Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine

AUTORES: Daniel J Klionsky1745,1749*, Kotb Abdelmohsen840, Akihisa Abe1237, Md Joynal Abedin1762, Hagai Abeliovich425,
\nAbraham Acevedo Arozena789, Hiroaki Adachi1800, Christopher M Adams1669, Peter D Adams57, Khosrow Adeli1981,
\nPeter J Adhihetty1625, Sharon G Adler700, Galila Agam67, Rajesh Agarwal1587, Manish K Aghi1537, Maria Agnello1826,
\nPatrizia Agostinis664, Patricia V Aguilar1960, Julio Aguirre-Ghiso784,786, Edoardo M Airoldi89,422, Slimane Ait-Si-Ali1376,
\nTakahiko Akematsu2010, Emmanuel T Akporiaye1097, Mohamed Al-Rubeai1394, Guillermo M Albaiceta1294,
\nChris Albanese363, Diego Albani561, Matthew L Albert517, Jesus Aldudo128, Hana Alg€ul1164, Mehrdad Alirezaei1198,
\nIraide Alloza642,888, Alexandru Almasan206, Maylin Almonte-Beceril524, Emad S Alnemri1212, Covadonga Alonso544,
\nNihal Altan-Bonnet848, Dario C Altieri1205, Silvia Alvarez1497, Lydia Alvarez-Erviti1395, Sandro Alves107,
\nGiuseppina Amadoro860, Atsuo Amano930, Consuelo Amantini1554, Santiago Ambrosio1458, Ivano Amelio756,
\nAmal O Amer918, Mohamed Amessou2089, Angelika Amon726, Zhenyi An1538, Frank A Anania291, Stig U Andersen6,
\nUsha P Andley2079, Catherine K Andreadi1690, Nathalie Andrieu-Abadie502, Alberto Anel2027, David K Ann58,
\nShailendra Anoopkumar-Dukie388, Manuela Antonioli832,858, Hiroshi Aoki1791, Nadezda Apostolova2007,
\nSaveria Aquila1500, Katia Aquilano1876, Koichi Araki292, Eli Arama2098, Agustin Aranda456, Jun Araya591,
\nAlexandre Arcaro1472, Esperanza Arias26, Hirokazu Arimoto1225, Aileen R Ariosa1749, Jane L Armstrong1930,
\nThierry Arnould1773, Ivica Arsov2120, Katsuhiko Asanuma675, Valerie Askanas1924, Eric Asselin1867, Ryuichiro Atarashi794,
\nSally S Atherton369, Julie D Atkin713, Laura D Attardi1131, Patrick Auberger1787, Georg Auburger379, Laure Aurelian1727,
\nRiccardo Autelli1992, Laura Avagliano1029,1755, Maria Laura Avantaggiati364, Limor Avrahami1166, Suresh Awale1986,
\nNeelam Azad404, Tiziana Bachetti568, Jonathan M Backer28, Dong-Hun Bae1933, Jae-sung Bae677, Ok-Nam Bae409,
\nSoo Han Bae2117, Eric H Baehrecke1729, Seung-Hoon Baek17, Stephen Baghdiguian1368,
\nAgnieszka Bagniewska-Zadworna2, Hua Bai90, Jie Bai667, Xue-Yuan Bai1133, Yannick Bailly884,
\nKithiganahalli Narayanaswamy Balaji473, Walter Balduini2002, Andrea Ballabio316, Rena Balzan1711, Rajkumar Banerjee239,
\nG abor B anhegyi1052, Haijun Bao2109, Benoit Barbeau1363, Maria D Barrachina2007, Esther Barreiro467, Bonnie Bartel997,
\nAlberto Bartolom e222, Diane C Bassham550, Maria Teresa Bassi1046, Robert C Bast Jr1273, Alakananda Basu1798,
\nMaria Teresa Batista1578, Henri Batoko1336, Maurizio Battino970, Kyle Bauckman2085, Bradley L Baumgarner1909,
\nK Ulrich Bayer1594, Rupert Beale1553, Jean-Fran¸cois Beaulieu1360, George R. Beck Jr48,294, Christoph Becker336,
\nJ David Beckham1595, Pierre-Andr e B edard749, Patrick J Bednarski301, Thomas J Begley1135, Christian Behl1419,
\nChristian Behrends757, Georg MN Behrens406, Kevin E Behrns1627, Eloy Bejarano26, Amine Belaid490,
\nFrancesca Belleudi1041, Giovanni B enard497, Guy Berchem706, Daniele Bergamaschi983, Matteo Bergami1401,
\nBen Berkhout1441, Laura Berliocchi714, Am elie Bernard1749, Monique Bernard1354, Francesca Bernassola1880,
\nAnne Bertolotti791, Amanda S Bess272, S ebastien Besteiro1351, Saverio Bettuzzi1828, Savita Bhalla913,
\nShalmoli Bhattacharyya973, Sujit K Bhutia838, Caroline Biagosch1159, Michele Wolfe Bianchi520,1378,1381,
\nMartine Biard-Piechaczyk210, Viktor Billes298, Claudia Bincoletto1314, Baris Bingol350, Sara W Bird1128, Marc Bitoun1112,
\nIvana Bjedov1258, Craig Blackstone843, Lionel Blanc1183, Guillermo A Blanco1496, Heidi Kiil Blomhoff1812,
\nEmilio Boada-Romero1297, Stefan B€ockler1464, Marianne Boes1423, Kathleen Boesze-Battaglia1835, Lawrence H Boise286,287,
\nAlessandra Bolino2063, Andrea Boman693, Paolo Bonaldo1823, Matteo Bordi897, J€urgen Bosch608, Luis M Botana1308,
\nJoelle Botti1375, German Bou1405, Marina Bouch e1038, Marion Bouchecareilh1331, Marie-Jos ee Boucher1901,
\nMichael E Boulton481, Sebastien G Bouret1926, Patricia Boya133, Micha€el Boyer-Guittaut1345, Peter V Bozhkov1141,
\nNathan Brady374, Vania MM Braga469, Claudio Brancolini1997, Gerhard H Braus353, Jos e M Bravo-San Pedro299,393,508,1374,
\nLisa A Brennan322, Emery H Bresnick2022, Patrick Brest490, Dave Bridges1939, Marie-Agn es Bringer124, Marisa Brini1822,
\nGlauber C Brito1311, Bertha Brodin631, Paul S Brookes1872, Eric J Brown352, Karen Brown1690, Hal E Broxmeyer480,
\nAlain Bruhat486,1339, Patricia Chakur Brum1893, John H Brumell446, Nicola Brunetti-Pierri315,1171,
\nRobert J Bryson-Richardson781, Shilpa Buch1777, Alastair M Buchan1819, Hikmet Budak1022, Dmitry V Bulavin118,505,1789,
\nScott J Bultman1792, Geert Bultynck665, Vladimir Bumbasirevic1470, Yan Burelle1356, Robert E Burke216,217,
