Regorafenib dose-optimisation in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (ReDOS): a randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: Regorafenib confers an overall survival benefit in patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer; however, the adverse event profile of regorafenib has limited its use. Despite no supportive evidence, various dosing schedules are used clinically to alleviate toxicities. This study evaluated the safety and activity of two regorafenib dosing schedules. METHODS: In this randomised, multicentre, open-label, phase 2 study done in 39 outpatient cancer centres in the USA, adults aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed advanced or metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum that was refractory to previous standard therapy, including EGFR inhibitors if KRAS wild-type, were enrolled. Eligible patients had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1 and had no previous treatment with regorafenib. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) into four groups with two distinct regorafenib dosing strategies and two clobetasol usage plans, stratified by hospital. Regorafenib dosing strategies were a dose-escalation strategy (starting dose 80 mg/day orally with weekly escalation, per 40 mg increment, to 160 mg/day regorafenib) if no significant drug-related adverse events occurred and a standard-dose strategy (160 mg/day orally) for 21 days of a 28-day cycle. Clobetasol usage plans (0·05% clobetasol cream twice daily applied to palms and soles) were either pre-emptive or reactive. After randomisation to the four preplanned groups, using the Pocock and Simon dynamic allocation procedures stratified by the treating hospitals, we formally tested the interaction between the two interventions, dosing strategy and clobetasol usage. Given the absence of a significant interaction (p=0·74), we decided to pool the data for the pre-emptive and reactive treatment with clobetasol and compared the two dosing strategies (dose escalation vs standard dose). The primary endpoint was the proportion of evaluable patients (defined as those who were eligible, consented, and received any protocol treatment) initiating cycle 3 and was analysed per protocol. Superiority for dose escalation was declared if the one-sided p value with Fisher's exact test was less than 0·2. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02368886. This study is fully accrued but remains active. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2015, and June 22, 2017, 123 patients were randomly assigned to treatment, of whom 116 (94%) were evaluable. The per-protocol population consisted of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group and 62 in the standard-dose group. At data cutoff on July 24, 2018, median follow-up was 1·18 years (IQR 0·98-1·57). The primary endpoint was met: 23 (43%, 95% CI 29-56) of 54 patients in the dose-escalation group initiated cycle 3 versus 16 (26%, 15-37) of 62 patients in the standard-dose group (one-sided p=0·043). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were fatigue (seven [13%] patients in the dose-escalation group vs 11 [18%] in the standard-dose group), hand-foot skin reaction (eight [15%] patients vs ten [16%] patients), abdominal pain (nine [17%] patients vs four [6%] patients), and hypertension (four [7%] patients vs nine [15%] patients). 14 patients had at least one drug-related serious adverse event: six patients in the dose-escalation group and eight patients in the standard-dose group. There was one probable treatment-related death in the standard-dose group (myocardial infarction). INTERPRETATION: The dose-escalation dosing strategy represents an alternative approach for optimising regorafenib dosing with comparable activity and lower incidence of adverse events and could be implemented in clinical practice on the basis of these data. FUNDING: Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals.

Oncology Navigation Decreases Time to Treatment in Patients with Pancreatic Malignancy.

BACKGROUND: Care of pancreatic cancer patients has become increasingly complex, which has led to delays in the initiation of therapy. Nurse navigators have been added to care teams, in part, to ameliorate this delay. This study investigated the difference in time from first oncology visit to first treatment date in patients with any pancreatic malignancy before and after the addition of an Oncology Navigator. METHODS: A single-institution database of patients with any pancreatic neoplasm evaluated by a provider in radiation, medical, or surgical oncology between 1 October 2015 and 30 September 2017 was analyzed. After 1 October 2016, an Oncology Navigator met patients at their initial visit and coordinated care throughout treatment. The cohort was divided into two groups: patients evaluated prior to the implementation of an Oncology Navigator and patients evaluated after implementation. Patient demographics and time from first visit to first intervention were compared. RESULTS: Overall, 147 patients with a new diagnosis of pancreatic neoplasm were evaluated; 57 patients were seen prior to the start of the Oncology Navigator program and 79 were evaluated after the navigation program was implemented. On univariate analysis, time from first contact by any provider to intervention was 46 days prior to oncology navigation and 26 days after implementation of oncology navigation (p = 0.005). While controlling for other covariates, employment of the Oncology Navigator decreased the time from first contact by any provider to intervention by almost 16 days (p = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing an oncology navigation program significantly decreased time to treatment in patients with pancreatic malignancy.

Phase I Study of Muscadine Grape Extract for Patients With Advanced Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Preclinical studies with muscadine grape extract (MGE) show antitumor activity and decreased systemic inflammation. This phase I study (NCT02583269) assessed safety and tolerability of a proprietary MGE preparation in patients with advanced solid tumors. METHODS: Patients with metastatic or unresectable cancers who were progressing on standard therapies were assigned to MGE in a standard 3+3 design. Five dose levels were tested (320 to 1600 mg total phenolics/d). Safety and maximum-tolerated dose were assessed after 4 weeks. Patients were evaluated for response at 8 weeks and continued on MGE if clinically stable. Secondary outcomes were response, survival, adherence, fatigue, and quality of life (QOL). RESULTS: In total, 23 patients (lung, n=7; gastrointestinal, n=7; genitourinary, n=6; other, n=3) received MGE capsules by mouth twice daily. The cohort [median age 72 years, 48% Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) 2] was heavily pretreated. After 4 weeks on MGE, possibly attributable adverse events grade 2 or higher were fatigue (n=1), decreased lymphocyte count (n=1), and constipation (n=2), including 1 dose-limiting toxicity for grade 3 constipation. Maximum-tolerated dose was not reached. No partial responses were observed. Median time on therapy was 8 weeks, with 29% of patients treated beyond 16 weeks and a median overall survival of 7.2 months. QOL and fatigue levels were stable from baseline to 8 weeks. Higher MGE dose was correlated with improvement in self-reported physical well-being QOL at 8 weeks (r=0.6; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: MGE is safe and well-tolerated in heavily pretreated and older cancer patients.  The potential anticancer properties and the effects of MGE on physical well-being and QOL metrics will be evaluated in future studies.

