Metastatic perirectal PEComa treated by checkpoint inhibitor immunotherapy and multimodal treatment: case report and review of the literature.

Malignant PEComas are an extremely rare subtype of soft tissue sarcomas. Here, we report the case of a man presenting with a perirectal PEComa and liver metastasis. Since the tumor harbored a tumor mutational burden of 23/Mb and a programmed death-ligand 1 tumor positivity score of 50%, the patient was treated with pembrolizumab as a second line of systemic therapy, in combination with everolimus. This combined therapy led to a near-complete response of the primary tumor and a partial response of the metastasis. Radioembolization of the liver metastasis was performed due to isolated liver progression, and the pelvic tumor was treated by radiotherapy because of pelvic symptoms. The disease is still stable after 13 months of pembrolizumab plus everolimus and multimodal treatment. This case shows that malignant PEComas can display molecular features associated with sensitivity to checkpoint inhibitors. The use of checkpoint inhibitors may be a relevant therapeutic strategy in these patients. It is also the first report on selective internal radiation therapy in PEComas.

A case of a patient with metastatic PEComa of the rectum, a very rare tumor type, treated by immunotherapy in combination with local treatments This article reports the case of a patient presenting with a very rare tumor type called "PEComa". The tumor originated from the rectum and had disseminated to the liver. Since this tumor is very rare, there is a lack of knowledge on which treatments to use, and every case reporting the use of new treatments in PEComas is helpful. Here, the tumor displayed molecular alterations that suggested that it would respond to immunotherapy, such as a high number of mutations. Therefore, the patient was treated with an immunotherapy called pembrolizumab, in combination with another medication (everolimus). The rectal tumor nearly disappeared under treatment, and the liver metastasis decreased in size. The patient had radiotherapy of the rectum because of rectal bleeding. For the liver metastasis we used another technique called radioembolization, that consists in delivering radioactive compounds directly in the metastasis through the bloodstream. Now, he has received immunotherapy for 13 months and the disease is still under control. This case shows that immunotherapy can be a good treatment option in PEComas. It is also the first time that a medical team reports the using radioembolization to treat a PEComa.

Rationale and Design of the COPERNIC Trial: A Study of On-treatment ctDNA Changes in Chemo-refractory Colorectal Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that ctDNA may be a reliable biomarker to monitor metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC) evolution. Nevertheless, evidence on the potential of liquid biopsy in this setting is still low quality, mostly consisting of retrospective studies. METHODS: COPERNIC is an international, multicenter clinical trial. The pilot study aims to confirm the predictive potential of early on-treatment ctDNA dynamics, and inform the design of a larger ctDNA-driven trial. Advanced CRC patients who are candidates for ≥3rd lines of systemic therapy undergo longitudinal blood sample collection during treatment (day 1, 15 and 29 for 2- or 4-weekly treatment regimens; day 1, 22 and 43 for 3-weekly treatment regimens) and at each imaging assessment. ctDNA analyses are carried out with the FoundationOne Liquid CDx and FoundationOneMonitor assays, and ctDNA changes during treatment are correlated with radiologic response (as assessed every 8-12 weeks by RECIST v1.1). The primary objective is to select the optimal timepoint and cut-off value for early ctDNA changes (at day 15/22) to predict progressive disease as best radiological response with a high positive predictive value. The cut-off value for ctDNA will be defined based on nonparametric ROC-curves with bootstrapping. Based on the expected rate of progressive disease and statistical assumptions, 109 patients are needed to be screened to have 87 assessable patients. COPERNIC is sponsored by the Institut Jules Bordet, and supported by Roche and Foundation Medicine. Recruitment is open in 13 centres across Belgium and France. The study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05487248).

Management of esogastric cancer in older patients.

Although esogastric cancers often affect patients over 75, there are no specific age-related guidelines for the care of these patients. Esogastric cancers have a poor prognosis and require multimodal treatment to obtain a cure. The morbidity and mortality of these multimodal treatments can be limited if care is optimized by selecting patients for neoadjuvant treatment and surgery. This can include a geriatric assessment, prehabilitation, renutrition, and more extensive use of minimally invasive surgery. Denutrition is frequent in these patients and is particularly harmful in older patients. While older patients may be provided with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or radiotherapy, it must be adapted to the patient's status. A reduction in the initial dose of palliative chemotherapy should be considered in patients with metastases. These patients tolerate immunotherapy better than systemic chemotherapy, and a strategy to replace chemotherapy with immunotherapy whenever possible should be evaluated. Finally, better supportive care is needed in patients with a poor performance status. Prospective studies are needed to improve the care and prognosis of elderly patients.

