Molecularly guided therapy versus chemotherapy after disease control in unfavourable cancer of unknown primary (CUPISCO): an open-label, randomised, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with unfavourable subset cancer of unknown primary (CUP) have a poor prognosis when treated with standard platinum-based chemotherapy. Whether first-line treatment guided by comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) can improve outcomes is unknown. The CUPISCO trial was designed to inform a molecularly guided treatment strategy to improve outcomes over standard platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed, unfavourable, non-squamous CUP. The aim of the trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of molecularly guided therapy (MGT) versus standard platinum-based chemotherapy in these patients. This was to determine whether the inclusion of CGP in the initial diagnostic work-up leads to improved outcomes over the current standard of care. We herein report the primary analysis. METHODS: CUPISCO was a phase 2, prospective, randomised, open-label, active-controlled, multicentre trial done at 159 sites in 34 countries outside the USA. Patients with central eligibility review-confirmed disease (acceptable histologies included adenocarcinoma and poorly differentiated carcinoma) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, evaluated by CGP, who reached disease control after three cycles of standard first-line platinum-based chemotherapy were randomly assigned 3:1 via a block-stratified randomisation procedure to MGT versus chemotherapy continuation for at least three further cycles. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03498521, and follow-up is ongoing. FINDINGS: From July 10, 2018, to Dec 9, 2022, 636 (42%) of 1505 screened patients were enrolled. Median follow-up in the treatment period was 24·1 months (IQR 11·6-35·6). Of 438 patients who reached disease control after induction chemotherapy, 436 were randomly assigned: 326 (75%) to the MGT group and 110 (25%) to the chemotherapy group. Median progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population was 6·1 months (95% CI 4·7-6·5) in the MGT group versus 4·4 months (4·1-5·6) in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·72 [95% CI 0·56-0·92]; p=0·0079). Related adverse event rates per 100-patient-years at risk were generally similar or lower with MGT versus chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: In patients with previously untreated, unfavourable, non-squamous CUP who reached disease control after induction chemotherapy, CGP with subsequent MGTs resulted in longer progression-free survival than standard platinum-based chemotherapy. On the basis of these results, we recommend that CGP is performed at initial diagnosis in patients with unfavourable CUP. FUNDING: F Hoffmann-La Roche.

Homopolymer switches mediate adaptive mutability in mismatch repair-deficient colorectal cancer.

Mismatch repair (MMR)-deficient cancer evolves through the stepwise erosion of coding homopolymers in target genes. Curiously, the MMR genes MutS homolog 6 (MSH6) and MutS homolog 3 (MSH3) also contain coding homopolymers, and these are frequent mutational targets in MMR-deficient cancers. The impact of incremental MMR mutations on MMR-deficient cancer evolution is unknown. Here we show that microsatellite instability modulates DNA repair by toggling hypermutable mononucleotide homopolymer runs in MSH6 and MSH3 through stochastic frameshift switching. Spontaneous mutation and reversion modulate subclonal mutation rate, mutation bias and HLA and neoantigen diversity. Patient-derived organoids corroborate these observations and show that MMR homopolymer sequences drift back into reading frame in the absence of immune selection, suggesting a fitness cost of elevated mutation rates. Combined experimental and simulation studies demonstrate that subclonal immune selection favors incremental MMR mutations. Overall, our data demonstrate that MMR-deficient colorectal cancers fuel intratumor heterogeneity by adapting subclonal mutation rate and diversity to immune selection.

Biomarkers of systemic inflammation provide additional prognostic stratification in cancers of unknown primary.

BACKGROUND: Biomarkers of systemic inflammation have been shown to predict outcomes in patients with cancer of unknown primary (CUP). We sought to validate these findings in patients with confirmed CUP (cCUP) and explore their role alongside existing clinicopathological prognostic categories. PATIENTS AND METHODS: CUP oncologist from across the United Kingdom were invited to include patients with cCUP referred to their local CUP multidisciplinary team. Patient demographics, clinical, pathological and outcome data were recorded and analysed. RESULTS: Data were available for 548 patients from four CUP services. 23% (n = 124) of patients met clinicopathological criteria for favourable-risk cCUP. On multivariate analysis c-reactive protein (CRP) (p < 0.001) and the Scottish Inflammatory Prognostic Score (SIPS: combining albumin and neutrophil count) (p < 0.001) were independently predictive of survival. CRP and SIPS effectively stratified survival in patients with both favourable-risk and poor-risk cCUP based on clinicopathological features. CONCLUSIONS: Biomarkers of systemic inflammation are reliable prognostic factors in patients with cCUP, regardless of clinicopathological subgroup. We recommend that CRP or SIPS are incorporated into routine clinical assessments of patients with cCUP as a tool to aid investigation and/or treatment decision-making across all groups. Established clinicopathological factors can then be used to inform management pathways and specific systemic anticancer therapy selection.

