Survival Outcomes in Patients With RAS Wild Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Classified According to Köhne Prognostic Category and BRAF Mutation Status

BACKGROUND

Köhne prognostic score is used to classify patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) as high, intermediate, or low risk. Using data from 2 phase III trials, we analyzed survival in patients categorized according to Köhne prognostic category and virus-induced rapidly accelerated fibrosarcoma murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) mutation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

PRIME (Panitumumab Randomized Trial In Combination With Chemotherapy for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer to Determine Efficacy) (first-line) and 20050181 (second-line) were studies of chemotherapy with or without panitumumab. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were analyzed retrospectively in rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (RAS) wild type (WT) and RAS WT+BRAF WT mCRC in each Köhne category, and in BRAF mutant (MT) mCRC.

RESULTS

In PRIME (n = 495) and 20050181 (n = 420), 53 (11%) and 44 (10%) patients, respectively, had BRAF MT mCRC. Of the RAS WT+BRAF WT/unknown populations, 85/267/90 and 82/211/83 were categorized as high/medium/low risk, respectively. PFS and OS hazard ratios (HRs), adjusted for Köhne group, for patients with RAS WT + BRAF WT/unknown mCRC favored panitumumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in both studies. In PRIME, the PFS HR was 0.74 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61-0.90) and OS HR was 0.78 (95% CI, 0.64-0.95). In 20050181, PFS and OS HRs were 0.80 (95% CI, 0.65-0.99) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.62-0.99), respectively. Median PFS and OS were lower in patients with BRAF MT mCRC than in any of the 3 risk categories for patients with RAS WT+BRAF WT/unknown mCRC.

CONCLUSION

During first- and second-line treatment, Köhne prognostic score allows accurate risk classification in RAS WT mCRC. BRAF MT mCRC should be classified as high risk regardless of other parameters. Panitumumab with chemotherapy might provide survival benefits versus chemotherapy alone in RAS WT and RAS WT+BRAF WT/unknown mCRC, overall and across risk categories.

Lauren subtypes of advanced gastric cancer influence survival and response to chemotherapy: real-world data from the AGAMENON National Cancer Registry

BACKGROUND

The choice of chemotherapy in HER2-negative gastric cancer is based on centre's preferences and adverse effects profile. No schedule is currently accepted as standard, nor are there any factors to predict response, other than HER2 status. We seek to evaluate whether Lauren type influences the efficacy of various chemotherapies and on patient overall survival (OS).

METHODS

We have conducted a multicenter study in 31 hospitals. The eligibility criteria include diagnosis of stomach or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, HER2 negativity, and chemotherapy containing 2-3 drugs. Cox proportional hazards regression adjusted for confounding factors, with tests of 'treatment-by-histology' interaction, was used to estimate treatment effect.

RESULTS

Our registry contains 1303 tumours analysable for OS end points and 730 evaluable for overall response rate (ORR). A decrease in ORR was detected in the presence of a diffuse component: odds ratio 0.719 (95% confidence interval (CI), 0.525-0.987), P=0.039. Anthracycline- or docetaxel-containing schedules increased ORR only in the intestinal type. The diffuse type displayed increased mortality with hazard ratio (HR) of 1.201 (95% CI, 1.054-1.368), P=0.0056. Patients receiving chemotherapy with docetaxel exhibited increased OS limited to the intestinal type: HR 0.65 (95% CI, 0.49-0.87), P=0.024, with no increment in OS for the subset having a diffuse component. With respect to progression-free survival (PFS), a significant interaction was seen in the effect of docetaxel-containing schedules, with better PFS limited to the intestinal type subgroup, in the comparison against any other schedule: HR 0.65 (95% CI, 0.50-0.85), P=0.015, and against anthracycline-based regimens: HR 0.64 (95% CI, 0.46-0.88), P=0.046.