Clinico-biological factors predicting the benefit of the LV5FU2 maintenance strategy as a first-line therapy in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Predictive markers of LV5FU2 maintenance benefit after first-line induction with FOLFIRINOX in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer are necessary to select patients who will not be harmed by this strategy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We focused on patients who received 12 cycles of FOLFIRINOX (arm A, N = 88) or 8 cycles of FOLFIRINOX followed by LV5FU2 maintenance in controlled patients (arm B, N = 91) from the PRODIGE-35 trial. Prognostic factors and predictors of efficiency were identified by using Cox regression. Median progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and time to deterioration of quality of life (TTD-QoL) were evaluated. RESULTS: Poor independent prognostic factors were primary tumor in place, age <65 years and the presence of liver metastases for PFS, a baseline neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) ≥5 and CA19.9 ≥500 UI/L for OS, independent of the treatment arm. Patients with one metastatic site had a longer PFS in arm A, whereas patients with ≥2 metastatic sites had a longer PFS in arm B. We also identified predictors of OS and TTD-QoL in arm B but these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Except for patients with one metastatic site who benefited more from 12 cycles of FOLFIRINOX, a maintenance strategy with LV5FU2 should be widely offered to mPC patients whose survival and QoL are preserved after 4 months of FOLFIRINOX. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02352337).

Neoadjuvant radiotherapy combined with fluorouracil-cisplatin plus cetuximab in operable, locally advanced esophageal carcinoma: Results of a phase I-II trial (FFCD-0505/PRODIGE-3).

Background: Radiotherapy combined with fluorouracil (5FU) and cisplatin for locally advanced esophageal cancer is associated with a 20-25% pathologic complete response (pCR) rate. Cetuximab increases the efficacy of radiotherapy in patients with head and neck carcinomas. The aim of this phase I/II trial was to determine the optimal doses and the pCR rate with chemoradiotherapy (C-RT) plus cetuximab. Methods: A 45-Gy radiotherapy regimen was delivered over 5 weeks. The phase I study determined the dose-limiting toxicity and the maximum tolerated dose of 5FU-cisplatin plus cetuximab. The phase II trial aimed to exhibit a pCR rate > 20 % (25 % expected), requiring 33 patients (6 from phase I part plus 27 in phase II part). pCR was defined as ypT0Nx. Results: The phase I study established the following recommended doses: weekly cetuximab (400 mg/m2 one week before, and 250 mg/m2 during radiotherapy); 5FU (500 mg/m2/day, d1-d4) plus cisplatin (40 mg/m2, d1) during week 1 and 5. In the phase II part, 32 patients received C-RT before surgery, 31 patients underwent surgery, and resection was achieved in 27 patients. A pCR was achieved in five patients (18.5 %) out of 27. After a median follow-up of 19 months, the median progression-free survival was 13.7 months, and the median overall survival was not reached. Conclusions: Adding cetuximab to preoperative C-RT was toxic and did not achieve a pCR > 20 % as required. The recommended doses, determined during the phase I part, could explain these disappointing results due to a reduction in chemotherapy dose-intensity. Trial registration: This trial was registered with EudraCT number 2006-004770-27.

Bayesian sequential monitoring strategies for trials of digestive cancer therapeutics.

BACKGROUND: New therapeutics in oncology have presented challenges to existing paradigms and trial designs in all phases of drug development. As a motivating example, we considered an ongoing phase II trial planned to evaluate the combination of a MET inhibitor and an anti-PD-L1 immunotherapy to treat advanced oesogastric carcinoma. The objective of the paper was to exemplify the planning of an adaptive phase II trial with novel anti-cancer agents, including prolonged observation windows and joint sequential evaluation of efficacy and toxicity. METHODS: We considered various candidate designs and computed decision rules assuming correlations between efficacy and toxicity. Simulations were conducted to evaluate the operating characteristics of all designs. RESULTS: Design approaches allowing continuous accrual, such as the time-to-event Bayesian Optimal Phase II design (TOP), showed good operating characteristics while ensuring a reduced trial duration. All designs were sensitive to the specification of the correlation between efficacy and toxicity during planning, but TOP can take that correlation into account more easily. CONCLUSIONS: While specifying design working hypotheses requires caution, Bayesian approaches such as the TOP design had desirable operating characteristics and allowed incorporating concomittant information, such as toxicity data from concomitant observations in another relevant patient population (e.g., defined by mutational status).