Comprehensive Examination of Cholangiocarcinoma Patients Treated with Novel Targeted Therapies after Extended Molecular Profiling on Liquid Biopsies.

BACKGROUND: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is associated with poor outcomes and limited treatment options, leading to increased use of targeted therapies for its management. Here, we performed one of the largest single-centre reviews evaluating outcomes following personalised targeted agents in CCA patients. METHODS: All consecutive CCA patients receiving systemic therapy between January 2010 and April 2023 at UCLH were included. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate treatment response, survival outcomes and predictors of clinical benefit in CCA patients treated with molecularly guided therapies. Patient demographic factors, disease characteristics and survival outcomes were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional-hazards models. RESULTS: Of the 227 consecutive CCA patients, 162 (71%) had molecular profiling, of whom 56 (35%) were eligible and 55 received molecular-targeted treatment. CCA histological classifications comprised intrahepatic (N = 32), extrahepatic (N = 11), hilar (N = 4) and unknown (N = 9) subtypes. Most patients received targeted agents based on genomic profiling in a second treatment line setting (N = 34). Frequently observed genomic alterations occurred in the FGFR2 (N = 21), IDH1 (N = 7) and BRCA2 (N = 6) genes. Median progression-free survival (PFS) following first-, second- and third-line systemic therapy and overall survival (OS) were 8.44 (95% CI, 7.49-12.78), 5.65 (95% CI, 3.71-7.13), 5.55 (2.79-12.58) and 29.01 (24.21-42.91) months, respectively. CCA subtype and FGFR/BRCA molecular aberration status were not associated with PFS or OS. However, a prior CCA-related surgical history was predictive of OS (p = 0.02). Stratification by best overall response to second-line targeted agents demonstrated an association with PFS (p = 0.002) and OS (p = 0.02). Duration of treatment with second-line targeted therapy was associated with OS (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients receiving targeted therapeutics achieved promising outcomes, especially those attaining a favourable treatment response and those receiving targeted agents for longer periods. Liquid biopsies can reliably provide information on extended molecular profiling to aid patient selection for personalised therapies.

Genetic and immune landscape evolution in MMR-deficient colorectal cancer.

Mismatch repair-deficient (MMRd) colorectal cancers (CRCs) have high mutation burdens, which make these tumours immunogenic and many respond to immune checkpoint inhibitors. The MMRd hypermutator phenotype may also promote intratumour heterogeneity (ITH) and cancer evolution. We applied multiregion sequencing and CD8 and programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) immunostaining to systematically investigate ITH and how genetic and immune landscapes coevolve. All cases had high truncal mutation burdens. Despite pervasive ITH, driver aberrations showed a clear hierarchy. Those in WNT/ß-catenin, mitogen-activated protein kinase, and TGF-ß receptor family genes were almost always truncal. Immune evasion (IE) drivers, such as inactivation of genes involved in antigen presentation or IFN-γ signalling, were predominantly subclonal and showed parallel evolution. These IE drivers have been implicated in immune checkpoint inhibitor resistance or sensitivity. Clonality assessments are therefore important for the development of predictive immunotherapy biomarkers in MMRd CRCs. Phylogenetic analysis identified three distinct patterns of IE driver evolution: pan-tumour evolution, subclonal evolution, and evolutionary stasis. These, but neither mutation burdens nor heterogeneity metrics, significantly correlated with T-cell densities, which were used as a surrogate marker of tumour immunogenicity. Furthermore, this revealed that genetic and T-cell infiltrates coevolve in MMRd CRCs. Low T-cell densities in the subgroup without any known IE drivers may indicate an, as yet unknown, IE mechanism. PD-L1 was expressed in the tumour microenvironment in most samples and correlated with T-cell densities. However, PD-L1 expression in cancer cells was independent of T-cell densities but strongly associated with loss of the intestinal homeobox transcription factor CDX2. This explains infrequent PD-L1 expression by cancer cells and may contribute to a higher recurrence risk of MMRd CRCs with impaired CDX2 expression. © 2023 The Authors. The Journal of Pathology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The Pathological Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

Pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy for HER2-negative advanced gastric cancer (KEYNOTE-859): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: PD-1 inhibitors combined with chemotherapy have shown efficacy in gastric or gastro-esophageal junction cancer. We compared the efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy with placebo plus chemotherapy in participants with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastro-esophageal junction adenocarcinoma. METHODS: KEYNOTE-859 is a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, phase 3 trial, done at 207 medical centres across 33 countries. Eligible participants were aged 18 years and older with previously untreated histologically or cytologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastro-esophageal junction adenocarcinoma and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive pembrolizumab or placebo 200 mg, administered intravenously every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles. All participants received investigator's choice of fluorouracil (intravenous, 800 mg/m2 per day) administered continuously on days 1-5 of each 3-week cycle plus cisplatin (intravenous, 80 mg/m2) administered on day 1 of each 3-week cycle or capecitabine (oral, 1000 mg/m2) administered twice daily on days 1-14 of each 3-week cycle plus oxaliplatin (intravenous, 130 mg/m2) administered on day 1 of each 3-week cycle. Randomisation was done using a central interactive voice-response system and stratified by geographical region, PD-L1 status, and chemotherapy in permuted block sizes of four. The primary endpoint was overall survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, and the populations with a PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) of 1 or higher, and PD-L1 CPS of 10 or higher. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population, which included all randomly assigned participants who received at least one dose of study intervention. Here, we report the results of the interim analysis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03675737, and recruitment is complete. FINDINGS: Between Nov 8, 2018, and June 11, 2021, 1579 (66%) of 2409 screened participants were randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy (pembrolizumab group; n=790) or placebo plus chemotherapy (placebo group; n=789). Most participants were male (527 [67%] of 790 participants in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group; 544 [69%] of 789 participants in the placebo plus chemotherapy group) and White (426 [54%]; 435 [55%]). Median follow-up at the data cutoff was 31·0 months (IQR 23·0-38·3). Median overall survival was longer in the pembrolizumab group than in the placebo group in the ITT population (12·9 months [95% CI 11·9-14·0] vs 11·5 months [10·6-12·1]; hazard ratio [HR] 0·78 [95% CI 0·70-0·87]; p<0·0001), in participants with a PD-L1 CPS of 1 or higher (13·0 months [11·6-14·2] vs 11·4 months [10·5-12·0]; 0·74 [0·65-0·84]; p<0·0001), and in participants with a PD-L1 CPS of 10 or higher (15·7 months [13·8-19·3] vs 11·8 months [10·3-12·7]; 0·65 [0·53-0·79]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3-5 adverse events of any cause were anaemia (95 [12%] of 785 participants in the pembrolizumab group vs 76 [10%] of 787 participants in the placebo group) and decreased neutrophil count (77 [10%] vs 64 [8%]). Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in 184 (23%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 146 (19%) participants in the placebo group. Treatment-related deaths occurred in eight (1%) participants in the pembrolizumab group and 16 (2%) participants in the placebo group. No new safety signals were identified. INTERPRETATION: Participants in the pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy group had a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in overall survival with manageable toxicity compared with participants in the placebo plus chemotherapy group. Therefore, pembrolizumab with chemotherapy might be a first-line treatment option for patients with locally advanced or metastatic HER2-negative gastric or gastro-esophageal junction adenocarcinoma. FUNDING: Merck Sharp and Dohme.

The immunomodulatory role of IDO1-Kynurenine-NAD+ pathway in switching cold tumor microenvironment in PDAC.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the most common exocrine tumor of the pancreas characterized by late diagnosis, adverse overall 5-year survival, a higher propensity for metastatic disease, and lack of efficacy of systemic therapy options. These adverse outcomes can be partly attributed to complex tumor microenvironment (TME). Over the past decade, immunotherapy has revolutionized the management of certain cancers; thus far, the immunologically 'non-inflamed' tumor microenvironment in PDACs has proven to be challenging. Indolamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 (IDO1) is the rate-limiting enzyme in the catabolic pathway of L-Tryptophan, an essential amino acid, that gives rise to the immunosuppressive metabolite Kynurenine. IDO1, Indolamine 2,3-dioxygenase 2 (IDO2), and Tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase (TDO) are the key enzymes in the tryptophan catabolic pathway but we focus on the role of the predominant enzyme form IDO1 in this review. Nicotinamide phosphoribosyl transferase (iNAMPT) regulates the intracellular concentration of NAD and is upregulated in the tumor. In light of the potential role of IDO1 as a driver of hostile TME in PDAC and NAD+ as a key coenzyme in anti-tumor immune response, this review urges focus on extensive research and initiation of clinical trials using IDO1 and NAMPT inhibitors in pancreatic cancer in the future.

Pembrolizumab in Asian patients with microsatellite-instability-high/mismatch-repair-deficient colorectal cancer.

