Regional Therapies for Colorectal Liver Metastases: Systematic Review and Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: Resection is the foundation for cure for colorectal cancer (CRC) liver metastases; however, only 20% of patients are suitable for surgery. Those suitable would be considered for resection or local therapies before being considered for regional therapies. Noncurative treatment is usually systemic chemotherapy. For patients with liver-only or liver-predominant metastases that are unresectable, regional therapies [conventional transarterial chemoembolization (cTACE), drug-eluting bead transarterial chemoembolization (DEB-TACE), and transarterial radioembolization (TARE)] may be considered. We review the current evidence for regional therapies for CRC liver metastases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Literature searches (January 2000 to March 2019 or January 2010 to March 2019 depending on the specific systematic review question) were conducted, including Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and 2018 American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) abstracts. RESULTS: A total of 4100 articles were identified; 15 studies were included in the review. There were no comparative data regarding the resectable population. There was either insufficient evidence (cTACE or DEB-TACE) or evidence against (TARE) the addition of regional therapies to systemic therapy in the first line in the unresectable population. There was either no evidence (cTACE) or weak evidence (DEB-TACE or TARE) for the addition of regional therapies with or without systemic therapy in the second line or later in the unresectable population. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence supports the delivery of percutaneous regional therapies in patients with unresectable CRC liver metastases. There are strong data demonstrating positive effects of TARE within the liver, but they do not translate to a benefit in patient-important outcomes. DEB-TACE appears to offer a survival benefit in the second-line setting, although the evidence is limited by small sample size and larger trials are needed.

Systemic therapy in incurable gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours: a clinical practice guideline.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present review was to determine which antineoplastic systemic therapy is most effective in improving clinical outcomes for patients with incurable gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (nets). METHODS: A systematic search (2008-2016) of the literature in the medline and embase databases and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted; abstracts from the American Society of Clinical Oncology, the American Society of Clinical Oncology Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium, the European Society for Medical Oncology, the European Cancer Congress, the European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society, and the North American Neuroendocrine Tumor Society were reviewed. Draft recommendations were created, and a comprehensive review process was undertaken. Outcomes-including progression-free survival (pfs), overall survival, objective response rate, adverse events, and quality of life-were extracted from each of the studies. RESULTS: Eleven randomized controlled trials (rcts), sixteen nonrandomized prospective studies, and thirteen retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with well-or moderately-differentiated pancreatic nets (pnets) should receive targeted therapy (that is, everolimus or sunitinib), and patients with non-pnets should be offered either targeted therapy (that is, everolimus) or somatostatin analogues (ssas-that is, octreotide long-acting release or lanreotide). Evidence from two phase iii trials demonstrated a significant pfs benefit for patients with pnets. For patients with non-pnets, the evidence comes from subgroup analyses of rcts, as well as from a planned interim analysis. Although the evidence has limitations, the rarity of the disease, coupled with the difficulty of conducting methodologically sound trials in the affected population, means that treatment decisions have to make use of the best available evidence. Because of insufficient evidence for both pnets and non-pnets, no evidence-based recommendation can be made for or against other types of targeted therapy, other ssas, chemotherapy, or combination therapy.

Randomized phase II study of modified FOLFOX-6 in combination with ramucirumab or icrucumab as second-line therapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after disease progression on first-line irinotecan-based therapy.

BACKGROUND: Icrucumab and ramucirumab are recombinant human IgG1 monoclonal antibodies that bind VEGF receptors 1 and 2 (VEGFR-1 and -2), respectively. This randomized phase II study evaluated the antitumor activity and safety of icrucumab and ramucirumab each in combination with mFOLFOX-6 in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer after disease progression on first-line therapy with a fluoropyrimidine and irinotecan. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned to receive mFOLFOX-6 alone (mFOLFOX-6) or in combination with ramucirumab 8 mg/kg IV (RAM+mFOLFOX-6) or icrucumab 15 mg/kg IV (ICR+mFOLFOX-6) every 2 weeks. Randomization was stratified by prior bevacizumab therapy. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS), tumor response, safety, and PK. RESULTS: In total, 158 patients were randomized, but only 153 received treatment (49 on mFOLFOX-6, 52 on RAM+mFOLFOX-6, and 52 on ICR+mFOLFOX-6). Median PFS was 18.4 weeks on mFOLFOX-6, 21.4 weeks on RAM+mFOLFOX-6, and 15.9 weeks on ICR+mFOLFOX-6 (RAM+mFOLFOX-6 versus mFOLFOX-6, stratified hazard ratio [HR] 1.116 [95% CI 0.713-1.745], P = 0.623; ICR+mFOLFOX-6 versus mFOLFOX-6, stratified HR 1.603 [95% CI 1.011-2.543], P = 0.044). Median survival was 53.6 weeks on mFOLFOX-6, 41.7 weeks on RAM+mFOLFOX-6, and 42.0 weeks on ICR+mFOLFOX-6. The most frequent adverse events reported on the ramucirumab arm (RAM+mFOLFOX-6) were fatigue, nausea, and peripheral sensory neuropathy; those on the icrucumab arm (ICR+mFOLFOX-6) were fatigue, diarrhea, and peripheral sensory neuropathy. Grade ≥3 serious adverse events occurred at comparable frequency across arms. CONCLUSIONS: In this study population, combining ramucirumab or icrucumab with mFOLFOX-6 did not achieve the predetermined improvement in PFS. CLINICALTRIALSGOV: NCT01111604.