How to Balance Prognostic Factors in Controlled Phase II Trials: Stratified Permuted Block Randomization or Minimization? An Analysis of Clinical Trials in Digestive Oncology.

In controlled phase II trials, major prognostic factors need to be well balanced between arms. The main procedures used are SPBR (Stratified Permuted Block Randomization) and minimization. First, we provide a systematic review of the treatment allocation procedure used in gastrointestinal oncology controlled phase II trials published in 2019. Second, we performed simulations using data from six phase II studies to measure the impacts of imbalances and bias on the efficacy estimations. From the 40 articles analyzed, all mentioned randomization in both the title and abstract, the median number of patients included was 109, and 77.5% were multicenter. Of the 27 studies that reported at least one stratification variable, 10 included the center as a stratification variable, 10 used minimization, 9 used SBR, and 8 were unspecified. In real data studies, the imbalance increased with the number of centers. The total and marginal imbalances were higher with SBR than with minimization, and the difference increased with the number of centers. The efficiency estimates per arm were close to the original trial estimate in both procedures. Minimization is often used in cases of numerous centers and guarantees better similarity between arms for stratification variables for total and marginal imbalances in phase II trials.

Trifluridine/tipiracil + oxaliplatin ± nivolumab vs FOLFOX ± nivolumab in HER2 negative advanced oesogastric adenocarcinoma: The PRODIGE73-UCGI40-LOGICAN trial.

BACKGROUND: Trifluridine/tipiracil (FTD/TPI) is approved in third-line treatment of patients with advanced/metastatic gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinomas (aGA/GEJA). The association of oxaliplatin with FTD/TPI is promising and the combination of FTD/TPI + oxaliplatin + nivolumab has shown a predictable and manageable safety profile. AIMS: The aim is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of FTD/TPI plus oxaliplatin with or without nivolumab in patients, with HER2 negative aGA/GEJA, unfit for triplet chemotherapy (TFOX/mFLOT regimen), in the first-line metastatic setting in comparison with the standard of care FOLFOX with or without nivolumab. METHODS: This study is a prospective randomised, open label, comparative, multicentre, phase II trial designed to include 118 patients. The primary objective is to evaluate the superiority of FTD/TPI plus oxaliplatin with or without nivolumab over FOLFOX regimen with or without nivolumab in terms of PFS in a population of patients non candidate for triplet chemotherapy. Nivolumab will be used for patients whose tumour express PD-L1 with a CPS score ≥5. DISCUSSION: PRODIGE73-UCGI40-LOGICAN study will provide efficacy and safety data on the association of FTD/TPI plus oxaliplatin with or without nivolumab versus FOLFOX regimen with or without nivolumab in first-line palliative setting, in patients with aGA/GEJA (NCT05476796).

Genomic profiling of small bowel adenocarcinoma: a pooled analysis from 3 databases.

BACKGROUND: Small bowel adenocarcinoma is a rare disease. The genomic profiling tumours according to clinical characteristics and its impact on the prognosis remains unclear. METHODS: A pooled analysis of clinical data, genomic profiling and MisMatch Repair (MMR) status from three databases was performed. RESULTS: A total of 188 tumour samples were analysed. A predisposing disease was reported in 22.3%, mainly Lynch syndrome and Crohn's disease. The tumours were localized in 80.2% and metastatic in 18.8%. The most frequent mutations were KRAS (42.0%) among them 7/79 are G12C, TP53 (40.4%), APC (19.1%), PIK3CA (18.6%), SMAD4 (12.8%) and ERBB2 (9.6%). Mutation distribution differed according to predisposing disease for TP53, ERBB2, IDH1, FGFR3, FGFR1 and KDR. KRAS and SMAD4 mutations were more frequent in metastatic tumour, whereas ERBB2 mutations were absent in metastatic tumour. For localized tumour, APC mutation was independently associated with a poor overall survival (OS) (p = 0.0254). 31.8% of localized tumours and 11.3% of metastatic tumours were dMMR (29.8% of the entire cohort). A dMMR status was associated with a better OS (HR = 0.61 [0.39-0.96], p = 0.0316). CONCLUSIONS: There is a different genomic profile according to the stage and predisposing disease. dMMR and APC mutation in localized tumour predict a better prognosis.

