Search

Background Randomized studies have shown low compliance to adjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer patients receiving preoperative chemotherapy and external beam radiation (CT/EBRT) with total mesorectal excision. We hypothesize that giving neoadjuvant CT before local treatment would improve CT compliance. Methods Between 2010–2017, 180 patients were randomized (2:1) to either Arm A (AA) with FOLFOX x6 cycles prior to high dose rate brachytherapy (HDRBT) and surgery plus adjuvant FOLFOX x6 cycles, or Arm B (AB), with neoadjuvant HDRBT with surgery and adjuvant FOLFOX x12 cycles. The primary endpoint was CT compliance to ≥85% of full-dose CT for the first six cycles. Secondary endpoints were ypT0N0, five-year disease free survival (DFS), local control and overall survival (OS). Results Patients were randomized to either AA (n = 120, median age (MA) 62 years) or AB (n = 60, MA 63 years). 175/180 patients completed HDRBT as planned (97.2%). In AA, two patients expired during CT; three patients post-randomization received short course EBRT because of progression under CT (n = 2, AA) or personal preference (n = 1, AB). ypT0N0 was 31% in AA and 28% in AB (p = 0.7). CT Compliance was 80% in AA and 53% in AB (p = 0.0002). Acute G3/G4 toxicity was 35.8% in AA and 27.6% in AB (p = 0.23). With a median follow-up of 48.5 months (IQR 33–72), the five-year DFS was 72.3% with AA and 68.3% with AB (p = 0.74), the five-year OS 83.8% for AA and 82.2% for AB (p = 0.53), and the five-year local recurrence was 6.3% for AA and 5.8% for AB (p = 0.71). Conclusion We confirmed improved compliance to neoadjuvant CT in this study. Although there is no statistical difference in ypT0N0 rate, local recurrence, and DFS between the two arms, a trend towards favourable oncological outcomes is observed.

Background: To date, the role of adjuvant systemic therapy in stages ii and iii colon cancer remains a topic of interest and debate. The objective of the present review was to assess the most recent data, specifically addressing methods of risk stratification, duration of therapy, and future directions. Methods: PubMed and medline were searched for literature pertinent to adjuvant chemotherapy in either stage ii or stage iii colorectal cancer. Summary: Locoregional disease, histopathology, age, laterality, and a number of other biologic and molecular markers appear to have a role in disease risk stratification. The duration of adjuvant therapy for stage iii disease can vary based on risk factors, but use of adjuvant therapy and duration of therapy in stage ii disease remain controversial. Future directions should include genomic assays and improved study design to provide concrete evidence about the duration of adjuvant folfox or capox and about other types of chemotherapy and immunotherapy.

Background Therapeutic resistance is the main cause of death in metastatic colorectal cancer. To investigate genomic plasticity, most specifically of metastatic lesions, associated with response to first‐line systemic therapy, we collected longitudinal liver metastatic samples and characterized the copy number aberration (CNA) landscape and its effect on the transcriptome. Methods Liver metastatic biopsies were collected prior to treatment (pre, n = 97) and when clinical imaging demonstrated therapeutic resistance (post, n = 43). CNAs were inferred from whole exome sequencing and were correlated with both the status of the lesion and overall patient progression‐free survival (PFS). We used RNA sequencing data from the same sample set to validate aberrations as well as independent datasets to prioritize candidate genes. Results We identified a significantly increased frequency gain of a unique CN, in liver metastatic lesions after first‐line treatment, on chr18p11.32 harboring 10 genes, including TYMS, which has not been reported in primary tumors (GISTIC method and test of equal proportions, FDR‐adjusted p = 0.0023). CNA lesion profiles exhibiting different treatment responses were compared and we detected focal genomic divergences in post‐treatment resistant lesions but not in responder lesions (two‐tailed Fisher's Exact test, unadjusted p ≤ 0.005). The importance of examining metastatic lesions is highlighted by the fact that 15 out of 18 independently validated CNA regions found to be associated with PFS in this study were only identified in the metastatic lesions and not in the primary tumors. Conclusion This investigation of genomic‐phenotype associations in a large colorectal cancer liver metastases cohort identified novel molecular features associated with treatment response, supporting the clinical importance of collecting metastatic samples in a defined clinical setting., Graphical Abstract and Graphical Headlights Liver metastatic lesions from colorectal cancer patients were collected before and after first‐line standard chemotherapy and comprehensively profiled with the objective to assess the genomic impact of systemic therapy and investigate association with response and survival. This study allowed identification of novel CNAs having an impact on the transcriptome with a potential prognostic value in patients with colorectal cancer.

PurposeAdjuvant chemotherapy within 56 or 84 days following curative resection is globally accepted as the standard of care for stage III colon cancer as it has been associated with improved overall survival. Initiation of adjuvant chemotherapy within this time frame is therefore recommended by clinical practice guidelines, including the European Society for Medical Oncology. The objective of this study was to evaluate adherence to these clinical practice guidelines for patients with stage III colon cancer across the Rossy Cancer Network (RCN); a partnership of McGill University’s Faculty of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Jewish General Hospital and St Mary’s Hospital Center.Patients and methods187 patients who had been diagnosed with stage III colon cancer and received adjuvant chemotherapy within the RCN partner hospitals from 2012 to 2015 were included. Patient and treatment information was retrospectively determined by chart review. Χ2 and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to measure associations and a multivariate Cox regression model was used to determine risk factors contributing to delays in administration of adjuvant chemotherapy.ResultsThe median turnaround time between surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy was 69 days. Importantly, only 27% of patients met the 56-day target, and 71% met the 84-day target. Increasing age, having more than one surgical complication and being diagnosed between 2013–2014 and 2014–2015 reduced the likelihood that patients met these targets. Furthermore, delays were observed at most intervals from surgery to first adjuvant chemotherapy treatment.ConclusionOur study found that within these academic hospital settings, 27% of patients met the 56-day target, and 71% met the 84-day target. Delays were associated with hospital, surgeon and patient-related factors. Initiatives in quality improvement are needed in order to improve adherence to recommended treatment guidelines for prompt administration of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer.

Background: Quality of life (qol) is important for oncology patients, especially for those with late-stage disease. The present study was initiated to address the lack of published prospective data about the qol benefits of trifluridine/tipiracil (ftd/tpi) compared with best supportive care (bsc) in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mcrc). Methods: This prospective, cross-sectional, non-interventional study used multidimensional validated scales to evaluate patient-reported qol in two study cohorts of patients and also to measure differences in mcrc-related symptoms and pain in a real-world clinical setting. Results: Our findings demonstrate that patients with refractory mcrc report better overall qol when treated with ftd/tpi than with bsc alone. In that population, statistically significant differences in mean qol measures favoured ftd/tpi over bsc for physical symptom distress, psychological distress, activity impairment, overall valuation of life, and symptomatology. The overall better qol for patients receiving ftd/tpi implies that treatment was well tolerated and was associated with a lower symptom burden. No significant differences for pain were observed between the groups. Conclusions: This study suggests that ftd/tpi is a well-tolerated option for the treatment of patients with refractory mcrc, showcasing the value of capturing real-world qol data in routine clinical practice.

Patients with cancer are at high risk of venous thromboembolic events, and this risk can be further increased in patients with certain cancer types and by cancer treatments. Guidelines on the prevention of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) recommend thromboprophylaxis for hospitalised patients; however, this is not routinely recommended for ambulatory patients receiving chemotherapy and is limited to specified high-risk patients. Identification of the ambulatory patients at risk of CAT who would most benefit from anticoagulant therapy is therefore critical to reduce the incidence of this complication. For patients receiving thromboprophylaxis for CAT, treatment options include low molecular weight heparin, acetylsalicylic acid, warfarin or direct oral anticoagulants (apixaban or rivaroxaban), dependent on the cancer type and cancer treatment regimen. This review discusses emerging clinical trial data and their potential clinical impact.

Lenvatinib is an oral multikinase inhibitor indicated for the first-line treatment of unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma (uHCC). In the Phase III REFLECT trial, lenvatinib was noninferior in the primary endpoint of overall survival versus sorafenib, the only systemic therapy funded in Canada prior to the introduction of lenvatinib. Lenvatinib also demonstrated statistically significant improvement compared to sorafenib in secondary endpoint progression-free survival, time to progression, and objective response rate. The aim of this analysis was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of lenvatinib versus sorafenib for the first-line treatment of patients with uHCC from a Canadian perspective. A cost-utility analysis was conducted using partitioned survival modelling, with health states representing progression-free disease, progressed disease, and death. Health effects were measured using quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs were represented in Canadian dollars. Clinical inputs were derived from the REFLECT trial, with outcomes extrapolated using parametric survival models. EQ-5D data collected in REFLECT were used to determine health state utility values, and estimates of resource use came from a survey of clinicians. The model predicted incremental costs of-$5,021 and incremental QALYs of 0.17, making lenvatinib dominant over sorafenib. The model demonstrates lenvatinib to be a cost-effective use of resources versus sorafenib in Canada for the treatment of uHCC. Overall costs are lower compared with sorafenib, while health benefits are greater, with modelled progression-free and overall survival extended by 4.1 and 2.6 months in the lenvatinib arm, respectively.

