A shared neoantigen vaccine combined with immune checkpoint blockade for advanced metastatic solid tumors: phase 1 trial interim results.

Therapeutic vaccines that elicit cytotoxic T cell responses targeting tumor-specific neoantigens hold promise for providing long-term clinical benefit to patients with cancer. Here we evaluated safety and tolerability of a therapeutic vaccine encoding 20 shared neoantigens derived from selected common oncogenic driver mutations as primary endpoints in an ongoing phase 1/2 study in patients with advanced/metastatic solid tumors. Secondary endpoints included immunogenicity, overall response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. Eligible patients were selected if their tumors expressed one of the human leukocyte antigen-matched tumor mutations included in the vaccine, with the majority of patients (18/19) harboring a mutation in KRAS. The vaccine regimen, consisting of a chimp adenovirus (ChAd68) and self-amplifying mRNA (samRNA) in combination with the immune checkpoint inhibitors ipilimumab and nivolumab, was shown to be well tolerated, with observed treatment-related adverse events consistent with acute inflammation expected with viral vector-based vaccines and immune checkpoint blockade, the majority grade 1/2. Two patients experienced grade 3/4 serious treatment-related adverse events that were also dose-limiting toxicities. The overall response rate was 0%, and median progression-free survival and overall survival were 1.9 months and 7.9 months, respectively. T cell responses were biased toward human leukocyte antigen-matched TP53 neoantigens encoded in the vaccine relative to KRAS neoantigens expressed by the patients' tumors, indicating a previously unknown hierarchy of neoantigen immunodominance that may impact the therapeutic efficacy of multiepitope shared neoantigen vaccines. These data led to the development of an optimized vaccine exclusively targeting KRAS-derived neoantigens that is being evaluated in a subset of patients in phase 2 of the clinical study. ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03953235 .

Evaluation of Intratumoral Response Heterogeneity in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer and Its Impact on Patient Overall Survival: Findings from 10,551 Patients in the ARCAD Database.

Metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) is a heterogeneous disease that can evoke discordant responses to therapy among different lesions in individual patients. The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) criteria do not take into consideration response heterogeneity. We explored and developed lesion-based measurement response criteria to evaluate their prognostic effect on overall survival (OS). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled in 17 first-line clinical trials, who had mCRC with ≥ 2 lesions at baseline, and a restaging scan by 12 weeks were included. For each patient, lesions were categorized as a progressing lesion (PL: > 20% increase in the longest diameter (LD)), responding lesion (RL: > 30% decrease in LD), or stable lesion (SL: neither PL nor RL) based on the 12-week scan. Lesion-based response criteria were defined for each patient as follows: PL only, SL only, RL only, and varied responses (mixture of RL, SL, and PL). Lesion-based response criteria and OS were correlated using stratified multivariable Cox models. The concordance between OS and classifications was measured using the C statistic. RESULTS: Among 10,551 patients with mCRC from 17 first-line studies, varied responses were noted in 51.6% of patients, among whom, 3.3% had RL/PL at 12 weeks. Among patients with RL/SL, 52% had stable disease (SD) by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (median OS (mOS) = 19.9 months) than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.81 (0.76, 0.85), p < 0.001), although a shorter OS than those with RL only (mOS = 25.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.42 (1.32, 1.53), p < 0.001). Among patients with SL/PL, 74% had SD by RECIST 1.1, and they had a longer OS (mOS = 9.0 months) than those with PL only (mOS = 8.0 months, HR (95% CI) = 0.75 (0.57, 0.98), p = 0.040), yet a shorter OS than those with SL only (mOS = 16.8 months, HR (95% CI) = 1.98 (1.80, 2.18), p < 0.001). These associations were consistent across treatment regimen subgroups. The lesion-based response criteria showed slightly higher concordance than RECIST 1.1, although it was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Varied responses at first restaging are common among patients receiving first-line therapy for mCRC. Our lesion-based measurement criteria allowed for better mortality discrimination, which could potentially be informative for treatment decision-making and influence patient outcomes.

Next-Generation Approaches to Immuno-Oncology in GI Cancers.

