Browsing by Author "Arnold, D"
Now showing 1 - 10 of 13
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Biosimilars: a position paper of the European Society for Medical Oncology, with particular reference to oncology prescribersPublication . Tabernero, J; Vyas, M; Giuliani, R; Arnold, D; Cardoso, F; Casali, PG; Cervantes, A; Eggermont, AM; Eniu, A; Jassem, J; Pentheroudakis, G; Peters, S; Rauh, S; Zielinski, CC; Stahel, RA; Voest, E; Douillard, JY; McGregor, K; Ciardiello, Fsystems. If suitably developed clinically, manufactured to the correct standards and used appropriately, they can positively impact on the financial sustainability of healthcare systems. A critical consideration regarding the introduction of biosimilars into the clinic centres on the required information concerning all the respective procedures. This position paper aims to describe the issues revolving around biosimilars that are relevant to the field of oncology, especially the prescribers. More specifically, we discuss aspects related to definition, forms of biosimilars, labelling, extrapolation, interchangeability, switching, automatic substitution, clinical standards on safety and efficacy, responsibilities among prescribers and pharmacists, potential impact on financial burden in healthcare and the current scenario and future prospects of biosimilars in Europe and the rest of the world.
- Clinicopathological factors influencing outcome in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated with fluoropyrimidine and bevacizumab maintenance treatment vs observation: an individual patient data meta-analysis of two phase 3 trialsPublication . Goey, KK; Elias, SG; Hinke, A; van Oijen, MG; Punt, CJ; Hegewisch-Becker, S; Arnold, D; Koopman, MBACKGROUND: The CAIRO3 and AIO 0207 trials demonstrated the efficacy of fluoropyrimidine plus bevacizumab (FP+Bev) maintenance treatment in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. In this individual patient data meta-analysis with updated follow-up, we aim to provide more precise estimates of treatment effects and to identify subgroups that benefit most from maintenance treatment or observation. METHODS: In 871 patients, randomised to FP+Bev maintenance treatment or observation, we investigated whether treatment effect was modified by sex, age, performance status, response to induction treatment, primary tumour location, number of metastatic sites, disease stage and primary tumour resection, serum LDH, platelet count, CEA, and RAS/BRAF mutation status. Primary end point was time to second progression after reintroduction of the induction regimen (PFS2). Secondary end points were first progression-free survival (PFS1) and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 68.5 months (IQR 54.6-87.0 months), maintenance treatment was more effective compared with observation in PFS1 (HR 0.40(95% CI 0.34-0.47)) and PFS2 (HR 0.70(0.60-0.81)). No subgroups were identified that did not benefit from maintenance treatment in PFS1 and PFS2; no clinically relevant subgroup effects were observed. Regarding OS, pooled results were not significant (HR 0.91(0.78-1.05)), and the trials showed marked heterogeneity in overall treatment effect and subgroup effects. CONCLUSIONS: FP+Bev maintenance treatment is effective in all patients, regardless of the investigated subgroups.
- ECCO Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care: Colorectal Cancer. A critical reviewPublication . Beets, G; Sebag-Montefiore, D; Andritsch, E; Arnold, D; Beishon, M; Crul, M; Dekker, JW; Delgado-Bolton, R; Fléjou, JF; Grisold, W; Henning, G; Laghi, A; Lovey, J; Negrouk, A; Pereira, P; Roca, P; Saarto, T; Seufferlein, T; Taylor, C; Ugolini, G; Velde, C; Herck, B; Yared, W; Costa, A; Naredi, PBackground ECCO essential requirements for quality cancer care (ERQCC) are checklists and explanations of organisation and actions that are necessary to give high-quality care to patients who have a specific tumour type. They are written by European experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care. ERQCC papers give oncology teams, patients, policymakers and managers an overview of the elements needed in any healthcare system to provide high quality of care throughout the patient journey. References are made to clinical guidelines and other resources where appropriate, and the focus is on care in Europe. Colorectal cancer: essential requirements for quality care • Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cause of cancer death in Europe and has wide variation in outcomes among countries. Increasing numbers of older people are contracting the disease, and treatments for advanced stages are becoming more complex. A growing number of survivors also require specialist support. • High-quality care can only be a carried out in specialised CRC units or centres which have both a core multidisciplinary team and an extended team of allied professionals, and which are subject to quality and audit procedures. Such units or centres are far from universal in all European countries. • It is essential that, to meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations implement the essential requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship. Conclusion Taken together, the information presented in this paper provides a comprehensive description of the essential requirements for establishing a high-quality CRC service. The ECCO expert group is aware that it is not possible to propose a ‘one size fits all’ system for all countries, but urges that access to multidisciplinary units or centres must be guaranteed for all those with CRC.