Background: Selection and sequencing of treatment regimens for individual patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mcrc) is driven by maintaining reasonable quality of life and extending survival, as well as by access to and cost of therapies. The objectives of the present study were to describe, for patients with mcrc, attrition across lines of systemic therapy, patterns of therapy and their timing, and KRAS status. Methods: A retrospective chart review at 6 Canadian academic centres included sequential patients who were diagnosed with mcrc from 1 January 2009 onward and who initiated first-line systemic treatment for mcrc between 1 January and 31 December 2009. Death was included as a competing risk in the analysis. Results: The analysis included 200 patients who started first-line therapy. The proportions of patients who started second-, third-, and fourth-line systemic therapy were 70%, 30%, and 15% respectively. Chemotherapy plus bevacizumab was the most common first-line combination (66%). The most common first-line regimen was folfiri plus bevacizumab. KRAS testing was performed in 103 patients (52%), and 38 of 68 patients (56%, 19% overall) with confirmed KRAS wild-type tumours received an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (egfri), which was more common in later lines. Most KRAS testing occurred after initiation of second-line therapy. Conclusions: In the modern treatment era, a high proportion of patients receive at least two lines of therapy for mcrc, but only 19% receive egfri therapy. Earlier KRAS testing and therapy with an egfri might allow a greater proportion of patients to access all 5 active treatment agents.

Background The diagnosis of breast cancer in young women (aged 18-45 years) has been increasing. Women are commonly left coping with treatment-related disabilities of the upper limb that can persist for > 2 years postoperatively. Patients and Methods A total of 59 young breast cancer patients (29 in the intervention group and 30 in the control group) participated in a pilot prospective randomized controlled trial to determine whether a 12-week postradiation exercise program would improve long-term arm mobility, pain, and handgrip strength. During an 18-month period, range of motion, handgrip strength, and pain with shoulder movements were evaluated at 6 points. Results Although the differences were not statistically significant, external rotation and horizontal abduction of the shoulder improved in the intervention group immediately after the exercise intervention (3 months) and showed a trend toward less pain on movement. However, at 18 months after radiation the control and intervention groups both retained a residual loss of range and persistent pain with movement. Radiation to the axilla and/or chest wall yielded long-term (18 months) limitations in flexion and horizontal abduction compared with hypofractionation, which resulted in greater flexion and external rotation at 18 months. The median grip strength of the study participants corresponded to the 10th percentile of healthy aged-matched white women. Conclusion The exercise intervention timed shortly after radiation improved short-term shoulder mobility and pain; however, these gains were not sustained at 18 months after radiation.

Assessment of the clinical benefit of cancer treatments can be highly subjective, influenced by both perspective and context. Such assessments are required in regulatory and policy decision-making, but consistency between jurisdictions is often lacking. Clear and consistent standards for determining when a treatment offers a meaningful benefit, relative to the current standard of care, can help to address issues of equity and transparency in health technology assessment. For metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC), no standardized Canadian definition of clinically meaningful benefit has yet been proposed. Colorectal Cancer Canada therefore convened a group of medical oncologists expert in colorectal cancer to review the literature about clinical significance. The resulting consensus is intended to apply to any therapeutic agent being considered in the setting of chemotherapy-refractory MCRC. It was agreed that overall survival is the appropriate measure of clinical efficacy in chemorefractory MCRC. As quantitative targets for efficacy, an improvement of 2 months or more in median overall survival or a hazard ratio for survival of 0.75 or lower (or both) are proposed as the threshold for clinically meaningful benefit. That threshold could be influenced by a treatment’s effect on quality of life. Treatment toxicity is also relevant to the assessment of clinical benefit in this setting, specifically when significant differences in treatment tolerability are evident.

Background According to the IDEA trial, 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy should remain the treatment standard in stage III T4 or N2 colon cancer. The relatively poor survival in this high-risk subgroup—a 3-year disease-free survival (DFS) rate of 65%—and the potential synergistic efficacy of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), oxaliplatin, and irinotecan suggest that FOLFIRINOX may be a regimen of particular interest in this setting. Patients and Methods This multicenter international phase 3 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02967289 ) being conducted in 49 centers in France and Canada plans to randomize (1:1; minimization method) 640 patients aged 18 to 70 years with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status ≤ 1. Randomization occurs within 42 days (with treatment initiated within 56 days) after curative-intent R0 surgical resection of a pT4N1 or pT1-4N2 colon adenocarcinoma. Patients will be randomized to receive adjuvant modified FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, irinotecan 180 mg/m2, and 5-FU 2.4 g/m2 over 46 hours) or modified FOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, 5-FU bolus 400 mg/m2, then 2.4 g/m2 over 46 hours) every 2 weeks for 24 weeks (12 cycles). Patients will be followed for 5 years after the end of adjuvant chemotherapy. A gain of 9% in 3-year DFS (primary end point) is expected (74% in the experimental arm vs. 65% in the control arm; α, 5% [2-sided log-rank test]; 1-β, 80%). Secondary end points of this study include 2-year DFS, overall survival, and toxicity.

This study evaluated safety and quality of life in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer undergoing treatment with aflibercept and FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan). Most patients treated with this combination experienced either improvement or stability in quality of life scores. Aflibercept plus FOLFIRI is tolerable in the treatment of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with a safety profile similar to that seen in previous studies of these individual medications. Background: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the safety profile of aflibercept and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) provided with aflibercept access before marketing authorization. Patients and Methods: Patients received aflibercept followed by FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan) on day 1 of a 2-week cycle until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, death, or patient/investigator decision to discontinue. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were evaluated, and HRQL was assessed at baseline, cycle 3, and every other cycle using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-CR29, and EuroQol 5-Dimensions 3-Levels questionnaires (NCT01571284). Results: Overall, 779 adult patients with mCRC, who received >= 1 prior oxaliplatin-based regimen and had disease progression during or following their last administration of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, were enrolled. At data cutoff, all patients had discontinued treatment, mainly owing to disease progression (51.7%). The most common TEAEs of any grade were diarrhea (61.6%), hypertension (48.4%), and nausea (43.3%). The most common grade 3/4 TEAEs were hypertension (24.1%), neutropenia (23.1%), and diarrhea (15.3%). Clinically meaningful changes in HRQL were reported for all measures. Most patients either had an improvement in their HRQL scores or remained stable during the treatment period based on patient-reported outcomes. Conclusion: The data from this study support the tolerability of the combination of aflibercept and FOLFIRI in a setting that more closely approximates real life in patients with mCRC who failed to respond to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, and also suggest an improvement in HRQL.

e15589 Background: Worldwide treatment for 1st line (1LTx) mCRC included doublet or triple chemotherapy with or without bTAs. In Quebec, the anti-EGFR therapy (panitumumab or cetuximab) was only recently approved in this setting for patients RAS WT, Bevacizumab (B) not eligible. In this study we evaluated the rational and outcomes using bTAs. Methods: Retrospective study assessing mCRC pts treated with or without bTAs at any time throughout the course of therapy at the Jewish General Hospital between 2010-2018. Pts were divided in 3 groups according to their 1LTx for analysis: Chemotherapy alone (1LChA), Chemotherapy plus B (1LChB), and anti-EGFR with or without chemotherapy (1LaEGFR). The primary objective was to assess the rational of bTAs prescription based in 1LTx selection. Secondary objectives included safety, PFS and OS. Results: Among a total of 463 pts with mCRC; 196 pts (42.3%) received 1LChA, 246 pts (53.2%) 1LChB, and 21 pts (4.5%) 1LaEGFR respectively. 1LChA group, 51% omitted bTAs for physician-patient preferences, 96 pts (49%) had contraindications for B, and 79 pts (40.3%) were potentially candidates for aEGFR, but did not receive it. 152/196 (77.5%) pts continued to 2LTx and 34.8% received bTAs. As for the 3LTx, 78/196 (40%) received a treatment, 48.7% received bTAs. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) were hypertension and bowel perforation in B, gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and skin reaction (SR) in aEGFR. 1LChB group, 31 pts (12.6%) presented AEs related to B. 191/246 pts (77.6%) continued to 2LTx with 48 pts (25%) receiving ChB despite progression in 1LTx on this bTA and 19 pts (10%) receiving aEGFR. The most common AEs reported in 2LTx were GI symptoms and neuropathy. In 3LTx, 54/91pts (59.3%) received aEGFR therapy and 8 pts (14.8%) had SR AEs. 46 pts (18.6%) continued to 4LTx, 13/46 pts (28.2%) received aEGFR. 1LaEGFR group, the most common AEs were SR and GI symptoms. 11/21 pts (52.3%) continued to 2LTx; 5 pts (45.4%) switching bTA class and receiving ChB. 81% pts started treatment between 2017-2018 and had at least two contraindication criteria for. The median PFS for the 1LChA and 1LChB groups were 10 and 11.5 months, respectively, and were not statistically significant (p=0.22). The OS with 1LChA and 1LChB was 33.26 vs. 27.80 months (p=0.27). The PFS and OS between 1LChA and 1LaEGFR were 10 vs 11 months (p= 0.27) and 33.26 vs. 35.07 months (p=0.13). Conclusions: The outcome and tolerability of bTAs in mCRC appear similar in our institution and randomised trials. We were not able to detect any significant difference among the three groups of comparison. The 1LaEGFR available data in this subset of patients are limited. Our data highlights the importance of optimal therapeutic sequencing to prolong OS. Dedicated studies are needed in order to determine the best bTAs therapeutic strategy in mCRC.