Immunotherapy has only had a modest impact on the treatment of advanced GI malignancies. Microsatellite-stable colorectal cancer and pancreatic adenocarcinoma, the most common GI tumors, have not benefited from treatment with standard immune checkpoint inhibitors. With this huge unmet need, multiple approaches are being tried to overcome barriers to better anticancer outcomes. This article reviews a number of novel approaches to immunotherapy for these tumors. These include the use of novel checkpoint inhibitors such as a modified anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 antibody and antibodies to lymphocyte-activation gene 3, T cell immunoreceptor with immunoglobulin and ITIM domains, T-cell immunoglobulin-3, CD47, and combinations with signal transduction inhibitors. We will discuss other trials that aim to elicit an antitumor T-cell response using cancer vaccines and oncolytic viruses. Finally, we review attempts to replicate in GI cancers the frequent and durable responses seen in hematologic malignancies with immune cell therapies.

Anal Carcinoma, Version 2.2023, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This discussion summarizes the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines for managing squamous cell anal carcinoma, which represents the most common histologic form of the disease. A multidisciplinary approach including physicians from gastroenterology, medical oncology, surgical oncology, radiation oncology, and radiology is necessary. Primary treatment of perianal cancer and anal canal cancer are similar and include chemoradiation in most cases. Follow-up clinical evaluations are recommended for all patients with anal carcinoma because additional curative-intent treatment is possible. Biopsy-proven evidence of locally recurrent or persistent disease after primary treatment may require surgical treatment. Systemic therapy is generally recommended for extrapelvic metastatic disease. Recent updates to the NCCN Guidelines for Anal Carcinoma include staging classification updates based on the 9th edition of the AJCC Staging System and updates to the systemic therapy recommendations based on new data that better define optimal treatment of patients with metastatic anal carcinoma.

Phase Ib study of talimogene laherparepvec in combination with atezolizumab in patients with triple negative breast cancer and colorectal cancer with liver metastases.

BACKGROUND: Talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC), a first-in-class oncolytic viral immunotherapy, enhances tumor-specific immune activation. T-VEC combined with atezolizumab, which blocks inhibitor T-cell checkpoints, could provide greater benefit than either agent alone. Safety/efficacy of the combination was explored in patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) or colorectal cancer (CRC) with liver metastases. METHODS: In this phase Ib, multicenter, open-label, parallel cohort study of adults with TNBC or CRC with liver metastases, T-VEC (106 then 108 PFU/ml; ≤4 ml) was administered into hepatic lesions via image-guided injection every 21 (±3) days. Atezolizumab 1200 mg was given on day 1 and every 21 (±3) days thereafter. Treatment continued until patients experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT), had complete response, progressive disease, needed alternative anticancer treatment, or withdrew due to an adverse event (AE). The primary endpoint was DLT incidence, and secondary endpoints included efficacy and AEs. RESULTS: Between 19 March 2018 and 6 November 2020, 11 patients with TNBC were enrolled (safety analysis set: n = 10); between 19 March 2018 and 16 October 2019, 25 patients with CRC were enrolled (safety analysis set: n = 24). For the 5 patients in the TNBC DLT analysis set, no patient had DLT; for the 18 patients in the CRC DLT analysis set, 3 (17%) had DLT, all serious AEs. AEs were reported by 9 (90%) TNBC and 23 (96%) CRC patients, the majority with grade ≥3 [TNBC, 7 (70%); CRC, 13 (54%)], and 1 was fatal [CRC, 1 (4%)]. Evidence of efficacy was limited. Overall response rate was 10% (95% confidence interval 0.3-44.5) for TNBC; one (10%) patient had a partial response. For CRC, no patients had a response; 14 (58%) were unassessable. CONCLUSIONS: The safety profile reflected known risks with T-VEC including risks of intrahepatic injection; no unexpected safety findings from addition of atezolizumab to T-VEC were observed. Limited evidence of antitumor activity was observed.

