Circulating tumor DNA in early response assessment and monitoring of advanced colorectal cancer treated with a multi-kinase inhibitor.

Predictive biomarkers are eagerly awaited in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC). Targeted sequencing performed on tumor and baseline plasma samples in 20 patients with aCRC treated with regorafenib identified 89 tumor-specific mutations of which ≥50% are also present in baseline plasma. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assays were optimized to monitor circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) levels in plasmatic samples collected throughout the treatment course and showed the importance of using the absolute value for ctDNA rather than the mutant/wild type ratio in monitoring the therapy outcome. High baseline cell free DNA (cfDNA) levels are associated with shorter overall survival (OS) (HR 7.38, P=0.001). An early increase (D14) in mutated copies/mL is associated with a significantly worse PFS (HR 6.12, P=0.008) and OS (HR 8.02, P=0.004). These data suggest a high prognostic value for early ctDNA level changes and support the use of blood-born genomic markers as a tool for treatment.

Celyad's novel CAR T-cell therapy for solid malignancies.

Celyad recently initiated several clinical trials with the CYAD-01 product, a natural killer group 2D (NKG2D)-based chimeric antigen receptor (CAR), in both solid and hematologic tumor types. This review discusses the unique properties of CYAD-01, expecting to provide a new paradigm to fight against solid tumors.

Y90 radioembolization of colorectal cancer liver metastases: response assessment by contrast-enhanced computed tomography with or without PET-CT guidance.

PURPOSE: To compare various computed tomography (CT) parameters to the positron emission tomography with computed tomography (PET-CT) response, with or without PET guidance for the response assessment of colorectal cancer (CRC) metastases treated by Y90 radioembolization. METHODS: Thirty-six CRC metastases were retrospectively evaluated on 18F-Fluoro-Deoxy-Glucose PET-CT and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) performed at baseline and 2-3 months after Y90 radioembolization. RESULTS: Median SUVmax values decreased from 11.39 to 6.71 after radioembolization (P<.001), and 23/36 (64%) metastases were categorized metabolic responses according to European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer criteria. Only a decrease of the mean attenuation in the structural (P<.001) and metabolic active volume (P<.001) was observed. The change in these criteria was correlated with the change of SUVmax.

Regorafenib assessment in refractory advanced colorectal cancer: RegARd-C study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Regorafenib was recently approved for patients with pretreated advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC), despite a moderate improvement of the patients' outcome, and significant toxicities. Based on previous studies showing that early fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET)-based metabolic response assessment (MRA) might adequately select patients unlikely to benefit from treatment, the RegARd-C trial uses early MRA to identify likely non-responders to regorafenib in a population of patients with aCRC and guide a comprehensive evaluation of genomic and epigenetic determinants of resistance to treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: RegARd-C is a multicentric prospective study. Its primary objective is to identify non-benefitters from regorafenib given at 160 mg/day, 3 weeks out of 4 in a population of patients with pretreated aCRC. Baseline PET is repeated at day 14 of the first treatment course. MRA is blinded for the investigators. Overall survival (OS) is the primary end point and will be correlated with metabolic parameters and (epi)genetic alterations assessed from tumour and serial blood samples. A target sample size of 105 evaluable patients (70 as derivation set and 35 as validation set), is considered as sufficient to validate an expected HR for OS of metabolic responders compared to metabolic non-responders significantly <1 (with 80% power and 1-sided 5% α in case of a true HR≤0.59 and a responders rate of 47%). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Institut Jules Bordet's competent ethics committee and complies with the Helsinki declaration or the Belgian laws and regulations, whichever provides the greatest protection for the patient, and follows the International Conference on Harmonisation E 6 (R1) Guideline for Good Clinical Practice, reference number CPMP/ICH/135/95. The protocol and the trials results, even inconclusive, will be presented at international oncology congresses, and published in peer-reviewed journals. Genomic and epigenetic data will be made available in public open data sets. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: EudraCT number: 2012-005655-16; ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01929616.

Guidelines for time-to-event end-point definitions in trials for pancreatic cancer. Results of the DATECAN initiative (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials).

BACKGROUND: Using potential surrogate end-points for overall survival (OS) such as Disease-Free- (DFS) or Progression-Free Survival (PFS) is increasingly common in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, end-points are too often imprecisely defined which largely contributes to a lack of homogeneity across trials, hampering comparison between them. The aim of the DATECAN (Definition for the Assessment of Time-to-event End-points in CANcer trials)-Pancreas project is to provide guidelines for standardised definition of time-to-event end-points in RCTs for pancreatic cancer. METHODS: Time-to-event end-points currently used were identified from a literature review of pancreatic RCT trials (2006-2009). Academic research groups were contacted for participation in order to select clinicians and methodologists to participate in the pilot and scoring groups (>30 experts). A consensus was built after 2 rounds of the modified Delphi formal consensus approach with the Rand scoring methodology (range: 1-9). RESULTS: For pancreatic cancer, 14 time to event end-points and 25 distinct event types applied to two settings (detectable disease and/or no detectable disease) were considered relevant and included in the questionnaire sent to 52 selected experts. Thirty experts answered both scoring rounds. A total of 204 events distributed over the 14 end-points were scored. After the first round, consensus was reached for 25 items; after the second consensus was reached for 156 items; and after the face-to-face meeting for 203 items. CONCLUSION: The formal consensus approach reached the elaboration of guidelines for standardised definitions of time-to-event end-points allowing cross-comparison of RCTs in pancreatic cancer.

Comparison of PET metabolic indices for the early assessment of tumour response in metastatic colorectal cancer patients treated by polychemotherapy.

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of eight metabolic indices for the early assessment of tumour response in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) treated with chemotherapy. METHODS: Forty patients with advanced mCRC underwent two FDG PET/CT scans, at baseline and on day 14 after chemotherapy initiation. For each lesion, eight metabolic indices were calculated: four standardized uptake values (SUV) without correction for the partial volume effect (PVE), two SUV with correction for PVE, a metabolic volume (MV) and a total lesion glycolysis (TLG). The relative change in each index between the two scans was calculated for each lesion. Lesions were also classified as responding and nonresponding lesions using the Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.0 measured by contrast-enhanced CT at baseline and 6-8 weeks after starting therapy. Bland-Altman analyses were performed to compare the various indices. Based on the RECIST classification, ROC analyses were used to determine how accurately the indices predicted lesion response to therapy later seen with RECIST. RESULTS: RECIST showed 27 responding and 74 nonresponding lesions. Bland-Altman analyses showed that the four SUV indices uncorrected for PVE could not be used interchangeably, nor could the two SUV corrected for PVE. The areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were not significantly different between the SUV indices not corrected for PVE. The mean SUV change in a lesion better predicted lesion response without than with PVE correction. The AUC was significantly higher for SUV uncorrected for PVE than for the MV, but change in MV provided some information regarding the lesion response to therapy (AUC >0.5). CONCLUSION: In these mCRC patients, all SUV uncorrected for PVE accurately predicted the tumour response on day 14 after starting therapy as assessed 4 to 6 weeks later (i.e. 6 to 8 weeks after therapy initiation) using the RECIST criteria. Neither correcting SUV for PVE nor measuring TLG improved the assessment of tumour response compared to SUV uncorrected for PVE. The change in MV was the least accurate index for predicting tumour response.