Plain language summary of SUNLIGHT: trifluridine/tipiracil and bevacizumab for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer.

WHAT IS THIS SUMMARY ABOUT?: This is a summary describing the results from a phase 3 clinical trial called SUNLIGHT. The study looked at treatment with orally administered trifluridine/tipiracil plus intravenously administered bevacizumab in people with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) that is refractory to treatment.This study included people whose cancer had grown or spread beyond its original location after no more than two previous treatments. People in the study received either the combination of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab or they received trifluridine/tipiracil alone. The aims of the study were to see how long people lived after treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab compared with trifluridine/tipiracil alone and to find out how well the combination of trifluridine/tipiracil plus bevacizumab worked at slowing down the spread of the cancer. Researchers also looked at side effects from taking the medicines and at how treatment affected people's physical functioning. WHAT ARE THE KEY TAKEAWAYS?: People in the combination group lived longer (a median of 10.8 months) than people who received trifluridine/tipiracil alone (7.5 months). In addition, the time it took for the cancer to worsen was longer for those who received the combination treatment (a median of 5.6 months) compared with those who received trifluridine/tipiracil alone (2.4 months). People's physical functioning took longer to worsen with combination therapy (a median of 9.3 months) than it did with trifluridine/tipiracil alone (6.3 months), as measured by the impact of treatment on people's ability to carry out daily living activities. The most common side effects in both treatment groups were low levels of white blood cells, known as neutrophils (neutropenia), nausea, and low levels of healthy red blood cells (anemia). WHAT WERE THE MAIN CONCLUSIONS REPORTED BY THE RESEARCHERS?: The results from the study suggest that treatment with oral trifluridine/tipiracil plus intravenous (IV) bevacizumab could help people with refractory mCRC live longer and maintain good physical functioning, and it could slow the worsening of their cancer.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04737187 (SUNLIGHT) (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Machine learning evaluation of immune infiltrate through digital tumour score allows prediction of survival outcome in a pooled analysis of three international stage III colon cancer cohorts.

BACKGROUND: T-cell immune infiltrates are robust prognostic variables in localised colon cancer. Evaluation of prognosis using artificial intelligence is an emerging field. We evaluated whether machine learning analysis improved prediction of patient outcome in comparison with analysis of T cell infiltrate only or in association with clinical variables. METHODS: We used data from two phase III clinical trials (Prodige-13 and PETACC08) and one retrospective Italian cohort (HARMONY). Cohorts were split into training (N = 692), internal validation (N = 297) and external validation (N = 672) sets. Tumour slides were stained with CD3mAb. CD3 Machine Learning (CD3ML) score was computed using graphical parameters within the tumour tiles obtained from CD3 slides. CD3 infiltrates in tumour core and invasive margin were automatically detected. Associations of CD3 infiltrates and CD3ML with 5-year Disease-Free Survival (DFS) were examined using univariate and multivariable survival models by Cox regression. FINDINGS: CD3 density both in the invasive margin and the tumour core were significantly associated with DFS in the different sets. Similarly, CD3ML score was significantly associated with DFS in all sets. CD3 assessment did not provide added value on top of CD3ML assessment (Likelihood Ratio Test (LRT), p = 0.13). In contrast, CD3ML improved prediction of DFS when combined with a clinical risk stage (LRT, p = 0.001). Stratified by clinical risk score (High or Low), patients with low CD3ML score had better DFS. INTERPRETATION: In all tested sets, machine learning analysis of tumour cells improved prediction of prognosis compared to clinical parameters. Adding tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes assessment did not improve prognostic determination. FUNDING: This research received no external funding.

How to Balance Prognostic Factors in Controlled Phase II Trials: Stratified Permuted Block Randomization or Minimization? An Analysis of Clinical Trials in Digestive Oncology.

