Citations

Abstract Purpose: We examined the prognostic impact of specific KRAS mutations in patients with stage III colon adenocarcinoma receiving adjuvant FOLFOX alone or combined with cetuximab in a phase III trial (N0147). Analysis was restricted to BRAF–wild-type tumors, because BRAF mutation was associated with poor prognosis, and BRAF and KRAS mutations are mutually exclusive. Experimental Design: The seven most common KRAS mutations in codon 12 and codon 13 were examined in 2,478 BRAF–wild-type tumors. Because KRAS mutations in codon 12 (n = 779) or 13 (n = 220) were not predictive of adjuvant cetuximab benefit, study arms were pooled for analysis. Disease-free survival (DFS) was evaluated by HRs using Cox models. Results: KRAS mutations in codon 12 (multivariate HR, 1.52; 95% confidence interval, CI, 1.28–1.80; P < 0.0001) or codon 13 (multivariate HR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.04–1.77; P = 0.0248) were significantly associated with shorter DFS compared with patients with wild-type KRAS/BRAF tumors, independent of covariates. KRAS codon 12 mutations were independently associated with proficient mismatch repair (P < 0.0001), proximal tumor site (P < 0.0001), low grade, age, and sex, whereas codon 13 mutations were associated with proximal site (P < 0.0001). Conclusion: KRAS mutations in either codon 12 or 13 are associated with inferior survival in patients with resected stage III colon cancer. These data highlight the importance of accurate molecular characterization and the significant role of KRAS mutations in both codons in the progression of this malignancy in the adjuvant setting. Clin Cancer Res; 20(11); 3033–43. ©2014 AACR.

Purpose To answer the question, “should elderly non–small-cell lung cancer patients be offered elderly-specific trials?” Patients and Methods The North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) performed a pooled analysis of elderly patients who participated in elderly-specific trials (required age ≥ 65 years) and age-unspecified trials (required age ≥ 18 years). Between 1998 and 2000, all NCCTG non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with incurable cancer, age ≥ 65 years, and receiving first-line chemotherapy were included. A total of 118 elderly patients participated in elderly-specific trials, and 108, in age-unspecified trials. Demographics and outcomes were compared based on trial type. Results The median age of elderly patients in elderly-specific trials was greater: median (range): 73 years (65 to 87) and 70 years (65 to 85), respectively (P < .001), as was the percentage older than 80 years: 17% and 3%, respectively (P = .0008). Median survival times were 232 and 302 days, respectively (P = .08). After adjustment for baseline age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score, cancer stage, and body mass index, this survival difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio = 1.25; P = .16). Grade 3 or worse nonhematologic adverse event rates were greater in age-unspecified trials (81% v 57%, respectively; P < .001), as were grade 3 or worse hematologic events (68% v 10%, respectively; P < .001). Conclusion Elderly patients in NSCLC elderly-specific trials suffered lower rates of severe adverse events with no statistically significant differences in survival. It seems that elderly-specific trials are providing quality care and helping to define optimal cancer therapy in the elderly, particularly among the “oldest of the old.”

Purpose Surgical resection of liver-only metastases from colorectal cancer has undergone extensive evaluation and review. The use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to improve the likelihood of resection in disease that is not optimally resectable has not been as well studied. Patients and Methods Patients with liver-only metastases from colorectal cancer deemed not optimally resectable by a surgeon with expertise in liver surgery received fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX4). Patients were periodically reassessed for resectability. Surgical response was classified as completely resectable (S-CR), partially resectable (S-PR), or unresectable (S-UR). Study design specified the accrual of 39 patients, with two or more S-CRs considered evidence of promising activity with respect to increasing the S-CR rate. Results Forty-two of 44 patients were assessable for this analysis. Twenty-five patients (60%) had tumor reduction by serial imaging. Seventeen patients (40%) underwent surgery (S-CR, n = 14; S-PR, n = 1; and S-UR, n = 2) after a median of 6 months of chemotherapy. With a median postsurgical follow-up of 22 months (range, 13 to 32 months), 11 recurrences have occurred in the 15 S-CR and S-PR patients. Median survival time was 26 months. Conclusion Our data suggest that FOLFOX4 has a high response rate (complete response, partial response, or reduction) in patients with liver-only metastases from colorectal cancer, allowing for successful resection of disease in a portion of patients initially not judged to be optimally resectable. However, a high recurrence rate after surgery was observed, which, in 73% of patients, involved the liver. Further trials are indicated based on the promising results observed in this trial.

