Binimetinib in combination with nivolumab or nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients with previously treated microsatellite-stable metastatic colorectal cancer with RAS mutations in an open-label phase 1b/2 study.

BACKGROUND: In patients with previously treated RAS-mutated microsatellite-stable (MSS) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), a multicenter open-label phase 1b/2 trial was conducted to define the safety and efficacy of the MEK1/MEK2 inhibitor binimetinib in combination with the immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) nivolumab (anti-PD-1) or nivolumab and another ICI, ipilimumab (anti-CTLA4). METHODS: In phase 1b, participants were randomly assigned to Arm 1A (binimetinib 45 mg twice daily [BID] plus nivolumab 480 mg once every 4 weeks [Q4W]) or Arm 1B (binimetinib 45 mg BID plus nivolumab 480 mg Q4W and ipilimumab 1 mg/kg once every 8 weeks [Q8W]) to determine the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of binimetinib. The MTD/RP2D was defined as the highest dosage combination that did not cause medically unacceptable dose-limiting toxicities in more than 35% of treated participants in Cycle 1. During phase 2, participants were randomly assigned to Arm 2A (binimetinib MTD/RP2D plus nivolumab) or Arm 2B (binimetinib MTD/RP2D plus nivolumab and ipilimumab) to assess the safety and clinical activity of these combinations. RESULTS: In phase 1b, 21 participants were randomized to Arm 1A or Arm 1B; during phase 2, 54 participants were randomized to Arm 2A or Arm 2B. The binimetinib MTD/RP2D was determined to be 45 mg BID. In phase 2, no participants receiving binimetinib plus nivolumab achieved a response. Of the 27 participants receiving binimetinib, nivolumab, and ipilimumab, the overall response rate was 7.4% (90% CI: 1.3, 21.5). Out of 75 participants overall, 74 (98.7%) reported treatment-related adverse events (AEs), of whom 17 (22.7%) reported treatment-related serious AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The RP2D binimetinib regimen had a safety profile similar to previous binimetinib studies or nivolumab and ipilimumab combination studies. There was a lack of clinical benefit with either drug combination. Therefore, these data do not support further development of binimetinib in combination with nivolumab or nivolumab and ipilimumab in RAS-mutated MSS mCRC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03271047 (09/01/2017).

Light and shadow of watch-and-wait strategy in rectal cancer: oncological result, clinical outcomes, and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: The watch-and-wait (WW) strategy is a potential option for patients with rectal cancer who obtain a complete clinic response after neoadjuvant therapy. The aim of this study is to analyze the long-term oncological outcomes and perform a cost-effectiveness analysis in patients undergoing this strategy for rectal cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The data of patients treated with the WW strategy were prospectively collected from January 2015 to January 2020. A control group was created, matched 1:1 from a pool of 480 patients undergoing total mesorectal excision. An independent company carried out the financial analysis. Clinical and oncological outcomes were analyzed in both groups. Outcome parameters included surgical and follow-up costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost per QALY gained or the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). RESULTS: Forty patients were included in the WW group, with 40 patients in the surgical group. During a median follow-up period of 36 months, metastasis-free survival (MFS) and overall survival (OS) were similar in the two groups. In the WW group, nine (22%) local regrowths were detected in the first 2 years. The permanent stoma rate was slightly higher after salvage surgery in the WW group compared to the surgical group (48.5% vs 20%, p < 0.01). The cost-effectiveness analysis was slightly better for the WW group, especially for low rectal cancer compared to medium-high rectal cancer (ICER = - 108,642.1 vs ICER = - 42,423). CONCLUSIONS: The WW strategy in locally advanced rectal cancer offers similar oncological outcomes with respect to the surgical group and excellent results in quality of life and cost outcomes, especially for low rectal cancer. Nonetheless, the complex surgical field during salvage surgery can lead to a high permanent stoma rate; therefore, the careful selection of patients is mandatory.