CONCLUSIONS

As a conclusion, in this registry, Lauren classification tumour subtypes predicted survival and responded differently to chemotherapy. Future clinical trials should stratify effect estimations based on histology.

Analysis of blood markers for early breast cancer diagnosis

PURPOSE

Breast cancer is the most common neoplasm in women and has the highest associated mortality rate. Rapid detection programmes can provide early diagnosis and increase the chances of survival. There are no specific tumor biomarkers for the early phase of the disease. The primary aim of this study was to search a blood biomarker with levels that exceeded the normal range established in the general population that could be used to screen breast cancer.

METHODS/PATIENTS

Case-control study. Conventional as well as research (NGAL, EGFR and 8-OHdG) tumor biomarkers were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 126 women were enrolled (cases: 63 patients with local breast cancer; Controls: 63 healthy women). Significant differences were found in patients with higher levels of the conventional markers, Ca15.3, CEA, Cyfra 21.1 and NSE. However, when commercial cut-off values were used, only Ca 15.13 was significant. In the group of research biomarkers, significantly higher levels of EGFR were found in the control group, and of 8-OHdG in the case group. Using logistic regression analysis and a ROC curve, an equation composed of five markers, Ca 15.3, NSE, NGAL, EGFR and 8-OHdG, which yielded a correct diagnostic probability of breast cancer of 91.8% was obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

8-OHdG has been identified as a new potential marker for screening early stage breast cancer. In addition, a model that combines five blood markers that can be used as a diagnostic test in certain groups of patients has been developed. New studies with a larger sample size are needed to verify the results obtained.

Gold glyconanoparticles coupled to listeriolysin O 91-99 peptide serve as adjuvant therapy against melanoma

Dendritic cell-based (DC-based) vaccines are promising immunotherapies for cancer. However, several factors, such as the lack of efficient targeted delivery and the sources and types of DCs, have limited the efficacy of DCs and their clinical potential. We propose an alternative nanotechnology-based vaccine platform with antibacterial prophylactic abilities that uses gold glyconanoparticles coupled to listeriolysin O 91-99 peptide (GNP-LLO_91-99), which acts as a novel adjuvant for cancer therapy. GNP-LLO_91-99, when used to vaccinate mice, exhibited dual antitumour activities, namely, the inhibition of tumour migration and growth and adjuvant activity for recruiting and activating DCs, including those from melanoma patients. GNP-LLO_91-99 nanoparticles caused tumour apoptosis and induced antigen- and melanoma-specific cytotoxic Th1 responses (P ≤ 0.5). We propose this adjuvant nanotherapy for preventing the progression of the first stages of melanoma.

Final analysis of the randomised PEAK trial: overall survival and tumour responses during first-line treatment with mFOLFOX6 plus either panitumumab or bevacizumab in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma

PURPOSE

To report planned final overall (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) analyses from the phase II PEAK trial (NCT00819780).

METHODS

Patients with previously untreated, KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were randomised to mFOLFOX6 plus panitumumab or bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included OS, objective response rate, duration of response (DoR), time to response, resection and safety. Treatment effect by tumour RAS status was a prespecified objective. Exploratory analyses included early tumour shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR).

RESULTS

One hundred seventy patients had RAS WT and 156 had RAS WT/BRAF WT mCRC. Median PFS was longer for panitumumab versus bevacizumab in the RAS WT (12.8 vs 10.1 months; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68 [95% confidence intervals (CI) = 0.48-0.96]; p = 0.029) and RAS WT/BRAF WT (13.1 vs 10.1 months; HR = 0.61 [95% CI = 0.42-0.88]; p = 0.0075) populations. Median OS (68% OS events) for panitumumab versus bevacizumab was 36.9 versus 28.9 months (HR = 0.76 [95% CI = 0.53-1.11]; p = 0.15) and 41.3 versus 28.9 months (HR = 0.70 [95% CI = 0.48-1.04]; p = 0.08), in the RAS WT and RAS WT/BRAF WT populations, respectively. Median DoR (11.4 vs 9.0 months; HR = 0.59 [95% CI = 0.39-0.88]; p = 0.011) and DpR (65.0 vs 46.3%; p = 0.0018) were improved in the panitumumab group. More panitumumab patients experienced ≥30% ETS at week 8 (64 vs 45%; p = 0.052); ETS was associated with improved PFS/OS. No new safety signals occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

First-line panitumumab + mFOLFOX6 increases PFS versus bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 in patients with RAS WT mCRC.

