Regorafenib after failure of gemcitabine and platinum-based chemotherapy for locally advanced/metastatic biliary tumors: REACHIN, a randomized, double-blind, phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a high unmet clinical need for treatments of advanced/metastatic biliary tract cancers after progression on first-line chemotherapy. Regorafenib has demonstrated efficacy in some gastrointestinal tumors that progress on standard therapies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: REACHIN was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized phase II study designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of regorafenib in patients with nonresectable/metastatic biliary tract cancer that progressed after gemcitabine/platinum chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned 1 : 1 to best supportive care plus either regorafenib 160 mg once daily 3 weeks on/1 week off or placebo until progression or unacceptable toxicity. No crossover was allowed. The primary objective was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives were response rate, overall survival, and translational analysis. RESULTS: Sixty-six patients with intrahepatic (n = 42), perihilar (n = 6), or extrahepatic (n = 9) cholangiocarcinoma, or gallbladder carcinoma (n = 9) were randomized, 33 to each treatment group (33 per group). At a median follow-up of 24 months, all patients had progressed and six patients were alive. Median treatment duration was 11.0 weeks [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.0-15.9] in the regorafenib group and 6.3 weeks (95% CI: 3.9-7.0) in the placebo group (P = 0.002). Fourteen of 33 patients (42%) in the regorafenib group had a dose reduction. Stable disease rates were 74% (95% CI: 59-90) in the regorafenib group and 34% with placebo (95% CI: 18-51; P = 0.002). Median PFS in the regorafenib group was 3.0 months (95% CI: 2.3-4.9) and 1.5 months (95% CI: 1.2-2.0) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0.49; 95% CI: 0.29-0.81; P = 0.004) and median overall survival was 5.3 months (95% CI: 2.7-10.5) and 5.1 months (95% CI: 3.0-6.4), respectively (P = 0.28). There were no unexpected/new safety signals. CONCLUSION: Regorafenib significantly improved PFS and tumor control in patients with previously treated metastatic/unresectable biliary tract cancer in the second- or third-line setting. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered in the European Clinical Trials Register database (EudraCT 2012-005626-30) and at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02162914).

Adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer: Current evidence and recommendations for clinical practice.

While adjuvant chemotherapy is an established treatment for pathological stage II and especially stage III colon cancer, its role in the multimodal management of rectal cancer remains controversial. As a result, there is substantial variation in the use of this treatment in clinical practice. Even among centres and physicians who consider adjuvant chemotherapy as a standard treatment, notable heterogeneity exists with regard to patient selection criteria and chemotherapy regimens. The controversy around this topic is confirmed by the lack of full consensus among national and international clinical guidelines. While most of the clinical trials do not support the contention that adjuvant chemotherapy may improve survival outcomes if pre-operative (chemo)radiotherapy is also given, these suffer from many limitations that preclude drawing definitive conclusions. Nevertheless, in the era of evidence-based medicine, physicians should be guided by the available data and refrain from extrapolating results of adjuvant colon cancer trials to inform treatment decisions for rectal cancer. Patients should be informed of the evidence gap, be given the opportunity to carefully discuss pros and cons of all the possible management options and be empowered in the decision making. In this article we review the available evidence on adjuvant chemotherapy for rectal cancer and propose a risk-adapted decisional algorithm that largely relies on informed patient preferences.

[Treatment of small cell lung cancer: limited disease. Guidelines of clinical practice made by the European Lung Cancer Working Party]. / Traitement du cancer bronchique à petites cellules : maladies limitées. Recommandations de pratique clinique de l'European Cancer Working Party.

These updated clinical practice guidelines on the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC) limited disease formulated by the ELCWP aim to answer the following questions: 1) What is the definition of limited disease? 2) Is thoracic irradiation needed and what are the benefits? 3) What is the optimal time and method of chest irradiation? 4) What are the optimal parameters of irradiation : dose, fractionation, target volume? 5) When radiochemotherapy is not possible at the outset, how should consider radiotherapy after induction chemotherapy ? 6) What is the optimal chemotherapy for limited stage SCLC? 7) Should preventive brain irradiation be given and if so, when and to which patients? 8) What is the complementary role of thoracic surgery in early SCLC?

Primitive pulmonary "malignant epithelioid hemangioendothelioma" versus epithelioid angiosarcoma. A case report and review of the literature.

We describe the case of a 56-year-old man presenting a primary pulmonary epithelioid angiosarcoma versus malignant epithelioid hemangioendothelioma still alive, without recurrence at nearly two years after the beginning of the symptoms. The primary pulmonary angiosarcoma is extremely rare, being reported only in a handful of cases. Metastatic involvement of the lung (90%) is far more common than primary pulmonary involvement (10%). Various predisposing condition for the development of angiosarcoma have been described. Early diagnosis is not common, because of the rarity of angiosarcoma in the lung and consequent low index of suspicion. Due to the paucity of cases, there are no defined treatment regimens for this entity. However, there is a tendency for surgical intervention in all reported cases.

Surrogate markers predicting overall survival for lung cancer: ELCWP recommendations.

The present systematic review was performed under the auspices of the European Lung Cancer Working Party (ELCWP) in order to determine the role of early intermediate criteria (surrogate markers), instead of survival, in determining treatment efficacy in patients with lung cancer. Initially, the level of evidence for the use of overall survival to evaluate treatment efficacy was reviewed. Nine questions were then formulated by the ELCWP. After reviewing the literature with experts on these questions, it can be concluded that overall survival is still the best criterion for predicting treatment efficacy in lung cancer. Some intermediate criteria can be early predictors, if not surrogates, for survival, despite limitations in their potential application: these include time to progression, progression-free survival, objective response, local control after radiotherapy, downstaging in locally advanced nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC), complete resection and pathological TNM in resected NSCLC, and a few circulating markers. Other criteria assessed in these recommendations are not currently adequate surrogates of survival in lung cancer.

A phase III randomised study comparing concomitant radiochemotherapy as induction versus consolidation treatment in patients with locally advanced unresectable non-small cell lung cancer.

As concomitant chemoradiotherapy for stage III NSCLC is associated with survival advantage in comparison to a sequential approach, we conducted a phase III randomised study aiming to determine the best sequence and safety of chemotherapy (CT) and chemoradiotherapy (CT-RT), using a regimen with cisplatin (CDDP), gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNR). Unresectable stage III NSCLC patients received CDDP (60 mg/m(2)), GEM (1g/m(2), days 1 and 8) and VNR (25mg/m(2), days 1 and 8) with reduced dosage of GEM and VNR during radiotherapy (66Gy). Two cycles of CT with radiotherapy followed by two further cycles of CT alone were administered in arm A or the reverse sequence in arm B. The study was prematurely closed for poor accrual due to administrative problems. Forty-nine eligible patients were randomised. Response rates and median survival times were, respectively 57% (95% CI: 36-78%) and 17 months (95% CI: 9.3-24.6 months) in arm A and 79% (95% CI: 64-94%) and 23.9 months (95% CI: 13.3-34.5 months) in arm B (p>0.05). Chemotherapy dose-intensity was significantly reduced in arm A. Grade 3-4 oesophagitis occurred in 5 patients. One case of grade 5 radiation pneumonitis was observed. In conclusion, chemoradiotherapy with CDDP, GEM and VNR appears feasible as initial treatment or after induction chemotherapy. Consolidation chemoradiotherapy seems less toxic with a better observed response rates and survival although no valid conclusion can be drawn from the comparison of both arms.