Esophageal cancer - French intergroup clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, RENAPE, SNFCP, AFEF, SFR).

INTRODUCTION: This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of esophageal cancer (EC) published in July 2022, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org). METHODS: This collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of several French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of EC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B and C), according to the level of evidence found in the literature until April 2022. RESULTS: EC diagnosis and staging evaluation are mainly based on patient's general condition assessment, endoscopy plus biopsies, TAP CT-scan and 18F FDG-PET. Surgery alone is recommended for early-stage EC, while locally advanced disease (N+ and/or T3-4) is treated with perioperative chemotherapy (FLOT) or preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy for adenocarcinoma. Preoperative chemoradiation (CROSS regimen) followed by immunotherapy or definitive chemoradiation with the possibility of organ preservation are the two options for squamous cell carcinoma. Salvage surgery is recommended for incomplete response or recurrence after definitive chemoradiation and should be performed in an expert center. Treatment for metastatic disease is based on systemic therapy including chemotherapy, immunotherapy or combined targeted therapy according to biomarkers testing such as HER2 status, MMR status and PD-L1 expression. CONCLUSION: These guidelines are intended to provide a personalised therapeutic strategy for daily clinical practice and are subject to ongoing optimization. Each individual case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

Sunitinib in pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors: updated progression-free survival and final overall survival from a phase III randomized study.

BACKGROUND: In a phase III trial in patients with advanced, well-differentiated, progressive pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, sunitinib 37.5 mg/day improved investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo (11.4 versus 5.5 months; HR, 0.42; P < 0.001). Here, we present PFS using retrospective blinded independent central review (BICR) and final median overall survival (OS), including an assessment highlighting the impact of patient crossover from placebo to sunitinib. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, cross-sectional imaging from patients was evaluated retrospectively by blinded third-party radiologists using a two-reader, two-time-point lock, followed by a sequential locked-read, batch-mode paradigm. OS was summarized using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model. Crossover-adjusted OS effect was derived using rank-preserving structural failure time (RPSFT) analyses. RESULTS: Of 171 randomized patients (sunitinib, n = 86; placebo, n = 85), 160 (94%) had complete scan sets/time points. By BICR, median (95% confidence interval [CI]) PFS was 12.6 (11.1-20.6) months for sunitinib and 5.8 (3.8-7.2) months for placebo (HR, 0.32; 95% CI 0.18-0.55; P = 0.000015). Five years after study closure, median (95% CI) OS was 38.6 (25.6-56.4) months for sunitinib and 29.1 (16.4-36.8) months for placebo (HR, 0.73; 95% CI 0.50-1.06; P = 0.094), with 69% of placebo patients having crossed over to sunitinib. RPSFT analysis confirmed an OS benefit for sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS: BICR confirmed the doubling of PFS with sunitinib compared with placebo. Although the observed median OS improved by nearly 10 months, the effect estimate did not reach statistical significance, potentially due to crossover from placebo to sunitinib. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00428597.

Patterns of recurrence in early-stage oesophageal cancer after chemoradiotherapy and surgery compared with surgery alone.

BACKGROUND: Patterns of disease recurrence in patients with oesophageal cancer following treatment with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery (nCRTS) or surgery alone are poorly reported. An understanding of patterns of disease recurrence is important for subsequent treatment planning. METHODS: An analysis was undertaken of patterns of disease recurrence from a phase III multicentre randomized trial (FFCD9901) comparing nCRTS with surgery alone in patients with stage I and II oesophageal cancer. RESULTS: Some 170 patients undergoing surgical resection were included in the study. R0 resection rates were similar in the two groups: 94 per cent following nCRTS versus 92 per cent after surgery alone (P = 0·749). After a median follow-up of 94·2 months, recurrent disease was found in 39·4 per cent of the overall cohort (31 per cent after nCRTS versus 47 per cent following surgery alone; P = 0·030). Locoregional recurrence was diagnosed in 41 patients (17 versus 30 per cent respectively; P = 0·047) and distant metastatic recurrence in 47 (23 versus 31 per cent respectively; P = 0·244). Metastatic recurrence was more frequent in patients with adenocarcinoma than in those with squamous cell cancer (40 versus 23·1 per cent respectively; P = 0·032). ypT0 N0 category was associated with prolonged time to mixed locoregional and metastatic recurrence (P = 0·009), and time to locoregional (P = 0·044) and metastatic (P = 0·055) recurrence. In multivariable analysis, node-positive disease predicted both locoregional (P = 0·001) and metastatic (P < 0·001) recurrence. CONCLUSION: Locoregional disease control following nCRTS indicated a local field effect not related solely to completeness of resection. pN+ disease was strongly predictive of time to locoregional and metastatic disease recurrence.

