Comparison of Clinical and Photoplethysmographic Assessment of Venous Insufficiency

Objective:

To assess the concordance between clinical and photoplethysmographic evaluation of venous insufficiency.

Design:

Comparison of two methods of evaluation of venous insufficiency in randomly selected patients.

Setting:

The Vascular Institute, Shaare Zedek Hospital, Jerusalem, Israel.

Patients:

Four hundred patients selected at random from a pool of 3000 patients referred to the vascular institute for suspected venous insufficiency.

Interventions:

Each of the 800 legs was evaluated clinically, by Trendelenburg testing, and by venous reflux photoplethysmography (VPPG).

Results:

Of 230 legs without clinical evidence of venous insufficiency (including Trendelenburg testing), 214 (93%) were also normal by VPPG. However, of 359 legs with clinical evidence of venous insufficiency, only 178 (50%) were so confirmed by VPPG. Of 135 legs considered to have insufficiency of the deep venous system (DVI) by clinical criteria alone, only 31 (23%) were confirmed to have DVI by VPPG, and 49 (36%) were found by VPPG to have insufficiency of only the superficial system.

Conclusions:

Reliance upon clinical assessment alone is inadequate for distinguishing between insufficiency of the deep and superficial or perforating venous systems. Assessment by VPPG may identify many patients with dermatologic changes “typical of DVI” who may benefit from superficial venous surgery.

A Randomized Controlled Trial of a Nurse-Led Supportive Care Package (SurvivorCare) for Survivors of Colorectal Cancer

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) and its treatments can cause distressing sequelae. We conducted a multicenter randomized controlled trial aiming to improve psychological distress, supportive care needs (SCNs), and quality of life (QOL) of patients with CRC. The intervention, called SurvivorCare (SC), comprised educational materials, needs assessment, survivorship care plan, end-of-treatment session, and three follow-up telephone calls.

METHODS

At the end of treatment for stage I-III CRC, eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to usual care (UC) or to UC plus SC. Distress (Brief Symptom Inventory 18), SCNs (Cancer Survivors' Unmet Needs measure), and QOL (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] QOL questionnaires C30 and EORTC CRC module CR29) were assessed at baseline and at 2 and 6 months (follow-up 1 [FU1] and FU2, respectively). The primary hypothesis was that SC would have a beneficial effect on distress at FU1. The secondary hypotheses were that SC would have a beneficial effect on (a) SCN and QOL at FU1 and on (b) distress, SCNs, and QOL at FU2. A total of 15 items assessed experience of care.

RESULTS

Of 221 patients randomly assigned, 4 were ineligible for the study and 1 was lost to FU, leaving 110 in the UC group and 106 in the SC group. Patients' characteristics included the following: median age, 64 years; men, 52%; colon cancer, 56%; rectal cancer, 35%; overlapping sites of disease, 10%; stage I disease, 7%; stage II, 22%; stage III, 71%. Baseline distress and QOL scores were similar to population norms. Between-group differences in distress at FU1 (primary outcome) and at FU2, and SCNs and QOL at FU1 and FU2 were small and nonsignificant. Patients in the SC group were more satisfied with survivorship care than those in the UC group (significant differences on 10 of 15 items).

CONCLUSION

The addition of SC to UC did not have a beneficial effect on distress, SCNs, or QOL outcomes, but patients in the SC group were more satisfied with care.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Some survivors of colorectal cancer report distressing effects after completing treatment. Strategies to identify and respond to survivors' issues are needed. In a randomized controlled trial, the addition of a nurse-led supportive care package (SurvivorCare) to usual post-treatment care did not impact survivors' distress, quality of life, or unmet needs. However, patients receiving the SurvivorCare intervention were more satisfied with survivorship care. Factors for consideration in the design of subsequent studies are discussed.

ICECREAM: randomised phase II study of cetuximab alone or in combination with irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with either KRAS, NRAS, BRAF and PI3KCA wild type, or G13D mutated tumours

Background

Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer whose disease has progressed on oxaliplatin- and irinotecan-containing regimens may benefit from EGFR-inhibiting monoclonal antibodies if they do not contain mutations in the KRAS gene (are “wild type”). It is unknown whether these antibodies, such as cetuximab, are more efficacious in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer as monotherapy, or in combination with irinotecan. Lack of mutation in KRAS, BRAF and PIK3CA predicts response to EFGR-inhibitors. The ICECREAM trial examines the question of monotherapy versus combination with chemotherapy in two groups of patients: those with a “quadruple wild type” tumour genotype (no mutations in KRAS, NRAS, PI3KCA or BRAF genes) and those with the specific KRAS mutation in codon G13D, for whom possibly EGFR-inhibitor efficacy may be equivalent.