\nMargit Burmeister1750, Peter B€utikofer1473, Laura Caberlotto1987, Ken Cadwell896, Monika Cahova112, Dongsheng Cai24,
\nJingjing Cai2099, Qian Cai1018, Sara Calatayud2007, Nadine Camougrand1343, Michelangelo Campanella1700,
\nGrant R Campbell1525, Matthew Campbell1249, Silvia Campello556,1876, Robin Candau1769, Isabella Caniggia1983,
\nLavinia Cantoni560, Lizhi Cao116, Allan B Caplan1656, Michele Caraglia1051, Claudio Cardinali1043, Sandra Morais Cardoso1579, Jennifer S Carew208, Laura A Carleton874, Cathleen R Carlin101, Silvia Carloni2002,
\nSven R Carlsson1267, Didac Carmona-Gutierrez1643, Leticia AM Carneiro312, Oliana Carnevali971, Serena Carra1318,
\nAlice Carrier120, Bernadette Carroll900, Caty Casas1324, Josefina Casas1116, Giuliana Cassinelli324, Perrine Castets1462,
\nSusana Castro-Obregon214, Gabriella Cavallini1841, Isabella Ceccherini568, Francesco Cecconi253,555,1884,
\nArthur I Cederbaum459, Valent ın Ce~na199,1281, Simone Cenci1323,2064, Claudia Cerella444, Davide Cervia1996,
\nSilvia Cetrullo1478, Hassan Chaachouay2028, Han-Jung Chae187, Andrei S Chagin634, Chee-Yin Chai626,628,
\nGopal Chakrabarti1502, Georgios Chamilos1601, Edmond YW Chan1142, Matthew TV Chan181, Dhyan Chandra1003,
\nPallavi Chandra548, Chih-Peng Chang818, Raymond Chuen-Chung Chang1653, Ta Yuan Chang345, John C Chatham1434,
\nSaurabh Chatterjee1910, Santosh Chauhan527, Yongsheng Che62, Michael E Cheetham1263, Rajkumar Cheluvappa1783,
\nChun-Jung Chen1153, Gang Chen598,1676, Guang-Chao Chen9, Guoqiang Chen1078, Hongzhuan Chen1077, Jeff W Chen1514,
\nJian-Kang Chen370,371, Min Chen249, Mingzhou Chen2104, Peiwen Chen1823, Qi Chen1674, Quan Chen172,
\nShang-Der Chen138, Si Chen325, Steve S-L Chen10, Wei Chen2125, Wei-Jung Chen829, Wen Qiang Chen979, Wenli Chen1113,
\nXiangmei Chen1133, Yau-Hung Chen1157, Ye-Guang Chen1250, Yin Chen1447, Yingyu Chen953,955, Yongshun Chen2135,
\nYu-Jen Chen712, Yue-Qin Chen1145, Yujie Chen1208, Zhen Chen339, Zhong Chen2123, Alan Cheng1702,
\nChristopher HK Cheng184, Hua Cheng1728, Heesun Cheong814, Sara Cherry1836, Jason Chesney1703,
\nChun Hei Antonio Cheung817, Eric Chevet1359, Hsiang Cheng Chi140, Sung-Gil Chi656, Fulvio Chiacchiera308,
\nHui-Ling Chiang958, Roberto Chiarelli1826, Mario Chiariello235,567,577, Marcello Chieppa835, Lih-Shen Chin290,
\nMario Chiong1285, Gigi NC Chiu878, Dong-Hyung Cho676, Ssang-Goo Cho650, William C Cho982, Yong-Yeon Cho105,
\nYoung-Seok Cho1064, Augustine MK Choi2095, Eui-Ju Choi656, Eun-Kyoung Choi387,400,685, Jayoung Choi1563,
\nMary E Choi2093, Seung-Il Choi2116, Tsui-Fen Chou412, Salem Chouaib395, Divaker Choubey1574, Vinay Choubey1936,
\nKuan-Chih Chow822, Kamal Chowdhury730, Charleen T Chu1856, Tsung-Hsien Chuang827, Taehoon Chun657,
\nHyewon Chung652, Taijoon Chung978, Yuen-Li Chung1194, Yong-Joon Chwae18, Valentina Cianfanelli254,
\nRoberto Ciarcia1775, Iwona A Ciechomska886, Maria Rosa Ciriolo1876, Mara Cirone1042, Sofie Claerhout1694,
\nMichael J Clague1698, Joan Cl aria1457, Peter GH Clarke1687, Robert Clarke361, Emilio Clementi1045,1398, C edric Cleyrat1781,
\nMiriam Cnop1366, Eliana M Coccia574, Tiziana Cocco1459, Patrice Codogno1375, J€orn Coers271, Ezra EW Cohen1533,
\nDavid Colecchia235,567,577, Luisa Coletto25, N uria S Coll123, Emma Colucci-Guyon516, Sergio Comincini1829,
\nMaria Condello578, Katherine L Cook2073, Graham H Coombs1929, Cynthia D Cooper2076, J Mark Cooper1395,
\nIsabelle Coppens601, Maria Tiziana Corasaniti1387, Marco Corazzari485,1884, Ramon Corbalan1566,
\nElisabeth Corcelle-Termeau251, Mario D Cordero1899, Cristina Corral-Ramos1289, Olga Corti507,1109, Andrea Cossarizza1767,
\nPaola Costelli1993, Safia Costes1518, Susan L Cotman721, Ana Coto-Montes946, Sandra Cottet566,1688, Eduardo Couve1301,
\nLori R Covey1015, L Ashley Cowart762, Jeffery S Cox1536, Fraser P Coxon1427, Carolyn B Coyne1846, Mark S Cragg1919,
\nRolf J Craven1679, Tiziana Crepaldi1995, Jose L Crespo1300, Alfredo Criollo1285, Valeria Crippa558, Maria Teresa Cruz1576,
\nAna Maria Cuervo26, Jose M Cuezva1277, Taixing Cui1907, Pedro R Cutillas987, Mark J Czaja27, Maria F Czyzyk-Krzeska1572,
\nRuben K Dagda2068, Uta Dahmen1404, Chunsun Dai800, Wenjie Dai1187, Yun Dai2059, Kevin N Dalby1940,
\nLuisa Dalla Valle1822, Guillaume Dalmasso1340, Marcello D’Amelio557, Markus Damme188, Arlette Darfeuille-Michaud1340,
\nCatherine Dargemont950, Victor M Darley-Usmar1433, Srinivasan Dasarathy205, Biplab Dasgupta202, Srikanta Dash1254,
\nCrispin R Dass242, Hazel Marie Davey8, Lester M Davids1560, David D avila227, Roger J Davis1731, Ted M Dawson604,
\nValina L Dawson606, Paula Daza1898, Jackie de Belleroche470, Paul de Figueiredo1180,1182,
\nRegina Celia Bressan Queiroz de Figueiredo135, Jos e de la Fuente1023, Luisa De Martino1775,
\nAntonella De Matteis1171, Guido RY De Meyer1443, Angelo De Milito631, Mauro De Santi2002,

