Clinical utility of comprehensive circulating tumor DNA genotyping compared with standard of care tissue testing in patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive biomarker testing is essential in selecting optimal treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC); however, incomplete genotyping is widespread, with most patients not receiving testing for all guideline-recommended biomarkers, in part due to reliance on burdensome sequential tissue-based single-biomarker tests with long waiting times or availability of only archival tissue samples. We aimed to demonstrate that liquid biopsy, associated with rapid turnaround time (TAT) and lower patient burden, effectively identifies guideline-recommended biomarkers in mCRC relative to standard of care (SOC) tissue testing. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Prospectively enrolled patients with previously untreated mCRC undergoing physician discretion SOC tissue genotyping submitted pretreatment blood samples for comprehensive circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) analysis with Guardant360 and targeted RAS and BRAF analysis with OncoBEAM. RESULTS: Among 155 patients, physician discretion SOC tissue genotyping identified a guideline-recommended biomarker in 82 patients, versus 88 identified with comprehensive ctDNA (52.9% versus 56.8%, noninferiority demonstrated down to α = 0.005) and 69 identified with targeted PCR ctDNA analysis (52.9% versus 44.5%, noninferiority rejected at α = 0.05). Utilizing ctDNA in addition to tissue increased patient identification for a guideline-recommended biomarker by 19.5% by rescuing those without tissue results either due to tissue insufficiency, test failure, or false negatives. ctDNA median TAT was significantly faster than tissue testing when the complete process from sample acquisition to results was considered (median 10 versus 27 days, P < 0.0001), resulting in accelerated biomarker discovery, with 52.0% biomarker-positive patients identified by ctDNA versus 10.2% by SOC tissue 10 days after sample collection (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive ctDNA genotyping accurately identifies guideline-recommended biomarkers in patients with mCRC at a rate at least as high as SOC tissue genotyping, in a much shorter time. Based on these findings, the addition of ctDNA genotyping to clinical practice has significant potential to improve the care of patients with mCRC.

Efficacy of trifluridine and tipiracil (TAS-102) versus placebo, with supportive care, in a randomized, controlled trial of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer from Spain: results of a subgroup analysis of the phase 3 RECOURSE trial.

PURPOSE: TAS-102 is a combination of the thymidine-based nucleoside analog trifluridine and the thymidine phosphorylase inhibitor tipiracil. Efficacy and safety of TAS-102 in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) refractory or intolerant to standard therapies were evaluated in the phase 3 RECOURSE trial. Results of RECOURSE demonstrated significant improvement in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with TAS-102 versus placebo [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.68 and 0.48 for OS and PFS, respectively; both P < 0.001]. The current analysis evaluates efficacy and safety of TAS-102 in the RECOURSE Spanish subgroup. METHODS: Primary and key secondary endpoints were evaluated in a post hoc analysis of the RECOURSE Spanish subgroup, using univariate and multivariate analyses. Safety and tolerability were reported with descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The RECOURSE Spanish subgroup included 112 patients (mean age 61 years, 62 % male). Median OS was 6.8 months in the TAS-102 group (n = 80) versus 4.6 months in the placebo group (n = 32) [HR = 0.47; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 0.28-0.78; P = 0.0032). Median PFS was 2.0 months in the TAS-102 group and 1.7 months in the placebo group (HR = 0.47; 95 % CI: 0.30-0.74; P = 0.001). Eighty (100 %) TAS-102 versus 31 (96.9 %) placebo patients had adverse events (AEs). The most common drug-related ≥Grade 3 AE was neutropenia (40 % TAS-102 versus 0 % placebo). There was 1 (1.3 %) case of febrile neutropenia in the TAS-102 group versus none in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In the RECOURSE Spanish subgroup, TAS-102 was associated with significantly improved OS and PFS versus placebo, consistent with the overall RECOURSE population. No new safety signals were identified. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV STUDY NUMBER: NCT01607957.

Cisplatin plus continuous infusion vinorelbine for the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer: a phase I-II study.

BACKGROUND: In this Phase I/II trial, the maximumtolerated dose (MTD) and activity of cisplatin plus vinorelbine (VRL) administered in continuous infusion as first-line treatment of advanced non small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was determined in 12 consecutive chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced NSCLC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The dose of cisplatin was 100 mg/m(2) in all patients, and vinorelbine was administered as an initial intravenous (iv) bolus of 8 mg/m(2) on day 1 followed by a 4-day continuous iv infusion at 4 different 24 h dose levels (DLs) to be repeated every 21 days. All 12 patients (47 cycles) were evaluable for response and toxicity. RESULTS: The MTD was 8 mg/m(2) bolus followed by a continuous iv infusion of 8 mg/m(2) per day over 4 days. The dose limiting toxicities (DLT) were febrile neutropenia in 4 patients and grade 3 mucositis in 1 patient. There was less neuro-toxicity and compared to the weekly bolus scheme. There was no significant cumulative toxicity after 3 cycles. Partial responses were observed in 6 patients; an overall response rate of 50% (95% CI: 30-65%). Median time to progression was 5,5 months (95% CI: 1,5-11 months) and median survival was 11 months (95% CI: 5-20 months). CONCLUSIONS: The results demonstrate that, in this setting of first-line treatment of NSCLC, cisplatin plus vinorelbine at 8 mg/m(2) bolus followed by a continuous infusion of 8 mg/m(2) per day over 4 days is the recommended schedule. Further trials would be useful to establish activity of this combination.

Weekly irinotecan (CPT-11) in 5-FU heavily pretreated and poor-performance-status patients with advanced colorectal cancer.

Irinotecan (CPT-11) is an effective drug in patients with advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). Little is known about its efficacy and safety in previously treated patients with poor performance status. We prospectively evaluated the antitumor efficacy and safety of CPT-11 monotherapy in this setting. Thirty-four patients with poor performance status (Karnofsky score between 60 and 80) and/or progressing on one or more previous 5-FU-based chemotherapy lines for advanced colorectal adenocarcinoma were enrolled in this study. Treatment consisted of irinotecan (CPT-11) at 100 mg/m(2) administered as a 60-min iv infusion every week for four consecutive weeks followed by a 2-wk rest period until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The overall objective response rate (WHO criteria) for the 34 patients included was 20.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 6.3%-34.9%]. Stable disease was obtained in 13 patients (38.2%) and 14 patients (41.2%) progressed. The median time to disease progression was 5.5 mo (range: 0.9-17.5) and the median survival was 8.3 mo (95% CI: 1.7-16.9). Overall, weekly CPT-11 was well tolerated with grade 3/4 neutropenia as the main hematological toxicity (11 patients: 32.4%; 14 infusions: 3.3%), and delayed diarrhea (10 patients: 29.4%; 16 infusions: 3.8%) as the main grade 3/4 non-hematological toxicity. In conclusion, weekly CPT-11 at 100 mg/m(2) for four consecutive weeks followed by a 2-wk rest period showed antitumor efficacy and may be safely administered to heavily pretreated patients with advanced colorectal cancer and a poor performance status. Weekly CPT-11 monotherapy may be considered as a therapeutic option for this population of patients.