Search

Purpose: KRASG12D mutation (mut) occurs in about 10%-12% of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Recently, novel KRASG12D inhibitors have been developed and are currently under investigation in phase I/II clinical trials in solid tumors including mCRC. We aimed at performing a comprehensive characterization of clinical, molecular, immunologic, and prognostic features of KRASG12D-mutated mCRC to inform the design and the interpretation of future trials., Methods: We performed a pooled analysis of phase III TRIBE and TRIBE2 studies comparing 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFOXIRI)/bevacizumab (bev) to doublets (5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin or 5-fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan)/bev., Results: One hundred and thirty-six (16%) of 854 patients with available KRASG12D mutational status were KRASG12D mutated. KRASG12D-mutated patients had more frequently right-sided primary tumor and were less likely to present liver-only metastases with respect to other RAS mutated and all-wild-type (wt) patients. Compared with the BRAFV600E-mutated group, KRASG12D-mutated patients had more frequently left-sided primary tumor, resected primary tumor at the time of diagnosis, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0. KRASG12D-mutated patients had better prognosis than BRAFV600E-mutated and worse prognosis than all wt patients. No prognostic difference was evident between KRASG12D mut and other RAS mut patients overall or according to other specific KRAS or NRAS hotspot mutations. No interaction effect was observed between KRASG12D mut and the benefit provided by FOLFOXIRI/bev compared with doublets/bev. PIK3CA mut were reported more frequently among KRASG12D-mutated tumors compared with both other RAS mut and all wt., Conclusion: A detail estimation of KRASG12D mut mCRC patients' characteristics and expected outcomes may be useful when planning future studies in this subgroup. The high prevalence of PI3K/PTEN/Akt pathway activating alterations may affect the efficacy of targeted strategies.

Background/Objectives: Despite the increased incidence of esophageal cancer (EC) in elderly people, there are no clear guidelines for its treatment in these patients. The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of patients ≥ 75 years with resectable EC, receiving either upfront esophagectomy or neoadjuvant treatment. Methods : We retrospectively identified 127 patients with resectable EC ≥ 75 years who underwent esophagectomy between January 2000 and December 2022 at our Clinic in the University Hospital of Padova. The included patients were stratified into two groups: patients undergoing upfront esophagectomy (SURG group) and patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment (NAT group). Results : There were no statistically significant differences in OS ( p = 0.7708), DFS ( p = 0.7827) and cancer-related survival ( p = 0.0827) between the SURG and the NAT group, except for the OS of EAC with stage III-IV, where the NAT group experienced a significant benefit in OS ( p = 0.0263). When comparing the two groups, patients receiving neoadjuvant treatment experienced a significantly higher rate of postoperative complications ( p = 0.0266). At univariate analysis, neoadjuvant therapy was the only variable strongly associated with postoperative morbidity ( p = 0.026). Conclusions: Considering the unique characteristics of elderly patients, the choice of a multimodal approach should be tailored to each case in a multidisciplinary setting and balanced with a potential higher risk of postoperative complications, as well as potential toxicity related to chemoradiation and reduced life expectancy.

Purpose: Patient outcomes may differ from randomized trial averages. We aimed to predict benefit from FOLFOXIRI versus infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan (FOLFOX/FOLFIRI), both plus bevacizumab, in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)., Methods: A Cox model with prespecified clinical, molecular, and laboratory variables was developed in 639 patients from the TRIBE2 trial for predicting 2-year mortality. Data from the CHARTA (n = 232), TRIBE1 (n = 504), and CAIRO5 (liver-only mCRC, n = 287) trials were used for external validation and heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) analysis. This involves categorizing patients into risk groups and assessing treatment effects across these groups. Performance was assessed by the C-index and calibration plots. The C-for-benefit was calculated to assess evidence for HTE. The c-for-benefit is specifically designed for HTE analysis. Like the commonly known c-statistic, it summarizes the discrimination of a model. Values over 0.5 indicate evidence for HTE., Results: In TRIBE2, the overoptimism-corrected C-index was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.69). At external validation, the C-index was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.75), 0.68 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.72), and 0.65 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.66), in CHARTA, TRIBE1, and CAIRO5, respectively. Calibration plots indicated slight underestimation of mortality. The c-for-benefit indicated evidence for HTE in CHARTA (0.56, 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.65), but not in TRIBE1 (0.49, 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.55) and CAIRO5 (0.40, 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.48)., Conclusion: Although 2-year mortality could be reasonably estimated, the HTE analysis showed that clinically available variables did not reliably identify which patients with mCRC benefit from FOLFOXIRI versus FOLFOX/FOLFIRI, both plus bevacizumab, across the three studies.

