EXPERT-C: A randomized phase II European multicenter trial of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (capecitabine/oxaliplatin) and chemoradiation (CRT) with or without cetuximab followed by total mesorectal excision (TME) in patients with MRI-defined high-risk rectal cancer.

2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 360-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Dewdney ◽  
D. Cunningham ◽  
J. Tabernero ◽  
B. Glimelius ◽  
A. Cervantes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Performance Status ◽  
Rectal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
Braf Mutations ◽  
Secondary Endpoints

360 Background: We previously demonstrated the feasibility of administering neoadjuvant chemotherapy before CRT and TME in patients with MRI selected poor prognosis rectal cancer (Chua Y J et al Lancet Oncol 2010). This trial evaluates the addition of the anti-EGFR antibody cetuximab to this treatment strategy. KRAS and BRAF mutations have been established as predictive for lack of response to anti-EGFR therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer. Methods: Patients with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, MRI defined high risk rectal adenocarcinoma were randomised to receive 4 cycles of capecitabine 1,700mg/m2 with oxaliplatin 130mg/m2 (CAPOX) followed by CRT, 45Gy/25# + 5.4Gy/3# boost with concurrent continuous capecitabine 1,650mg/m2/day, TME and 4 cycles of adjuvant CAPOX (EXPERT) or the same regimen with the addition of cetuximab (400mg/m2 loading dose week 1, followed by 250mg/m2/week) (EXPERT-C). The primary endpoint is complete response (CR) (defined as pathological complete response or radiological complete response in patients who decline surgery) in KRAS and BRAF wild type tumours. Secondary endpoints include radiological response to CRT, CR in both KRAS wild type and mutant patients, R0 resection rates, progression free and overall survival and safety. Results: Between 2005-2008, 165 eligible patients were recruited from 15 centres (EXPERT n=81, EXPERT-C n=84). 99% of patients had performance status 0-1, 98% had ≥ T3 disease, 56% had an involved or threatened circumferential resection margin and 72% had evidence of extramural venous invasion determined by MRI. The current median follow up is 30 months. 72/81 (89%) and 79/84 (94%) of patients completed neoadjuvant CRT and 72/81 (89%) and 77/84 (92%) patients underwent curative-intent surgery on the EXPERT and EXPERT-C arms respectively. Two patients declined surgery. Conclusions: The primary and secondary endpoints will be analyzed in October 2010 and will be presented at the meeting. [Table: see text]

Multicenter randomized phase II study of chemoradiation (CRT) followed by surgery (S) and chemotherapy (CT) versus induction CT followed by CRT and S in high-risk rectal cancer: GCR-3 final efficacy and safety results

2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 4103-4103
Author(s):  
C. Fernandez-Martos ◽  
J. Aparicio ◽  
A. Salud ◽  
V. Alonso ◽  
B. Massuti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Dose Intensity ◽  
Treatment Compliance ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Therapeutic Sequence ◽  
Intent To Treat

4103 Background: In locally advanced RC the optimal therapeutic sequence remains an important clinical question. Induction CT prior to CRT and S may be associated with better efficacy and compliance. Methods: Eligible pts had medium or distal high risk RC defined by MRI and/or US: Tumors within 2mm of mesorectal fascia, distal T3 at/below levators, resectable T4 and T3N+. Pts, stratified by center, were randomized assigned to receive either Arm A : capecitabine (Cap) 825 mg/m2 BID 5 d/w, oxaliplatin (Ox) 50 mg/m2 IV weekly x 5 and concomitant RT: 50.4 Gy in 28 fractions. S was planned 5–6 w after CRT. Post-op four cycles of Cap 1,000 mg/m2 bid days 1 to 14; Ox 130 mg/m2 day 1 or Arm B: Induction CapOx followed by CRT and S. Two parallel, Simon 2-stage designs: α=0.05 β=0.1; 24 evaluable pts/arm 1st stage and 54 pts/arm for 2nd stage. Primary endpoint: pathological complete response (pCR). Secondary endpoints included toxicity and treatment compliance. Results: 108 Pts were randomly assigned (arm A/B, 52/56), and 103 were assessable (49/54) from 14 sites. Median age 62/60 years, Male 65/70%. During treatment period 6 pts died A/B: 2 vascular, 1 suicide/ 3 post-op. Pts with any grade ¾ toxicity during CRT were arm A/B: 29% (14/49) and 23% (12/53). Any grade ¾ toxicity during adjuvant/induction CT were 51% (19/37) and 17% (9/54); χ2,p= 0.0004. On an intent-to-treat basis the pCR for Arm A/B was achieved in seven (13.5%; 95% CI, 5.6%-25.8%) and eight (14.3%; 95% CI, 6.4%-26.2%). R0 resections were achieved in 92% (45/49) and 88% (48/54). 51% (25/49) and 93% (50/54) received all four cycles of adjuvant/induction CT (χ2;p<0.0001). Relative Median Dose intensity of adjuvant /induction CT was 0.74/0.96 (Wilcoxon; p<0.0001) for Cap and 0.75/1.0 (Wilcoxon; p<0.0001) for Ox. Conclusions: Induction CT prior to CRT has more favorable compliance and toxicity profiles. Furthermore, there is no compromise in pCR and R0 resection rates. Larger trials evaluating this strategy are justified. [Table: see text]

