Transient 'NeoBRAF wild type' state in a patient with BRAFV600E mutant metastatic colorectal cancer.

We report the case of a patient with a BRAFV600E mutant mCRC, with evidence of acquired 'NeoBRAF wild-type' (wt) state. The patient, longitudinally assessed by liquid biopsy, obtained a remarkable clinical outcome with a multimodal approach including surgery, systemic treatment and targeted therapy. In patients with newly diagnosed RAS and BRAFV600E mutant mCRC, longitudinal assessment with liquid biopsy is not routinely used in clinical practice. We report the case of a patient with a BRAFV600E mutant mCRC, with evidence of acquired 'neoBRAF wild-type' (wt) state. The patient obtained a remarkable clinical outcome and has been longitudinally assessed by liquid biopsy.

Machine learning-based radiomics analysis in predicting RAS mutational status using magnetic resonance imaging.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of radiomics features, obtained by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with hepatospecific contrast agent, in pre-surgical setting, to predict RAS mutational status in liver metastases. METHODS: Patients with MRI in pre-surgical setting were enrolled in a retrospective study. Manual segmentation was made by means 3D Slicer image computing, and 851 radiomics features were extracted as median values using the PyRadiomics Python package. The features were extracted considering the agreement with the Imaging Biomarker Standardization Initiative (IBSI). Balancing was performed through synthesis of samples for the underrepresented classes using the self-adaptive synthetic oversampling (SASYNO) approach. Inter- and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated to assess the between-observer and within-observer reproducibility of all radiomics characteristics. For continuous variables, nonparametric Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was utilized. Benjamini and Hochberg's false discovery rate (FDR) adjustment for multiple testing was used. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis with the calculation of area under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity (SENS), specificity (SPEC), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy (ACC) were assessed for each parameter. Linear and non-logistic regression model (LRM and NLRM) and different machine learning-based classifiers including decision tree (DT), k-nearest neighbor (KNN) and support vector machine (SVM) were considered. Moreover, features selection were performed before and after a normalized procedure using two different methods (3-sigma and z-score). McNemar test was used to assess differences statistically significant between dichotomic tables. All statistical procedures were done using MATLAB R2021b Statistics and Machine Toolbox (MathWorks, Natick, MA, USA). RESULTS: Seven normalized radiomics features, extracted from arterial phase, 11 normalized radiomics features, from portal phase, 12 normalized radiomics features from hepatobiliary phase and 12 normalized features from T2-W SPACE sequence were robust predictors of RAS mutational status. The multivariate analysis increased significantly the accuracy in RAS prediction when a LRM was used, combining 12 robust normalized features extracted by VIBE hepatobiliary phase reaching an accuracy of 99%, a sensitivity 97%, a specificity of 100%, a PPV of 100% and a NPV of 98%. No statistically significant increase was obtained, considering the tested classifiers DT, KNN and SVM, both without normalization and with normalization methods. CONCLUSIONS: Normalized approach in MRI radiomics analysis allows to predict RAS mutational status.

Machine learning and radiomics analysis by computed tomography in colorectal liver metastases patients for RAS mutational status prediction.