Purpose A randomized three-arm phase II study was undertaken to evaluate the optimum administration schedule of pemetrexed and gemcitabine in chemotherapy-naïve patients with non–small-cell lung cancer. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to three schedules of pemetrexed 500 mg/m2 plus gemcitabine 1,250 mg/m2, separated by a 90-minute interval, on a 21-day cycle as follows: schedule A, pemetrexed followed by gemcitabine on day 1 and gemcitabine on day 8; schedule B, gemcitabine followed by pemetrexed on day 1 and gemcitabine on day 8; and schedule C, gemcitabine on day 1 and pemetrexed followed by gemcitabine on day 8. Results One hundred fifty-two eligible patients (schedule A, n = 59; schedule B, n = 31, and schedule C, n = 62) received a median of five (schedule A), two (schedule B), and four (schedule C) treatment cycles. Overall, 66% of patients experienced grade 3 or 4 neutropenia. Common grade 3 and 4 nonhematologic toxicities were dyspnea (11%), fatigue (16%), and transaminase elevation (9%). Schedule A seemed less toxic compared with schedule C (grade 3 or 4 events: 86% v 94%, respectively; P = .19; grade 4 events: 39% v 48%, respectively; P = .30). Schedule B was closed at interim analysis for inferior efficacy. Schedule A, with a confirmed response rate of 31% (95% CI, 20% to 45%), met the protocol-defined efficacy criteria, whereas schedule C, with a confirmed response rate of 16.1% (95% CI, 11% to 34%), did not. Median survival time and time to progression were 11.4 and 4.4 months, respectively, with no observable difference between the arms. Conclusion Pemetrexed and gemcitabine administered as outlined for schedule A met the protocol-defined efficacy criteria, was less toxic compared with the other treatment schedules, and should be further evaluated.

Purpose Gemcitabine remains the standard therapy for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (ACA), but has limited activity. ISIS-2503 is an antisense compound directed against H-ras with preclinical activity against pancreatic ACA in tumor models. The combination of ISIS-2503 and gemcitabine has been evaluated in a prior phase I study. Methods Patients with metastatic or locally advanced pancreatic ACA not amenable to surgery or local radiation received gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously over 30 minutes on days 1 and 8 and ISIS-2503 6 mg/kg/d as a continuous intravenous infusion over 14 days of an every-3-weeks cycle. Responses were monitored by radiologic imaging every 6 weeks. Results Forty-eight eligible patients were enrolled, 43 with metastatic disease. Median follow-up was 12.6 months (range, 2.2 to 16.8 months) for living patients. A median of four cycles of treatment was given (range, 1 to 18 cycles). All patients were assessable for response and toxicity. The 6-month survival percentage was 57.5% (95% CI, 44.9% to 73.5%) and the median survival was 6.6 months. The response rate was 10.4% (one complete response, four partial responses). Clinically significant toxicity was limited except for one fatal pulmonary embolism. Conclusion This study shows a promising response rate to the combination of gemcitabine and ISIS-2503 in patients with pancreatic ACA. The observed 6-month survival rate in these patients met our protocol-defined criteria for success. This regimen is tolerable, but is of unclear benefit. Additional studies evaluating the role of gemcitabine and ISIS-2503 in the treatment of pancreatic ACA should be considered.

Purpose Studies suggest eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), an omega-3 fatty acid, augments weight, appetite, and survival in cancer-associated wasting. This study determined whether an EPA supplement—administered alone or with megestrol acetate (MA)—was more effective than MA. Patients and Methods Four hundred twenty-one assessable patients with cancer-associated wasting were randomly assigned to an EPA supplement 1.09 g administered bid plus placebo; MA liquid suspension 600 mg/d plus an isocaloric, isonitrogenous supplement administered twice a day; or both. Eligible patients reported a 5-lb, 2-month weight loss and/or intake of less than 20 calories/kg/d. Results A smaller percentage taking the EPA supplement gained ≥ 10% of baseline weight compared with those taking MA: 6% v 18%, respectively (P = .004). Combination therapy resulted in weight gain of ≥ 10% in 11% of patients (P = .17 across all arms). The percentage of patients with appetite improvement (North Central Cancer Treatment Group Questionnaire) was not statistically different: 63%, 69%, and 66%, in EPA-, MA-, and combination-treated arms, respectively (P = .69). In contrast, 4-week Functional Assessment of Anorexia/Cachexia Therapy scores suggested MA-containing arms experienced superior appetite stimulation compared with the EPA arm, with scores of 40, 55, and 55 in EPA-, MA-, and combination-treated arms, respectively (P = .004). Survival was not significantly different among arms. Global quality of life was not significantly different among groups. With the exception of increased impotence in MA-treated patients, toxicity was comparable. Conclusion This EPA supplement, either alone or in combination with MA, does not improve weight or appetite better than MA alone.