Tumor characteristics and clinical outcome of peritoneal metastasis of gastric origin treated with a hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy procedure in the PERISCOPE I trial.

INTRODUCTION: The PERISCOPE I (Treatment of PERItoneal dissemination in Stomach Cancer patients with cytOreductive surgery and hyPErthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy) study was conducted to investigate the safety and feasibility of hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in gastric cancer patients with limited peritoneal dissemination. In this study, tumor characteristics and clinical outcome of the patients treated in the PERISCOPE I trial were investigated. METHODS: Patients who had undergone the full study protocol were selected; that is, preoperative systemic chemotherapy, followed by a surgical procedure consisting of a (sub)total gastrectomy, cytoreductive surgery, and HIPEC with oxaliplatin (460 mg/m2 ) and docetaxel (in escalating doses). RESULTS: Twenty-five PERISCOPE I patients underwent the full study protocol. Most patients had an ypT3-4 tumor (96%) and the diffuse-type histology was predominant (64%). Seven patients (28%) had a microscopically irradical (R1) resection. In all patients, a complete cytoreduction was achieved. Median follow-up was 37 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34-39) months. Disease recurrence was detected in 17 patients (68%). Median disease-free and overall survival were 12 and 15 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: In this series of gastric cancer patients with limited peritoneal dissemination who underwent HIPEC surgery, unfavorable tumor characteristics were common. Survival might be encouraging but disease recurrence was frequent. The efficacy of an HIPEC procedure in improving prognosis is currently being investigated in the PERISCOPE II trial.

Patient-derived organoids can predict response to chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

There is a clear and unmet clinical need for biomarkers to predict responsiveness to chemotherapy for cancer. We developed an in vitro test based on patient-derived tumor organoids (PDOs) from metastatic lesions to identify nonresponders to standard-of-care chemotherapy in colorectal cancer (CRC). In a prospective clinical study, we show the feasibility of generating and testing PDOs for evaluation of sensitivity to chemotherapy. Our PDO test predicted response of the biopsied lesion in more than 80% of patients treated with irinotecan-based therapies without misclassifying patients who would have benefited from treatment. This correlation was specific to irinotecan-based chemotherapy, however, and the PDOs failed to predict outcome for treatment with 5-fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin. Our data suggest that PDOs could be used to prevent cancer patients from undergoing ineffective irinotecan-based chemotherapy.

Perioperative systemic therapy and cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC versus upfront cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC alone for isolated resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases: protocol of a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, phase II-III, randomised, superiority study (CAIRO6)

BACKGROUND: Upfront cytoreductive surgery with HIPEC (CRS-HIPEC) is the standard treatment for isolated resectable colorectal peritoneal metastases (PM) in the Netherlands. This study investigates whether addition of perioperative systemic therapy to CRS-HIPEC improves oncological outcomes. METHODS: This open-label, parallel-group, phase II-III, randomised, superiority study is performed in nine Dutch tertiary referral centres. Eligible patients are adults who have a good performance status, histologically or cytologically proven resectable PM of a colorectal adenocarcinoma, no systemic colorectal metastases, no systemic therapy for colorectal cancer within six months prior to enrolment, and no previous CRS-HIPEC. Eligible patients are randomised (1:1) to perioperative systemic therapy and CRS-HIPEC (experimental arm) or upfront CRS-HIPEC alone (control arm) by using central randomisation software with minimisation stratified by a peritoneal cancer index of 0-10 or 11-20, metachronous or synchronous PM, previous systemic therapy for colorectal cancer, and HIPEC with oxaliplatin or mitomycin C. At the treating physician's discretion, perioperative systemic therapy consists of either four 3-weekly neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of capecitabine with oxaliplatin (CAPOX), six 2-weekly neoadjuvant and adjuvant cycles of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), or six 2-weekly neoadjuvant cycles of 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin with irinotecan (FOLFIRI) followed by four 3-weekly (capecitabine) or six 2-weekly (5-fluorouracil/leucovorin) adjuvant cycles of fluoropyrimidine monotherapy. Bevacizumab is added to the first three (CAPOX) or four (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI) neoadjuvant cycles. The first 80 patients are enrolled in a phase II study to explore the feasibility of accrual and the feasibility, safety, and tolerance of perioperative systemic therapy. If predefined criteria of feasibility and safety are met, the study continues as a phase III study with 3-year overall survival as primary endpoint. A total of 358 patients is needed to detect the hypothesised 15% increase in 3-year overall survival (control arm 50%; experimental arm 65%). Secondary endpoints are surgical characteristics, major postoperative morbidity, progression-free survival, disease-free survival, health-related quality of life, costs, major systemic therapy related toxicity, and objective radiological and histopathological response rates. DISCUSSION: This is the first randomised study that prospectively compares oncological outcomes of perioperative systemic therapy and CRS-HIPEC with upfront CRS-HIPEC alone for isolated resectable colorectal PM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov/ NCT02758951 , NTR/ NTR6301 , ISRCTN/ ISRCTN15977568 , EudraCT/ 2016-001865-99 .