Treatment sequences and prognostic/predictive factors in metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: univariate and multivariate analyses of a real-world study in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Real-world data on treatment patterns/outcomes for metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPAC) are limited. This study aims to assess real-world treatment patterns, survival outcomes, and prognostic/predictive factors in patients with mPAC. METHODS: Retrospective, observational, chart-review involving medical oncologists and gastroenterologists from five European countries. Physicians reported information on disease and patient characteristics, diagnosis, and treatment for patients diagnosed with mPAC from January-October 2016. Outcomes included median progression-free survival (mPFS), median overall survival (mOS), and the impact of baseline performance status on survival. Univariate/multivariate regression analyses were undertaken to identify prognostic/predictive factors. RESULTS: Three hundred four physicians and 3432 patients were included. First-line therapies included modified (m)FOLFIRINOX (28.4%), gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (28.0%), and gemcitabine monotherapy (23.0%). Frequent second-line therapies were gemcitabine monotherapy (25.0%), fluorouracil (5-FU) + oxaliplatin (21.8%), and gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel (16.7%). Most frequent first- to second-line treatment sequences were gemcitabine + nab-paclitaxel followed by fluoropyrimidine combinations. Longest unadjusted estimated mOS was observed with (m)FOLFIRINOX followed by gemcitabine-based combinations (19.1 months). Multivariate analysis identified significant prognostic/predictive factors for OS and PFS including performance status and carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA 19-9) levels. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment and treatment sequences were generally in accordance with guidelines at the time of the study. Identification of prognostic/predictive factors for survival may help inform the individualised management of mPAC patients in the future.

Phase 2 trial of bintrafusp alfa as second-line therapy for patients with locally advanced/metastatic biliary tract cancers.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Biliary tract cancers are rare, heterogeneous cancers with poor prognoses. Bintrafusp alfa, a first-in-class bifunctional fusion protein composed of the extracellular domain of TGF-ßRII (a TGF-ß "trap") fused to a human IgG1 monoclonal antibody blocking programmed death ligand 1, was evaluated in patients with locally advanced/metastatic chemorefractory biliary tract cancers. APPROACH AND RESULTS: This multicenter, single-arm, open-label, phase 2 study (NCT03833661) enrolled adults with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer that was intolerant to or had failed first-line systemic platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients received 1200 mg bintrafusp alfa intravenously Q2W. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 assessed by IRC. Secondary endpoints included duration of response, durable response rate, safety, progression-free survival, and overall survival.Between March 2019 and January 2020, 159 patients were enrolled. Median follow-up was 16.1 (range, 0.0-19.3) months; 17 patients (10.7%; 95% CI: 6.4%-16.6%) achieved an objective response. Median duration of response was 10.0 (range, 1.9-15.7) months; 10 patients (6.3%; 95% CI: 3.1%-11.3%) had a durable response (≥6 mo). Median progression-free survival was 1.8 months (95% CI: 1.7-1.8 mo); median overall survival was 7.6 months (95% CI: 5.8-9.7 mo). Overall survival rates were 57.9% (6 mo) and 38.8% (12 mo). Grade ≥3 adverse events occurred in 26.4% of patients, including one treatment-related death (hepatic failure). Frequent grade ≥3 adverse events included anemia (3.8%), pruritus (1.9%), and increased alanine aminotransferase (1.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Although this study did not meet its prespecified primary endpoint, bintrafusp alfa demonstrated clinical activity as second-line treatment in this hard-to-treat cancer, with durable responses and a manageable safety profile.

Synthesis of a Zinc Hydroxystannate/Sepiolite Hybrid Additive to Avoid Fire Propagation and Reduce Smoke Emission of EPDM Rubber Nanocomposites.

A zinc hydroxystannate/sepiolite (SEPZHS) hybrid additive was successfully prepared following a facile wet chemical route synthesis where zinc hydroxystannate (ZHS) nanoparticles were grown on the sepiolite's surface. SEPZHS particles have a fibrillar structure with ZHS nanoparticles homogeneously dispersed and with significantly smaller particle sizes than the synthesized ZHS nanoparticles alone. Sepiolite and SEPZHS were organically modified and introduced in a basic ethylene propylene diene monomer rubber (EPDM) formulation for cable to evaluate the nanocomposite behavior under direct fire sources. The results confirmed the synergistic effect of the hybrid SEPZHS additive in the formation of a most stable and efficient char barrier, thus improving the flame-retardant behavior of EPDM nanocomposite in terms of heat emission, with reductions of more than 40% in the peak of Heat Release Rate (cone calorimeter test), and smoke suppression, with more than 25% reduction in the Total Smoke Production and Smoke Density parameters (smoke chamber test). Moreover, the addition of sepiolite-based additives increased the mechanical properties (hardness) of the nanocomposites, as a result of the matrix reinforcement. This suggests that the SEPZHS hybrid additive may provide a promising option for a new, cost-effective, eco-friendly, yet efficient flame-retardant solution.

