Revisiting MET: Clinical Characteristics and Treatment Outcomes of Patients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic, MET-Amplified Esophagogastric Cancers.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic esophagogastric cancers (EGCs) have a poor prognosis with an approximately 5% 5-year survival. Additional treatment approaches are needed. c-MET gene-amplified tumors are an uncommon but potentially targetable subset of EGC. Clinical characteristics and outcomes were evaluated in patients with MET-amplified EGC and compared with those without MET amplification to facilitate identification of these patients and possible treatment approaches. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with locally advanced or metastatic MET-amplified EGC at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) were identified using fluorescent in situ hybridization analysis, with a gene-to-control ratio of ≥2.2 defined as positive. Non-MET-amplified patients identified during the same time period who had undergone tumor genotyping and treatment at MGH were evaluated as a comparison group. RESULTS: We identified 233 patients evaluated for MET amplification from 2002 to 2019. MET amplification was seen in 28 (12%) patients versus 205 (88%) patients without amplification. Most MET-amplified tumors occurred in either the distal esophagus (n = 9; 32%) or gastroesophageal junction (n = 10; 36%). Of MET-amplified patients, 16 (57%) had a TP53 mutation, 5(18%) had HER2 co-amplification, 2 (7.0%) had EGFR co-amplification, and 1 (3.5%) had FGFR2 co-amplification. MET-amplified tumors more frequently had poorly differentiated histology (19/28, 68.0% vs. 66/205, 32%; p = .02). Progression-free survival to initial treatment was substantially shorter for all MET-amplified patients (5.6 vs. 8.8 months, p = .026) and for those with metastatic disease at presentation (4.0 vs. 7.6 months, p = .01). Overall, patients with MET amplification had shorter overall survival (19.3 vs. 24.6 months, p = .049). No difference in survival was seen between low MET-amplified tumors (≥2.2 and <25 MET copy number) compared with highly amplified tumors (≥25 MET copy number). CONCLUSION: MET-amplified EGC represents a distinct clinical entity characterized by rapid progression and short survival. Ideally, the identification of these patients will provide opportunities to participate in clinical trials in an attempt to improve outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article describes 233 patients who received MET amplification testing and reports (a) a positivity rate of 12%, similar to the rate of HER2 positivity in this data set; (b) the clinical characteristics of poorly differentiated tumors and nodal metastases; and (c) markedly shorter progression-free survival and overall survival in MET-amplified tumors. Favorable outcomes are reported for patients treated with MET inhibitors. Given the lack of published data in MET-amplified esophagogastric cancers and the urgent clinical importance of identifying patients with MET amplification for MET-directed therapy, this large series is a valuable addition to the literature and will have an impact on future practice.

A phase 2 clinical trial of the heat shock protein 90 (HSP 90) inhibitor ganetespib in patients with refractory advanced esophagogastric cancer.

Subsets of esophagogastric (EG) cancers harbor genetic abnormalities, including amplification of HER2, MET, or FGFR2 or mutations in PIK3CA, EGFR, or BRAF. Ganetespib which is a novel triazolone heterocyclic inhibitor of HSP90, is a potentially biologically rational treatment strategy for advanced EG cancers with these gene amplification. This multicenter, single-arm phase 2 trial enrolled patients with histologically confirmed advanced EG cancer with progression on at least one line of systemic therapy. Patients received Ganetespib 200 mg/m2 IV on Days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. The primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR). Secondary endpoints included: Progression Free Survival (PFS); to correlate the presence of HSP clients with ORR and PFS; evaluating the safety, tolerability and adverse events profile. In this study 26 eligible patients mainly: male 77%, median age 64 years were enrolled. The most common drug-related adverse events were diarrhea (77%), fatigue (65%), elevated ALKP (42%), and elevated AST (38%). The most common grade 3/4 AEs included: leucopenia (12%), fatigue (12%), diarrhea (8%), and elevated ALKP (8%). The ORR of 4% reflects the single patient of 26 who had a complete response and stayed on treatment for more than seventy (70) months. Median PFS and OS was 61 days (2.0 months), 94 days (3.1 months) respectively. Ganetespib showed manageable toxicity. While the study was terminated early due to insufficient evidence of single-agent activity, the durable CR and 2 minor responses suggest that there may be a subset of EG patients who could benefit from this drug.