TPS145 Background: Although most cancers are initially susceptible to existing anticancer therapies, over time cancer cells develop resistance. BOLD-100 is a first-in-class therapy that targets the GRP78 pathway, a major regulator of cellular stress and resistance. This therapy suppresses drug resistance, survival and proliferation by restraining stress-induced upregulation of GRP78 in tumor cells, leading to inhibition of the cell survival response. BOLD-100 successfully completed a Phase 1 monotherapy trial, with a manageable safety profile; it has demonstrated synergy in established preclinical models in combination with a wide variety of anticancer therapies and shown to restore sensitivity of drug-resistant cell lines. Methods: BOLD-100-001 is a multicenter, prospective, two-stage, non-randomized Phase 1b dose escalation and expansion study of BOLD-100 in combination with FOLFOX chemotherapy for selected advanced solid gastrointestinal (GI) tumors: colorectal (CRC), pancreatic (PANC), gastric (GC) and bile duct cancers (BDC). Each patient will receive BOLD-100 along with FOLFOX chemotherapy on Day 1 of each 14-day cycle. In the dose-escalation phase (Part A), patients will be enrolled to determine the combination recommended dose using a standard 3+3 design. In the dose-expansion phase (Part B), up to 80 patients with selected GI tumors will be enrolled in 5 cohorts (comprising the 4 GI cancers referred) and treated with BOLD-100 at the recommended dose and FOLFOX, until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. In Part A dose-escalation, the primary objective is to assess the safety, tolerability and maximum tolerated dose. The Part B dose-expansion will assess the efficacy (progression free survival, overall survival and response rate), of FOLFOX chemotherapy plus BOLD-100. Secondary objectives in Part A and B include the assessment of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters and potential biomarkers predictive of efficacy. Eligible patients will have previously treated histologically/cytologically confirmed metastatic/unresectable GI tumor (CRC, PANC, GC or BDC), measurable disease per RECIST criteria, an ECOG performance score of 0 or 1, and adequate organ function. In Part A, no formal statistical hypotheses will be tested; analysis of the data will focus on comparisons of safety and dose-limiting toxicities between cohorts and only descriptive methods will be used. In Part B, Bayesian modelling will be used to continually reassess the efficacy endpoints: progression free survival, overall survival and objective response rates. The study was opened for enrollment in August 2020; approximately 25-30 patients will be screened to achieve up to 20 patients in Part A and up to 80 patients will be enrolled in Part B with a maximum of 25 patients per arm. Clinical trial information: NCT04421820.

Despite lack of a true comparative study, the folfox (5-fluorouracil&ndash, leucovorin&ndash, oxaliplatin) and capox (capecitabine&ndash, oxaliplatin) regimens are believed to be similar in their efficacy and tolerability in the treatment of stage iii colorectal cancer. However, that belief has been disputed, because real-life data suggest that the capox regimen is more toxic, leading to more frequent reductions in the delivered dose intensity&mdash, thus raising questions about the effect of dose intensity on clinical outcomes. A retrospective data review for two Canadian institutions, the Segal Cancer Centre and the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, considered patients diagnosed with stage iii colorectal cancer during 2006&ndash, 2013. Primary endpoints were dose intensity and toxicity, with a secondary endpoint of disease-free survival. The study enrolled 180 eligible patients (80 at the Segal Cancer Centre, 100 at the Tom Baker Cancer Centre). Of those 180 patients, 75 received capox, and 105 received mfolfox6. In the capox group, a significant dose reduction was identified for capecitabine compared with 5-fluorouracil in mfolfox6 group (p = 0.0014). Similarly, a significant dose reduction was observed for oxaliplatin in mfolfox6 compared with oxaliplatin in capox (p = 0.0001). Compared with the patients receiving capox, those receiving mfolfox6 were twice as likely to experience a treatment delay of more than 1 cycle-length (p = 0.03855). Toxicity was more frequent in patients receiving mfolfox6 (nausea: 30% vs. 18%, diarrhea: 47% vs. 24%, peripheral sensory neuropathy: 32% vs. 3%). At a median follow-up of 40 months, preliminary data showed no difference in disease-free survival (p = 0.598). Pooled data from both institutions were also separately analyzed, and no significant differences were found. Our results support the use of capox despite a lack of head-to-head randomized trial data.

Single-agent regorafenib is approved in Canada and in the US for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who have failed previous lines of therapy1. Identification of prognostic biomarkers is crucial to ensure the best therapeutic strategies for mCRC patients. The goal of this clinical study (NCT01949194) was to explore putative molecular signatures of response and resistance to regorafenib in metastatic tumors and serial blood samples. We used a multi-omics approach to profile metastatic tumor tissues and serial blood samples from 47 mCRC patients who received single-agent regorafenib as second-line therapy after failing first-line therapy with an oxaliplatin or irinotecan-containing regimen with or without bevacizumab. Whole exome sequencing was performed to assess both the mutational and copy number (CN) landscapes of metastatic tissues from 29 patients and the transcriptome was interrogated using RNA sequencing. A 14-gene panel was used to profile serial plasma samples. Molecular aberrations were then correlated with lesion-specific treatment response using RECIST 1.1 and progression free survival (PFS) to investigate potential associations.The copy number aberration (CNA) landscape of metastatic tumors was assessed using Nexus Copy Number Software and 20 significant focal aberrations were identified using Genomic Identification of Significant Target in Cancer (GISTIC) test (q-bound Citation Format: Karen Gambaro, Maud Marques, Suzan McNamara, Mathilde Couetoux du Tertre, Cyrla Hoffert, Archana Srivastava, Sophie Mathieu, Anna schab, Thierry Alcindor, Adrian Langleben, Lucas Sideris, Mahmoud Adbelsalam, Mustapha Tehfe, Gerald Batist, Petr Kavan. A Phase II exploratory study to identify biomarkers prognostic of clinical response to regorafenib in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who have failed first-line therapy [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research 2020; 2020 Apr 27-28 and Jun 22-24. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(16 Suppl):Abstract nr 4325.

Single-agent immune checkpoint inhibition has not shown activities in advanced refractory colorectal cancer (CRC), other than in those patients who are microsatellite-instability high (MSI-H).To evaluate whether combining programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) inhibition improved patient survival in metastatic refractory CRC.A randomized phase 2 study was conducted in 27 cancer centers across Canada between August 2016 and June 2017, and data were analyzed on October 18, 2018. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum; received all available standard systemic therapies (fluoropyrimidines, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, and bevacizumab if appropriate; cetuximab or panitumumab if RAS wild-type tumors; regorafenib if available); were aged 18 years or older; had adequate organ function; had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and measurable disease.We randomly assigned patients to receive either 75 mg of tremelimumab every 28 days for the first 4 cycles plus 1500 mg durvalumab every 28 days, or best supportive care alone (BSC) in a 2:1 ratio.The primary end point was overall survival (OS) and a 2-sided P.10 was considered statistically significant. Circulating cell-free DNA from baseline plasma was used to determine microsatellite instability (MSI) and tumor mutation burden (TMB).Of 180 patients enrolled (121 men [67.2%] and 59 women [32.8%]; median [range] age, 65 [36-87] years), 179 were treated. With a median follow-up of 15.2 months, the median OS was 6.6 months for durvalumab and tremelimumab and 4.1 months for BSC (hazard ratio [HR], 0.72; 90% CI, 0.54-0.97; P = .07). Progression-free survival was 1.8 months and 1.9 months respectively (HR, 1.01; 90% CI, 0.76-1.34). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events were significantly more frequent with immunotherapy (75 [64%] patients in the treatment group had at least 1 grade 3 or higher adverse event vs 12 [20%] in the BSC group). Circulating cell-free DNA analysis was successful in 168 of 169 patients with available samples. In patients who were microsatellite stable (MSS), OS was significantly improved with durvalumab and tremelimumab (HR, 0.66; 90% CI, 0.49-0.89; P = .02). Patients who were MSS with plasma TMB of 28 variants per megabase or more (21% of MSS patients) had the greatest OS benefit (HR, 0.34; 90% CI, 0.18-0.63; P = .004).This phase 2 study suggests that combined immune checkpoint inhibition with durvalumab plus tremelimumab may be associated with prolonged OS in patients with advanced refractory CRC. Elevated plasma TMB may select patients most likely to benefit from durvalumab and tremelimumab. Further confirmation studies are warranted.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02870920.