Background: Veneto Institute of Oncology has activated a simultaneous care outpatient clinic (SCOC) in which cancer patients with advanced-stage cancer are evaluated by oncologist and palliative care specialists. This cross-sectional study investigated patients' perceptions of the quality of this service., Materials and Methods: An ad-hoc self-administered questionnaire, developed by SCOC team, was used to assess the satisfaction of patients admitted at SCOC consultation. The questionnaire, in addition to the socio-demographic questions, contains eight questions with the Likert scale: time dedicated, feel listened to, feel understood, feel free to speak openly and to express doubts and concerns, feeling about information and indication received, level of empathy of health care and quality of the relationship, level of professional/quality of performance and utility of consultation, and one open-ended question. The questionnaire has been proposed to all 174 consecutively admitted patients at SCOC., Results: One hundred and sixty-two patients filled in the questionnaire: 66.7% were male, median age was 71 years, 88.3% had metastatic disease. The time dedicated to SCOC consultation was judged more than adequate (55%) or adequate (35%) by 90% of subjects. Patients completely satisfied about being listened to were 92.5%, with 80.9% being completely satisfied with understanding of their issues and 92% with the freedom to speak and express doubts. Usefulness of the SCOC was rated as excellent by 40% and good by 54.4% of patients. No statistically significant differences were observed in the responses to the questions by gender, age (< or ≥70 years old) and type of tumor., Conclusion: Our study shows high levels of satisfactions after SCOC consultation in advanced cancer subjects. Patients' feedback confirmed that SCOC model was effective in helping them during their treatment journey and decision at the end of life. This study encouraged us to enhance our practice of SCOC consultation., Implications for Practice: A joint evaluation of patients living with cancer by oncologist and palliative care team (SCOC-embedded model), has shown to enhance patients' experience/satisfaction with care-such as listening, understanding, receiving information, symptom control, and decision about future, independently of age, gender, and kind of tumor., (© 2024 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Reliability of mismatch repair proteins and microsatellite instability assessment is essential in order to define treatment strategy and identify candidates to immune checkpoint inhibitors in locally advanced gastroesophageal carcinoma. We evaluated the concordance of deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) and microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) status between endoscopic biopsies and surgical specimens., Methods: Consecutive patients with resectable gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma classified as MSI-H/dMMR by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or immunohistochemistry (IHC) and operated at three referral Institutions were included. The primary endpoint was the rate of concordance between biopsy and surgical samples. If needed, central revision by IHC/PCR was performed by specialized pathologists from coordinating Institutions., Results: Thirteen (19.7%) out of 66 patients showed discordant MSI-H/dMMR results in the original pathology reports. In most cases (11, 16.7%) this was due to the diagnosis of proficient mismatch repair status on biopsies. Among the ten cases available for central review, four were due to sample issues, four were reclassified as dMMR, one case showed dMMR status but was classified as microsatellite stable by PCR, one was linked to misdiagnosis of endoscopic biopsy by the local pathologist. Heterogeneity of mismatch repair proteins staining was observed in two cases., Conclusions: Available methods can lead to conflicting results in MSI-H/dMMR evaluation between endoscopic biopsies and surgical samples of gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Strategies aiming to improve the reliability of assessment should be primarily focused on the optimization of tissue collection and management during endoscopy and adequate training of dedicated gastrointestinal pathologists within the multidisciplinary team., (© 2023. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to The International Gastric Cancer Association and The Japanese Gastric Cancer Association.)