Methods and design

ICECREAM is a randomised, phase II, open-label, controlled trial comparing the efficacy of cetuximab alone or with irinotecan in patients with “quadruple wild type” or G13D-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer, whose disease has progressed on, or who are intolerant of oxaliplatin- and fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. The primary endpoint is the 6-month progression-free survival benefit of the treatment regimen. Secondary endpoints are response rate, overall survival, and quality of life. The tertiary endpoint is prediction of outcome with further biological markers. International collaboration has facilitated recruitment in this prospective trial of treatment in these infrequently found molecular subsets of colorectal cancer.

Discussion

This unique trial will yield prospective information on the efficacy of cetuximab and whether this is further enhanced with chemotherapy in two distinct populations of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer: the “quadruple wild type”, which may ‘superselect’ for tumours sensitive to EGFR-inhibition, and the rare KRAS G13D mutated tumours, which are also postulated to be sensitive to the drug. The focus on establishing both positive and negative predictive factors for the response to targeted therapy is an attempt to improve outcomes, reduce toxicity and contain treatment costs. Tissue and blood will yield a resource for molecular studies. Recruitment, particularly of patients with the rare G13D mutation, will demonstrate the ability for international collaboration to run prospective trials in small colorectal cancer molecular subgroups.

Trial registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12612000901808, registered 16 August 2012.

Australian contemporary management of synchronous metastatic colorectal cancer

INTRODUCTION

This article outlines the current Australian multidisciplinary treatment of synchronous metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma and assesses the factors that influence patient outcome.

METHODS

This is a retrospective analysis of the prospective 'Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer' registry, describing the patient treatment pathway and documenting the extent of disease, resection of the colorectal primary and metastases, chemotherapy and biological therapy use. Cox regression models for progression-free and overall survival were constructed with a comprehensive set of clinical variables. Analysis was intentionn-ton-treat, quantifying the effect of treatment intent decided at the multidisciplinary team meeting (MDT).

RESULTS

One thousand one hundred and nine patients presented with synchronous metastatic disease between July 2009 and November 2015. Median follow-up was 15.8 months; 4.4% (group 1) had already curative resections of primary and metastases prior to MDT, 22.2% (group 2) were considered curative but were referred to MDT for opinion and/or medical oncology treatment prior to resection and 70.2% were considered palliative at MDT (group 3). Overall, 83% received chemotherapy, 55% had their primary resected and 23% had their metastases resected; 13% of resections were synchronous, 20% were staged with primary resected first and 62% had only the colorectal primary managed surgically. Performance status, metastasis resection (R0 versus R1 versus R2 versus no resection), resection of the colorectal primary and treatment intent determined at MDT were the most significant factors for progression-free and overall survival.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest Australian series of synchronous metastatic colorectal adenocarcinoma and offers insight into the nature and utility of contemporary practice.

Prediction of survival in patients with oesophageal or junctional cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery

Background

The value of conventional prognostic factors is unclear in the era of multimodal treatment for oesophageal cancer. This study aimed to quantify the impact of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) and surgery on well established prognostic factors, and to develop and validate a prognostic model.

Methods

Patients treated with nCRT plus surgery were included. Multivariable Cox modelling was used to identify prognostic factors for overall survival. A prediction model for individual survival was developed using stepwise backward selection. The model was internally validated leading to a nomogram for use in clinical practice.

Results

Some 626 patients who underwent nCRT plus surgery were included. In the multivariable model, only pretreatment cN category and ypN category were independent prognostic factors. The final prognostic model included cN, ypT and ypN categories, and had moderate discrimination (c-index at internal validation 0·63).

Conclusion

In patients with oesophageal or oesophagogastric cancer treated with nCRT plus surgery, overall survival can best be estimated using a prediction model based on cN, ypT and ypN categories. Predicted survival according to this model showed only moderate correlation with observed survival, emphasizing the need for new prognostic factors to improve survival prediction.