Dose-escalation trial of the ALK, MET & ROS1 inhibitor, crizotinib, in patients with advanced cancer.

Aim: This first-in-human, dose-finding study evaluated safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of crizotinib and established a recommended Phase II dose (RP2D) among patients with advanced solid malignancies. Patients & methods: Patients received oral crizotinib in a 3 + 3 dose escalation design. Results: Thirty-six patients received crizotinib (50 mg once daily-300 mg twice daily); maximum tolerated dose (and RP2D) was 250 mg twice daily. Most patients (89%) experienced ≥1 treatment-related adverse event. Three patients had grade 3 dose-limiting toxicities: alanine aminotransferase increased (n = 1) and fatigue (n = 2). Generally, an increase in soluble MET was found with increasing crizotinib concentrations. Conclusion: Crizotinib demonstrated a favorable safety profile. The observed pharmacodynamic effect on soluble MET provide evidence for targeted MET inhibition by crizotinib. Clinicaltrials. gov identifier: NCT00585195.

Structure-Guided Blockade of CSF1R Kinase in Tenosynovial Giant-Cell Tumor.

BACKGROUND: Expression of the colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1) gene is elevated in most tenosynovial giant-cell tumors. This observation has led to the discovery and clinical development of therapy targeting the CSF1 receptor (CSF1R). METHODS: Using x-ray co-crystallography to guide our drug-discovery research, we generated a potent, selective CSF1R inhibitor, PLX3397, that traps the kinase in the autoinhibited conformation. We then conducted a multicenter, phase 1 trial in two parts to analyze this compound. In the first part, we evaluated escalations in the dose of PLX3397 that was administered orally in patients with solid tumors (dose-escalation study). In the second part, we evaluated PLX3397 at the chosen phase 2 dose in an extension cohort of patients with tenosynovial giant-cell tumors (extension study). Pharmacokinetic and tumor responses in the enrolled patients were assessed, and CSF1 in situ hybridization was performed to confirm the mechanism of action of PLX3397 and that the pattern of CSF1 expression was consistent with the pathological features of tenosynovial giant-cell tumor. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients were enrolled in the dose-escalation study, and an additional 23 patients were enrolled in the extension study. The chosen phase 2 dose of PLX3397 was 1000 mg per day. In the extension study, 12 patients with tenosynovial giant-cell tumors had a partial response and 7 patients had stable disease. Responses usually occurred within the first 4 months of treatment, and the median duration of response exceeded 8 months. The most common adverse events included fatigue, change in hair color, nausea, dysgeusia, and periorbital edema; adverse events rarely led to discontinuation of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of tenosynovial giant-cell tumors with PLX3397 resulted in a prolonged regression in tumor volume in most patients. (Funded by Plexxikon; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01004861.).

A protein and mRNA expression-based classification of gastric cancer.

The overall survival of gastric carcinoma patients remains poor despite improved control over known risk factors and surveillance. This highlights the need for new classifications, driven towards identification of potential therapeutic targets. Using sophisticated molecular technologies and analysis, three groups recently provided genetic and epigenetic molecular classifications of gastric cancer (The Cancer Genome Atlas, 'Singapore-Duke' study, and Asian Cancer Research Group). Suggested by these classifications, here, we examined the expression of 14 biomarkers in a cohort of 146 gastric adenocarcinomas and performed unsupervised hierarchical clustering analysis using less expensive and widely available immunohistochemistry and in situ hybridization. Ultimately, we identified five groups of gastric cancers based on Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) positivity, microsatellite instability, aberrant E-cadherin, and p53 expression; the remaining cases constituted a group characterized by normal p53 expression. In addition, the five categories correspond to the reported molecular subgroups by virtue of clinicopathologic features. Furthermore, evaluation between these clusters and survival using the Cox proportional hazards model showed a trend for superior survival in the EBV and microsatellite-instable related adenocarcinomas. In conclusion, we offer as a proposal a simplified algorithm that is able to reproduce the recently proposed molecular subgroups of gastric adenocarcinoma, using immunohistochemical and in situ hybridization techniques.

What's the Best Way to Treat GE Junction Tumors? Approach Like Gastric Cancer.