Sorafenib and irinotecan (NEXIRI) as second- or later-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and KRAS-mutated tumours: a multicentre Phase I/II trial.

BACKGROUND: This trial evaluated the feasibility and efficacy of combined sorafenib and irinotecan (NEXIRI) as second- or later-line treatment of patients with KRAS-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), who had progressed after irinotecan-based chemotherapy. METHODS: In Phase I, in a 3+3 dose escalation schedule, patients received irinotecan (125, 150 or 180 mg m(-2) every 2 weeks), in combination with 400 mg sorafenib b.d. The primary end point was the maximum-tolerated dose of irinotecan. In Phase II, the primary end point was disease control rate (DCR). Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. RESULTS: Phase I included 10 patients (median age 63 (49-73)); no dose-limiting toxicity was seen. In Phase II, 54 patients (median age 60 (43-80) years) received irinotecan 180 mg m(-)(2) every 2 weeks with sorafenib 400 mg b.d. Nine patients (17%) remained on full-dose sorafenib. The DCR was 64.9% (95% CI, 51-77). Median PFS and OS were 3.7 (95% CI, 3.2-4.7) and 8.0 (95% CI, 4.8-9.7) months, respectively. Toxicities included Grade 3 diarrhoea (37%), neutropenia (18%), hand-foot syndrome (13%) and Grade 4 neutropenia (17%). CONCLUSION: The NEXIRI regimen showed promising activity as second- or later-line treatment in this heavily pretreated mCRC population (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00989469).

BAYPAN study: a double-blind phase III randomized trial comparing gemcitabine plus sorafenib and gemcitabine plus placebo in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib is an oral anticancer agent targeting Ras-dependent signaling and angiogenic pathways. A phase I trial demonstrated that the combination of gemcitabine and sorafenib was well tolerated and had activity in advanced pancreatic cancer (APC) patients. The BAYPAN study was a multicentric, placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized phase III trial comparing gemcitabine/sorafenib and gemcitabine/placebo in the treatment of APC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The patient eligibility criteria were locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma, no prior therapy for advanced disease and a performance status of zero to two. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) i.v., weekly seven times followed by 1 rest week, then weekly three times every 4 weeks plus sorafenib 200 mg or placebo, two tablets p.o., twice daily continuously. RESULTS: Between December 2006 and September 2009, 104 patients were enrolled on the study (52 pts in each arm) and 102 patients were treated. The median and the 6-month PFS were 5.7 months and 48% for gemcitabine/placebo and 3.8 months and 33% for gemcitabine/sorafenib (P = 0.902, stratified log-rank test), respectively. The median overall survivals were 9.2 and 8 months, respectively (P = 0.231, log-rank test). The overall response rates were similar (19 and 23%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The addition of sorafenib to gemcitabine does not improve PFS in APC patients.

Prognostic impact of weight loss in 1-year survivors after transthoracic esophagectomy for cancer.

