A multicenter phase 4 geriatric assessment directed trial to evaluate gemcitabine +/− nab-paclitaxel in elderly pancreatic cancer patients (GrantPax)

Background: In the group of elderly patients (≥70 years) with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC), it is not known who benefits from intensive 1st line nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine (nab-p/gem) combination chemotherapy or who would rather suffer from increased toxicity. We aim to determine whether treatment individualization by comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGAs) improves functional outcome of the patients. Methods/Design: GrantPax is a multicenter, open label phase 4 interventional trial. We use a CGA to stratify elderly patients into three parallel treatment groups (n = 45 per arm): 1) GOGO (nab-p/gem), 2) SLOWGO (gem mono) or 3) FRAIL (best supportive care). After the 1st cycle of chemotherapy (or 4 weeks in FRAIL group) another CGA and safety assessment is performed. CGA-stratified patients may not decline in their CGA performance in response to the first cycle of chemotherapy (primary objective), measured as a loss of 5 points or less in Barthels activities of daily living. Based on the second CGA, patients are re-assigned to their definite treatment arm and undergo further CGAs to monitor the course of treatment. Secondary endpoints include CGA scores during the course of therapy (CGA1–4), response rates, safety and survival rates. Discussion: GrantPax is the first trial implementing a CGA-driven treatment to personalize therapy for elderly patients with pancreatic cancer. This may lead to standardization of therapy decisions for elderly patients and may optimize standard of care for this increasing group of patients. Trial registration: NCT02812992 , registered 24.06.2016

A multicenter open-label phase II trial to evaluate nivolumab and ipilimumab for 2nd line therapy in elderly patients with advanced esophageal squamous cell cancer (RAMONA)

Background: Advanced esophageal squamous cell cancer (ESCC) is frequently diagnosed in elderly patients. The impact of 2nd line chemotherapy is poorly defined. Recent data demonstrated effectiveness of checkpoint inhibitors in different squamous cell carcinomas. Therefore, we assess combined nivolumab/ipilimumab as 2nd line therapy in elderly ESCC patients. Methods: RAMONA is a multicenter open-label phase II trial. The primary objective is to demonstrate a significant survival benefit of nivolumab/ipilimumab in advanced ESCC compared to historical data of standard chemotherapy. Primary endpoint is therefore overall survival (OS). Major secondary objective is the evaluation of tolerability. Time to QoL deterioration will thus be determined as key secondary endpoint. Further secondary endpoints are tumor response, PFS and safety. We aim to recruit a total of n = 75 subjects that have to be > 65 years old. Eligibility is determined by the geriatric status (G8 screening and Deficit Accumulation Frailty Index (DAFI)). A safety assessment will be performed after a 3 cycle run-in phase of nivolumab (240 mg Q2W) to justify escalation for eligible patients to combined nivolumab (240 mg Q2W) and ipilimumab (1 mg/kg Q6W), while the other patients will remain on nivolumab only. RAMONA also includes translational research sub-studies to identify predictive biomarkers, including PD-1 and PD-L1 evaluation at different time points, establishment of organoid cultures and microbiome analyses for response prediction. Discussion: The RAMONA trial aims to implement checkpoint inhibitors for elderly patients with advanced ESCC as second line therapy. Novel biomarkers for checkpoint-inhibitor response are analyzed in extensive translational sub-studies. Trial registration: EudraCT Number 2017–002056-86; NCT03416244, registered: 31.1.2018

Outcome of Colorectal Cancer Patients Treated with Combination Bevacizumab Therapy: A Pooled Retrospective Analysis of Three European Cohorts from the Angiopredict Initiative

Background/Aims: This study is aimed at analyzing the survival rates and prognostic factors of stage IV colorectal cancer patients from 3 European cohorts undergoing combination chemotherapy with bevacizumab. Methods: Progression free-survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed in 172 patients using the Kaplan–Meier method and uni- and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Results: The median PFS was 9.7 and the median OS 27.4 months. Patients treated at centers in Germany (n = 97), Ireland (n = 32), and The Netherlands (n = 43) showed a median PFS of 9.9, 9.2, and 9.7 months, OS of 34.0, 20.5, and 25.1 months, respectively. Patients >65 years had a significantly shorter PFS (9.5 vs. 9.8 months) but not OS (27.4 vs. 27.5 months) than younger patients. High tumor grade (G3/4) was associated with a shorter PFS, T4 classification with both shorter PFS and OS. Fluoropyrimidine (FP) chemotherapy backbones (doublets and single) had comparable outcomes, while patients not receiving FP backbones had a shorter PFS. In multivariable analysis, age and non-FP backbone were associated with inferior PFS, T4 classification and therapy line >2nd were significantly associated with poor PFS and OS. Conclusion: The observed survival rates confirm previous studies and demonstrate reproducible benefits of combination bevacizumab regimens. Classification T4, non-FP chemotherapy backbone, and age >65 were associated with inferior outcome

La industrialización posible de la vivienda latinoamericana

La industrialización posible de la vivienda latinoamerican

Prognostic Cancer Gene Expression Signatures: Current Status and Challenges

Current staging systems of cancer are mainly based on the anatomical extent of disease. They need refinement by biological parameters to improve stratification of patients for tumor therapy or surveillance strategies. Thanks to developments in genomic, transcriptomic, and big-data technologies, we are now able to explore molecular characteristics of tumors in detail and determine their clinical relevance. This has led to numerous prognostic and predictive gene expression signatures that have the potential to establish a classification of tumor subgroups by biological determinants. However, only a few gene signatures have reached the stage of clinical implementation so far. In this review article, we summarize the current status, and present and future challenges of prognostic gene signatures in three relevant cancer entities: breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma

Amplicon sequencing of colorectal cancer: variant calling in frozen and formalin-fixed samples.

Next generation sequencing (NGS) is an emerging technology becoming relevant for genotyping of clinical samples. Here, we assessed the stability of amplicon sequencing from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) and paired frozen samples from colorectal cancer metastases with different analysis pipelines. 212 amplicon regions in 48 cancer related genes were sequenced with Illumina MiSeq using DNA isolated from resection specimens from 17 patients with colorectal cancer liver metastases. From ten of these patients, paired fresh frozen and routinely processed FFPE tissue was available for comparative study. Sample quality of FFPE tissues was determined by the amount of amplifiable DNA using qPCR, sequencing libraries were evaluated using Bioanalyzer. Three bioinformatic pipelines were compared for analysis of amplicon sequencing data. Selected hot spot mutations were reviewed using Sanger sequencing. In the sequenced samples from 16 patients, 29 non-synonymous coding mutations were identified in eleven genes. Most frequent were mutations in TP53 (10), APC (7), PIK3CA (3) and KRAS (2). A high concordance of FFPE and paired frozen tissue samples was observed in ten matched samples, revealing 21 identical mutation calls and only two mutations differing. Comparison of these results with two other commonly used variant calling tools, however, showed high discrepancies. Hence, amplicon sequencing can potentially be used to identify hot spot mutations in colorectal cancer metastases in frozen and FFPE tissue. However, remarkable differences exist among results of different variant calling tools, which are not only related to DNA sample quality. Our study highlights the need for standardization and benchmarking of variant calling pipelines, which will be required for translational and clinical applications