In controlled phase II trials, major prognostic factors need to be well balanced between arms. The main procedures used are SPBR (Stratified Permuted Block Randomization) and minimization. First, we provide a systematic review of the treatment allocation procedure used in gastrointestinal oncology controlled phase II trials published in 2019. Second, we performed simulations using data from six phase II studies to measure the impacts of imbalances and bias on the efficacy estimations. From the 40 articles analyzed, all mentioned randomization in both the title and abstract, the median number of patients included was 109, and 77.5% were multicenter. Of the 27 studies that reported at least one stratification variable, 10 included the center as a stratification variable, 10 used minimization, 9 used SBR, and 8 were unspecified. In real data studies, the imbalance increased with the number of centers. The total and marginal imbalances were higher with SBR than with minimization, and the difference increased with the number of centers. The efficiency estimates per arm were close to the original trial estimate in both procedures. Minimization is often used in cases of numerous centers and guarantees better similarity between arms for stratification variables for total and marginal imbalances in phase II trials.

Standardizing data collection in adjuvant colon cancer trials: A consensus project from the IDEA and ACCENT international consortia and national experts.

BACKGROUND: Despite contributions provided by the recent clinical trials, several issues and challenges still remain unsolved in adjuvant colon cancer (CC). Hence, further studies should be planned to better refine risk assessment as well as to establish the optimal treatment strategy in the adjuvant setting. However, it is necessary to request adequate, contemporary and relevant variables and report them homogeneously in order to bring maximal information when analyzing their prognostic value. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The project was devised to gain a consensus from experts engaged in the planning, accrual and analyses of stage II and III CC clinical trials, to identify mandatory and recommended baseline variables in order to i) harmonize future data collection worldwide in clinical trials dedicated to adjuvant treatment of CC; ii) propose guidance for Case Report Forms to be used for clinical trials in this setting. A total of 72 questions related to variables that should be reported and how to report them in adjuvant clinical trials were approved and then voted to reach a final consensus from panelists. RESULTS: Data items on patient-related factors, histopathological features, molecular profile, circulating biomarkers and blood analyses were analyzed and discussed by the whole expert panel. For each item, we report data supporting the acquired consensus and the relevant issues that were discussed. Nineteen items were deemed to be mandatory for resected stage III patients and 24 for resected stage II disease. In addition, 9 and 4 items were judged as recommended for stage III and II, respectively. CONCLUSION: In our opinion, these 28 variables should be used and uniformly reported in more comprehensive CRFs as research groups design future clinical trials in the field of adjuvant colon cancer.

Olaparib with or without bevacizumab versus bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine as maintenance therapy in advanced colorectal cancer: The randomized phase 3 LYNK-003 study.

BACKGROUND: The randomized, open-label, phase III LYNK-003 study assessed the efficacy of first-line maintenance olaparib, alone or in combination with bevacizumab, versus bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine in participants with unresectable or metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We present results of the prespecified interim futility analysis. METHODS: Eligible participants were ≥18 years of age with unresectable or mCRC that had not progressed after induction with first-line bevacizumab plus 5-fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin plus leucovorin (FOLFOX) or capecitabine plus oxaliplatin (CAPOX). Participants were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to olaparib plus bevacizumab, olaparib alone, or bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine (5-fluorouracil or capecitabine). The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) per RECIST v1.1 by central review. RESULTS: Between August 2020 and May 2022, 309 participants were assigned to olaparib plus bevacizumab (n = 104), olaparib (n = 107), or bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine (n = 98). At interim analysis, with a median follow-up of 7.6 months (range 0.1-19.7 months), the median PFS was 3.7 months (95% CI 2.8-5.3) with olaparib plus bevacizumab (HR 1.52; 95% CI 1.02-2.27; P = 0.982) and 3.5 months (95% CI 2.0-3.7) with olaparib (HR 2.11; 95% CI 1.39-3.18; P = 0.999) versus 5.6 months (95% CI 3.8-5.9) with bevacizumab plus fluoropyrimidine. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 64 (62%), 52 (50%), and 57 (59%) participants, respectively. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSION: The LYNK-003 study was stopped prematurely as criteria for futility were met. Maintenance olaparib with or without bevacizumab did not demonstrate clinical efficacy compared with bevacizumab plus a fluoropyrimidine. GOV REGISTRATION: NCT04456699.

