Biweekly vs Triweekly Cabazitaxel in Older Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The CABASTY Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Many patients 65 years or older with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are denied taxane chemotherapy because this treatment is considered unsuitable. Objective: To determine whether biweekly cabazitaxel (CBZ), 16 mg/m2 (biweekly CBZ16), plus prophylactic granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) at each cycle reduces the risk of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications (eg, febrile neutropenia, neutropenic infection, or sepsis) compared with triweekly CBZ, 25 mg/m2 (triweekly CBZ25), plus G-CSF (standard regimen). Design, Setting, and Participants: A total of 196 patients 65 years or older with progressive mCRPC were enrolled in this prospective phase 3 randomized clinical trial conducted in France (18 centers) and Germany (7 centers) between May 5, 2017, and January 7, 2021. All patients had received docetaxel and at least 1 novel androgen receptor-targeted agent. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive biweekly CBZ16 plus G-CSF and daily prednisolone (experimental group) or triweekly CBZ25 plus G-CSF and daily prednisolone (control group). Main Outcome and Measures: The primary end point was the occurrence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia measured at nadir and/or neutropenic complications. Results: Among 196 patients (97 in the triweekly CBZ25 group and 99 in the biweekly CBZ16 group), the median (IQR) age was 74.6 (70.4-79.3) years, and 181 (92.3%) had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. The median (IQR) follow-up duration was 31.3 (22.5-37.5) months. Relative dose intensities were comparable between groups (median [IQR], 92.7% [83.7%-98.9%] in the triweekly CBZ25 group vs 92.8% [87.0%-98.9%] in the biweekly CBZ16 group). The rate of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications was significantly higher with triweekly CBZ25 vs biweekly CBZ16 (60 of 96 [62.5%] vs 5 of 98 [5.1%]; odds ratio, 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.08; P < .001). Grade 3 or higher adverse events were more common with triweekly CBZ25 (70 of 96 [72.9%]) vs biweekly CBZ16 (55 of 98 [56.1%]). One patient (triweekly CBZ25 group) died of a neutropenic complication. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, compared with the standard regimen, biweekly CBZ16 plus G-CSF significantly reduced by 12-fold the occurrence of grade 3 or higher neutropenia and/or neutropenic complications, with comparable clinical outcomes. The findings suggest that biweekly CBZ16 regimen should be offered to patients 65 years or older with mCRPC for whom the standard regimen is unsuitable. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02961257.

Once weekly paclitaxel associated with a fixed dose of oral metronomic cyclophosphamide: a dose-finding phase 1 trial.

BACKGROUND: The primary aim of this trial was to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of weekly paclitaxel (wP) administered in combination with oral metronomic cyclophosphamide (OMC). METHODS: Patients ≥ 18 years of age with refractory metastatic cancers were eligible if no standard curative measures existed. Paclitaxel was administered IV weekly (D1, D8, D15; D1 = D28) in combination with a fixed dose of OMC (50 mg twice a day). A 3 + 3 design was used for dose escalation of wP (40 to 75 mg/m2) followed by an expansion cohort at RP2D. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined over the first 28-day cycle as grade ≥ 3 non-hematological or grade 4 hematological toxicity (NCI-CTCAE v4.0) or any toxicity leading to a dose reduction. RESULTS: In total, 28 pts. (18 in dose-escalation phase and 10 in expansion cohort) were included, and 16/18 pts. enrolled in the dose-escalation phase were evaluable for DLT. DLT occurred in 0/3, 1/6 (neuropathy), 0/3 and 2/4 pts. (hematological toxicity) at doses of 40, 60, 70 and 75 mg/m2 of wP, respectively. The RP2D of wP was 70 mg/m2; 1/10 patients in the expansion phase had a hematological DLT. At RP2D (n = 14), the maximal grade of drug-related adverse event was Gr1 in three patients, Gr2 in six patients, Gr3 in one patient and Gr4 in one patient (no AE in three patients). At RP2D, a partial response was observed in one patient with lung adenocarcinoma. CONCLUSION: The combination of OMC and wP resulted in an acceptable safety profile, warranting further clinical evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: TRN: NCT01374620 ; date of registration: 16 June 2011.