First-Line LV5FU2 with or without Aflibercept in Patients with Non-Resectable Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Phase II Trial (PRODIGE 25-FFCD-FOLFA).

Fluropyrimidine monotherapy is an option for some patients with inoperable metastatic colorectal cancer. Unlike bevacizumab, the addition of aflibercept, an antibody acting as an anti-angiogenic agent, has never been evaluated in this context. The aim of the study was to determine whether aflibercept could increase the efficacy of fluoropyrimidine monotherapy without increasing toxicity. This multicenter phase II non-comparative trial evaluated the addition of aflibercept to infusional 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (LV5FU2 regimen) as first-line treatment in patients unfit to receive doublet cytotoxic chemotherapy. The primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS). The clinical hypotheses expected a PFS rate at 6 months of over 40% (60% expected). A total of 117 patients, with a median age of 81 years, were included: 59 in arm A (LV5FU2-aflibercept) and 58 in arm B (LV5FU2 alone). Six-month PFS was 54.7% in both arms (90% CI 42.5-66.5 in both). Median overall survival was 21.8 months (arm A) and 25.1 months (arm B). Overall toxicity was more common in arm A: grade ≥ 3 toxicity in 82% versus 58.2%. Given the 6-month PFS, the study can be considered positive. However, the toxicity of aflibercept in this population was high, and continuation of the trial into phase III is not envisaged.

FOLFIRI Plus Durvalumab With or Without Tremelimumab in Second-Line Treatment of Advanced Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: The PRODIGE 59-FFCD 1707-DURIGAST Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Efficacy of second-line chemotherapy in advanced gastric or gastrooesphageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma remains limited. Ojectives: To determine the efficacy of 1 or 2 immune checkpoint inhibitors combined with FOLFIRI (leucovorin [folinic acid], fluorouracil, and irinotecan) in the treatment of advanced gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma. Design, Setting, and Participants: The PRODIGE 59-FFCD 1707-DURIGAST trial is a randomized, multicenter, noncomparative, phase 2 trial, conducted from August 27, 2020, and June 4, 2021, at 37 centers in France that included patients with advanced gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma who had disease progression after platinum-based first-line chemotherapy. Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive FOLFIRI plus durvalumab (anti-programmed cell death 1 [PD-L1]) (FD arm) or FOLFIRI plus durvalumab and tremelimumab (anti-cytotoxic T-lymphocyte associated protein 4 [CTLA-4]) (FDT arm). The efficacy analyses used a clinical cutoff date of January 9, 2023. Main outcome and Measures: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) at 4 months according to RECIST 1.1 criteria evaluated by investigators. Results: Overall, between August 27, 2020, and June 4, 2021, 96 patients were randomized (48 in each arm). The median age was 59.7 years, 28 patients (30.4%) were women and 49 (53.3%) had GEJ tumors. Four month PFS was 44.7% (90% CI, 32.3-57.7) and 55.6% (90% CI, 42.3-68.3) in the FD and FDT arms, respectively. The primary end point was not met. Median PFS was 3.8 and 5.4 months, objective response rates were 34.7% and 37.7%, and median overall survival was 13.2 and 9.5 months in the FD and FDT arms, respectively. Disease control beyond 1 year was 14.9% in the FD arm and 24.4% in the FDT arm. Grade 3 to 4 treatment-related adverse events were observed in 22 (47.8%) patients in each arm. A combined positive score (CPS) PD-L1 of 5 or higher was observed in 18 tumors (34.0%) and a tumor proportion score (TPS) PD-L1 of 1% or higher in 13 tumors (24.5%). Median PFS according to CPS PD-L1 was similar (3.6 months for PD-L1 CPS ≥5 vs 5.4 months for PD-L1 CPS <5) by contrast for TPS PD-L1 (6.0 months for PD-L1 TPS ≥1% vs 3.8 months for PD-L1 TPS <1%). Conclusions and Relevance: Combination of immune checkpoint inhibitors with FOLFIRI in second-line treatment for advanced gastric/GEJ adenocarcinoma showed an acceptable safety profile but antitumor activity only in a subgroup of patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03959293.