Wnt, glucocorticoid and cellular prion protein cooperate to drive a mesenchymal phenotype with poor prognosis in colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: The mesenchymal subtype of colorectal cancer (CRC), associated with poor prognosis, is characterized by abundant expression of the cellular prion protein PrPC, which represents a candidate therapeutic target. How PrPC is induced in CRC remains elusive. This study aims to elucidate the signaling pathways governing PrPC expression and to shed light on the gene regulatory networks linked to PrPC. METHODS: We performed in silico analyses on diverse datasets of in vitro, ex vivo and in vivo models of mouse CRC and patient cohorts. We mined ChIPseq studies and performed promoter analysis. CRC cell lines were manipulated through genetic and pharmacological approaches. We created mice combining conditional inactivation of Apc in intestinal epithelial cells and overexpression of the human prion protein gene PRNP. Bio-informatic analyses were carried out in two randomized control trials totalizing over 3000 CRC patients. RESULTS: In silico analyses combined with cell-based assays identified the Wnt-ß-catenin and glucocorticoid pathways as upstream regulators of PRNP expression, with subtle differences between mouse and human. We uncover multiple feedback loops between PrPC and these two pathways, which translate into an aggravation of CRC pathogenesis in mouse. In stage III CRC patients, the signature defined by PRNP-CTNNB1-NR3C1, encoding PrPC, ß-catenin and the glucocorticoid receptor respectively, is overrepresented in the poor-prognosis, mesenchymal subtype and associates with reduced time to recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: An unleashed PrPC-dependent vicious circle is pathognomonic of poor prognosis, mesenchymal CRC. Patients from this aggressive subtype of CRC may benefit from therapies targeting the PRNP-CTNNB1-NR3C1 axis.

Clinical Challenges of Consensus Molecular Subtype CMS4 Colon Cancer in the Era of Precision Medicine.

Over the past decade, our understanding of the diversity of colorectal cancer has expanded significantly, raising hopes of tailoring treatments more precisely for individual patients. A key achievement in this direction was the establishment of the consensus molecular classification, particularly identifying the challenging consensus molecular subtype (CMS) CMS4 associated with poor prognosis. Because of its aggressive nature, extensive research is dedicated to the CMS4 subgroup. Recent years have unveiled molecular and microenvironmental features at the tissue level specific to CMS4 colorectal cancer. This has paved the way for mechanistic studies and the development of preclinical models. Simultaneously, efforts have been made to easily identify patients with CMS4 colorectal cancer. Reassessing clinical trial results through the CMS classification lens has improved our understanding of the therapeutic challenges linked to this subtype. Exploration of the biology of CMS4 colorectal cancer is yielding potential biomarkers and novel treatment approaches. This overview aims to provide insights into the clinico-biological characteristics of the CMS4 subgroup, the molecular pathways driving this subtype, and available diagnostic options. We also emphasize the therapeutic challenges associated with this subtype, offering potential explanations. Finally, we summarize the current tailored treatments for CMS4 colorectal cancer emerging from fundamental and preclinical studies.

Atezolizumab plus modified docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil as first-line treatment for advanced anal cancer (SCARCE C17-02 PRODIGE 60): a randomised, non-comparative, phase 2 study.