Efficacy and safety of dilpacimab (ABT-165) versus bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI in metastatic colorectal cancer: a phase II study.

Aim: This phase II study investigated safety and efficacy of dilpacimab or bevacizumab plus FOLFIRI in patients with previously treated metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Materials & methods: Overall, 66 patients were treated (n = 34 dilpacimab + FOLFIRI; n = 32 bevacizumab + FOLFIRI). Progression-free survival, overall survival, response rates and tolerability were assessed. Results: Median progression-free survival for dilpacimab + FOLFIRI compared with bevacizumab + FOLFIRI was 3.78 months (95% CI: 2.07-7.20) versus 7.36 months (95% CI: 5.68-10.55) (hazard ratio: 3.57; 95% CI: 1.57-8.11; stratified). Median overall survival: 7.95 months for dilpacimab + FOLFIRI; not reached for bevacizumab + FOLFIRI. Objective response rates: 5.6% for dilpacimab + FOLFIRI and 14.7% for bevacizumab + FOLFIRI. Patients treated with dilpacimab + FOLFIRI experienced serious treatment-related adverse events (n = 4; 11.8%), including one case of intestinal perforation leading to death; none were reported for bevacizumab + FOLFIRI. Conclusion: Treatment with dilpacimab + FOLFIRI was not well tolerated and did not provide clinical benefit to patients with mCRC compared with bevacizumab + FOLFIRI. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03368859 (Clinicaltrials.gov).

Developing and Validating Multi-Modal Models for Mortality Prediction in COVID-19 Patients: a Multi-center Retrospective Study.

The unprecedented global crisis brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic has sparked numerous efforts to create predictive models for the detection and prognostication of SARS-CoV-2 infections with the goal of helping health systems allocate resources. Machine learning models, in particular, hold promise for their ability to leverage patient clinical information and medical images for prediction. However, most of the published COVID-19 prediction models thus far have little clinical utility due to methodological flaws and lack of appropriate validation. In this paper, we describe our methodology to develop and validate multi-modal models for COVID-19 mortality prediction using multi-center patient data. The models for COVID-19 mortality prediction were developed using retrospective data from Madrid, Spain (N = 2547) and were externally validated in patient cohorts from a community hospital in New Jersey, USA (N = 242) and an academic center in Seoul, Republic of Korea (N = 336). The models we developed performed differently across various clinical settings, underscoring the need for a guided strategy when employing machine learning for clinical decision-making. We demonstrated that using features from both the structured electronic health records and chest X-ray imaging data resulted in better 30-day mortality prediction performance across all three datasets (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves: 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.83-0.87), 0.76 (0.70-0.82), and 0.95 (0.92-0.98)). We discuss the rationale for the decisions made at every step in developing the models and have made our code available to the research community. We employed the best machine learning practices for clinical model development. Our goal is to create a toolkit that would assist investigators and organizations in building multi-modal models for prediction, classification, and/or optimization.

Watch-and-Wait policy versus robotic surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer: A cost-effectiveness study (RECCOSTE).

