Improving individualised therapies in localised gastro-oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

Despite our increased understanding of the biological and molecular aspects of gastro-oesophageal tumourigenesis, the identification of prognostic or predictive factors remains challenging. Patients with resectable gastric and oesophageal adenocarcinoma are often treated similarly after surgical resection, regardless of their tumour biology, clinical characteristics, and histological treatment response. Substantial progress has been made in the past 5 years in managing patients with gastric or oesophageal adenocarcinoma, including the use of immune checkpoint inhibitors and new targeted therapies, leading to substantial improvements in clinical outcomes. These advancements have primarily been established in advanced and metastatic disease, while the management framework for local and locoregional disease is just beginning to shift. We provide an overview of existing data on biomarkers and tumour-related and host-related factors that are relevant to stratify patients into low-risk and high-risk recurrence groups, both before and after surgery, paving the way for more personalised treatment approaches.

Safety and efficacy of nintedanib as second-line therapy for patients with differentiated or medullary thyroid cancer progressing after first-line therapy. A randomized phase II study of the EORTC Endocrine Task Force (protocol 1209-EnTF).

Background: Nintedanib is a triple-angiokinase inhibitor with potential activity in patients with advanced thyroid cancers, as radioiodine refractory differentiated thyroid cancer (RAIR DTC) and medullary thyroid cancer (MTC). Design: EORTC-1209 (NCT01788982) was a double-blind randomized (2:1 ratio) placebo-controlled phase II, multi-cohort study exploring the efficacy and safety of nintedanib in patients with progressive, locally advanced, and/or metastatic RAIR DTC and MTC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) in the per-protocol (PP) population for both cohorts. Secondary endpoints included response rate, duration of response, overall survival (OS), and safety. Results: RAIR DTC cohort: Seventy out of the 75 planned patients with RAIR DTC (median age, 66 years; 39 women) who had progressed after one (76%) or two lines (24%) of previous systemic therapy were randomized to receive either nintedanib (N = 45) or placebo (N = 25). Of these, 69 patients started treatment and 56 met all inclusion criteria (PP). At data cutoff, the median duration of follow-up was 26.3 months in the nintedanib arm and 19.8 months in the placebo arm. In the PP population, the median PFS was 3.7 months [80% confidence interval (CI), 1.9-6.5] in the nintedanib arm and 2.9 months (80% CI, 2.0-5.6) in the placebo arm (HR = 0.65; 80% CI, 0.42-0.99; one-sided log-rank test P = 0.0947). No objective response was observed. The median OS was 29.6 months [80% CI, 15.2-not reached (NR)] in the nintedanib arm and not reached in the placebo arm. Grade 3-4 adverse events of any attribution occurred in 50% of patients receiving nintedanib and in 36% of patients receiving placebo. MTC cohort: Thirty-one out of the 67 planned patients with MTC (median age, 57 years; eight women) who had progressed after one (68%) or two (32%) lines of previous systemic therapy were randomized to receive either nintedanib (N = 22) or placebo (N = 9). Of these, 20 patients (15 in the nintedanib arm and five in the placebo arm) started treatment and met all inclusion criteria (PP). The median PFS was 7.0 months (80% CI, 1.9-8.7) in the nintedanib arm and 3.9 months (80% CI, 3.0-5.5) in the placebo arm (HR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.16-1.53). No objective response was reported. The median OS was 16.4 months (80% CI, 12.1-24.9) in the nintedanib arm and 12.3 months (80% CI, 7.1-NR) in the placebo arm. Grade 3-4 adverse events of any attribution during the blinded period occurred in 59.1% of patients receiving nintedanib and in 33.3% of patients receiving placebo. Conclusion: This study did not suggest a clinically significant improvement of PFS with nintedanib over placebo in patients with pretreated RAIR DTC and MTC.

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).

