Ulrich Ronellenfitsch

Bio: Ulrich Ronellenfitsch is an academic researcher from Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medicine & Perioperative. The author has an hindex of 24, co-authored 95 publications receiving 2304 citations. Previous affiliations of Ulrich Ronellenfitsch include University of Mannheim & University Hospital Heidelberg.

Histopathological regression after neoadjuvant docetaxel, oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and leucovorin versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil or capecitabine in patients with resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (FLOT4-AIO): results from the phase 2 part of a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2/3 trial.

Abstract: Summary Background Docetaxel-based chemotherapy is effective in metastatic gastric and gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma, but has not yet been evaluated in the context of resectable patients. Here we report findings from the phase 2 part of the phase 2/3 FLOT4 trial, which compared histopathological regression in patients treated with a docetaxel-based triplet chemotherapy versus an anthracycline-based triplet chemotherapy before surgical resection. Methods In this randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 study, eligible participants were recruited from 28 German oncology centres. Patients with resectable gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction cancer who had clinical stage cT2 or higher, nodal positive (cN+) disease, or both were randomly assigned (1:1) to either three preoperative and three postoperative 3-week cycles of intravenous epirubicin 50 mg/m 2 on day 1, intravenous cisplatin 60 mg/m 2 on day 1, and either fluorouracil 200 mg/m 2 as continuous intravenous infusion or capecitabine 1250 mg/m 2 orally (two doses of 625 mg/m 2 per day) on days 1 to 21 (ECF/ECX group) or four preoperative and four postoperative 2-week cycles of docetaxel 50 mg/m 2 , intravenous oxaliplatin 85 mg/m 2 , intravenous leucovorin 200 mg/m 2 , and fluorouracil 2600 mg/m 2 as a 24 h infusion, all on day 1 (FLOT group). Randomisation was done centrally with an interactive web-response system based on a sequence generated with blocks (block size 2) stratified by Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, location of primary tumour, age, and nodal status. No masking was done. Central assessment of pathological regression was done according to the Becker criteria. The primary endpoint was pathological complete regression (tumour regression grade TRG1a) and was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients who were randomly assigned to treatment excluding patients who had surgery but did not provide resection specimens for central evaluation. The study (including the phase 3 part) has completed enrolment, but follow-up is ongoing and this is an interim analysis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01216644. Findings Between Aug 18, 2010, and Aug 10, 2012, 300 patients (152 patients in the ECF/ECX group; 148 patients in the FLOT group) were enrolled into the phase 2 part of the study, 265 of whom (137 in the ECF/ECX group; 128 in the FLOT group) were assessable on a modified intention-to-treat basis. 119 (93%) of 128 patients in the FLOT group and 126 (92%) of 137 patients in the ECF/ECX group were given all planned preoperative cycles of treatment. FLOT was associated with significantly higher proportions of patients achieving pathological complete regression than was ECF/ECX (20 [16%; 95% CI 10–23] of 128 patients vs eight [6%; 3–11] of 137 patients; p=0·02). 44 (40%) of 111 patients in the ECF/ECX group and 30 (25%) of 119 patients in the FLOT group had at least one serious adverse event involving a perioperative medical or surgical complication. The most common non-surgical grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropenia (52 [38%] of 137 patients in the ECF/ECX group vs 67 [52%] of 128 patients in the FLOT group), leucopenia (28 [20%] vs 36 [28%]), nausea (23 [17%] vs 12 [9%]), infection (16 [12%] vs 15 [12%]), fatigue (19 [14%] vs 11 [9%]), and vomiting (13 [10%] vs four [3%]). Interpretation Perioperative FLOT was active and feasible to administer, and might represent an option for patients with locally advanced, resectable gastric or gastro-eosophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Funding None.

Effect of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Followed by Surgical Resection on Survival in Patients With Limited Metastatic Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Cancer: The AIO-FLOT3 Trial

