Oxaliplatin combined with irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (OCFL) in metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase I-II study

Background:: A phase I-II multicenter trial was conducted to define the maximal tolerated dose and describe the activity of an OCFL combination using oxaliplatin (OHP), irinotecan (CPT-11) and 5-fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients and methods:: CRC patients not pretreated with palliative chemotherapy, with performance status ≤1 and adequate haematological, kidney and liver function, were eligible. Treatment consisted in weekly 24-h infusion 5-FU (2300 mg/m2)/LV (30 mg) and alternating OHP (70-85 mg/m2, days 1 and 15) and CPT-11 (80-140 mg/m2, days 8 and 22) repeated every 5 weeks. OHP and CPT-11 were escalated in cohorts of three to six patients. Results:: Thirty patients received a median of five cycles. Dose-limiting toxicity occurred at dose level 3, and the recommended dose was OHP 70 mg/m2, CPT-11 100 mg/m2, LV 30 mg and 5-FU 2300 mg/m2/24 h. Grade ≥3 toxicities were diarrhea 23%, neutropenia 20%, fatigue 7%, and neurologic 7%. Two febrile neutropenia episodes (one fatal) were recorded. Among 28 patients with measurable disease (90%), we observed two complete and 20 partial responses; overall RR was 78% (95% CI, 59% to 92%). Median time to progression and overall survival were 9.5 and 25.4 months, respectively. Seven patients underwent liver metastases resection. Conclusion:: OCFL is an overall well tolerated regimen with very high efficacy, which makes it most suitable for tumour control before surgery of metastatic diseas

Severe hepatic sinusoidal obstruction associated with oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer

Background: In advanced metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma, the addition of a neo-adjuvant systemic treatment to surgery might translate into a survival advantage, although this is yet to be confirmed by ongoing randomized trials. The objective of this study was to assess the effects of preoperative systemic chemotherapy on the morphology of non-tumoral liver. Patients and methods: A large series of surgically resected liver metastases (n = 153) was selected. Light microscopy, electron microscopy, and immunohistochemistry using antibodies against endothelial cells (CD31) and hepatic stellate cells (α-SM actin, CRBP-1) were performed to identify sinusoidal wall integrity. Results: We found that 44 (51%) of the 87 post-chemotherapic liver resection specimens had sinusoidal dilatation and hemorrhage, related to rupture of the sinusoidal barrier. In contrast, the 66 livers treated by surgery alone remained normal. In 21 out of the 44 post-chemotherapy patients (48%), perisinusoidal and veno-occlusive fibrosis also developed. Sinusoidal injury persisted several months after end of chemotherapy, and fibrosis may progress. Development of lesions was strongly correlated to the use of oxaliplatin; 34 out of 43 patients (78%) treated with this drug showed striking sinusoidal alterations. Conclusions: Systemic neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer frequently causes morphological lesions involving hepatic microvasculature. Sinusoidal obstruction, complicated by perisinusoidal fibrosis and veno-occlusive lesion of the non-tumoral liver revealed by this study, should be included in the list of the adverse side-effects of colorectal systemic chemotherapy, in particular related to the use of oxaliplati

Oxaliplatin combined with irinotecan and 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (OCFL) in metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase I-II study

BACKGROUND: A phase I-II multicenter trial was conducted to define the maximal tolerated dose and describe the activity of an OCFL combination using oxaliplatin (OHP), irinotecan (CPT-11) and 5-fluorouracil (FU)/leucovorin (LV) in metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: CRC patients not pretreated with palliative chemotherapy, with performance status < or =1 and adequate haematological, kidney and liver function, were eligible. Treatment consisted in weekly 24-h infusion 5-FU (2300 mg/m(2))/LV (30 mg) and alternating OHP (70-85 mg/m(2), days 1 and 15) and CPT-11 (80-140 mg/m(2), days 8 and 22) repeated every 5 weeks. OHP and CPT-11 were escalated in cohorts of three to six patients. RESULTS: Thirty patients received a median of five cycles. Dose-limiting toxicity occurred at dose level 3, and the recommended dose was OHP 70 mg/m(2), CPT-11 100 mg/m(2), LV 30 mg and 5-FU 2300 mg/m(2)/24 h. Grade > or =3 toxicities were diarrhea 23%, neutropenia 20%, fatigue 7%, and neurologic 7%. Two febrile neutropenia episodes (one fatal) were recorded. Among 28 patients with measurable disease (90%), we observed two complete and 20 partial responses; overall RR was 78% (95% CI, 59% to 92%). Median time to progression and overall survival were 9.5 and 25.4 months, respectively. Seven patients underwent liver metastases resection. CONCLUSION: OCFL is an overall well tolerated regimen with very high efficacy, which makes it most suitable for tumour control before surgery of metastatic disease

Second St. Gallen European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Gastrointestinal Cancer Conference: consensus recommendations on controversial issues in the primary treatment of rectal cancer

