Search

Purpose: Doublet chemotherapy with fluoropyrimidine (FP) and oxaliplatin (OX) plus bevacizumab (BEV) is a standard regimen for unresectable metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC). However, the efficacy of adding OX to FP plus BEV (FP + BEV) remains unclear for older patients, a population for whom FP + BEV is standard. We aimed to confirm the superiority of adding OX to FP + BEV for this population., Methods: This open-label, randomized, phase III trial was conducted at 42 institutions in Japan. Patients with unresectable MCRC age 70-74 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG-PS) 2 and those 75 years and older with ECOG-PS 0-2 were randomly assigned (1:1) to an FP + BEV arm or an OX addition (FP + BEV + OX) arm. Fluorouracil plus levofolinate calcium or capecitabine was declared before enrollment. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The study was registered in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (identifier: jRCTs031180145)., Results: Between September 2012 and March 2019, 251 patients were randomly assigned to the FP + BEV arm (n = 125) and the FP + BEV + OX arm (n = 126). The median age was 80 and 79 years in the respective arm. The median PFS was 9.4 months (95% CI, 8.3 to 10.3) in the FP + BEV arm and 10.0 months (9.0 to 11.2) in the FP + BEV + OX arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.84 [90.5% CI, 0.67 to 1.04]; one-sided P = .086). The median overall survival was 21.3 months (18.7 to 24.3) in the FP + BEV arm and 19.7 months (15.5 to 25.5) in the FP + BEV + OX arm (HR, 1.05 [0.81 to 1.37]). The proportion of any grade ≥3 adverse events was higher in the FP + BEV + OX arm (52% v 69%). There was one treatment-related death in the FP + BEV arm and three in the FP + BEV + OX arm., Conclusion: No benefit of adding OX to FP + BEV as first-line treatment was demonstrated in older patients with MCRC. FP + BEV is recommended for this population.

PURPOSETo assess whether the integration of PD-1 inhibitor with total neoadjuvant therapy (iTNT) can lead to an improvement in complete responses (CRs) and favors a watch-and-wait (WW) strategy in patients with proficient mismatch repair or microsatellite stable (pMMR/MSS) locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).PATIENTS AND METHODSWe conducted a prospective, multicenter, randomized, open-label, phase II trial using a pick-the-winner design. Eligible patients with clinical T3-4 and/or N+ rectal adenocarcinoma were randomly assigned to group A for short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) followed by six cycles of consolidation immunochemotherapy with capecitabine and oxaliplatin and toripalimab or to group B for two cycles of induction immunochemotherapy followed by SCRT and the rest four doses. Either total mesorectal excision or WW was applied on the basis of tumor response. The primary end point was CR which included pathological CR (pCR) after surgery and clinical CR (cCR) if WW was applicable, with hypothesis of an increased CR of 40% after iTNT compared with historical data of 25% after conventional TNT.RESULTSOf the 130 patients enrolled, 121 pMMR/MSS patients were evaluable (62 in group A and 59 in group B). At a median follow-up of 19 months, CR was achieved at 56.5% in group A and 54.2% in group B. Both groups fulfilled the predefined statistical hypothesis ( P < .001). Both groups reported a pCR rate of 50%. Respectively, 15 patients in each group underwent WW and remained disease free. The most frequent grade 3 to 4 toxicities were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia. Patients in group A had higher rate of cCR (43.5% v 35.6%) at restaging and lower rate of grade 3 to 4 thrombocytopenia (24.2% v 33.9%) during neoadjuvant treatment.CONCLUSIONThe iTNT regimens remarkably improved CR rates in pMMR/MSS LARC compared with historical benchmark with acceptable toxicity. Up-front SCRT followed by immunochemotherapy was selected for future definitive study.

Purpose: This phase 3 trial aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of capecitabine or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (XELOX) with those of fluorouracil plus cisplatin (PF) in definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (DCRT) for inoperable locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC)., Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to receive two cycles of capecitabine, XELOX, or PF along with concurrent intensity-modulated radiation therapy. Patients in each arm were again randomly assigned to receive two cycles of consolidation chemotherapy or not. The primary end points were 2-year overall survival (OS) rate and incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs)., Results: A total of 246 patients were randomly assigned into the capecitabine (n = 80), XELOX (n = 85), and PF (n = 81) arms. In capecitabine, XELOX, and PF arms, the 2-year OS rate was 75%, 66.7%, and 70.9% (capecitabine v PF: hazard ratio [HR], 0.91 [95% CI, 0.61 to 1.35]; nominal P = .637; XELOX v PF: 0.86 [95% CI, 0.58 to 1.27]; P = .444); the median OS was 40.9 (95% CI, 34.4 to 49.9), 41.9 (95% CI, 28.6 to 52.1), and 35.4 (95% CI, 30.4 to 45.4) months. The incidence of grade ≥3 AEs during the entire treatment was 28.8%, 36.5%, and 45.7%, respectively. Comparing the consolidation chemotherapy with the nonconsolidation chemotherapy groups, the median OS was 41.9 (95% CI, 34.6 to 52.8) versus 36.9 (95% CI, 28.5 to 44) months (HR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.52 to 0.99]; nominal P = .0403)., Conclusion: Capecitabine or XELOX did not significantly improve the 2-year OS rate over PF in DCRT for inoperable locally advanced ESCC. Capecitabine showed a lower incidence of grade ≥3 AEs than PF did.

Purpose: A number of studies suggest that older patients may have reduced or no benefit from the addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidines as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer (CC)., Materials and Methods: We studied the prognostic impact of age, as well as treatment adherence/toxicity patterns according to age, in patients with stage III CC who received 3 or 6 months of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) on the basis of data collected from trials from the ACCENT and IDEA databases. Associations between age and time to recurrence (TTR), disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), survival after recurrence (SAR), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were assessed by a Cox model or a competing risk model, stratified by studies and adjusted for sex, performance status, T and N stage, and year of enrollment., Results: A total of 17,909 patients were included; 24% of patients were age older than 70 years (n = 4,340). Patients age ≥70 years had higher rates of early treatment discontinuation. Rates of grade ≥3 adverse events were similar between those older and younger than 70 years, except for diarrhea and neutropenia that were more frequent in older patients treated with CAPOX (14.2% v 11.2%; P = .01 and 12.1% v 9.6%; P = .04, respectively). In multivariable analysis, TTR was not significantly different between patients <70 years and those ≥70 years, but DFS, OS, SAR, and CSS were significantly shorter in those patients ≥70 years., Conclusion: In patients ≥70 years with stage III CC fit enough to be enrolled in clinical trials, oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy was well tolerated and led to similar TTR compared with younger patients, suggesting similar efficacy. TTR may be a more appropriate end point for efficacy in this patient population.

