Dataset Information

Chemotherapy options in elderly and frail patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS2): an open-label, randomised factorial trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Elderly and frail patients with cancer, although often treated with chemotherapy, are under-represented in clinical trials. We designed FOCUS2 to investigate reduced-dose chemotherapy options and to seek objective predictors of outcome in frail patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Methods

We undertook an open, 2 × 2 factorial trial in 61 UK centres for patients with previously untreated advanced colorectal cancer who were considered unfit for full-dose chemotherapy. After comprehensive health assessment (CHA), patients were randomly assigned by minimisation to: 48-h intravenous fluorouracil with levofolinate (group A); oxaliplatin and fluorouracil (group B); capecitabine (group C); or oxaliplatin and capecitabine (group D). Treatment allocation was not masked. Starting doses were 80% of standard doses, with discretionary escalation to full dose after 6 weeks. The two primary outcome measures were: addition of oxaliplatin ([A vs B] + [C vs D]), assessed with progression-free survival (PFS); and substitution of fluorouracil with capecitabine ([A vs C] + [B vs D]), assessed by change from baseline to 12 weeks in global quality of life (QoL). Analysis was by intention to treat. Baseline clinical and CHA data were modelled against outcomes with a novel composite measure, overall treatment utility (OTU). This study is registered, number ISRCTN21221452.

Findings

459 patients were randomly assigned (115 to each of groups A-C, 114 to group D). Factorial comparison of addition of oxaliplatin versus no addition suggested some improvement in PFS, but the finding was not significant (median 5·8 months [IQR 3·3-7·5] vs 4·5 months [2·8-6·4]; hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·69-1·01, p=0·07). Replacement of fluorouracil with capecitabine did not improve global QoL: 69 of 124 (56%) patients receiving fluorouracil reported improvement in global QoL compared with 69 of 123 (56%) receiving capecitabine. The risk of having any grade 3 or worse toxic effect was not significantly increased with oxaliplatin (83/219 [38%] vs 70/221 [32%]; p=0·17), but was higher with capecitabine than with fluorouracil (88/222 [40%] vs 65/218 [30%]; p=0·03). In multivariable analysis, fewer baseline symptoms (odds ratio 1·32, 95% CI 1·14-1·52), less widespread disease (1·51, 1·05-2·19), and use of oxaliplatin (0·57, 0·39-0·82) were predictive of better OTU.

Interpretation

FOCUS2 shows that with an appropriate design, including reduced starting doses of chemotherapy, frail and elderly patients can participate in a randomised controlled trial. On balance, a combination including oxaliplatin was preferable to single-agent fluoropyrimidines, although the primary endpoint of PFS was not met. Capecitabine did not improve QoL compared with fluorouracil. Comprehensive baseline assessment holds promise as an objective predictor of treatment benefit.

Funding

Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council.

SUBMITTER: Seymour MT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3109515 | biostudies-literature | 2011 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Chemotherapy options in elderly and frail patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS2): an open-label, randomised factorial trial.

Seymour Matthew T MT Thompson Lindsay C LC Wasan Harpreet S HS Middleton Gary G Brewster Alison E AE Shepherd Stephen F SF O'Mahony M Sinead MS Maughan Timothy S TS Parmar Mahesh M Langley Ruth E RE

Lancet (London, England) 20110511 9779

<h4>Background</h4>Elderly and frail patients with cancer, although often treated with chemotherapy, are under-represented in clinical trials. We designed FOCUS2 to investigate reduced-dose chemotherapy options and to seek objective predictors of outcome in frail patients with advanced colorectal cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>We undertook an open, 2 × 2 factorial trial in 61 UK centres for patients with previously untreated advanced colorectal cancer who were considered unfit for full-dose chemotherapy ...[more]