The phase 3 KEYNOTE-177 study evaluated pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab in patients with newly diagnosed, microsatellite-instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review (BICR) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were overall response rate (ORR) per RECIST v1.1 by BICR and safety. Here, we report results from the post hoc analysis of patients who were enrolled in Asia from the final analysis (FA) of KEYNOTE-177. A total of 48 patients from Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan (pembrolizumab, n = 22; chemotherapy, n = 26) were included. At FA, median time from randomization to data cutoff (February 19, 2021) was 45.3 (range 38.1-57.8) months with pembrolizumab and 43.9 (range 36.6-55.1) months with chemotherapy. Median PFS was not reached (NR; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.9 months-NR) with pembrolizumab versus 10.4 (95% CI 6.3-22.0) months with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0.56, 95% CI 0.26-1.20). Median OS was NR (range 13.8 months-NR) versus 30.0 (14.7-NR) months (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.27-1.55) and ORR was 50% (95% CI 28-72) versus 46% (95% CI 27-67). Grade 3/4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) were reported by two patients (9%) in the pembrolizumab arm and 20 (80%) in the chemotherapy arm. Immune-mediated adverse events or infusion reactions were reported by six patients (27%) and 10 patients (40%), respectively. No deaths due to TRAEs occurred. These data support first-line pembrolizumab as a standard of care for patients from Asia with MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02563002.

Pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer (KEYNOTE-177): final analysis of a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Pembrolizumab has shown improved progression-free survival versus chemotherapy in patients with newly diagnosed microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. However, the treatment's effect on overall survival in this cohort of patients was unknown. Here, we present the final overall survival analysis of the KEYNOTE-177 study. METHODS: This randomised, open-label, phase 3 study was done in 193 academic medical centres and hospitals in 23 countries. We recruited patients aged at least 18 years, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had previously untreated microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) in blocks of four using an interactive voice response system or integrated web response system to intravenous pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks or to the investigator's choice of intravenous mFOLFOX6 (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on day 1, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 on day 1, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus on day 1 followed by a continuous infusion of 1200 mg/m2 per day for 2 days on days 1-2) or intravenous FOLFIRI (irinotecan 180 mg/m2 on day 1, leucovorin 400 mg/m2 on day 1, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 bolus on day 1 followed by a continuous infusion of 1200 mg/m2 per day for 2 days on days 1-2), every 2 weeks with or without intravenous bevacizumab 5 mg/kg every 2 weeks or intravenous weekly cetuximab (first dose 400 mg/m2, then 250 mg/m2 for every subsequent dose). Patients receiving chemotherapy could cross over to pembrolizumab for up to 35 treatment cycles after progression. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. KEYNOTE-177 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02563002, and is no longer enrolling patients. FINDINGS: Between Feb 11, 2016, and Feb 19, 2018, 852 patients were screened, of whom 307 (36%) were randomly assigned to pembrolizumab (n=153) or chemotherapy (n=154). 93 (60%) patients crossed over from chemotherapy to anti-PD-1 or anti-PD-L1 therapy (56 patients to on-study pembrolizumab and 37 patients to off-study therapy). At final analysis (median follow-up of 44·5 months [IQR 39·7-49·8]), median overall survival was not reached (NR; 95% CI 49·2-NR) with pembrolizumab vs 36·7 months (27·6-NR) with chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·74; 95% CI 0·53-1·03; p=0·036). Superiority of pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for overall survival was not demonstrated because the prespecified α of 0·025 needed for statistical significance was not achieved. At this updated analysis, median progression-free survival was 16·5 months (95% CI 5·4-38·1) with pembrolizumab versus 8·2 months (6·1-10·2) with chemotherapy (HR 0·59, 95% CI 0·45-0·79). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or worse occurred in 33 (22%) of 153 patients in the pembrolizumab group versus 95 (66%) of 143 patients in the chemotherapy group. Common adverse events of grade 3 or worse that were attributed to pembrolizumab were increased alanine aminotransferase, colitis, diarrhoea, and fatigue in three (2%) patients each, and those attributed to chemotherapy were decreased neutrophil count (in 24 [17%] patients), neutropenia (22 [15%]), diarrhoea (14 [10%]), and fatigue (13 [9%]). Serious adverse events attributed to study treatment occurred in 25 (16%) patients in the pembrolizumab group and in 41 (29%) patients in the chemotherapy group. No deaths attributed to pembrolizumab occurred; one death due to intestinal perforation was attributed to chemotherapy. INTERPRETATION: In this updated analysis, although pembrolizumab continued to show durable antitumour activity and fewer treatment-related adverse events compared with chemotherapy, there was no significant difference in overall survival between the two treatment groups. These findings support pembrolizumab as an efficacious first-line therapy in patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. FUNDING: MSD.

