Neoadjuvant FOLFOXIRI prior to chemoradiotherapy for high-risk ("ugly") locally advanced rectal cancer: study protocol of a single-arm, multicentre, open-label, phase II trial (MEND-IT).

BACKGROUND: The presence of mesorectal fascia (MRF) invasion, grade 4 extramural venous invasion (EMVI), tumour deposits (TD) or extensive or bilateral extramesorectal (lateral) lymph nodes (LLN) on MRI has been suggested to identify patients with indisputable, extensive locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), at high risk of treatment failure. The aim of this study is to evaluate whether or not intensified chemotherapy prior to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy improves the complete response (CR) rate in these patients. METHODS: This multicentre, single-arm, open-label, phase II trial will include 128 patients with non-metastatic high-risk LARC (hr-LARC), fit for triplet chemotherapy. To ensure a study population with indisputable, unfavourable prognostic characteristics, hr-LARC is defined as LARC with on baseline MRI at least one of the following characteristics; MRF invasion, EMVI grade 4, enlarged bilateral or extensive LLN at high risk of an incomplete resection, or TD. Exclusion criteria are the presence of a homozygous DPD deficiency, distant metastases, any chemotherapy within the past 6 months, previous radiotherapy within the pelvic area precluding standard chemoradiotherapy, and any contraindication for the planned treatment. All patients will be planned for six two-weekly cycles of FOLFOXIRI (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin and irinotecan) prior to chemoradiotherapy (25 × 2 Gy or 28 × 1.8 Gy with concomitant capecitabine). A resection will be performed following radiological confirmation of resectable disease after the completion of chemoradiotherapy. A watch and wait strategy is allowed in case of a clinical complete response. The primary endpoint is the CR rate, described as a pathological CR or a sustained clinical CR one year after chemoradiotherapy. The main secondary objectives are long-term oncological outcomes, radiological and pathological response, the number of resections with clear margins, treatment-related toxicity, perioperative complications, health-related costs, and quality of life. DISCUSSION: This trial protocol describes the MEND-IT study. The MEND-IT study aims to evaluate the CR rate after intensified chemotherapy prior to concomitant chemoradiotherapy in a homogeneous group of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer and indisputably unfavourable characteristics, defined as hr-LARC, in order to improve their prognosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT04838496 , registered on 02-04-2021 Netherlands Trial Register: NL9790. PROTOCOL VERSION: Version 3 dd 11-4-2022.

Randomized phase III trial of S-1 versus capecitabine in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: SALTO study by the Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group.

BACKGROUND: Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a common side-effect of capecitabine. S-1 is an oral fluoropyrimidine with comparable efficacy to capecitabine in gastrointestinal cancers but associated with a lower incidence of HFS in Asian patients. This study compares the incidence of HFS between S-1 and capecitabine as first-line treatment in Western metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated mCRC and planned treatment with fluoropyrimidine monochemotherapy were randomized 1 : 1 to receive either capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 orally for patients <70 years; 1000 mg/m2 for patients ≥70 years, twice daily on days 1-14) or S-1 (30 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days 1-14) in 3-weekly cycles, with bevacizumab optional in both groups. The primary endpoint was the incidence of any grade HFS, as assessed by both physicians and patients (diaries). Secondary endpoints included grade 3 HFS, other toxicities, relative dose intensity, progression-free survival, response rate and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 161 patients were randomized in 27 centres. The incidence of any grade HFS as assessed by physicians was 73% in the capecitabine group (n = 80) and 45% in the S-1 group (n = 80) [odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.31 (0.16-0.60), P = 0.0005]. The incidence of grade 3 HFS was 21% and 4% (P = 0.003), respectively. Patient-assessed any grade HFS was 84% and 58%, respectively (P = 0.004). Grade 3 anorexia was more common in the S-1 group (3% versus 13%, P = 0.03). Median relative dose intensity was 88% in the capecitabine group and 95% in the S-1 group (P = 0.026). There were no statistically significant differences in median progression-free survival, response rate and overall survival rates. CONCLUSION: Treatment with S-1 in Western mCRC patients is associated with a significantly lower incidence of HFS compared with capecitabine, with comparable efficacy. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01918852.

Outcomes of colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis treated with chemotherapy with and without targeted therapy.

BACKGROUND: Although systemic therapies have shown to result in survival benefit in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), outcomes in patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) are poor. No data are available on outcomes of current chemotherapy schedules plus targeted agents in mCRC patients with PC. METHODS: Previously untreated mCRC patients treated with chemotherapy in the CAIRO study and with chemotherapy and targeted therapy in the CAIRO2 study were included and retrospectively analysed according to presence or absence of PC at randomisation. Patient demographics, primary tumour characteristics, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and occurrence of toxicity were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients with PC were identified in the CAIRO study and 47 patients in the CAIRO2 study. Median OS was decreased for patients with PC compared with patients without PC (CAIRO: 10.4 versus 17.3 months, respectively (p ≤ 0.001); CAIRO2: 15.2 versus 20.7 months, respectively (p < 0.001)). Median number of treatment cycles did not differ between patients with or without PC in both studies. Occurrence of major toxicity was more frequent in patients with PC treated with sequential chemotherapy in the CAIRO study as compared to patients without PC. This was not reflected in reasons to discontinue treatment. In the CAIRO2 study, no differences in major toxicity were observed. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate decreased efficacy of current standard chemotherapy with and without targeted agents in mCRC patients with PC. This suggests that the poor outcome cannot be explained by undertreatment or increased susceptibility to toxicity, but rather by relative resistance to treatment.