Search

Background Despite multiple randomized trials, the role of perioperative chemotherapy in colorectal cancer liver metastasis (CRLM) is still under debate. In this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), we aim to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative systemic therapies for patients with CRLM. Methods We searched various databases for abstracts and full-text articles published from database inception through May 2021.We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the addition of perioperative (post, pre, or both) systemic therapies to surgery alone in patients with CRLM. The outcomes were compared according to the chemotherapy regimen using a random effects model. Outcomes of interest included disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Results Seven RCTs with a total of 1504 patients with CRLM were included. Six studies included post-operative treatment and one evaluated perioperative (pre- and postoperative) therapy. Fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy was the most used systemic therapy. NMA showed benefit of adding perioperative therapy to surgery in terms of DFS (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.84). However, these findings did not translate into a statistically significant OS benefit (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.05). NMA did not show any advantage of one regimen over another including oxaliplatin or irinotecan. Conclusions This systematic review and NMA of 7 RCTs found that the addition of perioperative systemic treatment for resectable CRLM could improve disease-free survival but not overall survival. Based on the findings, addition of perioperative treatment in resectable CRLM should be individualized weighing the risks and benefits.

Background Combination irinotecan and cetuximab is approved for irinotecan-refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). It is unknown if adding bevacizumab improves outcomes. Patients and Methods In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase II trial, patients with irinotecan-refractory RAS-wildtype mCRC and no prior anti-EGFR therapy were randomized to cetuximab 500 mg/m2, bevacizumab 5 mg/kg, and irinotecan 180 mg/m2 (or previously tolerated dose) (CBI) versus cetuximab, irinotecan, and placebo (CI) every 2 weeks until disease progression or intolerable toxicity. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). Results The study closed early after the accrual of 36 out of a planned 120 patients due to changes in funding. Nineteen patients were randomized to CBI and 17 to CI. Baseline characteristics were similar between arms. Median PFS was 9.7 versus 5.5 months for CBI and CI, respectively (1-sided log-rank P = .38; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25-1.66). Median OS was 19.7 versus 10.2 months for CBI and CI (1-sided log-rank P = .02; adjusted HR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.15-1.09). ORR was 36.8% for CBI versus 11.8% for CI (P = .13). Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 47% of patients receiving CBI versus 35% for CI (P = .46). Conclusion In this prematurely discontinued trial, there was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of PFS between CBI and CI. There was a statistically significant improvement in OS in favor of CBI compared with CI. Further investigation of CBI for the treatment of irinotecan-refractory mCRC is warranted. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02292758

Background Immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy is highly effective in metastatic mismatch repair-deficient (MMR-D) colorectal cancer (CRC). In this study, we evaluated molecular and clinical predictors of ICI response in MMR-D CRC. Materials and Methods Patient databases at four cancer institutions were queried. The Fisher exact test was performed to test the association of clinical and molecular markers. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate progression-free survival (PFS) and compared by the log-rank test. Twelve- and 24-month PFS rates were compared by the Z test. Results A total of 60 patients with CRC with MMR-D/microsatellite instability-high who previously received ICIs were identified. Patients with liver metastasis had a lower overall response rate as compared with other sites of metastasis (36.4% vs. 68.7%; p = .081). Patients with MLH1/PMS2 loss had worse 1-year and 2-year PFS rates compared with patients with MSH2/MSH6 loss (84.2% vs. 57.8% and 78.2% vs. 54.2%, respectively; p < .001). There were improved 1-year and 2-year PFS rates in patients with wild-type BRAF when compared with patients with BRAF V600E mutation (73.3% vs. 40%, and 73.3% vs. 26.7%; respectively; p < .001). Patients aged >65 had significantly worse PFS rates as compared with patients aged ≤65 (p < .001). Conclusion BRAF V600E mutation, MLH1 and/or PMS2 loss, as well as age >65 years and liver metastasis, may be predictive of duration of ICI response in patients with MMR-D CRC. Larger cohorts are needed to confirm our findings. Implications for Practice The results of this study reveal clinically important biomarkers that potentially predict immune checkpoint inhibitor response in patients with mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer.