Purpose: AtezoTRIBE phase II randomized study demonstrated that adding atezolizumab to first-line FOLFOXIRI (5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, irinotecan) plus bevacizumab prolongs progression-free survival (PFS) of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), with a modest benefit among proficient mismatch repair (pMMR). DetermaIO is an immune-related 27-gene expression signature able to predict benefit from immune checkpoint inhibition in triple-negative breast cancer. In this analysis of AtezoTRIBE, we investigated the predictive impact of DetermaIO in mCRC., Experimental Design: Patients with mCRC unselected for MMR status were randomly assigned (1:2) to FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (control arm) or the same regimen with atezolizumab (atezolizumab arm). qRT-PCR by DetermaIO was performed on RNA purified from pretreatment tumors of 132 (61%) of 218 enrolled patients. A binary result (IOpos vs. IOneg) adopting the preestablished DetermaIO cut-off point (0.09) was obtained, and an exploratory optimized cut-off point (IOOPT) was computed in the overall population and in pMMR subgroup (IOOPTpos vs. IOOPTneg)., Results: DetermaIO was successfully determined in 122 (92%) cases, and 23 (27%) tumors were IOpos. IOpos tumors achieved higher PFS benefit from atezolizumab arm than IOneg (HR: 0.39 vs. 0.83; Pinteraction = 0.066). In pMMR tumors (N = 110), a similar trend was observed (HR: 0.47 vs. 0.93; Pinteraction = 0.139). In the overall population, with the computed IOOPT cut-off point (0.277), 16 (13%) tumors were IOOPTpos and they derived higher PFS benefit from atezolizumab than IOOPTneg (HR: 0.10 vs. 0.85, Pinteraction = 0.004). Similar results were found in the pMMR subgroup., Conclusions: DetermaIO may be useful to predict benefit of adding atezolizumab to first-line FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab in mCRC. The exploratory IOOPT cut-off point should be validated in independent mCRC cohorts., (©2023 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma is a challenging disease due to its poor prognosis and the presence of few therapeutic options. For these reasons, it is mandatory to identify the subgroup of patients who are at high risk for relapse after curative-intention surgery. In the last years, liquid biopsy has aroused great interest in cancer treatment for its feasibility and the possibility to capture tumor heterogeneity in a real-time way. In postoperative setting, the interest is directed to the identification of Minimal Residual Disease (MRD), defined as isolated or small cluster of cancer cells that residues after curative-intention surgery, and are undetectable by conventional radiological and clinical exams. This review wants to summarize current evidence on the use of liquid biopsy in gastroesophageal cancer, focusing on the detection of ctDNA in the postoperative setting and its potential role as a guide for treatment decision., (© 2022. Italian Society of Surgery (SIC).)

Background: Early activation of palliative care for patients with advanced cancer is central in the treatment trajectory. At the Veneto Institute of Oncology, a simultaneous-care outpatient clinic (SCOC) has been active since 2014, where patients are evaluated by an oncologist together with a palliative care team. Recently, we reported on consecutive patients admitted at SCOC from 2018 to 2021 in terms of appropriateness, process, and outcome indicators. Here, we report further analysis in the same group of 753 patients, evaluating other parameters and the correlation between symptom intensity, gender, age, and survival., Methods: SCOC data were retrieved from a prospectively maintained database., Results: Among the patients, 42.2% were women, and the median age was 68 years, with 46.7% of patients aged ≥70 years. The most prevalent disease type was gastrointestinal cancer (75.2%), and 90.9% of the patients had metastatic disease. The median score for the distress thermometer was 4; the vast majority of the patients (98.6%) reported physical problems, and 69.4% presented emotional issues. Younger women demonstrated a significantly greater median distress than other patients (p=0.0018). Almost all symptoms had a higher prevalence on the 0-3 Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) score, except for fatigue. About 43.8% of the patients received systemic anticancer treatment (SAT) in the last 60 days of life, 15.0% of whom received SAT in the last month and 3.1% in the last 2 weeks. For some symptoms, women frequently had more ESAS >3. Pain and nausea were significantly less reported by older patients compared with younger adults. Men had a lower risk of having MUST score ≥ 2 (p=0.0311). Men and older patients showed a lower prognosis awareness (p=0.0011 and p=0.0049, respectively). Older patients received less SAT within the last 30 days of life (p=0.0006) and had death risk decreased by 20.0%., Conclusion: Our study identified two subgroups of patients with advanced cancer who require special attention and support due to important symptoms' burden detected by Patient Reported Outcome Measures tests: women and younger adults. These categories of patients require special attention and should be provided early access at SCOC. The role of an oncologist remains crucial to intercept all patients in need of early palliative care and balancing trade-offs of anticancer treatment in advanced metastatic disease., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Galiano, Schiavon, Nardi, Guglieri, Pambuku, Martino, Bolshinsky, Murgioni, Intini, Soldà, Marino, Daniel, De Toni, Pittarello, Chiusole, Prete, Bimbatti, Nappo, Caccese, Bergamo, Brunello, Lonardi and Zagonel.)