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of machine learning and radiomics analysis by computed tomography (CT) in presurgical setting, to predict RAS mutational status in colorectal liver metastases. METHODS: Patient selection in a retrospective study was carried out from January 2018 to May 2021 considering the following inclusion criteria: patients subjected to surgical resection for liver metastases; proven pathological liver metastases; patients subjected to enhanced CT examination in the presurgical setting with a good quality of images; and RAS assessment as standard reference. A total of 851 radiomics features were extracted using the PyRadiomics Python package from the Slicer 3D image computing platform after slice-by-slice segmentation on CT portal phase by two expert radiologists of each individual liver metastasis performed first independently by the individual reader and then in consensus. Balancing technique was performed, and inter- and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the between-observer and within-observer reproducibility of features. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis with the calculation of area under the ROC curve (AUC), sensitivity (SENS), specificity (SPEC), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy (ACC) were assessed for each parameter. Linear and non-logistic regression model (LRM and NLRM) and different machine learning-based classifiers were considered. Moreover, features selection was performed before and after a normalized procedure using two different methods (3-sigma and z-score). RESULTS: Seventy-seven liver metastases in 28 patients with a mean age of 60 years (range 40-80 years) were analyzed. The best predictors, at univariate analysis for both normalized procedures, were original_shape_Maximum2DDiameter and wavelet_HLL_glcm_InverseVariance that reached an accuracy of 80%, an AUC ≥ 0.75, a sensitivity ≥ 80% and a specificity ≥ 70% (p value < < 0.01). However, a multivariate analysis significantly increased the accuracy in RAS prediction when a linear regression model (LRM) was used. The best performance was obtained using a LRM combining linearly 12 robust features after a z-score normalization procedure: AUC of 0.953, accuracy 98%, sensitivity 96%, specificity of 100%, PPV 100% and NPV 96% (p value < < 0.01). No statistically significant increase was obtained considering the tested machine learning both without normalization and with normalization methods. CONCLUSIONS: Normalized approach in CT radiomics analysis allows to predict RAS mutational status in colorectal liver metastases patients.

Resistance to immune checkpoint inhibitors in colorectal cancer with deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability: misdiagnosis, pseudoprogression and/or tumor heterogeneity?

Colorectal carcinoma (CRC) with deficiency of the deficient mismatch repair (dMMR) pathway/microsatellite instability (MSI) is characterized by a high mutation load and infiltration of immune cells in the tumor microenvironment. In agreement with these findings, clinical trials have demonstrated a significant activity of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in dMMR/MSI metastatic CRC (mCRC) patients and, more recently, in CRC patients with early disease undergoing neoadjuvant therapy. However, despite high response rates and durable clinical benefits, a fraction of mCRC patients, up to 30%, showed progressive disease when treated with single agent anti-programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) antibody. This article discusses the three main causes that have been associated with early progression of dMMR/MSI mCRC patients while on treatment with ICIs, i.e., misdiagnosis, pseudoprogression and tumor heterogeneity. While pseudoprogression probably does not play a relevant role, data from clinical studies demonstrate that some dMMR/MSI CRC cases with rapid progression on ICIs may be misdiagnosed, underlining the importance of correct diagnostics. More importantly, evidence suggests that dMMR/MSI mCRC is a heterogeneous group of tumors with different sensitivity to ICIs. Therefore, we propose novel diagnostic and therapeutic strategies to improve the outcome of dMMR/MSI CRC patients.

Total mesorectal excision after rectal-sparing approach in locally advanced rectal cancer patients after neoadjuvant treatment: a high volume center experience.

Background: In patient with a complete or near-complete clinical response after neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer, the organ-sparing approach [watch & wait (W&W) or local excision (LE)] is a possible alternative to major rectal resection. Although, in case of local recurrence or regrowth, after these treatments, a total mesorectal excision (TME) can be operated. Method: In this retrospective study, we selected 120 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) who had a complete or near-complete clinical response after neoadjuvant treatment, from June 2011 to June 2021. Among them, 41 patients were managed by W&W approach, whereas 79 patients were managed by LE. Twenty-three patients underwent salvage TME for an unfavorable histology after LE (11 patients) or a local recurrence/regrowth (seven patients in LE group - five patients in W&W group), with a median follow-up of 42 months. Results: Following salvage TME, no patients died within 30 days; serious adverse events occurred in four patients; 8 (34.8%) patients had a definitive stoma; 8 (34.8%) patients undergone to major surgery for unfavorable histology after LE - a complete response was confirmed. Conclusion: Notably active surveillance after rectal sparing allows prompt identifying signs of regrowth or relapse leading to a radical TME. Rectal sparing is a possible strategy for LARC patients although an active surveillance is necessary.

Machine Learning and Radiomics Analysis for Tumor Budding Prediction in Colorectal Liver Metastases Magnetic Resonance Imaging Assessment.