Fecal and Tissue Microbiota Are Associated with Tumor T-Cell Infiltration and Mesenteric Lymph Node Involvement in Colorectal Cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is associated with alterations of the fecal and tissue-associated microbiome. Preclinical models support a pathogenic role of the microbiome in CRC, including in promoting metastasis and modulating antitumor immune responses. To investigate whether the microbiome is associated with lymph node metastasis and T cell infiltration in human CRC, we performed 16S rRNA gene sequencing of feces, tumor core, tumor surface, and healthy adjacent tissue collected from 34 CRC patients undergoing surgery (28 fecal samples and 39 tissue samples). Tissue microbiome profiles-including increased Fusobacterium-were significantly associated with mesenteric lymph node (MLN) involvement. Fecal microbes were also associated with MLN involvement and accurately classified CRC patients into those with or without MLN involvement. Tumor T cell infiltration was assessed by immunohistochemical staining of CD3 and CD8 in tumor tissue sections. Tumor core microbiota, including members of the Blautia and Faecalibacterium genera, were significantly associated with tumor T cell infiltration. Abundance of specific fecal microbes including a member of the Roseburia genus predicted high vs. low total and cytotoxic T cell infiltration in random forests classifiers. These findings support a link between the microbiome and antitumor immune responses that may influence prognosis of locally advanced CRC.

Preclinical and Clinical Trial Results Using Talazoparib and Low-Dose Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: On the basis of preclinical data, we hypothesized that low doses of chemotherapy (10% of therapeutic doses) with full dose of a PARP inhibitor could have improved efficacy and tolerability. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this phase I dose-escalation study, patients with BRCA-normal advanced malignancies were assigned to either talazoparib/temozolomide or talazoparib/irinotecan. Talazoparib was dose-escalated from 500 mcg to 1 mg daily before dose escalation of temozolomide/irinotecan. The starting dose of temozolomide was 25 mg/m2/day orally on days 1 to 5 and irinotecan was 25 mg/m2/day intravenously on days 1 and 15. The primary objectives of this trial were safety and tolerability, dose-limiting toxicities (DLT), and maximum tolerated dose (MTD). RESULTS: Of 40 patients enrolled, 18 (mean: 7 prior therapies) were enrolled in talazoparib + temozolomide and 22 in talazoparib + irinotecan. DLTs were hematologic in both arms, but all hematologic adverse events resolved with either treatment interruption and/or dose reductions of talazoparib. The MTDs were talazoparib 1 mg + temozolomide 37.5 mg/m2 and talazoparib 1 mg + irinotecan 37.5 mg/m2. There were four partial responses in the talazoparib + temozolomide arm and five in the talazoparib + irinotecan arm for a response rate of 23% (9/40). The pharmacokinetic profiles of talazoparib + temozolomide/irinotecan were similar to that of talazoparib monotherapy. Responses were seen independent of homologous recombination (HR) status and HR deficiency score. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that talazoparib with low-dose temozolomide or irinotecan is reasonably well tolerated and demonstrates clinical activity in a wide range of cancers. Randomized trials of talazoparib with or without low-dose chemotherapy are ongoing in small cell lung cancer and ovarian cancer.

Rectal Cancer, Version 2.2022, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer focuses on management of malignant polyps and resectable nonmetastatic rectal cancer because important updates have been made to these guidelines. These recent updates include redrawing the algorithms for stage II and III disease to reflect new data supporting the increasingly prominent role of total neoadjuvant therapy, expanded recommendations for short-course radiation therapy techniques, and new recommendations for a "watch-and-wait" nonoperative management technique for patients with cancer that shows a complete response to neoadjuvant therapy. The complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Rectal Cancer, available online at NCCN.org, covers additional topics including risk assessment, pathology and staging, management of metastatic disease, posttreatment surveillance, treatment of recurrent disease, and survivorship.

Familial Duodenal Somatostatinomatosis Not Associated With a Known Genetic Syndrome.

ABSTRACT: We report a father and his daughter who both had multiple somatostatinomas in the duodenal bulb without a known syndrome. The father, at age 68 years, was incidentally found to harbor 4 approximately 1.5-cm well-differentiated neuroendocrine tumors in the duodenal bulb. His preoperative somatostatin level was elevated. He underwent partial duodenectomy and regional lymph node dissection; one lymph node was positive for metastasis. One year postoperatively, a recurrence was found in the surgical bed; he was treated with octreotide for 2 years, which stabilized the recurrent tumor. Ten years postoperatively, the mucosa of his remaining duodenum was normal. His daughter, at age 53 years, was found to harbor multiple small neuroendocrine tumors in the duodenal bulb. Immunostaining of available specimens showed that the neuroendocrine tumors from the father and daughter both were strongly positive for somatostatin. Micronodules of somatostatin-expressing neuroendocrine cells were found in the parts of the specimens uninvolved with the tumors. Both patients exhibited no evidence of known syndromes associated with somatostatinoma. The daughter did not harbor mutations in 93 genes commonly found in genetic tumor syndromes. The 2 cases thus suggest a novel, autosomal dominant, genetic syndrome of familial duodenal somatostatinomatosis.