Long-term survival after cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for patients with peritoneal metastases of urachal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Urachal adenocarcinoma (UrAC) is a rare malignancy arising from persistent urachal remnants, which can cause peritoneal metastases (PM). Currently, patients with this stage UrAC are considered beyond cure. Our objective is to report long-term oncological outcome after cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) for patients with PM of urachal adenocarcinoma (UrAC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 55 patients with UrAC treated at our hospital between 1994 and 2017. Patients were staged with CT, bone scintigraphy and/or PET/CT. From 2001 on, cN0M0 patients underwent staging laparoscopy. Ten patients had PM and were treated with CRS/HIPEC; 35 showed no metastases and underwent local treatment; 10 had distant metastases and received palliative chemotherapy. Disease-specific survival (DSS) rates were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank tests. Postoperative complications represent a secondary outcome. RESULTS: The median follow-up was 96.8 months. Of the CRS/HIPEC patients, 5 (50%) developed a recurrence; 4 (40%) died of disease. The 2-yr and 5-yr DSS after CRS/HIPEC were 66.7% and 55.6%, respectively. DSS of the CRS/HIPEC patients did not significantly differ from DSS of patients without metastases who only underwent curative local treatment and was superior to patients with distant metastases (P = 0.012). The overall complication rate after CRS/HIPEC was 60%. Major complications (Clavien 3) constituted 20%. The study is limited by its retrospective nature and the small sample size. CONCLUSION: CRS/HIPEC demonstrates satisfactory long-term oncological outcome for patients with PM of UrAC. It may be offered as a potentially curative treatment option for this group of patients.

Effect of Hospital Volume With Respect to Performing Gastric Cancer Resection on Recurrence and Survival: Results From the CRITICS Trial.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the association between surgical hospital volume and both overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) using data obtained from the international CRITICS (ChemoRadiotherapy after Induction chemotherapy In Cancer of the Stomach) trial. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: In the CRITICS trial, patients with resectable gastric cancer were randomized to receive preoperative chemotherapy followed by adequate gastrectomy and either chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: Patients in the CRITICS trial who underwent a gastrectomy with curative intent in a Dutch hospital were included in the analysis. The annual number of gastric cancer surgeries performed at the participating hospitals was obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry; the hospitals were then classified as low-volume (1-20 surgeries/year) or high-volume (≥21 surgeries/year) and matched with the CRITICS trial data. Univariate and multivariate analyses were then performed to evaluate the hazard ratio (HR) between hospital volume and both OS and DFS. RESULTS: From 2007 through 2015, 788 patients were included in the CRITICS trial. Among these 788 patients, 494 were eligible for our study; the median follow-up was 5.0 years. Five-year OS was 59.2% and 46.1% in the high-volume and low-volume hospitals, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that undergoing surgery in a high-volume hospital was associated with higher OS [HR = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.50-0.94, P = 0.020] and DFS (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.54-0.99, P = 0.040). CONCLUSIONS: In the CRITICS trial, hospitals with a high annual volume of gastric cancer surgery were associated with higher overall and DFS. These findings emphasize the value of centralizing gastric cancer surgeries in the Western world.

CRITICS-II: a multicentre randomised phase II trial of neo-adjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery versus neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and subsequent chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery versus neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery in resectable gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although radical surgery remains the cornerstone of cure in resectable gastric cancer, survival remains poor. Current evidence-based (neo)adjuvant strategies have shown to improve outcome, including perioperative chemotherapy, postoperative chemoradiotherapy and postoperative chemotherapy. However, these regimens suffer from poor patient compliance, particularly in the postoperative phase of treatment. The CRITICS-II trial aims to optimize preoperative treatment by comparing three treatment regimens: (1) chemotherapy, (2) chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy and (3) chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: In this multicentre phase II non-comparative study, patients with clinical stage IB-IIIC (TNM 8th edition) resectable gastric adenocarcinoma are randomised between: (1) 4 cycles of docetaxel+oxaliplatin+capecitabine (DOC), (2) 2 cycles of DOC followed by chemoradiotherapy (45Gy in combination with weekly paclitaxel and carboplatin) or (3) chemoradiotherapy. Primary endpoint is event-free survival, 1 year after randomisation (events are local and/or regional recurrence or progression, distant recurrence, or death from any cause). Secondary endpoints include: toxicity, surgical outcomes, percentage radical (R0) resections, pathological tumour response, disease recurrence, overall survival, and health related quality of life. Exploratory endpoints include translational studies on predictive and prognostic biomarkers. DISCUSSION: The aim of this study is to select the most promising among three preoperative treatment arms in patients with resectable gastric adenocarcinoma. This treatment regimen will subsequently be compared with the standard therapy in a phase III trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02931890 ; registered 13 October 2016. Date of first enrolment: 21 December 2017.

Chemotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy after surgery and preoperative chemotherapy for resectable gastric cancer (CRITICS): an international, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Both perioperative chemotherapy and postoperative chemoradiotherapy improve survival in patients with resectable gastric cancer from Europe and North America. To our knowledge, these treatment strategies have not been investigated in a head to head comparison. We aimed to compare perioperative chemotherapy with preoperative chemotherapy and postoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with resectable gastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older who had stage IB- IVA resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma (as defined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer, sixth edition), with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and adequate cardiac, bone marrow, liver, and kidney function. Patients were enrolled from 56 hospitals in the Netherlands, Sweden, and Denmark, and were randomly assigned (1:1) with a computerised minimisation programme with a random element to either perioperative chemotherapy (chemotherapy group) or preoperative chemotherapy with postoperative chemoradiotherapy (chemoradiotherapy group). Randomisation was done before patients were given any preoperative chemotherapy treatment and was stratified by histological subtype, tumour localisation, and hospital. Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. Surgery consisted of a radical resection of the primary tumour and at least a D1+ lymph node dissection. Postoperative treatment started within 4-12 weeks after surgery. Chemotherapy consisted of three preoperative 21-day cycles and three postoperative cycles of intravenous epirubicin (50 mg/m2 on day 1), cisplatin (60 mg/m2 on day 1) or oxaliplatin (130 mg/m2 on day 1), and capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 orally as tablets twice daily for 14 days in combination with epirubicin and cisplatin, or 625 mg/m2 orally as tablets twice daily for 21 days in combination with epirubicin and oxaliplatin), received once every three weeks. Chemoradiotherapy consisted of 45 Gy in 25 fractions of 1·8 Gy, for 5 weeks, five daily fractions per week, combined with capecitabine (575 mg/m2 orally twice daily on radiotherapy days) and cisplatin (20 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 of each 5 weeks of radiation treatment). The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention-to-treat. The CRITICS trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00407186; EudraCT, number 2006-004130-32; and CKTO, 2006-02. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11, 2007, and April 17, 2015, 788 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to chemotherapy (n=393) or chemoradiotherapy (n=395). After preoperative chemotherapy, 372 (95%) of 393 patients in the chemotherapy group and 369 (93%) of 395 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group proceeded to surgery, with a potentially curative resection done in 310 (79%) of 393 patients in the chemotherapy group and 326 (83%) of 395 in the chemoradiotherapy group. Postoperatively, 233 (59%) of 393 patients started chemotherapy and 245 (62%) of 395 started chemoradiotherapy. At a median follow-up of 61·4 months (IQR 43·3-82·8), median overall survival was 43 months (95% CI 31-57) in the chemotherapy group and 37 months (30-48) in the chemoradiotherapy group (hazard ratio from stratified analysis 1·01 (95% CI 0·84-1·22; p=0·90). After preoperative chemotherapy, in the total safety population of 781 patients (assessed together), there were 368 (47%) grade 3 adverse events; 130 (17%) grade 4 adverse events, and 13 (2%) deaths. Causes of death during preoperative treatment were diarrhoea (n=2), dihydropyrimidine deficiency (n=1), sudden death (n=1), cardiovascular events (n=8), and functional bowel obstruction (n=1). During postoperative treatment, grade 3 and 4 adverse events occurred in 113 (48%) and 22 (9%) of 233 patients in the chemotherapy group, respectively, and in 101 (41%) and ten (4%) of 245 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group, respectively. Non-febrile neutropenia occurred more frequently during postoperative chemotherapy (79 [34%] of 233) than during postoperative chemoradiotherapy (11 [4%] of 245). No deaths were observed during postoperative treatment. INTERPRETATION: Postoperative chemoradiotherapy did not improve overall survival compared with postoperative chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric cancer treated with adequate preoperative chemotherapy and surgery. In view of the poor postoperative patient compliance in both treatment groups, future studies should focus on optimising preoperative treatment strategies. FUNDING: Dutch Cancer Society, Dutch Colorectal Cancer Group, and Hoffmann-La Roche.

