Maintenance treatment with fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab versus fluoropyrimidine alone after induction chemotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer: The BEVAMAINT - PRODIGE 71 - (FFCD 1710) phase III study.

BACKGROUND: Maintenance treatments with fluoropyrimidine alone or combined with bevacizumab after induction chemotherapy are two standard options in first-line metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). However, no trial has compared these two maintenance regimens. METHODS: BEVAMAINT is a multicenter, open-label, randomized phase III trial comparing fluoropyrimidine alone or plus bevacizumab as maintenance treatment after induction polychemotherapy in mCRC. The primary endpoint is the time-to-treatment failure (TTF), calculated from date of randomization to first radiological progression, death, start of a new chemotherapy regimen (different from induction or maintenance chemotherapy) or end of maintenance treatment without introduction of further chemotherapy. We expect a 2-month TTF improvement from 6 months in the monotherapy arm to 8 months in the combination arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75). Based on a two-sided α risk of 5% and a power of 80%, using Schoenfeld method, 379 events are required (planned enrolment, 400 patients). Patients with mCRC, whose disease is measurable according to RECIST 1.1 criteria and controlled (objective response or stable disease) - but remains unresectable - after 4 to 6 months of induction polychemotherapy (doublet or triplet chemotherapy with or without anti-EGFR or bevacizumab), and who have recovered from limiting adverse events of induction polychemotherapy are eligible for randomization. Randomization is stratified according to center, response to induction chemotherapy (objective response vs stable disease), ECOG performance status (0-1 vs 2), maintenance fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil vs capecitabine) and primary tumor status (resected vs not). Capecitabine or bolus and infusional 5-fluorouracil plus folinic acid (simplified LV5FU2 regimen) are both accepted for maintenance chemotherapy, at investigator's discretion. Clinical evaluation, tumor imaging, carcinoembryonic antigen and circulating tumor DNA dosages are planned at enrolment and every 9 weeks. The maintenance treatment will be discontinued in the event of unbearable toxicity, progression or patient refusal. After maintenance discontinuation, reintroduction of induction polychemotherapy is recommended; otherwise a second-line treatment is started. The enrolment has begun in January 2020.

Guidelines for time-to-event end-point definitions in trials for pancreatic cancer. Results of the DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials).

BACKGROUND: Using potential surrogate end-points for overall survival (OS) such as Disease-Free- (DFS) or Progression-Free Survival (PFS) is increasingly common in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, end-points are too often imprecisely defined which largely contributes to a lack of homogeneity across trials, hampering comparison between them. The aim of the DATECAN (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials)-Pancreas project is to provide guidelines for standardised definition of time-to-event end-points in RCTs for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Time-to-event end-points currently used were identified from a literature review of pancreatic RCT trials (2006-2009). Academic research groups were contacted for participation in order to select clinicians and methodologists to participate in the pilot and scoring groups (>30 experts). A consensus was built after 2 rounds of the modified Delphi formal consensus approach with the Rand scoring methodology (range: 1-9). RESULTS: For pancreatic cancer, 14 time to event end-points and 25 distinct event types applied to two settings (detectable disease and/or no detectable disease) were considered relevant and included in the questionnaire sent to 52 selected experts. Thirty experts answered both scoring rounds. A total of 204 events distributed over the 14 end-points were scored. After the first round, consensus was reached for 25 items; after the second consensus was reached for 156 items; and after the face-to-face meeting for 203 items. CONCLUSION: The formal consensus approach reached the elaboration of guidelines for standardised definitions of time-to-event end-points allowing cross-comparison of RCTs in pancreatic cancer.