Background Hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) is the most common regorafenib-induced adverse event and is in need of effective prevention and palliation. Materials and Methods The Regorafenib Dose Optimization Study (ReDOS), a four-arm, previously published trial with a 1:1:1:1 randomization scheme, was analyzed in a manner in keeping with the original protocol to assess whether clobetasol 0.05% cream (a corticosteroid) applied to the palms and soles twice per day for 8 weeks was more effective when prescribed preemptively (before the development of HFSR) versus reactively (after the development of HFSR). Patients were assessed during the first two cycles of regorafenib. Results Sixty-one patients received preemptive clobetasol, and 55 received reactive clobetasol. Groups were balanced on demographics. Over the first two cycles, no evidence of HFSR occurred in 30% with preemptive clobetasol versus 13% with reactive clobetasol (p = .03). During the first cycle, 54% and 45% of patients had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .35). During the second cycle, 33% and 15% had no HFSR with preemptive and reactive clobetasol, respectively (p = .02). During the second cycle, rates of grade 1, 2, and 3 HFSR were 30%, 8%, and 3%, respectively, with preemptive clobetasol and 43%, 18%, and 7%, respectively, with reactive clobetasol (p = .12). Patient-reported outcomes showed HFSR compromised nearly all activities of daily living with worse quality of life in patients who received reactive versus preemptive clobetasol. No clobetasol-induced adverse events were reported. Conclusion Preemptive clobetasol might lessen regorafenib-induced hand-foot reactions compared with reactive therapy. Further confirmatory studies are needed in a larger patient cohort. Implications for Practice Regorafenib causes hand-foot skin reactions. Preemptive clobetasol, a high-potency topical corticosteroid, appears to lessen the severity of this adverse event. Although further study is needed, the favorable adverse event profile of this intervention might prompt clinicians to discuss this option with their patients.

This letter to the editor reports subsequent rechallenge with peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT) in a patient with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor bearing BRCA1 mutation previously treated with PRRT.

Purpose Recent advances in molecular diagnostic technologies allow for the evaluation of solid tumor malignancies through noninvasive blood sampling, including circulating tumor DNA profiling (ctDNA). Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a poor prognosis, often because of late presentation of disease. Diagnosis is often made using endoscopic ultrasound or endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, which often does not yield enough tissue for next-generation sequencing. With this study, we sought to characterize the ctDNA genomic alteration landscape in patients with advanced PDAC with a focus on actionable findings. Materials and Methods From December 2014 through October 2019, 357 samples collected from 282 patients with PDAC at Mayo Clinic underwent ctDNA testing using a clinically available assay. The majority of samples were tested using the 73-gene panel which includes somatic genomic targets, including complete or critical exon coverage in 30 and 40 genes, respectively, and in some, amplifications, fusions, and indels. Clinical data and outcome variables were available for 165 patients; with 104 patients at initial presentation. Results All patients included in this study had locally advanced or metastatic PDAC. Samples having at least one alteration, when variants of unknown significance (VUS) were excluded, numbered 266 (75%). After excluding VUS, therapeutically relevant alterations were observed in 170 (48%) of the total 357 cohort, including KRAS (G12C), EGFR, ATM, MYC, BRCA, PIK3CA, and BRAF mutations. KRAS, SMAD, CCND2, or TP53 alterations were seen in higher frequency in patients with advanced disease. Conclusion Our study is the largest cohort to date that demonstrates the feasibility of ctDNA testing in PDAC. We provide a benchmark landscape upon which the field can continue to grow. Future applications may include use of ctDNA to guide treatment and serial monitoring of ctDNA during disease course to identify novel therapeutic targets for improved prognosis. Implications for Practice Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) has a poor prognosis often due to late presentation of disease. Biopsy tissue sampling is invasive and samples are often inadequate, requiring repeated invasive procedures and delays in treatment. Noninvasive methods to identify PDAC early in its course may improve prognosis in PDAC. Using ctDNA, targetable genes can be identified and used for treatment.