Abstract CT130: PANOVA: A phase II study of TTFields (150kHz) concomitant with standard chemotherapy for front line therapy of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

Background

Ductal adenocarcinoma of the pancreas is the fourth leading cause of cancer mortality in the US. The disease is mostly unresectable at the time of diagnosis, making chemotherapy the backbone of therapy. TTFields are a non-invasive, regional antimitotic treatment modality, which has been approved for the treatment of recurrent and newly diagnosed glioblastoma by the FDA. TTFields act by delivering intermediate frequency alternating electric fields to the tumor, and act predominantly by disrupting the formation of the mitotic spindle during metaphase and by dielectrophoretic dislocation of intracellular constituents during cytokinesis. In vitro, TTFields led to reduction in the proliferative potential of pancreatic cancer cell lines with or without chemotherapies, and to a subsequent reduction in their clonogenic potential. In vivo, TTFields led to a significant reduction in tumor volumes. PANOVA was the first trial testing TTFields (150kHz) in pancreatic cancer patients. Results from the first arm of the study, testing TTFields in combination with gemcitabine, have demonstrated superiority in efficacy compared to historical controls, with median PFS of 8.3 months and median OS of 14.9 months (Rivera F. et al, J Clin Oncol 34, 2016 (suppl 4S; abstr 269)).

Methods

Twenty advanced pancreatic cancer patients were enrolled in the second arm of PANOVA and treated with TTFields in combination with gemcitabine concomitant to nab-paclitaxel. All patients had unresectable tumors, an ECOG performance score of 0-1 and no prior therapy. The primary endpoint was the incidence and severity of treatment emergent adverse events.

Results

The median age was 68.2 (range – 58-81) and most patients (65%) had an ECOG score of 1. Twelve patients (60%) had distant metastases. The Median number of gem/nab-paclitaxel cycles was 5.0, and median number of TTFields cycles was 7.5. Ten patients (50%) had serious AEs during the study period. Eleven patients (55%) had treatment-related skin toxicity, of which 5 had grade 3 toxicity. No TTFields-related serious AEs were reported. The median PFS was 12.7 months (95% CI 5.4, NA). PFS rate at 6 months was 65%. Of the evaluable tumors, 40% had partial response and another 47% stable disease. The median OS was not reached, and the 1-year survival rate was 72%.

Conclusions

TTFields concomitant to gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel are tolerable and safe for advanced pancreatic cancer patients, with promising clinical outcome which doubled published historical data. A phase III trial is planned, testing the efficacy of TTFields combined with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in locally-advanced pancreatic cancer patients.

Citation Format: Manuel Benavides, Carmen Guillen, Fernando Rivera, Javier Gallego, Jose Lopez-Martin, Marc Küng. PANOVA: A phase II study of TTFields (150kHz) concomitant with standard chemotherapy for front line therapy of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2017; 2017 Apr 1-5; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(13 Suppl):Abstract nr CT130. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2017-CT130

First-line panitumumab plus FOLFOX4 or FOLFIRI in colorectal cancer with multiple or unresectable liver metastases: A randomised, phase II trial (PLANET-TTD)

BACKGROUND

In first-line wild-type (WT)-Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homologue (KRAS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), panitumumab (Pmab) improves outcomes when added to FOLFOX [folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin] or FOLFIRI [folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan]. However no trial has directly compared these combinations.