Purpose: Immunoscore (IS) is prognostic in stage III colorectal cancer (CRC) and may predict benefit of duration (6 v 3 months) of adjuvant infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) chemotherapy. We sought to determine IS prognostic and predictive value in stage-III CRC treated with adjuvant FOLFOX or oral capecitabine and infusional oxaliplatin (CAPOX) in the SCOT and IDEA-HORG trials., Methods: Three thousand sixty-one cases had tumor samples, of which 2,643 (1,792 CAPOX) were eligible for IS testing. Predefined cutoffs (IS-Low and IS-High) were used to classify cases into two groups for analysis of disease-free survival (3-year DFS) and multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (mvHRs) by Cox regression., Results: IS was determined in 2,608 (99.5%) eligible cases, with 877 (33.7%) samples classified as IS-Low. IS-Low tumors were more commonly high-risk (T4 and/or N2; 52.9% IS-Low v 42.2% IS-High; P < .001) and in younger patients ( P = .024). Patients with IS-Low tumors had significantly shorter DFS in the CAPOX, FOLFOX, and combined cohorts (mvHR, 1.52 [95% CI, 1.28 to 1.82]; mvHR, 1.58 [95% CI, 1.22 to 2.04]; and mvHR, 1.55 [95% CI, 1.34 to 1.79], respectively; P < .001 all comparisons), regardless of sex, BMI, clinical risk group, tumor location, treatment duration, or chemotherapy regimen. IS prognostic value was greater in younger (≤65 years) than older (>65 years) patients in the CAPOX cohort (mvHR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.50 to 2.46] v 1.28 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.63], P INTERACTION = .026), and in DNA mismatch repair proficient than deficient mismatch repair disease (mvHR, 1.68 [95% CI, 1.41 to 2.00] v 0.67 [95% CI, 0.30 to 1.49], P INTERACTION = .03), although these exploratory analyses were uncorrected for multiple testing. Adding IS to a model containing all clinical variables significantly improved prediction of DFS (likelihood ratio test, P < .001) regardless of MMR status., Conclusion: IS is prognostic in stage III CRC treated with FOLFOX or CAPOX, including within clinically relevant tumor subgroups. Possible variation in IS prognostic value by age and MMR status, and prediction of benefit from extended adjuvant therapy merit validation.

Purpose: Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a dose-limiting side effect of capecitabine. Celecoxib prevents HFS by inhibiting cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) that is upregulated because of the underlying associated inflammation. However, systemic side effects of celecoxib have limited routine prescription. Topical diclofenac inhibits COX-2 locally with minimal risk of systemic adverse events. Therefore, we conducted this study to assess the efficacy of topical diclofenac in the prevention of capecitabine-induced HFS., Methods: In this single-site phase III randomized double-blind trial, we enrolled patients with breast or GI cancer who were planned to receive capecitabine-based treatment. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive topical diclofenac or placebo gel for 12 weeks or until the development of HFS, whichever occurred earlier. The primary end point was the incidence of grade 2 or 3 HFS (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5), which was compared between the two groups using simple logistic regression., Results: In total, 264 patients were randomly assigned to receive topical diclofenac gel (n = 131) or placebo (n = 133). Grade 2 or 3 HFS was observed in 3.8% of participants in the diclofenac group compared with 15.0% in the placebo group (absolute difference, 11.2%; 95% CI, 4.3 to 18.1; P = .003). Grade 1-3 HFS was lower in the diclofenac group than in the placebo group (6.1% v 18.1%; absolute risk difference, 11.9%; 95% CI, 4.1 to 19.6). Capecitabine dose reductions because of HFS were less frequent in the diclofenac group (3.8%) than in the placebo group (13.5%; absolute risk difference, 9.7%; 95% CI, 3.0 to 16.4)., Conclusion: Topical diclofenac prevented HFS in patients receiving capecitabine. This trial supports the use of topical diclofenac to prevent capecitabine-associated HFS.

The Oncology Grand Rounds series is designed to place original reports published in the Journal into clinical context. A case presentation is followed by a description of diagnostic and management challenges, a review of the relevant literature, and a summary of the authors' suggested management approaches. The goal of this series is to help readers better understand how to apply the results of key studies, including those published in Journal of Clinical Oncology , to patients seen in their own clinical practice. The clinical discussion on the adjuvant chemotherapy in older patients with breast cancer (BC) should routinely include comprehensive considerations of the health implications of competitive comorbidities, the safety of the treatment itself, and the likelihood that an appropriate dose intensity will be received (ie, relative dose intensity > 85%). All these factors have prognostic implications, as recently confirmed in the secondary analysis of the Hurria Older PatiEnts clinical trial. Full-informed, shared decision making is essential to provide best care. Our clinical approach for women with BC age ≥ 65 years is based on a standardized screening for frailty, triggering comprehensive geriatric assessment, as appropriate. We only recommend evidence-based regimens that have showed to reduce the risk of cancer recurrence and potentially increase overall survival. We frequently prefer docetaxel-cyclophosphamide, for hormone receptor-positive BC, on the basis of the subgroup analysis of the USOR-9735 study in older population. We avoid single agents (eg, capecitabine or weekly docetaxel), as showed to be inferior treatments in the CALGB-49907 and ELDA trials, and modified nonstandard regimens, for the lack of strong evidence in support.