Purpose: To verify whether the intensification of the upfront chemotherapy backbone with a modified schedule of modified fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (mFOLFOXIRI) increases the activity of fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin when both regimens are combined with panitumumab as initial treatment for RAS and BRAF wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)., Methods: TRIPLETE was a prospective, open-label, phase III trial in which previously untreated patients with unresectable RAS and BRAF wt mCRC were randomly assigned 1:1 to modified FOLFOX/panitumumab (control group) or mFOLFOXIRI/panitumumab (experimental group) up to 12 cycles, followed by fluorouracil/-leucovorin/panitumumab until disease progression. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) according to RECIST 1.1. Hypothesizing an ORR of 60% in the control group, 432 cases provided 90% power to a two-sided chi-square test for heterogeneity with a two-sided alpha error of .05 to detect ≥ 15% differences between arms (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03231722)., Results: From September 2017 to September 2021, 435 patients were enrolled (control group/experimental group: 217/218) in 57 Italian sites. One hundred sixty (73%) patients treated with mFOLFOXIRI plus panitumumab and 165 (76%) patients treated with modified FOLFOX plus panitumumab achieved RECIST response (odds ratio 0.87, 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.34, P = .526). No differences in early tumor shrinkage rate (57%/58%, P = .878) and deepness of response (median: 48%/47%, P = .845) were reported, nor in R0 resection rate (25%/29%, P = .317). No significant difference between arms was reported in terms of progression-free survival (median progression-free survival: 12.7 in the experimental group v 12.3 months in the control group, hazard ratio: 0.88, 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.11, P = .277)., Conclusion: The intensification of the upfront chemotherapy backbone in combination with panitumumab does not provide additional benefit in terms of treatment activity at the price of increased gastrointestinal toxicity in patients with RAS and BRAF wt mCRC.

We considered 351 patients affected by neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), followed at the University Hospital of Padua and at the Veneto Oncological Institute. Of these, 72 (20.5%) suffered from bone metastases. The sample was divided according to the timing of presentation of bone metastases into synchronous (within 6 months of diagnosis of primary tumor) and metachronous (after 6 months). We collected data on the type and grading of the primary tumor and on the features of bone metastases. Our analysis shows that the group of synchronous metastases generally presents primary tumors with a higher degree of malignancy rather than the ones of the metachronous group. This is supported by the finding of a Ki-67 level in GEP-NETs, at the diagnosis of bone metastases, significantly higher in the synchronous group. Moreover, in low-grade NETs, chromogranin A values are higher in the patients with synchronous metastases, indicating a more burden of disease. The parameters of phospho-calcium metabolism are within the normal range, and we do not find significant differences between the groups. Serious bone complications are not frequent and are not correlated with the site of origin of the primary tumor. From the analysis of the survival curves of the total sample, a cumulative survival rate of 33% at 10 years emerges. The average survival is 80 months, higher than what is reported in the literature, while the median is 84 months. In our observation period, synchronous patients tend to have a worse prognosis than metachronous ones with 52-months survival rates of 58 and 86%.

