Assessment of Capecitabine and Bevacizumab With or Without Atezolizumab for the Treatment of Refractory Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Cotargeting vascular endothelial growth factor and programmed cell death 1 or programmed cell death ligand 1 may produce anticancer activity in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). The clinical benefit of atezolizumab combined with chemotherapy and bevacizumab remains unclear for the treatment of mCRC. Objectives: To assess whether the addition of atezolizumab to capecitabine and bevacizumab therapy improves progression-free survival (PFS) among patients with refractory mCRC and to perform exploratory analyses among patients with microsatellite-stable (MSS) disease and liver metastasis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This double-blind phase 2 randomized clinical trial enrolled 133 patients between September 25, 2017, and June 28, 2018 (median duration of follow-up for PFS, 20.9 months), with data cutoff on May 4, 2020. The study was conducted at multiple centers through the Academic and Community Cancer Research United network. Adult patients with mCRC who experienced disease progression while receiving fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, irinotecan, bevacizumab, and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor antibody therapy (if the patient had a RAS wild-type tumor) were included. Interventions: Patients were randomized (2:1) to receive capecitabine (850 or 1000 mg/m2) twice daily on days 1 to 14 and bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg) on day 1 plus either atezolizumab (1200 mg; investigational group) or placebo (placebo group) on day 1 of each 21-day cycle. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was PFS; 110 events were required to detect a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.65 with 80% power (1-sided α = .10). Secondary end points were objective response rate, overall survival (OS), and toxic effects. Results: Of 133 randomized patients, 128 individuals (median age, 58.0 years [IQR, 51.0-65.0 years]; 77 men [60.2%]) were assessed for efficacy (82 in the investigational group and 46 in the placebo group). Overall, 15 patients (11.7%) self-identified as African American or Black, 8 (6.3%) as Asian, 1 (0.8%) as Pacific Islander, 101 (78.9%) as White, 1 (0.8%) as multiple races (Asian, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and White), and 2 (1.6%) as unknown race or unsure of race. Microsatellite-stable disease was present in 110 patients (69 in the investigational group and 41 in the placebo group). Median PFS was 4.4 months (95% CI, 4.1-6.4 months) in the investigational group and 3.6 months (95% CI, 2.2-6.2 months) in the placebo group (1-sided log-rank P = .07, a statistically significant result; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.52-1.09). Among patients with MSS and proficient mismatch repair, the HR for PFS was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.44-0.99). The most common grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events in the investigational vs placebo groups were hypertension (6 patients [7.0%] vs 2 patients [4.3%]), diarrhea (6 patients [7.0%] vs 2 patients [4.3%]), and hand-foot syndrome (6 patients [7.0%] vs 2 patients [4.3%]). One treatment-related death occurred in the investigational group. In the investigational group, the response rate was higher among patients without liver metastasis (3 of 13 individuals [23.1%]) vs with liver metastasis (4 of 69 individuals [5.8%]). The benefit of atezolizumab for PFS and OS was greater among patients without vs with liver metastasis (primary analysis of PFS: HR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.27-1.47] vs 0.77 [95% CI, 0.51-1.17]; OS: HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.11-1.02] vs 1.14 [95% CI, 0.72-1.81]). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, the addition of atezolizumab to capecitabine and bevacizumab therapy provided limited (ie, not clinically meaningful) clinical benefit. Patients with MSS and proficient mismatch repair tumors and those without liver metastasis benefited more from dual inhibition of the vascular endothelial growth factor and programmed cell death 1 or programmed cell death ligand 1 pathways. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02873195.

