Effectiveness, safety and quality of life of trifluridine/tipiracil in pretreated patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: Real-world data from the noninterventional TACTIC study in Germany.

The prospective, multicenter, noninterventional TACTIC study assessed effectiveness and safety of trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in a real-world setting in Germany, thus evaluating the external validity of the findings from the pivotal RECOURSE trial. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Secondary objectives included progression-free survival (PFS), safety, and quality of life (QoL). Subgroups comprised patients with good (<3 metastatic sites at inclusion, ≥18 months from diagnosis of first metastasis to inclusion) or poor (remaining patients) prognostic characteristics (GPC/PPC). GPC without liver metastases was considered best prognostic characteristics (BPC). In total, 307 eligible patients (pretreated or not suitable for other available therapies) were treated with FTD/TPI. Overall, median [95%-CI] OS was 7.4 months [6.4-8.6], median PFS was 2.9 months [2.8-3.3]. In BPC (n = 65) and GPC (n = 176) compared to PPC (n = 124) subgroup, median OS (13.3 [9.1-17.6] vs 8.9 [7.6-9.8] vs 5.1 [4.4-7.0] months) and median PFS (4.0 [3.3-5.3] vs 3.4 [3.0-3.7] vs 2.6 [2.4-2.8] months) were longer. Patient-reported QoL, assessed by validated questionnaires (EQ-5D-5L, PRO-CTCAE), was stable throughout FTD/TPI treatment. Predominant FTD/TPI-related adverse events of grades 3 or 4 were neutropenia (13.0%), leukopenia (7.5%), and anemia (5.2%). Altogether, palliative FTD/TPI therapy in patients with pretreated mCRC was associated with prolonged survival, delayed progression, maintained health-related QoL, and manageable toxicity. Low metastatic burden and indolent disease were favorable prognostic factors for survival. TACTIC confirms the effectiveness and safety of FTD/TPI, highlighting its value in routine clinical practice.

SIRFLOX: Randomized Phase III Trial Comparing First-Line mFOLFOX6 (Plus or Minus Bevacizumab) Versus mFOLFOX6 (Plus or Minus Bevacizumab) Plus Selective Internal Radiation Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

PURPOSE: SIRFLOX was a randomized, multicenter trial designed to assess the efficacy and safety of adding selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) using yttrium-90 resin microspheres to standard fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX)-based chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with liver metastases plus or minus limited extrahepatic metastases were randomly assigned to receive either modified FOLFOX (mFOLFOX6; control) or mFOLFOX6 plus SIRT (SIRT) plus or minus bevacizumab. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) at any site as assessed by independent centralized radiology review blinded to study arm. RESULTS: Between October 2006 and April 2013, 530 patients were randomly assigned to treatment (control, 263; SIRT, 267). Median PFS at any site was 10.2 v 10.7 months in control versus SIRT (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.12; P = .43). Median PFS in the liver by competing risk analysis was 12.6 v 20.5 months in control versus SIRT (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.90; P = .002). Objective response rates (ORRs) at any site were similar (68.1% v 76.4% in control v SIRT; P = .113). ORR in the liver was improved with the addition of SIRT (68.8% v 78.7% in control v SIRT; P = .042). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events, including recognized SIRT-related effects, were reported in 73.4% and 85.4% of patients in control versus SIRT. CONCLUSION: The addition of SIRT to FOLFOX-based first-line chemotherapy in patients with liver-dominant or liver-only metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve PFS at any site but significantly delayed disease progression in the liver. The safety profile was as expected and was consistent with previous studies.

Aflibercept Plus FOLFIRI vs. Placebo Plus FOLFIRI in Second-Line Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: a Post Hoc Analysis of Survival from the Phase III VELOUR Study Subsequent to Exclusion of Patients who had Recurrence During or Within 6 Months of Completing Adjuvant Oxaliplatin-Based Therapy.