The debate as to the optimal classification, staging, and treatment of gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) tumors wages on, and one must acknowledge that there is no "one-size-fits-all" approach. However, in this review we are charged with defending the position that all GEJ tumors are best treated like gastric cancer. We submit that, as stated, this is not a defensible position and that a clear definition of terms is warranted. Given the rarity of squamous cell carcinoma and the dramatic rise in incidence of adenocarcinoma of the GEJ in the West, we define GEJ "tumors" to mean adenocarcinomas of the GEJ. Furthermore, on the basis of their location, pathogenesis, and biologic behavior, we submit that few would argue with the contention that Siewert type I GEJ tumors are best treated like distal esophageal cancer and that Siewert type III GEJ tumors are best treated like gastric cancer. The real debate concerns the management of Siewert type II GEJ tumors, which arise immediately at the esophagogastric junction. Thus, for the purposes of this review, we have taken the liberty of redefining the question as what's the best way to treat adenocarcinomas of the true GEJ (i.e., Siewert type II tumors), and we submit that these tumors are in fact best treated like gastric cancer. This approach ensures that patients receive those therapies needed for the locoregional and systemic control of their disease together with a surgical procedure that optimizes complete tumor and regional lymph node resection while limiting morbidity.

The impact of neoadjuvant therapy for gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma on postoperative morbidity and mortality.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to study the impact of neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) on postoperative complications following surgical resection of adenocarcinomas of the stomach and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ). METHODS: We compared the postoperative outcomes of 308 patients undergoing a surgery-first approach and 145 patients undergoing NAT followed by curative-intent surgery for adenocarcinomas of the stomach and GEJ from 1995-2014. RESULTS: Patients receiving NAT were more likely to be younger, have tumors of the GEJ, to undergo esophagogastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy, and to have more advanced stage disease than patients undergoing surgery first. There were no differences in overall 30-day morbidity or mortality rates between the groups, yet patients undergoing surgery first were more likely to have higher-grade complications than those undergoing NAT. Age >65 years, higher ASA score, concomitant splenectomy, more advanced tumor stage, and year of surgery were independent risk factors for postoperative morbidity, but receipt of NAT was not an independent predictor of postoperative morbidity. CONCLUSIONS: Despite having more advanced disease and undergoing higher-risk surgical procedures, patients with adenocarcinomas of the stomach or GEJ who receive NAT prior to surgery are no more likely to suffer postoperative complications than patients treated with a surgery-first approach. J. Surg. Oncol. 2016;113:560-564. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Potent antitumor activity of cabozantinib, a c-MET and VEGFR2 inhibitor, in a colorectal cancer patient-derived tumor explant model.

Antiangiogenic therapy is commonly used for the treatment of colorectal cancer (CRC). Although patients derive some clinical benefit, treatment resistance inevitably occurs. The MET signaling pathway has been proposed to be a major contributor of resistance to antiangiogenic therapy. MET is upregulated in response to vascular endothelial growth factor pathway inhibition and plays an essential role in tumorigenesis and progression of tumors. In this study, we set out to determine the efficacy of cabozantinib in a preclinical CRC patient-derived tumor xenograft model. We demonstrate potent inhibitory effects on tumor growth in 80% of tumors treated. The greatest antitumor effects were observed in tumors that possess a mutation in the PIK3CA gene. The underlying antitumor mechanisms of cabozantinib consisted of inhibition of angiogenesis and Akt activation and significantly decreased expression of genes involved in the PI3K pathway. These findings support further evaluation of cabozantinib in patients with CRC. PIK3CA mutation as a predictive biomarker of sensitivity is intriguing and warrants further elucidation. A clinical trial of cabozantinib in refractory metastatic CRC is being activated.