Geriatric Assessment-Driven Intervention (GAIN) on Chemotherapy-Related Toxic Effects in Older Adults With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Although geriatric assessment-driven intervention improves patient-centered outcomes, its influence on chemotherapy-related toxic effects remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether specific geriatric assessment-driven intervention (GAIN) can reduce chemotherapy-related toxic effects in older adults with cancer. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A randomized clinical trial enrolled 613 participants from a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center between 2015 and 2019. Patients were 65 years and older with a solid malignant neoplasm, were starting a new chemotherapy regimen, and completed a geriatric assessment. Patients were followed up until chemotherapy completion or 6 months after initiation, whichever occurred first. Data analysis was done by intention-to-treat principle. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized (2:1) to either the GAIN (intervention) or standard of care (SOC) arm. In the GAIN arm, a geriatrics-trained multidisciplinary team composed of an oncologist, nurse practitioner, social worker, physical/occupation therapist, nutritionist, and pharmacist reviewed geriatric assessment results and implemented interventions based on prespecified thresholds built into the geriatric assessment's domains. In the SOC arm, geriatric assessment results were sent to treating oncologists for consideration. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was incidence of grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects (graded using National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0). Secondary outcomes included advance directive completion, emergency department visits, unplanned hospitalizations, average length of stay, unplanned hospital readmissions, chemotherapy dose modifications, and early discontinuation. Overall survival analysis was performed up to 12 months after chemotherapy initiation. RESULTS: Among the 605 eligible participants for analysis, median (range) age was 71 (65-91) years, 357 (59.0%) were women, and 432 (71.4%) had stage IV disease. Cancer types included gastrointestinal (202 [33.4%]), breast (136 [22.5%]), lung (97 [16.0%]), genitourinary (91 [15.0%]), gynecologic (54 [8.9%]), and other (25 [4.1%]). Incidence of grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects was 50.5% (95% CI, 45.6% to 55.4%) in the GAIN arm and 60.6% (95% CI, 53.9% to 67.3%) in the SOC arm, resulting in a significant 10.1% reduction (95% CI, -1.5 to -18.2%; P = .02). A significant absolute increase in advance directive completion of 28.4% with GAIN vs 13.3% with SOC (P < .001) was observed. No significant differences were observed in emergency department visits, unplanned hospitalizations, average length of stay, unplanned readmissions, chemotherapy dose modifications or discontinuations, or overall survival. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this randomized clinical trial, integration of multidisciplinary GAIN significantly reduced grade 3 or higher chemotherapy-related toxic effects in older adults with cancer. Implementation of GAIN into oncology clinical practice should be considered among older adults receiving chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02517034.

Management Considerations for the Surgical Treatment of Colorectal Cancer During the Global Covid-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic requires to conscientiously weigh "timely surgical intervention" for colorectal cancer against efforts to conserve hospital resources and protect patients and health care providers. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Professional societies provided ad-hoc guidance at the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic on deferral of surgical and perioperative interventions, but these lack specific parameters to determine the optimal timing of surgery. METHODS: Using the GRADE system, published evidence was analyzed to generate weighted statements for stage, site, acuity of presentation, and hospital setting to specify when surgery should be pursued, the time and duration of oncologically acceptable delays, and when to utilize nonsurgical modalities to bridge the waiting period. RESULTS: Colorectal cancer surgeries-prioritized as emergency, urgent with imminent emergency or oncologically urgent, or elective-were matched against the phases of the pandemic. Surgery in COVID-19-positive patients must be avoided. Emergent and imminent emergent cases should mostly proceed unless resources are exhausted. Standard practices allow for postponement of elective cases and deferral to nonsurgical modalities of stage II/III rectal and metastatic colorectal cancer. Oncologically urgent cases may be delayed for 6(-12) weeks without jeopardizing oncological outcomes. Outside established principles, administration of nonsurgical modalities is not justified and increases the vulnerability of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic has stressed already limited health care resources and forced rationing, triage, and prioritization of care in general, specifically of surgical interventions. Established guidelines allow for modifications of optimal timing and type of surgery for colorectal cancer during an unrelated pandemic.

Regorafenib and Nivolumab or Pembrolizumab Combination and Circulating Tumor DNA Response Assessment in Refractory Microsatellite Stable Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic colorectal cancers (MCRCs) with microsatellite stability (MSS) are resistant to immunotherapy with programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) and programmed death-ligand 1 inhibitors. However, the addition of regorafenib to nivolumab was recently associated with a high response rate and a protracted progression-free survival in a small cohort of MSS Japanese patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the outcome of patients with MSS metastatic colorectal cancer who were treated on a compassionate basis with PD-1 inhibitors in combination with regorafenib in a single U.S. center. RESULTS: A total of 18 patients were treated with a combination of regorafenib and PD-1 inhibitors. No treatment-related grade 3 or above toxicities were noted. Thirteen patients (69%) had progressive disease, and five patients (31%) experienced stable disease as best response. Four out of five stable diseases occurred in patients without liver metastases, whereas only 1 of 14 patients with history of liver metastases had a short disease stabilization. A rise in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) at the 4-week time pointuniversally predicted tumor progression at 2 months, whereas a decline was associated with radiographic disease stabilization. CONCLUSIONS: Regorafenib and nivolumab combination was associated with modest clinical activity in patients with MSS chemotherapy-resistant metastatic colorectal cancer. Selection for patients without history of liver metastases may identify a cohort of patients with MSS colorectal cancer with a higher likelihood of benefit from this combination. ctDNA may represent a powerful tool for predicting early therapeutic efficacy of immunotherapy in the MSS colorectal cancer population. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study showed that the combination of regorafenib and nivolumab was associated with a modest clinical activity in patients with advanced microsatellite stability (MSS) metastatic colorectal cancer. This combination should be avoided in clinical practice, especially in patients with MSS colorectal cancer with liver metastases. Further investigation of regorafenib plus PD-1 inhibitors should be considered in MSS colorectal cancer without liver metastases.

