Progression-free survival as a surrogate endpoint for overall survival in modern ovarian cancer trials: A meta-analysis

Background: Progression-free survival (PFS) has been adopted as the primary endpoint in many randomized controlled trials, and can be determined much earlier than overall survival (OS). We investigated whether PFS is a good surrogate endpoint for OS in trials of first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC), and whether this relationship has changed with the introduction of new treatment types. Methods: In a meta-analysis, we identified summary data [hazard ratio (HR) and median time] from published randomized controlled trials. Linear regression was used to assess the association between treatment effects on PFS and OS overall, and for subgroups defined by treatment type, postprogression survival (PPS) and established prognostic factors. Results: Correlation between HRs for PFS and OS, in 26 trials with 30 treatment comparisons comprising 24,870 patients, was modest (r2 = 0.52, weighted by trial sample size). The correlation diminished with recency: preplatinum/paclitaxel era, r2 = 0.66; platinum/paclitaxel, r2 = 0.44; triplet combinations, r2 = 0.22; biologicals, r2 = 0.30. The median PPS increased over time for the experimental (Ptrend = 0.03) and control arms (Ptrend = 0.003). The difference in median PPS between treatment arms strongly correlated with the difference in median OS (r2 = 0.83). In trials where the control therapy had median PPS of less than 18 months, correlation between PFS and OS was stronger (r2 = 0.64) than where the median PPS was longer (r2 = 0.48). Conclusions: In EOC, correlation in the relative treatment effect between PFS and OS in first-line platinum-based chemotherapy randomized controlled trials is moderate and has weakened with increasing availability of effective salvage therapies

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy for advanced pancreatic cancer

Background: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly lethal disease with few effective treatment options. Over the past few decades, many anti-cancer therapies have been tested in the locally advanced and metastatic setting, with mixed results. This review attempts to synthesise all the randomised data available to help better inform patient and clinician decision-making when dealing with this difficult disease. Objectives: To assess the effect of chemotherapy, radiotherapy or both for first-line treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Our primary outcome was overall survival, while secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, grade 3/4 adverse events, therapy response and quality of life. Search methods: We searched for published and unpublished studies in CENTRAL (searched 14 June 2017), Embase (1980 to 14 June 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 14 June 2017) and CANCERLIT (1999 to 2002) databases. We also handsearched all relevant conference abstracts published up until 14 June 2017. Selection criteria: All randomised studies assessing overall survival outcomes in patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy, alone or in combination, were the eligible treatments. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently analysed studies, and a third settled any disputes. We extracted data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), response rates, adverse events (AEs) and quality of life (QoL), and we assessed risk of bias for each study. Main results: We included 42 studies addressing chemotherapy in 9463 patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. We did not identify any eligible studies on radiotherapy. We did not find any benefit for chemotherapy over best supportive care. However, two identified studies did not have sufficient data to be included in the analysis, and many of the chemotherapy regimens studied were outdated. Compared to gemcitabine alone, participants receiving 5FU had worse OS (HR 1.69, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.27, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.92) and QoL. On the other hand, two studies showed FOLFIRINOX was better than gemcitabine for OS (HR 0.51 95% CI 0.43 to 0.60, moderate-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.57) and response rates (RR 3.38, 95% CI 2.01 to 5.65), but it increased the rate of side effects. The studies evaluating CO-101, ZD9331 and exatecan did not show benefit or harm when compared with gemcitabine alone. Giving gemcitabine at a fixed dose rate improved OS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.94, high-quality evidence) but increased the rate of side effects when compared with bolus dosing. When comparing gemcitabine combinations to gemcitabine alone, gemcitabine plus platinum improved PFS (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.95) and response rates (RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.98) but not OS (HR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.08, low-quality evidence). The rate of side effects increased. Gemcitabine plus fluoropyrimidine improved OS (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95), PFS (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.87) and response rates (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.47, high-quality evidence), but it also increased side effects. Gemcitabine plus topoisomerase inhibitor did not improve survival outcomes but did increase toxicity. One study demonstrated that gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel improved OS (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.84, high-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.82) and response rates (RR 3.29, 95% CI 2.24 to 4.84) but increased side effects. Gemcitabine-containing multi-drug combinations (GEMOXEL or cisplatin/epirubicin/5FU/gemcitabine) improved OS (HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.79, low-quality evidence), PFS (HR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.62) and QOL. We did not find any survival advantages when comparing 5FU combinations to 5FU alone. Authors' conclusions: Combination chemotherapy has recently overtaken the long-standing gemcitabine as the standard of care. FOLFIRINOX and gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are highly efficacious, but our analysis shows that other combination regimens also offer a benefit. Selection of the most appropriate chemotherapy for individual patients still remains difficult, with clinicopathological stratification remaining elusive. Biomarker development is essential to help rationalise treatment selection for patient

