Search

Background: Biliary tract cancers, which arise from the intrahepatic or extrahepatic bile ducts and the gallbladder, generally have a poor prognosis and are rising in incidence worldwide. The standard-of-care treatment for advanced biliary tract cancer is chemotherapy with gemcitabine and cisplatin. Because most biliary tract cancers have an immune-suppressed microenvironment, immune checkpoint inhibitor monotherapy is associated with a low objective response rate. We aimed to assess whether adding the immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab to gemcitabine and cisplatin would improve outcomes compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin alone in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. Methods: KEYNOTE-966 was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial done at 175 medical centres globally. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older; had previously untreated, unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer; had disease measurable per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1; and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Eligible participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo, both administered intravenously every 3 weeks (maximum 35 cycles), in combination with gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; no maximum duration) and cisplatin (25 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks; maximum 8 cycles). Randomisation was done using a central interactive voice-response system and stratified by geographical region, disease stage, and site of origin in block sizes of four. The primary endpoint of overall survival was evaluated in the intention-to-treat population. The secondary endpoint of safety was evaluated in the as-treated population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04003636. Findings: Between Oct 4, 2019, and June 8, 2021, 1564 patients were screened for eligibility, 1069 of whom were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (pembrolizumab group; n=533) or placebo plus gemcitabine and cisplatin (placebo group; n=536). Median study follow-up at final analysis was 25·6 months (IQR 21·7–30·4). Median overall survival was 12·7 months (95% CI 11·5–13·6) in the pembrolizumab group versus 10·9 months (9·9–11·6) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 0·83 [95% CI 0·72–0·95]; one-sided p=0·0034 [significance threshold, p=0·0200]). In the as-treated population, the maximum adverse event grade was 3 to 4 in 420 (79%) of 529 participants in the pembrolizumab group and 400 (75%) of 534 in the placebo group; 369 (70%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 367 (69%) in the placebo group had treatment-related adverse events with a maximum grade of 3 to 4. 31 (6%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 49 (9%) in the placebo group died due to adverse events, including eight (2%) in the pembrolizumab group and three (1%) in the placebo group who died due to treatment-related adverse events. Interpretation: Based on a statistically significant, clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin without any new safety signals, pembrolizumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin could be a new treatment option for patients with previously untreated metastatic or unresectable biliary tract cancer. Funding: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Rahway, NJ, USA.

Colorectal cancer is the cancer with the third highest incidence both in males and females in the USA and is also frequently occurring in other industrialized nations. Anal cancer on the other hand is much rarer, but has a rising incidence, especially in high income nations and with a connection to HIV infections, homosexual men and a younger age of the first sexual encounter. Both have high mortality rates in common and are complex to handle in terms of prevention, staging, treatment and diagnostic of recurrence. This article aims to give an overview about the established diagnostic methods of nuclear medicine, especially sole PET and (contrast enhanced) hybrid imaging with ¹⁸F-FDG as tracer for primary staging, restaging, therapy monitoring and radiotherapy planning in current guidelines, with a special focus on the American guidelines of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network for colorectal and anal cancer. There will also be an outlook on potential future adjustments in those leading to a more significant representation of nuclear medicine by giving a synopsis of the available studies and data published in international medical press. New tracers that are still in research stage, progress in the imaging techniques, for example a further establishment of PET/MR hybrid imaging, the use of artificial intelligence and parametric imaging, as well as possible future theranostic applications like c-MET binding peptides will also be shortly discussed.

Objective Measuring the success of molecularly guided therapies is a major challenge in precision oncology trials. A commonly used endpoint is an intra-patient progression-free survival (PFS) ratio, defined as the PFS interval associated with molecularly guided therapy (PFS2) divided by the PFS interval associated with the last prior systemic therapy (PFS1), above 1.3 or, in some studies, above 1.33 or 1.5. Methods To investigate if the concept of PFS ratios is in agreement with actual response evaluations by physicians, we conducted a survey among members of the MASTER (Molecularly Aided Stratification for Tumor Eradication Research) Programme of the German Cancer Consortium who were asked to classify the success of molecularly guided therapies in 194 patients enrolled in the MOSCATO 01 trial based on PFS1 and PFS2 times. Results A comparison of classification profiles revealed three distinct clusters of PFS benefit assessments. Only 29% of assessments were consistent with a PFS ratio threshold of 1.3, whereas the remaining 71% of participants applied a different classification scheme that did not rely on the relation between PFS times alone, but also took into account absolute PFS1 intervals. Based on these community-driven insights, we developed a modified PFS ratio that incorporates the influence of absolute PFS1 intervals on the judgement of clinical benefit by physicians. Application of the modified PFS ratio to outcome data from two recent precision oncology trials, MOSCATO 01 and WINTHER, revealed significantly improved concordance with physician-perceived clinical benefit and identified comparable proportions of patients who benefited from molecularly guided therapies. Conclusions The modified PFS ratio may represent a meaningful clinical endpoint that could aid in the design and interpretation of future precision oncology trials.