A Randomized Phase II Study of Nivolumab Monotherapy or Nivolumab Combined with Ipilimumab in Patients with Advanced Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors.

PURPOSE: Most gastrointestinal stromal tumors (GIST) are driven by KIT/PDGFRa mutations. Tyrosine kinase inhibitor benefit is progressively less after imatinib failure. This phase II trial analyzed the efficacy of nivolumab (N) or nivolumab + ipilimumab (N + I) in patients with refractory GIST. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced/metastatic GIST refractory to at least imatinib were randomized 1:1 in a noncomparative, parallel group, unblinded phase II trial of N (240 mg every 2 weeks) or N + I (240 mg every 2 weeks + 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks). The primary endpoint was the objective response rate of N alone or N+I by RECIST 1.1 in the intent-to-treat population. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients with a median of 3 (1-6) prior lines of therapies were enrolled. Ten of 19 (52.6%) patients had stable disease (SD) for a clinical benefit rate (CBR) of 52.6% in the N arm and the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 11.7 weeks [95% confidence interval (CI), 7.0-17.4]. In the N+I arm, 1 of 16 (6.7%) patients had a complete response (CR) and 4/16 (25.0%) had SD for a CBR of 31.3% and a median PFS of 8.3 weeks (95% CI, 5.6-22.2). The 4- and 6-month PFS were 42.1% and 26.3%, respectively for N, and 31.3% and 18.8%, respectively for N+I. The most common adverse events (AE) attributed to N and N+I were fatigue: 13.9% and 22.2%, respectively. There were nine total attributable grade 3-4 AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The primary endpoint of response rate > 15% was not observed for N or N + I. In a heavily pretreated GIST population, responses and long-term disease control with both N and N+I were observed. No new safety signals have been observed.

Discovery and characterization of circulating tumor cell clusters in neuroendocrine tumor patients using nanosubstrate-embedded microchips.

Circulating tumor cell (CTC) clusters are present in cancer patients with severe metastasis, resulting in poor clinical outcomes. However, CTC clusters have not been studied as extensively as single CTCs, and the clinical utility of CTC clusters remains largely unknown. In this study, we aim sought to explore the feasibility of NanoVelcro Chips to simultaneously detect both single CTCs and CTC clusters with negligible perturbation to their intrinsic properties in neuroendocrine tumors (NETs). We discovered frequent CTC clusters in patients with advanced NETs and examined their potential roles, together with single NET CTCs, as novel biomarkers of patient response following peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT). We observed dynamic changes in both total NET CTCs and NET CTC cluster counts in NET patients undergoing PRRT which correlated with clinical outcome. These preliminary findings suggest that CTC clusters, along with single CTCs, offer a potential non-invasive option to monitor the treatment response in NET patients undergoing PRRT.

Impact of geography on prognostic outcomes of 21,509 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer enrolled in clinical trials: an ARCAD database analysis.

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking international cancer survival differences is necessary to evaluate and improve healthcare systems. Our aim was to assess the potential regional differences in outcomes among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) participating in international randomized clinical trials (RCTs). DESIGN: Countries were grouped into 11 regions according to the World Health Organization and the EUROCARE model. Meta-analyses based on individual patient data were used to synthesize data across studies and regions and to conduct comparisons for outcomes in a two-stage random-effects model after adjusting for age, sex, performance status, and time period. We used mCRC patients enrolled in the first-line RCTs from the ARCAD database, which provided enrolling country information. There were 21,509 patients in 27 RCTs included across the 11 regions. RESULTS: Main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Compared with other regions, patients from the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland were proportionaly over-represented, older, with higher performance status, more frequently male, and more commonly not treated with biological therapies. Cohorts from central Europe and the United States (USA) had significantly longer OS compared with those from UK and Ireland (p = 0.0034 and p < 0.001, respectively), with median difference of 3-4 months. The survival deficits in the UK and Ireland cohorts were, at most, 15% at 1 year. No evidence of a regional disparity was observed for PFS. Among those treated without biological therapies, patients from the UK and Ireland had shorter OS than central Europe patients (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Significant international disparities in the OS of cohorts of mCRC patients enrolled in RCTs were found. Survival of mCRC patients included in RCTs was consistently lower in the UK and Ireland regions than in central Europe, southern Europe, and the USA, potentially attributed to greater overall population representation, delayed diagnosis, and reduced availability of therapies.

Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology.

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation-positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.

Randomized Phase III Study of FOLFOX Alone or With Pegilodecakin as Second-Line Therapy in Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer That Progressed After Gemcitabine (SEQUOIA).

PURPOSE: SEQUOIA compared efficacy and safety of adding pegilodecakin (PEG), a pegylated recombinant human interleukin (IL)-10, with folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in patients following progression on first-line gemcitabine-containing therapy with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: SEQUOIA, a randomized, global phase III study, compared FOLFOX with PEG + FOLFOX as second line in gemcitabine-refractory PDAC. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 (PEG + FOLFOX:FOLFOX) and stratified by prior gemcitabine and region. Eligible patients had only one prior gemcitabine-containing treatment. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), response evaluation per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumor (RECIST) 1.1, and safety. Exploratory analyses included biomarkers related to immune activation. RESULTS: Between March 1, 2017, and September 9, 2019, 567 patients were randomly assigned PEG + FOLFOX (n = 283) or FOLFOX (n = 284). Most (94.7%) patients received prior gemcitabine plus nab paclitaxel. OS was similar comparing PEG + FOLFOX versus FOLFOX (median: 5.8 v 6.3 months; hazard ratio = 1.045; 95% CI, 0.863 to 1.265). Also, PFS (median 2.1 v 2.1 months; hazard ratio = 0.981; 95% CI, 0.808 to 1.190) and objective response rate (4.6% v 5.6%) were similar between the treatment arms. Most common (≥ 35%) treatment-emergent adverse events in PEG + FOLFOX versus FOLFOX were thrombocytopenia (55% v 20%), anemia (40% v 16%), fatigue (61% v 45%), neutropenia (39% v 28%), abdominal pain (37% v 29%), nausea (45% v 41%), neuropathy (37% v 38%), and decreased appetite (35% v 31%). Exploratory analyses revealed increases in total IL-18, interferon (IFN)-γ, and granzyme B and decreases in transforming growth factor (TGF)-ß with the addition of PEG. CONCLUSION: PEG added to FOLFOX did not improve efficacy in advanced gemcitabine-refractory PDAC. Safety findings were consistent as previously observed from PEG with chemotherapy; toxicity was manageable and tolerable. Exploratory pharmacodynamic results were consistent with immunostimulatory signals of the IL-10R pathway.

Immunologic and tumor responses of pegilodecakin with 5-FU/LV and oxaliplatin (FOLFOX) in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC).

Background Treatment options for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) are limited and checkpoint blockade inhibitors have been disappointing in this disease. Pegilodecakin has demonstrated single agent anti-tumor activity in immune-sensitive tumors. Phase 1 and preclinical data indicate synergy of pegilodecakin with 5-FU and platins. We assessed the safety and activity of pegilodecakin+FOLFOX in patients with PDAC. Methods IVY (NCT02009449) was an open-label phase 1b trial in the United States. Here we report on all enrolled patients from cohort C. Heavily pretreated patients were treated with pegilodecakin (self-administered subcutaneously daily at 2.5, 5, or 10 µg/kg) + 5-flurouracil/leucovorin/oxaliplatin (FOLFOX), dosed per manufacturers prescribing information, until tumor progression. Eligible patients had measurable disease per immune-related response criteria (irRC), were ≥ 18 years of age, and had ECOG performance status of 0 or 1. Patients were evaluated for primary(safety) and secondary (tumor response per irRC) endpoints. Results From 5 August 2014-12 July 2016, 39 patients enrolled in cohort C. All patients were evaluable for safety. In this advanced population, regimen had manageable toxicities with no immune-related adverse events (irAEs) greater than grade 1. The most common grade 3/4/5 TEAEs were thrombocytopenia (21[53.8%] of 39) and anemia (17[43.6%] of 39). In evaluable PDAC patients, the best overall response of pegilodecakin+FOLFOX was 3(14%) with CRs in 2(9%) patients. Conclusions Pegilodecakin+FOLFOX had an acceptable tolerability profile in PDAC, with no substantial irAEs seen, and promising efficacy with the combination yielding a 2-year OS of 24% (95% CI 10-42). These data led to the phase 3 study with pegilodecakin+FOLFOX as second-line therapy of PDAC (SEQUOIA).