PURPOSE: We aimed to assess the efficacy of machine learning and radiomics analysis using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a hepatospecific contrast agent, in a pre-surgical setting, to predict tumor budding in liver metastases. METHODS: Patients with MRI in a pre-surgical setting were retrospectively enrolled. Manual segmentation was made by means 3D Slicer image computing, and 851 radiomics features were extracted as median values using the PyRadiomics Python package. Balancing was performed and inter- and intraclass correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the between observer and within observer reproducibility of all radiomics extracted features. A Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney nonparametric test and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis were carried out. Balancing and feature selection procedures were performed. Linear and non-logistic regression models (LRM and NLRM) and different machine learning-based classifiers including decision tree (DT), k-nearest neighbor (KNN) and support vector machine (SVM) were considered. RESULTS: The internal training set included 49 patients and 119 liver metastases. The validation cohort consisted of a total of 28 single lesion patients. The best single predictor to classify tumor budding was original_glcm_Idn obtained in the T1-W VIBE sequence arterial phase with an accuracy of 84%; wavelet_LLH_firstorder_10Percentile was obtained in the T1-W VIBE sequence portal phase with an accuracy of 92%; wavelet_HHL_glcm_MaximumProbability was obtained in the T1-W VIBE sequence hepatobiliary excretion phase with an accuracy of 88%; and wavelet_LLH_glcm_Imc1 was obtained in T2-W SPACE sequences with an accuracy of 88%. Considering the linear regression analysis, a statistically significant increase in accuracy to 96% was obtained using a linear weighted combination of 13 radiomic features extracted from the T1-W VIBE sequence arterial phase. Moreover, the best classifier was a KNN trained with the 13 radiomic features extracted from the arterial phase of the T1-W VIBE sequence, obtaining an accuracy of 95% and an AUC of 0.96. The validation set reached an accuracy of 94%, a sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 95%. CONCLUSIONS: Machine learning and radiomics analysis are promising tools in predicting tumor budding. Considering the linear regression analysis, there was a statistically significant increase in accuracy to 96% using a weighted linear combination of 13 radiomics features extracted from the arterial phase compared to a single radiomics feature.

Anti-EGFR Rechallenge in Patients With Refractory ctDNA RAS/BRAF wt Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Nonrandomized Controlled Trial.

Importance: The available evidence regarding anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor rechallenge in patients with refractory circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) RAS/BRAF wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is derived from small retrospective and prospective studies. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of anti-EGFR rechallenge in patients with refractory ctDNA RAS/BRAF wt mCRC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This nonrandomized controlled trial used a pooled analysis of individual patient data from patients with RAS/BRAF wt ctDNA mCRC enrolled in 4 Italian trials (CAVE, VELO, CRICKET, and CHRONOS) and treated with anti-EGFR rechallenge between 2015 and 2022 (median [IQR] follow-up, 28.1 [25.8-35.0] months). Intervention: Patients received anti-EGFR rechallenge therapy, including cetuximab plus avelumab, trifluridine-tipiracil plus panitumumab, irinotecan plus cetuximab, or panitumumab monotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and disease control rate (DCR) were calculated. Exploratory subgroup analysis evaluating several clinical variables was performed. Safety was reported. Results: Overall, 114 patients with RAS/BRAF wt ctDNA mCRC (median [IQR] age, 61 [29-88] years; 66 men [57.9%]) who received anti-EGFR rechallenge as experimental therapy (48 received cetuximab plus avelumab, 26 received trifluridine-tipiracil plus panitumumab, 13 received irinotecan plus cetuximab, and 27 received panitumumab monotherapy) were included in the current analysis. Eighty-three patients (72.8%) had received 2 previous lines of therapy, and 31 patients (27.2%) had received 3 or more previous lines of therapy. The ORR was 17.5% (20 patients), and the DCR was 72.3% (82 patients). The median PFS was 4.0 months (95% CI, 3.2-4.7 months), and the median OS was 13.1 months (95% CI, 9.5-16.7 months). The subgroup of patients without liver involvement had better clinical outcomes. The median PFS was 5.7 months (95% CI, 4.8-6.7 months) in patients without liver metastasis compared with 3.6 months (95% CI, 3.3-3.9 months) in patients with liver metastasis (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.37-0.83; P = .004). The median OS was 17.7 months (95% CI, 13-22.4 months) in patients without liver metastasis compared with 11.5 months (95% CI, 9.3-13.9 months) in patients with liver metastasis (hazard ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41-0.97; P = .04). Treatments showed manageable toxic effects. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that anti-EGFR rechallenge therapy has promising antitumor activity in patients with refractory ctDNA RAS/BRAF wt mCRC. Within the limitation of a subgroup analysis, the absence of liver metastases was associated with significant improved survival. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT02296203; NCT04561336; NCT03227926; NCT05468892.

