BackgroundTo investigate the impact of pre-treatment lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) levels on the outcome of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line chemotherapy with or without the anti-VEGF monoclonal antibody, bevacizumab, in a phase III prospective multicentre randomized ITACa (Italian Trial in Advanced Colorectal Cancer) trial.MethodsThree hundred and seventy patients enrolled onto the ITACa first-line trial were considered for this study, 176 receiving chemotherapy (either FOLFIRI or FOLFOX) plus bevacizumab and 194 receiving chemotherapy only. Pre-treatment LDH levels were evaluated to identify a potential correlation with progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and objective response rate.ResultsInformation on pre-treatment LDH levels was available for 344 patients. High LDH levels were predictive of a lower median PFS (8.1 months vs. 9.2 months, p< 0.0001) and median OS (16.1 months vs. 25.2 months, p< 0.0001) in the overall population. In the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group, median PFS was 9.1 and 9.8 months in patients with high LDH and low LDH, respectively (p= 0.073), whereas in the chemotherapy-only arm it was 6.9 and 9.1 months, respectively (p < 0.0001). In patients with high LDH, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy led to a reduction in the rate of progressive disease (16.4 vs. 30.5%, p= 0.081) and to a prolonged PFS (p= 0.028).ConclusionA high LDH value was confirmed as a marker of poor prognosis. Bevacizumab reduced the progressive disease rate and improved PFS in the high-LDH subgroup, making serum LDH a potentially effective an easily available and marker to select patients who benefit from bevacizumab.Trial Registration
NCT01878422 ClinicalTrials.gov
HEC, as delivered in this trial, cannot be recommended in clinical practice because of the lack of superiority over classic CMF and because of the increased risk of AML observed in this arm. Prolongation of conventional anthracycline-based treatment beyond the current standard of four to six cycles is not recommended in clinical practice.
Chronological age alone is not a sufficient factor to withhold curative/palliative treatment from an elderly GI cancer patient, and cofactors regarding their functional, social, and mental status have to be considered. For this purpose, several tools exist that may be utilized, such as geriatric assessment scores, comorbidity indices, frailty indices, scores for predicting toxicity from chemotherapy, and prognostic indices for survival.
Aim:
The aim of this study was to investigate the role of a new inflammatory index (Colon Inflammatory Index [CII]) as a predictor of prognosis and treatment efficacy in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) enrolled in the prospective multicenter randomized ITACa (Italian Trial in Advanced Colorectal Cancer) trial to receive first-line chemotherapy (CT)+ bevacizumab or CT alone.
Patients and methods:
Between November 14, 2007 and March 6, 2012, 276 patients diagnosed with CRC were available for baseline neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). We divided the population into three groups on basis of the CII index.
Results:
At baseline in all populations, median PFS and OS was predictive of clinical outcome (
p
<0.0001). Following adjustment for clinical covariates, multivariate analysis confirmed CII index as an independent prognostic factor. The CII index was also predictive when we evaluated the two distinct arms with (
p
=0.0009) or without bevacizumab (
p
=0.0001). When we divided right side versus left side for treatment regimen (CT plus bevacizumab versus only bevacizumab), we found a benefit of bevacizumab versus only CT in the right side in patients treated with bevacizumab and not in patients treated with only chemotherapy. Conversely, we found no difference the left side, but we found a difference in the poor group of 4 months in favor to only chemotherapy.
Conclusion:
Our results indicate that the CII index is a good prognostic marker for mCRC patients in first line treatment with CT with or without bevacizumab.
Trial registration:
NCT01878422
ClinicalTrials.gov
; date of registration: June 7, 2013.
BackgroundUntil now, no robust data supported the efficacy, safety and recommendation for influenza vaccination in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs).MethodsThe prospective multicenter observational INfluenza Vaccine Indication During therapy with Immune checkpoint inhibitors (INVIDIa-2) study investigated the clinical effectiveness of influenza vaccination in patients with advanced cancer receiving ICIs, enrolled in 82 Italian centers from October 2019 to January 2020. The primary endpoint was the time-adjusted incidence of influenza-like illness (ILI) until April 30, 2020. Secondary endpoints regarded ILI severity and vaccine safety.ResultsThe study enrolled 1279 patients; 1188 patients were evaluable for the primary endpoint analysis. Of them, 48.9% (581) received influenza vaccination. The overall ILI incidence was 8.2% (98 patients). Vaccinated patients were significantly more frequently elderly (p<0.0001), males (p=0.004), with poor European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (p=0.009), affected by lung cancer (p=0.01), and by other non-cancer comorbidities (p<0.0001) when compared with unvaccinated. ILI incidence was not different basing on influenza vaccination: the time-to-ILI was similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients (p=0.62). ILI complications were significantly less frequent for patients receiving the vaccination (11.8% vs 38.3% in unvaccinated, p=0.002). ILI-related intravenous therapies were significantly less frequent in vaccinated patients than in unvaccinated (11.8% vs 29.8%, p=0.027). ILI lethality was, respectively, 0% in vaccinated and 4.3% in unvaccinated patients. Vaccine-related adverse events were rare and mild (1.5%, grades 1–2).ConclusionThe INVIDIa-2 study results support a positive recommendation for influenza vaccination in patients with advanced cancer receiving immunotherapy.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.