Gastrointestinal perforation in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal metastases receiving bevacizumab

AIM To investigate the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal disease. METHODS We compared rates of gastrointestinal perforation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and peritoneal disease receiving first-line chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab in three distinct cohorts: (1) the AGITG MAX trial (Phase III randomised clinical trial comparing capecitabine vs capecitabine and bevacizumab vs capecitabine, bevacizumab and mitomycinC); (2) the prospective Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer (TRACC) registry (any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab); and (3) two cancer centres in New South Wales, Australia [Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre and Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre (NSWCC) from January 2005 to Decenber 2012, (any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab). For the AGITG MAX trial capecitabine was compared to the other two arms (capecitabine/bevacizumab and capecitabine/bevacizumab/mitomycinC). In the AGITG MAX trial and the TRACC registry rates of gastrointestinal perforation were also collected in patients who did not have peritoneal metastases. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, chemotherapy duration, and overall survival. Time-to-event outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test. RESULTS Eighty-four MAX, 179 TRACC and 69 NSWCC patients had peritoneal disease. There were no gastrointestinal perforations recorded in either the MAX subgroup or the NSWCC cohorts. Of the patients without peritoneal disease in the MAX trial, 4/300 (1.3%) in the bevacizumab arms had gastrointestinal perforations compared to 1/123 (0.8%) in the capecitabine alone arm. In the TRACC registry 3/126 (2.4%) patients who had received bevacizumab had a gastrointestinal perforation compared to 1/53 (1.9%) in the chemotherapy alone arm. In a further analysis of patients without peritoneal metastases in the TRACC registry, the rate of gastrointestinal perforations was 9/369 (2.4%) in the chemotherapy/bevacizumab group and 5/177 (2.8%) in the chemotherapy alone group. The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy was associated with improved progression-free survival in all three cohorts: MAX 6.9 m vs 4.9 m, HR = 0.64 (95%CI: 0.42-1.02); P = 0.063; TRACC 9.1 m vs 5.5 m, HR = 0.61 (95%CI: 0.37-0.86); P = 0.009; NSWCC 8.7 m vs 6.8 m, HR = 0.75 (95%CI: 0.43-1.32); P = 0.32. Chemotherapy duration was similar across the groups. CONCLUSION Patients with peritoneal disease do not appear to have an increased risk of gastrointestinal perforations when receiving first-line therapy with bevacizumab compared to systemic therapy alone

Clinical utility of ramucirumab in advanced gastric cancer

Gastric cancer is currently the third most common cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Prognosis remains poor with most patients presenting with advanced or metastatic disease. A better understanding of angiogenesis has led to the investigation of drugs that inhibit the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway including anti-VEGF antibody therapy (eg, bevacizumab), inhibitors of angiogenic receptor tyrosine kinases (eg, sunitinib, sorafenib, apatinib, regorafenib), and inhibitors of vascular endothelial growth factor receptors (VEGFRs) (eg, ramucirumab). Ramucirumab, a VEGFR-2 inhibitor, is the first anti-angiogenic agent approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in the treatment of advanced gastric cancers. This review will focus on the clinical utility and potential use of ramucirumab in advanced gastric cancer

A Serious Complication of Selected Internal Radiation Therapy: Case Report and Literature Review

A case of gastric ulceration from aberrant deposition of microspheres with significant consequences despite detailed pretreatment screening, investigation, and patient selection by experienced clinicians is reported. The mechanisms of gastrointestinal complications and recommendations for prevention are reviewed with reference to the current literature

Second-line treatment in inoperable pancreatic adenocarcinoma: A systematic review and synthesis of all clinical trials

There remains uncertainty regarding the optimal second-line chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). The current recommendation of 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin may not be relevant in current practice, as FOLFIRINOX (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan and oxaliplatin) has become a more popular first line therapy in fit patients. The majority of studies in this setting are single-arm Phase II trials with significant heterogeneity of patient populations, treatments and outcomes. In this review, we sought to systematically review and synthesise all prospective data available for the second-line treatment of advanced PDAC