Background It is unclear whether results from recent trials of resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are generalizable to older patients, who are underrepresented. We aimed to evaluate outcomes of surgery and of neoadjuvant and adjuvant therapy in older patients with resectable PDAC. Patients and Methods We included patients aged ≥65 years with upfront resectable PDAC from a prospectively maintained pancreatic cancer registry from 2007 to 2016. Patients were stratified into ages 65–75 and 75+ years. Overall survival (OS) was assessed in treatment comparisons: (A) surgery (n = 636) versus nonsurgical (n = 178), (B) neoadjuvant therapy (n = 139) versus upfront surgery (n = 497), and (C) adjuvant therapy (n = 379) versus surgery alone (n = 118). We compared neoadjuvant (n = 139) versus adjuvant therapy (n = 379) in an exploratory analysis. Results Nine hundred and three patients had a median age of 73.7 (range, 65–96.6) years. Median OS was 26.6 versus 11.9 months (adjusted hazard ratio [HRadj], 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.31–0.52; p < .001) in Comparison A groups, 30.7 versus 25.8 months (HRadj, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49–0.96; p = .03) in Comparison B groups, and 26.9 versus 17.4 months (HRadj, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44–0.88; p = .008) in Comparison C groups, respectively. OS benefit in these treatment comparisons was present in age group 75+ with HRadj 0.24 (95% CI, 0.16–0.36; p < .001) in Comparison A and HRadj 0.52 (95% CI, 0.27–1; p = .049) in Comparison B, but not in Comparison C with HRadj 0.68 (95% CI, 0.43–1.08; p = .1). Statistically comparable median OS of patients who received neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy stratified by age groups was observed. Conclusion Older patients with resectable PDAC who received surgery, neoadjuvant therapy, or adjuvant therapy appeared to have improved survival outcomes compared with those who did not receive such treatment. Implications for Practice Older patients with resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) in general are underrepresented in large clinical trials and less well studied in terms of the role of surgery, neoadjuvant therapy, and adjuvant therapy. This study collected data on older patients with resectable PDAC from a prospectively maintained single-institutional pancreatic cancer registry of a tertiary referral center from 2007 to 2016. It was found that, with multidisciplinary evaluation, older patients with resectable PDAC who received surgery, neoadjuvant therapy, or adjuvant therapy appeared to have improved survival outcomes compared with those who did not receive such treatment. These results are of substantial importance to practitioners who treat older patients, who are traditionally underrepresented in most clinical trials.

Lutetium-177-dotatate (177Lu-dotatate), a form of peptide receptor radionuclide therapy, was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of advanced somatostatin receptor–positive gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) in 2018 based on the promising results of the NETTER-1 trial for grade 1–2 midgut NETs. Here, we present a patient with a grade 3 pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and BRCA1 germline mutation who had a significant response to 177Lu-dotatate.

The emergence of targeted therapies for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) has considerably improved survival, but has also resulted in a dilemma of identifying the optimal sequence and combination of various agents in the mCRC treatment landscape. A number of cytotoxic agents, including irinotecan, oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil, capecitabine, and TAS-102, are available for treatment of mCRC. Additionally, whereas patients harboring rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (RAS)–wild type mCRC can be treated with the anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibodies cetuximab and panitumumab or antiangiogenic agents (bevacizumab, ziv-aflibercept, and ramucirumab), patients with RAS-mutant mCRC are limited to antiangiogenic agents as biologic options. Regorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor, can be used in both RAS subgroups. As such, the recommended sequence of therapies that should be received by each subgroup must also be considered separately. This review provides an overview of recent clinical data for approved and investigational targeted therapies that have been studied across different mCRC treatment lines and patient subgroups. It also examines emerging trends in the treatment landscape for mCRC, including treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors and the utilization of genomic profiling. Implications for Practice Currently, there are no established guidelines for optimal sequencing of cytotoxic or targeted agents in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). This review provides a snapshot of the current mCRC treatment paradigm and examines the latest clinical data that support the utilization of several targeted agents alone or in combination with backbone chemotherapy across different lines of treatment and patient populations, highlighting recommendations for their usage. Recent advances in the treatment landscape are also summarized, including genomic profiling and preliminary results with immune checkpoint inhibitors.

