A randomised phase 2 study comparing different dose approaches of induction treatment of regorafenib in previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer patients (REARRANGE trial).

PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the safety of two regorafenib dose-escalation approaches in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with mCRC and progression during or within 3 months following their last standard chemotherapy regimen were randomised to receive the approved dose of regorafenib of 160 mg QD (arm A) or 120 mg QD (arm B) administered as 3 weeks of treatment followed by 1 week off, or 160 mg QD 1 week on/1 week off (arm C). The primary end-point was the percentage of patients with G3/G4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) in each arm. RESULTS: There were 299 patients randomly assigned to arm A (n = 101), arm B (n = 99), or arm C (n = 99); 297 initiated treatments (arm A n = 100, arm B n = 98, arm C n = 99: population for safety analyses). G3/4 treatment-related AEs occurred in 60%, 55%, and 54% of patients in arms A, B, and C, respectively. The most common G3/4 AEs were hypertension (19, 12, and 20 patients), fatigue (20, 14, and 15 patients), hypokalemia (11, 7, and 10 patients), and hand-foot skin reaction (8, 7, and 3 patients). Median overall survival was 7.4 (IQR 4.0-13.7) months in arm A, 8.6 (IQR 3.8-13.4) in arm B, and 7.1 (IQR 4.4-12.4) in arm C. CONCLUSIONS: The alternative regorafenib dosing schedules were feasible and safe in patients with mCRC who had been previously treated with standard therapy. There was a higher numerical improvement on the most clinically relevant AEs in the intermittent dosing arm, particularly during the relevant first two cycles. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02835924.

Impact of glucose-lowering agents on the risk of cancer in type 2 diabetic patients. The Barcelona case-control study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the impact of glucose-lowering agents in the risk of cancer in a large type 2 diabetic population. METHODS: A nested case-control study was conducted within a defined cohort (275,164 type 2 diabetic patients attending 16 Primary Health Care Centers of Barcelona). Cases (n = 1,040) comprised those subjects with any cancer diagnosed between 2008 and 2010, registered at the Cancer Registry of Hospital Vall d'Hebron (Barcelona). Three control subjects for each case (n = 3,120) were matched by age, sex, diabetes duration, and geographical area. The treatments analyzed (within 3 years prior to cancer diagnosis) were: insulin glargine, insulin detemir, human insulin, fast-acting insulin and analogues, metformin, sulfonylureas, repaglinide, thiazolidinediones, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and alpha glucosidase inhibitors. Conditional logistic regressions were used to calculate the risk of cancer associated with the use of each drug adjusted by age, BMI, dose and duration of treatment, alcohol use, smoking habit, and diabetes duration. RESULTS: No differences were observed between case and control subjects for the proportion, dose or duration of exposure to each treatment. None of the types of insulin and oral agents analyzed showed a significant increase in the risk of cancer. Moreover, no cancer risk was observed when glargine was used alone or in combination with metformin. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that diabetes treatment does not influence the risk of cancer associated with type 2 diabetes. Therefore, an eventual increase of cancer should not be a reason for biasing the selection of any glucose-lowering treatment in type 2 diabetic population.

Circulating tumor cell count is a prognostic factor in metastatic colorectal cancer patients receiving first-line chemotherapy plus bevacizumab: a Spanish Cooperative Group for the Treatment of Digestive Tumors study.

BACKGROUND: The Maintenance in Colorectal Cancer trial was a phase III study to assess maintenance therapy with single-agent bevacizumab versus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. An ancillary study was conducted to evaluate the circulating tumor cell (CTC) count as a prognostic and/or predictive marker for efficacy endpoints. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred eighty patients were included. Blood samples were obtained at baseline and after three cycles. CTC enumeration was carried out using the CellSearch® System (Veridex LLC, Raritan, NJ). Computed tomography scans were performed at cycle 3 and 6 and every 12 weeks thereafter for tumor response assessment. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival (PFS) interval for patients with a CTC count ≥3 at baseline was 7.8 months, versus the 12.0 months achieved by patients with a CTC count <3 (p = .0002). The median overall survival (OS) time was 17.7 months for patients with a CTC count ≥3, compared with 25.1 months for patients with a lower count (p = .0059). After three cycles, the median PFS interval for patients with a low CTC count was 10.8 months, significantly longer than the 7.5 months for patients with a high CTC count (p = .005). The median OS time for patients with a CTC count <3 was significantly longer than for patients with a CTC count ≥3, 25.1 months versus 16.2 months, respectively (p = .0095). CONCLUSIONS: The CTC count is a strong prognostic factor for PFS and OS outcomes in metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