Purpose: This is a multicenter, single-arm phase II trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of an immune-sensitizing strategy with temozolomide priming followed by a combination of low-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab in patients with microsatellite-stable (MSS) and O 6 -methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT)-silenced metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC)., Patients and Methods: Patients with pretreated mCRC were centrally prescreened for MSS status and MGMT silencing (ie, lack of MGMT expression by immunohistochemistry plus MGMT methylation by pyrosequencing). Eligible patients received two priming cycles of oral temozolomide 150 mg/sqm once daily, days 1-5, once every 4 weeks (first treatment part) followed, in absence of progression, by its combination with ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 8 weeks and nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks (second treatment part). The primary end point was the 8-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate calculated from enrollment in patients who started the second treatment part, with ≥ 4 out of 27 subjects progression-free by the 8-month time point as decision rule., Results: Among 716 prescreened patients, 204 (29%) were molecularly eligible and 135 started the first treatment part. Among these, 102 (76%) were discontinued because of death or disease progression on temozolomide priming, whereas 33 patients (24%) who achieved disease control started the second treatment part and represented the final study population. After a median follow-up of 23.1 months (interquartile range, 14.9-24.6 months), 8-month PFS rate was 36%. Median PFS and overall survival were 7.0 and 18.4 months, respectively, and overall response rate was 45%. Grade 3-4 immune-related adverse events were skin rash (6%), colitis (3%), and hypophysitis (3%). No unexpected adverse events or treatment-related deaths were reported., Conclusion: The MAYA study provided proof-of-concept that a sequence of temozolomide priming followed by a combination of low-dose ipilimumab and nivolumab may induce durable clinical benefit in MSS and MGMT-silenced mCRC., Competing Interests: Federica MoranoHonoraria: ServierTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Sanofi, Servier Sara LonardiConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Merck Serono, Lilly, Servier, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSDSpeakers' Bureau: Roche, Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, GlaxoSmithKline, AmgenResearch Funding: Amgen, Merck Serono, Bayer (Inst), Roche (Inst), Lilly (Inst), AstraZeneca (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst) Lisa SalvatoreHonoraria: Roche, Merck Serono, Servier, Bayer, Amgen, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pierre Fabre, MSDConsulting or Advisory Role: Merck Serono, Servier, Bayer, Roche, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi, Pierre Fabre, MSDTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Sanofi, Merck Serono, Bayer, Roche, Servier, Celgene Chiara CremoliniHonoraria: Roche, Amgen, Bayer, Servier, MSD, MerckConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Bayer, Amgen, MSDSpeakers' Bureau: ServierResearch Funding: Merck, Bayer, Roche, Servier Patrizia RaccaHonoraria: Merck Serono, Roche, Amgen, Servier Monica NigerConsulting or Advisory Role: Incyte, Basilea Pharmaceutical, EMD Serono, MSD/AstraZenecaTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Celgene Francesca CortiTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Advanced Accelerator Applications Alberto ZaniboniConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Servier, Bayer, Merck Serono, MerckSpeakers' Bureau: servier, Astellas Pharma (Inst) Celeste CagnazzoSpeakers' Bureau: Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis Massimo Di MaioHonoraria: Pfizer, Takeda, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Eisai, Novartis, Roche, Astellas Pharma, MSD OncologyConsulting or Advisory Role: AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Takeda, Janssen, Eisai, Novartis, Roche, MSD Oncology, AmgenResearch Funding: Tesaro (Inst), GlaxoSmithKline (Inst) Maria Di BartolomeoHonoraria: Lilly, MSD Oncology, ServierConsulting or Advisory Role: Lilly, MSD OncologyResearch Funding: LillyTravel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Sanofi Filippo De BraudHonoraria: Roche, Pfizer, BMS, Merck, MSD, Servier, Sanofi, Amgen Astellas BioPharma, IncyteConsulting or Advisory Role: Roche, Incyte, EMD SERONO, Bristol Myers Squibb, Nerviano Medical Sciences, Sanofi, Novartis Italy, nms medical science, MenariniResearch Funding: Novartis (Inst), Roche (Inst), Merck Serono (Inst), Pfizer (Inst), Servier (Inst), Philogen (Inst), Loxo (Inst), Tesaro (Inst), Nerviano Medical Sciences (Inst), Kymab (Inst), Bristol Myers Squibb/Medarex, Merck KGaA, Ignyta, MedImmune, Exelixis, Bayer Health, Daiichi Sankyo Europe GmbH, Incyte, Basilea Pharmaceutical, Janssen Oncology Filippo PietrantonioHonoraria: Servier, Bayer, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, Lilly, Sanofi, MSD Oncology, AmgenConsulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Servier, MSD Oncology, MerckResearch Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb (Inst), Astrazeneca (Inst)No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.

The tight junction protein claudin-18 (CLDN18), is often expressed in various cancer types including gastric (GC) and gastroesophageal adenocarcinomas (GECs). In the last years, the isoform CLDN18.2 emerged as a potential drug target in metastatic GCs, leading to the development of monoclonal antibodies against this protein. CLDN18.2 is the dominant isoform of CLDN18 in normal gastric and gastric cancer tissues. In this work, we evaluated the immunohistochemical (IHC) profile of CLDN18 and its correlation with clinical and histopathological features including p53, E-cadherin, MSH2, MSH6, MLH1, PMS2, HER2, EBER and PD-L1 combined positive score, in a large real-world and mono-institutional series of advanced GCs ( n = 280) and GECs ( n = 70). The association of IHC results with survival outcomes was also investigated. High membranous CLDN18 expression (2+ and 3+ intensity ≥75%) was found in 117/350 (33.4%) samples analyzed. CLDN18 expression correlated with age <70 ( p = 0.0035), positive EBV status ( p = 0.002), high stage (III, IV) at diagnosis ( p = 0.003), peritoneal involvement ( p < 0.001) and lower incidence of liver metastases ( p = 0.013). CLDN18 did not correlate with overall survival. The predictive value of response of CLDN18 to targeted agents is under investigation in several clinical trials and further studies will be needed to select patients who could benefit from these therapies.