METHODS

Multicentre, open-label study in untreated patients ≥ 18 years with (WT)-KRAS mCRC and multiple or unresectable liver-limited disease (LLD) randomised to either Pmab-FOLFOX4 or Pmab-FOLFIRI. The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR). Secondary end-points included liver metastases resection rate (R0 + R1), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), adverse events and perioperative safety. Exploratory end-points were: response by RAS status, early tumour shrinkage (ETS) and depth of response (DpR) in WT-RAS patients.

RESULTS

Data on 77 patients were analysed (38 Pmab-FOLFOX4; 39 Pmab-FOLFIRI; WT-RAS: 27/26, respectively). ORR was 74% with Pmab-FOLFOX4 and 67% with Pmab-FOLFIRI (WT-RAS: 78%/73%). Out of the above, 45% and 59% underwent surgical resection, respectively (WT-RAS: 37%/69%). The R0-R1 resection rate was 34%/46% (WT-RAS:26%/54%). Median PFS was 13/14 months (hazard ratio [HR] Pmab-FOLFIRI versus Pmab-FOLFOX4: 0.9; 95% confidence interval: [0.6-1.5]; WT-RAS:13/15; HR: 0.7 [0.4-1.3]). Median OS was 37/41 months (HR:1.0 [0.6-1.8]; WT-RAS: 39/49; HR:0.9 [0.4-1.9]). In WT-RAS patients with confirmed response, median DpR was 71%/66%, and 65%/77% of patients showed ETS ≥ 30%/ ≥ 20% at week 8, without significant differences between arms; these patients had longer median PFS and OS and higher resectability rates. Surgery was associated with longer survival. Perioperative and overall safety were similar, except for higher grade 3/4 neutropenia (40%/10%; p = 0.003) and neuropathy (13%/0%; p = 0.025) in the Pmab-FOLFOX4 arm.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with WT-KRAS mCRC and LLD, both first-line Pmab-FOLFOX4 and Pmab-FOLFIRI resulted in high ORR and ETS, allowing potentially curative resection. No significant differences in efficacy were observed between the two regimens. (clinicaltrials.gov:NCT00885885).

Cost-effectiveness analysis in the Spanish setting of the PEAK trial of panitumumab plus mFOLFOX6 compared with bevacizumab plus mFOLFOX6 for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To assess the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, and leucovorin) vs bevacizumab in combination with mFOLFOX6 as first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in Spain.

METHODS

A semi-Markov model was developed including the following health states: Progression free; Progressive disease: Treat with best supportive care; Progressive disease: Treat with subsequent active therapy; Attempted resection of metastases; Disease free after metastases resection; Progressive disease: after resection and relapse; and Death. Parametric survival analyses of patient-level progression free survival and overall survival data from the PEAK Phase II clinical trial were used to estimate health state transitions. Additional data from the PEAK trial were considered for the dose and duration of therapy, the use of subsequent therapy, the occurrence of adverse events, and the incidence and probability of time to metastasis resection. Utility weightings were calculated from patient-level data from panitumumab trials evaluating first-, second-, and third-line treatments. The study was performed from the Spanish National Health System (NHS) perspective including only direct costs. A life-time horizon was applied. Probabilistic sensitivity analyses and scenario sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the robustness of the model.

RESULTS

Based on the PEAK trial, which demonstrated greater efficacy of panitumumab vs bevacizumab, both in combination with mFOLFOX6 first-line in wild-type RAS mCRC patients, the estimated incremental cost per life-year gained was €16,567 and the estimated incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained was €22,794. The sensitivity analyses showed the model was robust to alternative parameters and assumptions.

LIMITATIONS

The analysis was based on a simulation model and, therefore, the results should be interpreted cautiously.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the PEAK Phase II clinical trial and taking into account Spanish costs, the results of the analysis showed that first-line treatment of mCRC with panitumumab + mFOLFOX6 could be considered a cost-effective option compared with bevacizumab + mFOLFOX6 for the Spanish NHS.