BACKGROUND: The modified docetaxel, cisplatin, and fluorouracil (mDCF) regimen has shown efficacy and safety as first-line treatment for advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, making it a standard regimen. Inhibitors of programmed cell death protein 1 and its ligand, such as pembrolizumab, nivolumab, retifanlimab, avelumab, and atezolizumab, have shown some antitumour activity as monotherapy in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anus that is refractory to chemotherapy. This phase 2 study evaluated the combination of mDCF and atezolizumab as first-line treatment in advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the anus. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, non-comparative, phase 2 study, participants from 21 centres (academic, private, and community hospitals and cancer research centres) across France with chemo-naive, metastatic, or unresectable locally advanced recurrent squamous cell carcinoma of the anus, aged 18 years or older, and with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, were randomly allocated (2:1) to receive either atezolizumab (800 mg intravenously every 2 weeks up to 1 year) plus mDCF (eight cycles of 40 mg per m2 docetaxel and 40 mg per m2 cisplatin on day 1 and 1200 mg per m2 per day of fluorouracil for 2 days, every 2 weeks intravenously; group A) or mDCF alone (group B). Randomisation was done centrally using a minimisation technique and was stratified by age (<65 years vs ≥65 years) and disease status. The primary endpoint was investigator-assessed 12-month progression-free survival in the modified intention-to-treat population in group A (35% for the null hypothesis and 50% for the alternative hypothesis). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03519295, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: 97 evaluable participants (64 in group A and 33 in group B) were enrolled between July 3, 2018, and Aug 19, 2020. The median follow-up was 26·5 months (95% CI 24·8-28·4). The median age of participants was 64·1 years (IQR 56·2-71·6), and 71 (73%) were female. 12-month progression-free survival was 45% (90% CI 35-55) in group A and 43% (29-58) in group B. In participants with a PD-L1 combined positive score of 5 or greater, 12-month progression-free survival was 70% (95% CI 47-100) in group A and 40% (19-85) in group B (interaction p=0·051) Both groups showed high compliance. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were observed in 39 (61%) participants in group A and 14 (42%) in group B. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (nine [14%] participants in group A vs five [15%] in group B), anaemia (nine [14%] vs one [3%]), fatigue (three [5%] vs four [12%]), and diarrhoea (seven [11%] vs one [3%]). Serious adverse events occurred in 16 (25%) participants in group A and four (12%) in group B, and these were mDCF-related in seven (11%) participants in group A and four (12%) in group B. Atezolizumab-related serious adverse events occurred in nine (14%) participants in group A, including grade 2 infusion-related reaction in three (5%), grade 3 infection in two (3%), and grade 2 colitis, grade 3 acute kidney injury, grade 3 sarcoidosis, and a grade 4 platelet count decrease each in one participant (2%). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Despite a higher incidence of adverse events, combining atezolizumab with mDCF is feasible, with similar dose intensity in both groups, although the primary efficacy endpoint was not met. The predictive value of a PD-L1 combined positive score of 5 or greater now needs to be confirmed in future studies. FUNDING: GERCOR, Roche.

A multicenter study evaluating efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors in advanced non-colorectal digestive cancers with microsatellite instability.

BACKGROUND: One randomized phase III trial comparing chemotherapy (CT) with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) has demonstrated significant efficacy of ICI in deficient DNA mismatch repair system/microsatellite instability-high (dMMR/MSI-H) metastatic colorectal cancer. However, few studies have compared ICI with CT in other advanced dMMR/MSI-H digestive tumors. METHODS: In this multicenter study, we included patients with advanced dMMR/MSI-H non-colorectal digestive tumors treated with chemotherapy and/or ICIs. Patients were divided retrospectively into two groups, a CT group and an immunotherapy (IO) group. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). A propensity score approach using the inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method was applied to deal with potential differences between the two groups. RESULTS: 133 patients (45.1/27.1/27.8% with gastric/small bowel/other carcinomas) were included. The majority of patients received ICI in 1st (29.1%) or 2nd line (44.4%). The 24-month PFS rates were 7.9% in the CT group and 71.2% in the IO group. Using the IPTW method, IO treatment was associated with better PFS (HR=0.227; 95% CI 0.147-0.351; p < 0.0001). The overall response rate was 26.3% in the CT group versus 60.7% in the IO group (p < 0.001) with prolonged duration of disease control in the IO group (p < 0.001). In multivariable analysis, predictive factors of PFS for patients treated with IO were good performance status, absence of liver metastasis and prior primary tumor resection, whereas no association was found for the site of the primary tumor. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of randomized trials, our study highlights the superior efficacy of ICI compared with standard-of-care therapy in patients with unresectable or metastatic dMMR/MSI-H non-colorectal digestive cancer, regardless of tumor type, with acceptable toxicity.