BACKGROUND: Among patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) leads to longer overall survival than gemcitabine therapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen with gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 493 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to receive a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen (oxaliplatin [85 mg per square meter of body-surface area], irinotecan [180 mg per square meter, reduced to 150 mg per square meter after a protocol-specified safety analysis], leucovorin [400 mg per square meter], and fluorouracil [2400 mg per square meter] every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks. The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival and safety. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, the median disease-free survival was 21.6 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 12.8 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for cancer-related event, second cancer, or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.73; P<0.001). The disease-free survival rate at 3 years was 39.7% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 21.4% in the gemcitabine group. The median overall survival was 54.4 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 35.0 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86; P=0.003). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 63.4% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 48.6% in the gemcitabine group. Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 75.9% of the patients in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and in 52.9% of those in the gemcitabine group. One patient in the gemcitabine group died from toxic effects (interstitial pneumonitis). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant therapy with a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen led to significantly longer survival than gemcitabine among patients with resected pancreatic cancer, at the expense of a higher incidence of toxic effects. (Funded by R&D Unicancer and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01526135 ; EudraCT number, 2011-002026-52 .).

BACKGROUND: Cytoreductive nephrectomy has been the standard of care in metastatic renal-cell carcinoma for 20 years, supported by randomized trials and large, retrospective studies. However, the efficacy of targeted therapies has challenged this standard. We assessed the role of nephrectomy in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were receiving targeted therapies. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, patients with confirmed metastatic clear-cell renal-cell carcinoma at presentation who were suitable candidates for nephrectomy to undergo nephrectomy and then receive sunitinib (standard therapy) or to receive sunitinib alone. Randomization was stratified according to prognostic risk (intermediate or poor) in the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic model. Patients received sunitinib at a dose of 50 mg daily in cycles of 28 days on and 14 days off every 6 weeks. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 450 patients were enrolled from September 2009 to September 2017. At this planned interim analysis, the median follow-up was 50.9 months, with 326 deaths observed. The results in the sunitinib-alone group were noninferior to those in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group with regard to overall survival (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.71 to 1.10; upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for noninferiority, ≤1.20). The median overall survival was 18.4 months in the sunitinib-alone group and 13.9 months in the nephrectomy-sunitinib group. No significant differences in response rate or progression-free survival were observed. Adverse events were as anticipated in each group. CONCLUSIONS: Sunitinib alone was not inferior to nephrectomy followed by sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal-cell carcinoma who were classified as having intermediate-risk or poor-risk disease. (Funded by Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris and others; CARMENA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00930033 .).

Background: Geriatric Assessment is an appropriate method for identifying older cancer patients at risk of life-threatening events during therapy. Yet, it is underused in practice, mainly because it is time-and resource-consuming. This study aims to identify the best screening tool to identify older cancer patients requiring geriatric assessment by comparing the performance of two short assessment tools the G8 and the Vulnerable Elders Survey (VES-13).

