Purpose: The addition of cetuximab to irinotecan, fluorouracil, and leucovorin (FOLFIRI) as first-line treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) was shown to reduce the risk of disease progression and increase the chance of response in patients with KRAS wild-type disease. An updated survival analysis, including additional patients analyzed for tumor mutation status, was undertaken. Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive FOLFIRI with or without cetuximab. DNA was extracted from additional slide-mounted tumor samples previously used to assess epidermal growth factor receptor expression. Clinical outcome according to the tumor mutation status of KRAS and BRAF was assessed in the expanded patient series. Results: The ascertainment rate of patients analyzed for tumor KRAS status was increased from 45% to 89%, with mutations detected in 37% of tumors. The addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI in patients with KRAS wild-type disease resulted in significant improvements in overall survival (median, 23.5 v 20.0 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.796; P = .0093), progression-free survival (median, 9.9 v 8.4 months; HR, 0.696; P = .0012), and response (rate 57.3% v 39.7%; odds ratio, 2.069; P < .001) compared with FOLFIRI alone. Significant interactions between KRAS status and treatment effect were noted for all key efficacy end points. KRAS mutation status was confirmed as a powerful predictive biomarker for the efficacy of cetuximab plus FOLFIRI. BRAF tumor mutation was a strong indicator of poor prognosis. Conclusion: The addition of cetuximab to FOLFIRI as first-line therapy improves survival in patients with KRAS wild-type mCRC. BRAF tumor mutation is an indicator of poor prognosis.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), which accounts for more than 90% of all pancreatic tumours, is a devastating malignancy with an extremely poor prognosis, as shown by a 1-year survival rate of around 18% for all stages of the disease. The low survival rates associated with PDAC primarily reflect the fact that tumours progress rapidly with few specific symptoms and are thus at an advanced stage at diagnosis in most patients. As a result, there is an urgent need to develop accurate markers of pre-invasive pancreatic neoplasms in order to facilitate prediction of cancer risk and to help diagnose the disease at an earlier stage. However, screening for early diagnosis of prostate cancer remains challenging and identifying a highly accurate, low-cost screening test for early PDAC for use in clinical practice remains an important unmet need. More effective therapies are also crucial in PDAC, since progress in identifying novel therapies has been hampered by the genetic complexity of the disease and treatment remains a major challenge. Presently, the greatest step towards improved treatment efficacy has been made in the field of palliative chemotherapy by introducing FOLFIRINOX (folinic acid, 5-fluorouracil, irinotecan and oxaliplatin) and gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. Strategies designed to raise the profile of PDAC in research and clinical practice are a further requirement in order to ensure the best treatment for patients. This article proposes a number of approaches that may help to accelerate progress in treating patients with PDAC, which, in turn, may be expected to improve the quality of life and survival for those suffering from this devastating disease.

The anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies panitumumab and cetuximab are effective in patients with chemotherapy-refractory wild-type KRAS exon 2 metastatic colorectal cancer. We assessed the efficacy and toxicity of panitumumab versus cetuximab in these patients. For this randomised, open-label, phase 3 head-to-head study, we enrolled patients (from centres in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia) aged 18 years or older with chemotherapy-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2 or less, and wild-type KRAS exon 2 status. Using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, we assigned patients (1:1; stratified by geographical region and ECOG performance status, with a permuted block method) to receive panitumumab (6 mg/kg once every 2 weeks) or cetuximab (initial dose 400 mg/m(2); 250 mg/m(2) once a week thereafter). The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed for non-inferiority (retention of ≥ 50% of the cetuximab treatment effect; historical hazard ratio [HR] for cetuximab plus best supportive care vs best supportive care alone of 0.55). The primary analysis included patients who received one or more dose of panitumumab or cetuximab, analysed per allocated treatment. Recruitment for this trial is closed. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01001377. Between Feb 2, 2010, and July 19, 2012, we enrolled and randomly allocated 1010 patients, 999 of whom began study treatment: 499 received panitumumab and 500 received cetuximab. For the primary analysis of overall survival, panitumumab was non-inferior to cetuximab (Z score -3.19; p=0.0007). Median overall survival was 10.4 months (95% CI 9.4-11.6) with panitumumab and 10.0 months (9.3-11.0) with cetuximab (HR 0.97; 95% CI 0.84-1.11). Panitumumab retained 105.7% (81.9-129.5) of the effect of cetuximab on overall survival seen in this study. The incidence of adverse events of any grade and grade 3-4 was similar across treatment groups. Grade 3-4 skin toxicity occurred in 62 (13%) patients given panitumumab and 48 (10%) patients given cetuximab. The occurrence of grade 3-4 infusion reactions was lower with panitumumab than with cetuximab (one [<0.5%] patient vs nine [2%] patients), and the occurrence of grade 3-4 hypomagnesaemia was higher in the panitumumab group (35 [7%] vs 13 [3%]). We recorded one treatment-related fatal adverse event: a lung infection in a patient given cetuximab. Our findings show that panitumumab is non-inferior to cetuximab and that these agents provide similar overall survival benefit in this population of patients. Both agents had toxicity profiles that were to be expected. In view of the consistency in efficacy and toxicity seen, small but meaningful differences in the rate of grade 3-4 infusion reactions and differences in dose scheduling can guide physician choice of anti-EGFR treatment.