Treatment recommendations for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) represents an important health problem in which several biological predictive and prognostic factors have been identified, including clinical features and molecular markers that might influence the response to treatment. Actually, certain prognostic factors are considered key elements, along with disease extent, for deciding the therapeutic approach. However, a distinction between resectable/potentially resectable and unresectable patients must be made in order to establish an adequate therapeutic strategy. Different drugs and chemotherapy regimens are currently available, and their administration depends on patient characteristics, disease-related factors and the treatment objective. Moreover, special situations such as peritoneal carcinomatosis and local treatment of CRC in the setting of metastatic disease should be considered when deciding the most appropriate treatment strategy. This article reviews all the previously mentioned issues involved in the management of metastatic CRC and suggests some general recommendations for its treatment.

Capecitabine/oxaliplatin, a safe and active first-line regimen for older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: post hoc analysis of a large phase II study.

PURPOSE: The tumor-activated fluoropyrimidine capecitabine achieves response rates superior to those of bolus 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LV) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC), with favorable safety and fewer hospitalizations. Capecitabine is also at least as effective as bolus 5-FU/LV in the adjuvant setting, again with a favorable safety profile. Improved outcomes with capecitabine versus bolus 5-FU/LV in the adjuvant setting have been shown in overall trial populations and in patients aged >or= 70 years. Capecitabine/oxaliplatin (XelOx) is a safe and active combination for the first-line treatment of metastatic CRC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This post hoc analysis of a large phase II trial compared data from older and younger patients treated with first-line XelOx: oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1 followed by oral capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily for 14 days every 3 weeks. RESULTS: The median age of the overall population (N = 96) was 64 years (range, 34-79 years), including 52 younger patients (< 65 years of age) and 44 older patients (>or= 65 years of age). Both age groups received a median of 8 cycles (range, 1-26 cycles) of XelOx. The XelOx regimen had similar high activity in both groups, with response rates of 58% (95% CI, 43%-71%) and 52% (95% CI, 37%-68%) in younger and older patients, respectively. In addition, time to disease progression and overall survival were similar in both groups (P > 0.5 for both outcomes). The XelOx regimen also had a favorable safety profile, with no clinically relevant differences between older and younger patients. The overall incidence of adverse events (including grade 3/4), dose reductions, and withdrawals because of adverse events were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: In the context of an aging population, XelOx provides a highly effective and tolerable first-line treatment for patients with metastatic CRC.

Phase II and tumor pharmacodynamic study of gefitinib in patients with advanced breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the antitumor activity and pharmacodynamic/biologic effect of gefitinib 500 mg/day monotherapy in patients with previously treated, advanced breast cancer. METHODS: In this phase II multicenter trial, the primary objective was assessment of the tumor response rate with gefitinib; secondary objectives included analysis of the pharmacodynamic and biologic profiles in healthy and tumor tissue. RESULTS: while phosphorylation of mitogen-activated protein kinase was inhibited in both tissues, gefitinib treatment induced p27 and a decrease in Ki67 in skin but not in tumors. Furthermore, gefitinib did not inhibit the activated form of Akt in the tumors. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates a good correlation between the degree of inhibition of EGFR in skin and in breast tumors. The lack of significant clinical activity of gefitinib in our study population is not due to lack of receptor inhibition in these tumors but rather to lack of EGFR dependence in the tested population.