PMID: 21570111

Similar Datasets

Project description:Newer systemic therapies have the potential to decrease morbidity and mortality from metastatic colorectal cancer, yet such therapies are costly and have side effects. Little is known about their non-evidence-based use.We conducted a retrospective cohort study using commercial insurance claims from UnitedHealthcare, and identified incident cases of metastatic colon cancer (mCC) from July 2007 through April 2010. We evaluated the use of three regimens with recommendations against their use in the National Comprehensive Cancer Center Network Guidelines, a commonly used standard of care: 1) bevacizumab beyond progression; 2) single agent capecitabine as a salvage therapy after failure on a fluoropyridimidine-containing regimen; 3) panitumumab or cetuximab after progression on a prior epidermal growth factor receptor antibody. We performed sensitivity analyses of key assumptions regarding cohort selection. Costs from a payer perspective were estimated using the average sales price for the entire duration and based on the number of claims.A total of 7642 patients with incident colon cancer were identified, of which 1041 (14%) had mCC. Of those, 139 (13%) potentially received at least one of the three unsupported off-label (UOL) therapies; capecitabine was administered to 121 patients and 49 (40%) likely received it outside of clinical guidelines, at an estimated cost of $718,000 for 218 claims. Thirty-eight patients received panitumumab and six patients (16%) received it after being on cetuximab at least two months, at an estimated cost of $69,500 for 19 claims. Bevacizumab was administered to 884 patients. Of those, 90 (10%) patients received it outside of clinical guidelines, at an estimated costs of $1.34 million for 636 claims.In a large privately insured mCC cohort, a substantial number of patients potentially received UOL treatment. The economic costs and treatment toxicities of these therapies warrant increased efforts to stem their use in settings lacking sufficient scientific evidence.

Project description:Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a frequently diagnosed tumor and an important cause of cancer deaths worldwide. Until a few years ago, despite the unquestioned role of platinum-based chemotherapy, therapeutic choices beyond the first line were limited and related to unsatisfactory outcomes. Metastatic UC has always been associated with a poor prognosis, with overall survival only slightly above a year. In the recent past, huge progress has been made in our understanding of the molecular and genomic disease characteristics, to enable stratification of patients in terms of prognosis and treatment responses. Unfortunately, we still do not have the perfect combination of clinical biomarkers to tailor the optimal treatment for each patient, despite making several efforts in this direction. The therapeutic arsenal has been augmented by immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), which nowadays represent the backbone of the second-line setting. Equally revolutionary was the FDA's approval of erdafitinib, a potent fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) inhibitor, the use of which is reserved for patients whose tumor harbors specific FGF pathway alterations. Recently, the therapeutic landscape of metastatic UC has been enhanced by the introduction of novel compounds, consisting of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). Enfortumab vedotin is an antibody targeting nectin-4, a cell adhesion molecule highly expressed in UC, conjugated to monomethyl auristatin E (MMAE), a microtubule-disrupting agent. Sacituzumab govitecan is a humanized monoclonal antibody targeting Trop-2, a transmembrane glycoprotein, conjugated to the active metabolite of irinotecan. These two compounds have received accelerated approval by the FDA in patients pretreated with platinum-based chemotherapy and immunotherapy. Several ongoing trials are investigating the role of ICIs combined with chemotherapy, antiangiogenic drugs, or other ICIs, as well as the efficacy of PARP inhibitors and target therapies, hoping to provide information for some important unmet needs. In this review, we aim to evaluate the current potential treatment options after first-line chemotherapy.