Phase I study of combined indomethacin and platinum-based chemotherapy to reduce platinum-induced fatty acids.

PURPOSE: Chemotherapy-resistance remains a major obstacle to effective anti-cancer treatment. We previously showed that platinum analogs cause the release of two fatty acids. These platinum-induced fatty acids (PIFAs) induced complete chemoresistance in mice, whereas co-administration of a COX-1 inhibitor, indomethacin, prevented PIFA release and significantly enhanced chemosensitivity. To assess the safety of combining indomethacin with platinum-based chemotherapy, and to explore its efficacy and associated PIFA levels, a multi-center phase I trial was conducted. METHODS: The study was comprised of two arms: oxaliplatin plus capecitabine (CAPOX, arm I) and cisplatin plus gemcitabine, capecitabine or 5FU (arm II) in patients for whom these regimens were indicated as standard care. Indomethacin was escalated from 25 to 75 mg TID, using a standard 3 × 3 design per arm, and was administered orally 8 days around chemo-infusion from cycle two onwards. PIFA levels were measured before and after treatment initiation, with and without indomethacin. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were enrolled, of which ten were evaluable for safety analyses. In arm I, no dose-limiting toxicities were observed, and all indomethacin dose levels were well-tolerated. Partial responses were observed in three patients (30%). Indomethacin lowered plasma levels of 12-S-hydroxy-5,8,10-heptadecatrienoic acid (12-S-HHT), whereas 4,7,10,13-hexadecatetraenoic acid (16:4(n-3)) levels were not affected. Only one patient was included in arm II; renal toxicity led to closure of this cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Combined indomethacin and CAPOX treatment is safe and reduces the concentrations of 12-S-HHT, which may be associated with improved chemosensitivity. The recommended phase II dose is 75 mg indomethacin TID given 8 days surrounding standard dosed CAPOX.

Treatment of Peritoneal Dissemination in Stomach Cancer Patients With Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC): Rationale and Design of the PERISCOPE Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with gastric cancer and peritoneal carcinomatosis have a very poor prognosis; median survival is 3 to 4 months. Palliative systemic chemotherapy is currently the only treatment available in the Netherlands. Intraoperative hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) has an established role in the treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis originating from colorectal cancer, appendiceal cancer, and pseudomyxoma peritonei; its role in gastric cancer is uncertain. Currently, there is no consensus on the choice of chemotherapeutic agents used in HIPEC for gastric cancer. OBJECTIVE: The main objectives of this study are (1) to investigate the safety, tolerability, and feasibility of gastrectomy combined with cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC after systemic chemotherapy, as a primary treatment option for patients with advanced gastric cancer with tumor positive peritoneal cytology and/or limited peritoneal carcinomatosis; and (2) to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of intraperitoneal docetaxel in combination with a fixed dose of intraperitoneal oxaliplatin. METHODS: The PERISCOPE study is a multicenter, open label, phase I-II dose-escalation study. The MTD of docetaxel will be studied using a 3+3 design. Patients with locally advanced (cT3-cT4) gastric adenocarcinoma are eligible for inclusion if the primary gastric tumor is considered resectable, tumor positive peritoneal cytology and/or limited peritoneal carcinomatosis is confirmed by diagnostic laparoscopy/ laparotomy, and prior systemic chemotherapy was without disease progression. At laparotomy, cytoreductive surgery (complete removal of all macroscopically visible tumor deposits) and a total or partial gastrectomy with a D2 lymph node dissection is performed. An open HIPEC technique is used with 460mg/m2 hyperthermic oxaliplatin for 30 minutes (41°C to 42°C) followed by normothermic docetaxel for 90 minutes (37°C) in a dose that will be escalated per 3 patients (0, 50, 75, 100, 125, 150 mg/m2). The primary endpoint is treatment related toxicity. RESULTS: Patient accrual is ongoing and the first results are expected in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: The PERISCOPE study will determine the safety, tolerability, and feasibility of gastrectomy combined with cytoreduction and HIPEC using oxaliplatin in combination with docetaxel after systemic chemotherapy as primary treatment option for gastric cancer patients with tumor positive peritoneal cytology and/or limited peritoneal carcinomatosis. This study will provide pharmacokinetic data on the intraperitoneal administration of oxaliplatin and docetaxel, including the MTD of intraperitoneal-administered docetaxel. These data are a prerequisite for the safe conduct of future HIPEC studies in patients with gastric cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Registration (NTR): NTR4250; http://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/ rctview.asp?TC=4250 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6rWJONgkt).