INTRODUCTION: Complete surgical resection for locally advanced rectal cancer is the standard treatment after a clinical complete response following chemoradiotherapy. However, some novel clinical approaches could achieve better functional results, such as Robotic Resection, or avoiding surgical procedure and incrementing surveillance intensity, called Watch-and-Wait policy. We use computational techniques to compare these clinical approaches using quality adjusted life years (QALYs). METHODS: A Markov decision analytic model was used in order to perform a cost-utility analysis, comparing standard resection (SR), Robotic Rectal Resection (RRR) and Watch-and-Wait (WW) strategies, estimating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per QALY to be gained from patients reaching a clinical complete response to chemoradiotherapy. Model parameter estimates were informed by previously published studies comparing WW to SR and from our database of RRR versus SR. Lifetime incremental cost-utility ratio was calculated among approaches, and a sensitivity analysis were performed in order to estimate the model uncertainty. A willingness-to-pay of per one additional QALY gained was measured to determine which strategies would be most cost-effective. RESULTS: WW is a dominating option over SR ( -75,486. 75 € and +2.04 QALYs) and RRR ( -75,486. 75 € and +0.41 QALYs). The cost-effectiveness plane shows that WW does not always dominate over RRR or SR. WW saves costs in 99.98% of the simulations when compared with either SR or RRR but only 86.9% and 55.38% (respectively) of these fall within the SR quadrant. WW is only more effective than SR 55% of the time which implies a significant uncertainty due to the high utility value assigned to cCR after chemoradiotherapy in the RRR alternative. CONCLUSION: This study provides data of cost-effectiveness differences among Standard Surgery, Watch-and-Wait and Robotic Resection approaches in clinical complete response in locally advanced rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy, showing a benefit for Watch-and-Wait policy.

Characterization and Properties of Water-Blown Rigid Polyurethane Foams Reinforced with Silane-Modified Nanosepiolites Functionalized with Graphite.

In the present study, a promising flame retardant consisting of 80 wt% silane-modified nanosepiolites functionalized with 20 wt% graphite (SFG) is used to obtain a synergistic effect principally focussed on the thermal stability of water-blown rigid polyurethane (RPU) foams. Density, microcellular structure, thermal stability and thermal conductivity are examined for RPU foams reinforced with different contents of SFG (0, as reference material, 2, 4 and 6 wt%). The sample with 6 wt% SFG presents a slightly thermal stability improvement, although its cellular structure is deteriorated in comparison with the reference material. Furthermore, the influence of SFG particles on chemical reactions during the foaming process is studied by FTIR spectroscopy. The information obtained from the chemical reactions and from isocyanate consumption is used to optimize the formulation of the foam with 6 wt% SFG. Additionally, in order to determine the effects of functionalization on SFG, foams containing only silane-modified nanosepiolites, only graphite, or silane-modified nanosepiolites and graphite added separately are studied here as well. In conclusion, the inclusion of SFG in RPU foams allows the best performance to be achieved.

Toxicity and antitumor activity of novel agents in elderly patients with cancer included in phase 1 studies.

Introduction The number of cancer cases among the elderly continue to increase as the worldwide population ages. This patient subset is underrepresented in clinical trials, partly because of unresolved uncertainties about age-associated tolerabilities and antitumor activities. We reviewed phase 1 trial data to study tolerance and efficacy of novel agents used for treatment of elderly patients with cancer. Methods Data from 773 consecutive evaluable patients in 85 phase 1 clinical trials (2008-2016) at START Madrid-CIOCC were analyzed according to age, with respect to objective response, survival, and toxicity. Results The mean age was 58.7 (range: 18-87) years; 260 (33.6%) patients were >65 y (elderly group). One hundred thirty-seven (17.8%) patients received immunotherapy drugs, 308 (39.8%) received targeted agents, and 328 (42.4%) received chemotherapy. No statistically significant differences in overall survival, objective response, or severe toxicity rates were found according to treatment type. Similar toxicities and clinical activities were found between the two age subgroups; 18.8% of the elderly and 20.7% of the younger patients experienced severe hematological toxicity (p=0.5), and 30.2% and 32.7%, respectively, experienced severe non-hematological toxicity (p=0.4). Regarding antitumor activity, 12.4% of the elderly and 15% of the younger patients achieved objective responses (p=0.41). There were no significant between-group differences in overall survival (9.7 versus 11.5 months, respectively, p=0.1) or progression-free survival (2.3 versus 2.2 months, respectively, p=0.7). Conclusions This retrospective study found that elderly and younger populations had comparable antitumor activities and toxicity profiles. These results support including elderly patients with cancer in early-phase trials.