Objective We developed a validated index for assessing histological disease activity in UC and established its responsiveness. Methods Two hundred biopsies were scored. The outcome was the Global Visual Evaluation (GVE). Eight histological features were tested. The Nancy index was developed by multiple linear regression and bootstrap process to create an index that best matched the GVE. Goodness of fit was assessed by the adjusted R squared (adjusted R 2 ). The second step was the validation of the index: 100 biopsies were scored for the Nancy index by three pathologists from different centres. Inter-reader reliability was evaluated for each reader. The relationship between the change of the Nancy index and the Geboes index was assessed to assess the responsiveness. Results After backward selection with bootstrap validation, 3/8 items were selected: ulceration (adjusted R 2 =0.55), acute inflammatory infiltrate (adjusted R 2 =0.88) and chronic inflammatory infiltrate (adjusted R 2 =0.79). The Nancy index is defined by a 5-level classification ranging from grade 0 (absence of significant histological disease activity) to grade 4 (severely active disease). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the intrareader reliability was 0.88 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.92) and the index had good inter-reader reliability (ICC=0.86 (0.81 to 0.99)). The correlation between the Nancy index and the Geboes score or the GVE was very good. The index had a good responsiveness with a high correlation between changes in the Geboes score and changes in the Nancy index (0.910 (0.813 to 0.955)). Conclusions A three descriptor histological index has been validated for use in clinical practice and clinical trials.

LBA3503 Background: Promising results have been obtained during the last decade using cytoreductive surgery (CRS) plus HIPEC for selected patients with colorectal PC who are amenable to complete macroscopic resection. This is the first trial to evaluate the specific role of HIPEC, after CRS, for the treatment of PC of colorectal origin. Methods: Prodige 7 is a randomized phase III, multicenter trial. Patients with histologically proven and isolated PC, peritoneal cancer index (PCI) ≤25 were eligible. Randomization (1:1) was stratified by center, complete macroscopic resection (R0/1 vs R2), and neoadjuvant systemic chemotherapy. Patients were treated with CRS plus HIPEC with oxaliplatin or CRS alone, in association with systemic chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was the overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were relapse-free survival (RFS) and toxicity. 264 patients were required to show a gain in median OS from 30 to 48 months (HR = 0.625) with a two-sided α = 0,046 and 80% power. Results: 265 patients from 17 centers were included between February 2008 and January 2014: 132 in Arm without HIPEC and 133 in Arm with HIPEC. The median age was 60 years (range: 30-74). Baseline characteristics were well balanced. The overall post-operative mortality rate was 1.5% and was not different between the two arms. The morbidity rates did not differ statistically at 30 days. At 60 days, the grade 3-5 morbidity rate was significantly higher with HIPEC (24.1% vs. 13.6%, p= 0.030). After a median follow up of 63.8 months (95% CI: 58.9-69.8), the median OS was 41.2 months (95% CI 35.1-49.7) in the non-HIPEC Arm and 41.7 months (95% CI: 36.2-52.8) in the HIPEC Arm, HR = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.73-1.37) p = 0.995. The median RFS was 11.1 months (95% CI: 9-12.7) in non-HIPEC Arm and 13.1 months (95% CI: 12.1-15.7) in HIPEC Arm, HR = 0.90 (95% CI: 0.69-1.90) (p = 0.486), whilst the 1-year RFS rates were 46.1% in non-HIPEC Arm and 59 % in the HIPEC Arm. Conclusions: The therapeutic curative management of PC from colorectal cancer by CRS shows satisfactory survival results. While the addition of HIPEC with oxaliplatin does not influence the OS. Clinical trial information: NCT00769405.

Importance: Early results at 3 years from the PRODIGE 24/Canadian Cancer Trials Group PA6 randomized clinical trial showed survival benefits with adjuvant treatment with modified FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma; mature data are now available. Objective: To report 5-year outcomes and explore prognostic factors for overall survival. Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, phase 3 randomized clinical trial was conducted at 77 hospitals in France and Canada and included patients aged 18 to 79 years with histologically confirmed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma who had undergone complete macroscopic (R0/R1) resection within 3 to 12 weeks before randomization. Patients were included from April 16, 2012, through October 3, 2016. The cutoff date for this analysis was June 28, 2021. Interventions: A total of 493 patients were randomized (1:1) to receive treatment with modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin, 85 mg/m2 of body surface area; irinotecan, 150-180 mg/m2; leucovorin, 400 mg/m2; and fluorouracil, 2400 mg/m2, every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2, days 1, 8, and 15, every 4 weeks) as adjuvant therapy for 24 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, metastasis-free survival, and cancer-specific survival. Prognostic factors for overall survival were determined. Results: Of the 493 patients, 216 (43.8%) were women, and the mean (SD) age was 62.0 (8.9) years. At a median of 69.7 months' follow-up, 367 disease-free survival events were observed. In patients receiving chemotherapy with modified FOLFIRINOX vs gemcitabine, median disease-free survival was 21.4 months (95% CI, 17.5-26.7) vs 12.8 months (95% CI, 11.6-15.2) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% CI, 0.54-0.82; P < .001) and 5-year disease-free survival was 26.1% vs 19.0%; median overall survival was 53.5 months (95% CI, 43.5-58.4) vs 35.5 months (95% CI, 30.1-40.3) (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54-0.85; P = .001), and 5-year overall survival was 43.2% vs 31.4%; median metastasis-free survival was 29.4 months (95% CI, 21.4-40.1) vs 17.7 months (95% CI, 14.0-21.2) (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.52-0.80; P < .001); and median cancer-specific survival was 54.7 months (95% CI, 45.8-68.4) vs 36.3 months (95% CI, 30.5-43.9) (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.51-0.82; P < .001). Multivariable analysis identified modified FOLFIRINOX, age, tumor grade, tumor staging, and larger-volume center as significant favorable prognostic factors for overall survival. Shorter relapse delay was an adverse prognostic factor. Conclusions and Relevance: The final 5-year results from the PRODIGE 24/Canadian Cancer Trials Group PA6 randomized clinical trial indicate that adjuvant treatment with modified FOLFIRINOX yields significantly longer survival than gemcitabine in patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. Trial Registration: EudraCT: 2011-002026-52; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01526135.

