Effect of invitation to colonoscopy versus faecal immunochemical test screening on colorectal cancer mortality (COLONPREV): a pragmatic, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial
People prefer stool card over colonoscopy, and it is not inferior.
Assessment of the Addition of Oxaliplatin to Fluoropyrimidine-Based Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With High-Risk Stage II Colon Cancer: An ACCENT Pooled Analysis
Author(s): Benoist Chibaudel, MD1; Morteza Raeisi, PhD2; Romain Cohen, MD, PhD3; Greg Yothers, PhD4; Richard M. Goldberg, MD5; Jean-Baptiste Bachet, MD6; Norman Wolmark, MD7; Takayuki Yoshino, MD, PhD8; Hans-Joachim Schmoll, MD9; Rachel Kerr, MD10; Sara Lonardi, MD11; Thomas J. George, MD12; Einat Shacham-Shmueli, MD13; Qian Shi, PhD14; Thierry André, MD3,2; Aimery de Gramont, MD2,1
Source: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.24.00394
Dr. Maen Hussein's Thoughts
No oxaliplatinum in stage 2 colon cancer, even high-risk patients, by the way, De Gramont is one of the authors (father of FOLOFX reigmens).
PURPOSE
The adjuvant treatment for stage III colon cancer (CC) is chemotherapy combining fluoropyrimidine (FP) and oxaliplatin (OX). FP regimen plus OX (FPOX) may benefit in high-risk stage II CC. We performed a pooled analysis of pivotal MOSAIC and C-07 studies evaluating FPOX for the treatment of high-risk stage II CC according to prognostic factors, number of high-risk factors, and current clinicopathologic risk classification on the basis of T stage, tumor perforation, and number of lymph nodes examined.PATIENTS AND METHODS
One thousand five hundred and ninety-five patients with stage II CC receiving FP or FPOX were pooled. The overall survival (OS) benefit of OX was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier curves and unadjusted Cox models stratified by study. Three thousand and fifty-nine patients with stage III CC were used only for interaction tests between the allocated chemotherapy and stage.RESULTS
In the pooled analysis of stage II patients, independent prognostic factors in multivariable analysis were sex, age, perforation/obstruction, and tumor sidedness. There was a significant interaction in OS between stage and allocated chemotherapy with hazard ratios (HRs) of 1.03 for stage II (95% CI, 0.82 to 1.29; P = .813) and 0.82 for stage III (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.92; P = .001; Pint = .073). There was no benefit from the addition of OX to FP for any of the prognostic factors. The number of high-risk factors tested was not predictive of OX benefit. According to the currently agreed clinicopathologic risk classification, no OS benefit of OX was observed, as HR was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.63 to 1.18; P = .349).CONCLUSION
No OS benefit of adjuvant OX was found in high-risk stage II CC, regardless of the definition used to characterize tumors as having a high risk for recurrence. Hence, our analysis suggests that OX should not be the standard of care for adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II CC, even in high-risk patients.Author Affiliations
1Department of Medical Oncology, Franco-British Hospital, Fondation Cognacq-Jay, Cancérologie Paris Ouest, Levallois-Perret, France; 2Statistical Unit, ARCAD Foundation, Paris, France; 3Sorbonne Université and Department of Medical Oncology, Saint-Antoine Hospital, Paris, France; 4Department of Biostatistics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA; 5Department of Medicine, West Virginia University Cancer Institute, Morgantown, WV; 6Hepato-Gastroenterology and Digestive Oncology Department, Sorbonne University, Pitié Salpêtrière Hospital, APHP, Paris, France; 7NSABP Foundation, Pittsburgh, PA; 8Department of Gastroenterology and Gastrointestinal Oncology, National Cancer Center Hospital East, Kashiwa, Japan; 9Division of Clinical Research in Oncology, Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle/Saale, Germany; 10Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; 11Medical Oncology, Veneto Institute of Oncology IOV—IRCCS, Padua, Italy; 12Division of Hematology and Oncology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; 13Sheba Medical Center at Tel-Hashomer, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel; 14Department of Quantitative Health Science, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MNRelated Articles
Oxaliplatin-Based Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Older Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer: An ACCENT/IDEA Pooled Analysis of 12 Trials
There is more movement towards using time to relapse as an endpoint for adjuvant studies. This report highlights that there is still a role for oxaliplatin in older patients with Stage III CRC. The time to relapse was not significantly different in patients who are younger vs older. TTR is suggested as a more informative endpoint as older patients uniformly have a lower DFS and OS in most trials.
Neoadjuvant Immunotherapy in Locally Advanced Mismatch Repair–Deficient Colon Cancer
Epi and nivo for mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) colon cancer had 98% response rate with 68% complete response, non-recurred with a median of follow up of 26 months. Does this mean bye-bye surgery??? Probably. We will need to assess those who have complete response and have a close follow up. CtDNA may play big role here, along with a need for randomized trials.
Machine Learning Predicts Oxaliplatin Benefit in Early Colon Cancer
COLOXIS is an interesting computer-based learning model that seems to be able to predict which patients are likely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. This, along with ctDNA tests, may change whom we choose to offer adjuvant chemotherapy.
Adjuvant Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy in Patients With Locally Advanced Colon Cancer (COLOPEC): 5-Year Results of a Randomized Multicenter Trial
Negative study for the use of HIPEC in the adjuvant setting of high-risk or locally advanced colorectal cancers, including those with perforation and peritoneal invasion. HIPEC doesn’t seem to reduce the risk of peritoneal recurrence after potentially curative resection.