Fluorouracil, Leucovorin, and Irinotecan Plus Cetuximab Versus Cetuximab as Maintenance Therapy in First-Line Therapy for RAS and BRAF Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: Phase III ERMES Study.

PURPOSE: The intensity of anti-EGFR-based first-line therapy for RAS/BRAF wild-type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), once disease control is achieved, is controversial. A de-escalation strategy with anti-EGFR monotherapy represents a potential option to maintain efficacy while reducing cytotoxicity. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label, phase III trial, patients with untreated RAS/BRAF wt mCRC were randomly assigned to receive either fluorouracil, leucovorin, and irinotecan/cetuximab (FOLFIRI/Cet) until disease progression (arm A) or FOLFIRI/Cet for eight cycles followed by Cet alone (arm B). The coprimary end points were a noninferior progression-free survival (PFS) in the modified per-protocol (mPP) population (>eight cycles) and a lower incidence of grade (G) 3-4 adverse events (AEs) for arm B compared with arm A. RESULTS: Overall, 606 patients were randomly assigned, with 300 assigned to arm A and 306 to arm B. The median follow-up was 22.3 months. In the mPP population, 291 events occurred with a PFS of 10 versus 12.2 months for arms B and A, respectively (P of noninferiority = .43). In the intention-to-treatment (ITT, ≥one cycle) population, 503 events occurred with a PFS of 9 versus 10.7 months (P = .39). The overall survival was 35.7 versus 30.7 months (P = .119) and 31.0 versus 25.2 months (P = .32) in the mPP and ITT population, respectively. Arm B had lower G3-4 AEs during the maintenance period than arm A (20.2% v 35.1%). CONCLUSION: The ERMES study did not demonstrate noninferiority of maintenance with Cet alone. Despite a more favorable safety profile, maintenance with single-agent Cet after induction with FOLFIRI/Cet cannot be recommended for all patients but could represent an option in selected cases.

Radiomic Parameters for the Evaluation of Response to Treatment in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients with Liver Metastasis: Findings from the CAVE-GOIM mCRC Phase 2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: CAVE is a single arm, Phase 2 trial, that demonstrated anti-tumor activity of cetuximab rechallenge plus avelumab in patients with RAS wild type (wt) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). OBJECTIVE: We conducted a post hoc analysis to identify potential radiomic biomarkers for patients with CRC liver metastasis (LM). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with LM that could be measured by enhanced contrast phase computed tomography (CT) imaging at baseline and at first response evaluation were included. Multiple texture parameters were extracted with the LifeX Software. Delta-texture (D-TA) variations were calculated by comparing data at baseline and after treatment. RESULTS: Overall, 55/77 patients (71%) had LM; 39 met the inclusion criteria for the current analysis. The D-TA parameters that significantly correlated at univariate analysis with median progression-free survival (mPFS) were EntropyHistogram (p = 0.021), HomogeneityGLCM (p < 0.001) and Dissimilarity GLCM (p = 0.002). At multivariate analysis, only HomogeneityGLCM resulted significant for PFS (p = 0.001). Patients (19/39, 48.7%) with reduction of HomogeneityGLCM experienced better mPFS (4.6 vs 2.9 months; HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.23-0.88; p = 0.021) and median overall survival (mOS) (17.3 vs 6.8 months; HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.21-0.80; p = 0.010). A trend to better mPFS, was also observed in patients with RAS/BRAF wt circulating tumor DNA and reduction of HomogeneityGLCM. Overall survival was significantly better in this subgroup of patients with low HomogeneityGLCM: mOS was 17.8 (95% CI 15.5-20.2) versus 6.8 months (95% CI 3.6-10.0) (HR 0.34, 95% CI 0.14-0.81; p = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Reduction in the D-TA parameter HomogeneityGLCM by radiomic analysis correlates with improved outcomes in patients with LM receiving cetuximab rechallenge plus avelumab therapy. Larger prospective studies are needed to validate and confirm these findings.