Purpose: Patients with advanced pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) have few treatment options that yield objective responses. Retrospective and small prospective studies suggest that capecitabine and temozolomide are associated with high response rates (RRs) and long progression-free survival (PFS)., Patients and Methods: E2211 was a multicenter, randomized, phase II trial comparing temozolomide versus capecitabine/temozolomide in patients with advanced low-grade or intermediate-grade pancreatic NETs. Key eligibility criteria included progression within the preceding 12 months and no prior temozolomide, dimethyl-triazeno-imidazole-carboxamide or dacarbazine, capecitabine or fluorouracil. The primary end point was PFS; secondary endpoints were overall survival, RR, safety, and methylguanine methyltransferase (MGMT) by immunohistochemistry and promoter methylation., Results: A total of 144 patients were enrolled between April 2013 and March 2016 to temozolomide (n = 72) or capecitabine and temozolomide (n = 72); the primary analysis population included 133 eligible patients. At the scheduled interim analysis in January 2018, the median PFS was 14.4 months for temozolomide versus 22.7 months for capecitabine/temozolomide (hazard ratio = 0.58), which was sufficient to reject the null hypothesis for the primary end point (stratified log-rank P = .022). In the final analysis (May 2021), the median overall survival was 53.8 months for temozolomide and 58.7 months for capecitabine/temozolomide (hazard ratio = 0.82, P = .42). MGMT deficiency was associated with response., Conclusion: The combination of capecitabine/temozolomide was associated with a significant improvement in PFS compared with temozolomide alone in patients with advanced pancreatic NETs. The median PFS and RR observed with capecitabine/temozolomide are the highest reported in a randomized study for pancreatic NETs. MGMT deficiency was associated with response, and although routine MGMT testing is not recommended, it can be considered for select patients in need of objective response (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01824875).

Purpose: The combination of oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine for 6 months is one of the standard options for adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage II and III colorectal cancers (CRCs). The optimal duration of oxaliplatin to diminish neurotoxicity without compromising efficacy needs to be clarified., Patients and Methods: This open-label, randomized, phase III, noninferiority trial randomly assigned patients with high-risk stage II and III CRC to 3 and 6 months of oxaliplatin with 6 months of fluoropyrimidine groups (3- and 6-month arms, respectively). The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS), and the noninferiority margin was a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.25., Results: In total, 1,788 patients were randomly assigned to the 6-month (n = 895) and 3-month (n = 893) arms, and 83.6% in the 6-month arm and 85.7% in the 3-month arm completed the treatment. The neuropathy rates with any grade were higher in the 6-month arm than in the 3-month arm (69.5% v 58.3%; P < .0001). The 3-year DFS rates were 83.7% and 84.7% in the 6-month and 3-month arms, respectively, with an HR of 0.953 (95% CI, 0.769 to 1.180; test for noninferiority, P = .0065) within the noninferiority margin. Among patients with stage III CRC treated by capecitabine plus oxaliplatin, the 3-year DFS of the 3-month arm was noninferior as compared with that of the 6-month arm with an HR of 0.713 (95% CI, 0.530 to 0.959; P = .0009). However, among patients with high-risk stage II and stage III CRC treated by infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, the noninferiority of the 3-month arm compared with the 6-month arm was not proven., Conclusion: This study suggests that adding 3 months of oxaliplatin to 6 months of capecitabine could be considered an alternative adjuvant treatment for stage III CRC (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01092481).

