Safety and tolerability of radiotherapy in combination with systemic targeted therapies for treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Palliative radiotherapy (RT) and systemic immuno- or targeted therapy both play significant roles in the treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Concurrent application of these therapies is increasing, however, no guidelines exist regarding the combination of systemic therapy with RT. This narrative review summarises the existing literature reporting toxicity observed after concurrent treatment with RT and immuno- or targeted therapeutic agents commonly used in HCC. METHODS: The PubMed database was searched for studies published between 2011 and 2023 reporting toxicity data on patients treated concurrently with RT and targeted agents used in HCC. Due to the paucity of relevant literature in HCC, the inclusion criteria were expanded to include non-HCC cohorts treated with targeted therapies commonly used in advanced HCC. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS: Sixty-seven articles were included in this review. Twenty-two articles reported combined RT with sorafenib, one with regorafenib, 22 with bevacizumab, three with lenvatinib and 19 with immune checkpoint inhibitors. Significant findings include a high rate severe hepatotoxicity with combination RT and sorafenib, ranging from 0-19% with liver stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and 3-18% with conventionally fractionated liver RT. Severe gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities including perforation and ulceration were seen with combination bevacizumab and RT, ranging from 0-27% in the acute setting and 0-23% in the late setting. The safety profile of combination immune checkpoint blockade agents and RT was similar to that seen in monotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Existing data suggests that combination RT and targeted therapy given the risk of severe adverse events including hepatotoxicity and GI toxicity. There is an urgent need for future studies specifically examining the impact of combination therapy in HCC patients to guide clinical decision-making in the evolving landscape of immune- and targeted therapies.

Peritoneal Tumor DNA as a Prognostic Biomarker in Gastric Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Gastric cancers commonly spread to the peritoneum. Its presence significantly alters patient prognosis and treatment-intent; however, current methods of peritoneal staging are inaccurate. Peritoneal tumor DNA (ptDNA) is tumor-derived DNA detectable in peritoneal lavage fluid. ptDNA positivity may indicate peritoneal micrometastasis and may be more sensitive than cytology in staging the peritoneum. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated the prognostic potential of ptDNA in gastric cancer. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases were searched using PRISMA guidelines. Studies published between January 1, 1990, and April 30, 2023, containing quantitative data relating to ptDNA in gastric cancer were meta-analyzed. RESULTS: Six studies were analyzed. Of the total 757 patients with gastric adenocarcinoma, 318 (42.0%) were stage I, 311 (41.0%) were stage II/III, 116 (15.3%) were stage IV, and 22 (2.9%) were undetermined. Overall, ptDNA detected cytology-positive cases with a sensitivity and specificity of 85.2% (95% CI, 66.5 to 100.0) and 91.5% (95% CI, 86.5 to 96.6), respectively. Additionally, ptDNA was detected in 54 (8.5%) of 634 cytology-negative patients. The presence of ptDNA negatively correlated with pathological stage I (relative risk [RR], 0.29 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.66]) and positively correlated with pathological stage IV (RR, 8.61 [95% CI, 1.86 to 39.89]) disease. Importantly, ptDNA positivity predicted an increased risk of peritoneal-specific metastasis (RR, 13.81 [95% CI, 8.11 to 23.53]) and reduced 3-year progression-free (RR, 5.37 [95% CI, 1.39 to 20.74]) and overall (hazard ratio, 4.13 [95% CI, 1.51 to 11.32]) survival. CONCLUSION: ptDNA carries valuable prognostic information and can detect peritoneal micrometastases in patients with gastric cancer. Its clinical utility in peritoneal staging for gastric cancer deserves further investigation.

The association of health-care contact days with physical function and survival in CCTG/AGITG CO.17.

INTRODUCTION: Although contact days-days with health-care contact outside home-are increasingly adopted as a measure of time toxicity and treatment burden, they could also serve as a surrogate of treatment-related harm. We sought to assess the association between contact days and patient-reported outcomes and the prognostic ability of contact days. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of CO.17 that evaluated cetuximab vs supportive care in patients with advanced colorectal cancer. CO.17 collected European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 instrument data. We assessed the association between number of contact days in a window and changes in physical function and global health status and the association between number of contact days in the first 4 weeks with overall survival. RESULTS: There was a negative association between the number of contact days and change in physical function (per each additional contact day: at 4 weeks, 1.50-point decrease; 8 weeks, 1.06-point decrease; P < .0001 for both) but not with global health status. This negative association was seen in patients receiving cetuximab but not supportive care. More contact days in the first 4 weeks was associated with worse overall survival for all participants and patients receiving cetuximab (per each additional contact day: all participants, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.05 to 1.10; and cetuximab, adjusted HR = 1.08, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.11; P < .0001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of a clinical trial, more contact days early in the course were associated with declines in physical function and worse survival in all participants and in participants receiving cancer-directed treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00079066.

BCL-XL inhibitors enhance the apoptotic efficacy of BRAF inhibitors in BRAFV600E colorectal cancer.