Impact of Primary Tumor Site on Bevacizumab Efficacy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

BACKGROUND

With an ever-increasing focus on personalized medicine, all factors known to affect treatment response need to be considered when defining optimal therapy for individual patients. While the prognostic impact of primary tumor site on colorectal cancer (CRC) outcomes is established, emerging data suggest potential differences in response to biologic therapies. We studied the impact of tumor site on bevacizumab efficacy in patients with metastatic CRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed data of patients in an Australian prospective multicenter metastatic CRC (mCRC) registry who received first-line chemotherapy. Tumor site was defined as right colon, cecum to transverse; left colon, splenic flexure to rectosigmoid; and rectum. Kaplan-Meier and Cox models were used for survival analyses.

RESULTS

Of 926 patients, 297 had right colon, 354 left colon, and 275 rectum primary disease. Median age was 68.6, 65.9, and 63.3 years, respectively (P = .001). Right colon disease was significantly associated with intraperitoneal spread (P < .0001), while left colon and rectum disease preferentially metastasized to the liver and lungs, respectively (P < .0001 in both settings). A total of 636 patients (68.7%) received bevacizumab. Progression-free survival was superior for bevacizumab-treated patients in all groups but appeared greatest in right colon disease (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-0.60; P ≤ .001). Overall survival was longest in patients with disease of the rectum, followed by left colon and right colon (median, 26.2, 23.6, and 18.2 months, respectively; P = .0004).

CONCLUSION

Tumor site appears to be prognostic in mCRC, with rectum and right colon disease associated with the best and worst outcomes, respectively. Patients who received bevacizumab in addition to chemotherapy had superior outcomes, with the effect appearing greatest in patients with right colon disease.

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a supportive care package (SurvivorCare, SC) for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC)

79

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) and its treatments can cause distressing short and long-term side effects as well as significant functional consequences. Current models of follow-up do not adequately address these issues. We conducted a multi-center RCT of an innovative program (SurvivorCare (SC)); designed to have a beneficial effect on psychological distress, supportive care needs (SCN) and quality of life (QOL). Methods: At the end of active treatment for stage I-III CRC, eligible patients ( =18 years, adequate English) were randomized 1:1 to usual care (UC) or to UC+SC. SC comprised educational materials, needs assessment, an individualized survivorship care plan, nurse-led end-of-treatment session and three follow up (FU) phone calls. Distress (BSI-18), SCN (CaSUN) and QOL (EORTC QLQ-C30, CR29) were assessed at baseline, 2 (FU1) and 6 (FU2) months. Primary hypothesis: SC would have a beneficial effect on distress at FU1. Secondary hypotheses: SC would have a beneficial effect on (1) SCN and QOL at FU1; and (2) distress, SCN and QOL at FU2. 15 items assessed satisfaction with survivorship care. Sample size of 180 (90/arm) was based on 80% power, 2-sided alpha of 0.05, to detect a between groups difference of 3.6 on BSI-18 at FU1. Outcome analysis was ITT. Results: Of 221 patients randomized (111 UC, 110 SC), 4 were ineligible and 1 lost to FU, leaving 110 UC, 106 SC. Groups appeared well balanced. Median age was 64, 52% male, 56% colon, 35% rectal cancer, 10% overlap. Stage I 7%, II 22%, III 71%. Intervention fidelity was acceptable. Baseline distress and QOL were similar to population norms. Between groups differences in distress at FU1 (primary outcome), distress at FU2 and SCN and QOL at FU1 and FU2 were small and non-significant. SC patients were more satisfied with survivorship care than UC patients (significant differences on 10 of 15 items). Conclusions: The addition of SC to UC did not have a beneficial effect on distress, SCN or QOL outcomes but SC patients were more satisfied with survivorship care. Clinical trial information: ACTRN12610000207011.

Primary Tumor Resection and Overall Survival in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Treated With Palliative Intent

BACKGROUND

The survival impact of primary tumor resection in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with palliative intent remains uncertain. In the absence of randomized data, the objectives of the present study were to examine the effect of primary tumor resection (PTR) and major prognostic variables on overall survival (OS) of patients with de novo mCRC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Consecutive patients from the Australian 'Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer' registry were examined from June 2009 to March 2015. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were used to identify associations between multiple patient or clinical variables and OS. Patients with metachronous mCRC were excluded from the analyses.