Purpose: Hormone receptor-positive (HR+) human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-) endocrine-resistant metastatic breast cancer is treated with sequential single-agent chemotherapy with poor outcomes. Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is a first-in-class antibody-drug conjugate with an SN-38 payload targeting trophoblast cell-surface antigen 2, an epithelial antigen expressed in breast cancer., Methods: In this global, randomized, phase III study, SG was compared with physician's choice chemotherapy (eribulin, vinorelbine, capecitabine, or gemcitabine) in endocrine-resistant, chemotherapy-treated HR+/HER2- locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic breast cancer. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review., Results: Patients were randomly assigned to receive SG (n = 272) or chemotherapy (n = 271). The median age was 56 years, 95% had visceral metastases, and 99% had a prior cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, with three median lines of chemotherapy for advanced disease. Primary end point was met with a 34% reduction in risk of progression or death (hazard ratio, 0.66 [95% CI, 0.53 to 0.83; P = .0003]). The median PFS was 5.5 months (95% CI, 4.2 to 7.0) with SG and 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.1 to 4.4) with chemotherapy; the PFS at 6 and 12 months was 46% (95% CI, 39 to 53) v 30% (95% CI, 24 to 37) and 21% (95% CI, 15 to 28) v 7% (95% CI, 3 to 14), respectively. Median overall survival (first planned interim analysis) was not yet mature (hazard ratio, 0.84; P = .14). Key grade ≥ 3 treatment-related adverse events (SG v chemotherapy) were neutropenia (51% v 38%) and diarrhea (9% v 1%)., Conclusion: SG demonstrated statistically significant PFS benefit over chemotherapy, with a manageable safety profile in patients with heavily pretreated, endocrine-resistant HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer and limited treatment options., Competing Interests: Hope S. RugoHonoraria: Puma Biotechnology, Mylan, Samsung Bioepis, Chugai Pharma, Blueprint Medicines, Napo PharmaceuticalsResearch Funding: OBI Pharma (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Merck (Inst), Odonate Therapeutics (Inst), Daiichi Sankyo (Inst), Sermonix Pharmaceuticals (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), Ayala Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), MacroGenics (Inst), Boehringer Ingelheim (Inst), Polyphor (Inst)Open Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/summary Aditya BardiaConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis (Inst), Genentech, Pfizer, Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, BioTheranostics, Merck, Radius Health (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Innocrin Pharma (Inst), Sanofi, Puma Biotechnology, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, Foundation Medicine, Philips HealthcareResearch Funding: Genentech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Merck (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Radius Health (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), AstraZeneca/Daiichi Sankyo (Inst)Open Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/523675 Frederik MarméHonoraria: Roche/Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Tesaro, Clovis Oncology, Eisai, Celgene, Genomic Health, PharmaMar, Amgen, MSD Oncology, Immunomedics (Inst), Settle Genetics, Myriad Genetics, Pierre Fabre, GlaxoSmithKline, AGENDIA, Lilly, Gilead SciencesConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca (Inst), Tesaro, Pfizer, Roche (Inst), Genomic Health, CureVac, Amgen, Vaccibody (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Eisai, GlaxoSmithKline, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Roche/Genentech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Tesaro (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), Vaccibody (Inst), Gilead Sciences (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca Javier CortesStock and Other Ownership Interests: MedSIR, Nektar, Leuko (I)Honoraria: Novartis, Eisai, Celgene, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Daiichi SankyoConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, Cellestia Biotech, AstraZeneca, Roche, Settle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, ERYTECH Pharma, Polyphor, Athenex, Lilly, Servier, Merck Sharp & Dohme, GlaxoSmithKline, Leuko, Clovis Oncology, Bioasis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ellipses Pharma, HiberCell, BioInvent, GEMoaB, Gilead Sciences, Menarini, Zymeworks, Reveal GenomicsResearch Funding: ARIAD (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Baxalta (Inst), Bayer (Inst), Eisai (Inst), Guardant Health (Inst), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), Queen Mary University of London (Inst), Roche (Inst), Piqur (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Pharmaceuticals Combinations of A Pi3k Inhibitor and a Microtubule Destabilizing Agent. Javier Cortes Castan, Alejandro Piris Gimenez, Violeta Srra Elizalde. WO 2014/199294 A, Her2 as a predictor of response to dual HER2 blockade in the absence of cytotoxic therapy, Aleix Prat, Antonio Llombart, Javier Cortes, US 2019/0338368 A1Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Pfizer, Eisai, Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead Sciences Peter SchmidEmployment: Roche (I)Honoraria: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Roche, Eisai, CelgeneConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche (I), AstraZeneca, Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bayer, Pfizer, Novartis, Eisai, Celgene, Puma BiotechnologyResearch Funding: AstraZeneca (Inst), Astellas Pharma (Inst), OncoGenex (Inst), Genetech (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Roche (Inst), Medivation Delphine LoiratHonoraria: MSD, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca, LillyConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, MSD Oncology, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Immunomedics, Gilead Sciences, 4D Pharma, LillyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Pfizer, Gilead Sciences Olivier TrédanConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Eisai Europe, Sandoz-Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Pierre Fabre, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Roche (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), MSD Oncology (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Bayer (Inst),Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, AstraZeneca, MSD Oncology Eva CiruelosConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZenecaSpeakers' Bureau: Lilly, Roche, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca, NovartisTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Pfizer Komal L. JhaveriConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Jounce Therapeutics, Synthon, IntelliSphere, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, AbbVie, Lilly, Blueprint Medicines, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo, Biotheranostics, Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company, Taiho Oncology, Sanofi, Gilead SciencesResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Debiopharm Group (Inst), ADC Therapeutics (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Novita Pharmaceuticals (Inst), Clovis Oncology (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Zymeworks (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Puma Biotechnology (Inst), VelosBio/Merck (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Taiho Pharmaceutical, Jounce Therapeutics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, IntelliSphere, Lilly, Gilead Sciences Rosemary DelaneyEmployment: Gilead SciencesStock and Other Ownership Interests: Immunomedics (I), Gilead Sciences Olivia FuEmployment: Gilead SciencesStock and Other Ownership Interests: Gilead SciencesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Gilead Sciences Lanjia LinEmployment: Gilead SciencesStock and Other Ownership Interests: Gilead SciencesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Gilead Sciences Wendy VerretEmployment: Roche/Genentech, Gilead Sciences Sara M. TolaneyThis author is a member of the Journal of Clinical Oncology Editorial Board. Journal policy recused the author from having any role in the peer review of this manuscript.Consulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Pfizer, Merck, Lilly, Nektar, NanoString Technologies, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Genentech, Eisai, Sanofi, Bristol Myers Squibb, Paxman, Seattle Genetics, Odonate Therapeutics, G1 Therapeutics, OncoPep, Kyowa Hakko Kirin, Samsung Bioepis, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, Immunomedics/Gilead, Mersana, Certara Inc, 4D Pharma, Ellipses Pharma, OncoSec, Chugai Pharma, BeyondSpring Pharmaceuticals, OncXerna Therapeutics, Infinity Pharmaceuticals, Zymeworks, Zentalis, BluePrint Medicines, Reveal GenomicsResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche (Inst), Merck (Inst), Exelixis (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Eisai (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), NanoString Technologies (Inst), Cyclacel (Inst), Nektar (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Odonate Therapeutics (Inst), Sanofi (Inst), Settle Genetics (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: To ascertain if preoperative short-term radiotherapy followed by chemotherapy is not inferior to a standard schedule of long-term chemoradiotherapy in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer., Materials and Methods: Patients with distal or middle-third, clinical primary tumor stage 3-4 and/or regional lymph node-positive rectal cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to short-term radiotherapy (25 Gy in five fractions over 1 week) followed by four cycles of chemotherapy (total neoadjuvant therapy [TNT]) or chemoradiotherapy (50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks, concurrently with capecitabine [chemoradiotherapy; CRT]). Total mesorectal excision was undertaken 6-8 weeks after preoperative treatment, with two additional cycles of CAPOX (intravenous oxaliplatin [130 mg/m 2 , once a day] on day 1 and capecitabine [1,000 mg/m 2 , twice a day] from days 1 to 14) in the TNT group and six cycles of CAPOX in the CRT group. The primary end point was 3-year disease-free survival (DFS)., Results: Between August 2015 and August 2018, a total of 599 patients were randomly assigned to receive TNT (n = 302) or CRT (n = 297). At a median follow-up of 35.0 months, 3-year DFS was 64.5% and 62.3% in TNT and CRT groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.883; one-sided 95% CI, not applicable to 1.11; P < .001 for noninferiority). There was no significant difference in metastasis-free survival or locoregional recurrence, but the TNT group had better 3-year overall survival than the CRT group (86.5% v 75.1%; P = .033). Treatment effects on DFS and overall survival were similar regardless of prognostic factors. The prevalence of acute grade III-V toxicities during preoperative treatment was 26.5% in the TNT group versus 12.6% in the CRT group ( P < .001)., Conclusion: Short-term radiotherapy with preoperative chemotherapy followed by surgery was efficacious with acceptable toxicity and could be used as an alternative to CRT for locally advanced rectal cancer., Competing Interests: Chen HuConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Sharp & Dohme, D1 Medical Technology Ai-Ping ZhouConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, NovartisNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) have high risk of recurrence with prior data suggesting improved outcomes with capecitabine. Targeted agents have demonstrated activity across multiple cancer types. BRE12-158 was a phase II, multicenter trial that randomly allocated patients with TNBC with residual disease after NAC to genomically directed therapy versus treatment of physician choice (TPC)., Patients and Methods: From March 2014 to December 2018, 193 patients were enrolled. Residual tumors were sequenced using a next-generation sequencing test. A molecular tumor board adjudicated all results. Patients were randomly allocated to four cycles of genomically directed therapy (arm A) versus TPC (arm B). Patients without a target were assigned to arm B. Primary end point was 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) among randomly assigned patients. Secondary/exploratory end points included distant disease-free survival, overall survival, toxicity assessment, time-based evolution of therapy, and drug-specific outcomes., Results: One hundred ninety-three patients were randomly allocated or were assigned to arm B. The estimated 2-year DFS for the randomized population only was 56.6% (95% CI, 0.45 to 0.70) for arm A versus 62.4% (95% CI, 0.52 to 0.75) for arm B. No difference was seen in DFS, distant disease-free survival, or overall survival for the entire or randomized populations. There was increased uptake of capecitabine for TPC over time. Patients randomly allocated later had less distant recurrences. Circulating tumor DNA status remained a significant predictor of outcome with some patients demonstrating clearance with postneoadjuvant therapy., Conclusion: Genomically directed therapy was not superior to TPC for patients with residual TNBC after NAC. Capecitabine should remain the standard of care; however, the activity of other agents in this setting provides rationale for testing optimal combinations to improve outcomes. Circulating tumor DNA should be considered a standard covariate for trials in this setting., Competing Interests: Bryan P. SchneiderHonoraria: Lilly, Research to PracticeResearch Funding: Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Foundation Medicine, Epic Sciences Tarah J. BallingerConsulting or Advisory Role: Medscape, Novartis Rita NandaConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Macrogenics, Aduro Biotech, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Immunomedics, OncoSec, Cardinal Health, Seattle Genetics, Fujifilm, Clovis Oncology, G1 Therapeutics, Cardinal Health, ITeos TherapeuticsResearch Funding: Corcept Therapeutics (Inst), Celgene (Inst), Merck (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst), Odonate Therapeutics (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), OncoSec (Inst), Arvinas (Inst), Taiho Oncology (Inst), OBI Pharma (Inst)Other Relationship: G1 Therapeutics Carla FalksonHonoraria: Exact Sciences, Curio ScienceResearch Funding: Oncolytics Biotech, QuantumLeap Health (Inst), Lilly (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Pfizer/EMD Serono (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Genentech/Roche (Inst) Filipa C. LynceConsulting or Advisory Role: Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer/EMD Serono, ASCO, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Pfizer (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Immunomedics (Inst), Inivata (Inst) Christopher GallagherConsulting or Advisory Role: Daiichi Sankyo, Seattle Genetics, LillySpeakers' Bureau: Daiichi Sankyo/UCB Japan Claudine IsaacsHonoraria: Genentech/RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi/Aventis, Eisai, Ion Solutions,Speakers' Bureau: GenentechResearch Funding: Tesaro, Merck, Seattle Genetics, McGraw Hill PublishingPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UpToDate—Wolters Kluwer—Author of chapters, Elsevier—Editor of Book,Other Relationship: Side-Out Foundation Elisavet PaplomataHonoraria: Novartis, R-Pharm, Pfizer, Mylan, Puma BiotechnologyConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, R-Pharm, Pfizer, Mylan, Puma Biotechnology, bioTheranostics, OncLive Clinical Congress ConsultantsResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Genentech (Inst), Corcept Therapeutics (Inst), Hoosier Cancer Research Network (Inst), Cascadian Therapeutics (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), Merck (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Immunogen (Inst)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Novartis, Genentech, Tesaro, Merck, AmgenOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/176406 Radhika WallingHonoraria: DAVA Pharmaceuticals, Cureus, Biotheranostics Karen DailyConsulting or Advisory Role: Pfizer Reshma MahtaniConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech, Amgen, Pfizer, bioTheranostics, Agendia, Eisai, Novartis, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Puma Biotechnology, Seattle Genetics, Daaichi, Immunomedics/Gilead, Merck, SanofiResearch Funding: GenentechTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Pfizer, Genentech/Roche, Amgen, bioTheranostics, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Novartis, Agendia, Puma Biotechnology, Seattle Genetics, Daiichi Sankyo/Lilly, Eisai, Sanofi, Merck Michael A. ThompsonStock and Other Ownership Interests: DoximityConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, VIA Oncology, Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, Syapse, Adaptive Biotechnologies, AbbVie, GRAIL, Epizyme, Janssen Oncology, SanofiResearch Funding: Takeda (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), TG Therapeutics (Inst), Cancer Research and Biostatistics (Inst), AbbVie (Inst), PrECOG (Inst), Strata Oncology (Inst), Lynx Biosciences (Inst), Denovo Biopharma (Inst), ARMO BioSciences (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst), Amgen (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: UpToDate, Peer Review for Plasma Cell Dyscrasias (Editor: Robert Kyle)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Takeda, GlaxoSmithKline, SyapseOther Relationship: DoximityUncompensated Relationships: Strata OnoclogyOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/192826/summary Maureen E. CooperEmployment: Foundation MedicineStock and Other Ownership Interests: Foundation Medicine, Roche Dean C. PavlickEmployment: Foundation MedicineStock and Other Ownership Interests: Roche Lee A. AlbackerEmployment: Foundation MedicineStock and Other Ownership Interests: Roche Jeffrey GreggStock and Other Ownership Interests: Harbinger OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: LuninexSpeakers' Bureau: AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines Yu-Hsiang ChenEmployment: Foundation Medicine, FreenomeStock and Other Ownership Interests: Roche/Foundation Medicine Bradley A. HancockEmployment: Lifeomic LLCStock and Other Ownership Interests: Lifeomic LLC Bert O'NeilEmployment: LillyHonoraria: AstraZeneca Anna Maria V. StornioloEmployment: Sophren Therapeutics (I), Q32Bio, Inc (I)Leadership: Sophren Therapeutics (I), Q32Bio, Inc (I)Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Gilead Sciences (I), Moderna Therapeutics (I), Merck (I), Lilly (I), Giead (I)¸ Moderna Therapeutics, Merck, Pfizer (I), Meridian Bioscience Inc (I)Consulting or Advisory Role: Q32bio (I), Tri-I TDI (I), Deerfield Management (I), Atlas Venture (I), Boston Pharmaceuticals (I)Research Funding: QUE Oncology, Pfizer Sunil BadveHonoraria: Athenex, Personalis, Paige AI, Ventana Medical Systems, Agilent, BMSSpeakers' Bureau: Genomic Health, Targos Molecular Pathology, AgilentResearch Funding: Dako/Agilent Technologies, LillyPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: EarlyR - signature for ER+ breast cancer, E-Score for predicting recurrence of DCIS Kathy D. MillerConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Genentech/Roche, Athenex, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/CelgeneResearch Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical (Inst), Novartis (Inst), Seattle Genetics (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Astex Pharmaceuticals (Inst), British Biotech (Inst), CytomX Therapeutics (Inst), alphamab (Inst) Milan RadovichStock and Other Ownership Interests: LifeOmic, Macrogenics, Immunomedics, Tyme TechnologiesHonoraria: LillyResearch Funding: Lilly (Inst), Boston Biomedical (Inst), Foundation Medicine (Inst), Epic Sciences (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Genentech (Inst)Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Combination therapy for the treatment of TNBC with a PI3K pathway inhibitor that targets PI3KDelta and PI3KGammaNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Despite extensive randomized evidence supporting the use of treatment breaks in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), they are not universally offered to patients despite improvements in quality of life without detriment to overall survival (OS). FOCUS4-N was set up to explore the impact of oral maintenance therapy in patients who are responding to first-line therapy., Methods: FOCUS4 was a molecularly stratified trial program that registered patients with newly diagnosed mCRC. The FOCUS4-N trial was offered to patients in whom a targeted subtrial was unavailable or biomarker tests failed. Patients were randomly assigned using a 1:1 ratio between maintenance capecitabine and active monitoring (AM). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) with secondary outcomes including OS toxicity and tolerability., Results: Between March 2014 and March 2020, 254 patients were randomly assigned (127 to capecitabine and 127 to AM) across 88 UK sites. Baseline characteristics were balanced. There was strong evidence of efficacy for PFS (hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75; P < .0001), but no significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.27; P = .66) was observed. Compliance with treatment was good, and toxicity from capecitabine versus AM was as expected with grade ≥ 2 fatigue (25% v 12%), diarrhea (23% v 13%), and hand-foot syndrome (26% v 3%). Quality of life showed little difference between the groups., Conclusion: Despite strong evidence of disease control with maintenance therapy, OS remains unaffected and FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients who are stable or responding to first-line treatment for mCRC. Capecitabine without bevacizumab may be used to extend PFS in the interval after 16 weeks of first-line therapy., Competing Interests: Richard A. AdamsHonoraria: Merck Serono, Servier, AmgenConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Serono, Amgen, Servier, BayerSpeakers' Bureau: Merck SeronoResearch Funding: Merck Sharp & DohmeTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Servier, Amgen, Merck Serono, AstraZeneca Janet GrahamHonoraria: Merck Serono, Bristol Myers Squibb, Nucana, BayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck KGaATravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Nucana Jenny F. SeligmannHonoraria: Pierre Fabre, Merck Serono, ServierConsulting or Advisory Role: Pierre Fabre, Roche Molecular DiagnosticsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex Matthew SeymourResearch Funding: Amgen, AstraZeneca Richard KaplanResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Mahesh ParmarResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, Astellas Pharma, Janssen, Clovis Oncology Philip QuirkeHonoraria: RocheConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Adlai Nortye, Avacta Life Sciences, Amgen, BayerResearch Funding: Roche, GeneFirst, ONIPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Roche have filed a patent jointly with my UniversityTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Bayer, Amgen Rachel ButlerSpeakers' Bureau: Bayer, Pfizer, Roche, AstraZeneca, MSD, Illumina, Lilly, Novartis, Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim Ewan BrownResearch Funding: MSD Oncology Fiona CollinsonResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb Stephen FalkStock and Other Ownership Interests: GlaxoSmithKlineSpeakers' Bureau: Merck Serono, Servier, AmgenResearch Funding: Gilead SciencesTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: CelgeneOther Relationship: Servier Harpreet WasanHonoraria: Merck KGaA, Celgene, Sirtex Medical, Servier, Array BioPharma, Roche/Genentech, ERYTECH Pharma, Incyte, ZymeworksConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche Pharma AG, ERYTECH Pharma, Shire, Incyte, Sirtex Medical, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, BayerSpeakers' Bureau: Sirtex Medical, Celgene, Merck KGaA, Servier, IncyteResearch Funding: Sirtex Medical, Merck KGaA, Pfizer, Merck Sharp & Dohme Kai-Keen ShiuHonoraria: Merck Serono, MSD Oncology, Innovent Biologics, Servier, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbHConsulting or Advisory Role: MSD Oncology, Roche, Mirati TherapeuticsResearch Funding: MSD Oncology, Roche Gary MiddletonConsulting or Advisory Role: BMS, D2G, MSDSpeakers' Bureau: Roche, BMS, Servier, PierreFabre, AZTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: BMS Leslie SamuelHonoraria: ServierConsulting or Advisory Role: MerckResearch Funding: Merck, Array BioPharma, Tesaro, Servier, Hutchison MediPharma Richard H. WilsonHonoraria: Servier, Amgen, Bristol Myers SquibbConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, CV6 Therapeutics, Pierre Fabre, Amphista Therapeutics, NucanaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Amgen, Pierre Fabre Louise C. BrownResearch Funding: AstraZeneca Timothy S. MaughanConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Vertex, Pierre FabreResearch Funding: AstraZeneca, PsiOxus Therapeutics, Merck KgAA, Almac DiagnosticsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) and residual invasive disease (RD) after completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) have a high-risk for recurrence, which is reduced by adjuvant capecitabine. Preclinical models support the use of platinum agents in the TNBC basal subtype. The EA1131 trial hypothesized that invasive disease-free survival (iDFS) would not be inferior but improved in patients with basal subtype TNBC treated with adjuvant platinum compared with capecitabine., Patients and Methods: Patients with clinical stage II or III TNBC with ≥ 1 cm RD in the breast post-NAC were randomly assigned to receive platinum (carboplatin or cisplatin) once every 3 weeks for four cycles or capecitabine 14 out of 21 days every 3 weeks for six cycles. TNBC subtype (basal v nonbasal) was determined by PAM50 in the residual disease. A noninferiority design with superiority alternative was chosen, assuming a 4-year iDFS of 67% with capecitabine., Results: Four hundred ten of planned 775 participants were randomly assigned to platinum or capecitabine between 2015 and 2021. After median follow-up of 20 months and 120 iDFS events (61% of full information) in the 308 (78%) patients with basal subtype TNBC, the 3-year iDFS for platinum was 42% (95% CI, 30 to 53) versus 49% (95% CI, 39 to 59) for capecitabine. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were more common with platinum agents. The Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended stopping the trial as it was unlikely that further follow-up would show noninferiority or superiority of platinum., Conclusion: Platinum agents do not improve outcomes in patients with basal subtype TNBC RD post-NAC and are associated with more severe toxicity when compared with capecitabine. Participants had a lower than expected 3-year iDFS regardless of study treatment, highlighting the need for better therapies in this high-risk population., Competing Interests: Ingrid A. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Immunomedics, Macrogenics, Pfizer, AbbVie, Seattle Genetics, Puma Biotechnology, Cyclacel, Blueprint MedicinesResearch Funding: Novartis, Pfizer, Genentech Carlos L. ArteagaLeadership: American Association for Cancer ResearchStock and Other Ownership Interests: Provista Diagnostics, Y-Trap IncConsulting or Advisory Role: Novartis, Lilly, Sanofi, Radius Health, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Puma Biotechnology, Merck, H3 Biomedicine, Symphogen, Origimed, Petra Pharma, Third Rock Ventures, Immunomedics, Daiichi Sankyo, Athenex, G1 Therapeutics, Clovis OncologyResearch Funding: Puma Biotechnology, Pfizer, Lilly, Radius Health, Takeda, BayerOther Relationship: Susan G. Komen for the Cure William F. SymmansStock and Other Ownership Interests: ISIS Pharmaceuticals, Nuvera Biosciences, Delphi Diagnostics, Eiger BioPharmaceuticalsConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Almac DiagnosticsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property (expired)Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Luminex, MerckUncompensated Relationships: Delphi Diagnostics Ben H. ParkLeadership: LoxoStock and Other Ownership Interests: Loxo, CelcuityHonoraria: AstraZenecaConsulting or Advisory Role: Horizon Discovery, Foundation Medicine, Loxo, Casdin Capital, H3 Biomedicine, Jackson Laboratory for Genomic Medicine, Lilly, Celcuity, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, PathovaxResearch Funding: AbbVie, Pfizer, GE Healthcare, LillyPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Royalties paid through inventions at Johns Hopkins University by Horizon Discovery LtdTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Lilly, LoxoUncompensated Relationships: Tempus Amye J. TevaarwerkOther Relationship: Epic Systems Karen L. SmithStock and Other Ownership Interests: AbbVie, Abbott LaboratoriesHonoraria: ASiM CMEResearch Funding: Pfizer Margaret BlockConsulting or Advisory Role: Theranostics Health Bernard TawfikOther Relationship: Ipsen Lisa E. FlaumConsulting or Advisory Role: Seattle Genetics, NovartisSpeakers' Bureau: Seattle Genetics, Novartis, AstraZeneca Erica L. MayerConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, Novartis, Sanofi, Eisai, AstraZenecaResearch Funding: Pfizer William M. SikovHonoraria: UpToDateSpeakers' Bureau: Lilly, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Seagen Lynne I. WagnerStock and Other Ownership Interests: Johnson & Johnson, Lilly, Gilead SciencesConsulting or Advisory Role: Celgene, AthenexTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Celgene Angela M. DeMicheleResearch Funding: Pfizer, Genentech, Calithera Biosciences, Novartis Joseph A. SparanoStock and Other Ownership Interests: MetastatConsulting or Advisory Role: Genentech/Roche, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Lilly, Celldex, Pfizer, Prescient Therapeutics, Juno Therapeutics, Merrimack, Adgero Biopharmaceuticals, Cardinal Health, GlaxoSmithKline, CStone Pharmaceuticals, Epic Sciences, Daiichi Sankyo, BMSiSpeakers' Bureau: Eisai, CertaraResearch Funding: Prescient Therapeutics, Deciphera, Genentech/Roche, Merck, Novartis, Merrimack, Radius Health, Olema PharmaceuticalsTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Menarini Silicon Biosystems, Roche/Genentech, Adgero Biopharmaceuticals, Myriad Genetics, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Rhenium Medical Antonio C. WolffConsulting or Advisory Role: Ionis PharmaceuticalsPatents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Antonio Wolff has been named as inventor on one or more issued patents or pending patent applications relating to methylation in breast cancer, and has assigned his rights to JHU, and participates in a royalty sharing agreement with JHUOpen Payments Link: https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov/physician/357301/summary Kathy D. MillerConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck, Genentech/Roche, Athenex, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb/CelgeneResearch Funding: Taiho Pharmaceutical, Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Pfizer, Astex Pharmaceuticals, British Biotech, CytomX TherapeuticsNo other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