Double heterozygosity for germline mutations in BRCA1 and p53 in a woman with early onset breast cancer.

To report on a highly unusual case of a 20-year-old woman who presented with multifocal metaplastic breast cancer and was subsequently found to carry deleterious germline mutations in both BRCA1 and p53. Genetic testing was requested on an expedited basis to assist in surgical decision-making and BRCA1/2 and p53 genetic analysis was ordered concurrently. BRCA1/2 and p53 analyses were completed using a combination of direct DNA sequencing and multiplex ligation probe amplification (MLPA). The patient was found to carry a deletion of exon 3 of the BRCA1 gene and a splice site mutation at the exon4/intron4 boundary of the p53 gene. To our knowledge, this is the first report of double heterozygosity in BRCA1 and p53. The patient's clinical presentation is highly reminiscent of that predicted by preclinical mouse models. In patients with early onset breast cancer, the possibility of germline mutations in more than one cancer susceptibility gene should be considered. This could have important clinical implications for patients and their at-risk family members.

Fertility risk discussions in young patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer.

PURPOSE: In 2006, the American Society of Clinical Oncology established guidelines on fertility preservation in cancer patients, but recent data suggest that the guidelines are not widely followed. To identify the frequency of fertility discussions and the characteristics that influence the rate of discussion, we performed a retrospective chart review for patients less than 40 years of age with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer (CRC). METHODS: Charts of patients aged 18-40 years with newly diagnosed crc presenting to the Juravinski Cancer Centre from 2000 to 2009 were reviewed for documentation of discussions regarding fertility risks with treatment and reproductive options available. The influences of sex, age, year of diagnosis, stage of cancer, and type of treatment on the frequency of discussions were explored. RESULTS: The review located 59 patients (mean age: 35 years) who met the criteria for inclusion. A fertility discussion was documented in 20 of those patients [33.9%; 95% confidence interval (CI): 22.1% to 47.4%]. In the multivariate analysis, the odds of fertility being addressed was higher for patients receiving radiation [odds ratio (OR): 9.31; 95% ci: 2.49 to 34.77, p < 0.001) and lower by age (OR: 0.86; 95% ci: 0.74 to 0.99; p = 0.040). Of patients less than 35 years of age undergoing radiation treatment, 85% had a documented fertility discussion. We observed no significant difference in the frequency of discussions after 2006, when the American Society of Clinical Oncology guidelines were published (31.4% for 2000-2006 vs. 37.5% for 2007-2009, p = 0.63). CONCLUSIONS: Discussions about fertility risks associated with CRC treatment occur infrequently among young adults with newly diagnosed CRC. However, discussions occur more frequently in younger patients and in those undergoing radiation. Further investigations assessing barriers and physician attitudes to fertility risk discussion and reproductive options are planned.

Quetiapine fumarate overdose: clinical and pharmacokinetic lessons from extreme conditions.

BACKGROUND: Although the new atypical antipsychotic, quetiapine fumarate, is growing in popularity over its progenitor, clozapine, clinical experience with overdose of this agent remains limited. Observation of an overdose situation provided a unique opportunity to define the safety, clinical effects, and pharmacokinetics of this medication more clearly. METHODS: A patient admitted immediately after ingesting an overdose of 30 tablets of 100 mg of quetiapine was observed carefully to document effects of the medication. These observations were compared with the only two other published cases of overdose, to the known pharmacology of the drug, and to serial measurements of serum drug concentrations obtained to document the time course of elimination of the drug. RESULTS: Consistent with the two previously published cases, the main clinical effects of overdose were hypotension, tachycardia, and somnolence as predicted by its known alpha-adrenergic receptor and histamine receptor blockade. These effects were managed with fluid resuscitation and supportive measures. No cardiac arrhythmias other than tachycardia have been reported, but the tachycardia was of an unexpectedly long duration in this case. Decline in serum quetiapine concentration followed a biexponential pattern with a terminal elimination half-life of 22 hours. Unexpectedly low peak serum concentrations in three patients with overdose suggest that absorption is highly reduced, either by the effects of the overdose or by the activated charcoal administered. CONCLUSIONS: Quetiapine appears to have greater safety in overdose than traditional antipsychotic agents. Its toxicity is consistent with its receptor pharmacology. Elevated serum concentrations associated with this overdose remained above the limit of detection long enough to document a terminal elimination half-life of 22 hours in this patient. This is much more consistent with previously noted duration of clinical effects and detectable serum concentrations after overdose than the published half-life of 6 hours. Physicians should be aware that any new drug that is active at low concentrations may have had its half-life underestimated during preclinical development because of the difficulty in detecting the drug after the distribution phase has ended.