PANOVA: A phase II study of TTFields (150 kHz) concomitant with standard chemotherapy for front-line therapy of advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma—Updated efficacy results

e15790

Background: TTFields are a non-invasive, regional antimitotic treatment modality, which has been approved for the treatment of glioblastoma by the FDA. TTFields predominantly act by disrupting the formation of the mitotic spindle during metaphase. TTFields were effective in multiple preclinical models of pancreatic cancer. PANOVA was the first trial testing TTFields in pancreatic cancer patients. Results from the first arm of the study, testing TTFields in combination with gemcitabine, have demonstrated superiority in efficacy compared to historical controls (Rivera F. et al, J Clin Oncol 34, 2016 (suppl 4S; abstr 269). Methods: Twenty advanced pancreatic cancer patients were enrolled in the second arm of PANOVA and treated with TTFields in combination with gemcitabine concomitant to nab-paclitaxel. All patients had unresectable tumors, an ECOG performance score of 0-1 and no prior therapy. The primary endpoint was the incidence and severity of adverse events. Results: The median age was 68.2 (range – 58-81) and most patients (65%) had an ECOG score of 1. Twelve patients (60%) had distant metastases. Ten patients (50%) had serious AEs during the study period. Eleven patients (55%) had treatment-related skin toxicity, of which 5 had grade 3 toxicity. No TTFields-related serious AEs were reported. The median PFS was 12.7 months (95% CI 5.4, NA): 9.3 months in patients with metastatic disease, and not reached in locally-advanced patients. PFS rate at 6 months was 65%: 50% in metastatic disease and 87.5% in locally advanced patients. Of the evaluable tumors, 40% had partial response and another 47% stable disease. The median OS was not reached, and the 1-year survival rate was 72% (62.5% in metastatic disease and 87.5% in locally advanced disease). Conclusions: TTFields concomitant to gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel are safe for advanced pancreatic cancer patients, with promising clinical outcome which doubled historical data. A phase III trial is planned, testing the efficacy of TTFields combined with gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel in locally-advanced pancreatic cancer patients. Clinical trial information: NCT01971281.

Medical oncology future plan of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology: challenges and future needs of the Spanish oncologists

PURPOSE

The SEOM Future Plan is aimed at identifying the main challenges, trends and needs of the medical oncology speciality over the next years, including potential oncologist workforce shortages, and proposing recommendations to overcome them.

METHODS

The estimations of the required medical oncologists workforce are based on an updated Medical Oncologist Register in Spain, Medical Oncology Departments activity data, dedication times and projected cancer incidence. Challenges, needs and future recommendations were drawn from an opinion survey and an advisory board.

RESULTS

A shortage of 211 FTE medical oncologist specialists has been established. To maintain an optimal ratio of 158 new cases/FTE, medical oncology workforce should reach 1881 FTE by 2035.

CONCLUSIONS

Main recommendations to face the growing demand and complexity of oncology services include a yearly growth of 2.5% of medical oncologist's workforce until 2035, and development and application of more accurate quality indicators for cancer care and health outcomes measure.

Randomized Phase II Trial of Parsatuzumab (Anti-EGFL7) or Placebo in Combination with FOLFOX and Bevacizumab for First-Line Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Lessons Learned.

These negative phase II results for parsatuzumab highlight the challenges of developing an agent intended to enhance the efficacy of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibition without the benefit of validated pharmacodynamic biomarkers or strong predictive biomarker hypotheses.

Any further clinical development of anti‐EGFL7 is likely to require new mechanistic insights and biomarker development for antiangiogenic agents.

Background.

EGFL7 (epidermal growth factor‐like domain 7) is a tumor‐enriched vascular extracellular matrix protein that supports endothelial cell survival. This phase II trial evaluated the efficacy of parsatuzumab (also known as MEGF0444A), a humanized anti‐EGFL7 IgG₁ monoclonal antibody, in combination with modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6) (folinic acid, 5‐fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) bevacizumab in patients with previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

Methods.

