Immunosuppressant mycophenolate mofetil for patients with steroid-refractory immune-related hepatitis induced by checkpoint inhibitors in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Immune-checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) hepatitis, which does not improve with steroids and requires additional immunosuppressant, is defined as steroid-refractory ICI hepatitis. The outcome of patients with steroid-refractory ICI hepatitis remains poorly determined. Herein, we investigated the incidence, clinical features, and outcome of patients treated with second-line immunosuppressant for steroid-refractory ICI hepatitis. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of patients who presented ICI hepatitis from 1st June 2016 to 30th September 2022. Steroid-refractory ICI hepatitis was defined as no clinical and biological improvement after systemic steroid therapy ≥1 mg/kg/d. Main objectives were to assess the frequency and risk factors associated with steroid-refractory ICI hepatitis and to evaluate the efficacy of second-line immunosuppressants. RESULTS: In total, 130 patients with grade ≥3 ICI hepatitis were screened, of them 60 (46.2%) were treated with systemic steroids. In total, 11/130 (8.5%) had steroid-refractory hepatitis. Statistically significant factors associated with steroid-refractory hepatitis included previous liver comorbidities (54.5% versus 11.6%; p < 0.01), hyperbilirubinemia (p < 0.001), and general symptoms (fever, jaundice, ascites, and/or encephalopathy) associated with hepatitis (72.7% versus 30.8%; p = 0.015). The 11 patients with steroid-refractory hepatitis were treated with mycophenolate mofetil. In total, resolution or return to grade ≤1 for hepatitis was observed in 81.8% (9/11) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Steroid-refractory ICI hepatitis accounted for 8.5% of patients with grade ≥3 immune-related hepatitis and was statistically associated with previous liver comorbidities, hyperbilirubinemia, and general symptoms. Mycophenolate mofetil was a suitable option of therapy for steroid-refractory ICI hepatitis.

Targetable Molecular Alterations in the Treatment of Biliary Tract Cancers: An Overview of the Available Treatments.

Biliary tract cancers (BTCs) are rare tumours, most often diagnosed at an unresectable stage, associated with poor prognosis, with a 5-year survival rate not exceeding 10%. Only first- and second-line treatments are well codified with the combination of cisplatin-gemcitabine chemotherapy and immunotherapy followed by 5-FU and oxaliplatin chemotherapy, respectively. Many studies have shown that BTC, and more particularly intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), have a high rate of targetable somatic alteration. To date, the FDA has approved several drugs. Ivosidenib targeting IDH1 mutations, as well as futibatinib and pemigatinib targeting FGFR2 fusions, are approved for pre-treated advanced CCA. The combination of dabrafenib and trametinib are approved for BRAFV600E mutated advanced tumours, NTRK inhibitors entrectinib and larotrectinib for tumours bearing NTRK fusion and prembrolizumab for MSI-H advanced tumours, involving a small percentage of BTC in these three settings. Several other potentially targetable alterations are found in BTC, such as HER2 mutations or amplifications or KRASG12C mutations and mutations in genes involved in DNA repair mechanisms. This review aims to clarify the specific diagnostic modalities for gene alterations and to summarize the results of the main trials and developments underway for the management of advanced BTC with targetable alterations.

Precision Medicine in Pancreatic Ductal Adenocarcinoma: The Impact of Targeted Therapies on Survival of Patients Harboring Actionable Mutations.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is the third leading cause of death by cancer worldwide. Mostly diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic disease, patients lack treatment options. Gene alterations (GAs) are frequently observed in PDAC, some of which are considered for molecular targeted therapies (MTTs), with potential clinical benefits and improved outcomes. However, the applicability of molecular profiling (MP) for precision medicine in PDAC remains to be demonstrated. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients, aged ≥18 years with histologically confirmed PDAC, who underwent tumor MP between 2010 and 2020 in our institution as part of personalized medicine trials. The primary study endpoint was overall survival (OS), and (minimal follow-up was 6 months after MP). RESULTS: Of 115 eligible patients, MP was successful in 102 patients (89%). KRAS mutations were the most frequent GAs, mostly G12D. Based on ESCAT classification, actionable GAs were found in 29 patients (28%), involving mainly BRCA1 or BRCA2 (5 (18%)), HER2 (5 (18%)), MTAP (5 (18%)), and FGFR (3 (11%)). Only 12 of these 29 patients (41%, or 10% of the whole population) received MTTs, with a median progression-free survival of 1.6 months. Median OS was 19 months in patients with actionable GAs treated with MTTs (n = 12 (11.8%)), 14 months in patients with actionable GAs treated with standard therapies (n = 17 (16.7%)), and 17 months in patients without actionable GAs treated with standard therapies (n = 73 (71.5%); p = 0.26). The absence of liver metastases was associated with better OS (HR = 0.471, p = 0.01). The highest OS following MTT was observed in patients with BRCA mutations treated with olaparib. INTERPRETATION: Actionable GAs were found in more than a quarter of patients with advanced PDAC. Overall, targeting actionable GAs with MTTs was not associated with improved OS in this retrospective study with limited patient numbers. However, selected GA/MTT combinations (e.g., BRCA mutations/olaparib) were associated with a better outcome.