Radiological and surgical implications of neoadjuvant treatment with FOLFIRINOX for locally advanced and borderline resectable pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: On the basis of the ACCORD trial, FOLFIRINOX is effective in metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PDAC), making it a rational choice for locally advanced PDAC (LA). Aims of this study are to evaluate the accuracy of imaging in determining the resectability of PDAC and to determine the surgical and clinicopathologic outcomes of pancreatic resections after neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Clinicopathologic data were retrospectively collected for surgical PDAC patients receiving neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX or no neoadjuvant therapy between April 2011 and February 2014. Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Association/Society of Surgical Oncology/Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract consensus guidelines defined LA and borderline. Imaging was reviewed by a blinded senior pancreatic surgeon. RESULTS: Of 188 patients undergoing resection for PDAC, 40 LA/borderline received FOLFIRINOX and 87 received no neoadjuvant therapy. FOLFIRINOX resulted in a significant decrease in tumor size, yet 19 patients were still classified as LA and 9 as borderline. Despite post-FOLFIRINOX imaging suggesting continued unresectability, 92% had an R0 resection. When compared with no neoadjuvant therapy, FOLFIRINOX resulted in significantly longer operative times (393 vs 300 minutes) and blood loss (600 vs 400 mL), but significantly lower operative morbidity (36% vs 63%) and no postoperative pancreatic fistulas. Length of stay (6 vs 7 days), readmissions (20% vs 30%), and mortality were equivalent (1% vs 0%). On final pathology, the FOLFIRINOX group had a significant decrease in lymph node positivity (35% vs 79%) and perineural invasion (72% vs 95%). Median follow-up was 11 months with a significant increase in overall survival with FOLFIRINOX. CONCLUSIONS: After neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX imaging no longer predicts unresectability. Traditional pathologic predictors of survival are improved, and morbidity is decreased in comparison to patients with clearly resectable cancers at the time of presentation.

Familial Gastric Cancers.

Although the majority of gastric carcinomas are sporadic, approximately 10% show familial aggregation, and a hereditary cause is determined in 1%-3% cases. Of these, hereditary diffuse gastric cancer is the most recognized predisposition syndrome. Although rare, the less commonly known syndromes also confer a markedly increased risk for development of gastric cancer. Identification and characterization of these syndromes require a multidisciplinary effort involving oncologists, surgeons, genetic counselors, biologists, and pathologists. This article reviews the molecular genetics, clinical and pathologic features, surveillance guidelines, and preventive measures of common and less common hereditary gastric cancer predisposition syndromes.

Prognosis and Clinicopathologic Features of Patients With Advanced Stage Isocitrate Dehydrogenase (IDH) Mutant and IDH Wild-Type Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting data exist regarding the prognostic impact of the isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) mutation in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC), and limited data exist in patients with advanced-stage disease. Similarly, the clinical phenotype of patients with advanced IDH mutant (IDHm) ICC has not been characterized. In this study, we report the correlation of IDH mutation status with prognosis and clinicopathologic features in patients with advanced ICC. METHODS: Patients with histologically confirmed advanced ICC who underwent tumor mutational profiling as a routine part of their care between 2009 and 2014 were evaluated. Clinical and pathological data were collected by retrospective chart review for patients with IDHm versus IDH wild-type (IDHwt) ICC. Pretreatment tumor volume was calculated on computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: Of the 104 patients with ICC who were evaluated, 30 (28.8%) had an IDH mutation (25.0% IDH1, 3.8% IDH2). The median overall survival did not differ significantly between IDHm and IDHwt patients (15.0 vs. 20.1 months, respectively; p = .17). The pretreatment serum carbohydrate antigen 19-9 (CA19-9) level in IDHm and IDHwt patients was 34.5 and 118.0 U/mL, respectively (p = .04). Age at diagnosis, sex, histologic grade, and pattern of metastasis did not differ significantly by IDH mutation status. CONCLUSION: The IDH mutation was not associated with prognosis in patients with advanced ICC. The clinical phenotypes of advanced IDHm and IDHwt ICC were similar, but patients with IDHm ICC had a lower median serum CA19-9 level at presentation. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Previous studies assessing the prognostic impact of the isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) gene mutation in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) mainly focused on patients with early-stage disease who have undergone resection. These studies offer conflicting results. The target population for clinical trials of IDH inhibitors is patients with unresectable or metastatic disease, and the current study is the first to focus on the prognosis and clinical phenotype of this population and reports on the largest cohort of patients with advanced IDH mutant ICC to date. The finding that the IDH mutation lacks prognostic significance in advanced ICC is preliminary and needs to be confirmed prospectively in a larger study.