Phase I trial of neoadjuvant concurrent chemoradiotherapy with S-1 and weekly irinotecan in locally advanced rectal cancer

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 14543-14543
Author(s):  
J. Ahn ◽  
H. Choi ◽  
S. Cheon ◽  
S. Shin ◽  
K. Keum ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Phase I ◽  
Clinical Stage ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Rectal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Advanced Rectal Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Dose Levels

14543 Background: S-1 is a novel, orally administered 5-FU analogue and is known of radiosensitizer. The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility and efficacy of S-1 in combination with weekly irionotecan with concurrent pelvic radiotherapy (RT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. Methods: Clinical stage T3–4 or N+(on MRI) rectal adenocarcinoma patients received weekly irinotecan 40mg/m2(day1,8,15,22,29) and S-1 at dose levels of 40, 50, 60 and 70mg/m2 (5days a week from day 1 to 38) according to phase I methodology. Concurrently conventional RT was given at daily fractions of 1.8 Gy on 5 days a week for a total dose of 50.4 (45 + 5.4)Gy. Surgery was performed 4–8 weeks following completion of chemoradiation. Results: A total 16 patients (10M/7F, median age 46 years, ECOG PS0–1) were enrolled between August 2005 and July 2006. One pt withdrew the consent during CCRT. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) occurred at 50mg/m2 of S-1 in one of six pts (G4 cerebral infarction). At dose of 60, 70mg/m2 of S-1, no DLT occurred. G3/4 toxicties were rare. Fifthteen pts underwent surgery and R0 resection was achieved in 13 pts. Four pts (25.0%) had a pathological complete response. Conclusions: The recommended dose (RD) for further study is S-1 70mg/m2 with irinotecan and radiotherapy. Neoadjuvant S-1/irinotecan/RT is feasible and well tolerated. Phase II trial is being conducted. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

INNOVA: A phase II randomized study comparing INterval versus NeOadjuVAnt chemotherapy in magnetic resonance imaging-defined high risk rectal cancer.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS879-TPS879
Author(s):  
Ramakrishnan Ayloor Seshadri ◽  
Trivadi S. Ganesan ◽  
Arunkumar M N ◽  
Shirley Sundersingh
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Adjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Pathological Complete Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemoradiation ◽  
Rectal Cancers