Complete pathological response to neoadjuvant treatment is associated with better survival outcomes in patients with soft tissue sarcoma: Results of a retrospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Locally advanced soft tissue sarcoma (STS) management may include neoadjuvant or adjuvant treatment by radiotherapy (RT), chemotherapy (CT) or chemoradiotherapy (CRT) followed by wide surgical excision. While pathological complete response (pCR) to preoperative treatment is prognostic for survival in osteosarcomas, its significance for STS is unclear. We aimed to evaluate the prognostic significance of pCR to pre-operative treatment on 3-year disease-free survival (3y-DFS) in STS patients. METHODS: This is an observational, retrospective, international, study of adult patients with primary non-metastatic STS of the extremities and trunk wall, any grade, diagnosed between 2008 and 2012, treated with at least neoadjuvant treatment and surgical resection and observed for a minimum of 3 years after diagnosis. The primary objective was to evaluate the effect of pCR. (≤5% viable tumor cells or ≥95% necrosis/fibrosis) on 3y-DFS. Effect on local recurrence-free survival (LRFS), distant recurrence-free survival (MFS) overall survival (OS) at 3 years was also analyzed. Statistical univariate analysis utilized chi-square independence test and odds ratio confidence interval (CI) estimate, multivariate analysis was performed using LASSO. RESULTS: A total of 330 patients (median age 56 years old, range:19-95) treated by preoperative RT (67%), CT (15%) or CRT (18%) followed by surgery were included. pCR was achieved in 74/330 (22%) of patients, of which 56/74 (76%) had received RT. 3-yr DFS was observed in 76% of patients with pCR vs 61% without pCR (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that pCR is statistically associated with better MFS (95% CI, 1.054-3.417; p = 0.033), LRFS (95% CI, 1.226-5.916; p = 0.014), DFS (95% CI, 1.165-4.040; p = 0.015) and OS at 3 years (95% CI, 1.072-5.210; p = 0.033). CONCLUSIONS: In a wide, heterogeneous STS population we showed that pCR to preoperative treatment is prognostic for survival.

Proteomic characterization of primary cultured myocytes in a fish model at different myogenesis stages.

Myogenesis is a complex two-phase process of proliferation and differentiation, which seems to be greatly conserved in vertebrates. For the first time in fish, we identify the changes that occur in the proteome during this process in a gilthead sea bream (Sparus aurata) myocyte primary cell culture (on days 4, 8 and 12), using 2-D gel electrophoresis and LC-MS/MS. A significant increase of myogenin expression at day 8 marked the transition from proliferation to differentiation. Of the 898 spots in the proteome analysis, the 25 protein spots overexpressed on day 4 and the 15 protein spots overexpressed on day 8 indicate the end of proliferation and the beginning of differentiation, respectively. Proliferation was characterized by enrichment of proteins involved in actin cytoskeleton remodelling and in cellular metabolic processes (transcription, ubiquitination, response to stress and glucose metabolism). During differentiation, 41 proteins were overexpressed and 51 underexpressed; many of them related to biosynthetic processes (RNA and protein synthesis and folding, and pentose pathways), terminal myotube formation and muscle contraction. The main cellular processes of both phases of muscle development in fish are similar with those observed in mammals but extended in time, allowing sequential studies of myogenesis.

Dynamic Angiogenic Switch as Predictor of Response to Chemotherapy-Bevacizumab in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC) patients treated with bevacizumab, experience variation in the plasma levels of angiogenesis growth factors and related cytokines, called angiogenic switch (AS). The aim of the present study was to analyze the relationship between AS and the clinical response during standard chemotherapy-bevacizumab treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group 0-1 mCRC were eligible. Patients received treatment with standard dose capecitabine plus either oxaliplatin or irinotecan and bevacizumab for 6 cycles. Initial treatment was followed by maintenance therapy with bevacizumab plus capecitabine until progression. Plasma levels of angiogenic-related cytokines (hepatocyte growth factor, placental growth factor, macrophage chemoattractant protein-3, MM-9, eotaxin, basic fibroblast growth factor, and interleukin 18) were prospectively analyzed at baseline and every 8 weeks. Progression-free survival (PFS) was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients were enrolled. AS was observed in 45 patients (63.4%), 28 of whom experienced AS at the first evaluation after treatment start. Disease control, which includes partial/complete response and stable disease, was seen in 96% of AS patients (43/45), but only in 15/26 (58%) for the remaining patients without evidence of AS (P<0.001). The median PFS of AS patients was 11.4 months (95% confidence interval, 8.6-15.8) versus 8.3 months for patients without AS (95% confidence interval, 5.6-16.4; P=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy plus Bevacizumab combination in mCRC patients results in dynamic changes in plasma cytokines, which is associated with better disease control and longer PFS. These new findings support continuing studying AS as a potential marker of angiogenesis inhibitor effectiveness.