Chemotherapy-induced ileitis associated or not with colitis in digestive oncology patients: An AGEO multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: The characteristics and management of ileitis induced by chemotherapy in cancer patients are poorly described in the literature. METHODS: This retrospective multicentre study enroled patients hospitalized in a digestive oncology unit for a symptomatic chemotherapy-induced ileitis. RESULTS: Forty-three patients were included, with a regimen based on fluoropyrimidine and/or irinotecan in 95% of cases. Five patients were excluded due to the diagnosis of infectious ileitis (Clostridium difficile in 3 patients, Campylobacter jejuni in 1 patient and cytomegalovirus in 1 patient). The most frequently described symptoms were diarrhoea (77% including 54% of grade 3-4 diarrhoea), abdominal pain (58%), fever (51%) and vomiting (56%). An ileo-colonoscopy was performed in 35% of patients and did not show any specific results or severity criteria. The ileitis was complicated by bowel perforation and/or obstruction in 3 patients. Disease progression was favourable in 1-2 weeks in the vast majority of cases, on symptomatic treatment, allowing resumption of the chemotherapy regimen involved in 67% of patients. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy-induced ileitis is a rare complication that most often involves fluoropyri-midine- and/or irinotecan-based regimens. In most cases, endoscopic examinations were not contributory and do not seem useful in the event of non-severe symptomatology which most often develops favourably on symptomatic therapy, allowing resumption of the chemotherapy involved.

FOLFIRI plus BEvacizumab or aFLIbercept after FOLFOX-bevacizumab failure for COlorectal cancer (BEFLICO): An AGEO multicenter study.

After failure of first line FOLFOX-bevacizumab for metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), adding either bevacizumab or aflibercept to second-line FOLFIRI increases survival compared to FOLFIRI alone. In this French retrospective multicentre cohort, we included patients with a mCRC treated with either FOLFIRI-aflibercept or FOLFIRI-bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS), and secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), disease control rate (DCR: CR + PR + SD) and safety. We included 681 patients from 36 centers, 326 and 355 in the aflibercept and bevacizumab groups, respectively. Median age was 64.2 years and 45.2% of patients were men. Most patients had RAS-mutated tumors (80.8%) and synchronous metastases (85.7%). After a median follow up of 31.2 months, median OS was 13.0 months (95% CI: 11.3-14.7) and 10.4 months (95% CI: 8.8-11.4) in the bevacizumab and aflibercept groups, respectively (P < .0001). Median PFS was 6.0 months (95% CI: 5.4-6.5) and 5.1 months (95% CI: 4.3-5.6) (P < .0001). After adjustment on age, PS, PFS of first line, primary tumor resection, metastasis location and RAS/BRAF status, bevacizumab was still associated with better OS (HR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.59-0.86, P = .0003). FOLFIRI-bevacizumab combination was associated with longer OS and PFS, and a better tolerability, as compared to FOLFIRI-aflibercept after progression on FOLFOX-bevacizumab.

Encorafenib plus cetuximab treatment in BRAF V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer patients pre-treated with an anti-EGFR: An AGEO-GONO case series.

BACKGROUND: Encorafenib plus cetuximab is efficient in anti-EGFR-naïve patients with BRAFV600E mutated (BRAFm) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). No data are available concerning the efficacy of BRAF inhibitors associated with anti-EGFRs (B + E) in patients previously treated with an anti-EGFR agent. METHODS: We retrospectively collected a series of patients with BRAFm mCRC treated with B + E after previous anti-EGFR treatment, in 14 centers. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from the start of treatment, and we reported objective response and disease control rates (ORR, DCR; RECIST V1.1). RESULTS: Twenty-five BRAFm mCRC patients were enrolled. Prior to B + E treatment, 4/10/11 patients were treated with 1/2/> 2 previous treatment lines. Ten patients received previous panitumumab, 14 cetuximab, 1 both. Immediate progression with previous anti-EGFR was reported for 7 patients. Anti-BRAF was encorafenib for 21 patients, dabrafenib for 4 patients, with cetuximab for 24 patients and panitumumab for 1 patient. ORR was 40% (10 patients) and DCR was 80% (20 patients). Median PFS and OS were 4.8 months (95% CI, 4.01-7.95) and 10.1 months (95% CI, 7.75-NR). DCR amongst patients with previous primary resistance to anti-EGFR (N = 7) was 100%. Two patients discontinued B + E due to drug-related adverse event. CONCLUSIONS: Though in a limited retrospective series of patients, these results show the efficacy of the combination of anti-BRAF and anti-EGFRs in BRAFm mCRC patients previously treated with an anti-EGFR. The use of this combination should thus not be ruled out in this population with limited therapeutic options.