Malnutrition is common 1 year after esophageal cancer surgery. However, the prognostic impact of this malnutrition on long-term outcome has been poorly reported. This study aims at determining the potential effect on disease-free survival (DFS) of weight loss observed at 1 year in disease-free survivors after curative esophageal resection. From a prospective single-institution database, 304 patients having undergone a transthoracic esophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy and gastric reconstruction between 1996 to 2008 were identified. Patients who died during the postoperative course (n= 24), patients who died within the first postoperative year (n= 12), patients who presented with an early recurrence within the first postoperative year (n= 20), and those who were lost to follow-up (n= 22) were excluded from the study, as well as those for whom the follow-up was shorter than 1 year (n= 21). The remaining 205 patients constituted a homogeneous group of 1-year disease-free survivors after full postoperative work-up and formed the material of the present study. Body weight (BW) values were collected before any treatment at the onset of symptoms (initial BW) and 1 year after esophagectomy. A 1-year weight loss (1-YWL) exceeding 10% of the initial BW defined an important malnutrition. Impact of the 1-YWL ≥ or <10% of the initial BW on DFS was investigated. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors affecting DFS. The mean initial BW was 69.1 ± 12 kg, corresponding to a mean body mass index (BMI) of 23.8 ± 3 kg/m(2) . Preoperatively, 32 (15%) patients were in the underweight category (BMI < 20 kg/m2), 110 (54%) were in normal (BMI = 20-24 kg/m2), and 63 (31%) were in the overweight category (BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2). Mean 1-year BW was 63.5 ± 12 kg. 1-YWL was <10% of the initial BW in 92 patients (45%) and ≥ 10% in 113 patients (55%). Accordingly, 5-year DFS rates were 66% (median: 80 months) and 48% (median: 51 months), respectively (P= 0.005). On multivariate analysis, only three independent variables affected the DFS significantly: clinical N stage (cN) status (P= 0.007; odds ratio: 1.99, 1.2-3.3), incomplete resection (P= 0.008, OR: 3.6, 1.3-9.3), and 1-YWL ≥ 10% (P= 0.004, OR: 2.1: 1.2-3.4). 1-YWL of or exceeding 10% of the initial BW in 1-year disease-free survivors has a negative prognostic impact on DFS after esophagectomy for cancer. This information offers another view on the objectives of the perioperative nutritional care of these patients. Special vigilance program on the nutritional status in post-esophagectomy patients should be the rule.

Capecitabine versus 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer: final results from the X-ACT trial with analysis by age and preliminary evidence of a pharmacodynamic marker of efficacy.

BACKGROUND: This multicenter randomized trial compared oral capecitabine with bolus i.v. 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid (FA) as adjuvant therapy for stage III colon cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were assigned to 24 weeks of capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks or 5-FU/FA (Mayo Clinic regimen). The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population received capecitabine (n = 1004) or 5-FU/FA (n = 983). With a median follow-up of 6.9 years, capecitabine was at least equivalent to 5-FU/FA in terms of DFS [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-1.01] and overall survival (OS) (HR = 0.86; 95% CI 0.74-1.01); the 95% CI upper limits were significantly less than the predefined noninferiority margins of 1.20 (P < 0.0001) and 1.14 (P < 0.001), respectively. This pattern was maintained in all subgroups, including patients aged ≥ 70 years. Preplanned multivariate analyses showed that capecitabine had statistically significant beneficial effects on DFS (P = 0.021) and OS (P = 0.020) versus 5-FU/FA. A post hoc analysis suggested that the occurrence of hand-foot syndrome may be associated with better outcomes in capecitabine recipients. CONCLUSION: Oral capecitabine is an effective alternative to bolus 5-FU/FA as adjuvant treatment of patients with stage III colon cancer with efficacy benefits maintained at 5 years and in older patients.

Sociogeographical factors associated with participation in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Sociodemographic factors associated with colorectal cancer screening participation have been extensively analysed although few, if any, studies have focused on regional/geographical factors as determinants of non-participation rates. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of individual and geographical determinants on the variable participation rates seen for colorectal cancer screening. METHODS: The study population comprised 183,978 individuals in the first round of screening and 175,596 in the second round, all of whom were residents of the city of Marseille in France. The influence of age, gender and regional/geographical characteristics, such as proportion of migrants and property prices per square meter, on participation rates was assessed by multilevel analysis. RESULTS: The participation rate was lower for men (0.85; 95% CI: 0.83-0.86), and higher for those aged 65-69 years. Univariate analysis showed that participation rates were significantly different across the 16 municipal districts of Marseille (range: 22.8-36.7%; OR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.86-2.08). On multivariate analysis, having a higher proportion of migrants in the district population was still associated with lower participation (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.95-0.97). CONCLUSION: In addition to individual factors, regional/geographical factors appear to be relevant determinants of participation rates in urban colorectal cancer screening programs.

[Use of sorafenib in patients with hepatocellular or renal carcinoma]. / Bon usage du sorafénib chez les patients pris en charge pour un carcinome hépatocellulaire ou un cancer du rein.

