpoint was disease‐free survival (DFS) and the secondary endpoint was recurrence risk (RR). Stage II–III patients, from the SCOT adjuvant chemotherapy trial, were utilised to further validate prognostic value and for exploratory analysis assessing associations with adjuvant chemotherapy. In an 893‐patient internal cohort, phenotypic subtype independently associated with DFS (p = 0.025) and this was attenuated in stage III patients (p = 0.020). Phenotypic subtype also independently associated with RR (p < 0.001) in these patients. In a 146‐patient external cohort, phenotypic subtype independently stratified patients by DFS (p = 0.028), validating their prognostic value. In 1343 SCOT trial patients, the effect of treatment type significantly depended on phenotypic subtype (pinteraction = 0.011). Phenotypic subtype independently associated with DFS in stage III patients receiving FOLFOX (p = 0.028). Furthermore, the immune subtype significantly associated with better response to FOLFOX compared to CAPOX adjuvant chemotherapy in stage III patients (p = 0.013). In conclusion, histological phenotypic subtypes are an effective prognostic classification in patients with stage III CRC that associates with risk of recurrence and response to FOLFOX adjuvant chemotherapy
Durvalumab (MEDI 4736) in combination with extended neoadjuvant regimens in rectal cancer : a study protocol of a randomised phase II trial (PRIME-RT)
Acknowledgements We are grateful to Mr George Davidson and Ms Monica Jeffers for their input with writing the PRIME-RT protocol and patient information sheet. This study is co-sponsored by the University of Glasgow and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde. Funding PRIME-RT is funded by Astrazeneca and receives core funding from CRUK Clinical Trials Unit Glasgow for the purposes of trial set-up and data collection. The trial is co-sponsored by the University Of Glasgow and NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde.Peer reviewedPublisher PD
The Glasgow Microenvironment Score associates with prognosis and adjuvant chemotherapy response in colorectal cancer
Background
The Glasgow Microenvironment Score (GMS) combines peritumoural inflammation and tumour stroma percentage to assess interactions between tumour and microenvironment. This was previously demonstrated to associate with colorectal cancer (CRC) prognosis, and now requires validation and assessment of interactions with adjuvant therapy.
Methods
Two cohorts were utilised; 862 TNM I–III CRC validation cohort, and 2912 TNM II–III CRC adjuvant chemotherapy cohort (TransSCOT). Primary endpoints were disease-free survival (DFS) and relapse-free survival (RFS). Exploratory endpoint was adjuvant chemotherapy interaction.
Results
GMS independently associated with DFS (p = 0.001) and RFS (p < 0.001). GMS significantly stratified RFS for both low risk (GMS 0 v GMS 2: HR 3.24 95% CI 1.85–5.68, p < 0.001) and high-risk disease (GMS 0 v GMS 2: HR 2.18 95% CI 1.39–3.41, p = 0.001). In TransSCOT, chemotherapy type (pinteraction = 0.013), but not duration (p = 0.64) was dependent on GMS. Furthermore, GMS 0 significantly associated with improved DFS in patients receiving FOLFOX compared with CAPOX (HR 2.23 95% CI 1.19–4.16, p = 0.012).
Conclusions
This study validates the GMS as a prognostic tool for patients with stage I–III colorectal cancer, independent of TNM, with the ability to stratify both low- and high-risk disease. Furthermore, GMS 0 could be employed to identify a subset of patients that benefit from FOLFOX over CAPOX
Ten-year mortality, disease progression, and treatment-related side effects in men with localised prostate cancer from the ProtecT randomised controlled trial according to treatment received
Background
The ProtecT trial reported intention-to-treat analysis of men with localised prostate cancer randomly allocated to active monitoring (AM), radical prostatectomy, and external beam radiotherapy.
Objective
To report outcomes according to treatment received in men in randomised and treatment choice cohorts.
Design, setting, and participants
This study focuses on secondary care. Men with clinically localised prostate cancer at one of nine UK centres were invited to participate in the treatment trial comparing AM, radical prostatectomy, and radiotherapy.
Intervention
Two cohorts included 1643 men who agreed to be randomised and 997 who declined randomisation and chose treatment.