Project description:BackgroundUrothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract (UTUCs) are rare, with poorer stage-for-stage prognosis than urothelial carcinomas of the urinary bladder. No international consensus exists on the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with UTUCs after nephroureterectomy with curative intent. The POUT (Peri-Operative chemotherapy versus sUrveillance in upper Tract urothelial cancer) trial aimed to assess the efficacy of systemic platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with UTUCs.MethodsWe did a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial at 71 hospitals in the UK. We recruited patients with UTUC after nephroureterectomy staged as either pT2-T4 pN0-N3 M0 or pTany N1-3 M0. We randomly allocated participants centrally (1:1) to either surveillance or four 21-day cycles of chemotherapy, using a minimisation algorithm with a random element. Chemotherapy was either cisplatin (70 mg/m2) or carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC]4·5/AUC5, for glomerular filtration rate <50 mL/min only) administered intravenously on day 1 and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) administered intravenously on days 1 and 8; chemotherapy was initiated within 90 days of surgery. Follow-up included standard cystoscopic, radiological, and clinical assessments. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival analysed by intention to treat with a Peto-Haybittle stopping rule for (in)efficacy. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01993979. A preplanned interim analysis met the efficacy criterion for early closure after recruitment of 261 participants.FindingsBetween June 19, 2012, and Nov 8, 2017, we enrolled 261 participants from 57 of 71 open study sites. 132 patients were assigned chemotherapy and 129 surveillance. One participant allocated chemotherapy withdrew consent for data use after randomisation and was excluded from analyses. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0·45, 95% CI 0·30-0·68; p=0·0001) at a median follow-up of 30·3 months (IQR 18·0-47·5). 3-year event-free estimates were 71% (95% CI 61-78) and 46% (36-56) for chemotherapy and surveillance, respectively. 55 (44%) of 126 participants who started chemotherapy had acute grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events, which accorded with frequently reported events for the chemotherapy regimen. Five (4%) of 129 patients managed by surveillance had acute grade 3 or worse emergent adverse events. No treatment-related deaths were reported.InterpretationGemcitabine-platinum combination chemotherapy initiated within 90 days after nephroureterectomy significantly improved disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced UTUC. Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy should be considered a new standard of care after nephroureterectomy for this patient population.FundingCancer Research UK.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery improves survival compared with surgery alone for patients with oesophageal cancer. The OE05 trial assessed whether increasing the duration and intensity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy further improved survival compared with the current standard regimen. METHODS:OE05 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised clinical trial. Patients with surgically resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma classified as stage cT1N1, cT2N1, cT3N0/N1, or cT4N0/N1 were recruited from 72 UK hospitals. Eligibility criteria included WHO performance status 0 or 1, adequate respiratory, cardiac, and liver function, white blood cell count at least 3?×?109 cells per L, platelet count at least 100?×?109 platelets per L, and a glomerular filtration rate at least 60 mL/min. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) using a computerised minimisation program with a random element and stratified by centre and tumour stage, to receive two cycles of cisplatin and fluorouracil (CF; two 3-weekly cycles of cisplatin [80 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1] and fluorouracil [1 g/m2 per day intravenously on days 1-4]) or four cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX; four 3-weekly cycles of epirubicin [50 mg/m2] and cisplatin [60 mg/m2] intravenously on day 1, and capecitabine [1250 mg/m2] daily throughout the four cycles) before surgery, stratified according to centre and clinical disease stage. Neither patients nor study staff were masked to treatment allocation. Two-phase oesophagectomy with two-field (abdomen and thorax) lymphadenectomy was done within 4-6 weeks of completion of chemotherapy. The primary outcome measure was overall survival, and primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (number 01852072) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00041262), and is completed. FINDINGS:Between Jan 13, 2005, and Oct 31, 2011, 897 patients were recruited and 451 were assigned to the CF group and 446 to the ECX group. By Nov 14, 2016, 327 (73%) of 451 patients in the CF group and 302 (68%) of 446 in the ECX group had died. Median survival was 23·4 months (95% CI 20·6-26·3) with CF and 26·1 months (22·5-29·7) with ECX (hazard ratio 0·90 (95% CI 0·77-1·05, p=0·19). No unexpected chemotherapy toxicity was seen, and neutropenia was the most commonly reported event (grade 3 or 4 neutropenia: 74 [17%] of 446 patients in the CF group vs 101 [23%] of 441 people in the ECX group). The proportions of patients with postoperative complications (224 [56%] of 398 people for whom data were available in the CF group and 233 [62%] of 374 in the ECX group; p=0·089) were similar between the two groups. One patient in the ECX group died of suspected treatment-related neutropenic sepsis. INTERPRETATION:Four cycles of neoadjuvant ECX compared with two cycles of CF did not increase survival, and cannot be considered standard of care. Our study involved a large number of centres and detailed protocol with comprehensive prospective assessment of health-related quality of life in a patient population confined to people with adenocarcinomas of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction (Siewert types 1 and 2). Alternative chemotherapy regimens and neoadjuvant chemoradiation are being investigated to improve outcomes for patients with oesophageal carcinoma. FUNDING:Cancer Research UK and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London.