A multicenter study evaluating efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced non-colorectal digestive cancers with microsatellite instability.

BACKGROUND: One randomized phase III trial comparing chemotherapy (CT) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has demonstrated significant efficacy of ICI in deficient DNA mismatch repair system/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer. However, few studies have compared ICI with CT in other advanced dMMR/MSI-H digestive tumors. METHODS: In this multicenter study, we included patients with advanced dMMR/MSI-H non-colorectal digestive tumors treated with chemotherapy and/or ICIs. Patients were divided retrospectively into two groups, a CT group and an immunotherapy (IO) group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). A propensity score approach using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to deal with potential differences between the two groups. RESULTS: 133 patients (45.1/27.1/27.8% with gastric/small bowel/other carcinomas) were included. The majority of patients received ICI in 1st (29.1%) or 2nd line (44.4%). The 24-month PFS rates were 7.9% in the CT group and 71.2% in the IO group. Using the IPTW method, IO treatment was associated with better PFS (HR=0.227; 95% CI 0.147-0.351; p < 0.0001). The overall response rate was 26.3% in the CT group versus 60.7% in the IO group (p < 0.001) with prolonged duration of disease control in the IO group (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, predictive factors of PFS for patients treated with IO were good performance status, absence of liver metastasis and prior primary tumor resection, whereas no association was found for the site of the primary tumor. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of randomized trials, our study highlights the superior efficacy of ICI compared with standard-of-care therapy in patients with unresectable or metastatic dMMR/MSI-H non-colorectal digestive cancer, regardless of tumor type, with acceptable toxicity.

Infliximab desensitization in patients with inflammatory bowel diseases: a safe therapeutic alternative.

BACKGROUND: Hypersensitivity reactions (HSR) to the administration of infliximab (IFX) in Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) patients are not rare and usually lead to drug discontinuation. We report data on safety and effectiveness of desensitization to IFX in patients with previous HSR. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective monocentric observational study. Patients for whom a desensitization protocol to IFX was realized after a previous HSR were included. Anti-drug antibodies (ADA) and IFX trough levels at both inclusion and six months after desensitization were collected. Clinical outcomes, including recurrence of HSR were evaluated. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2020, 27 patients (Crohn's Disease: 26 (96%) were included). Desensitization after HSR was performed after a median time of 10.4 months (2.9-33.1). Nineteen (70%) patients received immunosuppressants at time of desensitization. Eight (30%) patients presented HSR at first (n = 2), second (n = 4) or third (n = 2) IFX perfusion after desensitization. None led to intensive care unit transfer or death. Thirteen (48%) had clinical response at 6 months and 8 (29%) were still under IFX treatment two years after desensitization. IFX trough levels and ADA were available for 14 patients at time of desensitization. Most patients (12 out of 14) had ADA at a high level. At 6 months, among the 7 patients with long term response to IFX, 4 presented a decrease of ADA titers and 2 had a significant trough level of IFX. CONCLUSION: IFX desensitization in patients with IBD is a safe therapeutic alternative and represents a potential option for patients refractory to multiple biologics.What is already known? Hypersensitivity reactions to the administration of infliximab is frequent. Occurrence of hypersensitivity reaction, either immediate or delayed, usually leads to permanent drug discontinuation.What is new here? Infliximab desensitization is well tolerated with no hypersensitivity reaction recurrence in 70% of patients. Clinical success at 6 months was of 48% and around a third of patients remained under infliximab therapy two years after desensitization. Antidrug antibodies decreased and infliximab trough levels increased in these patients showing the impact of desensitization on immunogenicity.How can this study help patient care? Infliximab desensitization represents a potential option for patients refractory to multiple biologics who presented hypersensitivity reaction to the drug.

Non-metastatic colon cancer: French Intergroup Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatments, and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, AFEF, and SFR).

