Evaluation of survival across several treatment lines in metastatic colorectal cancer: Analysis of the FIRE-3 trial (AIO KRK0306)

Multimodal Therapy Versus Primary Surgery for Gastric and Gastroesophageal Junction Diffuse Type Carcinoma, with a Focus on Signet Ring Cell Carcinoma: A Nationwide Study

BACKGROUND

Diffuse type adenocarcinoma and, more specifically, signet ring cell carcinoma (SRCC) of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) have a poor prognosis and the value of neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy (nCRT) is unclear.

METHODS

All patients who underwent surgery for diffuse type gastric and GEJ carcinoma between 2004 and 2015 were retrospectively included from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. The primary outcome was overall survival after surgery. Kaplan-Meier curves were plotted. Furthermore, multivariable Poisson and Cox regressions were performed, correcting for confounders. To comply with the Cox regression proportional hazard assumption, gastric cancer survival was split into two groups, i.e. <90 days and >90 days, postoperatively by adding an interaction variable.

RESULTS

Analyses included 2046 patients with diffuse type cancer: 1728 gastric cancers (50% SRCC) and 318 GEJ cancers (39% SRCC). In the gastric cancer group, 49% received neoadjuvant chemotherapy (nCT) and 51% received primary surgery (PS). All-cause mortality within 90 days postoperatively was lower after nCT (hazard ratio [HR] 0.29, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.20-0.44; p < 0.001). Also after 90 days, mortality was lower in the nCT group (HR for the interaction variable 2.84, 95% CI 1.87-4.30, p < 0.001; total HR 0.29*2.84 = 0.84). In the GEJ group, 38% received nCT, 22% received nCRT, and 39% received PS. All-cause mortality was lower after nCT (HR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43-0.93; p = 0.020) compared with PS. The nCRT group was removed from the Cox regression analysis since the Kaplan-Meier curves of nCRT and PS intersected. The results for gastric and GEJ carcinomas were similar between the SRCC and non-SRCC subgroups.

CONCLUSION

For gastric and GEJ diffuse type cancer, including SRCC, nCT was associated with increased survival.

Efficacy and safety of anlotinib plus XELOX regimen as first-line therapy for mCRC: a single-arm, multicenter, phase II study (ALTER-C-001)

Background

Anlotinib showed encouraging anti-tumor activity in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This study was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of anlotinib plus XELOX as first-line therapy in mCRC patients.

Materials and Methods

Eligible patients aged ≥18 with mCRC were enrolled in this multicenter, single-arm, phase II, exploratory study. Patients received at least 6 cycles of anlotinib, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine as initial therapy. Subsequently, patients received anlotinib monotherapy as maintenance therapy until tumor progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

Thirty-one patients were included between December 2019 and March 2022. The median follow-up was 17.5 (95% CI, 3.0-17.5) months. The median PFS was 8.3 (95% CI, 6.3-10.0) months, with 6- and 12-month PFS rates of 82.3% (95% CI, 59.2%-93.0%) and 18.9% (95% CI, 4.8%-40.1%), respectively. Fifteen (48.4%) achieved partial response for an ORR of 48.4% (95% CI, 30.2%-66.9%). The disease control rate was 71.0% (95% CI, 52.0%-85.8%) due to 7 (22.6%) stable diseases. The median duration of response was 6.0 (95% CI, 3.6-8.0) months and 1 patient had the longest ongoing response of 17.3 months. Of 24 patients with evaluable imaging, 23 (74.2%) obtained tumor shrinkage. The median PFS (11.0 vs. 6.9 months) and ORR (66.7% vs. 60.0%) for patients with RAS/BRAF wild-type were numerically better than those with mutation. Three patients are still ongoing treatment. The grade 3 or more treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were mainly hypertension (12.9%) and decreased neutrophil count (12.9%). Four (12.9%) had serious TEAEs, primarily including abdominal pain and incomplete intestinal obstruction.

Conclusion

Anlotinib plus XELOX as first-line therapy in patients with mCRC showed anti-tumor activity and safety profile, which is worth further investigation.

Clinical Trial Registration

chictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR1900028417.