Low-grade fibromyxoid sarcomas (LGFMS) bear either the t(7,16) (q32-34;p11) or t(11,16) (p11;p11) translocations, resulting in FUS-CREB3L2 or FUS-CREB3L1 fusions, respectively. Heretofore, fusion transcripts were mainly detected in frozen tissues, using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. In this study, we aimed to develop a reliable method to detect these in paraffin-embedded tissues, and to examine the clinicopathologic characteristics of a series of translocation-positive LGFMS. Sixty-three neoplasms with typical morphologic features of LGFMS and 66 non-LGFMS tumors selected for their resemblance to LGFMS (LGFMS-like tumors) were examined. RNA of sufficient quality could be extracted from 111/129 (86%) cases (59 LGFMS, 52 non-LGFMS). Of all, 48/59 (sensitivity, 81%) LGFMS contained detectable transcripts (45 FUS-CREB3L2, 3 FUS-CREB3L1). Most relevant clinicopathologic features of fusion-positive LGFMS included predominance in lower extremities (22/48; thigh: 13/48), deep situation (46/48), and occasional presence of unusual histologic features, for example, hypercellular areas (16/48), foci of epithelioid cells (13/48), and giant rosettes (6/48). Most tumors expressed EMA (41/45), at least focally, CD99 (38/41) and bcl-2 (36/41) while being essentially negative for CD34 (2/45), mdm2 (1/41), smooth muscle actin (1/45), S100 protein (0/46), desmin (0/44), h-caldesmon (0/42), keratins (0/44), and CD117 (0/40). Eleven presumed LGFMS were fusion negative. Of all, 7/52 non-LGMFS neoplasms contained FUS-CREB3L2 transcripts, of which 4 had been diagnosed as sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma. In conclusion, FUS-CREB3L1/L2 fusion transcripts can be detected in paraffin-embedded LGFMS in a sensitive manner, using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Most fusion-positive LGFMS are EMA-positive and CD34/S100/smooth muscle actin negative. The presence of epithelioid cells and fusion transcripts in both LGFMS and a subset of sclerosing epithelioid fibrosarcoma suggest that these neoplasms might be related.

PURPOSE: The aim of this work was to provide an update to the ASCO guideline on metastatic pancreatic cancer pertaining to recommendations for therapy options after first-line treatment. METHODS: ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review to update guideline recommendations for second-line therapy for metastatic pancreatic cancer. RESULTS: One randomized controlled trial of olaparib versus placebo, one report on phase I and II studies of larotrectinib, and one report on phase I and II studies of entrectinib met the inclusion criteria and inform the guideline update. RECOMMENDATIONS: mutations, and TRK alterations are provided for all treatment-eligible patients to select patients for recommended therapies, including pembrolizumab, olaparib, larotrectinib, or entrectinib, or potential clinical trials. The Expert Panel continues to endorse the remaining recommendations for second-line chemotherapy, as well as other recommendations related to treatment, follow-up, and palliative care from the 2018 version of this guideline. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines.

Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) is a rare cancer but its incidence is increasing throughout the world, and is particularly high in the human immunodeficiency virus positive (HIV+) population. A multidisciplinary approach is mandatory (involving radiation therapists, medical oncologists, surgeons, radiologists and pathologists). SCCA usually spreads in a loco-regional manner within and outside the anal canal. Lymph node involvement at diagnosis is observed in 30–40% of cases while systemic spread is uncommon with distant extrapelvic metastases recorded in 5–8% at onset, and rates of metastatic progression after primary treatment between 10% and 20%. SCCA is strongly associated with human papilloma virus (HPV, types 16–18) infection. The primary aim of treatment is to achieve cure with loco-regional control and preservation of anal function, with the best possible quality of life. Treatment dramatically differs from adenocarcinomas of the lower rectum. Combinations of 5FU-based chemoradiation and other cytotoxic agents (mitomycin C) have been established as the standard of care, leading to complete tumour regression in 80–90% of patients with locoregional failures in the region of 15%. There is an accepted role for surgical salvage. Assessment and treatment should be carried out in specialised centres treating a high number of patients as early as possible in the clinical diagnosis. To date, the limited evidence from only 6 randomised trials [1Jemal A. Simard E.P. Dorell C. et al.Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2009, featuring the burden and trends in human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancers and HPV vaccination coverage levels.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013; 105: 175-201Crossref PubMed Scopus (840) Google Scholar, 2Palefsky J.M. Giuliano A.R. Goldstone S. et al.HPV vaccine against anal HPV infection and anal intraepithelial neoplasia.N Engl J Med. 2011; 365: 1576-1585Crossref PubMed Scopus (726) Google Scholar, 3Goh V. Gollub F.K. Liaw J. et al.Magnetic resonance imaging assessment of squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal before and after chemoradiation: can MRI predict for eventual clinical outcome?.Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010; 78: 715-721Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (53) Google Scholar, 4Bartelink H. Roelofsen F. Eschwege F. et al.Concomitant radiotherapy and chemotherapy is superior to radiotherapy alone in the treatment of locally advanced anal cancer: results of a phase III randomized trial of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Radiotherapy and Gastrointestinal Cooperative Groups.J Clin Oncol. 1997; 15: 2040-2049Crossref PubMed Scopus (1089) Google Scholar, 6Oehler-Jänne C. Huguet F. Provencher S. et al.HIV-specific differences in outcome of squamous cell carcinoma of the anal canal: a multicentric cohort study of HIV-positive patients receiving highly active antiretroviral therapy.J Clin Oncol. 2008; 26: 2550-2557Crossref PubMed Scopus (161) Google Scholar, 7Wexler A. Berson A.M. Goldstone S.E. et al.Invasive anal squamous-cell carcinoma in the HIV-positive patient: outcome in the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy.Dis Colon Rectum. 2008; 51: 73-81Crossref PubMed Scopus (119) Google Scholar], the rarity of the cancer, and the different behaviour/natural history depending on the predominant site of origin, (the anal margin, anal canal or above the dentate line) provide scanty direction for any individual oncologist. Here we aim to provide guidelines which can assist medical, radiation and surgical oncologists in the practical management of this unusual cancer.

