Hofheinz, Ralf‐Dieter

ImportanceThe prognosis of patients with adenocarcinoma of the esophagus and esophagogastric junction (AEG) is poor. From current evidence, it remains unclear to what extent preoperative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) or preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy achieve better outcomes than surgery alone.ObjectiveTo assess the association of preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy in patients with AEG with overall survival and other outcomes.Data SourcesLiterature search in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was performed from inception to April 21, 2023.Study SelectionTwo blinded reviewers screened for randomized clinical trials comparing preoperative CRT plus surgery with preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery, 1 intervention with surgery alone, or all 3 treatments. Only data from participants with AEG were included from trials that encompassed mixed histology or gastric cancer. Among 2768 initially identified studies, 17 (0.6%) met the selection criteria.Data Extraction and SynthesisThe Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed for extracting data and assessing data quality by 2 independent extractors. A bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted using the 2-stage approach.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOverall and disease-free survival, postoperative morbidity, and mortality.ResultsThe analyses included 2549 patients (2206 [86.5%] male; mean [SD] age, 61.0 [9.4] years) from 17 trials (conducted from 1989-2016). Both preoperative CRT plus surgery (hazard ratio [HR], 0.75 [95% credible interval (CrI), 0.62-0.90]; 3-year difference, 105 deaths per 1000 patients) and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery (HR, 0.78 [95% CrI, 0.64-0.91]; 3-year difference, 90 deaths per 1000 patients) showed longer overall survival than surgery alone. Comparing the 2 modalities yielded similar overall survival (HR, 1.04 [95% CrI], 0.83-1.28]; 3-year difference, 15 deaths per 1000 patients fewer for CRT). Similarly, disease-free survival was longer for both modalities compared with surgery alone. Postoperative morbidity was more frequent after CRT plus surgery (odds ratio [OR], 2.94 [95% CrI, 1.01-8.59]) than surgery alone. Postoperative mortality was not significantly more frequent after CRT plus surgery than surgery alone (OR, 2.50 [95% CrI, 0.66-10.56]) or after chemotherapy plus surgery than CRT plus surgery (OR, 0.44 [95% CrI, 0.08-2.00]).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this meta-analysis of patients with AEG, both preoperative CRT and preoperative and/or perioperative chemotherapy were associated with longer survival without relevant differences between the 2 modalities. Thus, either of the 2 treatments may be recommended to patients.

Abstract Background In the phase III CORRECT trial, regorafenib significantly improved survival in treatment-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The CONSIGN study was designed to further characterize regorafenib safety and allow patients access to regorafenib before market authorization. Methods This prospective, single-arm study enrolled patients in 25 countries at 186 sites. Patients with treatment-refractory mCRC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≤1 received regorafenib 160 mg once daily for the first 3 weeks of each 4-week cycle. The primary endpoint was safety. Progression-free survival (PFS) per investigator assessment was the only efficacy evaluation. Results In total, 2,872 patients were assigned to treatment and 2,864 were treated. Median age was 62 years, ECOG PS 0/1 was 47%/53%, and 74% had received at least three prior regimens for metastatic disease. Median treatment duration was three cycles. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) led to dose reduction in 46% of patients. Regorafenib-related TEAEs led to treatment discontinuation in 9%. Grade 5 regorafenib-related TEAEs occurred in <1%. The most common grade ≥3 regorafenib-related TEAEs were hypertension (15%), hand–foot skin reaction (14%), fatigue (13%), diarrhea (5%), and hypophosphatemia (5%). Treatment-emergent grade 3–4 laboratory toxicities included alanine aminotransferase (6%), aspartate aminotransferase (7%), and bilirubin (13%). Ongoing monitoring identified one nonfatal case of regorafenib-related severe drug-induced liver injury per DILI Working Group criteria. Median PFS (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 2.7 months (2.6–2.7). Conclusion In CONSIGN, the frequency and severity of TEAEs were consistent with the known safety profile of regorafenib. PFS was similar to reports of phase III trials. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01538680. Implications for Practice Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who fail treatment with standard therapies, including chemotherapy and monoclonal antibodies targeting vascular endothelial growth factor or epidermal growth factor receptor, have few treatment options. The multikinase inhibitor regorafenib was shown to improve survival in patients with treatment-refractory mCRC in the phase III CORRECT (N = 760) and CONCUR (N = 204) trials. However, safety data on regorafenib for mCRC in a larger number of patients were not available. The CONSIGN trial, carried out prospectively in more than 2,800 patients across 25 countries, confirmed the safety profile of regorafenib from the phase III trials and reinforced the importance of using treatment modifications to manage adverse events.

Abstract Inhibition of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is an established treatment that extends patient survival across a variety of tumor types. EGFR inhibitors fall into two main categories: anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies, such as cetuximab and panitumumab, and first-generation tyrosine kinase inhibitors, such as afatinib, gefitinib, and erlotinib. Skin reactions are the most common EGFR inhibitor-attributable adverse event, resulting in papulopustular (acneiform) eruptions that can be painful and debilitating, and which may potentially have a negative impact on patients’ quality of life and social functioning, as well as a negative impact on treatment duration. Shortened treatment duration can, in turn, compromise antineoplastic efficacy. Similarly, appropriate management of skin reactions is dependent on their accurate grading; however, conventional means for grading skin reactions are inadequate, particularly within the context of clinical trials. Treating a skin reaction only once it occurs (reactive treatment strategies) may not be the most effective management approach; instead, prophylactic approaches may be preferable. Indeed, we support the viewpoint that prophylactic management of skin reactions should be recommended for all patients treated with EGFR inhibitors. Appropriate prophylactic management could effectively reduce the severity of skin reactions in patients treated with EGFR inhibitors and therefore has the potential to directly benefit patients and improve drug adherence. Accordingly, here we review published and still-emerging data, and provide practical and evidence-based recommendations and algorithms regarding the optimal prophylactic management of EGFR inhibitor-attributable skin reactions.