Mutational analysis and clinical correlation of metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Early identification of mutations may guide patients with metastatic colorectal cancer toward targeted therapies that may be life prolonging. The authors assessed tumor genotype correlations with clinical characteristics to determine whether mutational profiling can account for clinical similarities, differences, and outcomes. METHODS: Under Institutional Review Board approval, 222 patients with metastatic colon adenocarcinoma (n = 158) and rectal adenocarcinoma (n = 64) who underwent clinical tumor genotyping were reviewed. Multiplexed tumor genotyping screened for >150 mutations across 15 commonly mutated cancer genes. The chi-square test was used to assess genotype frequency by tumor site and additional clinical characteristics. Cox multivariate analysis was used to assess the impact of genotype on overall survival. RESULTS: Broad-based tumor genotyping revealed clinical and anatomic differences that could be linked to gene mutations. NRAS mutations were associated with rectal cancer versus colon cancer (12.5% vs 0.6%; P < .001) and with age ≥56 years (7% vs 0.9%; P = .02). Conversely, v-raf murine sarcoma viral oncogene homolog B (BRAF) mutations were associated with colon cancer (13% vs 3%; P = .024) and older age (15.8% vs 4.6%; P = .006). TP53 mutations were associated with rectal cancer (30% vs 18%; P = .048), younger age (14% vs 28.7%; P = .007), and men (26.4% vs 14%; P = .03). Lung metastases were associated with PIK3CA mutations (23% vs 8.7%; P = .004). Only mutations in BRAF were independently associated with decreased overall survival (hazard ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-5.27; P = .029). CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests that underlying molecular profiles can differ between colon and rectal cancers. Further investigation is warranted to assess whether the differences identified are important in determining the optimal treatment course for these patients.

A phase 1 open-label, sequential dose-escalation study investigating the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of intravenous TLC388 administered to patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: The first-in-human phase 1 trial examined the dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), maximum tolerated dose (MTD), pharmacokinetic profile, and antitumor activity of TLC388, a novel camptothecin with a unique lactone ring modification, in patients with advanced solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: TLC388 was administered intravenously to patients with metastatic chemotherapy refractory solid tumors on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. Patients underwent tumor assessments every other cycle. Pharmacokinetic samples were drawn on days 1, 8, and 15 of cycles 1 and 2. RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled at doses ranging from 1.5 to 60.0 mg/m(2) over 12 cohorts. Treatment was generally well-tolerated and no cumulative toxicity observed. Two of six patients treated at 60.0 mg/m(2) developed DLTs of grade 3 neutropenia causing dose delay and grade 3 febrile neutropenia. The next lower dose, 50.0 mg/m(2), was declared as MTD. Treatment-related grade 3-4 hematologic toxicities included neutropenia (19 %), leukopenia (15 %), anemia (9 %), and thrombocytopenia (7 %). Grade 3-4 nonhematologic toxicities included diarrhea (2 %) and hyponatremia (4 %). Pharmacokinetics of both diastereomers (S,R and S,S) of TLC388, a mixture of two diastereomers, was dose independent; mean (SD) values for the volume of distribution at steady-state and clearance were 857 (1122) L/m(2) for S,R and 996 (1333) L/m(2) for S,S, and 2174 (2526) L/h-m(2) for S,R and 2670 (2988) L/h-m(2) for S,S, respectively. The half-life values averaged 0.67 (1.15) hours for S,R and 0.64 (1.11) hours for S,S. The best overall response was stable disease in 21 (39 %) patients. Prolonged (≥ 6 months) stable disease was noted in eight patients. CONCLUSIONS: TLC388 at 50 mg/m(2) on the current treatment schedule is generally safe and well tolerated.

A phase 2, multicenter, open-label study of anti-LAG-3 ieramilimab in combination with anti-PD-1 spartalizumab in patients with advanced solid malignancies.