Atezolizumab plus modified docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil as first-line treatment for advanced anal cancer (SCARCE C17-02 PRODIGE 60): a randomised, non-comparative, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: The modified docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (mDCF) regimen has shown efficacy and safety as first-line treatment for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, making it a standard regimen. Inhibitors of programmed cell death protein 1 and its ligand, such as pembrolizumab, nivolumab, retifanlimab, avelumab, and atezolizumab, have shown some antitumour activity as monotherapy in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anus that is refractory to chemotherapy. This phase 2 study evaluated the combination of mDCF and atezolizumab as first-line treatment in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anus. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, non-comparative, phase 2 study, participants from 21 centres (academic, private, and community hospitals and cancer research centres) across France with chemo-naive, metastatic, or unresectable locally advanced recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, aged 18 years or older, and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, were randomly allocated (2:1) to receive either atezolizumab (800 mg intravenously every 2 weeks up to 1 year) plus mDCF (eight cycles of 40 mg per m2 docetaxel and 40 mg per m2 cisplatin on day 1 and 1200 mg per m2 per day of fluorouracil for 2 days, every 2 weeks intravenously; group A) or mDCF alone (group B). Randomisation was done centrally using a minimisation technique and was stratified by age (<65 years vs ≥65 years) and disease status. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed 12-month progression-free survival in the modified intention-to-treat population in group A (35% for the null hypothesis and 50% for the alternative hypothesis). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03519295, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: 97 evaluable participants (64 in group A and 33 in group B) were enrolled between July 3, 2018, and Aug 19, 2020. The median follow-up was 26·5 months (95% CI 24·8-28·4). The median age of participants was 64·1 years (IQR 56·2-71·6), and 71 (73%) were female. 12-month progression-free survival was 45% (90% CI 35-55) in group A and 43% (29-58) in group B. In participants with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 5 or greater, 12-month progression-free survival was 70% (95% CI 47-100) in group A and 40% (19-85) in group B (interaction p=0·051) Both groups showed high compliance. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were observed in 39 (61%) participants in group A and 14 (42%) in group B. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (nine [14%] participants in group A vs five [15%] in group B), anaemia (nine [14%] vs one [3%]), fatigue (three [5%] vs four [12%]), and diarrhoea (seven [11%] vs one [3%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 16 (25%) participants in group A and four (12%) in group B, and these were mDCF-related in seven (11%) participants in group A and four (12%) in group B. Atezolizumab-related serious adverse events occurred in nine (14%) participants in group A, including grade 2 infusion-related reaction in three (5%), grade 3 infection in two (3%), and grade 2 colitis, grade 3 acute kidney injury, grade 3 sarcoidosis, and a grade 4 platelet count decrease each in one participant (2%). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Despite a higher incidence of adverse events, combining atezolizumab with mDCF is feasible, with similar dose intensity in both groups, although the primary efficacy endpoint was not met. The predictive value of a PD-L1 combined positive score of 5 or greater now needs to be confirmed in future studies. FUNDING: GERCOR, Roche.

Biliary tract cancers: French national clinical practice guidelines for diagnosis, treatments and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, UNICANCER, GERCOR, SFCD, SFED, AFEF, SFRO, SFP, SFR, ACABi, ACHBPT).

INTRODUCTION: This document is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines of the management of biliary tract cancers (BTC) (intrahepatic, perihilar and distal cholangiocarcinomas, and gallbladder carcinomas) published in September 2023, available on the website of the French Society of Gastroenterology (SNFGE) (www.tncd.org). METHODS: This collaborative work was conducted under the auspices of French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of BTC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B and C) according to the level of scientific evidence until August 2023. RESULTS: BTC diagnosis and staging is mainly based on enhanced computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging and (endoscopic) ultrasound-guided biopsy. Treatment strategy depends on BTC subtype and disease stage. Surgery followed by adjuvant capecitabine is recommended for localised disease. No neoadjuvant treatment is validated to date. Cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy combined to the anti-PD-L1 inhibitor durvalumab is the first-line standard of care for advanced disease. Early systematic tumour molecular profiling is recommended to screen for actionable alterations (IDH1 mutations, FGFR2 rearrangements, HER2 amplification, BRAFV600E mutation, MSI/dMMR status, etc.) and guide subsequent lines of treatment. In the absence of actionable alterations, FOLFOX chemotherapy is the only second-line standard-of-care. No third-line chemotherapy standard is validated to date. CONCLUSION: These guidelines are intended to provide a personalised therapeutic strategy for daily clinical practice. Each individual BTC case should be discussed by a multidisciplinary team.