Quality of life in metastatic pancreatic cancer patients receiving liposomal irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin.

BACKGROUND: The NAPOLI-1 study (NCT01494506) reported that liposomal irinotecan plus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin (nal-IRI+5-FU/LV) improved overall survival vs 5-FU/LV with manageable toxicity in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously treated with gemcitabine-based therapy. Yet, clinicians need treatment strategies that also maintain the patient's health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Here, we report the HRQOL data. METHODS: Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL core questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) at baseline, every 6 weeks, and at 30 days after discontinuation of study treatment. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were scored according to EORTC guidelines. nal-IRI+5-FU/LV HRQOL was compared with 5-FU/LV. The PRO population comprised intent-to-treat patients who completed baseline and at least one subsequent assessment on the EORTC QLQ-C30. Data were also analysed for missingness. RESULTS: Of 236 patients in the intent-to-treat population, 128 (54.2%) comprised the PRO population (71 in the nal-IRI+5-FU/LV arm; 57 the in 5-FU/LV arm). Of the remaining 108 patients (45.8%) not included in the PRO population, most progressed rapidly, making participation difficult. Median change from baseline was ≤10 points at weeks 6 and 12 in global health status or functional and symptom scale scores, except for fatigue, which deteriorated by 11.1 points with nal-IRI+5-FU/LV but did not change vs 5-FU/LV. The proportion of patients whose HRQOL improved or deteriorated was not significantly different between the arms. CONCLUSION: In the NAPOLI-1 study, HRQOL was maintained with nal-IRI+5-FU/LV in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma previously treated with a gemcitabine-based regimen, while survival was significantly extended.

Randomized, double-blind, phase two study of ruxolitinib plus regorafenib in patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Janus kinase/signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) signaling pathway plays a key role in the systemic inflammatory response in many cancers, including colorectal cancer (CRC). This study evaluated the addition of ruxolitinib, a potent JAK1/2 inhibitor, to regorafenib in patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic CRC. METHODS: In this two-part, multicenter, phase 2 study, eligible adult patients had metastatic adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2; received fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan-based chemotherapy, an anti-vascular endothelial growth factor therapy (if no contraindication); and if KRAS wild-type (and no contraindication), an anti-epidermal growth factor receptor therapy; and progressed following the last administration of approved therapy. Patients who received previous treatment with regorafenib, had an established cardiac or gastrointestinal disease, or had an active infection requiring treatment were excluded. The study was conducted in 95 sites in North America, European Union, Asia Pacific, and Israel. After an open-label, safety run-in phase (part 1; ruxolitinib 20 mg twice daily [BID] plus regorafenib 160 mg once daily [QD]), the double-blind, randomized phase (part 2) was conducted wherein patients were randomized 1:1 to receive ruxolitinib 15 mg BID plus regorafenib 160 mg QD [ruxolitinib group] or placebo plus regorafenib 160 mg QD [placebo group]. Part 2 included substudy 1 (patients with high systemic inflammation, ie, C-reactive protein [CRP] >10 mg/L) and substudy 2 (patients with low systemic inflammation, ie, CRP ≤10 mg/L); the primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: The study was terminated early; substudy 1 was terminated for futility at interim analysis and substudy 2 was terminated per sponsor decision. Ruxolitinib 20 mg BID was well tolerated in the safety run-in (n = 11). Overall, 396 patients were randomized (substudy 1: n = 175 [ruxolitinib group, n = 87; placebo group, n = 88]; substudy 2: n = 221 [ruxolitinib group, n = 110; placebo group, n = 111]). There was no significant difference in OS or progression-free survival (PFS) between treatments in substudy 1 (OS: hazard ratio [HR] = 1.040 [95% confidence interval: 0.725-1.492]; PFS: HR = 1.004 [0.724-1.391]) and substudy 2 (OS: HR = 0.767 [0.478-1.231]; PFS: HR = 0.787 [0.576-1.074]). The most common hematologic adverse event was anemia. No new safety signals with ruxolitinib were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Although addition of ruxolitinib to regorafenib did not show increased safety concerns in patients with relapsed/refractory metastatic CRC, this combination did not improve OS/PFS vs. regorafenib plus placebo.