Signet Ring Cells and Efficacy of First-line Chemotherapy in Advanced Gastric or Oesogastric Junction Adenocarcinoma.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of first-line palliative chemotherapy, regarding the presence of signet ring cells (SRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or oesogastric junction adenocarcinoma who received first-line chemotherapy. Response to chemotherapy, progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between SRC and non-SRC (NSRC) groups. RESULTS: Two hundred and three patients were treated, with 57 (28%) having SRC adenocarcinoma. Objective response rate was significantly lower in SRC patients (5.3% vs. 28.1%, p=0.0004). PFS was not significantly different between SRC and NSRC patients (median=3.8 vs. 4.9 months, p=0.07). OS was significantly shorter in SRC patients (median=5.6 vs. 9.4 months, p<0.008). In multivariate analysis SRC was not an independent prognostic factor for OS (hazard ratio (HR)=1.28, p=0.15). CONCLUSION: Patients with advanced SRC adenocarcinomas seemed to benefit less from chemotherapy, whereas the presence of SRC was not an independent survival prognostic factor.

Clinical activity of sunitinib rechallenge in metastatic renal cell carcinoma-Results of the REchallenge with SUnitinib in MEtastatic RCC (RESUME) Study.

AIM: To assess the efficacy and tolerability of sunitinib rechallenge in the third-line or later setting in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This observational study comprised 61 mRCC patients at 19 centres in France who received sunitinib rechallenge between January 2006 and May 2013. Patients received first-line sunitinib, ≥1 different targeted therapies, and then sunitinib rechallenge. Patient/disease characteristics, tolerability, treatment modalities, and outcomes of therapeutic lines were recorded. The primary end-point was progression-free survival (PFS) in sunitinib rechallenge. RESULTS: Analyses included 52 patients; median age was 59 years, 75% were male, and 98% had clear-cell mRCC and prior nephrectomy. At sunitinib rechallenge versus first-line, patients had poorer performance (Karnofsky performance status 90-100: 30% versus 81%) and Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre prognostic risk (poor risk: 18% versus 3%). Overall, 20%, 65%, 12%, and 4% received sunitinib rechallenge as third-, fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-line therapy, respectively, at 14.6 months (median) after stopping initial treatment. With first-line sunitinib and rechallenge, median PFS was 18.4 and 7.9 months, respectively; objective response rate was 54% and 15%. Two of eight rechallenge responders had not achieved first-line response. Median overall survival was 55.9 months. The sunitinib rechallenge safety profile was as expected, with no new adverse events reported. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib rechallenge is a feasible treatment option with potential clinical benefit for mRCC patients. Disease progression with first-line sunitinib may not be associated with complete or irreversible resistance to therapy.

[Factitious diseases in oncology]. / Les pathologies factices en oncologie.

Factitious diseases and pathomimias and particularly Munchausen's syndrome, due to their rarity, are poorly diagnosed by medical teams working in oncology. Consequences can be serious and result in unadapted surgery or non justified implementation of chemotherapy and radiotherapy regimens. These patients simulate diseases in order to attract medical attention. They might become belligerent and are likely to promptly discharge themselves from hospital if they do not get the desired attention or are unmasked. With two following case reports and literature review, we would like to alert clinicians about difficulties encountered in diagnosis and management of factitious disorders. When faced with this diagnosis, the patient will tend to deny reality and break contact with the medical team who exposed him. Medical peregrinating behavior surrounded by conflicts with medical team, past psychiatric illness, history of working in the medical and paramedical field and social isolation can guide the diagnosis. Somaticians and especially surgeons working in the oncologic field must remain vigilant about this diagnosis and collaborate with either the psycho-oncologic team or the consultation-liaison psychiatric team. Some recommendations for medical professionals how to cope with these patients will be suggested.

