Firwana, Belal

619 Background: Regorafenib (at a starting dose of 160 mg/day, rego 160), regorafenib (with a weekly dose escalation, rego 80+) and TAS-102, are suggested treatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness evidence supporting these 3 strategies. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL, for randomized controlled trials evaluating TAS 102 or regorafenib in refractory mCRC patients who progressed on/intolerant of previous oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and fluoropyrimidine. Outcomes of interest included OS and PFS. The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian random effects model. We conducted network meta-analysis based on White’s multivariate meta-regression to pool evidence from direct and indirect comparisons. Results: Six trials (3 of regorafenib and 3 of TAS-102) at low risk of bias (2,445 patients) were included. Direct comparisons showed that Rego 160 and TAS-102 as monotherapy were superior to BSC in terms of PFS (Rego 160: HR = 0.4, CI 0.26 to 0.63; TAS-102: HR = 0.46, CI 0.40 to 0.52) and OS (Rego 160: HR = 0.67, CI 0.48 to 0.93; TAS-102: HR = 0.67, CI 0.57 to 0.80). Network analysis showed that there was no difference in PFS or OS between Rego 160 and TAS-102. Rego 80+ was superior to BSC in terms of OS (HR = 0.44, CI 0.23 to 0.84) and PFS (HR = 0.37, CI 0.21 to 0.66). There was a numerical advantage for Rego 80+ compared to TAS-102 and Rego 160 (see table). Conclusions: Regorafenib 160 and TAS-102 appear to have similar efficacy. Rego 80+ is shown to be superior to BSC. A trend for improved OS was observed with Rego 80+ versus Rego 160 or TAS 102. [Table: see text]

e15779 Background: There is paucity of data regarding the best available second-line treatment following progression on gemcitabine-based regimens in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). While a Nanoliposomal formulation of irinotecan (MM398) is considered a standard of care, there is conflicting data relating to the use of oxaliplatin in this setting. We performed a meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of adding oxaliplatin (OX) or various irinotecan (IRI) formulations to a fluoropyrimidine (FP) as a second-line in PDAC patients. Methods: We searched different databases, including PubMed, Embase and Cochrane, to identify randomized controlled trials comparing FP monotherapy to FP combination therapy that includes either oxaliplatin (FPOX) or various irinotecan formulations (FPIRI) in PDAC patients who progressed after first-line treatment. Secondary analyses were planned to assess the effectiveness of FPOX and FPIRI compared to FP. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. Results: Five studies (2 with FPIRI and 3 with FPOX) with 895 patients were identified. Patients randomized to FPIRI/FPOX had a significantly improved PFS (HR = 0.74, CI 0.62 to 0.89) and a trend towards an improved OS compared to FP monotherapy (HR = 0.88, CI 0.65 to 1.19). When comparing FPIRI to FP, there was an improvement in both PFS (HR = 0.64, CI 0.47 to 0.87) and OS (HR = 0.70, CI 0.55 to 0.89) in patients treated with the combination. Conversely, FPOX showed only a modest improvement in PFS (HR = 0.81, CI 0.67, 0.97) with no improvement in OS (HR = 1.03, CI 0.64 to 1.67). Conclusions: Combination chemotherapy with oxaliplatin or various irinotecan formulations seem to improve PFS vs. single agent FP. FPIRI, but not FPOX seem to confer an OS advantage. Oxaliplatin with FP following gemcitabine failure may need further confirmatory studies to establish its role in refractory pancreas cancer.

689 Background: The role of antiangiogenic agents in advanced RCC is well established. However, it is still not clear whether this benefit can be extrapolated to the adjuvant setting. In this meta-analysis of 3 randomized control trials (RCTs), we sought to determine the efficacy of these agents in RCC patients who underwent nephrectomy with high risk of relapse. Methods: We searched three databases, including Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify RCTs comparing antiangiogenic agents to placebo in post-nephrectomy RCC patients. We evaluated: 1) the effect of antiangiogenics in highest risk groups as defined by individual studies; 2) the role of each agent separately; and 3) the effect in clear-cell RCC population. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). The overall effect was pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects models Results: Three RCTs (N = 3693 patients) were identified. All studies were comparing placebo to antiangiogenics: sunitinib, sorafenib, and pazopanib. Overall, antiangiogenics did not improve DFS (HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.07) or OS (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.25). These results persisted when restricting the analysis to patients with clear cell carcinoma and patients with highest risk of relapse. Similarly, sunitinib did not show any improvement in the entire studied group for either DFS (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.19) or OS (HR 1.11, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.37). In addition, when restricting the analysis to the high risk group, sunitinib did not show any advantage in terms of DFS (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.07) and OS (HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.31). Conclusions: Based on the available evidence, antiangiogenics do not seem to add an advantage over placebo in terms of OS and DFS in high risk RCC patients after nephrectomy. Further studies are needed to identify the patient population which might derive a benefit from antiangiogenics in the adjuvant setting.

AbstractIntroduction: Research is crucial for health-care delivery. However, medical students may not participate in research during their training, which might negatively affect their understanding of the importance of research and their future ability to conduct research projects. This is more prominent in developing countries. We aim to assess the attitudes of a sample of Syrian medical students toward research and suggest plausible solutions to reduce their self-reported barriers. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted using a self-administered, pretested questionnaire. Results: Three hundred and twenty-three responses were included. Most students demonstrated positive attitudes toward research. However, most of the responses indicated that they did not receive any training in academic writing or research and therefore did not have the opportunity to participate in formal research projects or scholarly writing. Students reported various types of barriers that challenged their progress in the field of research. Students who reported being encouraged by their professors to participate in research and writing/publishing scientific papers or reported receiving training about these activities were more likely to participate in research projects or writing scientific articles. Conclusion: Students have positive attitudes toward research and publication while they reported poor education, limited participation, and presence of many barriers that impede their participation in such activities.

BACKGROUNDThere are limited therapeutic options for treatment‐refractory pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), with a paucity of data to support the best option after progression on gemcitabine‐based regimens. The authors performed a meta‐analysis to determine the effectiveness of adding oxaliplatin (OX) or various irinotecan formulations to a fluoropyrimidine (FP) after first‐line treatment progression in patients with PDAC.METHODSDifferent databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane, were searched to identify randomized controlled trials comparing FP monotherapy versus FP combination therapy that included either oxaliplatin (FPOX) or various irinotecan formulations (FPIRI) in patients with PDAC who progressed after first‐line treatment. Secondary analyses were planned to assess the effectiveness of FPOX and FPIRI compared with FP. Outcomes of interest included overall survival (OS) and progression‐free survival (PFS).RESULTSFive studies with 895 patients were identified. Patients randomized to receive FPIRI/FPOX had a significantly improved PFS and a trend toward improved OS compared with those who received FP monotherapy. When comparing FPIRI with FP, there was an improvement in both PFS (hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.47‐0.87; P = .005) and OS (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.55‐0.89; P = .004) in patients who received the combination. Conversely, FPOX produced only a modest improvement in PFS with no improvement in OS.CONCLUSIONSCombination chemotherapy with OX or various IRI formulations appears to improve PFS compared with single‐agent FP. FPIRI, but not FPOX, appears to confer an OS advantage. The combination of FP with irinotecan formulations appears to be the appropriate next line of treatment upon progression after gemcitabine‐based chemotherapy regimens. Cancer 2017;123:4680‐4686. © 2017 American Cancer Society.