Timing of Systemic Chemotherapy in Patients With Colorectal Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Treated With Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Timing of systemic chemotherapy in patients with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis treated with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy is controversial. Preoperative systemic chemotherapy may offer benefits. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of timing of systemic chemotherapy on survival. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a tertiary referral center. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy from January 2004 until June 2015 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The influence of patient-related, tumor-related, and treatment-related factors on survival were investigated using Cox regression models. Main outcome was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 280 consecutive patients underwent cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. In group A, 78 patients (28%) were treated with preoperative or perioperative chemotherapy, cytoreductive surgery, and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. In group B, 169 patients (60%) were intentionally treated with cytoreductive surgery, hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy, and adjuvant chemotherapy. In group C, 33 patients (12%) had received their chemotherapy before peritoneal carcinomatosis was diagnosed. Median overall survival was 36.9 months (interquartile range, 20.6-79.7 mo) in group A, 43.1 months (interquartile range, 25.7-95.9 mo) in group B, and 34.0 months (interquartile range, 20.0-53.7 mo) in group C (p = 0.19). The extent of peritoneal carcinomatosis (region count of 3-5, HR = 1.58 (95% CI, 1.02-2.45), and 6-7, HR = 3.34 (95% CI, 1.66-6.72) vs 1-2 regions), a higher lymph node ratio (HR = 7.96 (95% CI, 2.16-29.31)), and cycles of systemic chemotherapy (0 cycles, HR = 2.52 (95% CI, 1.48-4.29)) and partial chemotherapy (HR = 2.15 (95% CI, 1.27-3.65) vs complete chemotherapy) were associated with poorer overall survival. LIMITATIONS: Selection bias is present because of the retrospective design of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Timing of systemic chemotherapy does not appear to have impact on survival in patients with colorectal peritoneal carcinomatosis undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy.

Survival of patients with colorectal peritoneal metastases is affected by treatment disparities among hospitals of diagnosis: A nationwide population-based study.

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, surgery for peritoneal metastases of colorectal cancer (PMCRC) is centralised, whereas PMCRC is diagnosed in all hospitals. This study assessed whether hospital of diagnosis affects treatment selection and overall survival (OS). METHODS: Between 2005 and 2015, all patients with synchronous PMCRC without systemic metastases were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Treatment was classified as cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS/HIPEC), systemic therapy or other/no treatment. Hospitals of diagnosis were classified as: (1) non-teaching or academic/teaching hospital and (2) HIPEC centre or referring hospital. Referring hospitals were further classified based on the frequency of CRS/HIPEC as high-, medium- or low-frequency hospital. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess the independent influence of hospital categories on the likelihood of CRS/HIPEC and OS. RESULTS: A total of 2661 patients, diagnosed in 89 hospitals, were included. At individual hospital level, CRS/HIPEC and systemic therapy ranged from 0% to 50% and 6% to 67%, respectively. Hospital of diagnosis influenced the likelihood of CRS/HIPEC: 33% versus 13% for HIPEC centres versus referring hospitals (odds ratio (OR) 3.66 [2.40-5.58]) and 11% versus 17% for non-teaching hospitals versus academic/teaching hospitals (OR 0.60 [0.47-0.77]). Hospital of diagnosis affected median OS: 14.1 versus 9.6 months for HIPEC centres versus referring hospitals (hazard ratio (HR) 0.82 [0.67-0.99]) and 8.7 versus 11.5 months for non-teaching hospitals versus academic/teaching hospitals (HR 1.15 [1.06-1.26]). Compared with diagnosis in medium-frequency referring hospitals, median OS was increased in high-frequency referring hospitals (12.6 months, HR 0.82 [0.73-0.91]) and reduced in low-frequency referring hospitals (8.1 months, HR 1.12 [1.01-1.24]). CONCLUSION: Treatment disparities among hospitals of diagnosis and their impact on survival indicate suboptimal treatment selection for PMCRC.

Human epididymis protein 4 immunostaining of malignant ascites differentiates cancer of Müllerian origin from gastrointestinal cancer.