BACKGROUND: Since 2010, nationwide networks of reference centers for sarcomas (RREPS/NETSARC/RESOS) collected and prospectively reviewed all cases of sarcomas and connective tumors of intermediate malignancy (TIM) in France. METHODS: The nationwide incidence of sarcoma or TIM (2013-2016) was measured using the 2013 WHO classification and confirmed by a second independent review by expert pathologists. Simple clinical characteristics, yearly variations and correlation of incidence with published clinical trials are presented and analyzed. RESULTS: Over 150 different histological subtypes are reported from the 25172 patients with sarcomas (n = 18712, 74,3%) or TIM (n = 6460, 25.7%), with n = 5838, n = 6153, n = 6654, and n = 6527 yearly cases from 2013 to 2016. Over these 4 years, the yearly incidence of sarcomas and TIM was therefore 70.7 and 24.4 respectively, with a combined incidence of 95.1/106/year, higher than previously reported. GIST, liposarcoma, leiomyosarcomas, undifferentiated sarcomas represented 13%, 13%, 11% and 11% of tumors. Only GIST, as a single entity had a yearly incidence above 10/106/year. There were respectively 30, 64 and 66 different histological subtypes of sarcomas or TIM with an incidence ranging from 10 to 1/106, 1-0.1/106, or < 0.1/106/year respectively. The 2 latter incidence groups represented 21% of the patients with 130 histotypes. Published phase III and phase II clinical trials (p<10-6) are significantly higher with sarcomas subtypes with an incidence above 1/106 per. CONCLUSIONS: This nationwide registry of sarcoma patients, with exhaustive histology review by sarcoma experts, shows that the incidence of sarcoma and TIM is higher than reported, and that tumors with a very low incidence (1<106/year) are less likely to be included in clinical trials.

AIMS: Circulating biomarkers of collagen turnover reflect extracellular cardiac matrix (ECCM) remodelling. The extent to which the success of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is influenced by the degree of cardiac fibrosis and whether CRT can influence matrix remodelling has yet to be studied. Our aim was to determine, in patients with heart failure (HF) and cardiac dyssynchrony, whether ECCM biomarkers are influenced by CRT and can predict cardiovascular outcomes and response to CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Serum levels of ECCM biomarkers [galectin-3 (Gal-3), N-terminal propeptides of type I and III procollagens (PINP and PIIINP), type I collagen telopeptide (ICTP), and matrix metalloproteinase 1 (MMP-1)] were measured in 260 patients, in a substudy of CARE-HF, a randomized controlled trial which evaluated the effects of CRT in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction and cardiac dyssynchrony. ECCM biomarkers did not change throughout the 18-month follow-up period. In age- and gender-adjusted analyses, Gal-3 and PIIINP were associated with death or HF hospitalization. In a further multivariate model, Gal-3 >30 ng/mL was associated [OR (95% CI):2.98 (1.43-6.22), P = 0.004] with death or HF hospitalization, along with left ventricular end-systolic volume >200 mL [3.42 (OR: 1.65-7.10), P = 0.001]. The outcome death or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% was associated with MMP-1 [≤3 ng/mL: 3.04 (1.37-6.71), P = 0.006]. No significant interaction was observed between the tested biomarkers and the treatment group. CONCLUSIONS: Increased Gal-3 and PIIINP, and low MMP-1 are associated with adverse long-term cardiovascular outcomes but did not predict response to CRT. CRT did not favourably affect serum concentrations of ECCM markers.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) behaviour differs depending on hormone receptors (HR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) statuses. METHODS: The kinetics of central nervous system (CNS) metastases (CNS metastasis-free survival, CNSM-FS) and subsequent patient's prognosis (overall survival, OS) according to the molecular subtype were retrospectively assessed in 16703 MBC patients of the ESME nationwide multicentre MBC database (Kaplan-Meier method). RESULTS: CNS metastases occurred in 4118 patients (24.6%) (7.2% at MBC diagnosis and 17.5% later during follow-up). Tumours were HER2-/HR+ (45.3%), HER2+/HR+ (14.5%), HER2+/HR- (14.9%) and triple negative (25.4%). Median age at CNS metastasis diagnosis was 58.1 years (range: 22.8-92.0). The median CNSM-FS was 10.8 months (95% CI: 16.5-17.9) among patients who developed CNS metastases. Molecular subtype was independently associated with CNSM-FS (HR = 3.45, 95% CI: 3.18-3.75, triple-negative and HER2-/HR+ tumours). After a 30-month follow-up, median OS after CNS metastasis diagnosis was 7.9 months (95% CI: 7.2-8.4). OS was independently associated with subtypes: median OS was 18.9 months (HR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.50-0.64) for HER2+/HR+ , 13.1 months (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.65-0.81) for HER2+/HR-, 4.4 months (HR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.42-1.69) for triple-negative and 7.1 months for HER2-/HR+ patients (p <0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Tumour molecular subtypes strongly impact incidence, kinetics and prognosis of CNS metastases in MBC patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03275311.

