Search

Background: The identification of tumor deposits (TD) currently plays a limited role in staging for colorectal cancer (CRC) aside from N1c lymph node designation. The objective of this study was to determine the prognostic impact, beyond American Joint Committee on Cancer N1c designation, of TDs among patients with primary CRC. Methods: Patients who had resected stage I–III primary CRC diagnosed between 2010 and 2019 were identified from the National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database. Cancer‐specific survival (CSS) stratified by TD status and lymph node (N) status was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier method and multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. Results: In total, 147,783 patients with primary CRC were identified. TDs were present in 15,444 patients (10.5%). The presence of TDs was significantly associated with adverse tumor characteristics, including advanced pathologic stage, nodal status, and metastasis status. The presence of TDs was associated with worse CSS (hazard ratio [HR], 3.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.02–3.22), as it was for each given N category (e.g., N2a and TD‐negative [HR, 2.50; 95% CI, 2.37–2.64] vs. N2a and TD‐positive [HR, 3.75; 95% CI, 3.49–4.03]). The presence of multiple TDs was also associated with decreased CSS for each given N category compared with a single TD (e.g. N2a with one TD [HR, 3.09; 95% CI, 2.65–3.61] vs. N2a with two or more TDs [HR, 4.32; 95% CI, 3.87–4.82]). Conclusions: TDs were identified as an independent predictor of a worse outcome in patients with CRC. The presence of TDs confers distinctly different CSS and provides important prognostic information among patients with CRC and warrants further investigation as a unique variable in future iterations of CRC staging. The presence of tumor deposits confers distinctly different cancer‐specific survival beyond lymph node categories and provides important added prognostic information among patients with colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) staging system for all cancer sites, including gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP‐NETs), is meant to be dynamic, requiring periodic updates to optimize AJCC staging definitions. This entails the collaboration of experts charged with evaluating new evidence that supports changes to each staging system. GEP‐NETs are the second most prevalent neoplasm of gastrointestinal origin after colorectal cancer. Since publication of the AJCC eighth edition, the World Health Organization has updated the classification and separates grade 3 GEP‐NETs from poorly differentiated neuroendocrine carcinoma. In addition, because of major advancements in diagnostic and therapeutic technologies for GEP‐NETs, AJCC version 9 advocates against the use of serum chromogranin A for the diagnosis and monitoring of GEP‐NETs. Furthermore, AJCC version 9 recognizes the increasing role of endoscopy and endoscopic resection in the diagnosis and management of NETs, particularly in the stomach, duodenum, and colorectum. Finally, T1NXM0 has been added to stage I in these disease sites as well as in the appendix. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: As multidisciplinary treatment strategies for colorectal cancer have improved, aggressive surgical resection has become commonplace. Multivisceral and extended resections offer curative‐intent resection with significant survival benefit. However, limited data exist regarding the feasibility and oncological efficacy of performing extended resection via a minimally invasive approach. The aim of this study was to determine the perioperative and long‐term outcomes following robotic extended resection for colorectal cancer. Method: We describe the population of patients undergoing robotic multivisceral resection for colorectal cancer at our single institution. We evaluated perioperative details and investigated short‐ and long‐term outcomes, using the Kaplan–Meier method to analyse overall and recurrence‐free survival. Results: Among the 86 patients most tumours were T3 (47%) or T4 (47%) lesions in the rectum (78%). Most resections involved the anterior compartment (72%): bladder (n = 13), seminal vesicle/vas deferens (n = 27), ureter (n = 6), prostate (n = 15) and uterus/vagina/adnexa (n = 27). Three cases required conversion to open surgery; 10 patients had grade 3 complications. The median hospital stay was 4 days. Resections were R0 (>1 mm) in 78 and R1 (0 to ≤1 mm) in 8, with none being R2. The average nodal yield was 26 and 48 (55.8%) were pN0. Three‐year overall survival was 88% and median progression‐free survival was 19.4 months. Local recurrence was 6.1% and distant recurrence was 26.1% at 3 years. Conclusion: Performance of multivisceral and extended resection on the robotic platform allows patients the benefit of minimally invasive surgery while achieving oncologically sound resection of colorectal cancer. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Appendiceal adenocarcinoma (AA) is a rare malignancy with distinct histopathologic subtypes and a natural history with metastasis primarily limited to the peritoneum. Little is known about the molecular pathogenesis of AA relative to common tumors., Experimental Design: We analyzed molecular data for patients within the Guardant Health database with appendix cancer (n = 718). We then identified patients with AA at our institution (from 10/2004-9/2022) for whom circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) mutation profiling (liquid biopsy) was performed (n=168) and extracted clinicopathologic and outcomes data. Of these 168 patients 57 also had tissue-based tumor mutational profiling allowing for evaluation of concordance between liquid and tissue assays., Results: The mutational landscape of ctDNA in AA is distinct from tissue-based sequencing, with TP53 being the most frequently mutated (46%). Relative to other tumors, AA appears less likely to shed ctDNA, with only 38% of metastatic AA patients having detectable ctDNA (OR 0.26, p < 0.0001 relative to CRC). When detectable the median VAF was significantly lower in AA (0.4% vs. 1.3% for CRC, p≤0.001). High grade, signet-ring or colonic-type histology, metastatic spread beyond the peritoneum, and TP53 mutation were associated with detectable ctDNA. With respect to clinical translation, patients with detectable ctDNA had worse overall survival (HR = 2.32, p = 0.048). In the Guardant Health cohort actionable mutations were found in 93 patients (13.0%)., Conclusions: Although metastatic AA tumors are less likely to shed tumor DNA into the blood relative to CRC, ctDNA profiling in AA has clinical utility.

Background: Treatment options for patients with advanced neuroendocrine tumors are limited. The efficacy of cabozantinib in the treatment of previously treated, progressive extrapancreatic or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors is unclear., Methods: We enrolled two independent cohorts of patients - those with extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and those with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors - who had received peptide receptor radionuclide therapy or targeted therapy or both. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive cabozantinib at a dose of 60 mg daily or placebo. The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review. Key secondary end points included objective response, overall survival, and safety., Results: In the cohort of 203 patients with extrapancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, the median progression-free survival with cabozantinib was 8.4 months, as compared with 3.9 months with placebo (stratified hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.38; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.25 to 0.59; P<0.001). In the cohort of 95 patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, the median progression-free survival with cabozantinib was 13.8 months, as compared with 4.4 months with placebo (stratified hazard ratio, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.12 to 0.42; P<0.001). The incidence of confirmed objective response with cabozantinib was 5% and 19% among patients with extrapancreatic and pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors, respectively, as compared with 0% with placebo. Grade 3 or higher adverse events were noted in 62 to 65% of the patients treated with cabozantinib, as compared with 23 to 27% of the patients who received placebo. Common treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher included hypertension, fatigue, diarrhea, and thromboembolic events., Conclusions: Cabozantinib, as compared with placebo, significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with previously treated, progressive advanced extrapancreatic or pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors. Adverse events were consistent with the known safety profile of cabozantinib. (Funded by the National Cancer Institute and others; CABINET ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03375320.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Aim: The objective of this study was to compare adverse event (AE) management costs for fruquintinib, regorafenib, trifluridine/tipiracil (T/T) and trifluridine/tipiracil+bevacizumab (T/T+bev) for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) previously treated with at least two prior lines of therapy from the US commercial and Medicare payer perspectives. Materials & methods: A cost-consequence model was developed to calculate the per-patient and per-patient-per-month (PPPM) AE costs using rates of grade 3/4 AEs with incidence ≥5% in clinical trials, event-specific management costs and duration treatment. Anchored comparisons of AE costs were calculated using a difference-in-differences approach with best supportive care (BSC) as a common reference. AE rates and treatment duration were obtained from clinical trials: FRESCO and FRESCO-2 (fruquintinib), RECOURSE (T/T), CORRECT (regorafenib) and SUNLIGHT (T/T, T/T+bev). AE management costs for the commercial and Medicare perspectives were obtained from publicly available sources. Results: From the commercial perspective, the AE costs (presented as per-patient, PPPM) were: $4015, $1091 for fruquintinib (FRESCO); $4253, $1390 for fruquintinib (FRESCO-2); $17,110, $11,104 for T/T (RECOURSE); $9851, $4691 for T/T (SUNLIGHT); $8199, $4823 for regorafenib; and $11,620, $2324 for T/T+bev. These results were consistent in anchored comparisons: the difference-in-difference for fruquintinib based on FRESCO was -$1929 versus regorafenib and -$11,427 versus T/T; for fruquintinib based on FRESCO-2 was -$2257 versus regorafenib and -$11,756 versus T/T. Across all analyses, results were consistent from the Medicare perspective. Conclusion: Fruquintinib was associated with lower AE management costs compared with regorafenib, T/T and T/T+bev for patients with previously treated mCRC. This evidence has direct implications for treatment, formulary and pathways decision-making in this patient population.