Experiences of running a stratified medicine adaptive platform trial: Challenges and lessons learned from 10 years of the FOCUS4 trial in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Complex innovative design trials are becoming increasingly common and offer potential for improving patient outcomes in a faster time frame. FOCUS4 was the first molecularly stratified trial in metastatic colorectal cancer and it remains one of the first umbrella trial designs to be launched globally. Here, we aim to describe lessons learned from delivery of the trial over the last 10 years. METHODS: FOCUS4 was a Phase II/III molecularly stratified umbrella trial testing the safety and efficacy of targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer. It used adaptive statistical methodology to decide which sub-trial should close early, and new therapies were added as protocol amendments. Patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer were registered, and central laboratory testing was used to stratify their tumour into molecular subtypes. Following 16 weeks of first-line therapy, patients with stable or responding disease were eligible for randomisation into either a molecularly stratified sub-trial (FOCUS4-B, C or D) or non-stratified FOCUS4-N. The primary outcome for all studies was progression-free survival comparing the intervention with active monitoring/placebo. At the close of the trial, feedback was elicited from all investigators through surveys and interviews and consolidated into a series of recommendations and lessons learned for the delivery of similar future trials. RESULTS: Between January 2014 and October 2020, 1434 patients were registered from 88 UK hospitals. Of the 20 drug combinations that were explored for inclusion in the platform trial, three molecularly targeted sub-trials were activated: FOCUS4-D (February 2014-March 2016) evaluated AZD8931 in the BRAF-PIK3CA-RAS wildtype subgroup; FOCUS4-B (February 2016-July 2018) evaluated aspirin in the PIK3CA mutant subgroup and FOCUS4-C (June 2017-October 2020) evaluated adavosertib in the RAS+TP53 double mutant subgroup. FOCUS4-N was active throughout and evaluated capecitabine monotherapy versus a treatment break. A total of 361 (25%) registered patients were randomised into a sub-trial. Feedback on the experiences of delivery of FOCUS4 could be grouped into three main areas of challenge: funding/infrastructure, biomarker testing procedures and trial design efficiencies within which 20 recommendations are summarised. CONCLUSION: Adaptive stratified medicine platform studies are feasible in common cancers but present challenges. Our stakeholder feedback has helped to inform how these trial designs can succeed and answer multiple questions efficiently, providing resource is adequate.

Trifluridine/Tipiracil in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A UK Multicenter Real-world Analysis on Efficacy, Safety, Predictive and Prognostic Factors.

BACKGROUND: The orally administered combination trifluridine/tipiracil has been approved as third line treatment in mCRC, demonstrating survival benefit and acceptable toxicity profile in the phase III RECOURSE study. PATIENT AND METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective real-world analysis of patients with mCRC receiving trifluridine/tipiracil between 2016 and 2019 in eight cancer centers across the United Kingdom. RESULTS: A total of 236 patients were included with median age of 69 years. All patients had received at least 2 lines of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy doublet with oxaliplatin or irinotecan. About 10% of patients had ECOG ≥ 2. Median duration of trifluridine/tipiracil treatment was 3 months with an ORR of 2.1% and disease control rate of 21.6%. Median OS was 7.6 and median PFS 3.3 months. A dose reduction was required in 27% of patients, while 7.6% discontinued treatment due to toxicity. The most common grade 3 toxicities were neutropenia (34%), fatigue (10%), anemia (9%) and febrile neutropenia (5%). Baseline NLR <5 and CEA <200 had favorable prognostic (HR: 0.52 and 0.39, P≤ .001) and predictive value (OR: 4.1 and 6.7, P< .05). Development of grade 3 neutropenia predicted treatment response (OR: 0.32, P< .001). Following treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil 41% were referred for phase I trial or rechallenged with chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: Trifluridine/tipiracil is well tolerated in refractory mCRC patients with comparable efficacy and toxicity profile to that of the phase III RECOURSE. Pretreatment NLR and CEA could serve as potential markers for patient selection, while treatment-induced grade 3 neutropenia predicted response. Prospective validation is needed.

Capecitabine Versus Active Monitoring in Stable or Responding Metastatic Colorectal Cancer After 16 Weeks of First-Line Therapy: Results of the Randomized FOCUS4-N Trial.