Surgery is the frontline treatment for a large number of cancers. The objective of these excisional surgeries is the complete removal of the primary tumor with sufficient safety margins. Removal of the entire tumor is essential to improve the chances of a full recovery. To help surgeons achieve this objective, near-infrared fluorescence-guided surgical techniques are of great interest. The concomitant use of fluorescence and indocyanine green (ICG) has proved effective in the identification and characterization of tumors. Moreover, ICG is authorized by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency and is therefore the subject of a large number of studies. ICG is one of the most commonly used fluorophores in near-infrared fluorescence-guided techniques. However, it also has some disadvantages, such as limited photostability, a moderate fluorescence quantum yield, a high plasma protein binding rate, and undesired aggregation in aqueous solution. In addition, ICG does not specifically target tumor cells. One way to exploit the capabilities of ICG while offsetting these drawbacks is to develop high-performance near-infrared nanocomplexes formulated with ICG (with high selectivity for tumors, high tumor-to-background ratios, and minimal toxicity). In this review article, we focus on recent developments in ICG complexation strategies to improve near-infrared fluorescence-guided tumor surgery. We describe targeted and nontargeted ICG nanoparticle models and ICG complexation with targeting agents.

Pancreatic cancer is one of the most lethal solid organ tumors. Due to the rising incidence, late diagnosis, and limited treatment options, it is expected to be the second leading cause of cancer deaths in high income countries in the next decade. The multidisciplinary treatment of this disease depends on the stage of cancer at diagnosis (resectable, borderline, locally advanced, and metastatic disease), and combines surgery, chemotherapy, chemoradiotherapy, and supportive care. The landscape of multidisciplinary pancreatic cancer treatment is changing rapidly, especially in locally advanced disease, and the number of treatment options in metastatic disease, including personalized medicine, innovative targets, immunotherapy, therapeutic vaccines, adoptive T-cell transfer, or stemness inhibitors, will probably expand in the near future. This review summarizes the current literature and provides an overview of how new therapies or new therapeutic strategies (neoadjuvant therapies, conversion surgery) will guide multidisciplinary disease management, future clinical trials, and, hopefully, will increase overall survival.

Tumor-draining lymph node (TDLN) invasion by metastatic cells in breast cancer correlates with poor prognosis and is associated with local immunosuppression, which can be partly mediated by regulatory T cells (Tregs). Here, we study Tregs from matched tumor-invaded and non-invaded TDLNs, and breast tumors. We observe that Treg frequencies increase with nodal invasion, and that Tregs express higher levels of co-inhibitory/stimulatory receptors than effector cells. Also, while Tregs show conserved suppressive function in TDLN and tumor, conventional T cells (Tconvs) in TDLNs proliferate and produce Th1-inflammatory cytokines, but are dysfunctional in the tumor. We describe a common transcriptomic signature shared by Tregs from tumors and nodes, including CD80, which is significantly associated with poor patient survival. TCR RNA-sequencing analysis indicates trafficking between TDLNs and tumors and ongoing Tconv/Treg conversion. Overall, TDLN Tregs are functional and express a distinct pattern of druggable co-receptors, highlighting their potential as targets for cancer immunotherapy.

4007 Background: PRODIGE 23 investigated the role of neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX before preoperative (preop) chemoradiation (CRT), with TME-surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) in resectable locally advanced rectal cancer. Methods: PRODIGE 23 is a phase III multicenter randomized clinical trial. Eligible pts had cT3 or cT4, M0 rectal adenocarcinomas &lt;15 cm from the anal verge, age 18-75 years, and WHO PS ≤1. Randomization was stratified by center, T stage, N status, tumor location, and perirectal fat extramural extension. Primary endpoint was 3-yr disease-free survival (DFS). Main secondary endpoints were ypT0N0 rate, overall survival (OS) and metastasis-free survival (MFS). 460 pts were required to observe 136 events to show a gain in 3-year DFS from 75% to 85% (HR=0.56) with a 2-sided α=0.05 and 90% power. HR and 95% CI were estimated by a stratified Cox proportional hazard model. Arm A pts received preop CRT (50 Gy, 2 Gy/fraction [fr]; 25 fr + capecitabine), surgery, then adjuvant CT for 6 months (mos). Arm B pts received 6 cycles of mFOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m², leucovorin 400 mg/m², irinotecan 180 mg/m² D1, and 5-FU 2.4 g/m² over 46 h) every 14 days, followed by the same preop CRT, surgery and 3 mos of adjuvant CT. Adjuvant CT consisted of mFOLFOX6 or capecitabine, depending on the centre’s choice for all pts. Imaging work-up, operative and pathology reports were centrally reviewed. Results: (ITT) Between 6/2012 and 6/2017, 230 and 231 pts were randomly assigned in Arm A/B, respectively by 35 participating centers. Pts characteristics were well balanced. Neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX and CRT in both arms were well tolerated. Compliance to CRT and to adjuvant CT was not hampered by neoadjuvant CT. Surgical morbidity did not differ between the 2 arms. The ypT0N0 rate was 11.7 vs 27.5% in Arm A/B (p&lt;0.001). Median follow-up was 46.5 mos. 136 DFS events was reported. 3-yr DFS was significantly increased in arm B (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.97, p=0.034): 68.5% (CI: 61.9-74.2) vs 75.7% (CI: 69.4-80.8) in arm A/B. The subgroup analysis showed no evidence of heterogeneity of the effect size of treatment on DFS. 3-yr MFS was also significantly higher in arm B: 71.7 in arm A vs 78.8% (HR 0.64, CI 0.44-0.93, p&lt;0.02) in arm B. 3-yr OS was 87.7 vs 90.8% (HR 0.65, CI 0.40-1.05, p=0.077) in arm A/B, with 54.2% of the pts with recurrence being alive. Conclusions: Neoadjuvant mFOLFIRINOX plus CRT is safe, and significantly increased ypCR rate, DFS and MFS. OS data are not mature. Clinical trial information: NCT01804790 .