Circulating mutational portrait of cancer: manifestation of aggressive clonal events in both early and late stages.

BACKGROUND: Solid tumors residing in tissues and organs leave footprints in circulation through circulating tumor cells (CTCs) and circulating tumor DNAs (ctDNA). Characterization of the ctDNA portraits and comparison with tumor DNA mutational portraits may reveal clinically actionable information on solid tumors that is traditionally achieved through more invasive approaches. METHODS: We isolated ctDNAs from plasma of patients of 103 lung cancer and 74 other solid tumors of different tissue origins. Deep sequencing using the Guardant360 test was performed to identify mutations in 73 clinically actionable genes, and the results were associated with clinical characteristics of the patient. The mutation profiles of 37 lung cancer cases with paired ctDNA and tumor genomic DNA sequencing were used to evaluate clonal representation of tumor in circulation. Five lung cancer cases with longitudinal ctDNA sampling were monitored for cancer progression or response to treatments. RESULTS: Mutations in TP53, EGFR, and KRAS genes are most prevalent in our cohort. Mutation rates of ctDNA are similar in early (I and II) and late stage (III and IV) cancers. Mutation in DNA repair genes BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM are found in 18.1% (32/177) of cases. Patients with higher mutation rates had significantly higher mortality rates. Lung cancer of never smokers exhibited significantly higher ctDNA mutation rates as well as higher EGFR and ERBB2 mutations than ever smokers. Comparative analysis of ctDNA and tumor DNA mutation data from the same patients showed that key driver mutations could be detected in plasma even when they were present at a minor clonal population in the tumor. Mutations of key genes found in the tumor tissue could remain in circulation even after frontline radiotherapy and chemotherapy suggesting these mutations represented resistance mechanisms. Longitudinal sampling of five lung cancer cases showed distinct changes in ctDNA mutation portraits that are consistent with cancer progression or response to EGFR drug treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that ctDNA mutation rates in the key tumor-associated genes are clinical parameters relevant to smoking status and mortality. Mutations in ctDNA may serve as an early detection tool for cancer. This study quantitatively confirms the hypothesis that ctDNAs in circulation is the result of dissemination of aggressive tumor clones and survival of resistant clones. This study supports the use of ctDNA profiling as a less-invasive approach to monitor cancer progression and selection of appropriate drugs during cancer evolution.

Mutational Landscapes of Smoking-Related Cancers in Caucasians and African Americans: Precision Oncology Perspectives at Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Background: Cancers related to tobacco use and African-American ancestry are under-characterized by genomics. This gap in precision oncology research represents a major challenge in the health disparities in the United States. Methods: The Precision Oncology trial at the Wake Forest Baptist Comprehensive Cancer Center enrolled 431 cancer patients from March 2015 to May 2016. The composition of these patients consists of a high representation of tobacco-related cancers (e.g., lung, colorectal, and bladder) and African-American ancestry (13.5%). Tumors were sequenced to identify mutations to gain insight into genetic alterations associated with smoking and/or African-American ancestry. Results: Tobacco-related cancers exhibit a high mutational load. These tumors are characterized by high-frequency mutations in TP53, DNA damage repair genes (BRCA2 and ATM), and chromatin remodeling genes (the lysine methyltransferases KMT2D or MLL2, and KMT2C or MLL3). These tobacco-related cancers also exhibit augmented tumor heterogeneities. Smoking related genetic mutations were validated by The Cancer Genome Atlas dataset that includes 2,821 cases with known smoking status. The Wake Forest and The Cancer Genome Atlas cohorts (431 and 7,991 cases, respectively) revealed a significantly increased mutation rate in the TP53 gene in the African-American subgroup studied. Both cohorts also revealed 5 genes (e.g. CDK8) significantly amplified in the African-American population. Conclusions: These results provide strong evidence that tobacco is a major cause of genomic instability and heterogeneity in cancer. TP53 mutations and key oncogene amplifications emerge as key factors contributing to cancer outcome disparities among different racial/ethnic groups.

Factors predictive of survival for esophageal carcinoma treated with preoperative radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy followed by surgery.

PURPOSE: To evaluate parameters that may influence prognosis in patients treated with preoperative radiotherapy (RT) or chemoradiation. METHODS AND MATERIALS: One hundred seventy-six patients with esophageal carcinoma received preoperative radiotherapy (45 patients) or chemoradiation (131 patients). Forty-three received no surgery (NS), 32 had exploratory surgery (ES), and 101 received definitive surgery (DS). RESULTS: Five-year cause-specific survival and absolute survival rates were overall, 19% and 16%; NS group, 0% and 0%; ES group, 3% and 3%; DS group, 30% and 26%. On univariate analysis, definitive surgery (P < 0.0001), tumor size less than 5 cm (P < 0.0001), and chemotherapy (P = 0.0015) were significant predictors of improved cause-specific survival. Cause-specific survival was 51% for tumors /=6 cm (n = 86) survived. Multivariate analysis of the DS group showed complete or partial pathologic response (P = 0.0001), chemotherapy (P = 0.0026), and overall treatment time less than 3 months (P = 0.0405) significantly predicted improved cause-specific survival. Tumor <5 cm was marginally significant (P = 0.0515). CONCLUSION: Patients who undergo preoperative chemoradiation and definitive surgery have improved survival.