Selection of ultimately ill cancer patients able to fulfill a questionnaire: Identification of inherent biases.

AIM: Physical or psychological well-being is an essential component of quality care assessment in palliative unit. This assessment is mainly based on self-assessment (questionnaires or interviews). The aim of this study is to compare the clinical characteristics of patients able to fulfill a questionnaire and those not able to do that. METHODS: The clinical characteristics of 166 cancer patients admitted in palliative care unit from December 2006 to February 2008 have been collected. Characteristics of patients able to fulfill a questionnaire (80, 48.2%) have been compared to other patients (86, 51.8%). Moreover, functional independence measure (FIM) had been evaluated by nurses. RESULTS: Median age (60 versus 62) and sex ratio (40/40 versus 42/44) are similar in both groups. Lung primaries are significantly less frequent in patients able to fulfill the questionnaire (4% versus 17%, P=0.005). Patients able to fulfill the questionnaire had had better performance status (Karnofsky Index≤30%: 54% versus 21%, P<0.0001). The total score of FIM (56.0 versus 91.5, P<0.00001) and the median overall survivals (2.3 weeks versus 6.6 weeks, P=0.0001) were significantly lower in the group of patients non able to fulfill the questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: Patients able to fulfill a questionnaire represent only 48.2% of all consecutive admitted patients. These patients are not representative of all patients since they had better performance status, they are less dependent and they display significant better survival. We have to think about new methods to avoid the biases generated by the use of patient-reported outcomes.

A phase II trial of sunitinib in patients with renal cell cancer and untreated brain metastases.

BACKGROUND: The expanded access program and anecdotal cases suggested sunitinib is safe in RCC patients with BM and might have worthwhile activity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a phase II trial, patients with untreated BM received the standard regimen of sunitinib. The primary end point was objective response (OR) rate in BM after 2 cycles. An OR rate of 35% was prospectively defined as the minimum needed to warrant further investigation. According to Simon's optimal 2-stage design, at least 3 of the initial 15 patients had to have an OR for accrual to continue. RESULTS: Among 16 evaluable patients, 1 had a complete response outside the central nervous system (CNS). CNS disease was stabilized in 5 (31%). However, no BM showed an OR. Therefore, no further accrual took place. Median time to progression was 2.3 months and overall survival was 6.3 months. There was 1 toxic death, from peritonitis with gastric perforation. Three patients experienced at least 1 treatment-related grade 3 or greater toxicity but no neurological adverse events were attributable to sunitinib. CONCLUSION: Although tolerability was acceptable in RCC patients with previously untreated BM, sunitinib has limited efficacy in this setting.

Clinical complete responders to definite chemoradiation or radiation therapy for oesophageal cancer: predictors of outcome.

BACKGROUND: To identify predictors of long-term outcome for patients with clinical complete response (cCR) after definite chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or radiation therapy (RT) for oesophageal cancer (EC). METHODS: In this retrospective study, we reviewed the files of all patients from our institution that underwent definitive RCT or RT for EC, from January 1998 to December 2003. Among 402 consecutive patients with EC, 110 cCR responses were observed, i.e. without evidence of tumour on morphological examination of the biopsy specimens, 8 to 10 weeks after radiation. Baseline patient and tumour characteristics were as follows: male = 98/110, median age = 60, squamous histology = 103/110, tumour site (upper/middle/lower third) = 41/50/19, weight loss none/<10%/≥10% = 36/45/29, dysphagia grade 1/2/≥3 = 30/14/66. Patients were staged according to endosonography and/or computed tomography. There were 9 stage I, 31 stage IIA, 15 stage IIB, 41 stage III, 6 stage IV. Post treatment nutritional characteristics were as follows: weight loss during treatment none/<10% ≥ 10% = 35/38/37, remaining dysphagia grade 1/2/≥3 = 54/24/32. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed using log-rank and Cox proportional hazards models, and survival curves were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: During follow up (median: 6 [0.4-9.8] years), 16 patients had salvage surgery. Median OS was 2.5 years, and 5-year OS was 33.5%. Histological type, stage, age, gender, and treatment characteristics had no significant impact on outcome. The risk of death was increased two-fold for patients with grade ≥ 3 dysphagia after treatment (HR = 1.9 [1.2-3.1], p = 0.007). Weight loss ≥10% during treatment also negatively affected outcome (HR = 1.8 [1.0-3.2], p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: One EC patient among 3 with cCR after definite CRT/RT is still alive at 5 years. Variables related to reduced OS were: remaining significant dysphagia after treatment and weight loss ≥10% during treatment.