Beyond microsatellite testing: assessment of tumor mutational burden identifies subsets of colorectal cancer who may respond to immune checkpoint inhibition.

BACKGROUND: The clinical application of PD1/PD-L1 targeting checkpoint inhibitors in colorectal cancer (CRC) has largely focused on a subset of microsatellite instable (MSI-high) patients. However, the proposed genotype that sensitizes these patients to immunotherapy is not captured by MSI status alone. Estimation of tumor mutational burden (TMB) from comprehensive genomic profiling is validated against whole exome sequencing and linked to checkpoint response in metastatic melanoma, urothelial bladder cancer and non-small cell lung carcinoma. We sought to explore the subset of microsatellite stable (MSS) CRC patients with high TMB, and identify the specific genomic signatures associated with this phenotype. Furthermore, we explore the ability to quantify TMB as a potential predictive biomarker of PD1/PD-L1 therapy in CRC. METHODS: Formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded tissue sections from 6,004 cases of CRC were sequenced with a CLIA-approved CGP assay. MSI and TMB statuses were computationally determined using validated methods. The cutoff for TMB-high was defined according to the lower bound value that satisfied the 90% probability interval based on the TMB distribution across all MSI-High patients. RESULTS: MSS tumors were observed in 5,702 of 6,004 (95.0%) cases and MSI-H tumors were observed in 302 (5.0%) cases. All but one (99.7%) MSI-H cases were TMB-high (range, 6.3-746.9 mut/Mb) and 5,538 of 5,702 (97.0%) MSS cases were TMB-low (range, 0.0-10.8 mut/Mb). Consequently, 164 of 5,702 (2.9%) MSS cases were confirmed as TMB-high (range, 11.7-707.2 mut/Mb), representing an increase in the target population that may respond to checkpoint inhibitor therapy by 54% (466 vs. 302, respectively). Response to PD-1 inhibitor is demonstrated in MSS/TMB-high cases. CONCLUSIONS: Concurrent TMB assessment accurately classifies MSI tumors as TMB-high and simultaneously identifies nearly 3% or CRC as MSS/TMB-high. This subgroup may expand the population of CRC who may benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitor based therapeutic approaches.

Reliability, Validity, and Feasibility of a Computer-Based Geriatric Assessment for Older Adults With Cancer.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, reliability, and validity of a computer-based geriatric assessment via two methods of electronic data capture ( SupportScreen and REDCap) compared with paper-and-pencil data capture among older adults with cancer. METHODS: Eligible patients were ≥ 65 years old, had a cancer diagnosis, and were fluent in English. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four arms, in which they completed the geriatric assessment twice: (1) REDCap and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; (2) REDCap in both sessions; (3) SupportScreen and paper and pencil in sessions 1 and 2; and (4) SupportScreen in both sessions. The feasibility, reliability, and validity of the computer-based geriatric assessment compared with paper and pencil were evaluated. RESULTS: The median age of participants (N = 100) was 71 years (range, 65 to 91 years) and the diagnosis was solid tumor (82%) or hematologic malignancy (18%). For session 1, REDCap took significantly longer to complete than paper and pencil (median, 21 minutes [range, 11 to 44 minutes] v median, 15 minutes [range, 9 to 29 minutes], P < .01) or SupportScreen (median, 16 minutes [range, 6 to 38 minutes], P < .01). There were no significant differences in completion times between SupportScreen and paper and pencil ( P = .50). The computer-based geriatric assessment was feasible. Few participants (8%) needed help with completing the geriatric assessment (REDCap, n = 7 and SupportScreen, n = 1), 89% reported that the length was "just right," and 67% preferred the computer-based geriatric assessment to paper and pencil. Test-retest reliability was high (Spearman correlation coefficient ≥ 0.79) for all scales except for social activity. Validity among similar scales was demonstrated. CONCLUSION: Delivering a computer-based geriatric assessment is feasible, reliable, and valid. SupportScreen methodology is preferred to REDCap.