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.

Sunitinib for metastatic progressive phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas: results from FIRSTMAPPP, an academic, multicentre, international, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: No randomised controlled trial has ever been done in patients with metastatic phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas. Preclinical and first clinical evidence suggested beneficial effects of sunitinib. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of sunitinib in patients with metastatic phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas. METHODS: FIRSTMAPPP is a multicentre, international, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 trial done at 14 academic centres across four European countries. Eligible participants were adults (aged ≥18 years) with sporadic or inherited progressive metastatic phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either oral sunitinib (37·5 mg per day) or placebo. Randomisation was stratified according to SDHB status (mutation present vs wild type) and number of previous systemic therapies (0 vs ≥1). Primary endpoint was the rate of progression-free survival at 12 months according to real-time central review (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours version 1.1). On the basis of a two-step Simon model, we aimed for the accrual of 78 patients, assuming a 20% improvement of the 12-month progression-free survival rate from 20% to 40%, to conclude that sunitinib is effective. Crossover from the placebo group was allowed. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01371201, and is closed for enrolment. FINDINGS: From Dec 1, 2011, to Jan 31, 2019, a total of 78 patients with progressive metastatic phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas were enrolled (39 patients per group). 25 (32%) of 78 patients had germline SDHx variants and 54 (69%) had used previous therapies. The primary endpoint was met, with a 12-month progression-free survival in 14 of 39 patients (36% [90% CI 23-50]) in the sunitinib group. In the placebo group, the 12-month progression-free survival in seven of 39 patients was 19% (90% CI 11-31), validating the hypotheses of our study design. The most frequent grade 3 or 4 adverse events were asthenia (seven [18%] of 39 and one [3%] of 39), hypertension (five [13%] and four [10%]), and back or bone pain (one [3%] and three [8%]) in the sunitinib and placebo groups, respectively. Three deaths occurred in the sunitinib group: these deaths were due to respiratory insufficiency, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, and rectal bleeding. Only the latter event was considered drug related. Two deaths occurred in the placebo group due to aspiration pneumonia and septic shock. INTERPRETATION: This first randomised trial supports the use of sunitinib as the medical option with the highest level of evidence for anti-tumour efficacy in progressive metastatic phaeochromocytomas and paragangliomas. FUNDING: French Ministry of Health, through the National Institute for Cancer, German Ministry of Education and Research, and the German Research Foundation within the CRC/Transregio 205/2, EU Seventh Framework Programme, and a private donator grant.

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.

Triplet chemotherapy plus cetuximab as first-line treatment in extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Triplet chemotherapy plus cetuximab showed promising results in phase II trials in unsystematically selected RAS population. We evaluated FOLFIRINOX+cetuximab efficacy as first-line treatment in extended RAS wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed patients treated with FOLFIRINOX+cetuximab, using data from clinical trials and real-life practice. Extended mutation analysis was performed when RAS/BRAF status was unavailable. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: Seventy patients (61.4 % male, median age 58.7 years) were analyzed. Eighty percent had left-sided mCRC and 97.1 % had liver metastases. Median PFS and overall survival (OS) were 13.3 and 48.5 months, respectively. The objective response rate was 85.7 %, with 20 % complete response. Primary tumor location did not affect OS and PFS. BRAF wild-type patients (n = 65) had longer PFS (13.3 vs. 6.0 months; p = 0.005) and OS (50.1 vs. 21.2 months; p = 0.007) than BRAF mutated patients (n = 5, including four BRAFV600E). Median OS was significantly longer in resected patients (n = 39, 55.1 vs. 30.7 months; p = 0.030). Main toxicities were diarrhea (31.4 %) and neutropenia (21.4 %). CONCLUSION: FOLFIRINOX+cetuximab provides good PFS, high response rate and prolonged disease control in initially unresectable extended RAS wild-type mCRC. This combination is particularly interesting for selected patients with liver-limited disease eligible to secondary resection.