Abstract: Importance Surgical resection has a potential benefit for patients with metastatic adenocarcinoma of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction. Objective To evaluate outcome in patients with limited metastatic disease who receive chemotherapy first and proceed to surgical resection. Design, Setting, and Participants The AIO-FLOT3 (Arbeitsgemeinschaft Internistische Onkologie–fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel) trial is a prospective, phase 2 trial of 252 patients with resectable or metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma. Patients were enrolled from 52 cancer care centers in Germany between February 1, 2009, and January 31, 2010, and stratified to 1 of 3 groups: resectable (arm A), limited metastatic (arm B), or extensive metastatic (arm C). Data cutoff was January 2012, and the analysis was performed in March 2013. Interventions Patients in arm A received 4 preoperative cycles of fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and docetaxel (FLOT) followed by surgery and 4 postoperative cycles. Patients in arm B received at least 4 cycles of neoadjuvant FLOT and proceeded to surgical resection if restaging (using computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging) showed a chance of margin-free (R0) resection of the primary tumor and at least a macroscopic complete resection of the metastatic lesions. Patients in arm C were offered FLOT chemotherapy and surgery only if required for palliation. Patients received a median (range) of 8 (1-15) cycles of FLOT. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was overall survival. Results In total, 238 of 252 patients (94.4%) were eligible to participate. The median (range) age of participants was 66 (36-79) years in arm A (n = 51), 63 (28-79) years in arm B (n = 60), and 65 (23-83) years in arm C (n = 127). Patients in arm B (n = 60) had only retroperitoneal lymph node involvement (27 patients [45%]), liver involvement (11 [18.3%]), lung involvement (10 [16.7%]), localized peritoneal involvement (4 [6.7%]), or other (8 [13.3%]) incurable sites. Median overall survival was 22.9 months (95% CI, 16.5 to upper level not achieved) for arm B, compared with 10.7 months (95% CI, 9.1-12.8) for arm C (hazard ratio, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.25-0.55) ( P Conclusions and Relevance Patients with limited metastatic disease who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy and proceeded to surgery showed a favorable survival. The AIO-FLOT3 trial provides a rationale for further randomized clinical trials. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov identifier:NCT00849615

Perioperative chemo(radio)therapy versus primary surgery for resectable adenocarcinoma of the stomach, gastroesophageal junction, and lower esophagus.

Abstract: Background: The outcome of patients with locally advanced gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma (adenocarcinoma of the esophagus, gastroesophageal (GE) junction, and stomach) is poor. There is conflicting evidence regarding the effects of perioperative chemotherapy on survival and other outcomes. Objectives: To assess the effect of perioperative chemotherapy for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma on survival and other clinically relevant outcomes in the overall population of participants in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and in prespecified subgroups. Search methods: We performed computerized searches in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Database of Abstracts of Review of Effectiveness (DARE), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) from The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966 to May 2011), EMBASE (1980 to May 2011), and LILACS (Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud), combining the Cochrane highly sensitive search strategy with specific search terms. Moreover, we handsearched several online databases, conference proceedings, and reference lists of retrieved papers. Selection criteria: We included RCTs which randomized patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma, in the absence of distant metastases, to receive either chemotherapy with or without radiotherapy followed by surgery, or surgery alone. Data collection and analysis: Two independent review authors identified eligible trials. We solicited individual patient data (IPD) from all selected trials. We performed meta-analyses based on intention-to-treat populations using the two-stage method to combine IPD with aggregate data from RCTs for which IPD were unavailable. We combined data from all trials providing IPD in a Cox proportional hazards model to assess the effect of several covariables on overall survival. Main results: We identified 14 RCTs with 2422 eligible patients. For eight RCTs with 1049 patients (43.3%), we were able to obtain IPD. Perioperative chemotherapy was associated with significantly longer overall survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.89). This corresponds to a relative survival increase of 19% or an absolute survival increase of 9% at five years. This survival advantage was consistent across most subgroups. There was a trend towards a more pronounced treatment effect for tumors of the GE junction compared to other sites, and for combined chemoradiotherapy as compared to chemotherapy in tumors of the esophagus and GE junction. Resection with negative margins was a strong predictor of survival. Multivariable analysis showed that tumor site, performance status, and age have an independent significant effect on survival. Moreover, there was a significant interaction of the effect of perioperative chemotherapy with age (larger treatment effect in younger patients). Perioperative chemotherapy also showed a significant effect on several secondary outcomes. It was associated with longer disease-free survival, higher rates of R0 resection, and more favorable tumor stage upon resection, while there was no association with perioperative morbidity and mortality. Authors' conclusions: Perioperative chemotherapy for resectable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma increases survival compared to surgery alone. It should thus be offered to all eligible patients. There is a trend to a larger survival advantage for tumors of the GE junction as compared to other sites and for chemoradiotherapy as compared to chemotherapy in esophageal and GE junction tumors. Likewise, there is an interaction between age and treatment effect, with younger patients having a larger survival advantage, and no survival advantage for elderly patients.

What is a clinical pathway? Refinement of an operational definition to identify clinical pathway studies for a Cochrane systematic review.