Oxaliplatin-Based Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Older Patients With Stage III Colon Cancer: An ACCENT/IDEA Pooled Analysis of 12 Trials.

PURPOSE: A number of studies suggest that older patients may have reduced or no benefit from the addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidines as adjuvant chemotherapy for stage III colon cancer (CC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We studied the prognostic impact of age, as well as treatment adherence/toxicity patterns according to age, in patients with stage III CC who received 3 or 6 months of infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin/capecitabine and oxaliplatin (CAPOX) on the basis of data collected from trials from the ACCENT and IDEA databases. Associations between age and time to recurrence (TTR), disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), survival after recurrence (SAR), and cancer-specific survival (CSS) were assessed by a Cox model or a competing risk model, stratified by studies and adjusted for sex, performance status, T and N stage, and year of enrollment. RESULTS: A total of 17,909 patients were included; 24% of patients were age older than 70 years (n = 4,340). Patients age ≥70 years had higher rates of early treatment discontinuation. Rates of grade ≥3 adverse events were similar between those older and younger than 70 years, except for diarrhea and neutropenia that were more frequent in older patients treated with CAPOX (14.2% v 11.2%; P = .01 and 12.1% v 9.6%; P = .04, respectively). In multivariable analysis, TTR was not significantly different between patients <70 years and those ≥70 years, but DFS, OS, SAR, and CSS were significantly shorter in those patients ≥70 years. CONCLUSION: In patients ≥70 years with stage III CC fit enough to be enrolled in clinical trials, oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy was well tolerated and led to similar TTR compared with younger patients, suggesting similar efficacy. TTR may be a more appropriate end point for efficacy in this patient population.

Non-metastatic colon cancer: French Intergroup Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatments, and follow-up (TNCD, SNFGE, FFCD, GERCOR, UNICANCER, SFCD, SFED, SFRO, ACHBT, SFP, AFEF, and SFR).

INTRODUCTION: This article is a summary of the French intergroup guidelines regarding the management of non-metastatic colon cancer (CC), revised in November 2022. METHODS: These guidelines represent collaborative work of all French medical and surgical societies involved in the management of CC. Recommendations were graded in three categories (A, B, and C) according to the level of evidence found in the literature published up to November 2022. RESULTS: Initial evaluation of CC is based on clinical examination, colonoscopy, chest-abdomen-pelvis computed tomography (CT) scan, and carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) assay. CC is usually managed by surgery and adjuvant treatment depending on the pathological findings. The use of adjuvant therapy remains a challenging question in stage II disease. For high-risk stage II CC, adjuvant chemotherapy must be discussed and fluoropyrimidine monotherapy or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy proposed according to the type and number of poor prognostic features. Oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (FOLFOX or CAPOX) is the current standard for adjuvant therapy of patients with stage III CC. However, these regimens are associated with significant oxaliplatin-induced neurotoxicity. The results of the recent IDEA study provide evidence that 3 months of treatment with CAPOX is as effective as 6 months of oxaliplatin-based therapy in patients with low-risk stage III CC (T1-3 and N1). A 6-month oxaliplatin-based therapy remains the standard of care for high-risk stage III CC (T4 and/or N2). For patients unfit for oxaliplatin, fluoropyrimidine monotherapy is recommended. CONCLUSION: French guidelines for non-metastatic CC management help to offer the best personalized therapeutic strategy in daily clinical practice. Each individual case must be discussed within a multidisciplinary tumor board and then the treatment option decided with the patient.

Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase gene variants for predicting grade 4-5 fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity: FUSAFE individual patient data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency is the main known cause of life-threatening fluoropyrimidine (FP)-induced toxicities. We conducted a meta-analysis on individual patient data to assess the contribution of deleterious DPYD variants *2A/D949V/*13/HapB3 (recommended by EMA) and clinical factors, for predicting G4-5 toxicity. METHODS: Study eligibility criteria included recruitment of Caucasian patients without DPD-based FP-dose adjustment. Main endpoint was 12-week haematological or digestive G4-5 toxicity. The value of DPYD variants *2A/p.D949V/*13 merged, HapB3, and MIR27A rs895819 was evaluated using multivariable logistic models (AUC). RESULTS: Among 25 eligible studies, complete clinical variables and primary endpoint were available in 15 studies (8733 patients). Twelve-week G4-5 toxicity prevalence was 7.3% (641 events). The clinical model included age, sex, body mass index, schedule of FP-administration, concomitant anticancer drugs. Adding *2A/p.D949V/*13 variants (at least one allele, prevalence 2.2%, OR 9.5 [95%CI 6.7-13.5]) significantly improved the model (p < 0.0001). The addition of HapB3 (prevalence 4.0%, 98.6% heterozygous), in spite of significant association with toxicity (OR 1.8 [95%CI 1.2-2.7]), did not improve the model. MIR27A rs895819 was not associated with toxicity, irrespective of DPYD variants. CONCLUSIONS: FUSAFE meta-analysis highlights the major relevance of DPYD *2A/p.D949V/*13 combined with clinical variables to identify patients at risk of very severe FP-related toxicity.

SEAMARK: phase II study of first-line encorafenib and cetuximab plus pembrolizumab for MSI-H/dMMR BRAFV600E-mutant mCRC.

Patients with both BRAF V600E mutations and microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H)/mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) have poor prognosis. Currently, there are no specifically targeted first-line treatment options indicated for patients with mCRC whose tumors harbor both molecular aberrations. Pembrolizumab is a checkpoint inhibitor approved for the treatment of MSI-H/dMMR mCRC, and the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib, in combination with cetuximab, is approved for previously treated BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC. Combination of pembrolizumab with encorafenib and cetuximab may synergistically enhance antitumor activity in patients with BRAF V600E-mutant, MSI-H/dMMR mCRC. SEAMARK is a randomized phase II study comparing the efficacy of the combination of pembrolizumab with encorafenib and cetuximab versus pembrolizumab alone in patients with previously untreated BRAF V600E-mutant, MSI-H/dMMR mCRC.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) occurs when there is an abnormal growth of cells (known as a tumor) in the colon or rectum. Some people with CRC have changes in their tumor genes (known as gene mutations). A gene is a piece of DNA that tells the cell to make specific molecules, such as proteins. Mutations in a gene called BRAF can turn on signals that help the cancer cells grow. Gene mutations that impair DNA repair mechanisms can also make the cancer cells grow more quickly and allow the immune system to detect the cancer cells as being foreign to the body. Targeted therapy is a type of cancer treatment that turns off specific genes and proteins involved in cancer cell survival and growth. BRAF and EGFR inhibitors are targeted therapies that work well together in treating people with BRAF-mutant CRC. BRAF proteins can help cancer cells grow, and BRAF inhibitors block these proteins to prevent, slow, or stop the growth of the cancer cells. Immunotherapy is a type of cancer treatment that helps a person's immune system fight cancer. Immunotherapy is effective for treating CRC that has mutations in the DNA repair mechanisms. By combining targeted therapy and immunotherapy, patients may be able to live longer without their disease getting worse. In the SEAMARK study, we will use a treatment combination including a BRAF inhibitor (encorafenib), an EGFR inhibitor (cetuximab) and an immunotherapy (pembrolizumab) in patients with CRC who have a BRAF mutation and deficiencies in the DNA repair mechanism. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT05217446 (ClinicalTrials.gov), 2021-003715-26 (EudraCT).

Metastatic site and clinical outcome of patients with deficient mismatch repair metastatic colorectal cancer treated with an immune checkpoint inhibitor in the first-line setting.