TPS879 Background: Patients with rectal cancers treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy are not exposed to systemic doses of chemotherapy until very late in the treatment schedule. Preoperative chemotherapy, either in the neoadjuvant or interval setting can lead to early treatment of micrometastasis, improve the tumor response and possibly the overall survival. Phase II studies of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer have shown good response to chemotherapy with no tumor progression and good compliance. A phase II study evaluating the effect of giving chemotherapy in the interval waiting period between chemoradiation and surgery has shown acceptable toxicity and high pathological complete response rates. Methods: This single centre, randomized, open label, phase II trial compares the safety and efficacy of two pre-operative regimens in locally advanced MRI defined high-risk rectal cancers. Based on the Simon optimal two-stage design, 94 patients will be randomised to either Arm A [3 cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) followed by chemoradiation (50.4 Gy with capecitabine) and then surgery] or Arm B [neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by 3 cycles of interval chemotherapy and then surgery]. Patients in both arms receive 3 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. The primary end-point is the pathological complete response rate. Secondary end-points include frequency and severity of adverse events, RO resection rates, tumor regression grading and compliance to treatment. The inclusion criteria: age 18 to 70 years; ECOG performance status 0-2; non-metastatic, locally advanced rectal cancer with any one of the following features on high-resolution thin slice MRI: any T3/T4 tumor in the lower rectum, T3c/T3d/T4 tumor in the mid rectum, N2 disease, threatened mesorectal fascia, or extramural vascular invasion. Patients are randomly assigned to one of the two intervention arms in a 1:1 ratio. Prespecified activity goal for the first stage of accrual was met; second stage accrual began in July 2017. Clinical trial information: CTRI/2015/01/005385.

INNOVA: Interval or neoadjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer—A phase II randomized study comparing interval versus neoadjuvant chemotherapy in magnetic resonance imaging-defined high-risk rectal cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 91-91
Author(s):  
Ramakrishnan Ayloor Seshadri ◽  
Trivadi S. Ganesan ◽  
Manikandan Dhanushkodi ◽  
Arunkumar M N ◽  
Shirley Sundersingh
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Grade 3

91 Background: Total neoadjuvant treatment is a promising option in rectal cancer. We aim to compare neoadjuvant versus interval chemotherapy in high risk rectal cancer to identify the optimal sequencing of treatment. Methods: Using a Simon two-stage design, newly diagnosed MRI defined high risk rectal cancer patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive three 21 day cycles of chemotherapy with Capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 and Oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 either before (Arm A-neoadjuvant) or after (Arm B-interval) chemoradiation followed by surgery. Primary end point was the pathological complete response (pCR) following surgery. A heirarchial model was used to assess the primary and secondary end points (toxicity and compliance) and compare the two regimens. (Clinical Trial Registry of India No. CTRI/2015/01/005385). Results: In this single centre study conducted between November 2015 and February 2020, 42 patients were randomised in the first stage. A pCR was seen in 4 patients in Arm A and 6 in Arm B. Hence another 52 patients were randomised in the second stage of which an additional 3 and 2 patients had a pCR leading to an overall pCR of 7 and 8 patients (15.5% vs 17% and 18.4% vs 19.5% in the intent-to-treat and per-protocol populations in Arm A and B respectively. This exceeded the minimum predetermined number of 5 pCR needed to qualify for further evaluation for each arm. Grade ≥3 toxicity was observed in 2.2% of 132 cycles and 4.6% of 129 cycles of chemotherapy delivered in 45 and 43 patients in Arm A and B respectively while 11/43 (25.5%) and 10/47 (21.2%) patients experienced grade ≥3 toxicity during chemoradiation. Treatment break of > 7 days was seen in 23.2% and 29.7% of patients in Arm A and B respectively while 93.3% in Arm A and 100% of patients in Arm B completed all 3 planned cycles of pre-operative chemotherapy. A non-significant trend towards greater pathological downstaging was seen in Arm B than in Arm A (ypT1-2 39% vs 26.3%; p = 0.1 and ypN0 68.3% vs 57.9%; p = 0.5 respectively). Conclusions: In this phase two study, both neoadjuvant and interval chemotherapy emerged eligible for further evaluation against the standard of care in a future phase III study. Although we could not pick one winner based on pCR, toxicity or compliance, the greater downstaging observed with interval chemotherapy suggests it could play a greater role in an organ preservation approach. Clinical trial information:CTRI/2015/01/005385, UTN no: U111111650578.