One‐hundred twenty‐seven patients were randomly assigned to parsatuzumab, 400 mg, or placebo, in combination with mFOLFOX6 plus bevacizumab, 5 mg/kg. Treatment cycles were repeated every 2 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity for a maximum of 24 months, with the exception of oxaliplatin, which was administered for up to 8 cycles.

Results.

The progression‐free survival (PFS) hazard ratio was 1.17 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71–1.93; p = .548). The median PFS was 12 months for the experimental arm versus 11.9 months for the control arm. The hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.97 (95% CI, 0.46–2.1; p = .943). The overall response rate was 59% in the parsatuzumab arm and 64% in the placebo arm. The adverse event profile was similar in both arms.

Conclusions.

There was no evidence of efficacy for the addition of parsatuzumab to the combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy for first‐line mCRC.

Gemcitabine-erlotinib versus gemcitabine-erlotinib-capecitabine in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer: Efficacy and safety results of a phase IIb randomised study from the Spanish TTD Collaborative Group

BACKGROUND

Gemcitabine and erlotinib have shown a survival benefit in the first-line setting in metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). The aim of this study was to assess whether combining capecitabine (C) with gemcitabine + erlotinib (GE) was safe and effective versus GE in patients with mPC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Previously untreated mPC patients were randomised to receive G (1000 mg/m², days 1, 8, 15) + E (100 mg/day, days 1-28) + C (1660 mg/m², days 1-21) or GE, q4 weeks, until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Primary end-point: progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end-points: overall survival (OS), response rate, relationship of rash with PFS/OS and safety.

RESULTS

120 patients were randomised, median age 63 years, ECOG status 0/1/2 33%/58%/8%; median follow-up 16.5 months. Median PFS in the gemcitabine-erlotinib-capecitabine (GEC) and GE arms was 4.3 and 3.8 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-1.31; p = 0.52). Median OS in the GEC and GE arms was 6.8 and 7.7 months, respectively (HR: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.72-1.63; p = 0.69). Grade 3/4 neutropenia (GEC 43% versus GE 15%; p = 0.0008) and mucositis (GEC 9% versus GE 0%; p = 0.03) were the only statistically significant differences in grade 3/4 adverse events. PFS and OS were significantly longer in patients with rash (grade ≥1) versus no rash (grade = 0): PFS 5.5 versus 2.0 months (HR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.26-0.6; p < 0.0001) and OS: 9.5 versus 4.0 months (HR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.33-0.77; p = 0.0014).

CONCLUSION

PFS with GEC was not significantly different to that with GE in patients with mPC. Skin rash strongly predicted erlotinib efficacy. The study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01303029.

A genome-wide association study yields five novel thyroid cancer risk loci

The great majority of thyroid cancers are of the non-medullary type. Here we report findings from a genome-wide association study of non-medullary thyroid cancer, including in total 3,001 patients and 287,550 controls from five study groups of European descent. Our results yield five novel loci (all with Pcombined<3 × 10-8): 1q42.2 (rs12129938 in PCNXL2), 3q26.2 (rs6793295 a missense mutation in LRCC34 near TERC), 5q22.1 (rs73227498 between NREP and EPB41L4A), 10q24.33 (rs7902587 near OBFC1), and two independently associated variants at 15q22.33 (rs2289261 and rs56062135; both in SMAD3). We also confirm recently published association results from a Chinese study of a variant on 5p15.33 (rs2736100 near the TERT gene) and present a stronger association result for a moderately correlated variant (rs10069690; OR=1.20, P=3.2 × 10-7) based on our study of individuals of European ancestry. In combination, these results raise several opportunities for future studies of the pathogenesis of thyroid cancer.