PURPOSE: Despite extensive randomized evidence supporting the use of treatment breaks in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), they are not universally offered to patients despite improvements in quality of life without detriment to overall survival (OS). FOCUS4-N was set up to explore the impact of oral maintenance therapy in patients who are responding to first-line therapy. METHODS: FOCUS4 was a molecularly stratified trial program that registered patients with newly diagnosed mCRC. The FOCUS4-N trial was offered to patients in whom a targeted subtrial was unavailable or biomarker tests failed. Patients were randomly assigned using a 1:1 ratio between maintenance capecitabine and active monitoring (AM). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) with secondary outcomes including OS toxicity and tolerability. RESULTS: Between March 2014 and March 2020, 254 patients were randomly assigned (127 to capecitabine and 127 to AM) across 88 UK sites. Baseline characteristics were balanced. There was strong evidence of efficacy for PFS (hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75; P < .0001), but no significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.27; P = .66) was observed. Compliance with treatment was good, and toxicity from capecitabine versus AM was as expected with grade ≥ 2 fatigue (25% v 12%), diarrhea (23% v 13%), and hand-foot syndrome (26% v 3%). Quality of life showed little difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: Despite strong evidence of disease control with maintenance therapy, OS remains unaffected and FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients who are stable or responding to first-line treatment for mCRC. Capecitabine without bevacizumab may be used to extend PFS in the interval after 16 weeks of first-line therapy.

Immunogenomics of Colorectal Cancer Response to Checkpoint Blockade: Analysis of the KEYNOTE 177 Trial and Validation Cohorts.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) shows variable response to immune checkpoint blockade, which can only partially be explained by high tumor mutational burden (TMB). We conducted an integrated study of the cancer tissue and associated tumor microenvironment (TME) from patients treated with pembrolizumab (KEYNOTE 177 clinical trial) or nivolumab to dissect the cellular and molecular determinants of response to anti- programmed cell death 1 (PD1) immunotherapy. METHODS: We selected multiple regions per tumor showing variable T-cell infiltration for a total of 738 regions from 29 patients, divided into discovery and validation cohorts. We performed multiregional whole-exome and RNA sequencing of the tumor cells and integrated these with T-cell receptor sequencing, high-dimensional imaging mass cytometry, detection of programmed death-ligand 1 (PDL1) interaction in situ, multiplexed immunofluorescence, and computational spatial analysis of the TME. RESULTS: In hypermutated CRCs, response to anti-PD1 immunotherapy was not associated with TMB but with high clonality of immunogenic mutations, clonally expanded T cells, low activation of Wnt signaling, deregulation of the interferon gamma pathway, and active immune escape mechanisms. Responsive hypermutated CRCs were also rich in cytotoxic and proliferating PD1+CD8 T cells interacting with PDL1+ antigen-presenting macrophages. CONCLUSIONS: Our study clarified the limits of TMB as a predictor of response of CRC to anti-PD1 immunotherapy. It identified a population of antigen-presenting macrophages interacting with CD8 T cells that consistently segregate with response. We therefore concluded that anti-PD1 agents release the PD1-PDL1 interaction between CD8 T cells and macrophages to promote cytotoxic antitumor activity.

Health-related quality of life in patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient metastatic colorectal cancer treated with first-line pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (KEYNOTE-177): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the KEYNOTE-177 study, pembrolizumab monotherapy provided statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in progression-free survival versus chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. To further support the efficacy and safety findings of the KEYNOTE-177 study, results of the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) analyses are reported here. METHODS: KEYNOTE-177 is an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial being done at 192 cancer centres in 23 countries, in patients aged 18 years and older with microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and who had not received previous systemic therapy for metastatic disease. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) centrally by use of interactive voice response or integrated web response technology to receive pembrolizumab 200 mg intravenously every 3 weeks or investigator's choice chemotherapy (mFOLFOX6 [leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin] or FOLFIRI [leucovorin, fluorouracil, and irinotecan] intravenously every 2 weeks with or without intravenous bevacizumab or cetuximab). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoints were progression-free survival (previously reported) and overall survival (data to be reported at the time of the final analysis). HRQOL outcomes were evaluated as prespecified exploratory endpoints. The analysis population comprised all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study treatment and completed at least one HRQOL assessment. HRQOL outcomes were mean change from baseline to prespecified week 18 in European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire-Colorectal 29 (EORTC QLQ-CR29) scale and item scores, and in the EuroQoL 5 Dimensions 3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L) visual analogue scale and health utility scores; the proportion of patients with improved, stable, or deteriorated scores from baseline to prespecified week 18 in EORTC QLQ-C30 scales and items; and time to deterioration in EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (GHS/QOL), physical functioning, social functioning, and fatigue scores and EORTC QLQ-CR29 urinary incontinence scores. The threshold for a small and clinically meaningful mean difference in EORTC QLQ-C30 score was 5-8 points. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02563002 and is ongoing; recruitment is closed. FINDINGS: Between Feb 11, 2016, and Feb 19, 2018, 307 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive pembrolizumab (n=153) or chemotherapy (n=154). The HRQOL analysis population comprised 294 patients (152 receiving pembrolizumab and 142 receiving chemotherapy). As of Feb 19, 2020, median time from randomisation to data cutoff was 32·4 months (IQR 27·7-37·8). Least squares mean (LSM) change from baseline to prespecified week 18 showed a clinically meaningful improvement in EORTC QLQ-C30 GHS/QOL scores with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy (between-group LSM difference 8·96 [95% CI 4·24-13·69]; two-sided nominal p=0·0002). Median time to deterioration was longer with pembrolizumab versus chemotherapy for GHS/QOL (hazard ratio 0·61 [95% CI 0·38-0·98]; one-sided nominal p=0·019), physical functioning (0·50 [95% CI 0·32-0·81]; one-sided nominal p=0·0016), social functioning (0·53 [95% CI 0·32-0·87]; one-sided nominal p=0·0050), and fatigue scores (0·48 [95% CI 0·33-0·69]; one-sided nominal p<0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Pembrolizumab monotherapy led to clinically meaningful improvements in HRQOL compared with chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair-deficient metastatic colorectal cancer. These data, along with the previously reported clinical benefits, support pembrolizumab as a first-line treatment option for this population. FUNDING: Merck Sharp & Dohme, a subsidiary of Merck & Co, Kenilworth, NJ, USA.