Therapeutic approaches of cancers have been recently improved by the development of targeted therapies. Amongst these new drugs, some anti-angiogenic molecules have been approved by either the EMEA or the Food and Drug Administration. Sorafenib, one of these inhibitors of angiogenesis, has been established as the standard of care for advanced hepatocellular and renal carcinoma. This paper reviews the safety profile of sorafenib and presents guidelines for the prevention and the treatment of the main side effects associated with this molecule.

A phase III randomised trial of LV5FU2 + irinotecan versus LV5FU2 alone in adjuvant high-risk colon cancer (FNCLCC Accord02/FFCD9802).

BACKGROUND: This multicenter adjuvant phase III trial evaluated the addition of irinotecan to LV5FU2 in colon cancer patients at high risk of relapse. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 400 patients with histologically proven primary colon cancer with postoperative N1 detected by occlusion/perforation or N2 were randomised to: A-LV5FU2 [leucovorin 200 mg/m(2), 2-h infusion, 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) 400 mg/m(2) bolus, 600 mg/m(2) 22-h continuous infusion, days 1 and 2] or B-LV5FU2 + IRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m(2) 90-min infusion day 1 + LV5FU2) fortnightly for 12 cycles. Primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 63 months. Significantly more T4 tumours and 15 or more positive lymph nodes were observed in arm B. 5-FU relative dose intensity (RDI) was >0.80 for 94% and 77% in arms A and B, respectively (P < 0.001). Irinotecan RDI was >0.80 for 70% patients. There were more grades 3 and 4 neutropenia in arm B (4% versus 28%, P < 0.001). The 3-year DFS was 60% [95% confidence interval (CI) 53% to 66%] and 51% (95% CI 44% to 58) in arms A and B, respectively. No difference was observed [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.12, 95% CI 0.85-1.47, P = 0.42] even when adjusted for prognostic factors (adjusted HR = 0.98, 95% CI 0.74-1.31, P = 0.92). The 5-year overall survival (OS) was 67% (95% CI 59% to 73%) and 61% (95% CI 53% to 67%) in arms A and B, respectively. CONCLUSION: Adjuvant LV5FU2 + IRI compared with LV5FU2 alone in patients at high risk of relapse showed no improvement in DFS and OS.

Thirteen-month registration of patients with gastroenteropancreatic endocrine tumours in France.

The prevalence, clinical profiles and management of gastroenteropancreatic endocrine tumours (GEP) in France are not known. From August 1, 2001 to September 1, 2002, standardized records on patients with GEP were prospectively completed in 87 participating centres. The total group amounted to 668 patients (median age: 56 years, range: 12-89). WHO performance status was 0/1 for 80.2% of patients. The primary sites were the small bowel and colon (288), pancreas (211), unknown (77), stomach (33), non-digestive primary sites (24), appendix (20), rectum-anus (12), and oesophagus or cardia (3). GEP were functional in 260 patients (39%). Most pancreatic tumours were non-functional (72%). Metastatic disease was observed in 73.4% of cases. Most tumours (85.8%) were well or moderately differentiated. Somatostatin receptor scintigraphy was performed in only 55% of patients. The following treatment modalities were employed: resection of primary tumour: 66%; systemic chemotherapy: 41%; somatostatin analogues: 44 and 26% for GEP of small intestine and pancreas, respectively; interferon: 12%, and intra-arterial hepatic (chemo)embolization in 23 and 15% of GEP arising from the midgut and pancreas, respectively. Despite their low prevalence, well-differentiated GEP represent a significant and heterogeneous clinical group, which warrants improved medical education, referral to expert centres at an early stage, and the design of prospective therapeutic trials.

Phase I trial of oxaliplatin with fluorouracil, folinic acid and concurrent radiotherapy for oesophageal cancer.