Efficacy and Safety of Sunitinib in Patients with Well-Differentiated Pancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumours.

BACKGROUND: In a phase III study, sunitinib led to a significant increase in progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo in patients with pancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (panNETs). This study was a post-marketing commitment to support the phase III data. METHODS: In this ongoing, open-label, phase IV trial (NCT01525550), patients with progressive, advanced unresectable/metastatic, well-differentiated panNETs received continuous sunitinib 37.5 mg once daily. Eligibility criteria were similar to those of the phase III study. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed PFS per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours v1.0 (RECIST). Other endpoints included PFS per Choi criteria, overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Sixty-one treatment-naive and 45 previously treated patients received sunitinib. By March 19, 2016, 82 (77%) patients had discontinued treatment, mainly due to disease progression. Median treatment duration was 11.7 months. Investigator-assessed median PFS per RECIST (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 13.2 months (10.9-16.7): 13.2 (7.4-16.8) and 13.0 (9.2-20.4) in treatment-naive and previously treated patients, respectively. ORR (95% CI) per RECIST was 24.5% (16.7-33.8) in the total population: 21.3% (11.9-33.7) in treatment-naive and 28.9% (16.4-44.3) in previously treated patients. Median OS, although not yet mature, was 37.8 months (95% CI, 33.0-not estimable). The most common treatment-related AEs were neutropenia (53.8%), diarrhoea (46.2%), and leukopenia (43.4%). CONCLUSIONS: This phase IV trial confirms sunitinib as an efficacious and safe treatment option in patients with advanced/metastatic, well-differentiated, unresectable panNETs, and supports the phase III study outcomes. AEs were consistent with the known safety profile of sunitinib.

Phase I/II trial of pimasertib plus gemcitabine in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer.

The selective MEK1/2 inhibitor pimasertib has shown anti-tumour activity in a pancreatic tumour model. This phase I/II, two-part trial was conducted in patients with metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (mPaCa) (NCT01016483). In the phase I part, oral pimasertib was given once daily discontinuously (5 days on/2 days off treatment) or twice daily continuously (n = 53) combined with weekly gemcitabine (1,000 mg/m2 ) in 28-day cycles to identify the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of pimasertib. In the phase II part, patients were randomised to pimasertib (RP2D) or placebo plus weekly gemcitabine (n = 88) to investigate progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. The RP2D was determined to be 60 mg BID. PFS and OS outcomes did not indicate any treatment benefit for pimasertib over placebo in combination with gemcitabine (median PFS 3.7 and 2.8 months, respectively, HR = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.58-1.42: median OS 7.3 vs. 7.6 months, respectively). KRAS status did not influence PFS or OS. The incidence of grade ≥3 adverse events was 91.1% and 85.7% for pimasertib/gemcitabine and placebo/gemcitabine respectively, but there was a higher incidence of ocular events with pimasertib/gemcitabine (28.9% vs. 4.8% for placebo/gemcitabine). In conclusion, no clinical benefit was observed with first-line pimasertib plus gemcitabine compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with mPaCa.

Exome Sequencing of Plasma DNA Portrays the Mutation Landscape of Colorectal Cancer and Discovers Mutated VEGFR2 Receptors as Modulators of Antiangiogenic Therapies.