4032 Background: Pembrolizumab provides effective antitumor immunity and durable responses in patients (pts) with advanced, colorectal cancer (CRC) with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) tumors. We present data on antitumor immunity with pembrolizumab in pts from the phase 2, KEYNOTE-164 study who had approximately 3 years of follow-up, and in pts re-treated after disease progression. Methods: KEYNOTE-164 enrolled pts with metastatic MSI-H CRC, MSI-H status confirmed locally by IHC or PCR, and ≥2 (cohort A) or ≥1 (cohort B) prior lines of therapy (fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, or anti VEGF/EGFR). Eligible pts received pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for 2y (35 administrations) or until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal. Pts who stopped pembro due to a confirmed CR or after completing 2y of treatment and who progressed after stopping were eligible for re-treatment with up to 17 administrations in the second-course phase, at investigator discretion. Tumor response was assessed Q9W per RECIST v1.1 by independent review. The primary endpoint was ORR. Secondary endpoints included DOR, PFS, OS, and safety. The data cutoff date was Sep 9, 2019. Results: At data cutoff, the median follow-up was 31.4 mo (range, 0.2-47.8) for 61 pts in cohort A and 36.1 mo (0.1-39.3) for 63 pts in cohort B. ORR was 32.8% (3CR, 17PR; 95% CI% 21.3-46.0) for cohort A and 34.9% (8CR, 14PR; 95% CI 23.3-48.0) in cohort B. Median DOR was not reached (NR [range, 6.2-41.3+]) and not reached (range, 3.9+ to 37.1+), respectively. Fifteen pts in cohort A and 17 in cohort B had ongoing responses at data cutoff. Median PFS was 2.3 mo (95% CI 2.1-8.1) with 3-yr PFS rate of 31% in cohort A and was 4.1 mo (2.1-18.9) with 3-yr PFS rate of 34% in cohort B. Median OS was 31.4 mo (21.4-NR) with 3-yr OS rate of 49% in cohort A and was not reached (19.2-NR) with 3-yr OS rate of 52% in cohort B. Nine pts (6 in cohort A, 3 in cohort B) had a second course of treatment. The best response in second course was PR in 1 patient each in cohort A and B. Grade 3-4 drug-related adverse events occurred in 10 (16%) pts in cohort A and 8 (13%) pts in cohort B. No grade 5 drug-related events occurred. Conclusions: After approximately 3 y of follow-up, pembrolizumab continues to provide effective long-term antitumor immunity with durable responses, with small numbers of drug-related adverse events and no drug-related deaths in pts with advanced, MSI-H CRC. Clinical trial information: NCT02460198 .

673 Background: Folfirinox (FFX) and Gemcitabine with nab-Paclitaxel (GN) are both proven to be superior to Gemcitabine (G) in the first line treatment (1LTx) for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). Yet, the optimal 1LTx selection nor sequential Tx (ST) has not been fully established. Therefore, the best choice for 1LTx is a matter of debate often influenced by access to drugs. This analysis was conducted to compare outcomes based on 1Ltx selection and ST in APC. Methods: We assessed patients (pts) with APC who received either FFX or GN as 1LTx during 2010-2019 at three Canadian institutions. As well as the ST used. The main objective was to assess survival. Kaplan method and log-rank test were used for survival curves. Results: This retrospective study included 231 pts; 1LTx included 143 pts on FFX and 88 pts on GN. FFX pts were predominantly male; 89(62.2%) vs 46(52.3%) and slightly younger (median age 62 vs 66) than GN. WHO performance status (PS) of 0 were 38 (28.4%) vs 14 (16.5%) and 1 were 90 (67.2%) vs 65 (76.5%) respectively. There were more grade 3-4 toxicity in FFX vs GN group: GI 55 (38.5%) vs 15 (17%) and hematologic 51 (35.4%) vs 20 (22.7%) respectively. Grade 3-4 neutropenia rates were similar in both regimens. The median PFS of FFX was 5.5 months (95% CI: 5.0-6.7) vs 5.1 (95% CI: 3.8-7.1) with GN (p=0.37). The median OS with FFX was 9.3 months (95% CI: 7.5-11.1) vs 10.2 (95% CI: 6.8-11.3) with GN (p=0.81). There were not statically significant. Table shows Tx frequency across 4LTx. 2LTx and beyond regimens included G, GN, FFX, Capecitabine, Irinotecan liposome plus 5-FU, Irinotecan and clinical trials. Conclusions: Our results revealed that pts who received 1LTx FFX or GN had similar PFS and OS even though 1LTx FFX group was younger with better PS, allowing to continue 2-4LTx more frequently when compare with 1LTx GN group. Therefore, 1LTx selection appear to have more impact in our pts rather than ST, whereas GN is less toxic and seems a preferable 1LTx choice for most pts. FFX could be reserved for young high-performance pts. [Table: see text]

719 Background: Although Folfirinox (FFX) prolonged survival in metastatic and adjuvant setting, the role of preoperative FFX is still controversial. Our aim is to evaluate how surgery after neoadjuvant FFX with or without radiotherapy (RT) affects the clinical outcome in these patients. Methods: This is a single arm, open-label, phase 2 prospective study. Based on resectability criteria (NCCN-V.1.2017), patients prospectively were divided into 3 groups of resectable, borderline resectable (BR), locally advanced (LA). Patients received 6 cycles of preoperative FFX. Patients with adequate response, underwent resection. Continuation of chemotherapy or radiation was given to the patients who were deemed unresectable after 6 cycles. Primary objective is time to progression (TTP), and secondary objectives are safety, R0/R1 resection rate, response rate (RR) and overall survival (OS). Results: 20 consecutive patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma enrolled. The frequency of each group was 4, 8, 8 patients, respectively. Median age was 64 years old (range, 49-78). 45% of patients had primary tumor in head or uncinate process. 25% of cases presented with normal CA 19-9 value. 85% (17/20) of patients completed the preoperative treatment. Folfirinox was given within median of 11.5 weeks (range, 8-17) and median of 6 cycles (range, 1-7). Median relative dose intensity (RDI) was 85.89%. Grade III-IV (G3+4) adverse event (CTCAE-4.03) observed in 47.4% (9/19). RR (RECIST) was 89% (16/18). Best response was partial response (PR) and stable disease (SD) with 22.2% (4/18) and 66.7% (12/18). Resection rate was 64.3% (9/14, 1 case scheduled for resection). R0 and negative lymph node (LN) achieved in 87.50% (7/8) and 62.50% (5/8) of patients. Complete pathological response (cPR) was seen in one patient 12.5% (1/8) who preoperatively reported as SD. Patients TTP and OS will be reported during the meeting. Conclusions: Preoperative FFX was associated with high clinical and pathological response rate translating in high resection rate in majority of BRPC and LAPC, and appears to be a safe treatment strategy. Patients received higher FFX dose intensity than it was reported in adjuvant setting. However, these results need to be assessed in a randomized trial. Clinical trial information: NCT03167112.

The annual Eastern Canadian Gastrointestinal Cancer Consensus Conference 2017 was held in St. John&rsquo, s, Newfoundland and Labrador, 28&ndash, 30 September. Experts in radiation oncology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, and cancer genetics who are involved in the management of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies participated in presentations and discussion sessions for the purpose of developing the recommendations presented here. This consensus statement addresses multiple topics in the management of gastric, rectal, and colon cancer, including &#9632, identification and management of hereditary gastric and colorectal cancer (crc), &#9632, palliative systemic therapy for metastatic gastric cancer, optimum duration of preoperative radiation in rectal cancer&mdash, that is, short- compared with long-course radiation, management options for peritoneal carcinomatosis in crc, implications of tumour location for treatment and prognosis in crc, and &#9632, new molecular markers in crc.