RESULTS

A total of 690 patients de novo and 373 metachronous mCRC patients treated with palliative intent were identified. The median follow-up period was 30 months. The median age of de novo patients was 66 years; 57% were male; 77% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 1; and 76% had a colon primary. A total of 216 de novo mCRC patients treated with palliative intent underwent PTR at diagnosis and were more likely to have a colon primary (odds ratio [OR], 15.4), a lower carcinoembryonic antigen level (OR, 2.08), and peritoneal involvement (OR, 2.58; P < .001). On multivariate analysis, PTR at diagnosis in de novo patients was not associated with significantly improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82; 99% confidence interval [CI], 0.62-1.09; P = .068). PTR at diagnosis did not correlate with outcome in de novo patients with a colon primary (HR, 0.74; 99% CI, 0.54-1.01; P = .014) or a rectal primary (HR, 0.81; 99% CI, 0.27-2.44; P = .621).

CONCLUSION

For de novo mCRC patients treated with palliative intent, PTR at diagnosis does not significantly improve OS when adjusting for known major prognostic factors. The outcomes of randomized trials examining the survival impact of PTR are awaited.

Does the Chemotherapy Backbone Impact on the Efficacy of Targeted Agents in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature

IMPORTANCE

The EGFR inhibitors (EGFR-I) cetuximab and panitumumab and the angiogenesis inhibitors (AIs) bevacizumab and aflibercept have demonstrated varying efficacy in mCRC.

OBJECTIVE

To document the overall impact of specific chemotherapy regimens on the efficacy of targeted agents in treating patients with mCRC.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched to 2014, supplemented by hand-searching ASCO/ESMO conference abstracts.

STUDY SELECTION

Published RCTs of patients with histologically confirmed mCRC were included if they investigated either 1) chemotherapy with or without a biological agent or 2) different chemotherapy regimens with the same biological agent. EGFR-I trials were restricted to KRAS exon 2 wild-type (WT) populations.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were independently abstracted by two authors and trial quality assessed according to Cochrane criteria. The primary outcome was overall survival with secondary endpoints progression free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR) and toxicity.

RESULTS

EGFR-I added to irinotecan-based chemotherapy modestly improved OS with HR 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-1.00, p = 0.04), but more so PFS with HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.86, p<0.00001). No benefit was evident for EGFR-I added to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (OS HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.87-1.09) and PFS HR 0.92 (95% CI 0.83-1.02)). Significant oxaliplatin-irinotecan subgroup interactions were present for PFS with I2 = 82%, p = 0.02. Further analyses of oxaliplatin+EGFR-I trials showed greater efficacy with infusional 5FU regimens (PFS HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72-0.94) compared to capecitabine (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.91-1.30) and bolus 5FU (HR 1.07; 95% CI 0.79-1.45); subgroup interaction was present with I2 = 72%, p = 0.03. The oxaliplatin-irinotecan interaction was not evident for infusional 5FU regimens. For AIs, OS benefit was observed with both oxaliplatin-based (HR 0.83) and irinotecan-based (HR 0.77) regimens without significant subgroup interactions. Oxaliplatin+AI trials showed no subgroup interactions by type of FP, whilst an interaction was present for irinotecan+AI trials although aflibercept was only used with infusional FP (I2 = 89.7%, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

The addition of EGFR-I to irinotecan-based chemotherapy has consistent efficacy, regardless of FP regimen, whereas EGFR-I and oxaliplatin-based regimens were most active with infusional 5FU. No such differential activity was observed with the varying chemotherapy schedules when combined with AIs.

EVERSUN: a phase 2 trial of alternating sunitinib and everolimus as first-line therapy for advanced renal cell carcinoma

BACKGROUND

We hypothesised that alternating inhibitors of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR) and mammalian target of rapamycin pathways would delay the development of resistance in advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A single-arm, two-stage, multicentre, phase 2 trial to determine the activity, feasibility, and safety of 12-week cycles of sunitinib 50 mg daily 4 weeks on / 2 weeks off, alternating with everolimus 10 mg daily for 5 weeks on / 1 week off, until disease progression or prohibitive toxicity in favourable or intermediate-risk aRCC. The primary end point was proportion alive and progression-free at 6 months (PFS6m). The secondary end points were feasibility, tumour response, overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs). The correlative objective was to assess biomarkers and correlate with clinical outcome.

RESULTS

We recruited 55 eligible participants from September 2010 to August 2012.