Trial Information Click here to access other published clinical trials. Lessons Learned Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) shows promising antitumor activity in heavily pretreated patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma, including patients with 5-fluorouracil refractory tumors. FTD/TPI has an acceptable safety profile and should be studied further in patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma after progression on standard first-line therapy. Background Patients with advanced biliary tract carcinoma (BTC) refractory to first-line therapy lack an established second-line option. Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) has activity in both fluoropyrimidine-sensitive and -resistant tumors, which led us to conduct a single arm phase II trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of FTD/TPI for patients previously treated for advanced BTC. Methods Patients with advanced BTC previously treated with at least one line of chemotherapy were enrolled and treated with FTD/TPI until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary endpoint target was to have at least 6 patients who were progression free and alive at 16 weeks among 25 evaluable patients. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and toxicity. Results Of 27 evaluable patients, 59.3% received at least three prior lines of therapy, and 81.5% had previous exposure to fluoropyrimidine. Eight (32%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 14.9%–53.5%) patients were progression free at 16 weeks in the primary analysis population (n = 25), which met the predefined efficacy criteria. Median PFS and OS were 3.8 (95% CI, 2–5.8 months) and 6.1 (95% CI, 4.4–11.4 months) months, respectively. No objective responses were seen. There were no unexpected safety signals noted. Conclusion FTD/TPI demonstrated promising antitumor activity, with acceptable toxicity, in heavily pretreated patients with advanced BTC.

Background. The Avastin® Registry: Investigation of Effectiveness and Safety (ARIES) study is a prospective, community-based observational cohort study that evaluated the effectiveness and safety of first-line treatment patterns, assessing the impact of chemotherapy choice and treatment duration. Methods. The ARIES study enrolled patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) receiving first-line chemotherapy with bevacizumab and followed them longitudinally. The protocol did not specify treatment regimens or assessments. Analyses included all patients who initiated bevacizumab in combination with either first-line oxaliplatin with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFOX) or irinotecan with infusional 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (FOLFIRI). Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) times were estimated using Kaplan–Meier methods. Hazard ratios (HRs) were estimated with multivariate Cox regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounding factors. Results. In total, 1,550 patients with first-line mCRC were enrolled (median follow-up, 21 months) and most received FOLFOX–bevacizumab (n = 968) or FOLFIRI–bevacizumab (n = 243) as first-line therapy. The baseline characteristics and median treatment duration were generally similar between subgroups. There were no significant differences in the median PFS (10.3 months vs. 10.2 months) or OS (23.7 months vs. 25.5 months) time between the FOLFOX–bevacizumab and FOLFIRI–bevacizumab subgroups, respectively, by unadjusted analyses. Multivariate analyses showed FOLFIRI–bevacizumab resulted in a similar PFS (HR, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88–1.21) and OS (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78–1.16) outcome as with FOLFOX–bevacizumab. The incidence proportions of bevacizumab-associated adverse events were similar for FOLFOX- and FOLFIRI-based therapies. Conclusions. In first-line mCRC patients, the FOLFOX–bevacizumab and FOLFIRI–bevacizumab regimens were associated with similar treatment patterns and clinical outcomes.

