Browsing by Author "Heinemann, V"
Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- 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.
- 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.