Meta-analysis examining overall survival in patients with pancreatic cancer treated with second-line 5-fluorouracil and oxaliplatin-based therapy after failing first-line gemcitabine-containing therapy: effect of performance status and comparison with other regimens.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer has a poor prognosis and few choices of therapy. For patients with adequate performance status, FOLFIRINOX or gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel are preferred first-line treatment. 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU)-based therapy (e.g. FOLFIRI, OFF, or FOLFOX) are often used in patients who previously received gemcitabine-based regimens. A systematic review was conducted of the safety and efficacy of FOLFOX for metastatic pancreatic cancer following prior gemcitabine-based therapy. A Bayesian fixed-effect meta-analysis with adjustment of patient performance status (PS) was conducted to evaluate overall survival (OS) and compare outcomes with nanoliposomal irinotecan combination therapy. METHODS: PubMed.gov , FDA.gov , ClinicalTrials.gov , congress abstracts, Cochrane.org library, and EMBASE database searches were conducted to identify randomized controlled trials of advanced/metastatic disease, prior gemcitabine-based therapy, and second-line treatment with 5-FU and oxaliplatin. The database search dates were January 1, 1990-June 30, 2019. Endpoints were OS and severe treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). Trial-level PS scores were standardized by converting Karnofsky grade scores to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Grade, and overall study-weighted PS was calculated based on weighted average of all patients. RESULTS: Of 282 studies identified, 11 randomized controlled trials (N = 454) were included in the meta-analysis. Baseline weighted PS scores predicted OS in 10 of the 11 studies, and calculated PS scores of 1.0 were associated with a median OS of 6.3 months (95% posterior interval, 5.4-7.4). After adjusting for baseline PS, FOLFOX had a similar treatment effect profile (median OS, range 2.6-6.7 months) as 5-FU/leucovorin plus nanoliposomal irinotecan therapy (median OS, 6.1 months; 95% confidence interval 4.8-8.9). Neutropenia and fatigue were the most commonly reported Grade 3-4 TRAEs associated with FOLFOX. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline PS is a strong prognostic factor when interpreting the efficacy of 5-FU and oxaliplatin-based therapy of pancreatic cancer after progression on first-line gemcitabine-based regimens. When baseline PS is considered, FOLFOX has a similar treatment effect as 5-FU and nanoliposomal irinotecan therapy and a comparable safety profile. These findings suggest that 5-FU and oxaliplatin-based therapies remain an acceptable and alternative second-line treatment option for patients with pancreatic cancer and adequate PS (e.g. ECOG 0-1) following gemcitabine treatment.

Threshold Change in CEA as a Predictor of Non-Progression to First-Line Systemic Therapy in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer Patients With Elevated CEA.

BACKGROUND: Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) levels are used in conjunction with imaging to monitor response to systemic therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We sought to identify a threshold for CEA change from baseline to predict progressive disease (PD) in mCRC patients receiving first-line therapy. METHODS: Patients from trials collected in the ARCAD database were included if baseline CEA was at least 10 ng/mL and repeat CEA was available within 14 days of first restaging scan. Optimal cutoffs for CEA change were identified by receiver operating characteristic analysis. Prediction performance of cutoffs was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value. Analyses were conducted by treatment class: chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy with anti-VEGF antibody, and chemotherapy with anti-EGFR antibody. RESULTS: A total of 2643 mCRC patients treated with systemic therapy were included. Median percent change of CEA from baseline to first restaging for patients with complete response, partial response, or stable disease (non-PD) and PD was -53.1% and +23.6% for chemotherapy alone (n = 957) and -71.7% and -45.3% for chemotherapy with anti-VEGF antibody (n = 1355). The optimal area under the curve cutoff for differentiating PD from non-PD on first restaging was -7.5% for chemotherapy alone and -62.0% for chemotherapy with anti-VEGF antibody; chemotherapy alone, adjusted odds ratio = 6.51 (95% CI = 3.31 to 12.83, P < .001), chemotherapy with anti-VEGF antibody, adjusted odds ratio = 3.45 (95% CI = 1.93 to 6.18, P < .001). A 99% negative predictive value clinical cutoff for prediction of non-PD would avoid CT scan at first restaging in 21.0% of chemotherapy alone and 16.2% of chemotherapy with anti-VEGF antibody-treated patients. Among patients with stable disease on first restaging, those with decreased CEA from baseline had statistically significantly improved progression-free and overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: Change in CEA from baseline to first restaging can accurately predict non-progression and correlates with long-term outcomes in patients receiving systemic chemotherapy.