Specific human papillomavirus genotypes are associated with most ano-genital carcinomas and a large subset of oro-pharyngeal carcinomas. Human papillomavirus DNA is thus a tumour marker that can be detected in the blood of patients for clinical monitoring. However, data concerning circulating human papillomavirus DNA in cervical cancer patients has provided little clinical value, due to insufficient sensitivity of the assays used for the detection of small sized tumours. Here we took advantage of the sensitive droplet digital PCR method to identify circulating human papillomavirus DNA in patients with human papillomavirus-associated carcinomas. A series of 70 serum specimens, taken at the time of diagnosis, between 2002 and 2013, were retrospectively analyzed in patients with human papillomavirus-16 or human papillomavirus-18-associated carcinomas, composed of 47 cases from the uterine cervix, 15 from the anal canal and 8 from the oro-pharynx. As negative controls, 18 serum samples from women with human papillomavirus-16-associated high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia were also analyzed. Serum samples were stored at -80°C (27 cases) or at -20°C (43 cases). DNA was isolated from 200 µl of serum or plasma and droplet digital PCR was performed using human papillomavirus-16 E7 and human papillomavirus-18 E7 specific primers. Circulating human papillomavirus DNA was detected in 61/70 (87%) serum samples from patients with carcinoma and in no serum from patients with cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. The positivity rate increased to 93% when using only serum stored at -80°C. Importantly, the two patients with microinvasive carcinomas in this series were positive. Quantitative evaluation showed that circulating viral DNA levels in cervical cancer patients were related to the clinical stage and tumour size, ranging from 55 ± 85 copies/ml (stage I) to 1774 ± 3676 copies/ml (stage IV). Circulating human papillomavirus DNA is present in patients with human papillomavirus-associated invasive cancers even at sub-clinical stages and its level is related to tumour dynamics. Droplet digital PCR is a promising method for circulating human papillomavirus DNA detection and quantification. No positivity was found in patients with human papillomavirus-associated high grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia.

PURPOSE: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC) who are ineligible for cisplatin-based therapy have limited first-line (1L) treatment options and significant need for improved therapies. Enfortumab vedotin (EV) and pembrolizumab (Pembro) individually have shown a survival benefit in urothelial cancer in second-line + la/mUC settings. Here, we present data from the pivotal trial of EV plus Pembro (EV + Pembro) in the 1L setting. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In Cohort K of the EV-103 phase Ib/II study, cisplatin-ineligible patients with previously untreated la/mUC were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive EV as monotherapy or in combination with Pembro. The primary end point was confirmed objective response rate (cORR) per blinded independent central review. Secondary end points included duration of response (DOR) and safety. There were no formal statistical comparisons between treatment arms. RESULTS: The cORR was 64.5% (95% CI, 52.7 to 75.1) and 45.2% (95% CI, 33.5 to 57.3) for patients treated with EV + Pembro (N = 76) and EV monotherapy (N = 73), respectively. The median DOR was not reached for the combination and was 13.2 months for monotherapy; 65.4% and 56.3% of patients who responded to the combination and monotherapy, respectively, maintained a response at 12 months. The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) in patients treated with the combination were maculopapular rash (17.1%), fatigue (9.2%), and neutropenia (9.2%). EV TRAEs of special interest (any grade) in the combination arm included skin reactions (67.1%) and peripheral neuropathy (60.5%). CONCLUSION: EV + Pembro showed a high cORR with durable responses as 1L treatment in cisplatin-ineligible patients with la/mUC. Patients who received EV monotherapy had a response and safety profile consistent with previous studies. Adverse events for EV + Pembro were manageable, with no new safety signals observed.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of disease activity in UC is important for designing an optimal therapeutic strategy. No single histology score is considered optimum. The aim of this study was to compare intraobserver reproducibility and the interobserver agreement of available histological UC activity indexes. METHODS: One hundred and two biopsy specimens (collected between 2003 and 2014) were scored blindly by three pathologists by determining Geboes, Riley, Gramlich and Gupta indexes and global visual evaluation (GVE). Intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver agreements for index and items of index were studied by intraclass correlation coefficient for quantitative parameter and by κ values and Krippendorff index for qualitative parameters. Relationship between indexes was studied by computation of Pearson's and Spearman's correlation coefficients. RESULTS: Geboes, Riley, Gramlich and Gupta indexes and GVE showed good intraobserver reproducibility and a good interobserver agreement. Histological items that showed the best interobserver agreement were 'erosion/ulceration or surface epithelial integrity' and 'acute inflammatory cells infiltrate/neutrophils in lamina propria'. The five scores were strongly correlated. CONCLUSIONS: Correlation between indexes is strong. Intraobserver reproducibility and interobserver agreement for all indexes is very good. Histological items that showed the best interobserver agreement are 'erosion/ulceration' and 'acute inflammatory cells infiltrate/neutrophils in lamina propria'.