Purpose: Operable triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) have a higher risk of relapse than non-TNBCs with standard therapy. The GEICAM/2003-11&#95;CIBOMA/2004-01 trial explored extended adjuvant capecitabine after completion of standard chemotherapy in patients with early TNBC., Patients and Methods: Eligible patients were those with operable, node-positive-or node negative with tumor 1 cm or greater-TNBC, with prior anthracycline- and/or taxane-containing chemotherapy. After central confirmation of TNBC status by immunohistochemistry, patients were randomly assigned to either capecitabine or observation. Stratification factors included institution, prior taxane-based therapy, involved axillary lymph nodes, and centrally determined phenotype (basal v nonbasal, according to cytokeratins 5/6 and/or epidermal growth factor receptor positivity by immunohistochemistry). The primary objective was to compare disease-free survival (DFS) between both arms., Results: Eight hundred seventy-six patients were randomly assigned to capecitabine (n = 448) or observation (n = 428). Median age was 49 years, 55.9% were lymph node negative, 73.9% had a basal phenotype, and 67.5% received previous anthracyclines plus taxanes. Median length of follow-up was 7.3 years. DFS was not significantly prolonged with capecitabine versus observation [hazard ratio (HR), 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06; P = .136]. In a preplanned subgroup analysis, nonbasal patients seemed to derive benefit from the addition of capecitabine with a DFS HR of 0.53 versus 0.94 in those with basal phenotype (interaction test P = .0694) and an HR for overall survival of 0.42 versus 1.23 in basal phenotype (interaction test P = .0052). Tolerance of capecitabine was as expected, with 75.2% of patients completing the planned 8 cycles., Conclusion: This study failed to show a statistically significant increase in DFS by adding extended capecitabine to standard chemotherapy in patients with early TNBC. In a preplanned subset analysis, patients with nonbasal phenotype seemed to obtain benefit with capecitabine, although this will require additional validation.