Background Pembro, a PD-1 inhibitor, confers durable benefit in many tumor types but has limited efficacy in non–microsatellite instability–high (MSI-high)/pMMR mCRC. Chemotherapies that include 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), oxaliplatin and irinotecan, which are commonly used to treat mCRC, may modulate intrinsic tumor immunogenicity and sensitize tumors to immunotherapy agents. In the phase 1b KEYNOTE-651 study (NCT03374254), pembro + mFOLFOX7 (cohort B) or pembro + FOLFIRI (cohort D) was evaluated in patients with non–MSI-high/pMMR mCRC. Methods Patients were ≥18 years with non–MSI-high/pMMR mCRC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0/1, and no prior systemic chemotherapy for stage IV mCRC (cohort B) or 1 prior therapy including a fluoropyrimidine + oxaliplatin-based regimen (cohort D). Patients received pembro 200 mg every 3 weeks (Q3W) + mFOLFOX7 (oxaliplatin [85 mg/m2]; leucovorin [400 mg/m2]; 5-FU [2400 mg/m2]) Q2W (cohort B) or pembro 200 mg Q3W + FOLFIRI (irinotecan [180 mg/m2]; leucovorin [400 mg/m2]; 5-FU [2400 mg/m2]) Q2W (cohort D). Primary objectives were safety/tolerability and establishment of the recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D); the secondary objective was objective response rate. Results At data cutoff (Feb 18, 2019), 15 patients in cohort B and 16 in cohort D started treatment; median follow-up was 6.8 months (cohort B) and 5.7 months (cohort D). Treatment was discontinued in 4 patients (27%) in cohort B (adverse event [AE], n = 1 [7%]; PD, n = 3 [20%]) and 9 patients (56%) in cohort D (AEs, PD, patient withdrawal; n = 3 [19%] each). There was 1 dose-limiting toxicity in cohort D: grade 3 small-intestinal obstruction. See RP2Ds for cohorts B and D in the Methods section. All patients had ≥1 treatment-related AE (TRAE). Grade 3 TRAEs occurred in 8 patients each in cohort B (53%) and cohort D (50%), most commonly anemia and neutropenia (13% each) in cohort B and neutropenia, diarrhea, fatigue, and leukopenia (13% each) in cohort D. There were no grade 4-5 TRAEs. Efficacy results will be presented. Conclusions Pembro in combination with mFOLFOX7 or FOLFIRI was safe and tolerable in patients with mCRC. Clinical trial identification NCT03374254; Release date: December 15, 2017. Editorial acknowledgement Jacqueline Kolston, PhD, of the ApotheCom pembrolizumab team (Yardley, PA, USA); Funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. Legal entity responsible for the study Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and Array BioPharma. Funding Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and Array BioPharma. Disclosure R. Kim: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Bayer; Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Advisory / Consultancy, Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): Eisai. J. Kortmansky: Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): Roche. L. Wong: Research grant / Funding (institution): Astellas Pharma Global Development, Inc./Astellas US, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): BeiGene, Ltd; Research grant / Funding (institution): Exelixis, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): NovoCure, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pierre Fabre Medicament; Research grant / Funding (institution): PledPharma AB; Research grant / Funding (institution): SynCore Biotechnology Co., Ltd.; Research grant / Funding (institution): Halozyme, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): Pharmacyclics, Inc.; Research grant / Funding (institution): TESARO; Research grant / Funding (institution): EMD Serono; Research grant / Funding (institution): Array. M. Tehfe: Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (self): Celgene; Honoraria (self): Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy: BMS; Advisory / Consultancy: Takeda; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Honoraria (self), Advisory / Consultancy: Taisho. J.J. Li: Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc. M. Lee: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc. C. Mayo: Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc. P. Marinello: Shareholder / Stockholder / Stock options, Full / Part-time employment: Merck & Co., Inc. E. Chiorean: Advisory / Consultancy: Ipsen; Advisory / Consultancy: Eisai; Advisory / Consultancy: Halozyme; Advisory / Consultancy: AstraZeneca; Advisory / Consultancy: Seattle Genetics; Advisory / Consultancy: Array; Advisory / Consultancy: Five Prime; Research grant / Funding (institution): Boehringer Ingelheim; Research grant / Funding (institution): Celgene; Research grant / Funding (institution): Incyte; Research grant / Funding (institution): Lilly; Research grant / Funding (institution): AstraZeneca; Travel / Accommodation / Expenses: Halozyme; Research grant / Funding (institution): Merck; Research grant / Funding (institution): BMS; Research grant / Funding (institution): Ignyta/Roche; Research grant / Funding (institution): Stemline; Research grant / Funding (institution): Macrogenetics. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

There are few effective treatments for recurrent glioblastoma multiforme (GBM). We present a patient with recurrent GBM who achieved a prolonged response to treatment with afatinib, an irreversible ErbB family blocker, plus temozolomide. A 58-year-old female patient was diagnosed with multifocal primary GBM. After surgical resection, first-line therapy comprised radiotherapy and temozolomide. Following disease progression after 3 temozolomide cycles, the patient entered a phase I/II clinical trial of afatinib (20–40 mg daily for 28 days) plus temozolomide (50 mg/m2 every 21/28 days). Next-generation sequencing analysis of the brain tumor specimen was performed. At the last assessment, 63 treatment cycles had been completed and the patient had survived for ~5 years since recurrence. Significant disease regression was observed after 5 cycles and was maintained during long-term follow-up. Adverse events were consistent with the known tolerability profile of afatinib and were managed by treatment interruption/dose reduction. The patient had several epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) aberrations, including gene amplification and EGFRvIII positivity. Three somatic mutations were identified, including an unprecedented extracellular-domain substitution (D247Y). The patient has survived ~6-fold longer than normally expected in patients with recurrent GBM. The complex EGFR genotype may underlie sustained response to afatinib plus temozolomide.

Summary Background Rindopepimut (also known as CDX-110), a vaccine targeting the EGFR deletion mutation EGFRvIII, consists of an EGFRvIII-specific peptide conjugated to keyhole limpet haemocyanin. In the ACT IV study, we aimed to assess whether or not the addition of rindopepimut to standard chemotherapy is able to improve survival in patients with EGFRvIII-positive glioblastoma. Methods In this randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with glioblastoma from 165 hospitals in 22 countries. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed glioblastoma confirmed to express EGFRvIII by central analysis, and had undergone maximal surgical resection and completion of standard chemoradiation without progression. Patients were stratified by European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer recursive partitioning analysis class, MGMT promoter methylation, and geographical region, and randomly assigned (1:1) with a prespecified randomisation sequence (block size of four) to receive rindopepimut (500 μg admixed with 150 μg GM-CSF) or control (100 μg keyhole limpet haemocyanin) via monthly intradermal injection until progression or intolerance, concurrent with standard oral temozolomide (150–200 mg/m 2 for 5 of 28 days) for 6–12 cycles or longer. Patients, investigators, and the trial funder were masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was overall survival in patients with minimal residual disease (MRD; enhancing tumour 2 post-chemoradiation by central review), analysed by modified intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01480479. Findings Between April 12, 2012, and Dec 15, 2014, 745 patients were enrolled (405 with MRD, 338 with significant residual disease [SRD], and two unevaluable) and randomly assigned to rindopepimut and temozolomide (n=371) or control and temozolomide (n=374). The study was terminated for futility after a preplanned interim analysis. At final analysis, there was no significant difference in overall survival for patients with MRD: median overall survival was 20·1 months (95% CI 18·5–22·1) in the rindopepimut group versus 20·0 months (18·1–21·9) in the control group (HR 1·01, 95% CI 0·79–1·30; p=0·93). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events for all 369 treated patients in the rindopepimut group versus 372 treated patients in the control group were: thrombocytopenia (32 [9%] vs 23 [6%]), fatigue (six [2%] vs 19 [5%]), brain oedema (eight [2%] vs 11 [3%]), seizure (nine [2%] vs eight [2%]), and headache (six [2%] vs ten [3%]). Serious adverse events included seizure (18 [5%] vs 22 [6%]) and brain oedema (seven [2%] vs 12 [3%]). 16 deaths in the study were caused by adverse events (nine [4%] in the rindopepimut group and seven [3%] in the control group), of which one—a pulmonary embolism in a 64-year-old male patient after 11 months of treatment—was assessed as potentially related to rindopepimut. Interpretation Rindopepimut did not increase survival in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Combination approaches potentially including rindopepimut might be required to show efficacy of immunotherapy in glioblastoma. Funding Celldex Therapeutics, Inc.