Evaluation of Continuous Tumor-Size-Based End Points as Surrogates for Overall Survival in Randomized Clinical Trials in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Importance: Tumor measurements can be used to estimate time to nadir and depth of nadir as potential surrogates for overall survival (OS). Objective: To assess time to nadir and depth of nadir as surrogates for OS in metastatic colorectal cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: Pooled analysis of 20 randomized clinical trials within the Aide et Recherche en Cancerologie Digestive database, which contains academic and industry-sponsored trials, was conducted. Three sets of comparisons were performed: chemotherapy alone, antiangiogenic agents, and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents in first-line treatment for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Main Outcomes and Measures: Surrogacy of time to nadir and depth of nadir was assessed at the trial level based on joint modeling of relative tumor-size change vs baseline and OS. Treatment effects on time to nadir and on depth of nadir were defined in terms of between-arm differences in time to nadir and in depth of nadir, and both were assessed in linear regressions for their correlation with treatment effects (hazard ratios) on OS within each set. The strengths of association were quantified using sample-size-weighted coefficients of determination (R2), with values closer to 1.00 indicating stronger association. At the patient level, the correlation was assessed between modeled relative tumor-size change and OS. Results: For 14 chemotherapy comparisons in 4289 patients, the R2 value was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.30-0.96) for the association between treatment effects on time to nadir and OS and 0.08 (95% CI, 0-0.37) for depth of nadir and OS. For 11 antiangiogenic agent comparisons (4854 patients), corresponding values of R2 were 0.25 (95% CI, 0-0.72) and 0.06 (95% CI, 0-0.35). For 8 anti-epidermal growth factor receptor comparisons (2684 patients), corresponding values of R2 were 0.24 (95% CI, 0-0.83) and 0.21 (95% CI, 0-0.78). Conclusions and Relevance: In contrast with early reports favoring depth of response as a surrogate, these results suggest that neither time to nadir nor depth of nadir is an acceptable surrogate for OS in the first-line treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Monotherapy Ontuxizumab (MORAb-004) Plus Best Supportive Care in Patients with Chemorefractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ontuxizumab (MORAb-004), a monoclonal antibody that interferes with endosialin (tumor endothelial marker-1) function, in patients with chemorefractory metastatic colorectal cancer and to identify a responsive patient population based on biomarkers.Experimental Design: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II study. Patients were randomly assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive weekly intravenous ontuxizumab (8 mg/kg) or placebo plus best supportive care until progression or unacceptable toxicity. Tissue and blood biomarkers were evaluated for their ability to identify a patient population that was responsive to ontuxizumab.Results: A total of 126 patients were enrolled. No significant difference between the ontuxizumab and placebo groups was evident for the primary endpoint of progression-free survival (PFS), with a median PFS of 8.1 weeks in each group (HR, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.67; P = 0.53). There were no significant differences between groups for overall survival (OS) or overall response rate (ORR). The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) in the ontuxizumab group (vs. the placebo group, respectively) were fatigue (53.7% vs. 47.5%), nausea (39.0% vs. 35.0%), decreased appetite (34.1% vs. 27.5%), and constipation (28.0% vs. 32.5%). The most common grade 3/4 TEAE in the ontuxizumab group versus placebo was back pain (11.0% vs. 0%). No single biomarker clearly identified patients responsive to ontuxizumab.Conclusions: No benefit with ontuxizumab monotherapy compared with placebo for clinical response parameters of PFS, OS, or ORR was demonstrated. Ontuxizumab was well tolerated. Clin Cancer Res; 24(2); 316-25. ©2017 AACR.