Outcome measurements and statistical analysis
Analysis was carried out to assess mortality, metastasis and progression and health-related quality of life impacts on urinary, bowel, and sexual function using patient-reported outcome measures. Analysis was based on comparisons between groups defined by treatment received for both randomised and treatment choice cohorts in turn, with pooled estimates of intervention effect obtained using meta-analysis. Differences were estimated with adjustment for known prognostic factors using propensity scores.
Results and limitations
According to treatment received, more men receiving AM died of PCa (AM 1.85%, surgery 0.67%, radiotherapy 0.73%), whilst this difference remained consistent with chance in the randomised cohort (p = 0.08); stronger evidence was found in the exploratory analyses (randomised plus choice cohort) when AM was compared with the combined radical treatment group (p = 0.003). There was also strong evidence that metastasis (AM 5.6%, surgery 2.4%, radiotherapy 2.7%) and disease progression (AM 20.35%, surgery 5.87%, radiotherapy 6.62%) were more common in the AM group. Compared with AM, there were higher risks of sexual dysfunction (95% at 6 mo) and urinary incontinence (55% at 6 mo) after surgery, and of sexual dysfunction (88% at 6 mo) and bowel dysfunction (5% at 6 mo) after radiotherapy. The key limitations are the potential for bias when comparing groups defined by treatment received and changes in the protocol for AM during the lengthy follow-up required in trials of screen-detected PCa.
Conclusions
Analyses according to treatment received showed increased rates of disease-related events and lower rates of patient-reported harms in men managed by AM compared with men managed by radical treatment, and stronger evidence of greater PCa mortality in the AM group.
Patient summary
More than 95 out of every 100 men with low or intermediate risk localised prostate cancer do not die of prostate cancer within 10 yr, irrespective of whether treatment is by means of monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy. Side effects on sexual and bladder function are better after active monitoring, but the risks of spreading of prostate cancer are more common
Functional and quality of life outcomes of localised prostate cancer treatments (prostate testing for cancer and treatment [ProtecT] study)
Objective
To investigate the functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes of treatments for localised prostate cancer and inform treatment decision-making.
Patients and Methods
Men aged 50–69 years diagnosed with localised prostate cancer by prostate-specific antigen testing and biopsies at nine UK centres in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial were randomised to, or chose one of, three treatments. Of 2565 participants, 1135 men received active monitoring (AM), 750 a radical prostatectomy (RP), 603 external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with concurrent androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and 77 low-dose-rate brachytherapy (BT, not a randomised treatment). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) completed annually for 6 years were analysed by initial treatment and censored for subsequent treatments. Mixed effects models were adjusted for baseline characteristics using propensity scores.
Results
Treatment-received analyses revealed different impacts of treatments over 6 years. Men remaining on AM experienced gradual declines in sexual and urinary function with age (e.g., increases in erectile dysfunction from 35% of men at baseline to 53% at 6 years and nocturia similarly from 20% to 38%). Radical treatment impacts were immediate and continued over 6 years. After RP, 95% of men reported erectile dysfunction persisting for 85% at 6 years, and after EBRT this was reported by 69% and 74%, respectively (P < 0.001 compared with AM). After RP, 36% of men reported urinary leakage requiring at least 1 pad/day, persisting for 20% at 6 years, compared with no change in men receiving EBRT or AM (P < 0.001). Worse bowel function and bother (e.g., bloody stools 6% at 6 years and faecal incontinence 10%) was experienced by men after EBRT than after RP or AM (P < 0.001) with lesser effects after BT. No treatment affected mental or physical QoL.
Conclusion
Treatment decision-making for localised prostate cancer can be informed by these 6-year functional and QoL outcomes
How do we optimally use cetuximab in first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer?
A number of Phase II/III clinical trials have now been reported assessing the role of cetuximab use in combination with chemotherapy for the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. Here we review the current position of cetuximab in this context from two important perspectives. First, we address whether clinicians should prioritize its use with oxaliplatin- or irinotecan-based chemotherapy doublets. Second, we review the trial evidence for the use of cetuximab in patients suffering from colorectal cancer with wild-type and mutant Ras