Schneider, Daniel

Study Design Retrospective Cohort. Objectives Craniovertebral instability can arise from various congenital or acquired conditions, but definitive management often requires craniocervical fusion. This study evaluates whether postoperative clivo-axial angle (CXA) can predict distal junctional failure in patients undergoing craniocervical fusion. While postoperative alignment of the head and cervical spine can be quantified via the CXA, it is unclear whether the CXA can predict distal junctional failure. Methods All patients undergoing craniocervical decompression and fusion (CCF) for craniovertebral instability between 2012 and 2023 at a single institution were identified. Patients experiencing adjacent segment disease (ASD) were identified and compared to those without said pathology based on CXA, Grabb-Oakes line (pBC2), and the presence of cervical kyphosis, cervical disc degeneration, or subluxation on pre- and postoperative imaging. Statistical analysis included Shapiro-Wilk tests for normality, followed by independent t-tests or Mann-Whitney U tests with FDR adjusted P values as appropriate, and univariable logistic regression. Results 71 patients were included, of whom ten (14.3%) developed distal junctional kyphosis and 3 (4.3%) developed cervical spondylolisthesis. The median postoperative CXA was significantly lower in non-ASD patients (144° [IQR: 140-148°] vs 158° [IQR: 153-162°]; P < .001) and logistic regression showed that each 10° degree increase in CXA was associated with a 6.7-fold higher odds of ASD. Conclusions We found craniocervical alignment, as assessed by CXA, independently predicted distal junctional disease in patients undergoing craniocervical fusion, possibly due to low preoperative CXA in these patients. Large increases in CXA may contribute to postoperative instrumentation failure.

BACKGROUNDOxaliplatin in combination with either 5‐fluorouracil or capecitabine is commonly used as first‐line therapy for patients with small bowel adenocarcinoma. The addition of irinotecan improves survival in other gastrointestinal tumors but at the cost of hematologic toxicity. The authors performed a phase 2 cooperative group study (North Central Cancer Treatment Group N0543, Alliance) using genotype‐dosed capecitabine, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (gCAPIRINOX), with dosing assigned based on UDP glucuronosyltransferase family 1 member A1 (UGT1A1) genotype to test: 1) whether the addition of irinotecan would improve outcomes; and 2) whether UGT1A1 genotype‐based dosing could optimize tolerability.METHODSPreviously untreated patients with advanced small bowel adenocarcinoma received irinotecan (day 1), oxaliplatin (day 1), and capecitabine (days 2‐15) in a 21‐day cycle and were dosed with gCAPIRINOX according to UGT1A1*28 genotypes (6/6, 6/7, and 7/7).RESULTSA total of 33 patients (17 with the 6/6 genotype, 10 with the 6/7 genotype, and 6 with the 7/7 genotype) were enrolled from October 2007 to November 2013; 73% were male, with a mean age of 64 years (range, 41‐77 years). Location of the primary tumor included the duodenum (58%), jejunum (30%), and ileum (9%). The regimen yielded a confirmed response rate of 37.5% (95% confidence interval, 21%‐56%), with a median progression‐free survival of 8.9 months and a median overall survival of 13.4 months. Neither hematologic toxicity (grade ≥3 in 52.9%, 30.0%, and 33.3%, respectively, of the 6/6, 6/7, and 7/7 genotype groups) nor tumor response rate (41.2%, 33%, and 33%, respectively) were found to differ significantly by UGT1A1 genotype.CONCLUSIONSUGT1A1 genotype‐directed dosing (gCAPIRINOX) appears to be feasible with favorable rates of hematologic toxicity compared with prior 3‐drug studies in unselected patients. Larger studies would be needed to determine the regimen's comparability to oxaliplatin and capecitabine (CapeOx) alone or if response/toxicity differs among patients with different UGT1A1 genotypes. Cancer 2017;123:3494‐501. © 2017 American Cancer Society.

314 Background: Small bowel adenocarcinoma (SB-ACA) is rare, having little prospective data guiding management. A prior phase I study evaluated UGT1A1 genotype specific dosing of oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and capecitabine. Our prospective, multicenter clinical trial assessing tumor response in pts having metastatic SB-ACA, used a similar dosing strategy. Methods: Genotypes were determined via central lab. Previously untreated pts were dosed by UGT1A1*28 genotypes 6/6, 6/7, and 7/7 receiving 100/85/85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin d1, 150/150/75 mg/m2 irinotecan d1, and 1600/400/200 mg/m2 capecitabine (BID) d2-15 of 21 days. The study design was such that 1 confirmed response in 16 pts expanded enrollment to 33 pts, with 7 required for demonstrating efficacy. Results: 28 pts (13-6/6, 10-6/7, 5-7/7) have been enrolled [75% male, mean age 62.5 (range 41-77)]. Location of primary included: duodenum (63%), jejunum (26%), and ileum (7%), with pts having >1 metastatic site (abdominal-41%, bone-7%, liver-56%, lung-30%, nodal-52%, subcutaneous-4%, other-19%). Gr 3+ treatment related toxicity was not significantly different by genotype (50%-6/6, 44%-6/7, 20%-7/7, p=0.48) and included (pts): diarrhea(5), vomiting(5), leukopenia(5), neutropenia(7), and nausea(6). 57% (13 of 23) pts achieved responses during therapy, with a confirmed response rate of 39% (95% CI 0-58%). 18 have died, with a median follow-up of 8.3 mos (range 0-43). Conclusions: UGT1A1 genotype directed dosing with oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and capecitabine appears to result in prolonged response in this population. Larger studies are needed to determine comparability to CapeOx alone or if response/toxicity differs among genotypes. Supported by NIH Grant CA25224, Sanofi-Aventis, and Pfizer. [Table: see text]