INTRODUCTION: This article is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of non-metastatic colon cancer (CC), revised in November 2022. METHODS: These guidelines represent collaborative work of all French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of CC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B, and C) according to the level of evidence found in the literature published up to November 2022. RESULTS: Initial evaluation of CC is based on clinical examination, colonoscopy, chest-abdomen-pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assay. CC is usually managed by surgery and adjuvant treatment depending on the pathological findings. The use of adjuvant therapy remains a challenging question in stage II disease. For high-risk stage II CC, adjuvant chemotherapy must be discussed and fluoropyrimidine monotherapy or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy proposed according to the type and number of poor prognostic features. Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (FOLFOX or CAPOX) is the current standard for adjuvant therapy of patients with stage III CC. However, these regimens are associated with significant oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity. The results of the recent IDEA study provide evidence that 3 months of treatment with CAPOX is as effective as 6 months of oxaliplatin-based therapy in patients with low-risk stage III CC (T1-3 and N1). A 6-month oxaliplatin-based therapy remains the standard of care for high-risk stage III CC (T4 and/or N2). For patients unfit for oxaliplatin, fluoropyrimidine monotherapy is recommended. CONCLUSION: French guidelines for non-metastatic CC management help to offer the best personalized therapeutic strategy in daily clinical practice. Each individual case must be discussed within a multidisciplinary tumor board and then the treatment option decided with the patient.

Gemcitabine and Paclitaxel Versus Gemcitabine Alone After 5-Fluorouracil, Oxaliplatin, and Irinotecan in Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Phase III PRODIGE 65-UCGI 36-GEMPAX UNICANCER Study.

PURPOSE: GEMPAX was an open-label, randomized phase III clinical trial designed to assess the efficacy and tolerability of gemcitabine plus paclitaxel versus gemcitabine alone as second-line treatment for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) who previously received 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan. METHODS: Patients with histologically or cytologically confirmed mPDAC were randomly assigned (2:1) to receive GEMPAX (paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 + gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2; IV; once at day (D) 1, D8, and D15/arm A) or gemcitabine (arm B) alone once at D1, D8, and D15 every 28 days until progression, toxicity, or patient's decision. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), quality of life, and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 211 patients (median age, 64 [30-86] years; 62% male) were included. After a median study follow-up for alive patients of 13.4 versus 13.8 months in arm A versus arm B, the median OS (95% CI) was 6.4 (5.2 to 7.4) versus 5.9 months (4.6 to 6.9; hazard ratio [HR], 0.87 [0.63 to 1.20]; P = 0.4095), the median PFS was 3.1 (2.2 to 4.3) versus 2.0 months (1.9 to 2.3; HR, 0.64 [0.47 to 0.89]; P = 0.0067), and the ORR was 17.1% (11.3 to 24.4) versus 4.2% (0.9 to 11.9; P = 0.008) in arm A versus arm B, respectively. Overall, 16.7% of patients in arm A and 2.9% in arm B discontinued their treatment because of adverse events (AEs). One grade 5 AE associated with both gemcitabine and paclitaxel was reported in arm A (acute respiratory distress), and 58.0% versus 27.1% of patients experienced grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs in arm A versus arm B, among which 15.2% versus 4.3% had anemia, 15.9% versus 15.7% had neutropenia, 19.6% versus 4.3% had thrombocytopenia, 10.1% versus 2.9% had asthenia and 12.3% versus 0.0% had neuropathy. CONCLUSION: While GEMPAX did not meet the primary end point of OS versus gemcitabine alone in patients with mPDAC in the second-line setting, both PFS and ORR were significantly improved.

Primary resistance to immunotherapy in patients with a dMMR/MSI metastatic gastrointestinal cancer: who is at risk? An AGEO real-world study.

BACKGROUND: The outstanding efficacy of immunotherapy in metastatic dMMR/MSI gastro-intestinal (GI) cancers has led to a rapid increase in the number of patients treated. However, 20-30% of patients experience primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIPR) and need better characterization. METHODS: This AGEO real-world study retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of ICIs and identified clinical variables associated with ICIPR in patients with metastatic dMMR/MSI GI cancers treated with immunotherapy between 2015 and 2022. RESULTS: 399 patients were included, 284 with colorectal cancer (CRC) and 115 with non-CRC, mostly treated by an anti-PD(L)1 (88.0%). PFS at 24 months was 55.8% (95CI [50.8-61.2]) and OS at 48 months was 59.1% (95CI [53.0-65.9]). ORR was 51.0%, and 25.1% of patients were ICIPR. There was no statistical difference in ORR, DCR, PFS, or OS between CRC and non-CRC groups. In multivariable analysis, ICIPR was associated with ECOG-PS ≥ 2 (OR = 3.36), liver metastases (OR = 2.19), peritoneal metastases (OR = 2.00), ≥1 previous line of treatment (OR = 1.83), and age≤50 years old (OR = 1.76). CONCLUSION: These five clinical factors associated with primary resistance to ICIs should be considered by physicians to guide treatment choice in GI dMMR/MSI metastatic cancer patients.