- Effect of Application and Intensity of Bevacizumab-based Maintenance After Induction Chemotherapy With Bevacizumab for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-analysisPublication . Stein, A; Schwenke, C; Folprecht, G; Arnold, DBACKGROUND: The administration and intensity of bevacizumab-based maintenance therapy after induction treatment with bevacizumab is still a matter of debate. Thus, the present meta-analysis and an indirect comparison were performed to clarify these issues. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Trials evaluating a separately defined "maintenance phase," with randomization after the induction phase, were selected. Three trials of maintenance with bevacizumab with or without a fluoropyrimidine (CAIRO3, SAKK 41/06, and AIO KRK 0207) were analyzed regarding the effect on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of any maintenance therapy compared with observation alone and different maintenance intensities (bevacizumab with or without fluoropyrimidine) compared with observation alone and between each other. RESULTS: Maintenance with bevacizumab with or without fluoropyrimidine after bevacizumab-based induction treatment for 4 to 6 months significantly improved PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.75; P = .0004) and showed a trend toward prolonged OS (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78-1.02; P = .09) compared with observation alone. The effect on PFS increased with the intensity of the maintenance regimen (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60-0.85 for single-agent bevacizumab vs. HR, 0.45; 95%, CI 0.39-0.51 for combination therapy, both compared to observation alone). In contrast, the HRs for OS remained in the same range. A similarly improved PFS (HR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50-0.79) was shown for the more intensive maintenance therapy (bevacizumab and fluoropyrimidine) compared with bevacizumab alone. CONCLUSION: Bevacizumab-based maintenance therapy after induction chemotherapy with bevacizumab significantly improves PFS and showed a trend toward prolonged OS and should thus be considered, in particular, in patients with a response to induction treatment.
- Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Surgical Resection on Survival in Patients With Limited Metastatic Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: The AIO-FLOT3 TrialPublication . Al-Batran, SE; Homann, N; Pauligk, C; Illerhaus, G; Martens, UM; Stoehlmacher, J; Schmalenberg, H; Luley, KB; Prasnikar, N; Egger, M; Probst, S; Messmann, H; Moehler, M; Fischbach, W; Hartmann, JT; Mayer, F; Höffkes, HG; Koenigsmann, M; Arnold, D; Kraus, TW; Grimm, K; Berkhoff, S; Post, S; Jäger, E; Bechstein, W; Ronellenfitsch, U; Mönig, S; Hofheinz, RDIMPORTANCE: Surgical resection has a potential benefit for patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcome in patients with limited metastatic disease who receive chemotherapy first and proceed to surgical resection. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The AIO-FLOT3 (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) trial is a prospective, phase 2 trial of 252 patients with resectable or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Patients were enrolled from 52 cancer care centers in Germany between February 1, 2009, and January 31, 2010, and stratified to 1 of 3 groups: resectable (arm A), limited metastatic (arm B), or extensive metastatic (arm C). Data cutoff was January 2012, and the analysis was performed in March 2013. INTERVENTIONS: Patients in arm A received 4 preoperative cycles of fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) followed by surgery and 4 postoperative cycles. Patients in arm B received at least 4 cycles of neoadjuvant FLOT and proceeded to surgical resection if restaging (using computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) showed a chance of margin-free (R0) resection of the primary tumor and at least a macroscopic complete resection of the metastatic lesions. Patients in arm C were offered FLOT chemotherapy and surgery only if required for palliation. Patients received a median (range) of 8 (1-15) cycles of FLOT. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: In total, 238 of 252 patients (94.4%) were eligible to participate. The median (range) age of participants was 66 (36-79) years in arm A (n = 51), 63 (28-79) years in arm B (n = 60), and 65 (23-83) years in arm C (n = 127). Patients in arm B (n = 60) had only retroperitoneal lymph node involvement (27 patients [45%]), liver involvement (11 [18.3%]), lung involvement (10 [16.7%]), localized peritoneal involvement (4 [6.7%]), or other (8 [13.3%]) incurable sites. Median overall survival was 22.9 months (95% CI, 16.5 to upper level not achieved) for arm B, compared with 10.7 months (95% CI, 9.1-12.8) for arm C (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.25-0.55) (P < .001). The response rate for arm B was 60% (complete, 10%; partial, 50%), which is higher than the 43.3% for arm C. In arm B, 36 of 60 patients (60%) proceeded to surgery. The median overall survival was 31.3 months (95% CI, 18.9-upper level not achieved) for patients who proceeded to surgery and 15.9 months (95% CI, 7.1-22.9) for the other patients. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients with limited metastatic disease who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and proceeded to surgery showed a favorable survival. The AIO-FLOT3 trial provides a rationale for further randomized clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00849615.
- ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancerPublication . Van Cutsem, E; Cervantes, A; Adam, R; Sobrero, A; Van Krieken, J H; Aderka, D; Aranda Aguilar, E; Bardelli, A; Benson, A; Bodoky, G; Ciardiello, F; D'Hoore, A; Diaz-Rubio, E; Douillard, J-Y; Ducreux, M; Falcone, A; Grothey, A; Gruenberger, T; Haustermans, K; Heinemann, V; Hoff, P; Köhne, C-H; Labianca, R; Laurent-Puig, P; Ma, B; Maughan, T; Muro, K; Normanno, N; Österlund, P; Oyen, W J G; Papamichael, D; Pentheroudakis, G; Pfeiffer, P; Price, T J; Punt, C; Ricke, J; Roth, A; Salazar, R; Scheithauer, W; Schmoll, H J; Tabernero, J; Taïeb, J; Tejpar, S; Wasan, H; Yoshino, T; Zaanan, A; Arnold, DColorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.
- Intraperitoneal bevacizumab for control of malignant ascites due to advanced-stage gastrointestinal cancers: A multicentre double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II study - AIO SUP-0108Publication . Jordan, K; Luetkens, T; Gog, C; Killing, B; Arnold, D; Hinke, A; Stahl, M; Freier, W; Rüssel, J; Atanackovic, D; Hegewisch-Becker, SPURPOSE: Malignant ascites is debilitating for patients with advanced cancer. As shown previously, tumour cell production of vascular endothelial growth factor might be a major cause of the formation of malignant ascites. Intraperitoneal bevacizumab could therefore be an option for symptom control in refractory ascites. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced gastrointestinal cancer and malignant ascites who had undergone paracentesis at least twice within the past 4 weeks were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to intraperitoneal bevacizumab (400 mg absolute) or placebo after paracentesis. During the 8-week treatment period, a minimum interval of 14 d was kept between the applications of the study drug. Primary end-point was paracentesis-free survival (ParFS). RESULTS: Fifty-three patients (median age 63 years) were randomised. Forty-nine patients received at least one study drug application and qualified for the main analysis. The proportion of patients with at least one common toxicity criteria grade III-V event was similar with 20/33 (61%) on bevacizumab and 11/16 (69%) on placebo. Median ParFS was 14 d (95% confidence interval [CI]: 11-17) in the bevacizumab arm and 10.5 d (95% CI: 7-21) on placebo (hazard ratio 0.74, 95% CI: 0.40-1.37; P = 0.16). The longest paracentesis-free period was 19 d on bevacizumab (range 6-66 d) and 17.5 d in the placebo arm (range 4-42) (P = 0.85). Median overall survival was 64 d (95% CI: 45-103) on bevacizumab compared to 31.5 d (95% CI: 20-117) on placebo (P = 0.31). CONCLUSION: Intraperitoneal bevacizumab was well tolerated. Overall, treatment did not result in a significantly better symptom control of malignant ascites. However, patients defined by specific immune characteristics may benefit.
- Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Outcomes by Age Among ARCAD First- and Second-Line Clinical TrialsPublication . McCleary, NJ; Harmsen, WS; Haakenstad, El; Cleary, JM; Meyerhardt, JA; Zalcberg, J; Adams, R; Grothey, A; Sobrero, AF; Van Cutsem, E; Goldberg, RM; Peeters, M; Tabernero, J; Seymour, M; Saltz, LB; Giantonio, BJ; Arnold, D; Rothenberg, ML; Koopman, M; Schmoll, HJ; Pitot, HC; Hoff, PM; Tebbutt, N; Masi, G; Souglakos, J; Bokemeyer, C; Heinemann, V; Yoshino, T; Chibaudel, B; deGramont, A; Shi, Q; Lichtman, SMBackground: We evaluated the time to progression (TTP) and survival outcomes of second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer among adults aged 70 years and older compared with younger adults following progression on first-line clinical trials. Methods: Associations between clinical and disease characteristics, time to initial progression, and rate of receipt of second-line therapy were evaluated. TTP and overall survival (OS) were compared between older and younger adults in first- and second-line trials by Cox regression, adjusting for age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, number of metastatic sites and presence of metastasis in the lung, liver, or peritoneum. All statistical tests were 2-sided. Results: Older adults comprised 16.4% of patients on first-line trials (870 total older adults aged >70 years; 4419 total younger adults aged ≤70 years, on first-line trials). Older adults and those with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status >0 were less likely to receive second-line therapy than younger adults. Odds of receiving second-line therapy decreased by 11% for each additional decade of life in multivariable analysis (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% confidence interval = 1.02 to 1.21, P = .01). Older and younger adults enrolled in second-line trials experienced similar median TTP and median OS (median TTP = 5.1 vs 5.2 months, respectively; median OS = 11.6 vs 12.4 months, respectively). Conclusions: Older adults were less likely to receive second-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer, though we did not observe a statistical difference in survival outcomes vs younger adults following second-line therapy. Further study should examine factors affecting decisions to treat older adults with second-line therapy. Inclusion of geriatric assessment may provide better criteria regarding the risks and benefits of second-line therapy.
- Methylated free-circulating HPP1 DNA is an early response marker in patients with metastatic colorectal cancerPublication . Herbst, A; Vdovin, N; Gacesa, S; Philipp, A; Nagel, D; Holdt, LM; Op den Winkel, M; Heinemann, V; Stieber, P; Graeven, U; Reinacher-Schick, A; Arnold, D; Ricard, I; Mansmann, U; Hegewisch-Becker, S; Kolligs, F TDetection of methylated free-circulating DNA (mfcDNA) for hyperplastic polyposis 1 (HPP1) in blood is correlated with a poor prognosis for patients with metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC). Here, we analyzed the plasma levels of HPP1 mfcDNA in mCRC patients treated with a combination therapy containing a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin and bevacizumab to test whether HPP1 mfcDNA is a suitable prognostic and response biomarker. From 467 patients of the prospective clinical study AIO-KRK-0207, mfcDNA was isolated from plasma samples at different time points and bisulfite-treated mfcDNA was quantified using methylation specific PCR. About 337 of 467 patients had detectable levels for HPP1 mfcDNA before start of treatment. The detection was significantly correlated with poorer overall survival (OS) (HR = 1.86; 95%CI 1.37-2.53). About 2-3 weeks after the first administration of combination chemotherapy, HPP1 mfcDNA was reduced to non-detectable levels in 167 of 337 patients. These patients showed a better OS compared with patients with continued detection of HPP1 mfcDNA (HR HPP1(sample 1: pos/ sample 2: neg) vs. HPP1(neg/neg) = 1.41; 95%CI 1.00-2.01, HPP1(neg,pos/pos) vs. HPP1(neg/neg) = 2.60; 95%CI 1.86-3.64). Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that HPP1 mfcDNA discriminates well between patients who do (not) respond to therapy according to the radiological staging after 12 or 24 weeks (AUC = 0.77 or 0.71, respectively). Detection of HPP1 mfcDNA can be used as a prognostic marker and an early marker for response (as early as 3-4 weeks after start of treatment compared with radiological staging after 12 or 24 weeks) to identify patients who will likely benefit from a combination chemotherapy with bevacizumab.