Improved guidance is needed to optimise diagnostics and treatment of patients with thyroid cancer in Europe.

Although thyroid cancer (TC) is generally associated with a favourable prognosis, there are certain high-risk groups with a clear unmet therapeutic need. Unravelling the genomic landscape of TC has recently led to the development of novel effective targeted treatments. To date, these treatments have mostly been evaluated in non-randomised single-arm phase II clinical trials and are consequently non-reimbursed in several countries. Furthermore, most of these agents must be tailored to individual patient molecular characteristics, a context known as personalised cancer medicine, necessitating a requirement for predictive molecular biomarker testing. Existing guidelines, both in Europe and internationally, entail mostly therapeutic rather than molecular testing recommendations. This may reflect ambiguity among experts due to lack of evidence and also practical barriers in availability of the preferred molecular somatic screening and/or targeted treatments. This article reviews existing European recommendations regarding advanced/metastatic TC management with a special focus on molecular testing, and compares findings with real-world practice based on a recent survey involving TC experts from 18 European countries. Significant disparities are highlighted between theory and practice related to variable access to infrastructure, therapies and expertise, together with the insufficient availability of multidisciplinary tumour boards. In particular, practitioners' choice of what, how and when to test is shown to be influenced by the expertise of the available laboratory, the financing source and the existence of potential facilitators, such as clinical trial access. Overall, the need of a collaborative initiative among European stakeholders to develop standardised, accessible molecular genotyping approaches in TC is underscored.

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.

Pathogenic alterations in PIK3CA and KMT2C are frequent and independent prognostic factors in anal squamous cell carcinoma treated with salvage abdominoperineal resection.

The management of anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) has yet to experience the transformative impact of precision medicine. Conducting genomic analyses may uncover novel prognostic biomarkers and offer potential directions for the development of targeted therapies. To that end, we assessed the prognostic and theragnostic implications of pathogenic variants identified in 571 cancer-related genes from surgical samples collected from a homogeneous, multicentric French cohort of 158 ASCC patients who underwent abdominoperineal resection treatment. Alterations in PI3K/AKT/mTOR, chromatin remodeling, and Notch pathways were frequent in HPV-positive tumors, while HPV-negative tumors often harbored variants in cell cycle regulation and genome integrity maintenance genes (e.g., frequent TP53 and TERT promoter mutations). In patients with HPV-positive tumors, KMT2C and PIK3CA exon 9/20 pathogenic variants were associated with worse overall survival in multivariate analysis (Hazard ratio (HR)KMT2C = 2.54, 95%CI = [1.25,5.17], P value = .010; HRPIK3CA = 2.43, 95%CI = [1.3,4.56], P value = .006). Alterations with theragnostic value in another cancer type was detected in 43% of patients. These results suggest that PIK3CA and KMT2C pathogenic variants are independent prognostic factors in patients with ASCC with HPV-positive tumors treated by abdominoperineal resection. And, importantly, the high prevalence of alterations bearing potential theragnostic value strongly supports the use of genomic profiling to allow patient enrollment in precision medicine clinical trials.

Factors Associated with Survival in Anaplastic Thyroid Carcinoma: A Multicenter Study from the ENDOCAN-TUTHYREF Network.