Purpose: More than 50% of patients with stage IV colorectal cancer (metastatic colorectal cancer [mCRC]) relapse postresection. The efficacy of postoperative systemic treatment is limited in this setting. Thus, these patients would greatly benefit from the use of a reliable prognostic biomarker, such as circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) to identify minimal or molecular residual disease (MRD)., Patients and Methods: We analyzed a cohort of 112 patients with mCRC who had undergone metastatic resection with curative intent as part of the PREDATOR clinical trial. The study evaluated the prognostic value of ctDNA, correlating MRD status postsurgery with clinical outcomes by using a personalized and tumor-informed ctDNA assay (bespoke multiple PCR, next-generation sequencing assay). Postresection, systemic therapy was given to 39.2% of the patients at the discretion of the treating physician., Results: Postsurgical, MRD positivity was observed in 54.4% (61 of 112) of patients, of which 96.7% (59 of 61) progressed at the time of data cutoff (hazard ratio [HR]: 5.8; 95% CI, 3.5 to 9.7; P < .001). MRD-positive status was also associated with an inferior overall survival: HR: 16.0; 95% CI, 3.9 to 68.0; P < .001. At the time of analyses, 96% (49 of 51) of patients were alive in the MRD-negative arm compared with 52.4% (32 of 61) in the MRD-positive arm. Patients who did not receive systemic therapy and were MRD-negative in the combined ctDNA analysis at two time points had an overall survival of 100%. In the multivariate analysis, ctDNA-based MRD status was the most significant prognostic factor associated with disease-free survival (HR: 5.78; 95% CI, 3.34 to 10.0; P < .001)., Conclusion: This study confirms that in mCRC undergoing resection of metastases, postoperative MRD analysis is a strong prognostic biomarker. It holds promises for being implemented in clinical decision making, informing clinical trial design, and further translational research., Competing Interests: Fotios Loupakis Consulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Sanofi, Bayer, Amal Therapeutics Speakers' Bureau: Roche, Sanofi, Bayer, Amgen Research Funding: Roche, Merck Serono, Amgen, Bayer Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Amgen, Merck Serono Shruti Sharma Employment: Natera Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Madiha Derouazi Employment: AMAL Therapeutics Leadership: AMAL Therapeutics Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AMAL Therapeutics Derrick Renner Employment: Natera Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Natera Svetlana Shchegrova Employment: Natera Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Allyson Koyen Malashevich Employment: Natera Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Meenakshi Malhotra Employment: Natera Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Himanshu Sethi Employment: Natera Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Research Funding: Natera Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patents Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Natera Bernhard G. Zimmermann Employment: Natera Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Honoraria: Natera Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Multiple patents and patent applications Alexey Aleshin Employment: Natera Leadership: Natera Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Consulting or Advisory Role: Mission Bio Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Natera Solomon Moshkevich Employment: Natera, Evidation Health Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Named as inventor on a patent filed by Natera Inc Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Natera Paul R. Billings Employment: Natera Leadership: Biological Dynamics, OmniSeq, Alveo Technologies, Mission Bio Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera, Trovagene, Biological Dynamics, OmniSeq, Alveo Technologies Consulting or Advisory Role: Bethesda Group, Guidepoint Global Jonathon D. Sedgwick Employment: Boehringer Ingelheim Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim Umberto Cillo Consulting or Advisory Role: Springer Health Care, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Astellas, Sandoz Speakers' Bureau: Eisai Angelo Paolo Dei Tos Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Roche Vittorina Zagonel Consulting or Advisory Roles: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Eisai, Italfarmaco Speakers' Bureau: Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, Servier, AstraZeneca, MSD, Jansen, Ipsen Research Funding: Bayer, Roche, Lilly, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Ipsen, Astellas Pharma Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bayer, Roche, Servier Sara Lonardi Consulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Merck Serono, Lilly, Servier, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol Myers Squibb Speakers' Bureau: Roche, Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen Research Funding: Amgen, Merck Serono, Bayer, Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb Matteo Fassan Consulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, Diaceutics, Diaceutics, Roche Research Funding: Astellas Pharma, QED Therapeutics, Macrophage Pharma No other potential conflicts of interest were reported.Fotios Loupakis Consulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Sanofi, Bayer, Amal Therapeutics Speakers' Bureau: Roche, Sanofi, Bayer, Amgen Research Funding: Roche, Merck Serono, Amgen, Bayer Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Roche, Amgen, Merck Serono Shruti Sharma Employment: Natera Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Madiha Derouazi Employment: AMAL Therapeutics Leadership: AMAL Therapeutics Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: AMAL Therapeutics Derrick Renner Employment: Natera Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Natera Svetlana Shchegrova Employment: Natera Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Allyson Koyen Malashevich Employment: Natera Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Meenakshi Malhotra Employment: Natera Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Himanshu Sethi Employment: Natera Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Research Funding: Natera Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Patents Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Natera Bernhard G. Zimmermann Employment: Natera Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Honoraria: Natera Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Multiple patents and patent applications Alexey Aleshin Employment: Natera Leadership: Natera Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Consulting or Advisory Role: Mission Bio Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Natera Solomon Moshkevich Employment: Natera, Evidation Health Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera Patents, Royalties, Other Intellectual Property: Named as inventor on a patent filed by Natera Inc Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Natera Paul R. Billings Employment: Natera Leadership: Biological Dynamics, OmniSeq, Alveo Technologies, Mission Bio Stock and Other Ownership Interests: Natera, Trovagene, Biological Dynamics, OmniSeq, Alveo Technologies Consulting or Advisory Role: Bethesda Group, Guidepoint Global Jonathon D. Sedgwick Employment: Boehringer Ingelheim Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Boehringer Ingelheim Umberto Cillo Consulting or Advisory Role: Springer Health Care, Novartis, Johnson & Johnson, Astellas, Sandoz Speakers' Bureau: Eisai Angelo Paolo Dei Tos Consulting or Advisory Role: Bayer, Roche Vittorina Zagonel Consulting or Advisory Roles: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Eisai, Italfarmaco Speakers' Bureau: Roche, Bristol Myers Squibb, Astellas Pharma, Servier, AstraZeneca, MSD, Jansen, Ipsen Research Funding: Bayer, Roche, Lilly, Astra Zeneca, BMS, Ipsen, Astellas Pharma Travel, Accommodations, Expenses: Bayer, Roche, Servier Sara Lonardi Consulting or Advisory Role: Amgen, Merck Serono, Lilly, Servier, AstraZeneca, Incyte, Daiichi Sankyo, Bristol Myers Squibb Speakers' Bureau: Roche, Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb, Servier, Merck Serono, Pierre Fabre, GlaxoSmithKline, Amgen Research Funding: Amgen, Merck Serono, Bayer, Roche, Lilly, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb Matteo Fassan Consulting or Advisory Role: Astellas Pharma, Tesaro, GlaxoSmithKline, Diaceutics, Diaceutics, Roche Research Funding: Astellas Pharma, QED Therapeutics, Macrophage Pharma No other potential conflicts of interest were reported., (© 2021 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