PURPOSE: Only one-half of deficient mismatch repair (d-MMR) metastatic colorectal cancers (mCRC) demonstrate durable responses to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Given preclinical data indicating that liver metastases sequester activated CD8+ T cells from systemic circulation, we examined clinical outcome by metastatic site. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a retrospective cohort of patients with d-MMR mCRCs treated at multiple centers in France (n = 66), we sought to validate data from a U.S. cohort, and performed pooled analysis (n = 104). All patients received first-line ICI monotherapy. Metastatic site was analyzed in relationship to tumor response (RECIST version 1.1), and with progression-free survival (PFS) by multivariable stratified Cox regression after adjustment for covariates. RESULTS: Objective responses were achieved in 38/66 (58%) of patients in the validation cohort. Best tumor response included 13 (20%) complete responses (CR), 25 (38%) partial responses (PR), 16 (25%) stable disease, and 11 (17%) progressive disease (PD). One-year and 5-year PFS rates were 73% and 67%, respectively; 18 (27%) patients progressed during immunotherapy. Best tumor response was attenuated in patients with liver metastasis (P = 0.03). Presence of liver metastasis, but not other sites, was associated with significantly poorer PFS after adjustment for covariates (HRadj 2.82; 95%CI, 1.08-7.39; Padj=0.03). In a pooled analysis, liver metastasis remained significantly and independently associated with poorer PFS (HRadj 3.18; 95%CI, 1.52-6.67; Padj=0.002) and with attenuated tumor best response (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Metastasis to the liver, but not other sites, was validated as an independent factor associated with poorer response and survival after ICI treatment in d-MMR mCRCs. These data underscore the need for novel therapeutic strategies in these patients.

Primary resistance to immunotherapy in patients with a dMMR/MSI metastatic gastrointestinal cancer: who is at risk? An AGEO real-world study.

BACKGROUND: The outstanding efficacy of immunotherapy in metastatic dMMR/MSI gastro-intestinal (GI) cancers has led to a rapid increase in the number of patients treated. However, 20-30% of patients experience primary resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIPR) and need better characterization. METHODS: This AGEO real-world study retrospectively analyzed the efficacy and safety of ICIs and identified clinical variables associated with ICIPR in patients with metastatic dMMR/MSI GI cancers treated with immunotherapy between 2015 and 2022. RESULTS: 399 patients were included, 284 with colorectal cancer (CRC) and 115 with non-CRC, mostly treated by an anti-PD(L)1 (88.0%). PFS at 24 months was 55.8% (95CI [50.8-61.2]) and OS at 48 months was 59.1% (95CI [53.0-65.9]). ORR was 51.0%, and 25.1% of patients were ICIPR. There was no statistical difference in ORR, DCR, PFS, or OS between CRC and non-CRC groups. In multivariable analysis, ICIPR was associated with ECOG-PS ≥ 2 (OR = 3.36), liver metastases (OR = 2.19), peritoneal metastases (OR = 2.00), ≥1 previous line of treatment (OR = 1.83), and age≤50 years old (OR = 1.76). CONCLUSION: These five clinical factors associated with primary resistance to ICIs should be considered by physicians to guide treatment choice in GI dMMR/MSI metastatic cancer patients.

Treatment of gastric adenocarcinoma: A rapidly evolving landscape.

Gastric adenocarcinoma (GC) and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma represent frequent and severe diseases whose management has radically changed over the last 10 years. With the advent of second- and third-line standard therapies for metastatic GC patients in the 2010s, the molecular dismemberment of the disease and positive trials with immunotherapy and targeted agents will mark the 2020s. New treatment options have emerged in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and metastatic setting. In addition to improved multimodal treatment in operable patients, new subgroups have emerged depending on molecular alterations (HER2, Microsatellite instability) or expression of specific proteins in the tumour (PDL1, Claudin 18.2) making immunohistochemistry central in profiling the tumour for an optimal individualised management. The aim of this review is to describe the current standards of management of early and late stage GC and the molecular markers needed today to optimally manage our patients together with future perspectives on this disease.

