Evaluation of the relevance of the growth modulation index (GMI) from the FFCD 0307 randomized phase III trial comparing the sequence of two chemotherapeutic regimens.

BACKGROUND: Precision medicine trials disrupted the paradigm of randomized controlled trials in large populations. Patient selection may be based on molecular alterations rather than on primary tumor location. In small patient populations, the growth modulation index (GMI) has been developed to evaluate treatment efficacy by using each patient as its own control. The FFCD 0307 randomized phase III trial compared two sequences of chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer, which represents a unique opportunity to evaluate the relevance of the GMI. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In the FFCD 0307 trial, patients with advanced gastric cancer were randomized between two chemotherapy sequences [ECX followed by FOLFIRI at disease progression (arm A) versus FOLFIRI followed by ECX (arm B)]. GMI was defined as the ratio of the progression-free survival on second treatment (PFS2) to the time to progression on first treatment (TTP1). Sequence benefit was defined as a GMI exceeding 1.3 (GMI-high). GMI was correlated with overall survival (OS). OS1 and OS2 were measured from first randomization and second-line failure to death. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixteen patients were randomized (209 in arm A, 207 in arm B). One hundred and seventy-five patients (42%) received the two sequences and were assessable for GMI (97 in arm A, 79 in arm B). The median GMI was higher in arm A than in arm B (0.62 versus 0.47, P = 0.04). Patients with a high GMI had a longer OS1 (median 14.9 versus 11.5 months, NS). Median OS2 was doubled in the GMI-high group (3.4 versus 1.6 months, NS). CONCLUSION: GMI analyses suggest that ECX followed by FOLFIRI might represent a better therapeutic strategy than FOLFIRI followed by ECX. High GMI was associated with prolonged survival.

Geriatric analysis from PRODIGE 20 randomized phase II trial evaluating bevacizumab + chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in older patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Older patients have frailty characteristics that impair the transposition of treatment results found in younger patients. Predictive factors are needed to help with treatment choices for older patients. The PRODIGE 20 study is a randomized phase II study that evaluated chemotherapy associated with bevacizumab (BEV) or not (CT) in patients aged 75 years or older. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients underwent a geriatric assessment at randomization and at each evaluation. The predictive value of geriatric and oncologic factors was determined for the primary composite end-point assessing safety and efficacy of treatment (BEV or CT) simultaneously and also progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 102 patients were randomized (51 BEV and 51 CT; median age 80 years [range 75-91]). On multivariate analysis, baseline normal independent activity of daily living (IADL) score and no previous cardiovascular disease predicted the primary end-point. High (versus low) baseline Köhne score predicted short PFS and baseline Spitzer quality of life (QoL) score <8, albumin level ≤35 g/L, CA19.9 >2 LN levels above normal and high baseline Köhne score predicted short OS. Survival without deteriorated QoL and autonomy was similar with BEV and CT. On subgroup analyses, the benefit of bevacizumab seemed to be maintained in patients with baseline impaired IADL or nutritional status. CONCLUSION: Normal IADL score was associated with a good efficacy and safety of both BEV and CT. Köhne criteria may be relevant prognostic factors in older patients. Adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy does not impair patient autonomy or QoL.

Bevacizumab+chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in elderly patients with untreated metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized phase II trial-PRODIGE 20 study results.

Background: Metastatic colorectal cancer frequently occurs in elderly patients. Bevacizumab in combination with front line chemotherapy (CT) is a standard treatment but some concern raised about tolerance of bevacizumab for these patients. The purpose of PRODIGE 20 was to evaluate tolerance and efficacy of bevacizumab according to specific end points in this population. Patients and methods: Patients aged 75 years and over were randomly assigned to bevacizumab + CT (BEV) versus CT. LV5FU2, FOLFOX and FOLFIRI regimen were prescribed according to investigator's choice. The composite co-primary end point, assessed 4 months after randomization, was based on efficacy (tumor control and absence of decrease of the Spitzer QoL index) and safety (absence of severe cardiovascular toxicities and unexpected hospitalization). For each arm, the treatment will be consider as inefficient if 20% or less of the patients met the efficacy criteria and not safe if 40% or less met the safety criteria. Results: About 102 patients were randomized (51 BEV and 51 CT), median age was 80 years (range 75-91). Primary end point was met for efficacy in 50% and 58% and for safety in 61% and 71% of patients in BEV and CT, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 9.7 months in BEV and 7.8 months in CT. Median overall survival was 21.7 months in BEV and 19.8 months in CT. The 36-month overall survival rate was 27% in BEV and 10.1% in CT. Severe toxicities grade 3/4 were mainly non-hematologic toxicities (80.4% in BEV, 63.3% in CT). Conclusion: Bevacizumab combined with CT was safe and efficient. Both arms met the primary safety and efficacy criteria.

[A comparison of serum Cyfra 21-1 and SCC AG in the diagnosis of squamous cell esophageal carcinoma]. / Evaluation comparative du Cyfra 21-1 et du squamous cell carcinoma dans les carcinomes épidermoïdes de l'oesophage.

Cyfra 21-1 is a useful marker in lung cancer. The only tumor marker used at the present time in oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) is SCC (squamous cell carcinoma). In this study we evaluated the pre-treatment sensitivity and specificity of these two markers in this setting. Cyfra 21-1 and SCC were determined by radio-immunoassay on 76 patients having OSCC. Staging was done according to the UICC 1978 classification based on endoscopy, baryum enema and CT scan. The sensitivity of Cyfra 21-1 is better at the 1.5 ng/ml level (54%) than at the usual reported level of 3.6 ng/ml (26%). The best level for sensitivity of SCC is 1.5 ng/ml. At these levels, sensitivity of Cyfra 21-1 and SCC for advanced stages (T3 or M1) are respectively 72% and 50%. The specificity of Cyfra 21-1 and SCC for stages T1 or T2 are respectively 53% and 73%. The combination of these two markers increase sensitivity at 64% for all stages and at 89% for advanced stages (T3 or M1) and is a significant prognostic factor for survival. This study confirms the value of Cyfra 21-1 in OSCC at the normal level of 1.5 ng/ml. The combination with SC improves the results. We now need to evaluate the role of these two markers in the follow up of oesophageal carcinoma.