PURPOSE: Whether triplet chemotherapy is superior to doublet chemotherapy in advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) is unknown. METHODS: In this open-label, randomized phase II-III study, patients with locally advanced or metastatic BTC and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and infusional fluorouracil (mFOLFIRINOX), or cisplatin and gemcitabine (CISGEM) for a maximum of 6 months. We report the results of the phase II part, where the primary end point was the 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate among the patients who received at least one dose of treatment (modified intention-to-treat population) according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 (statistical assumptions: 6-month PFS rate ≥ 59%, 73% expected). RESULTS: A total of 191 patients (modified intention-to-treat population, 185: mFOLFIRINOX, 92; CISGEM, 93) were randomly assigned in 43 French centers. After a median follow-up of 21 months, the 6-month PFS rate was 44.6% (90% CI, 35.7 to 53.7) in the mFOLFIRINOX arm and 47.3% (90% CI, 38.4 to 56.3) in the CISGEM arm. Median PFS was 6.2 months (95% CI, 5.5 to 7.8) in the mFOLFIRINOX arm and 7.4 months (95% CI, 5.6 to 8.7) in the CISGEM arm. Median overall survival was 11.7 months (95% CI, 9.5 to 14.2) in the mFOLFIRINOX arm and 13.8 months (95% CI, 10.9 to 16.1) in the CISGEM arm. Adverse events ≥ grade 3 occurred in 72.8% of patients in the mFOLFIRINOX arm and 72.0% of patients in the CISGEM arm (toxic deaths: mFOLFIRINOX arm, two; CISGEM arm, one). CONCLUSION: mFOLFIRINOX triplet chemotherapy did not meet the primary study end point. CISGEM doublet chemotherapy remains the first-line standard in advanced BTC.

Neuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC) of the anus or the rectum are a rare disease, accounting for less than 1% of all digestive malignancies. Most are metastatic at diagnosis and treated with a platinum-based chemotherapy. No guidelines for localized tumors exist. The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics of anorectal localized NEC, their management and their outcomes. We retrospectively reviewed patients from 11 French centers with anorectal localized NEC. We compared 2 therapeutic managements: surgery (group A) versus chemotherapy with or without radiation (group B). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated with the Kaplan–Meier method. A total of 24 patients were identified with a median follow-up of 25 months (3–60 months). Median age was 63 years old and 17 had a rectal tumor (71%). Mean Ki-67 was 72% (range: 20–100), and 75% of the tumors had a high proliferative index (Ki-67 > 50%). Global PFS and OS were 13.1 and 44.1 months, respectively. Thirty-seven percent of patients were in group A and 63% in group B. There was no difference between group A and group B, whether in terms of PFS (13.0 months vs. 13.2 months, P = 0.75) or OS (49.1 months vs. 39.2 months, P = 0.42). In patients with anorectal localized NEC, chemotherapy with or without radiation obtained a similar outcome as surgery and this conservative approach could be deemed a reasonable option.

Background: We have done a systematic literature review about CRC Screening over 75 years old in order to update knowledge and make recommendations. Methods: PUBMED database was searched in October 2021 for articles published on CRC screening in the elderly, and generated 249 articles. Further searches were made to find articles on the acceptability, efficacy, and harms of screening in this population, together with the state of international guidelines. Results: Most benefit-risk data on CRC screening in the over 75 s derived from simulation studies. Most guidelines recommend stopping cancer screening at the age of 75. In private health systems, extension of screening up to 80–85 years is, based on the life expectancy and the history of screening. Screening remains effective in populations without comorbidity given their better life-expectancy. Serious adverse events of colonoscopy increase with age and can outweigh the benefit of screening. The great majority of reviews concluded that screening between 75 and 85 years must be decided case by case. Conclusion: The current literature does not allow Evidence-Based Medicine propositions for mass screening above 75 years old. As some subjects over 75 years may benefit from CRC screening, we discussed ways to introduce CRC screening in France in the 75–80 age group. IRB: An institutional review board composed of members of the 2 learned societies (SOFOG and FFCD) defined the issues of interest, followed the evolution of the work and reviewed and validated the report.