Background: Anaplastic thyroid carcinoma (ATC) is a rare and frequently fatal type of thyroid cancer. The degree of heterogeneity in survival rates for ATC is incompletely studied. This study evaluated the factors associated with overall survival (OS) of patients with ATC using multicenter real-world data from a national tertiary care center network in France. Methods: In this multicenter, retrospective cohort study, all patients with ATC diagnosed between 2010 and 2020 were identified from the national database of the French ENDOCAN-TUTHYREF network. Factors associated with OS were examined in multivariable analyses using Cox proportional hazards models. Results: The study included 360 patients. Of these, 220 (61%) were female and the median age was 72 years (interquartile range: 62-80). The percentages of patients with pure and mixed (synchronously-transformed) ATC (p-ATC and st-ATC) were 62.5% and 26.7%, respectively. The median OS was 6.8 months [confidence interval, CI: 5.5-8.1]: not reached for stage IVa, 11.4 months [8.2-17.8] for IVb, and 4.6 months [3.5-5.7] for IVc. Surgery, radiation therapy to the neck, chemotherapy, and best supportive care were administered to 69 (19.2%), 214 (59.4%), 254 (70.6%), and 66 (18.3%) patients, respectively. In a multivariable analysis, including stage IVb-IVc patients, significantly higher OS was observed in patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance-status of 0-1 (hazard ratio [HR], 0.6; [CI, 0.4-0.9], p < 0.02), stage IVb [HR, 0.5; CI, 0.4-0.8, p < 0.001], and multimodal treatment (surgery and chemoradiotherapy) [HR, 0.07; CI, 0.04-0.1, p < 0.001]. Variables associated with significantly worse OS included: p-ATC (vs. st-ATC) [HR, 1.83; CI, 1.33-2.51, p = 0.001] and a neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) >5.05 [HR, 2.05, CI, 1.39-3.05, p < 0.001]. Conclusions: Factors independently associated with improved OS in ATC included: European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, disease stage, multimodality treatment, synchronously transformed ATC, and lower NLR. Long-term OS was observed in selected patients with ATC who underwent multimodal treatment.

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.

NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine in treatment-naive patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (NAPOLI 3): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma remains one of the most lethal malignancies, with few treatment options. NAPOLI 3 aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of NALIRIFOX versus nab-paclitaxel and gemcitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC). METHODS: NAPOLI 3 was a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study conducted at 187 community and academic sites in 18 countries worldwide across Europe, North America, South America, Asia, and Australia. Patients with mPDAC and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score 0 or 1 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive NALIRIFOX (liposomal irinotecan 50 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 60 mg/m2, leucovorin 400 mg/m2, and fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2, administered sequentially as a continuous intravenous infusion over 46 h) on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle or nab-paclitaxel 125 mg/m2 and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2, administered intravenously, on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Balanced block randomisation was stratified by geographical region, performance status, and liver metastases, managed through an interactive web response system. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, evaluated when at least 543 events were observed across the two treatment groups. Safety was evaluated in all patients who received at least one dose of study treatment. This completed trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04083235. FINDINGS: Between Feb 19, 2020 and Aug 17, 2021, 770 patients were randomly assigned (NALIRIFOX, 383; nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine, 387; median follow-up 16·1 months [IQR 13·4-19·1]). Median overall survival was 11·1 months (95% CI 10·0-12·1) with NALIRIFOX versus 9·2 months (8·3-10·6) with nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine (hazard ratio 0·83; 95% CI 0·70-0·99; p=0·036). Grade 3 or higher treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 322 (87%) of 370 patients receiving NALIRIFOX and 326 (86%) of 379 patients receiving nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine; treatment-related deaths occurred in six (2%) patients in the NALIRIFOX group and eight (2%) patients in the nab-paclitaxel-gemcitabine group. INTERPRETATION: Our findings support use of the NALIRIFOX regimen as a possible reference regimen for first-line treatment of mPDAC. FUNDING: Ipsen. TRANSLATION: For the plain language summary see Supplementary Materials section.

[French recommendations for malignant pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas by the national ENDOCAN-COMETE network]. / Recommandations du réseau national ENDOCAN-COMETE pour la prise en charge des phéochromocytomes et paragangliomes métastatiques.

Pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas are rare neuroendocrine tumors, developed respectively in the adrenal medulla and in extra-adrenal locations. Their malignancy is defined by the presence of distant metastases. Forty percent of them are inherited and can be part of different hereditary syndromes. Their management is ensured in France by the multidisciplinary expert centers of the ENDOCAN-COMETE national network "Cancers of the Adrenal gland", certified by the National Cancer Institute and discussed within multidisciplinary team meetings. The diagnostic and therapeutic work-up must be standardized, based on an expert analysis of clinical symptoms, hormonal biological secretions, genetics, morphological and specific metabolic imaging. In the context of a heterogeneous survival sometimes beyond seven to ten years, therapeutic intervention must be justified. This is multidisciplinary and relies on surgery, interventional radiology, external or internal radiotherapy and medical treatments such as sunitinib or dacarbazine and temodal chemotherapy. The personalized approach based on functional imaging fixation status and genetics is progressing despite the extreme rarity of this disease.

Sorafenib in Molecularly Selected Cancer Patients: Final Analysis of the MOST-Plus Sorafenib Cohort.

BACKGROUND: MOST-plus is a multicenter, randomized, open-label, adaptive Phase II trial evaluating the clinical benefit of targeted treatments matched to molecular alteration in advanced/metastatic solid tumors. Sorafenib was tested on patients with tumors harboring sorafenib-targeted genes. METHODS: The MOST-plus trial used a randomized discontinuation design. After 12 weeks of sorafenib (400 mg, po BID), patients with progressive disease discontinued study, patients with objective response were proposed to continue sorafenib, whereas patients with stable disease (SD) were randomly assigned (1:1) to the maintenance or interruption of treatment. The primary endpoint was RECIST version 1.1 progression-free rate at 16 weeks after randomization (PFR-16w). Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. Statistical analyses used a sequential Bayesian approach with interim efficacy analyses. The enrolment could be stopped in the case of a 95% probability for the estimated PFR-16w to be higher in the maintenance than in the interruption arm (NCT02029001). RESULTS: 151 patients were included, of whom 35 had SD at 12 weeks of Sorafenib. For the 35 patients with SD on sorafenib, the PFR-16w was 65% [95% credibility interval 43.4-83.7] in the continuation arm and 25% [7.8-48.1] in the interruption arm. Median PFS and OS were improved in the maintenance versus the interruption arm (mPFS: 5.6 [95%CI 1.97-6.77] months versus 2.0 [95%CI 1.61-3.91] months (p = 0.0231) and mOS: 14.3 [95%CI 8.9-23.8] versus 8.0 months [95%CI 3.5-15.2] (p = 0.0857)). CONCLUSION: Sorafenib showed activity in progressive patients with solid tumors harboring somatic genomic alterations in sorafenib-targeted genes. Continuing sorafenib when SD is achieved improves PFR compared to interruption.

Complete pathological response after chemotherapy or immune checkpoint inhibitors in deficient MMR metastatic colorectal cancer: Results of a retrospective multicenter study.

About 5% of the patients with metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC) present microsatellite instability (MSI)/deficient mismatch repair system (dMMR). While metastasectomy is known to improve overall and progression-free survival in mCRC, specific results in selected patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC are lacking. Our study aimed to describe metastasectomy results, characterize histological response and evaluate pathological complete response (pCR) rate in patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC. We retrospectively reviewed data from all consecutive patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC who underwent surgical metastasectomy between January 2010 and June 2021 in 17 French centers. Primary outcome was to assess the pCR rate defined by tumor regression grade (TRG) 0. Secondary endpoints included relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS), and explored TRG as predictive factor for RFS and OS. Among the 88 patients operated, 109 metastasectomies were performed in 81 patients after neoadjuvant treatment [chemotherapy ± targeted therapy (CTT): 69, 85.2%; immunotherapy (ICI): 12, 14.8%], and pCR was achieved in 13 (16.1%) patients. Among the latter, pCR rate were 10.2% in the patients having received CTT (N = 7) and 50.0% in the patients treated with ICI (N = 6). Radiological response did not predict TRG. With a median follow-up of 57.9 (IQR 34.2-81.6) months, median RFS was 20.2 (15.4-not reached) months, median OS was not reached. Major pathological responses (TRG0 + TRG1) were significantly associated with longer RFS (HR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03-0.55; P = .006). The pCR rate of 16.1% achieved with neoadjuvant treatment in patients with dMMR/MSI mCRC is consistent with previously reported rates in pMMR/MSS mCRC. Immunotherapy showed better pCR rate than chemotherapy ± targeted therapy. Further prospective trials are needed to validate immunotherapy as neoadjuvant treatment in resectable/potentially resectable dMMR/MSI mCRC and identify predictive factors for pCR.