- Prognostic and predictive value of primary tumour side in patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy and EGFR directed antibodies in six randomized trialsPublication . Arnold, D; Lueza, B; Douillard, J-Y; Peeters, M; Lenz, H-J; Venook, A; Heinemann, V; Van Cutsem, E; Pignon, J-P; Tabernero, J; Cervantes, A; Ciardiello, FBACKGROUND: There is increasing evidence that metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a genetically heterogeneous disease and that tumours arising from different sides of the colon (left versus right) have different clinical outcomes. Furthermore, previous analyses comparing the activity of different classes of targeted agents in patients with KRAS wild-type (wt) or RAS wt mCRC suggest that primary tumour location (side), might be both prognostic and predictive for clinical outcome. METHODS: This retrospective analysis investigated the prognostic and predictive influence of the localization of the primary tumour in patients with unresectable RAS wt mCRC included in six randomized trials (CRYSTAL, FIRE-3, CALGB 80405, PRIME, PEAK and 20050181), comparing chemotherapy plus EGFR antibody therapy (experimental arm) with chemotherapy or chemotherapy and bevacizumab (control arms). Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) for patients with left-sided versus right-sided tumours, and odds ratios (ORs) for objective response rate (ORR) were estimated by pooling individual study HRs/ORs. The predictive value was evaluated by pooling study interaction between treatment effect and tumour side. RESULTS: Primary tumour location and RAS mutation status were available for 2159 of the 5760 patients (37.5%) randomized across the 6 trials, 515 right-sided and 1644 left-sided. A significantly worse prognosis was observed for patients with right-sided tumours compared with those with left-sided tumours in both the pooled control and experimental arms for OS [HRs = 2.03 (95% CI: 1.69-2.42) and 1.38 (1.17-1.63), respectively], PFS [HRs = 1.59 (1.34-1.88) and 1.25 (1.06-1.47)], and ORR [ORs = 0.38 (0.28-0.50) and 0.56 (0.43-0.73)]. In terms of a predictive effect, a significant benefit for chemotherapy plus EGFR antibody therapy was observed in patients with left-sided tumours [HRs = 0.75 (0.67-0.84) and 0.78 (0.70-0.87) for OS and PFS, respectively] compared with no significant benefit for those with right-sided tumours [HRs = 1.12 (0.87-1.45) and 1.12 (0.87-1.44) for OS and PFS, respectively; P value for interaction <0.001 and 0.002, respectively]. For ORR, there was a trend (P value for interaction = 0.07) towards a greater benefit for chemotherapy plus EGFR antibody therapy in the patients with left-sided tumours [OR = 2.12 (1.77-2.55)] compared with those with right-sided tumours [OR = 1.47 (0.94-2.29)]. Exclusion of the unique phase II trial or the unique second-line trial had no impact on the results. The predictive effect on PFS may depend of the type of EGFR antibody therapy and on the presence or absence of bevacizumab in the control arm. CONCLUSION: This pooled analysis showed a worse prognosis for OS, PFS and ORR for patients with right-sided tumours compared with those with left-sided tumours in patients with RAS wt mCRC and a predictive effect of tumour side, with a greater effect of chemotherapy plus EGFR antibody therapy compared with chemotherapy or chemotherapy and bevacizumab, the effect being greatest in patients with left-sided tumours. These predictive results should be interpreted with caution due to the retrospective nature of the analysis, which was carried out on subpopulations of patients included in these trials, and because none of these studies contemplated a full treatment sequence strategy.