Aflibercept (Z) in combination with FOLFIRI for second-line treatment of patients (pts) with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Safety and quality of life (QoL) data from the Spanish subgroup of the Aflibercept Safety and Quality-of-Life Program (ASQoP)

751

Background: In the VELOUR trial, adding Z to FOLFIRI improves OS, PFS and RR in mCRC pts progressing after oxaliplatin ±biologic agents. The ASQoP trial (NCT01571284) was designed to gather safety and QoL data from mCRC in real-life setting. We report data collected by the Spanish investigators. Methods: ASQoP is single-arm, open-label trial evaluating safety and QoL of Z in mCRC pts as 2nd line. Eligible pts received Z (4mg/kg) q2wks on day 1/cycle, followed by FOLFIRI (dosing was at physician’s discretion) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, or investigator/pt decision. The EQ-5D was used for utility index (UI) measure and the EORTC QLQ-C30 as generic cancer instrument. QoL population consisted of pts completing the questionnaire at baseline and ≥1 assessment post-baseline and received ≥1 part of 1 dose of study treatment. Results: The safety population comprised 77 pts with ≥1 completed cycle of treatment. Grade (G)3/4 AEs were reported in 72.7% of pts (vs 83.5% in VELOUR), being G3 most commonly reported. There was no G4 hypertension, stomatitis, or proteinuria. G4 Diarrhea was found in 1.3% of pts. Mean baseline UI was 0.7 (95% CI, 0.63-0.78) in 51 pts, and remained relatively stable at cycles 3 (n=39) and 7 (n=24), with a mean (±SD) change from baseline of 0.03 (±0.26) and -0.06 (±0.35), respectively. Mean baseline global health status score was 63.1 (95% CI, 55.8-70.4) in 54 pts, and remained stable up to cycle 9 with a mean (±SD) change from baseline of 4.17 (±38). Conclusions: Thisanalysis has identified no new safety signals and suggests an acceptable toxicity profile with a relatively stable UI and QoL in Spanish mCRC pts in the real-life setting. [Table: see text]

Interim results of a multicenter phase II trial of nab-paclitaxel (nab-P) plus gemcitabine (G) for patients (Pts) with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC)

358

Background: Treatment options for pts with LAPC are limited and generally similar to those for metastatic PC (mPC). The phase 3 MPACT trial of pts with mPC demonstrated a > 3-fold shrinkage of primary tumors with nab-P + G vs G, suggesting the potential of nab-P + G for LAPC treatment. Here, we present interim results on disease control rate (DCR), adverse events (AEs), and quality of life (QoL) from the international phase 2 LAPACT trial. Methods: Pts with treatment-naive unresectable LAPC and ECOG performance status of 0 or 1 received 6 cycles (C) of nab-P 125 mg/m2 + G 1000 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 of each 28-day C. After the initial nab-P + G treatment phase, pts without PD and unacceptable AEs were eligible for investigator’s choice (IC) of continued treatment with nab-P + G, chemoradiation, or surgery. Surgery could occur prior to completing 6 C in the case of a major response. Pt-reported QoL was assessed via EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PAN26 questionnaires at screening and prior to infusion on day 1 of each C. Results: As of Aug 17, 2016, 47 pts completed (28/47, 60%) or discontinued (19/47, 40%) the initial nab-P + G treatment (median, 5 C). Median age was 66 years (range, 44 - 86). The most frequent reasons for discontinuation were AE (10/47 [21%], with the most common being neutropenia and abnormal liver function [2 pts each]) and PD (3/47, 6%). The most common grade ≥ 3 AEs were neutropenia (34%) and anemia (11%). The DCR ≥ 16 weeks was 76% (34/45 efficacy-evaluable pts [defined as having evaluable baseline and ≥ 1 postbaseline scan]; PR, n = 13; SD, n = 21). Twenty-two pts (47%) were assigned by the investigators to an IC treatment: 4 (9%) to continue nab-P + G, 8 (17%) to chemoradiation, and 10 (21%) to surgical resection. Mean QoL scores remained stable during the study, with improved symptom scores for appetite and pain. During the initial nab-P + G treatment phase, most patients reported a complete resolution of certain limitations, including depression (≈ 80%), constipation (≈ 62%), and nausea (≈ 93%). Conclusions: These interim results suggest that for pts with LAPC, nab-P + G is tolerable and produces a promising DCR. On average, QoL scores remained stable during nab-P + G treatments. Clinical trial information: NCT02301143.