Breast cancer (BC) diagnosis in young adults (YA) is rising, and both disease and treatments are aggressive in this population. Evidence supports the use of physical activity in reducing shoulder dysfunction, which is common among BC survivors. A pilot randomized clinical trial was performed to determine the effectiveness of a 12-week post-radiation exercise program in minimizing upper extremity dysfunction in YA with BC. Participants were randomized to either an exercise arm or a control arm receiving standard care. Data was collected over six time points using: the Disability of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH); the Metabolic Equivalent of Task-hours per week (MET-hours/week), and a post hoc questionnaire on return to work. In total, 59 young women participated in the study (n = 29 exercise; n = 30 control). No statistically significant differences were found in overall DASH results between groups; however, those who underwent total mastectomy had residual upper limb dysfunction (p

Background Standard therapy for newly diagnosed glioblastoma is radiotherapy plus temozolomide. In this phase 3 study, we evaluated the effect of the addition of bevacizumab to radiotherapy–temozolomide for the treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Methods We randomly assigned patients with supratentorial glioblastoma to receive intravenous bevacizumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks) or placebo, plus radiotherapy (2 Gy 5 days a week; maximum, 60 Gy) and oral temozolomide (75 mg per square meter of body-surface area per day) for 6 weeks. After a 28-day treatment break, maintenance bevacizumab (10 mg per kilogram intravenously every 2 weeks) or placebo, plus temozolomide (150 to 200 mg per square meter per day for 5 days), was continued for six 4-week cycles, followed by bevacizumab monotherapy (15 mg per kilogram intravenously every 3 weeks) or placebo until the disease progressed or unacceptable toxic effects developed. The coprimary end points were investigator-assessed progression-free survival and overall survival. Results A total of 458 patients were assigned to the bevacizumab group, and 463 patients to the placebo group. The median progression-free survival was longer in the bevacizumab group than in the placebo group (10.6 months vs. 6.2 months; stratified hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 0.74; P

Importance Previous communication has reported significant improvement in overall survival (OS) when using doxorubicin plus sorafenib in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular cancer (HCC). Objective To determine if doxorubicin added to sorafenib therapy improves OS, with stratification for locally advanced and metastatic disease. Design, Setting, and Participants This unblinded randomized phase 3 clinical trial was led by Alliance in collaboration with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group–American College of Radiology Imaging Network, Canadian Cancer Trials Group, and Southwest Oncology Group. It was launched in February 2010 and completed in May 2015; data were also analyzed during this time frame. Patients with histologically proven advanced HCC, no prior systemic therapy, Child-Pugh grade A score, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 to 2 (later amended to 0-1), and adequate hematologic, hepatic, renal, and cardiac function were eligible. The OS primary end point had a final analysis planned with 364 events observed among 480 total patients with 90% power to detect a 37% increase in median OS. Interventions or Exposures Patients received either 60 mg/m2of doxorubicin every 21 days plus 400 mg of sorafenib orally twice daily or the sorafenib alone, adjusted to half doses for patients with bilirubin levels of 1.3 to 3.0 mg/dL. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was OS, and progression-free survival (PFS) was a secondary end point. Results Of 356 patients included in the study, the mean (SD) age was 62 (10.1) years, and 306 (86.0%) were men. Although it was planned to include 480 patients, the study was halted after accrual of 356 patients (180 patients treated with doxorubicin plus sorafenib and 176 with sorafenib alone) with a futility boundary crossed at a planned interim analysis. Median OS was 9.3 months (95% CI, 7.3-10.8 months) in the doxorubicin plus sorafenib arm and 9.4 months (95% CI, 7.3-12.9 months) in the sorafenib alone arm (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83-1.31). The median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.4-4.9 months) in the doxorubicin plus sorafenib arm and 3.7 months (95% CI, 2.9-4.5 months) in the sorafenib alone arm (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.75-1.16). Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia and thrombocytopenia adverse events occurred in 61 (36.8%) and 29 (17.5%) patients, respectively, being treated with doxorubicin plus sorafenib vs 1 (0.6%) and 4 (2.4%) patients treated with sorafenib. Conclusions and Relevance This multigroup study of the addition of doxorubicin to sorafenib therapy did not show improvement of OS or PFS in patients with HCC. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT01015833

Background FOLFIRINOX (FFX) and Gemcitabine with nab-Paclitaxel (GN) are both proven to be superior to Gemcitabine in first line treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer (APC). However, there has been no phase 3 randomized controlled trials to prove FFX is superior to GN in APC. This population-based cohort study was conducted to compare efficacy and safety profiles of the two standard regimens in APC. Methods In this retrospective cohort study, we evaluated all newly diagnosed patients (pts) with APC who received either FFX or GN as first line therapy during 2010-2018 at three Canadian institutions. The primary objective was to assess survival. Secondary objective was to compare safety profile of the two regimens. Kaplan Meier method and log-rank test were used for survival curves. Results There were 231 eligible pts identified: 143 received FFX and 88 received GN. FFX pts were slightly younger than GN (median age: 62 (IQR: 56-67) vs 66 (IQR: 58-73) respectively). There were predominantly more males: FFX 89 (62.2%) vs GN 46 (52.3%). WHO performance status (PS) of 0 were 38 (28.4%) vs 14 (16.5%) and 1 were 90 (67.2%) vs 65 (76.5%) respectively. The median progression-free survival (PFS) of FFX was 5.5 months (mts) (95% CI: 5.0-6.7) vs 5.1 mts (95% CI: 3.8-7.1) with GN (p = 0.37). The median overall survival (OS) with FFX was 9.3 mts (95% CI: 7.5 – 11.1) vs. 10.2 mts (95% CI: 6.8-11.3) with GN (p = 0.81). On multivariate analysis chemotherapy regimen was not correlated with PFS or OS. There were more grade 3-4 toxicity in FFX vs GN group: diarrhea – 22 (15.4%) vs 3 (3.4%) (p = 0.004), nausea – 20 (14%) vs 6 (6.8%), vomiting – 13 (9.1%) vs 6 (6.8%), peripheral sensory neuropathy (PSN) – 8 (5.6%) vs 3 (3.4%), thrombocytopenia – 28 (19.6%) vs 5 (5.7%) (p = 0.003) respectively. Gr 3-4 neutropenia rates were similar in both regimens: 23 (16%) in FFX vs 15 (17%) in GN. Conclusions Our results revealed that FFX or GN had comparable survival and safety profiles. Given lower Gr 3-4 toxicity profile of GN regimen, GN is likely preferable choice for majority of pts. FFX could be reserved for young high performance pts. Legal entity responsible for the study Segal Cancer Centre Jewish General Hospital. Funding Has not received any funding. Disclosure All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

3512 Background: Targeting both PD-L1 and CTLA-4 may be synergistic immunotherapy approaches. CO.26 evaluated if dual inhibition leads to improved pt survival vs BSC alone in rmCRC. Methods: rmCRC pts were randomized 2:1 to D+T vs BSC. Treatment consisted of D (1500 mg) D1 q 28 days and T (75 mg) D1 for first 4 cycles, and supportive measures. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). Two-sided p < 0.10 was considered statistically significant. Cell-free (cf)DNA sequencing for MSI and TMB used GuardantOMNI panel and baseline plasma. Results: From 08/2016-06/2017, 180 pts were enrolled. Pt characteristics were balanced between arms. At median follow-up of 15.2 months (mos), median OS was 6.6 mos for D+T and 4.1 mos for BSC (p = 0.07; Hazard ratio (HR): 0.72, 90% confidence interval (CI): 0.54 – 0.97). Progression free survival (PFS) was 1.8 mos vs 1.9 mos, respectively (HR 1.01, 90% CI 0.76 – 1.34). Disease control rate (DCR) was 22.6% for D+T and 6.6% for BSC (p = 0.006). cfDNA analysis was successful in 168/169 pts (99.4%). Two pts were MSI-high. In 166 MSS pts, OS HR was 0.66 (p=0.024; 90% CI 0.49-0.89). Excluding the MSI-H cases (TMB of 74.7 and 247.1 mts/Mb), mean TMB was 20.4 ± 16.3 mts/Mb (range: 0.96 – 114.0). In MSS pts, a pre-specified cutpoint of 20 mts/Mb stratified pts into high and low TMB groups but was not predictive for OS , PFS, or DCR (interaction p-values > 0.7). Using a minimum p-value approach, pts with TMB >28 mts/Mb (21% of MSS pts) had the greatest OS benefit (HR 0.34, 90% CI 0.18-0.63) for D+T (interaction p = 0.07). High TMB was associated with a trend in worse prognosis for OS in the BSC arm using both 20 mts/Mb (HR 1.26, 90% CI 0.76-2.12) and 28 mts/Mb (HR 2.59 90% CI 1.46-4.62) cutpoints. Conclusions: D+T significantly prolonged OS in pts with rmCRC. High TMB may select a group of MSS pts who benefit from D+T. Plasma TMB appeared prognostic in the BSC arm. This is the first study showing combined PD-L1 and CTLA-4 inhibition prolongs survival in pts with MSS rmCRC. Updated results based on deaths in more than 90% of pts will be presented. Clinical trial information: NCT02870920.