Neoadjuvant capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) followed by chemoradiation (CRT) in high-risk rectal cancer: A single-institution experience.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14100-e14100
Author(s):  
Saif Ahmad ◽  
Deepak Parashar ◽  
Catherine Rachel Jephcott ◽  
Hugo Ford ◽  
Charles Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
R0 Resection ◽  
Chemotherapy Response ◽  
Female Ratio ◽  
High Risk Disease ◽  
Male Female Ratio

e14100 Background: Total Mesorectal Excision (TME) is standard of care in early rectal cancer. Pre-operative CRT facilitates microscopic complete resection (R0), improving outcome in high risk disease. Recent Phase 2 studies investigated the role of neoadjuvant CAPOX chemotherapy pre-CRT with promising results. We have adopted this strategy in high risk cancers with threatened circumferential resection margin (CRM) on MRI, and report our institution’s early outcome data. Methods: Retrospective data was collected on 37 patients with high risk disease treated March 2007 to December 2011. Patients received 12 weeks oxaliplatin (130mg/m2) and capecitabine (1000mg/m2 BD for 14 days) every 3 weeks, followed by CRT (45 Gy/ 25 #) with concurrent capecitabine (800mg/m2 BD). 11/37 patients had a 5.4 Gy/ 3 # boost with CRT. 4 patients were in a clinical trial, 2 of whom had cetuximab in addition to CAPOX. Patients deemed operable on repeat MRI had TME and 4 cycles of adjuvant CAPOX. Results: Median age was 64 (33-78) and male: female ratio 2.1:1. Median follow-up was 22 months (1.9-53.7). 2 patients did not complete 4 cycles neoadjuvant CAPOX due to toxicity. Median time to surgery post CRT was 6.6 weeks (4.7-10 weeks). 1 patient had an embolic event and femoral embolectomy. 7/31 (23%) patients had no post-operative chemotherapy (4 wound; 2 previous toxicity; 1 comorbidity). Radiological response rates post CRT were 26/34 (76%). 2 patients progressed and were unable to have radical surgery. 1 further patient was found to have unsuspected metastatic disease (liver) at time of surgery. 28/35 (80%) patients had R0 resection and pathological complete response (pCR) was 6/37 (16%). 2 year DFS and OS was 89% and 91.3%. Conclusions: Our outcomes, within an unselected cohort, reflect outcomes consistent with published trial data and support routine use of pre-operative CAPOX and CRT in high risk rectal cancers. This strategy is feasible in a non-trial population, and offers the benefit of early sterilisation of micrometastases, better prediction of chemotherapy response and facilitates the incorporation of novel agents within neoadjuvant window studies.

Multicenter Randomized Phase II Clinical Trial Comparing Neoadjuvant Oxaliplatin, Capecitabine, and Preoperative Radiotherapy With or Without Cetuximab Followed by Total Mesorectal Excision in Patients With High-Risk Rectal Cancer (EXPERT-C)

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (14) ◽  
pp. 1620-1627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Dewdney ◽  
David Cunningham ◽  
Josep Tabernero ◽  
Jaume Capdevila ◽  
Bengt Glimelius ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Skin Toxicity ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Wild Type ◽  
End Point ◽  
Randomized Phase Ii ◽  
Biomarker Analysis ◽  
In The Wild

Purpose To evaluate the addition of cetuximab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy in high-risk rectal cancer. Patients and Methods Patients with operable magnetic resonance imaging–defined high-risk rectal cancer received four cycles of capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) followed by capecitabine chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant CAPOX (four cycles) or the same regimen plus weekly cetuximab (CAPOX+C). The primary end point was complete response (CR; pathologic CR or, in patients not undergoing surgery, radiologic CR) in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type tumors. Secondary end points were radiologic response (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety in the wild-type and overall populations and a molecular biomarker analysis. Results One hundred sixty-five eligible patients were randomly assigned. Ninety (60%) of 149 assessable tumors were KRAS or BRAF wild type (CAPOX, n = 44; CAPOX+C, n = 46), and in these patients, the addition of cetuximab did not improve the primary end point of CR (9% v 11%, respectively; P = 1.0; odds ratio, 1.22) or PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; P = .363). Cetuximab significantly improved RR (CAPOX v CAPOX+C: after chemotherapy, 51% v 71%, respectively; P = .038; after chemoradiation, 75% v 93%, respectively; P = .028) and OS (HR, 0.27; P = .034). Skin toxicity and diarrhea were more frequent in the CAPOX+C arm. Conclusion Cetuximab led to a significant increase in RR and OS in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type rectal cancer, but the primary end point of improved CR was not met.