This dose escalation study was designed to determine the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) and recommended doses (RDs) of 5-fluorouracil (5FU), folinic acid and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) with concomitant radiotherapy in inoperable/metastatic oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma or adenocarcinoma. Patients received three courses of LV5FU2 regimen (folinic acid 200 mg m(-2), bolus 5FU 300-400 mg/m(2), continuous infusion 5FU 400-600 mg m(-2) on days 1 and 2) and escalating doses of oxaliplatin 50 to 100 mg m(-2) on day 1 (FOLFOX). This regimen was repeated every 2 weeks, concomitant to a 50-gray radiotherapy per 5 weeks. Three more cycles were delivered after completion of radiation therapy. Three to six patients were allocated to each of the five dose levels until MTD was reached. Thirty-three patients were enroled and 21 had metastatic disease. Maximum tolerated dose was oxaliplatin 100 mg m(-2), and continuous infusion 5FU was 600 mg m(-2) day(-) (level 5). The most common toxicities were neutropenia, dysphagia and oesophagitis. The RDs were those of FOLFOX-4 regimen (oxaliplatin 85 mg m(-2) and full doses of LV5FU2). The overall response was 48.5%, including 12% complete response. Response rate on primary tumour was 62.9%. This FOLFOX-4 regimen was reasonably well tolerated and effective in inoperable/metastatic oesophageal carcinoma and warrants additional investigation.

[Postoperative follow-up in patients with colorectal cancers who have undergone curative resection: intensive or conventional follow-up?]. / Surveillance des cancers coliques opérés à visée curative: faut-il revoir les recommandations de la conférence de consensus?

Colorectal cancer is one of the most common human malignancies. Surgical resection remains the primary treatment but cancer recurrences (locoregional or distant) are associated with a poor prognosis. Follow-up is of particular importance in the three-years after surgery and various strategies have been purposed in the surveillance of patients after curative resection for colorectal cancer. The objective is to diagnose a recurrence at the earliest possible stage, enabling a second curative treatment. Optimal strategy for follow-up remains controversial. Results from randomized trials comparing low intensity programs and intensive programs of colorectal cancer surveillance are insufficient to recommend a follow-up strategy. To update recommendations for surveillance of colorectal cancer, larger prospective randomized studies are required.

Predictive factors of the response to chemoradiotherapy in esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify factors predictive of a complete endoscopic/histopathological response to chemoradiotherapy in patients with esophageal cancer. PATIENTS: Clinical and histopathological factors (Ki67, p53 and EGFR expression) were studied in 56 patients presenting with esophageal cancer between September 2000 and March 2006 (35 squamous cell carcinomas, 20 adenocarcinomas, one undifferentiated carcinoma). The response to chemoradiotherapy was evaluated endoscopically and by histological examination in 16 patients who underwent surgical resection. RESULTS: Independent factors predictive of a complete endoscopic response were good performance status (RR=15.75; CI: 1.74-142.58; P=0.01) and overexpression of Ki67 (RR=4.46; CI: 1.08-18.31; P=0.04). In patients who underwent surgery, a major histopathological response was associated with complete endoscopic response (P<0.01), complete CT-scan response (P=0.04) and good performance status (WHO=0) (P=0.04). The mean survival was 40 months. Adenocarcinoma histology (RR=3.18, CI: 1.13-8.54; P=0.02) and an impaired performance status (RR=4.79; CI: 1.07-21.41; P=0.04) were independently associated with poor survival. CONCLUSION: In the present study, good performance status and overexpression of Ki67 were two independent factors for complete endoscopic response after chemoradiotherapy for esophageal cancer. Independent risk factors for poor survival were adenocarcinoma histological type and impaired performance status. Further prospective studies are necessary to complete the present results.

Aggressive multimodal therapy of sporadic malignant insulinoma can improve survival: a retrospective 35-year study of 12 patients.

AIM: Sporadic malignant insulinoma (SMI) is a rare disease, and the consequent paucity of data in the literature and the development of aggressive treatments for liver metastases have led us to retrospectively analyze a series of 12 cases of SMI. METHODS: Every patient presenting with SMI, according to the WHO 2004 histopathology criteria, between 1970 and June 2005 in Marseille was included in the study. Patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1 (MEN-1) and tumours of uncertain malignant potential were excluded. RESULTS: The ratio of male/female was 4/8, and mean age at diagnosis was 52.5 years. A 48-h fasting test in 10 patients was conclusive in nine, after a mean duration of 12 h 45 min. SMI size ranged from 7-120 mm (mean 30.3mm). Six patients had liver metastases and one had isolated lymph-node invasion. Surgery was performed in 12 patients. Five persisting diseases (mean follow-up of 1.8 years) required other treatments (chemoembolization, radiofrequency thermoablation [RFTA], liver transplantation); one patient relapsed 8.5 years after surgery; six were still in complete remission (mean follow-up of 5.8 years), and one patient had died by the time of the 24-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Aggressive sequential multimodal therapy can prolong the survival of patients with SMI even in the presence of liver metastases.