Purpose: Older women with breast cancer remain under-represented in clinical trials. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B 49907 trial focused on women age 65 years and older. We previously reported the primary analysis after a median follow-up of 2.4 years. Standard adjuvant chemotherapy showed significant improvements in recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival compared with capecitabine. We now update results at a median follow-up of 11.4 years., Patients and Methods: Patients age 65 years or older with early breast cancer were randomly assigned to either standard adjuvant chemotherapy (physician's choice of either cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin) or capecitabine. An adaptive Bayesian design was used to determine sample size and test noninferiority of capecitabine. The primary end point was RFS., Results: The design stopped accrual with 633 patients at its first sample size assessment. RFS remains significantly longer for patients treated with standard chemotherapy. At 10 years, in patients treated with standard chemotherapy versus capecitabine, the RFS rates were 56% and 50%, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80; P = .03); breast cancer-specific survival rates were 88% and 82%, respectively (HR, 0.62; P = .03); and overall survival rates were 62% and 56%, respectively (HR, 0.84; P = .16). With longer follow-up, standard chemotherapy remains superior to capecitabine among hormone receptor-negative patients (HR, 0.66; P = .02), but not among hormone receptor-positive patients (HR, 0.89; P = .43). Overall, 43.9% of patients have died (13.1% from breast cancer, 16.4% from causes other than breast cancer, and 14.1% from unknown causes). Second nonbreast cancers occurred in 14.1% of patients., Conclusion: With longer follow-up, RFS remains superior for standard adjuvant chemotherapy versus capecitabine, especially in patients with hormone receptor-negative disease. Competing risks in this older population dilute overall survival benefits.