A multicenter phase Ib/II study of DNA-PK inhibitor peposertib (M3814) in combination with capecitabine and radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS144-TPS144
Author(s):  
Paul Bernard Romesser ◽  
Emma B. Holliday ◽  
Tony Philip ◽  
Rocio Garcia-Carbonero ◽  
Jaume Capdevila ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Phase Ii ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Neoadjuvant Treatment ◽  
Rectal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Advanced Rectal Cancer ◽  
Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer ◽  
Phase Ib

TPS144 Background: Perioperative radiotherapy and chemotherapy, followed by total mesorectal excision, is the standard of care for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). However, 1/3 of these patients still develop distant metastases, indicating the need for more effective therapies. In addition, strategies that increase pathological complete response rates are needed to enable non-surgical management of LARC. DNA-dependent protein kinase (DNA-PK) regulates a key DNA damage repair pathway for double-strand break repair. Peposertib (M3814), a potent, selective, orally administered DNA-PK inhibitor, has been shown to potentiate the effect of ionizing radiation in a human colon cancer xenograft model and several colon cancer cell lines. Peposertib is being investigated in several different trials across multiple indications. This Phase Ib/II study (NCT03770689) aims to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and efficacy of the neoadjuvant treatment combination of peposertib, capecitabine, and radiotherapy (RT) in patients with LARC. Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed and resectable Stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma are eligible. Induction chemotherapy is permitted, but residual disease must first be documented by MRI, digital rectal examination and endoscopy. Patients who received other anticancer therapies or those with prior pelvic RT are excluded. At open-label Phase Ib (open), 18–30 patients (n = 3 per cohort) will receive peposertib + capecitabine (orally, 825 mg/m2 twice daily [BID]) + RT (45–50.4 Gy), 5 days/week. Peposertib 50 mg once daily (QD) was the starting dose. Additional dose levels will range between 100─800 mg QD. Dose escalation is determined by the safety monitoring committee and guided by a Bayesian 2-parameter logistic regression model. At Phase II (planned), 150 patients will be randomized (1:1) to receive oral capecitabine (825 mg/m2 BID) + RT (45–50 Gy), with either oral peposertib (recommended phase II dose [RP2D] or placebo, QD for 5 days/week. Primary objectives are to define a maximum tolerated dose and RP2D (Phase Ib), and to evaluate the efficacy of peposertib + capecitabine + RT in terms of pathological/clinical complete response (Phase II). Secondary objectives include assessment of antitumor activity (Phase Ib), quality of life outcomes (Phase II), and PK of peposertib, and the safety and tolerability of the combination therapy (both phases). To date, one patient has received peposertib 50 mg QD, six patients peposertib 100 mg QD, three patients peposertib 150 mg QD, and three patients peposertib 250 mg QD. Clinical trial information: NCT03770689.

Multi-gene prognostic assays and age-related differences in prediction of pathologic complete response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy and survival in breast cancer.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 591-591
Author(s):  
Kent Hanson ◽  
Kent Hoskins ◽  
Naomi Yu Ko ◽  
Gregory Sampang Calip
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Pathologic Complete Response ◽  
Complete Response ◽  
Genomic Testing ◽  
Younger Women ◽  
Her2 Breast Cancer ◽  
Response To Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy ◽  
Overall Mortality