Cost consequences of adjuvant capecitabine, Mayo Clinic and de Gramont regimens for stage III colon cancer in the French setting.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To compare the cost consequences of oral capecitabine and two different intravenous regimens of 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (de Gramont and Mayo Clinic regimens) as adjuvant therapy in stage III colon cancer in France. METHODS: Clinical efficacy and safety data were taken from published clinical trials. Medical resource use was estimated from published data and expert opinion. Direct costs (drug acquisition, inpatient and home drug administration, laboratory tests, transportation, and management of adverse events) were considered over a time horizon of 46 months (3.8 years). The perspective taken was that of the French Sickness Funds. RESULTS: In patients treated with capecitabine, relapse-free survival was 1.3 months longer than with the Mayo Clinic regimen, which has been shown to be as effective as the de Gramont regimen. In the base case analysis, capecitabine was less costly (3,654 EUR/patient) than the Mayo Clinic (10,481 EUR/ patient) and de Gramont (7,204 EUR/patient) regimens. In the sensitivity analysis, capecitabine remained dominant except when the intravenous regimens were assumed to be administered at home in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: In France, capecitabine is more effective and less costly than both the Mayo Clinic and de Gramont regimens as adjuvant therapy for colon cancer.

A comparative longitudinal quality of life study using the Spitzer quality of life index in a randomized multicenter phase III trial (FFCD 9102): chemoradiation followed by surgery compared with chemoradiation alone in locally advanced squamous resectable thoracic esophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the study was to compare the longitudinal quality of life (QoL) between chemoradiation with or without surgery in patients with locally advanced squamous resectable esophageal cancer included in a randomized multicenter phase III trial (FFCD 9102). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients with locally advanced resectable (T3-4 N0-1 M0) epidermoid or glandular esophageal cancer (n = 451) received induction chemoradiation. Responders (n = 259) were randomized between surgery (arm A) and continuation of chemoradiation (arm B). The Spitzer QoL Index was scored (0-10) at inclusion and at each follow-up, every 3 months during 2 years. QoL at baseline and longitudinal changes were respectively compared with univariate ANOVA and mixed-model analysis of variance for repeated measurements. The time interval between the follow-up was assessed and the same analyses were performed among survivors with 2 years of follow-up. RESULTS: The squamous histology was predominant in both arms. The mean QoL score decreased between baseline and the first follow-up and between the first and the second follow-ups. QoL scores at the first follow-up were comparatively worse in arm A than in arm B (7.52 versus 8.45, P < 0.01), whereas the longitudinal QoL study showed no difference between treatments (adjusted P = 0.26). Furthermore, the longitudinal QoL was not different (adjusted P = 0.23) among survivors with 2 years of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients responding to induction chemoradiation, surgery and continuation of chemoradiation had the same impact on QoL in patients with locally advanced, resectable esophageal cancer although a significantly greater decrease in the Spitzer Index was observed in the postoperative period.

'A phase II study of oral uracil/ftorafur (UFT) plus leucovorin combined with oxaliplatin (TEGAFOX) as first-line treatment in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer'.