Time to recurrence and its relation to survival after recurrence in patients resected for stage III colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: It is intuitively thought that early relapse is associated with poor survival after recurrence (SAR) in resected colon cancer (CC) patients, but this has never been formally studied. METHODS: We pooled data from stage III patients treated with oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in two phase III trials, to analyse time to recurrence (TTR) and its relationship with SAR. TTR and SAR were also studied according to molecular status (mismatch repair (MMR), RAS, and BRAFV600E). Early relapsing patients were defined as patients having a TTR event within 12 months after starting adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: 4548 stage III CC patients were included in the present analysis. Deficient MMR (dMMR) CC patients experienced fewer recurrences than proficient (p)MMR CC patients (18.8% versus 27.6%) but had a significantly shorter median TTR (mTTR; 0.74 versus 1.40 years, p < 0.0001). In pMMR patients, BRAF and RAS mutations were also associated with earlier mTTR as compared to double wild-type (WT) patients (0.99 versus 1.38 versus 1.54 years, respectively, p < 0.0001). Early recurrence occurred in 397 patients and was associated with a median SAR (2.2 versus 3.3 years, p = 0.0007). However, this association was mainly due to pMMR/RAS and BRAFV600E mutated tumours and was not confirmed in dMMR and pMMR/double WT subgroups. CONCLUSION: In resected stage III CC treated with standard oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy, TTR varies between dMMR, pMMR/RAS, or BRAFV600E mutated and pMMR/double WT tumours. In addition, early relapse is associated with poor survival, mainly due to patients resected for a pMMR/RAS or BRAFV600E mutated tumour.

Impact of Cardiovascular Comorbidities on the Effectiveness and Safety of Bevacizumab in Older Patients with Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular comorbidities are not contraindications of bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate the impact of cardiovascular comorbidities before bevacizumab treatment on overall survival and cardiovascular safety in older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. METHODS: A 2009-2015 cohort of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer aged ≥ 65 years administered first-line bevacizumab was extracted from the French healthcare reimbursement claims database. Baseline heart failure, hypertension, and venous/arterial thromboembolic events were identified. The 36-month overall survival rate was evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and the impact of cardiovascular comorbidities on the 36-month overall survival using a time-dependent, multivariable, Cox proportional hazards model. The 36-month cumulative incidence of cardiovascular events, and the impact of cardiovascular comorbidities on the likelihood of cardiovascular events were evaluated using the Fine and Gray model, with death as a competing risk. RESULTS: We included 9222 patients (56.4% male; median age 73 years). Two-thirds (66.7%) had baseline cardiovascular comorbidities. The median 36-month overall survival was 20.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 19.9-21.0] and 21.8 [95% CI 21.1-22.6] months in patients with and without cardiovascular comorbidities, respectively. Age ≥ 75 years, dependency in activities of daily living, radiotherapy, and another targeted therapy were identified as death risk factors, but not cardiovascular comorbidities. At 36 months, cardiovascular events had occurred in 60.2% [95% CI 58.9-61.4] and 44.1% [95% CI 42.3-45.9] of patients with and without cardiovascular comorbidities. Baseline venous thrombosis, female, three or more cardiovascular medications, another targeted therapy, and more than six bevacizumab injections were identified as risk factors for cardiovascular events. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, cardiovascular comorbidities before administering bevacizumab to older patients with metastatic colorectal cancer impacted the cardiovascular safety, but not overall survival. Unless they limit functional independency, older patients with cardiovascular comorbidities should be treated with bevacizumab under close monitoring.