Time to recurrence and its relation to survival after recurrence in patients resected for stage III colon cancer.

BACKGROUND: It is intuitively thought that early relapse is associated with poor survival after recurrence (SAR) in resected colon cancer (CC) patients, but this has never been formally studied. METHODS: We pooled data from stage III patients treated with oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy in two phase III trials, to analyse time to recurrence (TTR) and its relationship with SAR. TTR and SAR were also studied according to molecular status (mismatch repair (MMR), RAS, and BRAFV600E). Early relapsing patients were defined as patients having a TTR event within 12 months after starting adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: 4548 stage III CC patients were included in the present analysis. Deficient MMR (dMMR) CC patients experienced fewer recurrences than proficient (p)MMR CC patients (18.8% versus 27.6%) but had a significantly shorter median TTR (mTTR; 0.74 versus 1.40 years, p < 0.0001). In pMMR patients, BRAF and RAS mutations were also associated with earlier mTTR as compared to double wild-type (WT) patients (0.99 versus 1.38 versus 1.54 years, respectively, p < 0.0001). Early recurrence occurred in 397 patients and was associated with a median SAR (2.2 versus 3.3 years, p = 0.0007). However, this association was mainly due to pMMR/RAS and BRAFV600E mutated tumours and was not confirmed in dMMR and pMMR/double WT subgroups. CONCLUSION: In resected stage III CC treated with standard oxaliplatin-based adjuvant therapy, TTR varies between dMMR, pMMR/RAS, or BRAFV600E mutated and pMMR/double WT tumours. In addition, early relapse is associated with poor survival, mainly due to patients resected for a pMMR/RAS or BRAFV600E mutated tumour.

Sotorasib plus Panitumumab in Refractory Colorectal Cancer with Mutated KRAS G12C.

BACKGROUND: KRAS G12C is a mutation that occurs in approximately 3 to 4% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Monotherapy with KRAS G12C inhibitors has yielded only modest efficacy. Combining the KRAS G12C inhibitor sotorasib with panitumumab, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor, may be an effective strategy. METHODS: In this phase 3, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial, we assigned patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer with mutated KRAS G12C who had not received previous treatment with a KRAS G12C inhibitor to receive sotorasib at a dose of 960 mg once daily plus panitumumab (53 patients), sotorasib at a dose of 240 mg once daily plus panitumumab (53 patients), or the investigator's choice of trifluridine-tipiracil or regorafenib (standard care; 54 patients). The primary end point was progression-free survival as assessed by blinded independent central review according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1. Key secondary end points were overall survival and objective response. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 7.8 months (range, 0.1 to 13.9), the median progression-free survival was 5.6 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2 to 6.3) and 3.9 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.8) in the 960-mg sotorasib-panitumumab and 240-mg sotorasib-panitumumab groups, respectively, as compared with 2.2 months (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.9) in the standard-care group. The hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the 960-mg sotorasib-panitumumab group as compared with the standard-care group was 0.49 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.80; P = 0.006), and the hazard ratio in the 240-mg sotorasib-panitumumab group was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.93; P = 0.03). Overall survival data are maturing. The objective response was 26.4% (95% CI, 15.3 to 40.3), 5.7% (95% CI, 1.2 to 15.7), and 0% (95% CI, 0.0 to 6.6) in the 960-mg sotorasib-panitumumab, 240-mg sotorasib-panitumumab, and standard-care groups, respectively. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or higher occurred in 35.8%, 30.2%, and 43.1% of patients, respectively. Skin-related toxic effects and hypomagnesemia were the most common adverse events observed with sotorasib-panitumumab. CONCLUSIONS: In this phase 3 trial of a KRAS G12C inhibitor plus an EGFR inhibitor in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer, both doses of sotorasib in combination with panitumumab resulted in longer progression-free survival than standard treatment. Toxic effects were as expected for either agent alone and resulted in few discontinuations of treatment. (Funded by Amgen; CodeBreaK 300 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05198934.).

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.