481 Background: D is a human monoclonal antibody (mAb) that inhibits binding of programmed cell death ligand 1 (PD-L1) to its receptor. T is a mAb against the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4). Targeting both PD-L1 and CTLA-4 may have additive/synergistic activity as the mechanisms of action of CTLA-4 and PD-L1 inhibition are non-redundant. This study evaluated whether combining PD-L1 and CTLA-4 inhibition would lead to improved pt survival vs BSC alone in rCRC. Methods: Pts with rCRC were randomized 2:1 to D+T vs BSC . Pts were eligible if they failed all standard regimens; containing a fluoropyrimidine, irinotecan and oxaliplatin (and an EGFR inhibitor if Ras wild type). Prior treatment (Tx) with anti-VEGF agents or TAS-102 was permitted but not mandatory. Tx consisted of D (1500 mg) D1 q 28 days and T (75 mg) D1 for first 4 cycles, and all appropriate supportive measures. Primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and a two-sided p-value < 0.10 was considered statistically significant. Results: Between August 2016 and June 2017, 180 pts were enrolled and 179 treated as randomized. Pt baseline characteristics were balanced. 85% of pts received ≥ 90% of planned doses of D and T. No pts with known defective mismatch repair (dMMR) tumors were enrolled. With a median (med) follow-up of 15.2 months (mo), the med OS was 6.6 mo for D+T and 4.1 mo for BSC (p = 0.07; Hazard ratio (HR): 0.72, 90% confidence interval (CI): 0.54–0.97). Med progression free survival was 1.8 mo and 1.9 mo respectively (HR 1.01, 90% CI 0.76–1.34; p=0.97). Disease control rate was 22.7% for D+T and 6.6% for BSC (p = 0.006). Grade 3/4 abdominal pain, fatigue, lymphocytosis and eosinophilia were significantly higher in D+T. At 16 weeks, there was significantly less deterioration on EORTC QLQ-C30 physical function for D+T. Confirmation of MMR status is ongoing. Conclusions: D+T significantly prolonged OS in pts with rCRC and preserved quality of life. Adverse events were more frequent with D+T. This is the first study showing that combined PD-L1 and CTLA-4 inhibition prolongs survival in pts with advanced refractory CRC not selected for dMMR. Clinical trial information: NCT02870920.

400 Background: Since 2011, options for treatment of metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC) have improved with the use of nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (n-PGEM) or FOLFIRINOX (FFX) as first line treatments (1LTx). In 2016, Nanoliposomal irinotecan plus 5FU (nal-IRI-5FU) demonstrated efficacy in 2LTx. Yet, optimal sequential Tx has not been established. Methods: We evaluated oncologist-selected Tx algorithms and resultant progression free & overall survival (PFS, OS) for pts with mPC from 2010 and 2018 at the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC. This retrospective study included 203 pts with mPC (33 to 89 years, 54% male). Results: 1LTx included 66 pts on FFX, 60 pts on n-PGEM, and 66 pts on single-agent GEM. The remaining pts received Capecitabine (CAP) or another Tx (N = 11). Mean PFS in FFX, n-PGEM, and GEM groups was 5.07, 5.52, and 4.10 months, respectively (progression was 1˚ or 2˚ disease progression or a change of Tx due to adverse events or intolerance). Only the FFX and GEM groups were significant when compared (p = 0.049). Only 43.8% of pts (N = 89/203) advanced to 2LTx most receiving GEM (N = 27), n-PGEM (N = 21), or FFX (N = 11), PFS 3.87, 7.04, and 2.30 months, respectively. FFX and n-PGEM groups were significant when compared (p=0.011). CAP and nal-IRI-5FU were 2LTx options for 25.8% (N=23/89) and 7.9% (N = 7/89) of pts, respectively. For 30 pts in 3LTx, Txs included: nal-IRI-5FU (N = 8), clinical trials (CT) (N = 7), GEM (N = 5), FFX (N = 4), n-PGEM (N = 2), CAP (N = 2) and Irinotecan (IRI) (N = 2). Only 7 pts received 4LTx: GEM (N = 3), CAP (N = 2), CT (N = 1), and IRI (N = 1). Median OS from start of 1LTx for pts in FFX (N = 60), n-PGEM (N = 41), and GEM (N = 60) groups was 11.42, 9.50, and 6.23 months, respectively. (Excluding pts on ongoing tx and other censored data points). GEM tx was a significant prognostic factor for shorter OS, GEM verus FFX, HR 1.673 (1.165 to 2.402, p = 0.0053), GEM versus n-PGEM, HR 1.511 (1.012 to 2.258, p = 0.0437). No difference in survival was seen between FFX and n-PGEM groups, HR 0.903 (95% CI 0.605-1.349, p = 0.6196). Conclusions: Though FFX and n-PGEM are considered mainstays of 1LTx, GEM was chosen by physicians in ~1/3 of cases despite reduced PFS. Pts on FFX or n-PGEM had better OS compared to GEM alone, as expected. Further investigation into Tx sequencing in this and larger cohorts, is needed.

Great advances in analytical technology coupled with accelerated new drug development and growing understanding of biological challenges, such as tumor heterogeneity, have required a change in the focus for biobanking. Most current banks contain samples of primary tumors, but linking molecular signatures to therapeutic questions requires serial biopsies in the setting of metastatic disease, next-generation of biobanking. Furthermore, an integration of multidimensional analysis of various molecular components, that is, RNA, DNA, methylome, microRNAome and post-translational modifications of the proteome, is necessary for a comprehensive view of a tumor's biology. While data using such biopsies are now regularly presented, the preanalytical variables in tissue procurement and processing in multicenter studies are seldom detailed and therefore are difficult to duplicate or standardize across sites and across studies. In the context of a biopsy-driven clinical trial, we generated a detailed protocol that includes morphological evaluation and isolation of high-quality nucleic acids from small needle core biopsies obtained from liver metastases. The protocol supports stable shipping of samples to a central laboratory, where biopsies are subsequently embedded in support media. Designated pathologists must evaluate all biopsies for tumor content and macrodissection can be performed if necessary to meet our criteria of >60% neoplastic cells and

BACKGROUND Irinotecan is cytotoxic in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). SN-38 (10-hydroxy-7-ethyl-camptothecin) is the active metabolite of irinotecan. Attachment of polyethylene glycol (PEG) polymer chains (pegylation) to SN-38 (EZN-2208) increases the solubility, exposure, and half-life of SN-38. Preclinical studies demonstrated superior in vitro efficacy of EZN-2208 when it was tested in irinotecan-refractory human CRC cell lines. METHODS Patients with metastatic or locally recurrent CRC who had previously received 5-flurouracil (5-FU), oxaliplatin, and irinotecan were assigned to receive EZN-2208 monotherapy (9 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days for patients with KRAS-mutant tumors only [arm A]), and patients with KRAS wild-type tumors were randomized (2:1) to receive either EZN-2208 plus cetuximab (400 mg/m2 loading dose on day 1 followed by 250 mg/m2 weekly starting on day 8 [arm B]) or irinotecan 125 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 every 21 days plus cetuximab at the same doses indicated above (arm C). RESULTS The overall response rate and progression-free survival were 0% and 1.8 months, respectively, in arm A; 10.7% and 4.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2-5.8 months), respectively, in arm B; and 14.3% and 3.7 months (95% CI, 2.1-5.8 months), respectively, in arm C. EZN-2208 was well tolerated in combination with cetuximab. No statistically significant difference in survival was observed between arm B (9.8 months; 95% CI, 7.2-11.2 months) and arm C (9.1 months; 95% CI, 6.0-13.0 months). CONCLUSIONS EZN-2208, either as monotherapy or in combination with cetuximab, was well tolerated in patients with refractory CRC. Overall survival and progression-free survival were similar in the cetuximab plus irinotecan arm and the EZN-2208 arm. Cancer 2013;119:4223–4230. © 2013 American Cancer Society.

Background:Bevacizumab, a humanized recombinant anti-vascular endothelial growth factor antibody, was approved in Canada in 2010 for the treatment of high-grade glioma. We report the effectiveness and safety of bevacizumab in the treatment of patients with recurrent high-grade gliomas at a single institution.Methods:Twenty-seven consecutive patients with high-grade glioma (anaplastic glioma and glioblastoma) at first or subsequent relapse were treated with bevacizumab alone or in combination with chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary endpoints were objective response rate, six month PFS, overall survival (OS), and safety profile.Results:The clinical benefit rate (complete and partial responses plus stable disease) was 59%. Median PFS was 4.3 (95% CI, 3.0-10.9) months, with a six month PFS rate of 43%. Median OS after current relapse was 8.9 (95% CI, 5.8-not reached) months. Ten episodes of grade 3/4 adverse events were observed in nine patients, including fatigue (n = 3), thrombocytopenia (n = 4), and myelotoxicity, febrile neutropenia, and pulmonary embolism (each n = 1).Conclusions:We consider the efficacy and safety profile of bevacizumab is comparable to other cohorts of patients treated for recurrent high-grade glioma at other international institutions.

The use of bevacizumab in the management of glioblastoma multiforme (gbm) remains controversial. In Canada, bevacizumab is approved for the treatment of recurrent gbm. We describe a pattern of progression across treatment lines in gbm. During 2008&ndash, 2014, 64 patients diagnosed with gbm were treated with bevacizumab at McGill University hospitals. Of those patients, 30 (46.9%) received bevacizumab in the first line (B1L), and 34 (53.1%) received it in the second line and beyond (B2L+). The average length of treatment with bevacizumab was 24.4 weeks (range: 0&ndash, 232.7 weeks). The patterns of progression were categorized as local, distant, diffuse, multifocal, or multi-pattern. Local progression was seen in 46.7% of B1L patients and 26.5% of B2L+ patients, distant in 3.3% and 2.9%, diffuse in 20% and 47%, multifocal in 10% and 8.8%, and multi-pattern in 3.3% and 11.8%. No differences between the groups were observed for the distant (p = 0.3) or diffuse (p = 0.4) patterns. Grades 3 and 4 adverse events in the B1L and B2L+ groups were fatigue (33.3% vs. 17.6% respectively), hypertension (26.7% vs. 5.9%), thrombocytopenia (26.7% vs. 11.8%), neutropenia (26.7% vs. 11.8%), anemia (23.3% vs. 11.8%), leucopenia (20% vs. 8.8%), deep vein thrombosis (23.3% vs. 5.9%), seizure (16.7% vs. 8.8%), brain hemorrhage (6.7% vs.