591 Background: Multi-gene testing of primary breast tumors in early-stage breast cancer is used to classify the risk of developing distant metastases and predict the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy. The association between the tumor genomic prognostic score (GPS) and response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) and survival is not well characterized. Our objective was to describe the association between GPS and rates of pathologic complete response (PCR) and subsequent overall survival among women with or without PCR. Methods: We utilized the National Cancer Database to perform a hospital-based, retrospective cohort study of breast cancer patients ages 18 years and older. We included women diagnosed with first primary stages I-III hormone receptor positive (HR+), HER2 negative (HER2-) breast cancer who received NACT and surgery between 2010 and 2017. Women were categorized as having low (0-10 or 200), intermediate (11-25 or 300), or high-risk (25-199 or 400) GPS based on OncotypeDX or MammaPrint scores. Multivariable modified Poisson regression models with robust error variance were used to estimate the crude and adjusted relative risk and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for PCR associated with GPS groups. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95% CI for associations between the GPS and overall survival (OS) in women who did and did not have PCR. Results: A cohort of 3,446 women (mean [SD] age, 56.7 [12.0] years; median [interquartile range] follow-up of 47 [31-68] months) who received genomic testing and neoadjuvant chemotherapy were included in our analysis, of which 935 (27%) were low risk, 1,357 (39%) intermediate risk, and 1,154 (34%) high risk GPS. The relative risk of PCR for all women with high GPS was 1.81 (95% CI, 1.47-2.22; p < 0.001) in crude models and 1.49 (95% CI, 1.16-1.92; p = 0.002) after full adjustment compared to low GPS. Across all models, having a high GPS was significantly associated with achieving PCR in younger women ( < 65 years). In women ages ≥65 years, the association between GPS and PCR was not predictive nor statistically significantly. Among women with no response or partial response to NACT, high GPS was associated with a significantly increased risk of overall mortality (HR 2.41; 95% CI, 1.61-3.60; p < 0.001) compared to low GPS. Conversely, in women who did achieve PCR, GPS was not predictive of overall mortality across all age groups. Conclusions: In women with HR+/HER2- breast cancer, high risk GPS was predictive of PCR following NACT, primarily in younger women ( < 65 years). Our findings also indicated GPS was associated with lower OS in high-risk patients who do not achieve PCR and unpredictive of OS in those without PCR. The utility of tumor genomic testing in the neoadjuvant setting needs further investigation.

CCTG CO.28 primary endpoint analysis: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy, excision and observation for early rectal cancer, the NEO trial.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 3508-3508
Author(s):  
Hagen Fritz Kennecke ◽  
Carl J Brown ◽  
Jonathan M. Loree ◽  
Husein Moloo ◽  
Derek J. Jonker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rectal Cancer ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Tumor Progression ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Organ Preservation ◽  
Rectal Adenocarcinoma ◽  
The United States ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Pelvic Mri ◽  
Preservation Rate

3508 Background: CO.28 (NCT03259035) is a phase II study designed to determine if patients with cT1-T3a/bN0 rectal cancer can be treated with induction chemotherapy (FOLFOX/CAPOX) and organ-preserving surgery. Methods: Patients with MRI staged cT1-3a/bN0 tumors and no pathologic (p) high risk features received 6/4 cycles of FOLFOX/CAPOX, repeat sigmoidoscopy/pelvic MRI and subsequent Transanal Endoscopic Surgery (TES) in the absence of tumor progression. ypT0/T1N0 tumors were treated with observation while ypT2+ or ypN+ stage were recommended Total Mesorectal Excision (TME). The primary endpoint was protocol specified Organ Preservation Rate (psOPR = ypT0/T1N0, no p high risk features) and actual Organ Preservation Rate (aOPR = ypT0/T1N0 stage plus higher yp stage patients who declined TME surgery). The study would be considered negative with an psOPR of 50% or lower (H0) and as promising if it is 65% or higher (H1). Results: Between 08/2017 to 05/2020, 58 eligible patients were accrued in Canada and the United States, median age was 67 years, 71% male. All had well-moderately differentiated, non-mucinous rectal adenocarcinoma and median tumor height was 6 cm (range 0-18). Median follow-up was 15.4 months. Chemotherapy with FOLFOX (32) or CAPOX (26) was administered, 90% completed all planned cycles. A total of 56/58 (97%) proceeded to TES, while one patient was ineligible due to tumor progression (1.7%) and one declined. In the intention to treat analysis, the psOPR was 57% (95% CI 43-70%) while the aOPR was 79% (95% CI 67% to 89%) due to 13/23 declining recommended TME surgery. Of 10 patients who proceeded to recommended TME, a complete R0 TME was performed in 9/10, and no p residual carcinoma was found in 7/10. Crude loco-regional (LR) and distant recurrence rates were 3.5% (95% CI 0.4 to 12%) and 0%, respectively. A recurrence occurred in 1/13 patients who initially declined TME surgery. Conclusions: In select patients with early stage rectal cancer, three months of induction CAPOX/FOLFOX followed by TES resulted in a high OPR without the use of pelvic irradiation. The observed high rate of pathologic downstaging may point to high chemo-responsiveness in early rectal adenocarcinoma with no p high risk features. Further trials to evaluate this approach are justified and updated results will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT03259035. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document