[Urachal cancers]. / Les cancers de l'ouraque.

Urachal cancer is a rare pathology (less than 1% among all bladder tumors) with a poor prognosis for all stages, because of clinical delay leading to a late diagnosis, difficult differential diagnosis with bladder cancer, and no consensus for the treatment, mostly about the chemotherapy for advanced stages, because there are no data from prospective studies. A surgical treatment can be performed for the localized stages, but there are no real guidelines for local relapses and metastatic progression treatment. Those cancers are not radio- or chemosensitive; nevertheless data from fundamental research are missing. As this pathology is really uncommon, there are no clinical studies with targeted therapies. The purpose of this review is to introduce the most important clinical and paraclinical features of those cancers, and the usual treatment performed.

Solitary fibrous tumors and so-called hemangiopericytoma.

We have reviewed the literature data regarding the spectrum of tumors including solitary fibrous tumor and hemangiopericytoma with special focus on definition of the disease, discussion of the criteria for malignancy, and the key elements of standard treatment of localized disease. We have discussed the emerging concepts on the tumor biology and the different systemic treatments (chemotherapy and molecular-targeted therapies).

Management of "unfavourable" carcinoma of unknown primary site: synthesis of recent literature.

Carcinomas of unknown primary (CUP) approximately represent 2-3% of all adult cancers. Various clinicopathological subsets of CUP have been identified, which may be treated with tailored approaches. Nevertheless, 80% of CUP do not fall into these subsets. Even when at least 4 prognostic models have been developed and validated in independent patient cohorts, there is no consensus or reliable guidance for estimating the prognosis of these "unfavourable" CUP. Consequently, targeting patients who benefit from palliative chemotherapy is difficult. Thirty-eight phase II trials were published between 1997 and 2011; a systematic analysis of these trials did not allow the recommendation of any of the tested regimens as a standard of care. Currently, there is only one published phase III clinical trial (Paclitaxel/carboplatin/etoposide versus gemcitabine/irinotecan); without significant difference between both regimens. Thus, with the promise of molecular profiling, we are waiting for a large collaborative clinical trial that validates the concept of targeted treatment in this population of patients with "unfavourable" CUP.

A simple predictive model for postoperative mortality after head and neck cancer surgery with opening of mucosa.

The aim of this study was to determine the risk factors for the mortality during the first 30 days after a major head and neck cancer surgery. Two hundred and sixty one consecutive surgical procedure were prospectively studied at Oscar Lambret Cancer Centre within a 36-months period. Twenty variables were recorded for each patient. The significant risk factors for postoperative mortality were assessed by univariate and multivariate analysis. Overall 30-days mortality rate was 3.83% [95% CI 3.13-4.53]. In univariate analysis identified four risk factors: female gender (odd ratio 4.25 [95% CI 1.03-17.56]), age equal or superior than 70 (odd ratio 5.06 [95% CI 1.35-18.36]), current alcohol addiction (odd ratio 3.65 [1.02-13.06]) and laryngeal location (odd ratio 4.23 [CI 95% 1.18-3.38]). In multivariate analysis only female gender and laryngeal location remained significant. The incidence of postoperative mortality was 1.63% for patients without risk factor and was 6.41% for those with one or two risk factors. This model identifies easily high-risk patients for major head and neck cancer surgery. A multicenter validation is necessary.