Background Compared with the general population, the incidence of young-onset (YO) colorectal cancer (CRC) is increasing. However, a significant knowledge gap exists in the clinical characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes for these patients. Materials and Methods Six international tertiary cancer centers conducted a retrospective study. Patients with YO CRC (aged 18-44 years) and LO CRC (aged > 44 years) diagnosed with histologically proven colorectal adenocarcinoma from June 2003 to June 2014 were enrolled. Patients were randomly chosen from each center's database, and the patient demographics and treatment information were collected. The data were then centralized, and the final analysis was performed at a single institution. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the crude and adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for progression-free survival and mortality, and YO was compared with LO. Site-specific HRs were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Results Overall, 498 patients, including 224 with YO (129 men; mean age, 37 ± 5.5 years) and 274 with LO (167 men; mean age, 64.8 ± 9.5 years) CRC, were included. At the diagnosis, 137 patients (61.2%) and 122 patients (44.5%) with YO and LO CRC had metastatic disease, respectively. For both cohorts, the 3 most common presenting symptoms were pain, hematochezia, and weight loss. Surgery was performed in 141 YO (63.0%) and 219 LO (79.9%) patients. The longitudinal noncurative treatment patterns were similar, but more biologic therapy was used for these YO patients. The pooled progression-free survival analysis results for first-line noncurative treatment favored LO (HR, 1.96; 95% CI, 1.04-3.68). The mortality analysis showed no significant differences between the 2 groups (YO: HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.91-2.58). Conclusion Despite similar treatment patterns and survival outcomes, YO disease might be clinically more aggressive.

The annual Eastern Canadian Colorectal Cancer Consensus Conference held in Montreal, Quebec, 17&ndash, 19 October 2013, marked the 10-year anniversary of this meeting that is attended by leaders in medical, radiation, and surgical oncology. The goal of the attendees is to improve the care of patients affected by gastrointestinal malignancies. Topics discussed during the conference included pancreatic cancer, rectal cancer, and metastatic colorectal cancer.

Purpose Ganitumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody against type-1 insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF1R). An open-label phase II study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ganitumab monotherapy in patients with metastatic Ewing family tumors (EFT) or desmoplastic small round cell tumors (DSRCT). Patients and Methods Patients ≥16 years of age with relapsed or refractory EFT or DSRCT received 12 mg/kg of ganitumab every 2 weeks. Objective response rate (ORR) was the primary end point. Secondary end points included clinical benefit rate (CBR = complete + partial responses + stable disease [SD] ≥ 24 weeks) and safety and pharmacokinetic profiles of ganitumab. The relationship between tumor response and EWS gene translocation status and IGF-1 levels was evaluated. Results Thirty-eight patients (22 with EFT; 16 with DSRCT) received one or more doses of ganitumab. Twenty-four patients (63%) experienced ganitumab-related adverse events. Grade 3 related events included hyperglycemia (n = 2), thrombocytopenia (n = 5), neutropenia (n = 2), leukopenia (n = 1), and transient ischemic attack (n = 1). There were no grade 4 or 5 treatment-related events. Of 35 patients assessed for response, two had partial responses (ORR, 6%) and 17 (49%) had SD. Four patients had SD ≥ 24 weeks, contributing to a CBR of 17%. The pharmacokinetic profile of ganitumab was similar to that observed in the first-in-human trial. Elevation of IGF-1 levels was observed postdose. EWS-Fli1 translocations were analyzed by RNA sequencing and fluorescent in situ hybridization, and novel translocations were observed in EFT and DSCRT. No apparent relationship between tumor response and IGF-1 levels or EWS gene translocations was observed. Conclusion Ganitumab was well tolerated and demonstrated antitumor activity in patients with advanced recurrent EFT or DSRCT.

Purpose This phase I trial was designed to determine the recommended phase II dose(s) of everolimus (RAD001) with temozolomide (TMZ) in patients with glioblastoma (GBM). Patients receiving enzyme-inducing antiepileptic drugs (EIAEDs) and those not receiving EIAEDs (NEIAEDs) were studied separately. Patients and Methods Enrollment was restricted to patients with proven GBM, either newly diagnosed or at first progression. Temozolomide was administered at a starting dose of 150 mg/m2/day for 5 days every 28 days, and everolimus was administered continuously at a starting dose of 2.5 mg orally on a daily schedule starting on day 2 of cycle 1 in 28-day cycles. Results Thirteen patients receiving EIAEDs and 19 not receiving EIAEDs were enrolled and received 83 and 116 cycles respectively. Everolimus 10 mg daily plus TMZ 150 mg/m2/day for 5 days was declared the recommended phase II dose for the NEIAEDs cohort. In the EIAEDs group, doses were well tolerated without DLTs, and pharmacokinetic parameters indicated decreased everolimus exposure. Temozolomide pharmacokinetic parameters were unaffected by EIAEDs or everolimus. In the subset of 28 patients with measurable disease, 3 had partial responses (all NEIAEDs) and 16 had stable disease. Conclusion A dosage of 10 mg everolimus daily with TMZ 150 mg/m2/day for five consecutive days every 28 days in patients is the recommended dose for this regimen. Everolimus clearance is increased by EIAEDs, and patients receiving EIAEDs should be switched to NEIAEDs before starting this regimen.

Introduction: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer related deaths primarily due to its resistance to current treatments. Studies aiming at understanding mechanisms of resistance have largely investigated the genomic landscape of primary tumors at diagnosis. However, selective pressures during therapy can lead to the expansion of resistant clones and tumor heterogeneity. This highlights the need to characterize the molecular changes of metastasis over time of treatment and response to decipher tumor evolution and therapeutic resistance mechanisms. Methods: Metastatic liver tissue samples were collected at baseline (pre-biopsies) and at the time of resistance (post-biopsies) in responder and non-responder CRC patients undergoing the same first-line treatment. Paired pre/post biopsies were collected from 14 patients including 4 patients with multiple post-biopsies to assess temporal and spatio-temporal tumor heterogeneity following treatment exposure. Biopsies were profiled using exome and transcriptome sequencing as well as high-density Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP) array analysis to capture chromosomal anomalies, loss of heterozygosity and copy number (CN) variations. Results: Profiling of 45 samples with both high-density SNP array and exome sequencing revealed 97.4% similarity between both technologies in the identification of genes targeted by copy number changes. Using chemo-naïve biopsies, we identified 120 CN gains and 47 CN loss that were significantly associated with patient progression free survival. Integrative analysis with transcriptome data revealed that only 10% of the genomic CN gains and 17% of the CN loss correlated with their gene expression levels. Based on CN variants comparison between paired pre/post treatment samples, we found high temporal intra-patient heterogeneity over time of treatment. Interestingly, we observed a relationship between heterogeneity and tumor response; showing that acquired resistant tumors have the highest temporal variations. Conclusion: This study, using a multi-omic approach to profile serial liver metastatic samples in CRC patients, highlights the genomic changes in tumor composition after treatment exposure and constitutes an innovative approach to identify clinical biomarkers and molecular signatures of resistance. Citation Format: Mathilde Couetoux du Tertre, Maud Marques, Karen Gambaro, Michael Witcher, Benoit Samson, Bernard Lespérance, Yoo-Joung Ko, Richard Dalfen, Eve St-Hilaire, Lucas Sidéris, Félix Couture, Sabine Tejpar, Ronald Burkes, Mohammed Harb, Errol Camlioglu, Adrian Gologan, Vincent Pelsser, André Constantin, Suzan McNamara, Petr Kavan, Claudia Kleinman, Gerald Batist. Genomic profiling in serial metastatic colorectal tumors identifies copy number alterations and spatio temporal intra-patient heterogeneity profiles associated with clinical response. Q-CROC-01: NCT00984048 [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2018; 2018 Apr 14-18; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(13 Suppl):Abstract nr LB-231.

3514Background: Pembrolizumab is approved for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients (pts) with previously treated MSI-H cancer regardless of tumor type or site. This approval was based in p...

e15568Background: Mortality related to colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely due to regional metastasis to portal/mesenteric lymph nodes and peritoneum as well as distant metastasis to vital organs su...

TPS3622Background: According to the IDEA trial (Shi Q et al. ASCO 2017;LBA1), 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy should remain the standard in stage III T4 or N2 colon cancer. The relatively poor surviv...