BACKGROUND: An accurate diagnosis of cancer of Müllerian origin is required before the initiation of treatment. An overlap in clinical presentation and cytological, histological, or imaging studies with other nongynecological tumors does occur. Therefore, immunocytochemistry markers are used to determine tumor origin. Human epididymis protein 4 (HE4) is overexpressed in tissue of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). It has shown to be a sensitive and specific serum marker for EOC and to be of value for the differentiation between EOC and ovarian metastases of gastrointestinal origin. The objective of the current study was to evaluate HE4 immunocytochemistry in malignant ascites for differentiation between cancer of Müllerian origin, including EOC, and adenocarcinomas of the gastrointestinal tract. METHODS: Cytological specimens of 115 different adenocarcinomas (45 EOCs, 46 cases of gastric cancer, and 24 cases of colorectal cancer) were stained for HE4, paired box 8 (PAX8), and other specific markers. RESULTS: 91% of the ascites samples from patients with EOC stained for both HE4 and PAX8. The 4 samples without HE4 staining were a clear cell carcinoma, a low-grade serous adenocarcinoma, an undifferentiated adenocarcinoma, and a neuroendocrine carcinoma. All high-grade serous adenocarcinomas (n = 37, 100%) stained with HE4, compared with 94% that stained positively for PAX8. In cases of gastric or colorectal cancer, 25% and 21% of cases, respectively, stained positive for HE4. No PAX8 staining was observed in colorectal or gastric adenocarcinomas. CONCLUSIONS: HE4 staining in ascites is feasible and appears to have a high sensitivity for high-grade serous ovarian cancer. HE4 is a useful addition to the current panel of immunocytochemistry markers for the diagnosis of EOC and for differentiation with gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas. Cancer Cytopathol 2017;125:197-204. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Upfront Genotyping of DPYD*2A to Individualize Fluoropyrimidine Therapy: A Safety and Cost Analysis.

PURPOSE: Fluoropyrimidines are frequently prescribed anticancer drugs. A polymorphism in the fluoropyrimidine metabolizing enzyme dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD; ie, DPYD*2A) is strongly associated with fluoropyrimidine-induced severe and life-threatening toxicity. This study determined the feasibility, safety, and cost of DPYD*2A genotype-guided dosing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients intended to be treated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy were prospectively genotyped for DPYD*2A before start of therapy. Variant allele carriers received an initial dose reduction of ≥ 50% followed by dose titration based on tolerance. Toxicity was the primary end point and was compared with historical controls (ie, DPYD*2A variant allele carriers receiving standard dose described in literature) and with DPYD*2A wild-type patients treated with the standard dose in this study. Secondary end points included a model-based cost analysis, as well as pharmacokinetic and DPD enzyme activity analyses. RESULTS: A total of 2,038 patients were prospectively screened for DPYD*2A, of whom 22 (1.1%) were heterozygous polymorphic. DPYD*2A variant allele carriers were treated with a median dose-intensity of 48% (range, 17% to 91%). The risk of grade ≥ 3 toxicity was thereby significantly reduced from 73% (95% CI, 58% to 85%) in historical controls (n = 48) to 28% (95% CI, 10% to 53%) by genotype-guided dosing (P < .001); drug-induced death was reduced from 10% to 0%. Adequate treatment of genotype-guided dosing was further demonstrated by a similar incidence of grade ≥ 3 toxicity compared with wild-type patients receiving the standard dose (23%; P = .64) and by similar systemic fluorouracil (active drug) exposure. Furthermore, average total treatment cost per patient was lower for screening (€2,772 [$3,767]) than for nonscreening (€2,817 [$3,828]), outweighing screening costs. CONCLUSION: DPYD*2A is strongly associated with fluoropyrimidine-induced severe and life-threatening toxicity. DPYD*2A genotype-guided dosing results in adequate systemic drug exposure and significantly improves safety of fluoropyrimidine therapy for the individual patient. On a population level, upfront genotyping seemed cost saving.

Trastuzumab and bevacizumab combined with docetaxel, oxaliplatin and capecitabine as first-line treatment of advanced HER2-positive gastric cancer: a multicenter phase II study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of bevacizumab and trastuzumab combined with docetaxel, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (B-DOCT) as first-line treatment of advanced human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive gastric cancer (GC). METHODS: In this multicentre, single-arm, phase II study, tumor HER2 status was determined centrally prior to treatment. Patients with advanced HER2-positive adenocarcinoma of the stomach or gastroesophageal junction (immunohistochemistry 3+ or immunohistochemistry 2+/silver in-situ hybridization positive) were treated with six cycles of bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg (day 1), docetaxel 50 mg/m(2) (day 1), oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) (day 1), capecitabine 850 mg/m(2) b.i.d. (days 1-14), and trastuzumab 6 mg/kg (day 1) every three weeks, followed by maintenance with bevacizumab, capecitabine, and trastuzumab until disease progression. The primary objective was to demonstrate an improvement of progression-free survival (PFS) to >7.6 months (observed in the ToGA trial) determined according to the lower limit of the 95 % confidence interval (CI). Secondary endpoints were safety, objective response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Twenty-five patients with HER2-positive tumors were treated with B-DOCT between March 2011 and September 2014. At a median follow-up of 17 months, median PFS was 10.8 months (95%CI: 9.0-NA), OS was 17.9 months (95%CI: 12.4-NA). One-year PFS and OS were 52 % and 79 %, respectively. The ORR was 74 % (95%CI: 52-90 %). Two patients became resectable during treatment with B-DOCT and achieved a pathological complete response. The most common treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events were: neutropenia (16 %), diarrhoea (16 %), and hypertension (16 %). CONCLUSIONS: B-DOCT is a safe and active combination in HER2-positive GC, supporting further investigations of DOC with HER2/vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) inhibition in HER2-positive GC.