Ieramilimab, a humanized anti-LAG-3 monoclonal antibody, was well tolerated in combination with the anti-PD-1 antibody spartalizumab in a phase 1 study. This phase 2 study aimed to further investigate the efficacy and safety of combination treatment in patients with selected advanced (locally advanced or metastatic) solid malignancies. Eligible patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), melanoma, renal cell carcinoma (RCC), mesothelioma, and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) were grouped depending on prior anti-PD-1/L1 therapy (anti-PD-1/L1 naive or anti-PD-1/L1 pretreated). Patients received ieramilimab (400 mg) followed by spartalizumab (300 mg) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR), along with safety, pharmacokinetics, and biomarker assessments. Of 235 patients, 142 were naive to anti-PD-1/L1 and 93 were pretreated with anti-PD-1/L1 antibodies. Durable responses (>24 months) were seen across all indications for patients naive to anti-PD-1/L1 and in melanoma and RCC patients pretreated with anti-PD1/L1. The most frequent study drug-related AEs were pruritus (15.5%), fatigue (10.6%), and rash (10.6%) in patients naive to anti-PD-1/L1 and fatigue (18.3%), rash (14.0%), and nausea (10.8%) in anti-PD-1/L1 pretreated patients. Biomarker assessment indicated higher expression of T-cell-inflamed gene signature at baseline among responding patients. Response to treatment was durable (>24 months) in some patients across all enrolled indications, and safety findings were in accordance with previous and current studies exploring LAG-3/PD-1 blockade.

Phase 2 trial of afatinib, an ErbB family blocker, in solid tumors genetically screened for target activation.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of afatinib, an irreversible ErbB Family Blocker, was evaluated in patients who had 1 of 4 categories of solid tumors with epidermal growth factor receptor/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (EGFR/HER2) gene amplification or EGFR-activating mutations. METHODS: Patients with previously treated but ErbB inhibitor-naive esophagogastric, biliary tract, urothelial tract, or gynecologic cancers (lung cancers were excluded) harboring EGFR/HER2 gene amplification or high polysomy were identified by fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH). Tumors were also screened for EGFR mutations. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate; secondary endpoints included the clinical benefit rate, pharmacokinetics, and safety. RESULTS: Of 385 prescreened patients, 38 had FISH-positive tumors (10 with EGFR amplification and 29 with HER2 amplification or high polysomy [1 tumor had EGFR/HER2 high polysomy]; none had EGFR-activating mutations), and 20 patients received treatment with afatinib 50 mg daily. The objective response rate was 5% (1 of 20 patients), and the best objective response included 1 complete response. Eight patients experienced stable disease. The most frequently reported adverse events were diarrhea, rash, and decreased appetite. The trial closed early because of slow recruitment. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent afatinib activity was limited, yet encouraging, in selected tumors that were screened prospectively for target activation. The implementation of a biomarker-driven approach using a low-frequency biomarker for patient selection across multiple tumor types can be challenging.

Updated long-term outcomes and prognostic factors for patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer treated with intraoperative radiotherapy at the Massachusetts General Hospital, 1978 to 2010.

BACKGROUND: In the current study, the authors evaluated long-term outcomes, intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT)-related toxicity, and prognostic factors for overall survival (OS) among patients with unresectable locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) who received IORT as part of their treatment at the Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). METHODS: Medical records were reviewed for 194 consecutive patients with unresectable LAPC who were treated with IORT at MGH between 1978 and 2010. OS was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Prognostic factors were evaluated at the univariate level by the log-rank test and at the multivariate level by the Cox proportional hazards model. Rates of disease progression and treatment toxicity were calculated. RESULTS: The 1-year, 2-year, and 3-year survival rates were 49%, 16%, and 6%, respectively. Six patients (3%) survived for > 5 years. The median OS was 12.0 months. Among 183 patients with known post-IORT disease status, the 2-year local progression-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival rates were 41% and 28%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, an IORT applicator diameter ≤ 8 cm (hazards ratio [HR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.30-0.84 [P = .009]), a Charlson age-comorbidity index ≤ 3 (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.31-0.73 [P = .001]), and receipt of chemotherapy (HR, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.33-0.66 [P < .001]) predicted improved OS. The median OS for patients with all 3 positive prognostic factors was 21.2 months. CONCLUSIONS: Well-selected patients with LAPC with small tumors and low Charlson age-comorbidity indices can achieve good long-term survival outcomes with a treatment regimen that incorporates chemotherapy and IORT.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: is there a survival difference for R1 resections versus locally advanced unresectable tumors? What is a "true" R0 resection?