DCF versus doublet chemotherapy as first-line treatment of advanced squamous anal cell carcinoma: a multicenter propensity score-matching study.

Triplet DCF (docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-flurouracil) and doublet CP/CF (carboplatin and paclitaxel/cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil) regimens were prospectively evaluated in advanced squamous anal cell carcinoma (SCCA), and validated as standard treatments. Even though the high efficacy and good tolerance of DCF regimen were confirmed in 3 independent prospective trials, doublet CP regimen is still recommended in several guidelines based in its better safety profile with similar efficacy compared to CF regimen. We performed a propensity score-adjusted method with inverse probability of treatment weighted (IPTW) and matched case control (MCC) comparison among patients with metastatic or non-resectable locally advanced recurrent SCCA, treated with chemotherapy as first line regimen. The primary endpoint was the overall survival (OS), and the secondary endpoint was the progression-free survival (PFS). 247 patients were included for analysis. 154 patients received DCF and 93 patients received a doublet regimen. The median OS was 32.3 months with DCF and 18.3 months with doublet regimens (HR 0.53, 95%CI 0.38-0.74; p = 0.0001), and the median PFS was 11.2 months with DCF versus 7.6 months with doublet regimens (HR 0.53, 95%CI 0.39-0.73; p < 0.0001). The hazard ratios by IPTW and MCC analyses were 0.411 (95% CI, 0.324-0.521; p < 0.0001) and 0.406 (95% CI, 0.261-0.632; p < 0.0001) for OS, and 0.466 (95% CI, 0.376-0.576; p < 0.0001) and 0.438 (95% CI, 0.298-0.644; P < 0.0001) for PFS. The triplet DCF regimen provides a high and significant benefit in OS and PFS over doublet regimens, and should be considered as upfront treatment for eligible patients with advanced SCCA.

Prognostic value of Lynch syndrome, BRAFV600E , and RAS mutational status in dMMR/MSI-H metastatic colorectal cancer in a pooled analysis of Dutch and French cohorts.

BACKGROUND: Current knowledge on prognostic biomarkers (especially BRAFV600E /RAS mutations) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is mainly based on mCRC patients with proficient mismatch repair (pMMR) tumors. It is uncertain whether these biomarkers have the same prognostic value in mCRC patients with deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) tumors. METHODS: This observational cohort study combined a population-based Dutch cohort (2014-2019) and a large French multicenter cohort (2007-2017). All mCRC patients with a histologically proven dMMR tumor were included. RESULTS: In our real-world data cohort of 707 dMMR mCRC patients, 438 patients were treated with first-line palliative systemic chemotherapy. Mean age of first-line treated patients was 61.9 years, 49% were male, and 40% had Lynch syndrome. BRAFV600E mutation was present in 47% of tumors and 30% harbored a RAS mutation. Multivariable regression analysis on OS showed significant hazard rates (HR) for known prognostic factors as age and performance status, however showed no significance for Lynch syndrome (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.66-1.72), BRAFV600E mutational status (HR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.67-1.54), and RAS mutational status (HR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.64-1.59), with similar results for PFS. CONCLUSION: BRAFV600E and RAS mutational status are not associated with prognosis in dMMR mCRC patients, in contrast to pMMR mCRC patients. Lynch syndrome is also not an independent prognostic factor for survival. These findings underline that prognostic factors of patients with dMMR mCRC are different of those with pMMR, which could be taken into consideration when prognosis is used for clinical decision-making in dMMR mCRC patients and underline the complex heterogeneity of mCRC.