Treatments, prognostic factors, and genetic heterogeneity in advanced cholangiocarcinoma: A multicenter real-world study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), a rare and aggressive hepatobiliary malignancy, presents significant clinical management challenges. Despite rising incidence and evolving treatment options, prognosis remains poor, motivating the exploration of real-world data for enhanced understanding and patient care. METHODS: This multicenter study analyzed data from 120 metastatic CCA patients at three institutions from 2016 to 2023. Kaplan-Meier curves assessed overall survival (OS), while univariate and multivariate analyses evaluated links between clinical variables (age, gender, tumor site, metastatic burden, ECOG performance status, response to first-line chemotherapy) and OS. Genetic profiling was conducted selectively. RESULTS: Enrolled patients had a median age of 68.5 years, with intrahepatic tumors predominant in 79 cases (65.8%). Among 85 patients treated with first-line chemotherapy, cisplatin and gemcitabine (41.1%) was the most common regimen. Notably, one-third received no systemic treatment. After a median 14-month follow-up, 81 CCA-related deaths occurred, with a median survival of 13.1 months. Two clinical variables independently predicted survival: response to first-line chemotherapy (disease control vs. no disease control; HR: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.14-0.50; p < 0.0001) and metastatic involvement (>1 site vs. 1 site; HR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.04-3.80; p = 0.0366). The three most common genetic alterations involved the ARID1A, tp53, and CDKN2A genes. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced CCA displays aggressive clinical behavior, emphasizing the need for treatments beyond chemotherapy. Genetic diversity supports potential personalized therapies. Collaborative research and deeper CCA biology understanding are crucial to enhance patient outcomes in this challenging malignancy.

Durvalumab or placebo plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in participants with advanced biliary tract cancer (TOPAZ-1): updated overall survival from a randomised phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: In the preplanned interim analysis of the TOPAZ-1 study, durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin significantly improved overall survival versus placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin in participants with advanced biliary tract cancer. We aimed to report updated overall survival and safety data from TOPAZ-1 with additional follow-up and data maturity beyond the interim analysis. METHODS: TOPAZ-1 was a phase 3, randomised, double-masked, placebo-controlled, global study done at 105 sites in 17 countries. Participants aged 18 years or older with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic biliary tract cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) to durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin or placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin using a computer-generated randomisation scheme, stratified by disease status and primary tumour location. Participants received durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo on day 1 of each cycle every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles, plus gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2) and cisplatin (25 mg/m2) intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle every 3 weeks for up to eight cycles, followed by durvalumab (1500 mg) or placebo monotherapy every 4 weeks until disease progression or other discontinuation criteria were met. Investigators and participants were masked to study treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival. TOPAZ-1 met its primary endpoint at the preplanned interim analysis, and the study is active but no longer recruiting participants. Updated overall survival and safety data from TOPAZ-1, with additional follow-up (data cutoff Feb 25, 2022) and data maturity beyond the interim analysis, are reported here. Efficacy was assessed in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned participants). Safety was assessed in the safety analysis set (all participants who received at least one dose of study treatment). The TOPAZ-1 study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03875235. FINDINGS: From April 16, 2019, to Dec 11, 2020, 914 participants were enrolled, 685 of whom were randomly assigned (341 to the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 344 to the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group). 345 (50%) participants were male and 340 (50%) were female. Median follow-up at the updated data cutoff was 23·4 months (95% CI 20·6-25·2) in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 22·4 months (21·4-23·8) in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. At the updated data cutoff, 248 (73%) participants in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 279 (81%) participants in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group had died (median overall survival 12·9 months [95% CI 11·6-14·1] vs 11·3 months [10·1-12·5]; hazard ratio 0·76 [95% CI 0·64-0·91]). Kaplan-Meier-estimated 24-month overall survival rates were 23·6% (95% CI 18·7-28·9) in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 11·5% (7·6-16·2) in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. Maximum grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 250 (74%) of 338 participants in the durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group and 257 (75%) of 342 in the placebo plus gemcitabine-cisplatin group. The most common maximum grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were decreased neutrophil count (70 [21%] vs 86 [25%]), anaemia (64 [19%] vs 64 [19%]), and neutropenia (63 [19%] vs 68 [20%]). INTERPRETATION: Durvalumab plus gemcitabine-cisplatin showed robust and sustained overall survival benefit with no new safety signals. Findings continue to support the regimen as a standard of care for people with untreated, advanced biliary tract cancer. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer: A large real-life worldwide population.