First-line chemotherapy with raltitrexed in metastatic colorectal cancer: an Association des Gastro-entérologues Oncologues (AGEO) multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: In case of contraindication or intolerance to fluoropyrimidines, raltitrexed is a validated alternative in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), associated or not with oxaliplatin. Little is known about the outcomes of raltitrexed combined with irinotecan or targeted therapies. METHODS: This retrospective multicentre study enroled mCRC patients treated with first-line raltitrexed-based chemotherapy. Treatment-related toxicities were recorded. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated from treatment start. RESULTS: 75 patients were treated with raltitrexed alone, TOMOX, or TOMIRI with or without bevacizumab. Grade 3-4 adverse events were seen in 31% of patients, without significant difference between the different treatment schedules. amongst the 36 patients with a history of fluoropyrimidine-induced cardiac toxicity, none developed cardiovascular events on raltitrexed. Median PFS and OS were 10.6 (95% CI 8.2 - 13.1) and 27.4 months (95% CI 24.1-38.1), respectively. Considering the chemotherapy regimen, TOMOX was significantly associated with better PFS and OS compared to TOMIRI and raltitrexed alone. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with mCRC not eligible for fluoropyrimidines, first-line raltitrexed-based chemotherapy had an acceptable safety profile. PFS and OS were consistent with usual survival data in mCRC, and significantly better in patients treated with TOMOX, independently of associated targeted therapies.

Efficacy and safety of oral metronomic etoposide in adult patients with metastatic osteosarcoma.

Therapeutic options in patients with metastatic osteosarcoma are limited and effective systemic treatments are needed in this setting. The aim of this case series was to assess the efficacy and toxicity of oral metronomic etoposide in adult patients with progressive metastatic osteosarcoma. We retrospectively reviewed the electronic records of patients treated with oral metronomic etoposide (25 mg thrice daily, 3 weeks out of 4) from December 2002 to December 2018 at Gustave Roussy (Villejuif, France). The primary endpoint was progression-free rate (PFR) at 4 months; secondary endpoints were: best response (according to RECIST v1.1), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and safety. With a median follow-up of 9.8 months, 37 patients were eligible for this analysis: 68% males, median age 42 (range: 21-75), 19% with synchronous metastases, 92% with lung metastases, median PS: 1 (range: 0-3). Median number of previous treatment lines in the metastatic setting was 1 (range: 0-4). Progression-free rate at 4 months was 40.3% (95% CI: 24.5-56.2). Best response was partial response in 11% and stable disease in 35% of patients (disease control rate: 46%). Median PFS was 3.1 months (95% CI: 2.5-4.7) and median OS was 9.8 months (95% CI: 5.1-12.3). Toxicity profile was acceptable, with 13% grade 3 haematological toxicities (anaemia and neutropenia), without any grade 3-4 non-haematological toxicity. In our experience, oral metronomic etoposide demonstrated effective palliation along with acceptable toxicity in patients with progressive metastatic osteosarcoma.

An appraisal of emerging second line therapies for metastatic colorectal cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Despite a significant improvement in overall survival over the last 15 years, colorectal cancer remains a major public health problem worldwide. Much effort has been made to develop an optimal choice of first-line treatments, but after progression the therapeutic possibilities and the criteria for choice are different. AREAS COVERED: The purpose of this literature review is to discuss the different possibilities of second-line treatment and to specify the criteria for choice. Biological subgroups requiring specific therapeutic decisions will be described. We conducted a systematic review for randomized controlled trials published since 1995. A non-exhaustive review of published phase II studies, cohort studies, and international guidelines was also given and future leads were discussed. EXPERT OPINION: Some choices of second-line treatments are a direct result of the option chosen in the first line. Others are necessary because of the biological specificity of the tumor: immunotherapy for tumors with microsatellite instability, or the combination encorafenib cetuximab for mutated BRAF-V600E tumors. In many other circumstances, there are several options that require extensive involvement of multidisciplinary boards and the patient in the final therapeutic decision.

Determinants of the outcomes of patients with cancer infected with SARS-CoV-2: results from the Gustave Roussy cohort.

Patients with cancer are presumed to be at increased risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes due to underlying malignancy and treatment-induced immunosuppression. Of the first 178 patients managed for COVID-19 at the Gustave Roussy Cancer Centre, 125 (70.2%) were hospitalized, 47 (26.4%) developed clinical worsening and 31 (17.4%) died. An age of over 70 years, smoking status, metastatic disease, cytotoxic chemotherapy and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score of ≥2 at the last visit were the strongest determinants of increased risk of death. In multivariable analysis, the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score remained the only predictor of death. In contrast, immunotherapy, hormone therapy and targeted therapy did not increase clinical worsening or death risk. Biomarker studies found that C-reactive protein and lactate dehydrogenase levels were significantly associated with an increased risk of clinical worsening, while C-reactive protein and D-dimer levels were associated with an increased risk of death. COVID-19 management impacted the oncological treatment strategy, inducing a median 20 d delay in 41% of patients and adaptation of the therapeutic strategy in 30% of patients.