This phase II trial was performed to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of a new combination of Uracil/Ftorafur (UFT)/leucovorin (LV) and oxaliplatin in patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC) who had not received prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Between February 2002 and October 2002, 64 patients received UFT 300 mg m(-2) day(-1) and LV 90 mg day(-1) from day 1 to day 14 combined with oxaliplatin 130 mg m(-2) on day 1, every 3 weeks. All patients were evaluable for safety analysis and 58 of 64 patients were eligible for efficacy. Responses were reviewed by an independent review committee. Of the 58 per-protocol defined assessable patients, 1 complete response and 20 partial responses were observed yielding a response rate of 34% (95% CI: 22-47). The median response duration was 8.74 months (range 1.6-14). The median time to progression and the median survival were 5.88 months (95% CI: 4.34-8.21) and 18.2 months (95% CI: 10-20.7), respectively. Diarrhoea and peripheral neuropathy were the most frequent and predictable toxicities. These events were reversible, noncumulative and manageable. Grade 3 diarrhoea occurred in only 11% of the patients. No grade 4 gastrointestinal toxicity was reported in the study. The incidence of grade 3/4 (National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria 2: NCI-CTC 2) peripheral neuropathy was 15%. Haematological toxicity was of mild to moderate intensity with 10% of the patients with Grade 3/4 neutropenia without any episode of complication. The TEGAFOX regimen, a new combination using UFT/LV and oxaliplatin every 3 weeks is feasible on an outpatient basis. The combination is safe and active and may offer a promising alternative to the intravenous route. Nevertheless this efficacy results should be confirmed by randomized phase III trials.

Adjuvant chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin compared with surgery alone for gastric cancer: 7-year results of the FFCD randomized phase III trial (8801).

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of adjuvant chemotherapy after resection for gastric cancer in a randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After curative resection, stage II-III-IVM0 gastric cancer patients were randomly assigned to postoperative chemotherapy or surgery alone. 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) 800 mg/m(2) daily (5-day continuous infusion) was initiated before day 14 after resection. One month later, four 5-day cycles of 5-FU (1 g/m(2) per day) plus cisplatin (100 mg/m(2) on day 2) were administered every 4 weeks. RESULTS: The study was closed prematurely after enrollment of 260 patients (79.7% N+), owing to poor accrual. At 97.8 months median follow-up, 5- and 7-year overall survival were 41.9% and 34.9% in the control group versus 46.6% and 44.6% in the chemotherapy group (P=0.22). Cox model hazard ratios were 0.74 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54-1.02; P=0.063] for death and 0.70 (95% CI 0.51-0.97; P=0.032) for recurrence. An invaded/removed lymph nodes ratio >0.3 was the main independent poor prognostic factor identified by multivariate analysis (P=0.0001). Because of toxicity, only 48.8% of patients received more than 80% of the planned dose. CONCLUSION: There was no statistically significant survival benefit with this toxic cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy, but a risk reduction in recurrence was observed.

Randomized phase II study evaluating oxaliplatin alone, oxaliplatin combined with infusional 5-FU, and infusional 5-FU alone in advanced pancreatic carcinoma patients.

BACKGROUND: A randomized phase II, open-label multicenter study evaluating oxaliplatin alone (OXA), infusional 5-fluorouracil alone (5-FU) and an oxaliplatin/infusional 5-FU combination (OXFU) in untreated, advanced pancreatic carcinoma (APC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Chemotherapy-naïve patients with advanced or metastatic, histologically/cytologically proven pancreatic carcinoma with measurable disease, received OXA [130 mg/m2, 2-h intravenous (i.v.) infusion] alone, OXA combined with 5-FU (1000 mg/m2/day, continuous i.v., days 1-4), or 5-FU alone, every 3 weeks. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients (42 males/21 females) were treated: 17 patients/52 cycles OXA, 31 patients/ 175 cycles OXFU, 15 patients/41 cycles 5-FU, with a median of three, six and two cycles/patient, respectively. Patient characteristics were similar in all arms. Median age was 57 years (range 21-75), and 83% of patients had PS 0-1. Most patients (62%) had moderate to well-differentiated tumors, 90% had metastatic disease, 81% with liver metastases. All responses (three partial responses; WHO) occurred in the OXFU arm (10% response rate). Five of 32 patients evaluable for clinical benefit were responders (OXA, 14%; OXFU, 21%). Median time to progression and overall survival were higher in the combination arm (4.2 and 9.0 months, respectively) than either single-agent arm (OXA, 2.0 and 3.4 months; 5-FU, 1.5 and 2.4 months, respectively). Moderate hematotoxicity without morbidity was seen in all arms. Two OXFU patients had grade 3 oxaliplatin neurosensory toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: With a 10% response rate, median overall survival of 9 months and an encouraging safety profile, the OXFU combination is effective, appears superior to infusional 5-FU and warrants further studies in APC patients.