Purpose: Despite the wide use of antiangiogenic drugs in the clinical setting, predictive biomarkers of response to these drugs are still unknown.Experimental Design: We applied whole-exome sequencing of matched germline and basal plasma cell-free DNA samples (WES-cfDNA) on a RAS/BRAF/PIK3CA wild-type metastatic colorectal cancer patient with primary resistance to standard treatment regimens, including inhibitors to the VEGF:VEGFR2 pathway. We performed extensive functional experiments, including ectopic expression of VEGFR2 mutants in different cell lines, kinase and drug sensitivity assays, and cell- and patient-derived xenografts.Results: WES-cfDNA yielded a 77% concordance rate with tumor exome sequencing and enabled the identification of the KDR/VEGFR2 L840F clonal, somatic mutation as the cause of therapy refractoriness in our patient. In addition, we found that 1% to 3% of samples from cancer sequencing projects harbor KDR somatic mutations located in protein residues frequently mutated in other cancer-relevant kinases, such as EGFR, ABL1, and ALK. Our in vitro and in vivo functional assays confirmed that L840F causes strong resistance to antiangiogenic drugs, whereas the KDR hot-spot mutant R1032Q confers sensitivity to strong VEGFR2 inhibitors. Moreover, we showed that the D717V, G800D, G800R, L840F, G843D, S925F, R1022Q, R1032Q, and S1100F VEGFR2 mutants promote tumor growth in mice.Conclusions: Our study supports WES-cfDNA as a powerful platform for portraying the somatic mutation landscape of cancer and discovery of new resistance mechanisms to cancer therapies. Importantly, we discovered that VEGFR2 is somatically mutated across tumor types and that VEGFR2 mutants can be oncogenic and control sensitivity/resistance to antiangiogenic drugs. Clin Cancer Res; 24(15); 3550-9. ©2018 AACR.

Efficacy of Sym004 in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer With Acquired Resistance to Anti-EGFR Therapy and Molecularly Selected by Circulating Tumor DNA Analyses: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Acquired resistance to anti-EGFR therapy (epidermal growth factor receptor) is frequently due to RAS and EGFR extracellular domain (ECD) mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). Some anti-EGFR-refractory patients retain tumor EGFR dependency potentially targetable by agents such as Sym004, which is a mixture of 2 nonoverlapping monoclonal antibodies targeting EGFR. OBJECTIVE: To determine if continuous blockade of EGFR by Sym004 has survival benefit. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter, phase 2, randomized, clinical trial comparing 2 regimens of Sym004 with investigator's choice from March 6, 2014, through October 15, 2015. Circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) was analyzed for biomarker and tracking clonal dynamics during treatment. Participants had wild-type KRAS exon 2 mCRC refractory to standard chemotherapy and acquired resistance to anti-EGFR monoclonal antibodies. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to Sym004, 12 mg/kg/wk (arm A), Sym004, 9 mg/kg loading dose followed by 6 mg/kg/wk (arm B), or investigator's choice of treatment (arm C). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included preplanned exploratory biomarker analysis in ctDNA. RESULTS: A total of 254 patients were randomized (intent-to-treat [ITT] population) (median age, 63 [range, 34-91] years; 63% male; n = 160). Median OS in the ITT population was 7.9 months (95% CI, 6.5-9.9 months), 10.3 months (95% CI, 9.0-12.9 months), and 9.6 months (95% CI, 8.3-12.2 months) for arms A, B, and C, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 1.31; 95% CI, 0.92-1.87 for A vs C; and HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68-1.40 for B vs C). The ctDNA revealed high intrapatient genomic heterogeneity following anti-EGFR therapy. Sym004 effectively targeted EGFR ECD-mutated cancer cells, and a decrease in EGFR ECD ctDNA occurred in Sym004-treated patients. However, this did not translate into clinical benefit in patients with EGFR ECD mutations, likely owing to co-occurring resistance mechanisms. A subgroup of patients was defined by ctDNA (RAS/BRAF/EGFR ECD-mutation negative) associated with improved OS in Sym004-treated patients in arm B compared with arm C (median OS, 12.8 and 7.3 months, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Sym004 did not improve OS in an unselected population of patients with mCRC and acquired anti-EGFR resistance. A prospective clinical validation of Sym004 efficacy in a ctDNA molecularly defined subgroup of patients with refractory mCRC is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrialsregister.eu Identifier: 2013-003829-29.