Citations

Abstract Background Adjuvant 5-FU monotherapy was previously the standard treatment for stage II/III rectal cancer. This study compared adjuvant FOLFIRI, FOLFOX, and 5-FU/LV. Methods Eligible patients had T3-T4 N0 or Tany N1-3 rectal adenocarcinoma ≤12 cm from the anal verge and received pre-operative or postoperative 5-FU chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Patients were randomized to adjuvant FOLFIRI (8 cycles), FOLFOX (8 cycles), or 5-FU/LV weekly (6/8 weeks; 3 cycles). The trial planned to enroll 3,150 patients but was closed early following activation of an alternative adjuvant rectal cancer study including bevacizumab (E5204). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS); secondary endpoints included disease-free survival (DFS), sphincter preservation, tolerability, and quality of life (QOL). Results The trial enrolled 225 patients (179 randomized) before early closure. Grade 3/4 toxicity occurred in 59%, with neutropenia, leukopenia, and diarrhea being the most common. At a median follow-up of 9.7 years, no significant OS or DFS differences were observed. The rate of sphincter preservation was numerically higher with FOLFIRI and FOLFOX versus 5-FU/LV, but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion FOLFOX and FOLFIRI can be safely administered after CRT in rectal cancer patients safely with expected toxicities. Due to early trial closure and small sample size, the survival analysis was underpowered to detect a significant difference between regimens. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00068692

PURPOSE Tumor treating fields (TTFields) use alternating electric fields to disrupt cancer cell proliferation. Feasibility of TTFields therapy with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel was previously demonstrated in patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma. PANOVA-3 was designed to confirm safety and efficacy of TTFields in patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LA-PAC). METHODS In this global phase III trial, 571 patients with newly diagnosed LA-PAC were randomly assigned to receive gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m 2 and nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m 2 by intravenous infusion once a day on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle with or without TTFields. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), local PFS, pain-free survival, and overall response rate (ORR). Distant PFS was analyzed post hoc. RESULTS OS was significantly prolonged using TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 16.2 months [95% CI, 15.0 to 18.0] v 14.2 months [95% CI, 12.8 to 15.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99]; P = .039). PFS, local PFS, and ORR were not improved. Pain-free survival was significantly prolonged with TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel (median, 15.2 months [95% CI, 10.3 to 22.8] v 9.1 months [95% CI, 7.4 to 12.7]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.56 to 0.97]; P = .027), as was distant PFS (median, 13.9 months [95% CI, 12.2 to 16.8] v 11.5 months [95% CI, 10.4 to 12.9]; HR, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.57 to 0.96]; P = .022). Device-related skin adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 76.3% of patients. Most device-related skin AEs were mild to moderate, with 7.7% of patients reporting a grade 3 AE. CONCLUSION This study demonstrated significant OS, pain-free survival, and distant PFS benefits for TTFields with gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel versus gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel in patients with unresectable LA-PAC, with no additive systemic toxicity.