The knowledge of the molecular landscape of ileal neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) is affected by the lack of systematic studies investigating intra-tumoral heterogeneity. In this study, intra-tumoral heterogeneity was investigated in 27 primary ileal G1-NETs and their matched nodal and liver metastases in order to assess the tumor grading, the expression status of two somatostatin receptor isoforms (i.e. SSTR2A and SSTR5) and mTOR signaling dysregulation (ph-mTOR, ph-p70S6K, ph-4EBP1, PTEN and miR-21). Among the 27 G1 primary tumors, 4 shifted to G2 in the matched liver metastasis. Although mTOR activation was pretty consistent between primary and secondary malignancies, mTOR effectors (ph-p70S6K and ph-4EBP1) were overexpressed in matched liver metastases, whereas PTEN expression profile changed in only two cases. MiR-21 was significantly up-regulated in the metastatic setting. Although SSTRs expression was present in most of the primary tumors and matched metastasis, we found SSTR5 expression to be significantly increased in liver metastases. Notably, SSTRs expression was heterogeneous within the same lesions in most of the lesions. Overall, despite primary and metastatic ileal NETs show a similar molecular landscape, tumor grading and mTOR signaling pathway may diverge in the metastatic setting, thus affecting prognosis and treatment.

Opinion Statement: The clinical scenario of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine neoplasms (GEP-NENs) is continuously changing due to significant improvements in the definition of their molecular landscapes and the introduction of innovative therapeutic approaches. Many efforts are currently employed in the integration of the genetics/epigenetics and clinical information. This is leading to an improvement of tumor classification, prognostic stratification and ameliorating the management of patients based on a personalized approach.

Background: The nucleotide excision repair (NER) pathway participates in platinum-induced DNA damage repair. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in miRNA-binding sites in the NER genes RPA2 and GTF2H1 are associated with the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Here, we analyzed whether RPA2 and GTF2H1 SNPs predict the efficacy of oxaliplatin in metastatic CRC (mCRC) patients., Patients and Methods: Genomic DNA was extracted from blood samples from 457 patients with mCRC enrolled in the TRIBE trial, which compared first-line FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab (BEV) ( n = 230, discovery cohort) and first-line FOLFIRI plus BEV ( n = 227, control cohort). SNPs were analyzed by PCR-based direct sequencing., Results: In the FOLFOXIRI + BEV-treated cohort expressing wild-type KRAS , progression-free survival (PFS) was shorter for the RPA2 rs7356 C/C variant subgroup than the any T allele subgroup in univariate analysis (9.1 versus 13.3 months respectively, hazard ratio (HR) 2.32, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07-5.03, p = 0.020) and this remained significant in multivariable analysis (HR 2.97, 95%CI: 1.27-6.94, p = 0.012). A similar trend was observed for overall survival. In contrast, patients expressing mutant RAS and RPA2 rs7356 C/C variant had longer PFS with FOLFOXIRI + BEV than with FOLFIRI + BEV (12.1 versus 7.6 months, HR 0.23, 95%CI: 0.09-0.62, p = 0.002) but no superiority of FOLFOXIRI + BEV was observed for the RAS mutant, RPA2 rs7356 any T variant subgroup (11.7 versus 9.6 months, HR 0.77, 95%CI: 0.56-1.07, p = 0.12) or the RAS wild-type, RPA2 rs7356 C/C variant subgroup., Conclusion: RPA2 SNPs may serve as predictive and prognostic markers of oxaliplatin responsiveness in a RAS status-dependent manner in mCRC patients receiving FOLFOXIRI + BEV.