The aim of this post hoc analysis of the VELOUR study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00561470) was to investigate the treatment effect of adding aflibercept to second-line infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), leucovorin and irinotecan (FOLFIRI) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had failed any prior oxaliplatin-containing regimen. Adjuvant rapid relapsers (ARR), who were enrolled directly following relapse during or within 6 months of completion of oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy (N = 124, including 17 patients who also received bevacizumab as part of their adjuvant therapy), were excluded from the original VELOUR intention-to-treat (ITT) population (N = 1226). After exclusion of the ARR, overall survival (OS) in the ITT minus ARR (ITT-ARR) population (N = 1102) was longer in the aflibercept plus FOLFIRI arm than in the placebo plus FOLFIRI arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.78, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.68-0.90; median survival difference 1.87 months]. In the subgroup of patients assigned to the prior bevacizumab stratum at randomization, OS was numerically longer in the aflibercept plus FOLFIRI arm than in the placebo plus FOLFIRI arm (HR 0.81; 95 % CI 0.63-1.04; median survival difference 2.14 months). Comparison of the post hoc analysis results with the primary analysis from VELOUR suggests that the inclusion of the directly enrolled ARR may have understated the aflibercept treatment benefit for both bevacizumab-pretreated and bevacizumab-naïve patients in the strictly second-line setting although no definitive conclusion may be inferred. The benefit associated with the addition of aflibercept to second-line FOLFIRI in patients with mCRC was observed whatever the timing of first-line disease progression. There were no unexpected safety concerns.

Observational study of adjuvant therapy with capecitabine in colon cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This observational study was conducted to document the safety of capecitabine-based adjuvant therapy in patients with resected colon cancer under routine clinical conditions. RESEARCH AND DESIGN METHODS: ML20431 was a prospective, multicenter, non-interventional, observational study. It was designed to answer five research questions relating to safety, dosage and administration, and discontinuation from capecitabine-based adjuvant therapy. Patients were required to have R0 resected stage III colon cancer and have started treatment with capecitabine-based adjuvant therapy based on a decision by the investigator. Patients were followed over an observation period of ≤6 months after initiation of therapy. Investigators were required to complete the study case report form at study entry, each treatment cycle, and at the final examination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A total of 1485 patients were included in the study, and 1481 patients were treated with capecitabine and formed the analysis population. Most patients had colon cancer (78.3%), followed by rectal cancer (16.4%). Most patients had stage III disease (69.3%); the remaining patients had stage II disease (30.7%). The most common all-grade adverse reactions were hand-foot syndrome (46.9%), diarrhea (34.4%), and hemoglobin decreases (31.5%). Grade 3/4 adverse reactions were infrequent (<4%). Serious adverse events were reported in 96 patients (6.5%). Six or more cycles of treatment were completed by 77.9% of patients. Approximately two-thirds of patients (67.3%) received capecitabine monotherapy and the remainder (32.7%) received capecitabine in combination with ≥1 drugs, most commonly oxaliplatin (460 cases). Discontinuation of capecitabine was documented in 344 patients (23.2%). STUDY LIMITATIONS: no efficacy data were collected; the questionnaires for patients' expectations and satisfaction were not formally validated; and a few patients (<1.5%) had some retrospective data. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile of capecitabine-based adjuvant therapy in a broad patient population with colon cancer is similar to that previously documented in phase III clinical trials.

Gefitinib in combination with oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil in irinotecan-refractory patients with colorectal cancer: a phase I study of the Arbeits gemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie (AIO).

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to establish the recommended dose and to evaluate the safety of gefitinib plus FUFOX regimen in irinotecan-refractory colorectal carcinoma (CRC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced CRC progressing on fluoropyrimidine/irinotecan-based chemotherapy and with an ECOG performance level 0-2 were enrolled. Four dose levels with sequential dose escalation of oral gefitinib and FUFOX were tested. Each cycle consisted of 5 weeks with gefitinib given daily to weekly FUFOX x4 to be repeated at day 36. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were enrolled. No dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was observed at the dose levels L1-L3. At L4 diarrhea was the major DLT requiring treatment interruption in 3 patients. Other grade 3/4 toxicities were observed with skin rash, paresthesia, anemia, and nausea/vomiting (n = 1 each). Grade 1/2 toxicities consisted of diarrhea (n = 9), mucositis (8), skin rash (10), paresthesia (10), nausea (7) as well as leukopenia (2) and fever (1). Clinical benefit was seen in 11 of 16 evaluable patients (69%): 4 patients showed partial response (25%), 7 stable disease (44%). Median time to progression was 219 days (range 50-387 days). CONCLUSION: Gefitinib at a dose of 250 mg daily in combination with weekly 5-fluorouracil at 2,000 mg/m(2) or gefitinib at a dose of 500 mg daily with 5-fluorouracil at 1,600 mg/m(2) plus oxaliplatin has an acceptable safety profile.