Primary treatment of rectal cancer was the focus of the second St. Gallen European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Gastrointestinal Cancer Conference. In the context of the conference, a multidisciplinary international expert panel discussed and voted on controversial issues which could not be easily answered using published evidence. Main topics included optimal pretherapeutic imaging, indication and type of neoadjuvant treatment, and the treatment strategies in advanced tumours. Here we report the key recommendations and summarise the related evidence. The treatment strategy for localised rectal cancer varies from local excision in early tumours to neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy (RCT) in combination with extended surgery in locally advanced disease. Optimal pretherapeutic staging is a key to any treatment decision. The panel recommended magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or MRI + endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) as mandatory staging modalities, except for early T1 cancers with an option for local excision, where EUS in addition to MRI was considered to be most important because of its superior near-field resolution. Primary surgery with total mesorectal excision was recommended by most panellists for some early tumours with limited risk of recurrence (i.e. cT1-2 or cT3a N0 with clear mesorectal fascia on MRI and clearly above the levator muscles), whereas all other stages were considered for multimodal treatment. The consensus panel recommended long-course RCT over short-course radiotherapy for most clinical situations where neoadjuvant treatment is indicated, with the exception of T3a/b N0 tumours where short-course radiotherapy or even no neoadjuvant therapy were regarded to be an option. In patients with potentially resectable tumours and synchronous liver metastases, most panel members did not see an indication to start with classical fluoropyrimidine-based RCT but rather favoured preoperative short-course radiotherapy with systemic combination chemotherapy or alternatively a liver-first resection approach in resectable metastases, which both allow optimal systemic therapy for the metastatic disease. In general, proper patient selection and discussion in an experienced multidisciplinary team was considered as crucial component of care

Management of colorectal cancer presenting with synchronous liver metastases

Up to a fifth of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) present with synchronous hepatic metastases. In patients with CRC who present without intestinal obstruction or perforation and in whom comprehensive whole-body imaging confirms the absence of extrahepatic disease, evidence indicates a state of equipoise between several different management pathways, none of which has demonstrated superiority. Neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy is advocated by current guidelines, but must be integrated with surgical management in order to remove the primary tumour and liver metastatic burden. Surgery for CRC with synchronous liver metastases can take a number of forms: the 'classic' approach, involving initial colorectal resection, interval chemotherapy and liver resection as the final step; simultaneous removal of the liver and bowel tumours with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy; or a 'liver-first' approach (before or after systemic chemotherapy) with removal of the colorectal tumour as the final procedure. In patients with rectal primary tumours, the liver-first approach can potentially avoid rectal surgery in patients with a complete response to chemoradiotherapy. We overview the importance of precise nomenclature, the influence of clinical presentation on treatment options, and the need for accurate, up-to-date surgical terminology, staging tests and contemporary management options in CRC and synchronous hepatic metastatic disease, with an emphasis on multidisciplinary care

Changing outcomes following pelvic exenteration for locally advanced and recurrent rectal cancer

Background Pelvic exenteration for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) and locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) is technically challenging but increasingly performed in specialist centres. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of exenteration over time. Methods This was a multicentre retrospective study of patients who underwent exenteration for LARC and LRRC between 2004 and 2015. Surgical outcomes, including rate of bone resection, flap reconstruction, margin status and transfusion rates, were examined. Outcomes between higher- and lower-volume centres were also evaluated. Results Some 2472 patients underwent pelvic exenteration for LARC and LRRC across 26 institutions. For LARC, rates of bone resection or flap reconstruction increased from 2004 to 2015, from 3.5 to 12.8 per cent, and from 12.0 to 29.4 per cent respectively. Fewer units of intraoperative blood were transfused over this interval (median 4 to 2 units; P = 0.040). Subgroup analysis showed that bone resection and flap reconstruction rates increased in lower- and higher-volume centres. R0 resection rates significantly increased in low-volume centres but not in high-volume centres over time (low-volume: from 62.5 to 80.0 per cent, P = 0.001; high-volume: from 83.5 to 88.4 per cent, P = 0.660). For LRRC, no significant trends over time were observed for bone resection or flap reconstruction rates. The median number of units of intraoperative blood transfused decreased from 5 to 2.5 units (P < 0.001). R0 resection rates did not increase in either low-volume (from 51.7 to 60.4 per cent; P = 0.610) or higher-volume (from 48.6 to 65.5 per cent; P = 0.100) centres. No significant differences in length of hospital stay, 30-day complication, reintervention or mortality rates were observed over time. Conclusion Radical resection, bone resection and flap reconstruction rates were performed more frequently over time, while transfusion requirements decreased

Outcome of Microscopic Incomplete Resection (R1) of Colorectal Liver Metastases in the Era of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Background: Data from patients with colorectal liver metastases (CRLM) who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy before resection were reviewed and evaluated to see whether neoadjuvant chemotherapy influences the predictive outcome of R1 resections (margin is 0 mm) in patients with CRLM. Methods: Between January 2000 and December 2008, all consecutive patients undergoing liver resection for CRLM were analyzed. Patients were divided into those who did and did not receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy. The outcome after R0 (tumor-free margin >0 mm) and R1 (tumor-free margin 0 mm) resection was compared. Results: A total of 264 were eligible for analysis. Median follow-up was 34 months. Patients without chemotherapy showed a significant difference in median disease-free survival (DFS) after R0 or R1 resection: 17 [95% confidence interval (CI) 10-24] months versus 8 (95% CI 4-12) months (P < 0.001), whereas in