Purpose: To develop an evidence-based clinical practice guideline to assist in clinical decision making for patients with resected biliary tract cancer., Methods: ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of the literature on adjuvant therapy for resected biliary tract cancer and provide recommended care options for this patient population., Results: Three phase III randomized controlled trials, one phase II trial, and 16 retrospective studies met the inclusion criteria., Recommendations: Based on evidence from a phase III randomized controlled trial, patients with resected biliary tract cancer should be offered adjuvant capecitabine chemotherapy for a duration of 6 months. The dosing used in this trial is described in the qualifying statements, while it should be noted that the dose of capecitabine may also be determined by institutional and regional practices. Patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder cancer and a microscopically positive surgical resection margin (R1 resection) may be offered chemoradiation therapy. A shared decision-making approach is recommended, considering the risk of harm and potential for benefit associated with radiation therapy for patients with extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or gallbladder cancer. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .

Purpose: The Adjuvant Chemoradiotherapy in Stomach Tumors (ARTIST) trial tested whether the addition of radiotherapy to adjuvant chemotherapy improved disease-free survival (DFS) in patients with D2-resected gastric cancer (GC)., Patients and Methods: Between November 2004 and April 2008, 458 patients with GC who received gastrectomy with D2 lymph node dissection were randomly assigned to either six cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy with capecitabine and cisplatin (XP) or to two cycles of XP followed by chemoradiotherapy and then two additional cycles of XP (XPRT). This final update contains the first publication of overall survival (OS), together with updated DFS and subset analyses., Results: With 7 years of follow-up, DFS remained similar between treatment arms (hazard ratio [HR], 0.740; 95% CI, 0.520 to 1.050; P=.0922). OS also was similar (HR, 1.130; 95% CI, 0.775 to 1.647; P=.5272). The effect of the addition of radiotherapy on DFS and OS differed by Lauren classification (interaction P=.04 for DFS; interaction P=.03 for OS) and lymph node ratio (interaction P<.01 for DFS; interaction P<.01 for OS). Subgroup analyses also showed that chemoradiotherapy significantly improved DFS in patients with node-positive disease and with intestinal-type GC. There was a similar trend for DFS and OS by stage of disease., Conclusion: In D2-resected GC, both adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy are tolerated and equally beneficial in preventing relapse. Because results suggest a significant DFS effect of chemoradiotherapy in subsets of patients, the ARTIST 2 trial evaluating adjuvant chemotherapy and chemoradiotherapy in patients with node-positive, D2-resected GC is under way., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

A 55-year-old male presented with upper abdominal bloating followed by modest hematemesis that led to the diagnosis of an ulcerated poorly differentiated (with signet ring cells) adenocarcinoma in the angularis of the stomach. A contrast-enhanced positron emission tomography (PET) with computed tomography (CT) scan showed higher-than-normal physiologic avidity (standardized uptake value, 4.3) in the proximal stomach but not in the lower stomach, and the CT scan vaguely suggested a polypoid lesion in the distal stomach. Nodes were normal in size, and there were no metastases. He underwent esophagoduodenoscopy with ultrasonography (EUS) that showed a 3- x 2-cm flat nodular mass with an 8-mm ulcer in the angularis. The tumor mass was demarcated well on narrow-band imaging, and with a 20-MHz EUS probe, it was designated eusT1bN0. His case was presented to our weekly Multidisciplinary Gastric Adenocarcinoma Conference, and the consensus was to offer surgery as primary therapy. He underwent a subtotal gastrectomy with Roux-en-Y gastrojejunostomy along with D2 nodal dissection. The surgical pathology showed a poorly differentiated adenocarcinoma with signet ring cells; the primary tumor measured 2.8 x 2.2 cm in diameter with infiltration through the muscularis propria and into the subserosal fat. Seven of 53 examined lymph nodes were malignant; therefore, his cancer was staged pT3N3M0 (a higher stage than designated clinically). He recovered well without complications, and the postoperative CT scans showed no metastases. His case was represented at the tumor board meeting, and adjuvant chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and capecitabine was recommended.