Irinotecan or FOLFIRI for 2nd line colorectal

Background Second-line treatment with irinotecan for advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer prolongs survival. It is uncertain whether irinotecan is better administered with 5- fluorouracil or alone in patients previously treated with a fluoropyrimidine. We compared toxicity (particularly diarrhoea), quality of life, and efficacy of combination chemotherapy and irinotecan in these patients. Methods In DaVINCI, a randomised phase II trial, patients with advanced colorectal cancer were randomly allocated to: combination therapy (FOLFIRI), irinotecan (180 mg/m2 IV over 90 min, day 1), 5-fluorouracil (400 mg/m2 IV bolus and 2400 mg/m2 by 46-hour infusion from day 1) and folinic acid (20 mg/m2 IV bolus, day 1), 2-weekly; or single-agent, irinotecan (350 mg/m2 IV over 90 min), 3-weekly. Toxicity was evaluated every treatment cycle; QOL and response 6 weekly. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results were also combined with those of other trials. Findings We randomised 44 patients to combination and 45 to single-agent. The most common toxicity was complete alopecia (single-agent 37%, combination 14%, P<0.02). Eight patients in the irinotecan arm and 4 in the combination arm had grade 3–4 diarrhoea (P=0.24). The treatment groups did not differ significantly in overall QOL changes, response rate, or progression free or overall survival. In a systematic review of 29 trials of second-line irinotecan-based treatment, single-agent irinotecan was associated with more diarrhoea and alopecia than the combination, but efficacy was similar. Interpretation Combination treatment compared with single-agent irinotecan appears to reduce the rateof complete alopecia and diarrhoea without compromising efficacy on clinical outcomes.Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Grou

NUC-1031/cisplatin versus gemcitabine/cisplatin in untreated locally advanced/metastatic biliary tract cancer (NuTide:121)

Gemcitabine/cisplatin is standard of care for first-line treatment of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (aBTC); new treatments are needed. NUC-1031 is designed to overcome key cancer resistance mechanisms associated with gemcitabine. The tolerability/efficacy signal of NUC-1031/cisplatin in the Phase Ib ABC-08 study suggested that this combination may represent a more efficacious therapy than gemcitabine/cisplatin for patients with aBTC, leading to initiation of the global NuTide:121 study which will include 828 patients ≥18 years with untreated histologically/cytologically-confirmed aBTC (including cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder or ampullary cancer); randomized (1:1) to NUC-1031 (725 mg/m2)/cisplatin (25 mg/m2) or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2)/cisplatin (25 mg/m2), on days 1/8, Q21-days. Primary objectives are overall survival and objective response rate. Secondary objectives: progression-free survival, safety, pharmacokinetics, patient-reported quality of life and correlative studies. (Investigational new drug (IND) number: 139058, European Clinical Trials database: EudraCT Number 2019-001025-28, ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04163900)

Patient reported outcomes and tolerability in patients receiving ripretinib versus sunitinib after imatinib treatment in INTRIGUE: A phase 3 open-label study

11541 Background: Ripretinib (R) is a switch-control tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) indicated for the treatment of patients (pts) with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) after prior treatment with ≥3 TKIs. In the INTRIGUE study (NCT03673501) there was no significant difference in median PFS (primary endpoint) between R and sunitinib (S). We present exploratory analyses of tolerability data and selected pt reported outcomes (PROs). Methods: Pts were randomized 1:1 to R 150 mg QD or S 50 mg QD 4 weeks on/2 weeks off.Dose modification was allowed for toxicity management. The event of interest was severe or life-threatening (grade ≥3) treatment-related adverse event prior to progression (sTRAE). Days with at least one sTRAE were summed for all treated pts and for pts with ≥1 sTRAE event. PROs were assessed using questions from EORTC QLQ-C30 and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) at cycle 1 (C1) day 1 (D1), D15, and D29; D1 and D29 of all other cycles; as well as at end of treatment. Differences in PRO scores between baseline and later assessments were calculated across visits. Long-term data will be presented. Results: Pts receiving R (n = 223) versus (vs) S (n = 221) experienced fewer sTRAEs (24% vs 51%, respectively). For all treated pts, the mean time with sTRAEs was 11 days for R and 42 days for S (ratio 0.27, P<0.0001). For pts with ≥1 sTRAE, the mean number of days with a sTRAE was 48 days for R vs 81 days for S (ratio 0.59, p = 0.037). Completion of PRO assessments across the two treatment arms was similar (baseline: R [n = 199], S [n = 199]; C1 D29: R [n = 167], S [n = 177]). Significant differences in self-reported functioning and symptoms were observed by C1 D29. For PROs relating to commonly reported sTRAEs, except constipation, pts in the R arm reported better outcomes than pts in the S arm. Pts in the R arm reported significantly (p<0.05) less decline compared to baseline in pt-reported role function as well as less increase, or improvement, in symptoms of fatigue, appetite loss, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, and pain vs pts in the S arm. Moderate or severe effect of skin toxicity on pt life, as measured by DLQI in the R arm (n = 165) and in the S arm (n = 175), was observed in 6.6% of pts in the R arm vs 14.8% of pts in the S arm (p = 0.015). Conclusions: In the INTRIGUE study the total number of days with sTRAEs was fewer for pts receiving R vs S. Pts in the R arm also reported significantly less decline in pt-reported role function and less increase in symptoms related to commonly reported sTRAEs, except constipation, vs pts in the S arm. Medical writing provided by Costello Medical. Clinical trial information: NCT03673501