Pembrolizumab in Microsatellite-Instability-High Advanced Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Programmed death 1 (PD-1) blockade has clinical benefit in microsatellite-instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch-repair-deficient (dMMR) tumors after previous therapy. The efficacy of PD-1 blockade as compared with chemotherapy as first-line therapy for MSI-H-dMMR advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer is unknown. METHODS: In this phase 3, open-label trial, 307 patients with metastatic MSI-H-dMMR colorectal cancer who had not previously received treatment were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive pembrolizumab at a dose of 200 mg every 3 weeks or chemotherapy (5-fluorouracil-based therapy with or without bevacizumab or cetuximab) every 2 weeks. Patients receiving chemotherapy could cross over to pembrolizumab therapy after disease progression. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS: At the second interim analysis, after a median follow-up (from randomization to data cutoff) of 32.4 months (range, 24.0 to 48.3), pembrolizumab was superior to chemotherapy with respect to progression-free survival (median, 16.5 vs. 8.2 months; hazard ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.80; P = 0.0002). The estimated restricted mean survival after 24 months of follow-up was 13.7 months (range, 12.0 to 15.4) as compared with 10.8 months (range, 9.4 to 12.2). As of the data cutoff date, 56 patients in the pembrolizumab group and 69 in the chemotherapy group had died. Data on overall survival were still evolving (66% of required events had occurred) and remain blinded until the final analysis. An overall response (complete or partial response), as evaluated with Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.1, was observed in 43.8% of the patients in the pembrolizumab group and 33.1% in the chemotherapy group. Among patients with an overall response, 83% in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 35% of patients in the chemotherapy group, had ongoing responses at 24 months. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 22% of the patients in the pembrolizumab group, as compared with 66% (including one patient who died) in the chemotherapy group. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab led to significantly longer progression-free survival than chemotherapy when received as first-line therapy for MSI-H-dMMR metastatic colorectal cancer, with fewer treatment-related adverse events. (Funded by Merck Sharp and Dohme and by Stand Up to Cancer; KEYNOTE-177 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02563002.).

COVID-19 in cancer patients on systemic anti-cancer therapies: outcomes from the CAPITOL (COVID-19 Cancer PatIenT Outcomes in North London) cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer are hypothesised to be at increased risk of contracting COVID-19, leading to changes in treatment pathways in those treated with systemic anti-cancer treatments (SACT). This study investigated the outcomes of patients receiving SACT to assess whether they were at greater risk of contracting COVID-19 or having more severe outcomes. METHODS: Data was collected from all patients receiving SACT in two cancer centres as part of CAPITOL (COVID-19 Cancer PatIenT Outcomes in North London). The primary outcome was the effect of clinical characteristics on the incidence and severity of COVID-19 infection in patients on SACT. We used univariable and multivariable models to analyse outcomes, adjusting for age, gender and comorbidities. RESULTS: A total of 2871 patients receiving SACT from 2 March to 31 May 2020 were analysed; 68 (2.4%) were diagnosed with COVID-19. Cancer patients receiving SACT were more likely to die if they contracted COVID-19 than those who did not [adjusted (adj.) odds ratio (OR) 9.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.73-16.9]. Receiving chemotherapy increased the risk of developing COVID-19 (adj. OR 2.99; 95% CI = 1.72-5.21), with high dose chemotherapy significantly increasing risk (adj. OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.35-6.48), as did the presence of comorbidities (adj. OR 2.29; 95% CI 1.19-4.38), and having a respiratory or intrathoracic neoplasm (adj. OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.04-4.36). Receiving targeted treatment had a protective effect (adj. OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.30-0.95). Treatment intent (curative versus palliative), hormonal- or immunotherapy and solid versus haematological cancers had no significant effect on risk. CONCLUSION: Patients on SACT are more likely to die if they contract COVID-19. Those on chemotherapy, particularly high dose chemotherapy, are more likely to contract COVID-19, while targeted treatment appears to be protective.