Abstract: Clinical pathways (CPWs) are a common component in the quest to improve the quality of health. CPWs are used to reduce variation, improve quality of care, and maximize the outcomes for specific groups of patients. An ongoing challenge is the operationalization of a definition of CPW in healthcare. This may be attributable to both the differences in definition and a lack of conceptualization in the field of clinical pathways. This correspondence article describes a process of refinement of an operational definition for CPW research and proposes an operational definition for the future syntheses of CPWs literature. Following the approach proposed by Kinsman et al. (BMC Medicine 8(1):31, 2010) and Wieland et al. (Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 17(2):50, 2011), we used a four-stage process to generate a five criteria checklist for the definition of CPWs. We refined the operational definition, through consensus, merging two of the checklist’s criteria, leading to a more inclusive criterion for accommodating CPW studies conducted in various healthcare settings. The following four criteria for CPW operational definition, derived from the refinement process described above, are (1) the intervention was a structured multidisciplinary plan of care; (2) the intervention was used to translate guidelines or evidence into local structures; (3) the intervention detailed the steps in a course of treatment or care in a plan, pathway, algorithm, guideline, protocol or other ‘inventory of actions’ (i.e. the intervention had time-frames or criteria-based progression); and (4) the intervention aimed to standardize care for a specific population. An intervention meeting all four criteria was considered to be a CPW. The development of operational definitions for complex interventions is a useful approach to appraise and synthesize evidence for policy development and quality improvement.

SF-010-4 Distant metastasis occurs late during the genetic evolution of pancreatic cancer

Abstract: Metastasis, the dissemination and growth of neoplastic cells in an organ distinct from that in which they originated, is the most common cause of death in cancer patients. This is particularly true for pancreatic cancers, where most patients are diagnosed with metastatic disease and few show a sustained response to chemotherapy or radiation therapy. Whether the dismal prognosis of patients with pancreatic cancer compared to patients with other types of cancer is a result of late diagnosis or early dissemination of disease to distant organs is not known. Here we rely on data generated by sequencing the genomes of seven pancreatic cancer metastases to evaluate the clonal relationships among primary and metastatic cancers. We find that clonal populations that give rise to distant metastases are represented within the primary carcinoma, but these clones are genetically evolved from the original parental, non-metastatic clone. Thus, genetic heterogeneity of metastases reflects that within the primary carcinoma. A quantitative analysis of the timing of the genetic evolution of pancreatic cancer was performed, indicating at least a decade between the occurrence of the initiating mutation and the birth of the parental, non-metastatic founder cell. At least five more years are required for the acquisition of metastatic ability and patients die an average of two years thereafter. These data provide novel insights into the genetic features underlying pancreatic cancer progression and define a broad time window of opportunity for early detection to prevent deaths from metastatic disease.

Survival after neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy for resectable oesophageal carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis

Abstract: Summary Background In a previous meta-analysis, we identified a survival benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy or chemoradiotherapy before surgery in patients with resectable oesophageal carcinoma. We updated this meta-analysis with results from new or updated randomised trials presented in the past 3 years. We also compared the benefits of preoperative neoadjuvant chemotherapy compared with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. Methods To identify additional studies and published abstracts from major scientific meetings, we searched Medline, Embase, and Central (Cochrane clinical trials database) for studies published since January, 2006, and also manually searched for abstracts from major conferences from the same period. Only randomised studies analysed by intention to treat were included, and searches were restricted to those databases citing articles in English. We used published hazard ratios (HRs) if available or estimates from other survival data. We also investigated treatment effects by tumour histology and relations between risk (survival after surgery alone) and effect size. Findings We included all 17 trials from the previous meta-analysis and seven further studies. 12 were randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1854), nine were randomised comparisons of neoadjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone (n=1981), and two compared neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=194) in patients with resectable oesophageal carcinoma; one factorial trial included two comparisons and was included in analyses of both neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (n=78) and neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=81). The updated analysis contained 4188 patients whereas the previous publication included 2933 patients. This updated meta-analysis contains about 3500 events compared with about 2230 in the previous meta-analysis (estimated 57% increase). The HR for all-cause mortality for neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy was 0·78 (95% CI 0·70–0·88; p Interpretation This updated meta-analysis provides strong evidence for a survival benefit of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy over surgery alone in patients with oesophageal carcinoma. A clear advantage of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy over neoadjuvant chemotherapy has not been established. These results should help inform decisions about patient management and design of future trials. Funding Cancer Australia and the NSW Cancer Institute.

NCCN Task Force report: update on the management of patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors

Abstract: The standard of care for managing patients with gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GISTs) rapidly changed after the introduction of effective molecularly targeted therapies involving tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs), such as imatinib mesylate and sunitinib malate. A better understanding of the molecular characteristics of GISTs have improved the diagnostic accuracy and led to the discovery of novel immunomarkers and new mechanisms of resistance to TKI therapy, which in turn have resulted in the development of novel treatment strategies. To address these issues, the NCCN organized a task force consisting of a multidisciplinary panel of experts in the fields of medical oncology, surgical oncology, molecular diagnostics, and pathology to discuss the recent advances, identify areas of future research, and recommend an optimal approach to care for patients with GIST at all stages of disease. The task force met for the first time in October 2003 and again in December 2006 and October 2009. This supplement describes the recent developments in the field of GIST as discussed at the October 2009 meeting.