[Peritonitis carcinomatosa from colorectal carcinoma: new treatment options]. / Peritonitis carcinomatosa van colorectaal carcinoom: nieuwe behandelmogelijkheden.

Peritonitis carcinomatosa occurs in 10% of patients with colorectal carcinoma. Compared with patients with lung and liver metastases, survival in patients with peritonitis carcinomatosa is worse if treated with systemic chemotherapy. However, treatment with cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) offers longer survival than systemic chemotherapy. A Dutch registration study shows that the 3- and 5-year survival of patients treated with cytoreductive surgery and HIPEC had a 3-year survival of 46% and a 5-year survival of 31%. Mortality and morbidity have dropped greatly due to standardisation of the intervention in accordance with the Dutch protocol.

Phase 1a/1b and pharmacogenetic study of docetaxel, oxaliplatin and capecitabine in patients with advanced cancer of the stomach or the gastroesophageal junction.

PURPOSE: The prognosis of gastroesophageal cancer is poor, and current regimens are associated with limited efficacy. The purpose of this study was to explore the safety and preliminary efficacy of docetaxel, oxaliplatin plus capecitabine for advanced cancer of the stomach or the gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic analyses. METHODS: Patients were treated in escalating dose levels with docetaxel and oxaliplatin (both on day 1), plus capecitabine b.i.d. on days 1-14 every 3 weeks, to determine the dose-limiting toxicity and maximum tolerated dose (MTD). An expansion cohort was treated at the MTD. A total of ten polymorphisms in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic candidate genes were analyzed and tested for association with treatment outcome. RESULTS: A total of 34 evaluable patients were enrolled. The MTD was docetaxel 50 mg/m(2), oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) plus capecitabine 850 mg/m(2) b.i.d. The median number of treatment cycles was 6 (range 2-8). Grade ≥ 3 toxicities included neutropenia (24 %), leukocytopenia (15 %), febrile neutropenia (12 %), fatigue (9 %) and diarrhea (6 %). The overall response rate was 45 %; two patients achieved a complete response. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 6.5 months (95 % CI 5.4-7.6) and 11.0 months (95 % CI 7.9-14.1), respectively. The polymorphisms ERCC1 354C>T, TYMS 1053C>T and rs2612091 in ENOSF1 were associated with severe toxicity; ERCC1 354C>T and ERCC2 2251A>C were associated with poor progression-free survival. CONCLUSION: Docetaxel, oxaliplatin plus capecitabine are a well-tolerable, safe and effective treatment regimen for patients with advanced cancer of the stomach or GEJ. Pharmacogenetic markers in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic candidate genes may be predictive for treatment outcome.

Radiation-induced dose-dependent changes of the spleen following postoperative chemoradiotherapy for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Abdominal (chemo-)radiotherapy is associated with dose-limiting toxicity of various normal structures. The purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate radiation-induced changes of the spleen and their clinical consequences. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In gastric cancer patients treated with postoperative chemoradiotherapy, the spleen size and its functions were assessed at follow-up by spleen volume on CT-scan, serum leucocytes/thrombocytes, and the occurrence of infectious events consisting of pneumonia and fatal sepsis. To evaluate the effect of radiation dose, mixed effects and Cox regression models were used. RESULTS: Forty-six out of 90 consecutive patients treated from 2006 to 2011 were evaluable. All patients received 45 Gy in 25 fractions with concurrent capecitabine (n=8), and capecitabine/cisplatin (n=38). Median Dmean to the spleen was 40 Gy (range 32-46). Mean relative spleen volume reduced to 37% (95% CI 32-42%) at 4-year follow-up, which was most strongly associated to the V44 (p<0.001). Median follow-up time was 67 (95% CI 57-78) months. Eleven patients had 13 pneumonias and 3 fatal sepsis. No association with dosimetric parameters was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In postoperative chemoradiotherapy for gastric cancer, the spleen received a high radiation dose. This resulted in a progressive, radiation dose-dependent reduction of spleen volume. Pneumonia and fatal sepsis occurred frequently, possibly as a result of functional hyposplenia.