Economic Analysis of Panitumumab Compared With Cetuximab in Patients With Wild-type KRAS Metastatic Colorectal Cancer That Progressed After Standard Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: In this analysis, we compared costs and explored the cost-effectiveness of subsequent-line treatment with cetuximab or panitumumab in patients with wild-type KRAS (exon 2) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) after previous chemotherapy treatment failure. Data were used from ASPECCT (A Study of Panitumumab Efficacy and Safety Compared to Cetuximab in Patients With KRAS Wild-Type Metastatic Colorectal Cancer), a Phase III, head-to-head randomized noninferiority study comparing the efficacy and safety of panitumumab and cetuximab in this population. METHODS: A decision-analytic model was developed to perform a cost-minimization analysis and a semi-Markov model was created to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of panitumumab monotherapy versus cetuximab monotherapy in chemotherapy-resistant wild-type KRAS (exon 2) mCRC. The cost-minimization model assumed equivalent efficacy (progression-free survival) based on data from ASPECCT. The cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted with the full information (uncertainty) from ASPECCT. Both analyses were conducted from a US third-party payer perspective and calculated average anti-epidermal growth factor receptor doses from ASPECCT. Costs associated with drug acquisition, treatment administration (every 2 weeks for panitumumab, weekly for cetuximab), and incidence of infusion reactions were estimated in both models. The cost-effectiveness model also included physician visits, disease progression monitoring, best supportive care, and end-of-life costs and utility weights estimated from EuroQol 5-Dimension questionnaire responses from ASPECCT. FINDINGS: The cost-minimization model results demonstrated lower projected costs for patients who received panitumumab versus cetuximab, with a projected cost savings of $9468 (16.5%) per panitumumab-treated patient. In the cost-effectiveness model, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained revealed panitumumab to be less costly, with marginally better outcomes than cetuximab. IMPLICATIONS: These economic analyses comparing panitumumab and cetuximab in chemorefractory wild-type KRAS (exon 2) mCRC suggest benefits in favor of panitumumab. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01001377.

Cost-minimization analysis of panitumumab compared with cetuximab for first-line treatment of patients with wild-type RAS metastatic colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the costs of first-line treatment with panitumumab + FOLFOX in comparison to cetuximab + FOLFIRI among patients with wild-type (WT) RAS metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in the US. METHODS: A cost-minimization model was developed assuming similar treatment efficacy between both regimens. The model estimated the costs associated with drug acquisition, treatment administration frequency (every 2 weeks for panitumumab, weekly for cetuximab), and incidence of infusion reactions. Average anti-EGFR doses were calculated from the ASPECCT clinical trial, and average doses of chemotherapy regimens were based on product labels. Using the medical component of the consumer price index, adverse event costs were inflated to 2014 US dollars, and all other costs were reported in 2014 US dollars. The time horizon for the model was based on average first-line progression-free survival of a WT RAS patient, estimated from parametric survival analyses of PRIME clinical trial data. RESULTS: Relative to cetuximab + FOLFIRI in the first-line treatment of WT RAS mCRC, the cost-minimization model demonstrated lower projected drug acquisition, administration, and adverse event costs for patients who received panitumumab + FOLFOX. The overall cost per patient for first-line treatment was $179,219 for panitumumab + FOLFOX vs $202,344 for cetuximab + FOLFIRI, resulting in a per-patient saving of $23,125 (11.4%) in favor of panitumumab + FOLFOX. CONCLUSIONS: From a value perspective, the cost-minimization model supports panitumumab + FOLFOX instead of cetuximab + FOLFIRI as the preferred first-line treatment of WT RAS mCRC patients requiring systemic therapy.

Qualitative radiology assessment of tumor response: does it measure up?

Our purpose was to assess whether a simpler qualitative evaluation of tumor response by computed tomography is as reproducible and predictive of clinical outcome as the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) and World Health Organization (WHO) methods. This study was a two-reader retrospective evaluation in which qualitative assessment resulted in agreement in 21 of 23 patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (91.3%, kappa=0.78; 95% CI, 0.51-1.00). Hepatic metastases were classified as increased, decreased, or unchanged, compared with agreement in 20 of 23 patients (87.0%) for RECIST (kappa=0.62; 95% CI, 0.23-1.00) and WHO (kappa=0.67; 95% CI, 0.34-1.00) methods. Patients were placed into partial response, stable disease, and disease progression categories. Time to progression of disease was better predicted qualitatively than by RECIST or WHO. Our pilot data suggest that our qualitative scoring system is more reproducible and predictive of patient clinical outcome than the RECIST and WHO methods.

CEA monitoring in colorectal cancer. What you should know.

Carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) monitoring in patients with stage I-IV colorectal cancer has been, and remains, a controversial issue in oncology practice. Recommendations vary from bimonthly monitoring to no monitoring in the surveillance setting (for stage I-III disease). In the metastatic setting, there are no clear guidelines for CEA follow-up, although continued monitoring in such patients is common in the oncology community. This manuscript reviews the accuracy of CEA testing, its value as a prognostic indicator, and its role in surveillance and response assessment. The limitations of the test in the adjuvant and metastatic settings are illustrated through several case reports from the Colorectal Oncology Clinic at Roswell Park Cancer Institute. Guidelines for CEA monitoring are provided, based on a detailed literature review and institutional experience.