BACKGROUND: The TOPAZ-1 phase III trial showed a survival benefit with durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC). To understand this combination's real-world efficacy and tolerability, we conducted a global multicenter retrospective analysis of its first-line treatment outcomes. METHODS: We included patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic BTC treated with durvalumab, gemcitabine, and cisplatin at 39 sites in 11 countries (Europe, the United States, and Asia). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). RESULTS: 666 patients were enrolled. Median OS was 15.1 months and median PFS was 8.2 months. The investigator-assessed overall response rate was 32.7 %, with stable disease in 45.2 % of patients. High baseline CEA levels, ECOG PS > 0, metastatic disease, and NLR > 3 were associated with poor survival. Any grade adverse events (AEs) occurred in 92.9 % of patients (grade >2: 46.6 %). Immune-related AEs (irAEs) occurred in 20.0 % (grade >2: 2.5 %). Three deaths (0.5 %) were deemed treatment-related, none linked to immunotherapy. Common irAEs were rash (8.2 % all grades; 0.3 % grade >2), itching (10.3 % all grades; 0.2 % grade >2), and hypothyroidism (5.1 % all grades; 0.3 % grade >2). Durvalumab discontinuation rate due to AEs was 1.5 %. ESMO-recommended genes were analyzed and no outcome differences were found. A comparative analysis with a historical cohort of patients treated with chemotherapy alone confirmed the positive survival impact of durvalumab in combination with cisplatin/gemcitabine. CONCLUSION: This first global real-world analysis largely confirmed the TOPAZ-1 findings, supporting gemcitabine, cisplatin, and durvalumab as a first-line standard of care for patients with advanced BTC.

Durvalumab plus Gemcitabine and Cisplatin in Advanced Biliary Tract Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced biliary tract cancer have a poor prognosis, and first-line standard of care (gemcitabine plus cisplatin) has remained unchanged for more than 10 years. The TOPAZ-1 trial evaluated durvalumab plus chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. METHODS: In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 study, we randomly assigned patients with previously untreated unresectable or metastatic biliary tract cancer or with recurrent disease 1:1 to receive durvalumab or placebo in combination with gemcitabine plus cisplatin for up to eight cycles, followed by durvalumab or placebo monotherapy until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary objective was to assess overall survival. Secondary end points included progression-free survival, objective response rate, and safety. RESULTS: Overall, 685 patients were randomly assigned to durvalumab (n=341) or placebo (n=344) with chemotherapy. As of data cutoff, 198 patients (58.1%) in the durvalumab group and 226 patients (65.7%) in the placebo group had died. The hazard ratio for overall survival was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.97; P=0.021). The estimated 24-month overall survival rate was 24.9% (95% CI, 17.9 to 32.5) for durvalumab and 10.4% (95% CI, 4.7 to 18.8) for placebo. The hazard ratio for progression-free survival was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.63 to 0.89; P=0.001). Objective response rates were 26.7% with durvalumab and 18.7% with placebo. The incidences of grade 3 or 4 adverse events were 75.7% and 77.8% with durvalumab and placebo, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Durvalumab plus chemotherapy significantly improved overall survival versus placebo plus chemotherapy and showed improvements versus placebo plus chemotherapy in prespecified secondary end points including progression-free survival and objective response rate. The safety profiles of the two treatment groups were similar. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03875235.)