Outcomes of the 2019 novel coronavirus in patients with or without a history of cancer: a multi-centre North London experience.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to compare the outcomes of COVID-19-positive disease in patients with a history of cancer to those without. METHODS: We retrospectively collected clinical data and outcomes of COVID-19 positive cancer patients treated consecutively in five North London hospitals (cohort A). Outcomes recorded included time interval between most recent anti-cancer treatment and admission, severe outcome [a composite endpoint of intensive care unit (ITU) admission, ventilation and/or death] and mortality. Outcomes were compared with consecutively admitted COVID-19 positive patients, without a history of cancer (cohort B), treated at the primary centre during the same time period (1 March-30 April 2020). Patients were matched for age, gender and comorbidity. RESULTS: The median age in both cohorts was 74 years, with 67% male, and comprised of 30 patients with cancer, and 90 without (1:3 ratio). For cohort B, 579 patients without a history of cancer and consecutively admitted were screened from the primary London hospital, 105 were COVID-19 positive and 90 were matched and included. Excluding cancer, both cohorts had a median of two comorbidities. The odds ratio (OR) for mortality, comparing patients with cancer to those without, was 1.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.4-2.5], and severe outcome (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.4-2.0) suggesting no increased risk of death or a severe outcome in patients with cancer. Cancer patients who received systemic treatment within 28 days had an OR for mortality of 4.05 (95% CI 0.68-23.95), p = 0.12. On presentation anaemia, hypokalaemia, hypoalbuminaemia and hypoproteinaemia were identified predominantly in cohort A. Median duration of admission was 8 days for cancer patients and 7 days for non-cancer. CONCLUSION: A diagnosis of cancer does not appear to increase the risk of death or a severe outcome in COVID-19 patients with cancer compared with those without cancer. If a second spike of virus strikes, rational decision making is required to ensure optimal cancer care.

Immunotherapy in gastrointestinal cancer: The current scenario and future perspectives.

Gastrointestinal cancers include colorectal, gastric, oesophageal, pancreatic and liver cancers. They continue to be a significant cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Current treatment strategies include chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy and targeted therapies. Immunotherapy has recently been incorporated in treatment regimens for some gastrointestinal malignancies and research into different immune modifying treatments is being carried out in this context. Approaches to immune modulation such as vaccination, adoptive cell therapy and checkpoint inhibition have shown varying clinical benefit, with most of the benefit seen in checkpoint inhibition. This review summarises recent advances and future direction of immunotherapy in patients with gastrointestinal malignancies.

Gastric Inflammatory Prognostic Index (GIPI) in Patients with Metastatic Gastro-Esophageal Junction/Gastric Cancer Treated with PD-1/PD-L1 Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) demonstrated improved overall survival (OS) in heavily pretreated unselected patients with metastatic gastro-esophageal junction (mGOJ)/gastric cancer (GC). Attempts to select patients based on programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression appear to be suboptimal. A strong rationale suggests a prognostic role for inflammatory biomarkers for ICI-treated patients with mGOJ/GC. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess whether inflammatory markers are associated with survival in ICI-treated patients with mGOJ/GC. METHODS: Ten inflammatory markers were retrospectively analyzed at baseline in 57 patients with mGOJ/GC with unknown PD-L1 status treated with second-line ICIs and correlated with OS. Selected variables were then analyzed in a multivariate Cox-regression model and used to build a GIPI nomogram. RESULTS: Neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) as continuous variables and albumin categorized as less than versus greater than 30 g/dL were the most significant predictors of OS and were used to build the GIPI nomogram. Nomogram-based lowest, mid-low, mid-high, and highest risk quartiles were associated with median OS (mOS) of 14.9, 7.1, 5.6, and 2.1 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] of highest vs. lowest risk 4.94; p = 0.0002). By optimally dichotomizing CRP and NLR, patients with one or more of the risk factors NLR > 6, CRP > 15 mg/L, and albumin < 30 g/dL (n = 29) had an mOS of 3.9 versus 14.2 months for patients with no risk factor (n = 28) (HR 2.48; p = 0.0015). CONCLUSIONS: GIPI, combining NLR, CRP, and albumin, is the first inflammatory index with a significant prognostic value in patients with mOGJ/GC receiving ICIs. GIPI merits validation in independent cohorts and prospective clinical trials.