Abstract: Recently, organ preservation with total neoadjuvant therapy resulted in substantial progress in the management of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). The PROSPECT trial showed noninferiority of de-escalation of radiotherapy for patients with low-risk LARC who do not need abdominoperineal resection. Although these escalation and de-escalation approaches offer more personalized therapeutic approaches, the current state of care for patients with rectal cancer is far from individualized management. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) is known to be one of the most powerful prognostic factors for early relapse and has been investigated in several interventional clinical trials to offer more precise treatment algorithms. In this review article, we discuss recent updates from studies examining the role of ctDNA for the prediction of treatment response and recurrence for patients with rectal cancer. We also elaborate on the future potential use of ctDNA in treatment escalation and de-escalation approaches for more personalized therapeutic interventions., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding: I.H.S. received advisory board fees in Seattle Genetics, GSK, Guardant Health, and Lumanity and research grants from BAYER and GSK. A.N.D received grants or contracts from HUTCHMED, Guardant Health, Natera, AAA/Novartis, Eisai, and Crinetics and payment or honoraria from HUTCHMED, Personalis, AAA/Novartis, Crinetics, and Voluntis. For the remaining authors, none were declared., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Traditional constraints specify that 700 cc of liver should be spared a hepatotoxic dose when delivering liver-directed radiotherapy to reduce the risk of inducing liver failure. We investigated the role of single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) to identify and preferentially avoid functional liver during liver-directed radiation treatment planning in patients with preserved liver function but limited functional liver volume after receiving prior hepatotoxic chemotherapy or surgical resection., Methods: This phase I trial with a 3 + 3 design evaluated the safety of liver-directed radiotherapy using escalating functional liver radiation dose constraints in patients with liver metastases. Dose-limiting toxicities were assessed 6-8 weeks and 6 months after completing radiotherapy., Results: All 12 patients had colorectal liver metastases and received prior hepatotoxic chemotherapy; 8 patients underwent prior liver resection. Median computed tomography anatomical nontumor liver volume was 1584 cc (range = 764-2699 cc). Median SPECT functional liver volume was 1117 cc (range = 570-1928 cc). Median nontarget computed tomography and SPECT liver volumes below the volumetric dose constraint were 997 cc (range = 544-1576 cc) and 684 cc (range = 429-1244 cc), respectively. The prescription dose was 67.5-75 Gy in 15 fractions or 75-100 Gy in 25 fractions. No dose-limiting toxicities were observed during follow-up. One-year in-field control was 57%. One-year overall survival was 73%., Conclusion: Liver-directed radiotherapy can be safely delivered to high doses when incorporating functional SPECT into the radiation treatment planning process, which may enable sparing of lower volumes of liver than traditionally accepted in patients with preserved liver function., Trial Registration: NCT02626312., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press.)