OBJECTIVE: Patients who undergo an R0 resection of their pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) have an improved survival compared with patients who undergo an R1 resection. It is unclear whether an R1 resection confers a survival benefit over locally advanced (LA) unresectable tumors. Our aim was to compare the survival of patients undergoing an R1 resection with those having LA tumors and to explore the prognostic significance of a 1-mm surgical margin. METHODS: Clinicopathologic data from a pancreatic cancer database between January 1993 and July 2008 were reviewed. Locally advanced tumors had no evidence of metastatic disease at exploration. RESULTS: A total of 1705 patients were evaluated for PDAC in the Department of Surgery. Of the 1084 (64%) patients who were surgically explored, 530 (49%) were considered unresectable (286 locally unresectable, 244 with distant metastasis). One hundred fifty-seven (28%) of the resected PDACs had an R1 resection. Patients undergoing an R1 resection had a slightly longer survival compared with those who had locally advanced unresectable cancers (14 vs 11 months; P < 0.001). Patients with R0 resections had a favorable survival compared with those with R1 resections (23 vs 14 months; P < 0.001), but survival after resections with 1-mm margin or less (R0-close) were similar to R1 resections: both groups had a significantly shorter median survival than patients with a margin of greater than 1 mm (R0-wide) (16 vs 14 vs 35 months, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing an R1 resection still have an improved survival compared with patients with locally advanced unresectable pancreatic adenocarcinoma. R0 resections have an improved survival compared with R1 resections, but this survival benefit is lost when the tumor is within 1 mm of the resection margin.

Multicenter phase II study of tivozanib (AV-951) and everolimus (RAD001) for patients with refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Treatments that target the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway have efficacy in colorectal cancer. We evaluated tolerability and efficacy of tivozanib (an oral VEGF receptor-1, -2, -3 inhibitor) plus everolimus (an oral mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor). METHODS: The phase Ib study followed a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design with three dose levels. The primary objective in the follow-on phase II study was improvement in 2-month progression-free survival (PFS) from 30% (historical benchmark) to 50% in patients with refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Dose-limiting toxicities in the phase Ib study were grade 3 fatigue and dehydration. Oral tivozanib (1 mg daily for 3 of 4 weeks) and oral everolimus (10 mg daily continuously) were advanced to a 40-patient phase II study. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia and hypophosphatemia. The 2-month PFS rate was 50%, with 20 of 40 patients having stable disease (SD). Seven (18%) patients were treated for ≥6 months. Median PFS and overall survival (OS) times were 3.0 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.9-3.6 months) and 5.6 months (95% CI: 4.4-10.6 months), respectively. Patients who developed grade 1+ hypertension had increased SD rates (65.2% vs. 29.4%) and longer OS times (10.6 vs. 3.7 months). CONCLUSIONS: The oral combination of tivozanib and everolimus was well tolerated, with stable disease achieved in 50% of patients with refractory, metastatic colorectal cancer.

Preoperative cetuximab, irinotecan, cisplatin, and radiation therapy for patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer.

PURPOSE: To determine the efficacy and toxicity of weekly neoadjuvant cetuximab combined with irinotecan, cisplatin, and radiation therapy in patients with locally advanced esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with stage IIA-IVA esophageal or gastroesophageal junction cancer were enrolled in a Simon's two-stage phase II study. Patients received weekly cetuximab on weeks 0-8 and irinotecan and cisplatin on weeks 1, 2, 4, and 5, with concurrent radiotherapy (50.4 Gy on weeks 1-6), followed by surgical resection. RESULTS: In the first stage, 17 patients were enrolled, 16 of whom had adenocarcinoma. Because of a low pathologic complete response (pCR) rate in this cohort, the trial was discontinued for patients with adenocarcinoma but squamous cell carcinoma patients continued to be enrolled; two additional patients were enrolled before the study was closed as a result of poor accrual. Of the 19 patients enrolled, 18 patients proceeded to surgery, and 16 patients underwent an R0 resection. Three patients (16%) had a pCR. The median progression-free survival interval was 10 months, and the median overall survival duration was 31 months. Severe neutropenia occurred in 47% of patients, and severe diarrhea occurred in 47% of patients. One patient died preoperatively from sepsis, and one patient died prior to hospital discharge following surgical resection. CONCLUSIONS: This schedule of cetuximab in combination with irinotecan, cisplatin, and radiation therapy was toxic and did not achieve a sufficient pCR rate in patients with localized esophageal adenocarcinoma to undergo further evaluation.