Adjuvant chemotherapy benefit according to T and N stage in small bowel adenocarcinoma: a large retrospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Small bowel adenocarcinoma is a rare cancer, and the role of adjuvant chemotherapy for localized disease is still debated. METHODS: This retrospective multicenter study included all consecutive patients who underwent curative surgical resection for localized small bowel adenocarcinoma between 1996 and 2019 from 3 French cohort studies. Prognostic and predictive factors of adjuvant chemotherapy efficacy were analyzed for disease-free survival and overall survival. The inverse probability of treatment weighting method was applied in the Cox regression model using the propensity score derived from multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 354 patients were included: median age, 63.5 years; duodenum location, 53.5%; and tumor stage I, II, and III in 31 (8.7%), 144 (40.7%), and 179 (50.6%) patients, respectively. The adjuvant chemotherapy was administered in 0 (0%), 66 (48.5%), and 143 (80.3%) patients with stage I, II, and III, respectively (P < .0001). In the subgroup analysis by inverse probability of treatment weighting method, a statistically significant disease-free survival and overall survival benefit in favor of adjuvant chemotherapy was observed in high-risk stage II (T4 and/or <8 lymph nodes examined) and III (T4 and/or N2) but not for low-risk stage II (T3 and ≥8 lymph nodes examined) and III (T1-3/N1) tumors (Pinteraction < .05). Furthermore, tumor location in jejunum and ileum was also a statistically significant predictive factor of response to adjuvant chemotherapy in stage II and III tumors (Pinteraction < .05). CONCLUSION: In localized small bowel adenocarcinoma, adjuvant chemotherapy seems to provide a statistically significant survival benefit for high-risk stage II and III tumors and for jejunum and ileum tumor locations.

Maintenance Therapy With Cetuximab After FOLFIRI Plus Cetuximab for RAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The optimal maintenance strategy after induction chemotherapy with anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody for patients with RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remains to be debated. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of maintenance therapy with single-agent cetuximab after FOLFIRI (leucovorin [folinic acid], fluorouracil, and irinotecan) plus cetuximab induction therapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: The TIME (Treatment After Irinotecan-Based Frontline Therapy: Maintenance With Erbitux]) (PRODIGE 28 [Partenariat de Recherche en Oncologie Digestive]-UCGI 27 [UniCancer GastroIntestinal Group]) phase 2 noncomparative, multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 15, 2014, to November 23, 2018, among 139 patients with unresectable RAS wild-type mCRC. The cutoff date for analysis was July 21, 2022. Interventions: After first-line induction therapy with 8 cycles of FOLFIRI plus cetuximab, patients without disease progression were randomized (1:1) to biweekly maintenance with cetuximab or observation. On disease progression, the same induction regimen was recommended for 16 weeks followed by further maintenance with cetuximab or observation until disease progression under the full induction regimen. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the 6-month progression-free rate from randomization. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. An exploratory biomolecular analysis, using next-generation sequencing, investigated the putative prognostic value of the tumor mutation profile. Results: Of 214 patients enrolled (141 men [65.9%]; median age, 67 years [range, 23-85 years]), 139 were randomized to receive cetuximab (n = 67; 45 men [67.2%]; median age, 64 years [range, 34-85 years]) or to be observed (n = 72; 50 men [69.4%]; median age, 68 years [23-85 years]). The 6-month progression-free rate was 38.8% ([26 of 67] 95% CI, 27.1%-51.5%) in the cetuximab group and 5.6% ([4 of 72] 95% CI, 1.5%-13.6%) in the observation group. At a median follow-up of 40.5 months (95% CI, 33.6-47.5 months), median progression-free survival (PFS) from randomization was 5.3 months (95% CI, 3.7-7.4 months) in the cetuximab group and 2.0 months (95% CI, 1.8-2.7 months) in the observation group. Median overall survival (OS) was 24.8 months (95% CI, 18.7-30.4 months) in the cetuximab group and 19.7 months (95% CI, 13.3-24.4 months) in the observation group. In an exploratory multivariate analysis, any tumor-activating mutation in the mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway genes was associated with shorter PFS from randomization regardless of treatment group (hazard ratio, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.01-2.62]; P = .04). The most frequent grade 3 or 4 treatment-related toxic effect in the cetuximab group during maintenance therapy was rash (8 of 67 [11.9%]). Conclusion and Relevance: The randomized clinical trial did not meet its primary end point but suggests clinically meaningful PFS and OS benefits associated with cetuximab maintenance therapy. However, maintenance cetuximab or treatment breaks after first-line combination FOLFIRI-cetuximab therapy seems inappropriate for patients with MAPK-mutated independently of the side of primary tumor. A more complete assessment of MAPK pathway mutations warrants further investigation to the refine treatment strategy for patients with RAS wild-type mCRC. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02404935.