Recent trends and predictors of multimodality treatment for oesophageal, oesophagogastric junction, and gastric cancer: A Dutch cohort-study.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, evidence supporting multimodality treatment for oesophageal, oesophagogastric junction (OGJ), and gastric cancer has accumulated. This population-based cohort-study investigates trends and predictors of utilisation of multimodality treatment for oesophagogastric cancer in the Netherlands. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry regarding patients with oesophageal (n = 5450), OGJ (n = 2168) and gastric cancer (n = 6683) without distant metastases who had undergone R0 or R1 surgery diagnosed between 2000 and 2012. Follow-up was completed until February 2014. Preoperative/postoperative chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy combined with surgery were considered multimodality treatment. Logistic regression analysis was performed to analyse the association of age, gender, socioeconomic status, clinical T and N classification, hospital type, comprehensive cancer centre network region, and year of diagnosis, with multimodality treatment receipt. Additional analyses were performed to explore differences in trends of utilisation of multimodality treatment between academic and non-academic hospitals. RESULTS: Multimodality treatment utilisation for oesophageal, OGJ and gastric cancer increased significantly to 90%, 85% and 56% in 2012, respectively. In oesophageal and OGJ cancer patients, preoperative chemoradiotherapy was most frequently administered (85% and 47% in 2012, respectively), and in gastric cancer patients preoperative chemotherapy (47% in 2012). Lower age, higher clinical T and N classification, and diagnosis in more recent years were significantly associated with more frequent multimodality treatment receipt. The adoption of most types of multimodality treatment in academic hospitals preceded non-academic hospitals by a year. CONCLUSION: In the Netherlands, the utilisation of multimodality treatment for oesophagogastric cancer has significantly increased during the past decade, especially in oesophageal and OGJ cancer. Multimodality treatment utilisation was especially dependent on patient and tumour characteristics and year of diagnosis, but multimodality treatment trends seem to be related to the publication of landmark studies, participation in nationally running clinical trials, and hospital type, preceding national guidelines.

Does adjuvant chemoradiotherapy improve the prognosis of gastric cancer after an r1 resection? Results from a dutch cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) on survival of non-metastatic gastric cancer patients who had undergone an R1 resection. METHODS: We compared the survival of patients after an R1 gastric cancer resection from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry who did not receive adjuvant CRT (no-CRT group) with the survival of resected patients who had been treated with adjuvant CRT (CRT group) at our institute. Patients who had a resection between 2002 and 2011 were included. CRT consisted of radiotherapy (45 Gy) combined with concurrent cisplatin- or 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy. The impact of CRT treatment on overall survival was assessed using multivariable Cox regression and stratified propensity score analysis. RESULTS: A series of 409 gastric cancer patients who had undergone an R1 resection were studied (no-CRT, N = 369; CRT, N = 40). In the no-CRT group, median age was higher (70 vs. 57 years; p < 0.001) and the percentage of patients with diffuse-type tumors was lower (43 vs. 80 %; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in pathological T- and N-classification. There was a significant difference in median overall survival between the no-CRT and CRT group (13 vs. 24 months; p = 0.003). In a multivariable analysis, adjuvant CRT was an independent prognostic factor for improved overall survival (hazard ratio 0.54; 95 % confidence interval 0.35-0.84). This effect of CRT was further supported by propensity score analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant CRT was associated with an improved survival in patients who had undergone an R1 resection for gastric cancer.

A new fully covered metal stent with anti-migration features for the treatment of malignant dysphagia.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: A new esophageal stent with two anti-migration features was developed to minimize migration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of this stent in patients with malignant dysphagia. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 40 patients with dysphagia due to a malignant obstruction of the esophagus were prospectively enrolled in this cohort study. RESULTS: Stent placement was technically successful in 39 patients (98 %). The median dysphagia-free time after stent placement was 220 days (95 % confidence interval 94 - 345 days). Nine patients (23 %) experienced recurrent dysphagia due to tissue overgrowth (n = 2), stent fracture (n = 1), and partial (n = 5) or complete (n = 1) stent migration. A total of 16 serious adverse events occurred in 14 patients (36 %), with hemorrhage (n = 3) and severe nausea or vomiting (n = 3) being the most common causes. CONCLUSIONS: This new stent design was effective for the palliation of malignant dysphagia and had a low rate of recurrent dysphagia. However, despite the anti-migration features, stent migration was still a major cause of recurrent dysphagia. Furthermore, treatment was associated with a high adverse event rate. Dutch Trial Registration (NTR 3313).