Optimizing sequential treatment with anti-EGFR and VEGF mAb in metastatic colorectal cancer: current results and controversies

Anti-EGFR mAb (cetuximab or panitumumab) and anti-VEGF mAb (bevacizumab) are the two main targeted agents available for RAS wild-type (WT) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treatment. Nonetheless, three head-to-head clinical trials evaluating anti-EGFR mAb vs -VEGF mAb in first-line treatment failed to conclude a uniform result. Recently, a few small clinical studies revealed that prior use of bevacizumab may impair the effect of cetuximab or panitumumab. Preclinical studies have also suggested that pretreatment with bevacizumab may lead to simultaneous resistance to anti-EGFR mAb. Therefore, we performed this review to summarize the available data regarding the optimal sequential treatment of anti-EGFR and -VEGF mAb for RAS or KRAS WT mCRC and discuss the potential mechanisms that may explain this phenomenon. Primary tumor location and early tumor shrinkage have emerged as new potential prognostic and predictive factors in mCRC. We also collected information to explore whether these factors affect the optimal sequencing of targeted therapy in mCRC. However, definite conclusions cannot be made, and we can only speculate on optimal treatment recommendations based on the contradictory results.

Treatment sequencing in metastatic colorectal cancer

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains incurable in most cases, but survival has improved with advances in cytotoxic chemotherapy and targeted agents. However, the optimal use and sequencing of these agents across multiple lines of treatment is unclear. Here, we review current treatment approaches and optimal treatment sequencing across the first-, second- and third-line settings in mCRC, including biological aspects affecting sequencing and rechallenge. Effective first-line therapy is a key determinant of treatment outcomes and should be selected after considering both clinical factors and biological markers, notably RAS and BRAF. The second-line regimen choice depends on the systemic therapies given in first-line. Anti-angiogenic agents (e.g. bevacizumab, ramucirumab and aflibercept) are indicated for most patients, whereas epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors do not improve survival in the second-line setting. Molecular profiling is important in third-line treatment, with options in RAS wild-type patients including EGFR inhibitors (cetuximab or panitumumab), regorafenib and trifluridine/tipiracil. Immunotherapy with pembrolizumab or nivolumab ± ipilimumab may be considered for patients with high microsatellite instability disease. Targeting HER2/neu amplification shows promise for the subset of CRC tumours displaying this abnormality. Sequencing decisions are complicated by the potential for any treatment break or de-escalation to evoke a distinct clinical progression type. Ongoing trials are investigating the optimal sequencing and timing of therapies for mCRC. Molecular profiling has established new targets, and increasing knowledge of tumour evolution under drug pressure will possibly impact on sequencing.

Effects of Increased Frequency, High Dose, and Pulsatile Oxytocin Regimens on Abnormal Labor Delivery

Background

The current guideline for oxytocin regimens in the abnormal labor of delivery is continuous infusion. The objective of the present study was to compare effects and safety measures of various available regimens of oxytocin in abnormal labor delivery.

Material/Methods

In this clinical experimental study, a total of 900 pregnant women admitted for delivery were randomized into 5 group with 162 each. Pregnant women received oxytocin as continuous administration of 16 mU/min (Group I), 1 mU/min (group II), 4 mU/min (group III), 5 mU/min quarter-hourly (group IV), and through a syringe pump (group V). Measurement of the expense of delivery, the ratio of the instrumental delivery, and the other secondary outcome measures was performed to find the best regimen of oxytocin. The 2-tailed paired t test and Mann-Whitney U test following Dunnett’s multiple comparison tests were used at 95% confidence level.

Results

Pulsatile delivery had least risk of instrumental delivery as compared to continuous infusion (p<0.0001, q=6.663) and normal-frequency low-dose (p<0.0001, q=5.638) of oxytocin. The time required from infusion to delivery was longer for group II (p=0.001, q=2.925), group IV (p<0.0001, q=4.829), and group V (p<0.0001, q=41.456) than for group I. The expense of delivery was: group I < group II < group IV < group III < group V.

Conclusions

High-dose and pulsatile preparation of oxytocin had reduced risks of operative delivery vs. continuous administration.