Background: The triplet FOLFOXIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab showed improved outcomes for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, compared with FOLFIRI (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan) plus bevacizumab. However, the actual benefit of the upfront exposure to the three cytotoxic drugs compared with a preplanned sequential strategy of doublets was not clear, and neither was the feasibility or efficacy of therapies after disease progression. We aimed to compare a preplanned strategy of upfront FOLFOXIRI followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression versus a sequence of mFOLFOX6 (fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin) and FOLFIRI doublets, in combination with bevacizumab., Methods: TRIBE2 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised study of patients aged 18-75 years with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 2, with unresectable, previously untreated metastatic colorectal cancer, recruited from 58 Italian oncology units. Patients were stratified according to centre, ECOG performance status, primary tumour location, and previous adjuvant chemotherapy. A randomisation system incorporating a minimisation algorithm was used to randomly assign patients (1:1) via a masked web-based allocation procedure to two different treatment strategies. In the control group, patients received first-line mFOLFOX6 (85 mg/m 2 of intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m 2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 400 mg/m 2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m 2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab (5 mg/kg intravenously over 30 min) followed by FOLFIRI (180 mg/m 2 of intravenous irinotecan over 120 min concurrently with 200 mg/m 2 of leucovorin; 400 mg/m 2 intravenous bolus of fluorouracil; 2400 mg/m 2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab after disease progression. In the experimental group, patients received FOLFOXIRI (165 mg/m 2 of intravenous irinotecan over 60 min; 85 mg/m 2 intravenous oxaliplatin concurrently with 200 mg/m 2 of leucovorin over 120 min; 3200 mg/m 2 continuous infusion of fluorouracil for 48 h) plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression. Combination treatments were repeated every 14 days for up to eight cycles followed by fluorouracil and leucovorin (at the same dose administered at the last induction cycle) plus bevacizumab maintenance until disease progression, unacceptable adverse events, or consent withdrawal. Patients and investigators were not masked. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival 2, defined as the time from randomisation to disease progression on any treatment given after first disease progression, or death, analysed by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in patients who received at least one dose of their assigned treatment. Study recruitment is complete and follow-up is ongoing. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02339116., Findings: Between Feb 26, 2015, and May 15, 2017, 679 patients were randomly assigned and received treatment (340 in the control group and 339 in the experimental group). At data cut-off (July 30, 2019) median follow-up was 35·9 months (IQR 30·1-41·4). Median progression-free survival 2 was 19·2 months (95% CI 17·3-21·4) in the experimental group and 16·4 months (15·1-17·5) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74, 95% CI 0·63-0·88; p=0·0005). During the first-line treatment, the most frequent of all-cause grade 3-4 events were diarrhoea (57 [17%] vs 18 [5%]), neutropenia (168 [50%] vs 71 [21%]), and arterial hypertension (25 [7%] vs 35 [10%]) in the experimental group compared with the control group. Serious adverse events occurred in 84 (25%) patients in the experimental group and in 56 (17%) patients in the control group. Eight treatment-related deaths were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions, two intestinal perforations, two sepsis, one myocardial infarction, and one bleeding) and four in the control group (two occlusions, one perforation, and one pulmonary embolism). After first disease progression, no substantial differences in the incidence of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported between the control and experimental groups, with the exception of neurotoxicity, which was only reported in the experimental group (six [5%] of 132 patients). Serious adverse events after disease progression occurred in 20 (15%) patients in the experimental group and 25 (12%) in the control group. Three treatment-related deaths after first disease progression were reported in the experimental group (two intestinal occlusions and one sepsis) and four in the control group (one intestinal occlusion, one intestinal perforation, one cerebrovascular event, and one sepsis)., Interpretation: Upfront FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab followed by the reintroduction of the same regimen after disease progression seems to be a preferable therapeutic strategy to sequential administration of chemotherapy doublets, in combination with bevacizumab, for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer selected according to the study criteria., Funding: The GONO Cooperative Group, the ARCO Foundation, and F Hoffmann-La Roche., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)