Background. The Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) conducted a phase II study evaluating sunitinib in patients with progressive metastatic pancreas adenocarcinoma following prior gemcitabine-based therapy (trial CALGB 80603; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT00397787). The primary endpoint was to determine the disease control rate (DCR) as measured by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (complete response, partial response [PR], and stable disease) at 6 weeks. Patients and Methods. Patients aged ≥18 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status score of 0–2 and with progressive pancreas adenocarcinoma following treatment with gemcitabine were eligible. Sunitinib was dosed at 50 mg orally days 1–28, every 42 days (1 cycle). The statistical plan called for a three-stage design. A DCR ≥15% was considered worthy of further study. Results. In total, 77 patients were enrolled. Forty-two (54.6%) enrollees were male. The median age was 65 years. The ECOG performance status score distribution was: 0, 39%; 1, 50%; 2, 11%. The DCR was 21.6%; one patient (1.4%) had a PR and 15 patients (20.3%) had stable disease as their best response. The progression-free survival time was 1.31 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.25–1.38 months) and overall survival time was 3.68 months (95% CI, 3.06–4.24 months). Conclusions. The study met its primary endpoint; however sunitinib had minimal activity and moderate toxicity in a population of gemcitabine-refractory pancreas adenocarcinoma patients. For future studies, limiting enrollment to patients with an ECOG performance status score of 0–1 is recommended.

Background. Esophageal squamous cell carcinomas (ESCCs) and esophageal adenocarcinomas (EACs) account for >95% of esophageal malignancies and represent a major global health burden. ESCC is the dominant histology globally but represents a minority of U.S. cases, with EAC accounting for the majority of U.S. cases. The patient outcomes for advanced ESCC and EAC are poor, and new therapeutic options are needed. Using a sensitive sequencing assay, we compared the genomic profiles of ESCC and EAC with attention to identification of therapeutically relevant genomic alterations. Methods. Next-generation sequencing-based comprehensive genomic profiling was performed on hybridization-captured, adaptor ligation-based libraries to a median coverage depth of >650× for all coding exons of 315 cancer-related genes plus selected introns from 28 genes frequently rearranged in cancer. Results from a single sample were evaluated for all classes of genomic alterations (GAs) including point mutations, short insertions and deletions, gene amplifications, homozygous deletions, and fusions/rearrangements. Clinically relevant genomic alterations (CRGAs) were defined as alterations linked to approved drugs and those under evaluation in mechanism-driven clinical trials. Results. There were no significant differences by sex for either tumor type, and the median age for all patients was 63 years. All ESCCs and EACs were at an advanced stage at the time of sequencing. All 71 ESCCs and 231 EACs featured GAs on profiling, with 522 GAs in ESCC (7.4 per sample) and 1,303 GAs in EAC (5.6 per sample). The frequency of clinically relevant GAs in ESCC was 94% (2.6 per sample) and 93% in EAC (2.7 per sample). CRGAs occurring more frequently in EAC included KRAS (23% EAC vs. 6% ESCC) and ERBB2 (23% EAC vs. 3% ESCC). ESCC samples were enriched for CRGA in PIK3CA (24% ESCC vs. 10% EAC), PTEN (11% ESCC vs. 4% EAC), and NOTCH1 (17% ESCC vs. 3% EAC). Other GAs that differed significantly between histologic tumor types included SMAD4 (14% EAC vs. 1% ESCC), RB1 (14% ESCC vs. 2% EAC), SOX2 (18% ESCC vs. 1% EAC), and NFE2L2 (24% ESCC vs. 1% EAC). Conclusion. ESCC and EAC share similarly high frequencies of overall and clinically relevant genomic alterations; however, the profiles of genomic alterations in the two diseases differ widely, with KRAS and ERBB2 far more frequently altered in EAC compared with ESCC and with mammalian target of rapamycin (MTOR) pathway genes (PIK3CA and PTEN) and NOTCH1 more frequently altered in ESCC compared with EAC. Comprehensive genomic profiling highlights the promise of identifying clinically relevant genomic alterations in both ESCC and EAC and suggests new avenues for molecularly directed therapies in esophageal cancer. Implications for Practice: Both esophageal squamous cell carcinoma and esophageal adenocarcinoma are aggressive cancers with poor patient response to conventional chemotherapy and radiation treatment. In this study, comprehensive genomic profiling was performed for 302 advanced esophageal cancers, and it was found that the frequently altered genes and biological pathways differed between the two subtypes. Also, a high frequency of clinically relevant genomic alterations was noted for both types of esophageal cancer as a means of finding a potential targeted therapy to be used in addition to or as an alternative to conventional treatment.