Positioning of second-line treatment for advanced gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma

Tumors of the upper gastrointestinal tract are increasing in incidence; yet, approaches to the treatment of advanced gastric and/or gastroesophageal junction cancer vary widely, with no internationally agreed first‐line regimens. Recent clinical trials have shown that second‐line treatment is now possible for selected patients with advanced disease, and current data suggest that the combination of ramucirumab plus paclitaxel may become a standard of care in the second‐line setting for metastatic gastric cancer. Several prognostic factors have been identified for overall survival in the second‐line setting; this emphasizes the need for careful sequencing of all treatments to ensure that individual patients receive optimum care. This article reviews published data on the treatment of advanced gastric cancer, with a particular emphasis on second‐line chemotherapy, and suggests treatment sequences based on current understanding.

A study-level meta-analysis of efficacy data from head-to-head first-line trials of epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors versus bevacizumab in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Head-to-head trials comparing first-line epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRI) versus vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitor (bevacizumab) therapy yielded differing results, and debate remains over optimal first-line therapy for patients with RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC).

METHODS

A PubMed search identified first-line mCRC trials comparing EGFRI plus chemotherapy versus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy; data were subsequently updated using recent congress presentations. This study-level meta-analysis estimated the overall survival (OS) treatment effect of first-line chemotherapy plus EGFRIs or bevacizumab in patients with RAS WT mCRC. Secondary end-points were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), resection rate and safety. Early tumour shrinkage (ETS) of ≥20% at week 8 was an exploratory end-point.

RESULTS

Three trials comprising data from 1096 patients with RAS WT mCRC were included. OS (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.80 [95% confidence interval: 0.68-0.93]), ORR (odds ratio [OR]: 0.57) and ETS (OR: 0.48) favoured EGFRIs plus chemotherapy versus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy. PFS (HR: 0.98) and resections (OR: 0.93) were similar between treatments. For patients with KRAS exon 2 WT/'other' RAS mutant mCRC the OS HR was 0.70. A safety meta-analysis was not possible due to a lack of data; in the individual studies, skin toxicities and hypomagnesaemia were more common with EGFRIs, nausea and hypertension were more common with bevacizumab.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis supports a potential benefit for first-line EGFRI plus chemotherapy versus bevacizumab plus chemotherapy with respect to OS, ORR and ETS in patients with RAS WT mCRC. A patient-level meta-analysis is awaited.

Equity, barriers and cancer disparities: study of the Spanish Society of Medical Oncology on the access to oncologic drugs in the Spanish Regions

Purpose

The Spanish Society of Medical Oncology (SEOM) has conducted a study on the access to oncologic drugs across the 17 Spanish Regions with the aim of identifying potential heterogeneities and making proposals for eliminating the barriers identified at the different levels.

Methods

An Expert Panel made up of medical oncologists designed a survey on certain indications approved for 11 drugs in the approach of breast cancer, melanoma, lung cancer, prostate cancer and support treatment. This survey was sent to 144 National Health System (NHS) hospitals.

Results

77 hospitals answered the survey. The information modules analysed were: scope of the Commission that establishes binding decisions related to drug access; conditions, stages and periods of drug application, approval and administration processes; barriers to accessing drugs.

Conclusions

The study shows variability in drug access. The SEOM makes proposals addressed to reducing the differences identified and homogenizing drug access conditions.