EPIC: phase III trial of cetuximab plus irinotecan after fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin failure in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine whether adding cetuximab to irinotecan prolongs survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This multicenter, open-label, phase III study randomly assigned 1,298 patients with epidermal growth factor receptor-expressing mCRC who had experienced first-line fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin treatment failure to cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) day 1 followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly) plus irinotecan (350 mg/m(2) every 3 weeks) or irinotecan alone. Primary end point was overall survival (OS); secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: Median OS was comparable between treatments: 10.7 months (95% CI, 9.6 to 11.3) with cetuximab/irinotecan and 10.0 months (95% CI, 9.1 to 11.3) with irinotecan alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.975; 95% CI, 0.854 to 1.114; P = .71). This lack of difference may have been due to post-trial therapy: 46.9% of patients assigned to irinotecan eventually received cetuximab (87.2% of those who did, received it with irinotecan). Cetuximab added to irinotecan significantly improved PFS (median, 4.0 v 2.6 months; HR, 0.692; 95% CI, 0.617 to 0.776; P

Phase I/II dose-escalation study of pemetrexed plus irinotecan in patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pemetrexed and irinotecan have demonstrated antitumor activity as single agents in lung, pancreatic, breast, and colorectal cancer (CRC). The distinct mechanisms of action and patterns of resistance displayed by pemetrexed and irinotecan make them attractive agents for combination therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This phase I/II, nonrandomized, open-labeled, single-arm study was composed of 3 segments. The initial phase II portion of the study enrolled 23 patients with advanced CRC who had received 1 previous dose of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based chemotherapy for advanced disease. Because of poorer than anticipated efficacy, a phase I dose-escalation study using vitamin supplementation (n = 12) was added to the original protocol. The phase II dose-escalation portion of the study enrolled 36 patients (64% with previous oxaliplatin-based therapy) who received pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 followed by irinotecan 300 mg/m2 on day 1, every 21 days. RESULTS: For the 35 evaluable patients in the phase II dose-escalation study, the objective response rate was 11.4% (95% confidence interval, 3.2%-26.7%); there was 1 patient with a complete response, 3 with partial responses, and 17 with stable disease. Three of four responders had received previous oxaliplatin-based combination therapy. Grade 3/4 hematologic toxicities included leukopenia (5.6%), anemia (2.8%), and thrombocytopenia (2.8%). Grade 3/4 nonhematologic toxicities included diarrhea (11.1%), increased aminotransferase levels (8.3%), nausea (8.3%), febrile neutropenia (5.6%), vomiting (5.6%), and reduced creatinine clearance (2.8%). CONCLUSION: Pemetrexed plus irinotecan appears to be at least as active as FOLFIRI (leucovorin/5-FU/irinotecan) for second-line therapy of CRC following 5-FU-based combination chemotherapy. Further studies are warranted.

Capecitabine as adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin is the standard adjuvant treatment for colon cancer. The oral fluoropyrimidine capecitabine is an established alternative to bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. We evaluated capecitabine in the adjuvant setting. METHODS: We randomly assigned a total of 1987 patients with resected stage III colon cancer to receive either oral capecitabine (1004 patients) or bolus fluorouracil plus leucovorin (Mayo Clinic regimen; 983 patients) over a period of 24 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was at least equivalence in disease-free survival; the primary safety end point was the incidence of grade 3 or 4 toxic effects due to fluoropyrimidines. RESULTS: Disease-free survival in the capecitabine group was at least equivalent to that in the fluorouracil-plus-leucovorin group (in the intention-to-treat analysis, P<0.001 for the comparison of the upper limit of the hazard ratio with the noninferiority margin of 1.20). Capecitabine improved relapse-free survival (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.74 to 0.99; P=0.04) and was associated with significantly fewer adverse events than fluorouracil plus leucovorin (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Oral capecitabine is an effective alternative to intravenous fluorouracil plus leucovorin in the adjuvant treatment of colon cancer.