DEMOGRAPHICS

mean age 61, 71% male, favourable risk 16%, intermediate risk 84%. Cycle 2 commenced within 14 weeks for 80% of participants; 64% received ≥22 weeks of alternating therapy; 78% received ≥22 weeks of any treatment. PFS6m was 29/55 (53%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 40% to 66%). Tumour response rate was 7/55 (13%; 95% CI 4% to 22%, all partial responses). After median follow-up of 20 months, 47 of 55 (86%) had progressed with a median progression-free survival of 8 months (95% CI 5-10), and 30 of 55 (55%) had died with a median OS of 17 months (95% CI 12-undefined). AEs were consistent with those expected for each single agent. No convincing prognostic biomarkers were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The EVERSUN regimen was feasible and safe, but its activity did not meet pre-specified values to warrant further research. This supports the current approach of continuing anti-VEGF therapy until progression or prohibitive toxicity before changing treatment.

AUSTRALIAN NEW ZEALAND CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY

ACTRN12609000643279.

Gastrointestinal perforation in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal metastases receiving bevacizumab

AIM: To investigate the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal disease.

METHODS: We compared rates of gastrointestinal perforation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and peritoneal disease receiving first-line chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab in three distinct cohorts: (1) the AGITG MAX trial (Phase III randomised clinical trial comparing capecitabine vs capecitabine and bevacizumab vs capecitabine, bevacizumab and mitomycinC); (2) the prospective Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer (TRACC) registry (any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab); and (3) two cancer centres in New South Wales, Australia [Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre and Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre (NSWCC) from January 2005 to Decenber 2012, (any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab). For the AGITG MAX trial capecitabine was compared to the other two arms (capecitabine/bevacizumab and capecitabine/bevacizumab/mitomycinC). In the AGITG MAX trial and the TRACC registry rates of gastrointestinal perforation were also collected in patients who did not have peritoneal metastases. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, chemotherapy duration, and overall survival. Time-to-event outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS: Eighty-four MAX, 179 TRACC and 69 NSWCC patients had peritoneal disease. There were no gastrointestinal perforations recorded in either the MAX subgroup or the NSWCC cohorts. Of the patients without peritoneal disease in the MAX trial, 4/300 (1.3%) in the bevacizumab arms had gastrointestinal perforations compared to 1/123 (0.8%) in the capecitabine alone arm. In the TRACC registry 3/126 (2.4%) patients who had received bevacizumab had a gastrointestinal perforation compared to 1/53 (1.9%) in the chemotherapy alone arm. In a further analysis of patients without peritoneal metastases in the TRACC registry, the rate of gastrointestinal perforations was 9/369 (2.4%) in the chemotherapy/bevacizumab group and 5/177 (2.8%) in the chemotherapy alone group. The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy was associated with improved progression-free survival in all three cohorts: MAX 6.9 m vs 4.9 m, HR = 0.64 (95%CI: 0.42-1.02); P = 0.063; TRACC 9.1 m vs 5.5 m, HR = 0.61 (95%CI: 0.37-0.86); P = 0.009; NSWCC 8.7 m vs 6.8 m, HR = 0.75 (95%CI: 0.43-1.32); P = 0.32. Chemotherapy duration was similar across the groups.

CONCLUSION: Patients with peritoneal disease do not appear to have an increased risk of gastrointestinal perforations when receiving first-line therapy with bevacizumab compared to systemic therapy alone.

The role of biological therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer after first-line treatment: a meta-analysis of randomised trials

PURPOSE

Biologic agents have achieved variable results in relapsed metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Systematic meta-analysis was undertaken to determine the efficacy of biological therapy.

METHODS

Major databases were searched for randomised studies of mCRC after first-line treatment comparing (1) standard treatment plus biologic agent with standard treatment or (2) standard treatment with biologic agent with the same treatment with different biologic agent(s). Data were extracted on study design, participants, interventions and outcomes. Study quality was assessed using the MERGE criteria. Comparable data were pooled for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty eligible studies with 8225 patients were identified. The use of any biologic therapy improved overall survival with hazard ratio (HR) 0.87 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.91, P<0.00001), progression-free survival (PFS) with HR 0.71 (95% CI 0.67-0.74, P<0.0001) and overall response rate (ORR) with odds ratio (OR) 2.38 (95% CI 2.03-2.78, P<0.00001). Grade 3/4 toxicity was increased with OR 2.34. Considering by subgroups, EGFR inhibitors (EGFR-I) in the second-line setting and anti-angiogenic therapies (both in second-line and third-line and beyond settings) all improved overall survival, PFS and ORR. EGFR-I in third-line settings improved PFS and ORR but not OS.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of biologic agents in mCRC after first-line treatment is associated with improved outcomes but increased toxicity.