Purpose: PTEN, AKT, and KRAS are epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) downstream regulators. KRAS mutations confer resistance to cetuximab. This retrospective study investigated the role of PTEN loss, AKT phosphorylation, and KRAS mutations on the activity of cetuximab plus irinotecan in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Patients and Methods: A cohort of patients with irinotecan-refractory mCRC who were treated with cetuximab plus irinotecan was tested for PTEN immunoreactivity (ie, immunohistochemistry; IHC), pAKT IHC, and KRAS mutations. Analyses were performed both on primary tumors and on related metastases, and the association among IHC, mutational results, and treatment outcomes was investigated. Results: One-hundred two patients were eligible. Ninety-six primary tumors, 59 metastases, and 53 paired samples were available. Forty-nine primary tumors (58% of assessable samples) had a preserved PTEN expression (PTEN-positive), whereas 35 (40% of assessable samples) were pAKT-positive. Levels of concordance between primary tumors and metastases were 60%, 68%, and 95% for PTEN, pAKT, and KRAS, respectively. PTEN status on primary tumors and pAKT status both on primary tumors and on metastases did not predict response or progression-free survival (PFS). On metastases, 12 (36%) of 33 patients with PTEN-positive tumors were responders compared with one (5%) of 22 who had PTEN-negative tumors (P = .007). The median PFS of patients with PTEN-positive metastases was 4.7 months compared with 3.3 months for those with PTEN-negative metastases (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; P = .005). Patients with PTEN-positive metastases and KRAS wild type had longer PFS compared with other patients (5.5 months v 3.8 months; HR, 0.42; P = .001). Conclusion: PTEN loss in metastases may be predictive of resistance to cetuximab plus irinotecan. The combination of PTEN IHC and KRAS mutational analyses could help to identify a subgroup of patients with mCRC who have higher chances of benefiting from EGFR inhibition.

Background: Several studies have investigated the possible role of the adjuvant chemotherapy after curative resection for gastric cancer failing to show a clear indication; previous meta-analyses suggested small survival benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy, but the statistical methods used were open to criticisms.Materials and methods: Randomised trials were identified by means of Medline and CancerLit and by selecting references from relevant articles. Systematic review of all randomised clinical trials of adjuvant chemotherapy for gastric cancer compared with surgery alone, published before January 2000, were considered. Pooling of data was performed using the fixed effect model. Death for any cause was the study endpoint. The hazard ratio and its 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), derived according to the method of Parmar, were the statistics chosen for summarising the relative benefit of chemotherapy versus control.Results: Overall 20 articles (21 comparisons) were considered for analysis. Three studies used single agent chemotherapy, seven combination of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) with anthracyclin, ten combination of 5-FU without anthracyclines. Information on 3658 patients, 2180 deaths, was collected.Chemotherapy reduced the risk of death by 18% (hazard ratio 0.82, 95% CI: 0.75–0.89, P < 0.001). Association of Anthracyclines to 5-FU did not show a statistically significant improvement when compared with the effect of the other regimens.Conclusions: Chemotherapy produces a small survival benefit in patients with curatively resected gastric cancer. However, taking into account the limitations of literature based meta-analyses, adjuvant chemotherapy is still to be considered as an investigational approach.

PURPOSE: We performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy of glutathione (GSH) in the prevention of oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Fifty-two patients treated with a bimonthly oxaliplatin-based regimen were randomized to receive GSH (1,500 mg/m² over a 15-minute infusion period before oxaliplatin) or normal saline solution. Clinical neurologic evaluation and electrophysiologic investigations were performed at baseline and after four (oxaliplatin dose, 400 mg/m²), eight (oxaliplatin dose, 800 mg/m²), and 12 (oxaliplatin dose, 1,200 mg/m²) cycles of treatment. RESULTS: At the fourth cycle, seven patients showed clinically evident neuropathy in the GSH arm, whereas 11 patients in the placebo arm did. After the eighth cycle, nine of 21 assessable patients in the GSH arm suffered from neurotoxicity compared with 15 of 19 in the placebo arm. With regard to grade 2 to 4 National Cancer Institute common toxicity criteria, 11 patients experienced neuropathy in the placebo arm compared with only two patients in the GSH arm (P = .003). After 12 cycles, grade 2 to 4 neurotoxicity was observed in three patients in the GSH arm and in eight patients in the placebo arm (P = .004). The neurophysiologic investigations (sural sensory nerve conduction) showed a statistically significant reduction of the values in the placebo arm but not in the GSH arm. The response rate was 26.9% in the GSH arm and 23.1% in the placebo arm, showing no reduction in activity of oxaliplatin. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that GSH is a promising drug for the prevention of oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy, and that it does not reduce the clinical activity of oxaliplatin.