Project description:BackgroundMerkel cell carcinoma is a rare, aggressive skin cancer with poor prognosis in patients with advanced disease. Current standard care uses various cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens, but responses are seldom durable. Tumour oncogenesis is linked to Merkel cell polyomavirus integration and ultraviolet-radiation-induced mutations, providing rationale for treatment with immunotherapy antibodies that target the PD-L1/PD-1 pathway. We assessed treatment with avelumab, an anti-PD-L1 monoclonal antibody, in patients with stage IV Merkel cell carcinoma that had progressed after cytotoxic chemotherapy.MethodsIn this multicentre, international, prospective, single-group, open-label, phase 2 trial, patients with stage IV chemotherapy-refractory, histologically confirmed Merkel cell carcinoma (aged ≥18 years) were enrolled from 35 cancer treatment centres and academic hospitals in North America, Europe, Australia, and Asia. Key eligibility criteria were an ECOG performance status of 0 or 1, measurable disease by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) version 1.1, adequate haematological, hepatic, and renal function, and immune-competent status (patients with HIV, immunosuppression, haematological malignancies, and previous organ transplantation were excluded). Patient selection was not based on PD-L1 expression or Merkel cell polyomavirus status. Collection of biopsy material or use of archival tissue for these assessments was mandatory. Avelumab was given intravenously at a dose of 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response (complete response or partial response) assessed according to RECIST version 1.1 by an independent review committee. Safety and clinical activity were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug (the modified intention-to-treat population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT02155647.FindingsBetween July 25, 2014, and Sept 3, 2015, 88 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of avelumab. Patients were followed up for a median of 10·4 months (IQR 8·6-13·1). The proportion of patients who achieved an objective response was 28 (31·8% [95·9% CI 21·9-43·1]) of 88 patients, including eight complete responses and 20 partial responses. Responses were ongoing in 23 (82%) of 28 patients at the time of analysis. Five grade 3 treatment-related adverse events occurred in four (5%) patients: lymphopenia in two patients, blood creatine phosphokinase increase in one patient, aminotransferase increase in one patient, and blood cholesterol increase in one patient; there were no treatment-related grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths. Serious treatment-related adverse events were reported in five patients (6%): enterocolitis, infusion-related reaction, aminotransferases increased, chondrocalcinosis, synovitis, and interstitial nephritis (n=1 each).InterpretationAvelumab was associated with durable responses, most of which are still ongoing, and was well tolerated; hence, avelumab represents a new therapeutic option for advanced Merkel cell carcinoma.FundingMerck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Project description:BackgroundRegorafenib confers an overall survival benefit in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer; however, the adverse event profile of regorafenib has limited its use. Despite no supportive evidence, various dosing schedules are used clinically to alleviate toxicities. This study evaluated the safety and activity of two regorafenib dosing schedules.MethodsIn this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study done in 39 outpatient cancer centres in the USA, adults aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum that was refractory to previous standard therapy, including EGFR inhibitors if KRAS wild-type, were enrolled. Eligible patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and had no previous treatment with regorafenib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) into four groups with two distinct regorafenib dosing strategies and two clobetasol usage plans, stratified by hospital. Regorafenib dosing strategies were a dose-escalation strategy (starting dose 80 mg/day orally with weekly escalation, per 40 mg increment, to 160 mg/day regorafenib) if no significant drug-related adverse events occurred and a standard-dose strategy (160 mg/day orally) for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Clobetasol usage plans (0·05% clobetasol cream twice daily applied to palms and soles) were either pre-emptive or reactive. After randomisation to the four preplanned groups, using the Pocock and Simon dynamic allocation procedures stratified by the treating hospitals, we formally tested the interaction between the two interventions, dosing strategy and clobetasol usage. Given the absence of a significant interaction (p=0·74), we decided to pool the data for the pre-emptive and reactive treatment with clobetasol and compared the two dosing strategies (dose escalation vs standard dose). The primary endpoint was the proportion of evaluable patients (defined as those who were eligible, consented, and received any protocol treatment) initiating cycle 3 and was analysed per protocol. Superiority for dose escalation was declared if the one-sided p value with Fisher's exact test was less than 0·2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02368886. This study is fully accrued but remains active.FindingsBetween June 2, 2015, and June 22, 2017, 123 patients were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 116 (94%) were evaluable. The per-protocol population consisted of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group and 62 in the standard-dose group. At data cutoff on July 24, 2018, median follow-up was 1·18 years (IQR 0·98-1·57). The primary endpoint was met: 23 (43%, 95% CI 29-56) of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group initiated cycle 3 versus 16 (26%, 15-37) of 62 patients in the standard-dose group (one-sided p=0·043). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (seven [13%] patients in the dose-escalation group vs 11 [18%] in the standard-dose group), hand-foot skin reaction (eight [15%] patients vs ten [16%] patients), abdominal pain (nine [17%] patients vs four [6%] patients), and hypertension (four [7%] patients vs nine [15%] patients). 14 patients had at least one drug-related serious adverse event: six patients in the dose-escalation group and eight patients in the standard-dose group. There was one probable treatment-related death in the standard-dose group (myocardial infarction).InterpretationThe dose-escalation dosing strategy represents an alternative approach for optimising regorafenib dosing with comparable activity and lower incidence of adverse events and could be implemented in clinical practice on the basis of these data.FundingBayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with metastatic sarcoma have limited treatment options. Nivolumab and ipilimumab are monoclonal antibodies targeting PD-1 and CTLA-4, respectively. We investigated the activity and safety of nivolumab alone or in combination with ipilimumab in patients with locally advanced, unresectable, or metastatic sarcoma.MethodsWe did a multicentre, open-label, non-comparative, randomised, phase 2 study that enrolled patients aged 18 years or older and had central pathology confirmation of sarcoma with at least one measurable lesion by Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST) 1.1, evidence of metastatic, locally advanced or unresectable disease, an ECOG performance status of 0-1, and received at least one previous line of systemic therapy. Patients were assigned to treatment in an unblinded manner, as this trial was conducted as two independent, non-comparative phase 2 trials. Enrolled patients were assigned (1:1) via a dynamic allocation algorithm to intravenous nivolumab 3 mg/kg every 2 weeks, or nivolumab 3 mg/kg plus ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 3 weeks for four doses. Thereafter, all patients received nivolumab monotherapy (3 mg/kg) every 2 weeks for up to 2 years. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with locally advanced, unresectable or metastatic soft tissue sarcoma achieving a confirmed objective response. Analysis was per protocol. This study is ongoing although enrolment is closed. It is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02500797.FindingsBetween Aug 13, 2015, and March 17, 2016, 96 patients from 15 sites in the USA underwent central pathology review for eligibility and 85 eligible patients, including planned over-enrolment, were allocated to receive either nivolumab monotherapy (43 patients) or nivolumab plus ipilimumab (42 patients). The primary endpoint analysis was done according to protocol specifications in the first 76 eligible patients (38 patients per group). The number of confirmed responses was two (5% [92% CI 1-16] of 38 patients) in the nivolumab group and six (16% [7-30] of 38 patients) in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were anaemia (four [10%] patients), decreased lymphocyte count (three [7%]), and dehydration, increased lipase, pain, pleural effusion, respiratory failure, secondary benign neoplasm, and urinary tract obstruction (two [5%] patients each) among the 42 patients in the nivolumab group and anaemia (eight [19%] patients), hypotension (four [10%] patients), and pain and urinary tract infection (three [7%] patients each) among the 42 patients in the nivolumab plus ipilimumab group. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in eight (19%) of 42 patients receiving monotherapy and 11 (26%) of 42 patients receiving combination therapy, and included anaemia, anorexia, dehydration, decreased platelet count, diarrhoea, fatigue, fever, increased creatinine, increased alanine aminotransferase, increased aspartate aminotransferase, hyponatraemia, pain, pleural effusion, and pruritus. There were no treatment-related deaths.InterpretationNivolumab alone does not warrant further study in an unselected sarcoma population given the limited efficacy. Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab demonstrated promising efficacy in certain sarcoma subtypes, with a manageable safety profile comparable to current available treatment options. The combination therapy met its predefined primary study endpoint; further evaluation of nivolumab plus ipilimumab in a randomised study is warranted.FundingAlliance Clinical Trials in Oncology, National Cancer Institute Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cycle for Survival.

Dataset Information

Chemotherapy options in elderly and frail patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS2): an open-label, randomised factorial trial.

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Publications

Chemotherapy options in elderly and frail patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS2): an open-label, randomised factorial trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets