Patients with high-risk resected colon cancer obtain benefit from FU-based therapy across subsets of age, sex, location, T stage, nodal status, and grade. Model estimates of survival stratified by T stage, nodal status, grade, and age are available at http://www.mayoclinic.com/calcs. This information may improve patients' and physicians' understanding of the potential benefits of adjuvant therapy.

The primary objective was not met. The addition of bevacizumab to gemcitabine-erlotinib did not lead to a statistically significant improvement in OS in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. PFS, however, was significantly longer in the bevacizumab group compared with placebo. No unexpected safety events were observed from adding bevacizumab to gemcitabine-erlotinib.

Purpose The standard of care for second-line therapy in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer after gemcitabine-based therapy is not clearly defined. The CONKO-003 phase III study reported a survival benefit with second-line fluorouracil (FU) and oxaliplatin using the oxaliplatin, folinic acid, and FU (OFF) regimen. PANCREOX was a phase III multicenter trial to evaluate the benefit of FU and oxaliplatin administered as modified FOLFOX6 (mFOLFOX6; infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) versus infusional FU/leucovorin (LV) in this setting. Patients and Methods Patients with confirmed advanced pancreatic cancer who were previously treated with gemcitabine therapy and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were eligible. A total of 108 patients were randomly assigned to receive biweekly mFOLFOX6 or infusional FU/LV until progression. Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point. Results Baseline patient characteristics were similar in both arms. No difference was observed in PFS (median, 3.1 months v 2.9 months; P = .99). Overall survival (OS) was inferior in patients assigned to mFOLFOX6 (median, 6.1 months v 9.9 months; P = .02). Increased toxicity was observed with the addition of oxaliplatin, with grade 3/4 adverse events occurring in 63% of patients who received mFOLFOX6 and 11% of those who received FU/LV. More patients in the mFOLFOX6 arm withdrew from study due to adverse events than in the FU/LV arm (20% v 2%), whereas the use of postprogression therapy was significantly higher in the FU/LV arm (25% v 7%; P = .015). No significant differences were observed in time to deterioration on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 global health scale. Conclusion No benefit was observed with the addition of oxaliplatin, administered as mFOLFOX6, versus infusional FU/LV in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer previously treated with first-line gemcitabine.

III colon cancer have a 50% chance of cure with surgery. 1 Multiple trials have established the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in reducing the recurrence risk. Specifically, leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX or slightly different method, FLOX) provides significant benefit in both disease-free and overall survival compared with the prior standard of fluorouracil and leucovorin. [2][3][4] In the setting of metastatic colorectal cancer, cetuximab and panitumumab are US Food and Drug Administration approved for targeting the For editorial comment see p 1431.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) is frequently considered in patients with stage II colon cancer who are considered to be at high risk. However, to the authors' knowledge, the survival benefits associated with AC in these patients remain largely unproven. In the current study, the authors sought to examine the use of AC in patients with AJCC stage II colon cancer and to compare the impact of AC on outcomes in patients with high-risk versus low-risk disease in a population-based setting. METHODS: Patients with stage II colon cancer who were evaluated at 1 of 5 regional cancer centers in British Columbia from 1999 to 2008 were analyzed. Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression methods were used to correlate high-risk versus low-risk status and receipt of AC with recurrence-free survival (RFS), disease-specific survival (DSS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A total of 1697 patients were identified: 1286 (76%) with high-risk and 411 (24%) with low-risk disease, among whom 373 (29%) and 51 (12%),respectively, received AC. Individuals with high-risk disease treated with AC were younger (median age, 62 years vs 72 years; P<.001) and had better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0/1: 47% vs 33%; P 5.001). . CONCLUSIONS: In this population-based analysis, AC was associated with an OS advantage in high-risk patients, most likely due to patient selection. RFS, DSS, and OS benefits were mainly observed in patients with T4 disease, suggesting a limited role for AC in patients deemed to be high risk by non-T4 features. Cancer 2015;121:527-34.