Metastatic BRAFV600E colorectal cancer (CRC) carries an extremely poor prognosis and is in urgent need of effective new treatments. While the BRAFV600E inhibitor encorafenib in combination with the EGFR inhibitor cetuximab (Enc+Cet) was recently approved for this indication, overall survival is only increased by 3.6 months and objective responses are observed in only 20% of patients. We have found that a limitation of Enc+Cet treatment is the failure to efficiently induce apoptosis in BRAFV600E CRCs, despite inducing expression of the pro-apoptotic protein BIM and repressing expression of the pro-survival protein MCL-1. Here, we show that BRAFV600E CRCs express high basal levels of the pro-survival proteins MCL-1 and BCL-XL, and that combining encorafenib with a BCL-XL inhibitor significantly enhances apoptosis in BRAFV600E CRC cell lines. This effect was partially dependent on the induction of BIM, as BIM deletion markedly attenuated BRAF plus BCL-XL inhibitor-induced apoptosis. As thrombocytopenia is an established on-target toxicity of BCL-XL inhibition, we also examined the effect of combining encorafenib with the BCL-XL -targeting PROTAC DT2216, and the novel BCL-2/BCL-XL inhibitor dendrimer conjugate AZD0466. Combining encorafenib with DT2216 significantly increased apoptosis induction in vitro, while combining encorafenib with AZD0466 was well tolerated in mice and further reduced growth of BRAFV600E CRC xenografts compared to either agent alone. Collectively, these findings demonstrate that combined BRAF and BCL-XL inhibition significantly enhances apoptosis in pre-clinical models of BRAFV600E CRC and is a combination regimen worthy of clinical investigation to improve outcomes for these patients.

First-Line Nivolumab and Relatlimab Plus Chemotherapy for Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma: The Phase II RELATIVITY-060 Study.

PURPOSE: Open-label phase II study (RELATIVITY-060) to investigate the efficacy and safety of first-line nivolumab, a PD-1-blocking antibody, plus relatlimab, a lymphocyte-activation gene 3 (LAG-3)-blocking antibody, plus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated advanced gastric cancer (GC) or gastroesophageal junction cancer (GEJC). METHODS: Patients with unresectable, locally advanced or metastatic GC/GEJC were randomly assigned 1:1 to nivolumab + relatlimab (fixed-dose combination) + chemotherapy or nivolumab + chemotherapy. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR; per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review [BICR]) in patients whose tumors had LAG-3 expression ≥1%. RESULTS: Of 274 patients, 138 were randomly assigned to nivolumab + relatlimab + chemotherapy and 136 to nivolumab + chemotherapy. Median follow-up was 11.9 months. In patients with LAG-3 expression ≥1%, BICR-assessed ORR (95% CI) was 48% (38 to 59) in the nivolumab + relatlimab + chemotherapy arm and 61% (51 to 71) in the nivolumab + chemotherapy arm; median progression-free survival (95% CI) by BICR was 7.0 months (5.8 to 8.4) versus 8.3 months (6.9 to 12.1; hazard ratio [HR], 1.41 [95% CI, 0.97 to 2.05]), and median overall survival (95% CI) was 13.5 months (11.9 to 19.1) versus 16.0 months (10.9 to not estimable; HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.70 to 1.54]), respectively. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs) occurred in 69% and 61% of all treated patients, and 42% and 36% of patients discontinued because of any-grade TRAEs in the nivolumab + relatlimab + chemotherapy and nivolumab + chemotherapy arms, respectively. CONCLUSION: RELATIVITY-060 did not meet its primary end point of improved ORR in patients with LAG-3 expression ≥1% when relatlimab was added to nivolumab + chemotherapy compared with nivolumab + chemotherapy. Further studies are needed to address whether adding anti-LAG-3 to anti-PD-1 plus chemotherapy can benefit specific GC/GEJC patient subgroups.

Prognostic value of liver metastases in colorectal cancer treated by systemic therapy: An ARCAD pooled analysis.

BACKGROUND: The liver is the most frequent site of metastases in colorectal cancer (CRC). This study aimed to assess the response rate and survival outcomes in metastatic CRC patients with non-liver metastases (NLM) compared to those with liver metastases (LM) across different lines of treatment. METHODS: A total of 17,924 mCRC patients included in 26 trials from the ARCAD CRC database were analyzed. The analysis was conducted based on the presence or absence of LM across different treatment groups: chemotherapy (CT) alone, CT + anti-VEGF, CT + anti-EGFR in KRAS wild-type tumors, within the first-line (1 L) and second-line (2 L), and patients enrolled in third-line (≥3 L) trials treated with trifluridine/tipiracil or regorafenib or placebo. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Out of the 17,924 patients, 14,066 had LM (30.6 % with only liver involvement and 69.4 % with liver and other metastatic sites), while 3858 patients had NLM. In the CT alone and CT + anti-VEGF subgroups, NLM patients showed better OS and PFS in the 1 L and 2 L settings. However, in the CT + anti-EGFR 1 L and 2 L subgroups, there was no significant difference in OS and PFS between NLM and LM patients. In the ≥ 3 L subgroups, better OS and PFS were observed in NLM patients. ORRs were higher in LM patients than in NLM patients across all cohorts treated in the 1 L and only in the anti-EGFR cohort in the 2 L. CONCLUSION: LM is a poor prognostic factor for mCRC increasing from 1 L to ≥ 3 L except for patients in 1 L and 2 L receiving CT+anti-EGFR. These data justify using LM as a stratification factor in future trials for patients with unresectable mCRC.

Unified framework for patient-derived, tumor-organoid-based predictive testing of standard-of-care therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Predictive drug testing of patient-derived tumor organoids (PDTOs) holds promise for personalizing treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), but prospective data are limited to chemotherapy regimens with conflicting results. We describe a unified framework for PDTO-based predictive testing across standard-of-care chemotherapy and biologic and targeted therapy options. In an Australian community cohort, PDTO predictions based on treatment-naive patients (n = 56) and response rates from first-line mCRC clinical trials achieve 83% accuracy for forecasting responses in patients receiving palliative treatments (18 patients, 29 treatments). Similar assay accuracy is achieved in a prospective study of third-line or later mCRC treatment, AGITG FORECAST-1 (n = 30 patients). "Resistant" predictions are associated with inferior progression-free survival; misclassification rates are similar by regimen. Liver metastases are the optimal site for sampling, with testing achievable within 7 weeks for 68.8% cases. Our findings indicate that PDTO drug panel testing can provide predictive information for multifarious standard-of-care therapies for mCRC.